I'd Put Warning Labels On Mutagenic Plants Before GMOs

[HuckleB]

" ...

Once science discovered that new versions of plants could be created much faster than the old way of grafting, by controlling radiation instead of letting nature just create chaos and danger, they began to do it. In 1936, the world was introduced to mutagenesis, a controlled way to bombard a plant with ionizing radiation and get something new. It was wildly successful, over 2,200 varieties of crops in use right now were created using genetic modification - but since it was genetic modification due to mutagenesis it is considered a "conventional breeding technique" and completely allowed in Europe. Enjoy organic food? You are eating a GMO.

What does that tell weird lack of distinction tell us? It tells us that the anti-GMO craze in Europe is a legal issue, not a science one. They picked a completely arbitrary definition in order to include 1990s genetic modification without wiping out almost 100% of the genetically modified crops then in use. It might as well be called an anti-Monsanto law, since companies like BASF and DuPont have rushed to satisfy the market that Monsanto is not allowed to serve by simply going back to less precise genetic modification - mutagenesis.

At Genetic Literacy Project, I discuss the problem with that stance. It's good for DuPont and BASF, of course, Europe has basically used government fiat to ban a competitor, but bad for common sense and public understanding of science on The Continent. GMOs were created because they could be more precise than older techniques while, as a report by the National Academy of Sciences noted, mutagenesis gets a free pass “despite the expectation that mutant varieties may possess and generate more unexpected outcomes … because of the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of non-targeted mutations.”

..."


Link to short piece: http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/id_put_warning_labels_on_mutagenic_plants_before_gmos-127348

Link to longer piece: http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/20/mutagenesis-one-way-europeans-wish-it-was-1936-again/


_______________________________



Very interesting take on the matter, IMO.

[HuckleB]

1. Another good piece on mutagenesis.

http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/atomic_gardening_ultimate_frankenfoods-91836

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Let's compromise then.

Label both.

Let consumers be informed consumers.

[HuckleB]

3. Let's see anti-GMOers advocate for labels for all seed development technologies, then.

Of course, it really won't give anyone any information of value, but at least it would "fair."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. I'm fine with that too.

Label everything, and let consumers decide based on whatever they personally feel is valuable to them.

[HuckleB]

5. It would be good to improve our science education, too.

Consumers are rather easily scared into fearing things that are not scary, and giving the halo effect to things that are not particularly safe. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Regardless, until the anti-GMO movement demonizes mutagenesis like it does GMOs, well...