Monsanto Is About To Escape All Regulation From The USDA

[donnay]

Monsanto Is About To Escape All Regulation From The USDA
Is big biotech immune to everything?

by Christina Sarich
Posted on March 9, 2015

What’s an intentional mutation? Nothing more than a fancy technological phrase which describes a new way that biotech is getting around regulatory approval for genetically modified crops.

Scientists have already created ‘designer monkeys’ by orchestrating precise genetic mutations. The same technology used to achieve this feat more than ten years ago is now being used by companies like Scott’s (of famed and failed GMO grass) to create genetically modified food without the oversight of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

It isn’t as though these alphabet agencies offer much protection to the average US consumer anyway. Considering that no long-term studies have been conducted on altered DNA and human health, and the fact that the USDA and FDA seem to give their rubber stamp to almost every biotech creation without a second glance, many people have long turned to other ‘experts’ to get their facts on genetically modified foods.

However, taking away the regulatory process makes it that much easier for biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Scott’s, etc. to infiltrate non-GM crops with their altered plants.

Until now, at least the guise of a regulation would stall a biotech company long enough for the public to get wind of their plans, and to at least voice their concern, if not smoldering outrage, at a GM apple that doesn’t brown, or GE salmon that grows ten times the size of non-GM salmon.

Continued...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Is this the "Genetic Editing" language that we've been expecting to come up in the latest PR campaign? I haven't read your piece yet. Was just wondering.

I'll share a report on that in the mean time. I suppose we understand that "genetic editing" is not transgenic.

By ‘Editing’ Plant Genes, Companies Avoid Regulation

"Other companies, including Cellectis, are using new genome-editing techniques that can change the plant’s existing DNA rather than insert foreign genes. Cibus, a privately held San Diego company, is beginning to sell herbicide-resistant canola developed this way.

“'With our technology, we can develop the same traits but in a way that’s not transgenic,' said Peter Beetham, chief executive of Cibus, using a term for a plant containing foreign genes. Regulators around the world are now grappling with whether these techniques are even considered genetic engineering and how, if at all, they should be regulated."

"Some researchers argue that using genome editing to inactivate a gene in a plant, or to make a tiny change in an existing gene, results in a crop no different from what could be obtained through natural mutations and conventional breeding, though it is achieved more quickly.

“'Those are basically comparable to what you get from conventional breeding,' said Neal Gutterson, vice president for agricultural biotechnology at DuPont Pioneer, a seed company. “We certainly hope that the regulatory agencies recognize that and treat the products accordingly.”

"The gene editing, they argue, is also more directed and precise than the existing technique of exposing plants to radiation or chemicals to induce random mutations in hopes of generating a desirable change. This technique has been used for decades and is not regulated, even though it can potentially cause unknown and unintended changes to crops."

At least the author of this screed is honest enough to mention that it isn't the same thing.

But critics of biotech crops say the genome-editing techniques can make changes in plant DNA other than the intended one. Also, the gene editing is typically done on plant cells or plant tissues growing in a dish. The process of then turning those genetically altered cells or tissues into a full plant can itself induce mutations.

I'll tell you what, though, donnay. Remember what I had mentioned about this whole thing with gmo becoming a geopolitical matter. We're already there. That changes some things. Especially with regard to the BRIC nations. Nobody is paying attention to some intricate aspects of what is going on there aside from basic economic discussion. These countries are already doing independent reasearch. That's a big deal. Here is one example. And its major... Largest international study into safety of GM food launched by Russian NGO

Anyhoo. I'll read your piece. Just wanted to mention that if it wasn't what you shared here in the op.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yep. So it is. Good post, donnay.

 

[Weston White]

Going GMO free? Dr. Oz shares ways to really know what you’re eating

What the Food Industry Doesn't Want You to Know

Sneak Peek: Dr. Oz Explains Genetically Modified "Arctic" Apples

 

[Zippyjuan]

From the Dr. Oz piece:

"There are these UPC codes -- there are little stickers on fruits and vegetables, They have numbers on them -- and those numbers mean something," Oz continued, explained how Check GMO works. "If there are four numbers it means it was growing using traditional techniques of pesticides and it's not organic. If it has five numbers and the first number is a nine that usually means it's organic. This app helps you figure that out.
"It's a very simple tool. I like the idea of using technology to guide moms and dads making decisions about their family's health."

