Regulation of Genetic Engineering Must Be Scientific and Risk Based. No Compromises.

In spite of the fact that gene editing is essentially a refinement of earlier, less precise, less predictable techniques for genetic modification, finding the right approach to regulating it has been elusive.

It refers to the genetic engineering of a recipient plant with genes from a crossable-sexually compatible-plant.

The process adds no new genes or sequences not found in a compatible plant, and also absent are all selectable marker sequences such as antibiotic resistance or luciferase, whose presence in transgenic plants is often problematic for anti-GMO activists.

Only selected genes are introduced into the cultivar, but not unwanted genes that may be responsible for toxicity or other undesirable traits such as bad taste or lower yield.

Even with our current state of knowledge about the seamless continuum of techniques of genetic modification with respect to risk, by regulating gene-edited crops like conventionally modified ones, their food regulators create a meaningless distinction between cisgenic gene editing and transgenic, recombinant DNA modifications.

Simply stated, whether it encompasses gene editing or not, "GMO" is an arbitrary and meaningless "Pseudo category," and regulating it more stringently than conventional breeding makes no sense.

The science tells us that there is a seamless continuum of genetic modification processes - from the natural selection that occurs as the result of Darwinian evolution, including the "Natural GMOs" alluded to above; selection and breeding; mutagenesis; somaclonal variation; "Wide crosses"; recombinant DNA; and gene editing.

https://humanevents.com/2021/12/21/regulation-of-genetic-engineering-must-be-scientific-and-risk-based-no-compromises/