The term "GMO" only has legal meaning.

[izentrop]

On July 25, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided to broaden the definition of what is meant by "genetically modified organism" (GMO). The products resulting from certain new techniques will therefore in principle be subject to European regulations specific to GMOs.

Millennia of genetic modifications

Walkers know that wild berries are usually small, sometimes bitter, when they are not poisonous. This is not surprising: plants, like other living things, have evolved through natural selection, that is, through continual competition to survive and reproduce, not to feed Homo sapiens.

Over time, and without knowing anything about the laws of genetics, humans have altered wild species in often considerable proportions.

To realize this, it is enough to compare modern corn with the wild teosinte to which it is related ...

In the nineteenth century, the emergence of mutagenesis techniques accelerated the process of creating new varieties. By using radiation or chemical agents, more or less random mutations are induced in the genome of organisms, hoping to create an individual with a desired character. All over the world, products derived from these techniques are not considered as GMOs, and are widely used in France and Europe, including organic farming.

The discovery of the universality of the genetic code, that is to say the fact that genes express themselves in a similar way in all living beings, opened the way to the development of transgenesis in the 1980 years. Here, a portion of foreign DNA, potentially from a distant species, is inserted into a genome. The goal is to obtain particular traits that are difficult or impossible to obtain otherwise in a given species. It is with the technique of transgenesis that the expression "GMO" and the associated legal object were created....
The subsequent development of techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 raises questions because these, grouped under the symbol NBT (for New Breeding Techniques), produce organisms by directed mutagenesis, without foreign DNA. These organisms are potentially indistinguishable from those from more traditional techniques. In this sense, the United States and Japan have decided not to regulate them as GMOs. What about Europe?

Following the mobilization of NGOs in France, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) clarified this legal uncertainty by concluding that NBT organizations were GMOs within the meaning of the Directive. https://www.echosciences-hauts-de-franc ... crispr-ogm

Whatever.

[Christophe]

LOL !!!

Seriously, there are some who dare in bullshit!

Everyone knows that the term GMO implies "by man"!

[izentrop]

"The man" who has manipulated genetics for his benefit since the beginnings of agriculture.
it's a scientific matter, no need to make it a legal matter. Yet this is what Europe is doing by NGOs.

[Ahmed]

The concept of man, used in generic terms is a delicate handling and is rhetoric, so the manipulation is never to be discarded a priori (hence probably the quotation marks).
Throughout history, "man" mainly designates peasants (and before, hunters / gatherers *), today it applies to very powerful commercial firms which use their technical capacities to impose their domination. to farmers and consumers, which poses a serious political problem, often overshadowed by endless discussions about the potential negative aspects of these products (designed above all to generate abstract value, hence the relevance of this health question) .
Will a legal translation truly limiting these exorbitant powers be possible?

* The selection of fruits or natural varieties of plants, is not the monopoly of humans, but concerns all the interactions of the living.

[izentrop]

It is not the industry that this kind of legal measure is the science and the progress needed to cope with the CR.

This dogmatic measure renders Europe even more insignificant in the face of the world's great powers.

[sen-no-sen]

"The man" who has manipulated genetics for his benefit since the beginnings of agriculture.
it's a scientific matter, no need to make it a legal matter. Yet this is what Europe is doing by NGOs.

The manipulation of the living is not new indeed, however the current period is characterized by a disruption in the way of transforming it.
We are at the beginning of a phase of hyper-acceleration of the evolution to which we will have to adapt ourselves.
So we will see as the next step the modification of our own genome, it's just a matter of time.
The question is there and beyond the strictly sanitary aspects*:Should it change the living? And especially what are the root causes that drive us to want to transform the world? Because transgenesis is only one step among others in this global process.


* While it is essential to ensure the non-dangerous nature of a product for health, it is counterproductive to make an argument against the change, because once a method demonstrates safety, then said argument ended up falling to oblivion.
Almost all the technological innovations were at their beginning strongly criticized, such criticisms were quickly swept by means of some demonstrations, as it was the case during the boom of the train, the plane of the radio etc ...
We must go beyond the health issue to address the systemic aspect and chains of causality that may emerge from a technological development.

[izentrop]

So we will see as the next step the modification of our own genome, it's just a matter of time.

And you think that hindering the work of European researchers will change something?
The other great powers have not classified these new techniques among GMOs, which are undetectable

the prevailing view among specialists is that it is more relevant to evaluate the safety of new varieties according to the introduced trait, and not the technique used to obtain it.

[Janic]

Ahmed hello
Just, once again, it's not about hunter-gatherers, but necrophagous gatherers, hunting will only occur much later with the use of tools.

[sen-no-sen]

So we will see as the next step the modification of our own genome, it's just a matter of time.

And you think that hindering the work of European researchers will change something?
The other great powers have not classified these new techniques among GMOs, which are undetectable

the prevailing view among specialists is that it is more relevant to evaluate the safety of new varieties according to the introduced trait, and not the technique used to obtain it.

It's the arms race, the one that does not run fast enough will be dropped ... this is the principle that prevails in the field of innovation (effect of the Red Queen).
Is it more dangerous to reactivate dormant genes or to introduce new ones? It's a matter of specialists.
However, it seems to me most dangerous to evaluate the safety of the new varieties only in terms of the introduced character, it would be necessary to know what will give such a character over time?
Moreover we risk quickly falling into a soft focus between GMO, NBT, and synthetic biology ...

[Janic]

Moreover we risk quickly falling into a soft focus between GMO, NBT, and synthetic biology ...

"It's studied for!"