From No More Fake News
Monsanto's controversial past combines some of the most toxic products ever sold with misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption.
(Image by YouTube, Channel: ajvaughan3 Documentary Films) Permission Details DMCA
It's "genome-editing" of food crops.
The official propaganda could go several ways. One version: "We won't be inserting foreign genes from other species into food plants anymore, as we do now in GMO crops. Instead, we'll be tweaking and editing the genes that are already in the plants. It's wonderful."
Of course, this "new and improved process" can produce unintended and unpredictable effects that ripple through plant DNA. Oops.
Here is a cautionary statement from Jennifer Doudna, the co-discoverer of the latest and greatest method of gene-surgery, called CRISPR: "I guess I worry about a couple of things. I think there's sort of the potential for unintended consequences of gene editing in people for clinical use. How would you ever do the kinds of experiments that you might want to do to ensure safety?"
The same worries would apply to gene-editing food plants -- especially if no one intends to do long-term studies on the health effects of eating this food.
We're on the cusp of a new level of GMO crime-business, and the man in charge of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Sonny Perdue, is cheerleading from the sidelines.
Perdue says the newest gene-edited plants won't be any different from those developed by traditional non-GMO breeding methods.
Which is like saying a missile fired from a tank is identical to an arrow shot from a bow.
Here is the brand new policy from the USDA: "Under its biotechnology regulations, USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques...This includes a set of new [gene-editing] techniques that are increasingly being used by plant breeders to produce new plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through traditional breeding methods."
Yes, indistinguishable, if you're wearing a blindfold and wandering around in a pitch-black lab.
In other words, the bureaucrats are at it again, subverting facts and viewing corporate interests as prime, while people's interests are of no importance.
No regulation, no studies on genome-edited crops to determine health effects on humans, just open the door wide.
Claire Robinson, the relentless and sharp publisher of gmwatch.org, goes for the throat: "If by some miracle the USDA should turn out to be correct when it claims that genome-edited plants are indistinguishable from naturally bred plants, then the whole genome-editing commercial venture is over. That's because the driving force behind all genetic engineering of plants, including genome editing, is patents. And to get a patent on a genome-edited plant you have to show that it is a man-made invention that is completely different from anything that you might find in nature."
"Therefore the GMO industry is telling the public and regulators that genome-edited plants are indistinguishable from naturally bred plants, and yet at the same time it is telling patent offices that genome-edited plants are completely different from naturally bred plants."