CRISPR Gene Editing

[chromedome]

The technology that's being used in the cited article won't result in a transgenic food (ie, a so-called "frankenfood"). They're not transferring genetic material from one organism to another, they're identifying and suppressing one aspect of the existing plant; whether that be kale or anything else. It's the equivalent, at the cellular level, of picking the seeds out of your grapes (and of course, we've successfully bred grapes to be seedless without us doing it manually, which arrives at the same end by a different process).

 

If the plant was not carcinogenic to begin with, it won't be carcinogenic afterwards.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by chromedome
minor correction (log)

[blue_dolphin]

38 minutes ago, eugenep said:

Let's hear your reasons for your deep beliefs that CRISPR is 100% safe and food altered with it has no side effects. 

 

With CRISPR and similar techniques, scientists can weak a specific section of DNA in a plant or animal, or replace it with genetic material from a sexually compatible species and the changes are passed down to the next generations, just like traditional hybridization.  Pretty much anything that CRISPR can do to plant foods could be done by hybridization.  This is just enormously more efficient.  Do you have similar concerns about all hybrid fruits and vegetables?  This is really no different. 

 

I'm not completely sure what you mean by side effects.  I've heard that some bitter greens grow well because the bitterness is unpleasant to insects and pesticides are unnecessary so I suppose that a side effect of a CRISPR mustard green is that it wouldn't be as resistant as the unmodified version.  That wouldn't be harmful anyone eating it, though.  It wouldn't be any more likely to cause cancer or other ill effects. 

 

 

[heidih]

We've been playing with genetics for a long time. I think most kids in school are introduced to Mendel. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gregor-mendel-and-the-principles-of-inheritance-593/

[eugenep]

Hmmmm..yes this is interesting. I am thankful for the informative comments (that do not have the accompanying insults). 

 

But, speaking on behalf of the Luddites in this world: 

 

There was this book about CRISPR and its discovery in earlier years. I found it on the Economist best books of the year list. 

 

It was by this female scientist, one of the pioneers and early inventors of the CRISPR Cas9 process. She wrote a really good book on how the process was discovered and how it worked. I even drew diagrams to map out her clear explanations - very exciting read. 

 

I think she wrote it because there was a court battle going on on who was the real inventor and IP owner of the CRISPR Cas9 process and the book would help her case to demonstrate to the judge the real events that led to her team's discovery. 

 

 

But...to my point. She said that our DNA as lots of segments that appear useless with no function. We can easily edit, delete and replace. But scientists are hesitant to do so because some of this old DNA stuff (that is even harmful) might have a usefulness that we can't see and that we don't know what's going to happen when we edit and delete our DNA like this. That's why we don't have DNA edited babies coming out of the hospital regularly and it's used in special cases to save lives and alter DNA to get rid of really serious illnesses. 

 

The point she was making is that science is always limited and the effects of changes aren't  always clear. 

 

This is why I take a cautious approach and would wait and see. 

 

But - ahem - its so weird when I hear people feel so confident of their knowledge that they don't seem to have this awareness of the inherent limitations CRISPR Cas9. 

 

 

 

 

[heidih]

2 minutes ago, eugenep said:

But - ahem - its so weird when I hear people feel so confident of their knowledge that they don't seem to have this awareness of the inherent limitations CRISPR Cas9. 

 

We know some genes may be dormant/sleeping and the possible interactions not mapped - but on this forum, in this context - changing a plant flavor is not on the same scale- in my not expert undertanding. 

[blue_dolphin]

1 hour ago, eugenep said:

But...to my point. She said that our DNA as lots of segments that appear useless with no function. We can easily edit, delete and replace. But scientists are hesitant to do so because some of this old DNA stuff (that is even harmful) might have a usefulness that we can't see and that we don't know what's going to happen when we edit and delete our DNA like this. That's why we don't have DNA edited babies coming out of the hospital regularly and it's used in special cases to save lives and alter DNA to get rid of really serious illnesses. 

 

The point she was making is that science is always limited and the effects of changes aren't  always clear. 

 

This is why I take a cautious approach and would wait and see. 

It’s important to note that any potentially negative consequences in your “DNA edited baby” example will almost certainly accrue to the baby, not to whatever monster eats the baby. Especially if well-cooked 🙃
 

It’s also fine to take a cautious approach. I perceive the risks of eating CRISPR-modified foods as no higher than eating any other plant hybrid. You need more certainty than I do, asking above for evidence that CRISPR-modified foods are 100% safe.  That's fine but it’s also asking for proof of a negative hypothesis, which is almost impossible. As a scientist, I never wrote a report saying that X-gene or protein or whatever was 100% absent in whatever tissue was under study. I could only say that it was undectable with the methods used in the samples tested. 
 

[Mjx]

15 hours ago, blue_dolphin said:

. . . . If the caffeine was knocked out via CRISPR, it might well be possible to produce a much better tasting decaf coffee bean that didn't have to be processed with solvents or steam to remove the caffeine and there's clearly a market for decaf already.  

Edited to add that allergen-free peanuts could be a good thing, too, though that's not a taste thing.

. . . .

 

Caffeine is an important flavour element in coffee, if you remove it, you lose some of the bitterness that gives it structure.

Being able to edit out allergens would be brilliant, especially for crops that are used on a vast scale, given that things like peanut oil show up all over the place.

[chromedome]

This is probably a more meaningful application of the technology:

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/every-grain-of-rice

[blue_dolphin]

Interesting report on the use of CRISPR gene editing to produce chickens more resistant to bird flu and the risk of that driving further resistance of the virus itself.

No risks to humans here, just more evidence that, whether you’re using vaccines or gene editing, it’s not easy to outsmart a virus!

 

NYT article (gift link):

Scientists Use CRISPR to Make Chickens More Resistant to Bird Flu

 

Original publication in Nature:

Creating resistance to avian influenza infection through genome editing of the ANP32 gene family

 

 

[heidih]

They will outsmart us and thus outlive us - just like insects ;  We are not the top tier predator in reality

[Duvel]

31 minutes ago, heidih said:

They will outsmart us and thus outlive us - just like insects ;  We are not the top tier predator in reality

The chickens ? I’ve tried to warn people, but they always mumble “KFC” and ignore me …

[heidih]

13 minutes ago, Duvel said:

The chickens ? I’ve tried to warn people, but they always mumble “KFC” and ignore me …

I meant virus  Chickens - that head bobbing - a secret plot to hypnotize us. 

[billyhill]

I find the question of the nutritional impact of doing this interesting.

 

Are they removing polyphenols that might have health benefits?

 

Could we remove anti nutrients?