The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The existing regulatory system is broken. The first GE animals predated the development of GE crops, but the first GE animals were approved for human consumption only in November 2015. . . This decision on. . . AquAdvantage GE salmon. . . took ~20 years, with development and regulatory costs that exceeded $77 million.
. . . . Given that DNA is generally regarded as safe to consume, and that genome editing can be used to produce precise analogs of the naturally occurring mutations we routinely consume in conventionally bred plants and animals, there would appear to be no scientific or other logical reason to single out the ‘process’ of genome editing for onerous regulation.
. . . .
Share this article
The current recombinant DNA process-based trigger for the regulatory evaluation of GE animals is discouraging the development of beneficial GE applications to the detriment of global food security and agricultural sustainability. Given that the United States has no specific legislation regulating animal breeding, there would appear to be no authority for the FDA to regulate varieties that carry naturally occurring alleles produced using genome editing.
. . . .The products of editing should be subject to the same oversight as other food products, based on the result rather than the process that yielded the result. . . .
Read full, original post: Regulate genome-edited products, not genome editing itself
