Policy and Regulations of GMOs

[Tito]

Hi everybody,
We're getting together at BioCurious to discuss the existing policy and regulations around environmental release of GMOs, whether they're plants, foods, or algae. The glowing plant project is an excellent first example of what's to come in the near future, like miraculin lettuce, plants that detect toxins in water, bacteria that remediate polluted water, or maybe even zebra-roses. We'll definitely be sharing our notes. If you're in the area and would like to present some specific point or research, reply here or email me and I'll make an agenda. If you're interested in listening in but not in the area, I *think* we could get a skype going or at least share a live google doc of the notes. This Monday, 6 pm PST @ BioCurious.

In the meantime, what do you think about environmental release of GMOs? Have you done any research on this topic?

Tito

(I sent a similar email to the BioCurious mailing list)

[Mega]

Just a few thoughts on releasing GMOs... Why would one have big interest in releasing GMOs? (Other than making a bioluminescent alle/park of course).

I can see the point of the miraculin producing lettuce (also thought about producing it somehow in the future). But if I'm correct, lettuce cannot grow in the wild very well, it is quickly overgrown by weed. So that plant would be an acceptable case for release into the wild. Unless you remove the weed around it, it will die.

Another thing would be release of GM weed. That may spread around the globe. (ok, i see no danger in miraculin producing weed. but my point is biological containment)

[Cathal Garvey (Phone)]

That's why the arabidopsis project is interesting, policy wise. It's far more capable of growth in the wild than wheat, corn or domesticated brassicas.

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Pieter]

The discussion perhaps gets a bit more fair, if you also present the opposite possibilities:  like toxic lettuce, plants that produce toxins in water, bacteria that pollute water, etc. Also, I would not focus too much on the technical details, risks and benefits, the opposition towards GMOs is about far more than that. Reducing the discussion to a technical one, will simply miss the point. Many feel GMOs are unethical, unnatural, a threat to future generations, biodiversity, promote enslaving business models, should not be exploited for entertainment, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

Many countries (at least in the EU) have a GM-free policy, mandatory GM product labeling and public sponsored labeling of non-GMO fed meat, eggs, milk, etc. Even the catering company at my biotech faculty restaurant put up posters promoting GM free food.

Interestingly, just this week I asked an audience during a presentation what percentage of their food they expect to be genetically modified. Most of them think that, despite the strict regulations, the majority of what's on sale in supermarkets is GMO. So there is also little faith in the enforcement of the policies and regulations.

[Mega]

But toxin producing lettuce is not S1 level anymore, thus it should be forbidden to work with for amateur biologists anyway. End of the discussion. Toxic products must not be set free into the wilderness (although there are many posionous plants and fungi already naturally occuring). 

I just don't see a reason why to have a broad discussion about potentially toxic plants, why would anyone want to set them free?

By the way, I'd welcome a govenmental permission for the release of GMOs under a scientific panel, but based on rational arguments and not on GM-fear. If there is a chance it is dangerous, you shouldn't get the permission. On the other hand, if there is no doubt your GMO is safe, a positive decision should come quick - without too much "paper wars". 

[rp...@andrew.cmu.edu]

It depends what you consider risk, and there is not surprisingly, divergent opinion here. For instance, most GMO plants are engineered with industrial production in mind and are therefore given genes for herbicide tolerance. This is the trait the concerns regulators as it has some possibility of becoming a pest. As far as I can tell the reason the glowing plant project received such quick approval from APHIS is because they aren't using herbicide tolerance. I have not personally gone through any of this process, so there may be others on here with actual experience, but it is my understanding that APHIS regulates any GMO that has genes borrowed from any genera on their pest list, which is problematic regardless of where one falls on the pre-cautionary scale. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/organism/federal_noxious_weeds.shtml

Reasons for wanting to release GMOs: Most of the GMO that have widespread release as a goal are intended to serve some sort of environmental remediation or human health function. The transgenic American Chestnut Tree for example, is to create a blight resistance tree that could one day reclaim its former habitat. The many anti-malarial mosquito projects are hoping to alter the habitat of malaria so that people won't get it. Both of those projects have gone through many years of approval, which is why the one-page "you're good to go" response from APHIS to the glowing arabidopsis folks was so interesting.

So, as Cathal points out, in addition to being the most genetically well-characterized model plant, arabidopsis is also the least domesticated. Is this a choice of convenience or a strategic choice to make a visible, though likely harmless, feral GMO?

r

[Pieter]

My point was preventing an iGEMmified discussion, framed in an Utopian "heroic bug for this, and amazing plant for that"-scenario. There is far more to GMO policies than just safety. So a scientific panel solely concerned with safety is also not a good idea in my opinion. I am not talking about irrational fear; policy makers must also take ethics, moral and other implications into account. Having a scientific judging panel will only solve the scientific side of the problem.

Anyway, I am following the discussion with great interest. Looking forward to the notes.

[Bryan Bishop]

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Pieter <pieterva...@gmail.com> wrote:

policy makers must also take ethics, moral and other implications into account. Having a scientific judging panel will only solve the scientific side of the problem.

