Hi Michael,

in my opinion, the safety discussion was never about science (no evidence of inherit danger) but always about (perceived?) ethical/moral questions. But those questions are mostly concerning topics like dependence of farmers from big ("evil") companies etc. For instance, concerns about increasing use of potentially harmful chemicals (like glyphosate; apart from weak/missing evidence) are also not related to the GMO character of the plants, per se. Non-GMO mutant crops with the same herbicide tolerance have the same ecological/social impact as the GMO varieties have.

So, IMO, the resistance to GMO crops is more a protest against intensive/industrialized/monopolized agriculture then a protest against gene technique. The above mentioned fear of dependence of farmers from seed companies comes about 70 years to late, anyways. Since the begin of use of hybrid seeds in the 30th (last century!) this dependence is a given and has not been a problem so far. We depend on high yield hybrid seeds to feed our ever growing populations. Actually, the thoughtful development and use of GMOs could decrease the ecological footprint of food production and even could support/increase "organic" production (pathogen resistant varieties etc.). I think, we would loose a good tool if we would forgo that technique.

Concerning CRISPR - in the light of the above said: the supporters of the use of GMO crops will also embrace this technique as the next step - inherently even safer than conventional gentech (no foreign DNA tranferred; pinpoint targeted mutations without side effects;...). Opponents will still use the same arguments about dependence and lacking long term tests (well, we just celebrated 25 year of commercilly used GMOs - I am not aware of a single case of health problems caused directly by the growth/consumption of GMO crops - the proper/responsible use of any agrochemical is a different question ...).

Just my 2c.

Klaus

Dear Micheal Alabboud

Who can say that GMO is not safe food

where have been published really evidence about the effect of the GMO product to human health?

in my opinion such as others genetic engineer Technics, CRISPR method will also come under attack soon.

Dear Mostafa

Thanks for the answer and opinion

I actually wrote vice versa because I want to hear rhe opinions of both pro-GMOs and Anti-GMOs communities.

Again thanks and regards

Hi Michael,

in my opinion, the safety discussion was never about science (no evidence of inherit danger) but always about (perceived?) ethical/moral questions. But those questions are mostly concerning topics like dependence of farmers from big ("evil") companies etc. For instance, concerns about increasing use of potentially harmful chemicals (like glyphosate; apart from weak/missing evidence) are also not related to the GMO character of the plants, per se. Non-GMO mutant crops with the same herbicide tolerance have the same ecological/social impact as the GMO varieties have.

So, IMO, the resistance to GMO crops is more a protest against intensive/industrialized/monopolized agriculture then a protest against gene technique. The above mentioned fear of dependence of farmers from seed companies comes about 70 years to late, anyways. Since the begin of use of hybrid seeds in the 30th (last century!) this dependence is a given and has not been a problem so far. We depend on high yield hybrid seeds to feed our ever growing populations. Actually, the thoughtful development and use of GMOs could decrease the ecological footprint of food production and even could support/increase "organic" production (pathogen resistant varieties etc.). I think, we would loose a good tool if we would forgo that technique.

Concerning CRISPR - in the light of the above said: the supporters of the use of GMO crops will also embrace this technique as the next step - inherently even safer than conventional gentech (no foreign DNA tranferred; pinpoint targeted mutations without side effects;...). Opponents will still use the same arguments about dependence and lacking long term tests (well, we just celebrated 25 year of commercilly used GMOs - I am not aware of a single case of health problems caused directly by the growth/consumption of GMO crops - the proper/responsible use of any agrochemical is a different question ...).

Just my 2c.

Klaus

thank you Dr. Eimert

I totally agree with you even though many of Anti-GMO groupes (consider) GMF as non-safe at the first place (with evidence or without).

the second point (hybrid seed). I agree completely. Heterosis is the way of nature to save diversity and the use of it shouldn't (in any way) be considered unsafe.

What really interest me is the idea you talked about in your third point. We are today more precise than any time before when we talk about genetic modifications. Doesn't that mean that we are today able to produce GMF safer than any time before (if there was a danger before) ?. that's my point of interest.

best regards

Hi Michael,

well, I think CRISPR is not "safer", per se - genetic material is still changed (although, it might be undistuingishable from spontaneous mutations). But it is much more precise. Using it, we will be able to produce desired changes much faster and with much less unpredicted side effects. Those side effects may not be a problem from the view point of safety, but they maybe from the point of undesirable traits in plant physiology/nutritional value/agro-economical behavior.

