One of the persistent GMO questions that continues to be debated is the most basic question of all – what exactly constitutes “genetically modified”?
Certainly, humans have been relying on hybrids for centuries, whether they be grapes, wheat, or other crops. Breeding can also be considered a form of genetic selection. Scientists have also relied on classical mutation to obtain novel plants and microbes.
But GM is different in that, at least for the vast majority of cases, the genetic changes that occur in GM require rather precise molecular manipulation of genes or genomes. Cloning, gene inactivation, and other methods that rely on introduction or modification of genes into an organism are generally considered to be GM. This can actually be regarded as a plus, since the genetic changes that occur by non-GM methods are often not precise and other changes can occur.
Recently, techniques for molecular manipulation have been developed that are even more specific and precise. One technique in particular, called CRISPR, is already being used in yogurt microbes, as noted in this article in the Atlantic, as well as other foods (article in Wired).
You may have heard about CRISPR in the news – after all, two of the scientists involved in the early research, Drs. Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, won the 2020 Noble Prize in chemistry.
What are your views on GM foods and the use of CRISPR?
Comments
I think CRISPR is really cool and should be used in food and medical things. The options and potential help far outweigh the potential negatives. However, I think it should be heavily studied before being put into use.
I do not see GM foods necessarily as a bad thing. I think they could have a lot of benefits if they were used correctly. I would think CRISPR would be more effective and safer than making hybrids as it is a repeatable thing, while it might be hard to exactly replicate the production of a hybrid through cross-breeding.