Just because you happen to disagree with their ethics doesn't mean that they don't have them.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

[Andreas Sturm]

Good point, Bryan ;)

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/diybio/yf2xuFunT7E/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Cathal Garvey (Phone)]

I love the use of iGEMmified as an adjective. Very like TEDification.

[Tito]

What's S1?

Tito

[Avery louie]

It is similar to biosaftey level one in the states, as far as I can tell. It may also allow you to work on transgenic stuff.

--A

--

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/2e1f66f5-5196-444e-983e-dce69f5fdeb6%40googlegroups.com?hl=en.

[Tito]

Rich, the Glowing Plant project does NOT have approval from APHIS as far as I know. BioGlow, a completely separate company developed by the researcher from SUNY, *did* get a letter: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/reg_loi/aphis_response_bioglow_032113.pdf

Is anyone else weirded out that the plant inspection service's acryonym sounds like APHIDS...

Tito

[Tito]

I've been reading cases of other non-food GMOs.

I've heard there's a grass that Monsanto engineered using a gene gun. Purportedly, they did 0 environmental testing or studies. Does anyone have more specifics on this grass?

Tito

[rp...@andrew.cmu.edu]

Oh jeez. I totally conflated those two. Must pay better attention. 

[Mega]

Tito, There are 5 levels of organisms you coud work with.

S0 means it's unregulated. Like looking into a frog, dissecring a cow eye, breeding (potential mycotoxin containing) mould and fungi.

S1 is for GMOs that don't pose a risk.

S2 is for gmos / organisms which may cause a weak risk.

S3 for organisms which cause a risk (Ebola) but the mechsnism of infection is known, so you can protect yourself properly

S4 for unknown pathogens (you get to wear a space suit within S4 labs)

I think we all agree all above S1 isn't DIY Bio anymore

[Cathal Garvey (Phone)]

I'm pretty sure Ebola and other haemmoragic fevers are Class 4.

The s-rating is identical to "Biosafety" levels a-la CDC. We have another parallel rating track for GMO bacteria; not because they are different in practise but because they are different in policy. In Ireland, the Biosafety level is a matter for the Health and Safety Authority (Class 1 is not regulated) and GMM Class is for the Environmental Protection Agency.

[Mega]

I heared Ebola was class 4, but was re-classified as 3 as they knew more about the mechanism of infection.

[Tito]

Got it, thanks!

So howabout that Monsanto grass?

Tito

[David Murphy]

You're probably thinking of this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57459357/grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths/

a story from a while back that got around all the bullshit naturalnews style sites with headlines like "GM Grass Producing Deadly Gas" when it wasn't GM grass at all. Just normal non-GM grass. 

I'm trying to get a list of GM grass strains but that story is drowning out everything for the first few hundred google hits. 

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/ed90223b-0c1e-4db7-ba00-30db05f5ea8f%40googlegroups.com?hl=en.

[Tito]

Here's the topic I'm referring to:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-07/usda-wont-regulate-genetically-modified-grass-spurring-superweed-worries

USDA Won't Regulate Genetically Modified Grass, Sparking Superweed Worries

A new genetically engineered grass variant won’t be subject to federal regulation, because it was modified with a gene gun rather than bacteria, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The new strain of Kentucky bluegrass will likely be growing on American lawns very soon, where it will withstand prodigious amounts of the herbicide Roundup. The decision has provoked concern about a new generation of suburban superweeds.

As regular readers are aware, many American food crops are already genetically modified to resist Roundup, a broad-spectrum herbicide developed by the chemical and seed company Monsanto Co. The insertion of a special gene confers resistance to glyphosate, the active chemical in Roundup, which allows the chosen plants to proliferate while the weeds die.

Tito

[Tito]

Thanks for coming to BioCurious, everyone! Wonderful way to kick off our discussion of genetically modified organisms.

I added links and cool pictures to the notes, check it out here: http://goo.gl/WT1Zw

The notes also have a link to "How to Eat a GMO", a must-see video by Zack Denfeld.

Any questions? Clarifications? If you didn't understand it, I bet 10 other people didn't either. Reply here or email me: ti...@biocurious.org

Tito

[Patrik D'haeseleer]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:17:58 PM UTC-7, Tito wrote:

Rich, the Glowing Plant project does NOT have approval from APHIS as far as I know. BioGlow, a completely separate company developed by the researcher from SUNY, *did* get a letter: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/reg_loi/aphis_response_bioglow_032113.pdf

I'm not sure if they got a formal hardcopy letter, but they definitely *did* get feedback from USDA that the glowing plant would not be regulated under APHIS, because it does not use a plant pathogen for the genetic engineering.

Patrik

[Patrik D'haeseleer]

No, we would not all agree on that! In fact, I know of at least two DIYbio groups that are hoping to set up a BSL-2 lab. For one, you're not supposed to generate environmental isolates (e.g. cellulose degrading bacteria from compost) in BSL-1.