Not having a "9" prefix on a produce code does not necessarily mean it is GMO. It only means that it is certified organic. It could in theory also be organic but not certified as such.

Oz, arguably the most popular doctor in the country, shared a few ways to help people understand what to look for at the grocery store to avoid GMOs.
He also talked about a new smartphone app being developed here in the Valley called Check GMO [iTunes: Check GMO | Droid: Check GMO]. It's a barcode scanner, one of many new tools designed to help you know what you're putting into your body. Oz believes more and more people will take advantage such tools.
"They are hugely helpful," he said. "We're actually tackling this later on this week on the show. But this huge debate now about GMO foods can be put to bed if people just knew which foods were GMO or not and this app helps you do that.

GMOs don't have unique UPC codes. Theoretically (the system is voluntary) a fruit or vegetable can add an "8" prefix to the four digit produce code (like the "9" for organic ones) but that is never used.

http://ecochildsplay.com/2012/08/31/gmo-labeling-is-it-as-easy-as-reading-a-plu-bar-code/

Consumers should be aware, however, that PLU codes are an option which is used for the convenience of suppliers and grocers and not customers, so not all produce (particularly genetically modified varieties) are so labeled, and other sources of information may be better for distinguishing the differences between various forms of produce.

You need to read the actual labels (and they might not say either).

 

[Zippyjuan]

Just reading a bit about the Arctic apple. It is actually pretty fascinating. Seems they did not splice in any genes from other plants or species but rather "turned off" four segments of its own genes which cause it to rust (oxidize). (An apple has about 100,000 different genes http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v42/n10/full/ng.654.html). Interesting theory. If there is a gene in people which contributes to a certain disease or cancer, perhaps it too could be "turned off" to prevent that disease or cancer.

http://www.livescience.com/48870-genetically-engineered-arctic-apple.html

Figuring out how the tens of thousands of genes that make up organisms play at the right levels at the right time has been a major focus of molecular biologists for the last 15 years. Craig Mello and Andrew Fire were awarded a Nobel Prize in 2006 for the seminal discovery that double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) could silence genes and affect which genetic instruments play when.

Since then, scientists have discovered many more types of RNA involved in genetic orchestration, butdsRNA remains central to those processes. Genetic engineers can now use gene silencing to dial back the expression of genes. The Arctic apple has been engineered to silence the polyphenol oxidase (PPO) enzymes responsible for browning in apple flesh after the fruit is cut.

Concerns about turning off genes

Is there any reason to worry about turning genes off? Yes. RNA manipulations may end up turning down, or off, genes other than those that were targeted.

How could that happen? Well, as detailed in commentsto the USDA on the Arctic apple from the Center for Food Safety, it turns out that many genes contain similar, or even identical, stretches of DNA. A dsRNA targeted to one gene might turn off, or down, those other genes. Similar DNA stretches can be found in unrelated genes scattered around the genome or, as in the case of the Arctic apple, in a family of genes closely related to the target genes.

The PPO genes that cause browning in apples are part of a family of 10 or 11 closely related genes. Okanagan's process is aimed at only four of the genes, but because the gene sequences are very similar it will probably have effects on all of them.

Why does that matter? PPO gene families perform multiple functions in plants. Little is known about the PPO gene family in apples, but in other plants, PPO genes are known to bolster pest and stress resistance. This raises the question of whether non-browning apple trees might be more vulnerable to disease and require more pesticides than conventional apples — and whether they might transfer those vulnerabilities to other apple trees.

But the company's petition to the USDA for deregulation did not analyze PPO gene functions, other than browning, in apples — nor did it measure the levels of PPO gene expression in the untransformed apples to compare with those in the transformed apples.

 

[Weston White]

Oh hello Zippy, so I take it TheCount has the day off?