The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
U.S. Department of Agriculture regulators pondered an outwardly unremarkable mushroom for two and a half years before they decided its GMO status earlier this month. . . . Researchers at Penn State had tweaked one of the fungi’s genes, so that it wouldn’t turn brown if left it in the refrigerator too long. The researchers hadn’t inserted any DNA from another species. They’d just altered a few sections of the mushroom’s DNA with a powerful new tool called CRISPR-Cas9. . .
. . . . [A] pretty small change, smaller than mutations that occur routinely in nature. On April 13, [USDA] decided that the mushroom wasn’t GMO enough to register on the regulatory radar. . . . The definition of “GMO” really does matter.
. . . .
. . . . We might be poised for a flood of new crops built to resist disease, insects, drought, and — like this mushroom — spoilage. And because these “non GMOs” face no regulatory hurdles, small companies and big universities . . . will get involved, rather than leaving it to . . . big corporations that have enough cash to survive years of government review. . . .[W]e should also look at it from the other perspective, note that powerful technologies often end up having unexpected side effects, and rethink the lack of regulation.
. . . .
Ultimately, though, the vicious debates over what makes a crop “GMO” are beside the point. Instead of arguing about definitions, I’d suggest weighing the tradeoffs of any new crop, no matter how it was bred.
. . . [E]very new seed introduced contains risks. Beefing up regulations to catch CRISPR seeds . . . would mitigate those risks. Make regulatory review too thorough, however, and you’ll prevent all but the biggest corporations from designing seeds for the biggest farmers.
Read full, original post: What’s a GMO? Apparently not these magic mushrooms