There are also some mildly pathogenic (and easily treatable) organisms that are very interesting from a biotechnology perspective. For example, Chromobacterium violaceum makes a beautiful dark blue pigment, and was used in the 2009 "E. chromi" Cambridge IGEM project. But it is also a BSL-2 organism. Interestingly, it is actually available in some sets of pigmented bacteria from educational suppliers such as eNasco and Flinn Scientific.

I would definitely recommend that people do not use BSL-2 organisms in any projects in their kitchen lab, but there's no reason that a well-organized DIY lab, with the right equipment and training, couldn't do BSL-2 work.

In terms of safety, it's probably no worse than working with concentrated sufuric acid or NaOH in a DIY chemistry lab.

Patrik

[Mega]

Ok, see your point. But how do you tell the public that "amateurs" work with "potential pathogens"? with BS1 you can say there is practically no risk.

[Patrik D'haeseleer]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:50:12 PM UTC-7, Mega wrote:

Ok, see your point. But how do you tell the public that "amateurs" work with "potential pathogens"? with BS1 you can say there is practically no risk.

Carefully.

Rather than explaining to the public what the upper limits of BSL-2/BS2 include, I  think it is far more useful to explain what kind of work you intend to do (or explicitly *not* do) in your lab. Just because you have a BSL-2 lab doesn't mean that you have to allow people working with Dengue, for example.

As for working with "potential pathogens" - the general public already assumes E. coli is a dangerous pathogen anyway. So pragmatically speaking, it is no more of an uphill battle to convince people that we can safely work with C. violaceum than with E. coli. And people will naturally assume that isolating cellulose degrading bacteria from soil is FAR safer than genetically engineering E. coli.

Also - "amateurs"? Not everybody who works in a DIYbio lab is an amateur. And hardly anyone working in a BSL-2 lab will be. BSL-2 does require access controls (i.e., a door with a lock) and rigorous training, so typically only the people who know very well what they are doing will be working in the BSL-2 part of the lab.

Patrik

[Andreas Sturm]

> Also - "amateurs"? Not everybody who works in a DIYbio lab is an amateur.

Ok, language / language usage difference... Of course, they are not "amateurs" ,  but the public (in Europe) will see the as amateurs. They are not "professional scientists" - and the public doesn't even trust professional scientists... Nor will they trust some guy who works with "potential pathogens" (as they hear from wikipedia) in an improvised lab...

Will require much public relations...

--

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/diybio/yf2xuFunT7E/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/c6158d44-200a-4727-82ad-5f06f450e3e4%40googlegroups.com?hl=en.

[goliste1]

Will require much public relations, but "open science" could be a good issue to promote DIYBio acceptation.....in Europe many people is quite unconfortable with current patenting system, which has been one of the most recurrent argument in the anti-GMO campaigns over the last decades, even though the  European Commission is one the most strong supporters of invasive IP rights.....

[Jonathan Cline]

An individual or corporation who releases GMO's should be required by law to distribute to the public, at no cost other than nominal shipping charges, all primers which are used to detect whether or not the GMO is present in a sample.


## Jonathan Cline
## jcl...@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################

On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:14:57 AM UTC-7, Tito wrote:

Hi everybody,
We're getting together at BioCurious to discuss the existing policy and regulations around environmental release of GMOs, whether they're plants, foods, or algae. 

In the meantime, what do you think about environmental release of GMOs? Have you done any research on this topic?

Tito

 

 

[Bryan Bishop]

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Jonathan Cline <jnc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An individual or corporation who releases GMO's should be required by law to
> distribute to the public, at no cost other than nominal shipping charges,
> all primers which are used to detect whether or not the GMO is present in a
> sample.

Curious, why the physical primers instead of the sequences?

[Jonathan Cline]

The burden should be on the originator of the GMO, and the physical
primers are likely already available internally as part of Q/A so there
is no cost to the manufacturer of the GMO. Whereas anyone external to
the individual/corporation's lab would have to go through the trouble of
synthesizing the primers if they were even known. Legislating that the
GMO detection mechanism must be shipped to anyone who inquires is truly
the way to achieve validation of commercial products or prove
contamination in the field.

## Jonathan Cline
## jcl...@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################

[John Griessen]

On 06/08/2013 05:48 PM, Jonathan Cline wrote:
> Legislating that the
> GMO detection mechanism must be shipped to anyone who inquires is truly
> the way to achieve validation of commercial products or prove
> contamination in the field.

Like that thinking.

More and more, bio seems legally intensive, DIY or PhDriven.

[Patrik D'haeseleer]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 3:48:54 PM UTC-7, Jonathan Cline wrote:

The burden should be on the originator of the GMO, and the physical
primers are likely already available internally as part of Q/A so there
is no cost to the manufacturer of the GMO.

For it to be truly at no cost to the manufacturer, you'd need to pay a lot more than just shipping costs though...

Patrik

[Cathal Garvey (Android)]

I personally feel it's excessive. Companies should have to make public the sequences, primer sequences, and a suggested PCR program. That's enough for concerned would-be testers but costs potentially cash-strapped startups nothing.

Patrik D'haeseleer <pat...@gmail.com> wrote: