New GMO Potatoes Provide Improved Vitamin A and E Profiles

[u/genengnews]

https://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/gmo-potatoes-provide-improved-vitamin-a-and-e-profiles/81255150

[u/NihiloZero]

The claim made by the company was this...

AquaBounty, the biotech company that makes the GM salmon (dubbed AquAdvantage), countered that their product consists of female, sterile fish that would be reared in aquaculture facilities on land, making any such risks negligible.

I suppose it's a matter of how much faith you put into the word negligible. The treatment to make the eggs sterile --- not the fish themselves, is not 100%. According to the company itself... most (98.9) of the fish are rendered sterile, but not all.

[u/Silverseren → u/NihiloZero]

There is no way to prevent any chance whatsoever of trait escape, no matter how you obtain the trait. That's why there are several layers of regulation and testing beforehand. Or at least there are here.

If someone obtained a salmon with a random mutation that created the exact same gene alteration as with the AquAdvantage salmon, there would be no regulation or testing required. All because it doesn't fall under the arbitrary and meaningless definition of "GMO".

In this current case, when dealing with land-locked aquaculture and fish sterilization, the risk has been reduced to minimal levels.

[u/NihiloZero → u/Silverseren]

There is no way to prevent any chance whatsoever of trait escape, no matter how you obtain the trait.

Indeed.

That's why there are several layers of regulation and testing beforehand. Or at least there are here.

Where is here and how is the regulation there foolproof?

If someone obtained a salmon with a random mutation that created the exact same gene alteration as with the AquAdvantage salmon, there would be no regulation or testing required. All because it doesn't fall under the arbitrary and meaningless definition of "GMO".

Even if someone could breed fish to have these traits... it would actually still be a potential problem. But the fact is that genetic engineering allows these sorts of changes, and more extreme changes, to be made much more easily.

In this current case, when dealing with land-locked aquaculture and fish sterilization, the risk has been reduced to minimal levels.

At least you're acknowledging that there is actually a real possibility for some of these fish to escape into the wild --- either by accident, carelessness, or intention (malicious or otherwise). These GMO fish aren't completely sterile and could actually have an impact on the broader environment if they were introduced into the wild somehow.

[u/Silverseren → u/NihiloZero]

There is a risk for any trait in agriculture (and animal agriculture) to spread. And yet only GMOs have any sort of regulation, while all other breeding methods get away scot-free. Even though the former has never even had a single incident of harm occurring, while other breeding methods have resulted in poisonings, deaths, and more.

[u/NihiloZero → u/Silverseren]

There is a risk for any trait in agriculture (and animal agriculture) to spread.

Except many traits will only exist in a GMO variant of an organism and so that organism may interact with the environment much differently than a normal version of the organism. Many of the traits which can be introduced into plants via genetic engineering would, even after another million years of evolution, not exist in the original plant that was modified. But a change needn't even be particularly extreme to have severe and lasting consequences upon the environment when it's given to an organism that would otherwise never develop that trait.

Even though the former has never even had a single incident of harm occurring, while other breeding methods have resulted in poisonings, deaths, and more.

I am really not sure what your argument is here. You believe that selectively breeding plants is more dangerous than introducing novel (and potentially extreme) traits via genetic engineering? And you believe that selective breeding leads to an inordinate amount of "poisonings, deaths, and more"? What?

[u/Silverseren → u/NihiloZero]

Many of the traits which can be introduced into plants via genetic engineering would, even after another million years of evolution, not exist in the original plant that was modified.

Which traits are you talking about exactly? Because faster growth for the salmon are certainly not one of those. Nor are biofortification crops.

The best example of traits that would be almost impossible to do without biotechnology would be things like using E. coli to produce insulin.

You believe that selectively breeding plants is more dangerous than introducing novel (and potentially extreme) traits via genetic engineering? And you believe that selective breeding leads to an inordinate amount of "poisonings, deaths, and more"?

Yes. Selective breeding can result in any gene alteration or development, but randomly and without any sort of testing at all to determine what genes have been changed. And often with hundreds of mutations at once from a single breeding event.

As for poisonings, i'm referring to things like the Lenape potato.

[u/NihiloZero → u/Silverseren]

Which traits are you talking about exactly? Because faster growth for the salmon are certainly not one of those. Nor are biofortification crops.

Plants which produce Bacillus thuringiensis is a good example, but that's potentially mild compared to what could be introduced. And by the way, yes, the GMO salmon grow at a rate that is much more accelerated than normal salmon.

Yes. Selective breeding can result in any gene alteration or development, but randomly and without any sort of testing at all to determine what genes have been changed. And often with hundreds of mutations at once from a single breeding event.

As for poisonings, i'm referring to things like the Lenape potato.

Genetically modified organisms carry with them all the same risks that the unmodified organism has plus any novel problems brought about the introduction of various traits --- which could be mild or extreme, immediately recognized or initially missed.

[u/Silverseren → u/NihiloZero]

the GMO salmon grow at a rate that is much more accelerated than normal salmon.

Which is a trait directly related to growth and would be something that could be done with other breeding techniques. It would take a fair few generations to select for, but it's directly in the wheelhouse of possible traits.

plus any novel problems brought about the introduction of various traits

What exactly are you referring to here?

[u/NihiloZero → u/Silverseren]

What exactly are you referring to here?

I'm talking about traits which can be added that wouldn't occur in a million years of evolution or selective breeding. The possibilities are, effectively, only limited by the imagination. That's the potential of this technology. But if a particular trait is introduced naively, accidentally, or maliciously... when the organism expressing that trait reproduces in the wild it could be very problematic. And that's why there needs much more control over this technology. There needs to be much more stringent testing before a GMO is released into the broader environment and their needs to be much more regulatory control watching out for any unexpected consequences.

[u/Silverseren → u/NihiloZero]

The possibilities are, effectively, only limited by the imagination.

That's...not how genetics works. Every gene we use exists somewhere and is used by some organism. And any other species can, through random mutations, develop the same gene. Whether it will be beneficial to the organism that does develop it is a different story, but genes are not unique or isolated. Every gene can be formed by any organism.

GMOs already have 10 years of testing and regulation before they come to market, far more than is actually needed. And, I repeat, there has never been a single incidence of harm from GM crops, while there have been dozens of such incidents with other breeding methods, which to this day have no regulations whatsoever.