It would also be interesting to discuss new CRISPR variants with which gene expression may be changed (RNA level or methylation) - there is a lot of development in the pipeline...

Regards,

Klaus

I always describe the term 'safe' as being relative but the EU have a habit of using 'hazard' as opposed to 'risk'. The 'risk of something (CRISPR) being dangerous is in my opinion incredibly low. If it did the I suppose the 'hazard' might be very slightly higher. However the risk of depending on conventional breeding is far higher.

Hi Jonathan,

I am not sure I can understand the nuances between hazard and risk.

I totally agree with you that the recombinations of genetic material occuring in conventional breeding is much more extensive (and, thus, risky?) than using "old style" genetic transformation, not ot talk about CRISPR...

Regards,

Klaus

Dear Dr. Harrington and Dr. Eimert

But I really can't see any risk in conventional breeding method (especially selection and hybridization) even though it's extensive. after all we're not adding, subtracting or modifying. We're just mixing and selecting the way nature would do.

Isn't that so?

Hi Michael,

nature is not benign nor malignant - it just is. If you combine the wrong things and your selection doesn't catch it, you my be in trouble. Just google "potato" and "lenape" as an excample :-)

Cheers,

Klaus

yes crossing plants might lead to produce poisons: plants have a huge list of poisons, allergens and most of existing pesticide are plants pesticides.

All plants should be evaluated for safety. All kind of agriculture might lead to risky food (just remember the 53 dead in Gernmany 6 years ago for a so-called killer bacteria hosted on organic sprouts). Do not listen to advertisment but to facts, documents, numer, statistics.

Thanks for the example dr. Eimert and dr. Defez

It seems that the hybridization for insects, diseases and abiotic resistance comes with a price

And in the case of sprouts wasn't the (ideal environment) a main cause of E. coli outbreak?

I'm now curious to know if there is an example of two landraces cross went wrong

Responding to Klaus Eimert and the issue of 'Risk' and 'Hazard'.

Risk is the likelihood of an event occuring; Hazard is thre amount of harm it would do IF it occurred. For example the likelihood of a passenger airline crashing is extremely small BUT if it diod then the effects could be catastrophic. Same applies to Nuclear Power Stations.

@ Jonathon,

sorry for my late answer and thanks for the explanation!

Considering this, CRISP does indeed carry a risk, as off-target effects have been reported. The hazard would then depend on which gene has been altered unintendedly and which effect does this alteration cause (new toxic products, which is very unlikely, or increased content of potentially harmful components). Did I understand this right?

If so, why would you think that genome editing techniques are slightly more hazardous than conventional breeding? Is it because of the (theoretically conceivable, but yet unreported) possibility of a de-novo synthesis of potentially dangerous components?

Sorry, English isn't my first language, so I hope I can make myself understandable :-)

Dear Klaus, Whilst I agree with what you say I would suggest that it has to be far safer than 'conventional' breeding and rather safer than the techniques used in gene editing (GMO) to date? (Your English is excellent!).

Best wishes, Jonathon

Hi Jonathon,

thanx for the praise :-)

I agree with you, that GMOs are most likely safer than varieties from conventional breeding, also based on the much more rigorous testing the regulated GMOs have to go through. With CRISPR, things get a bit more complicated, I think. While the method aims for targeted changes (and, thus, would be much safer) the currently used CRISPR systems all show off target effects to some extend. That, in itself, would not be a problem if the resulting plants are properly screened and analyzed. With the technique beeing de-regulated, the "extra care" in analysis is no longer required by law. Thus, if the breeder does not care enough (would be economical suicide if bad something happened, though), the new varieties are back at the same level of hazard with conventional breeds. I mean that "Lenape" could also happen with GE-breeds if they were not properly tested. But, in any case the GE-varieties should not carry a higher hazard level than the conventional ones. Things will get better, once off-target effects can be avoided - many groups are working on this problem, including us :-)

To sum it up - I think, that GMO and GE crop varieties are at least as save as (most probably safer than) conventional breeds. I think that (beside conventional breeding) GE is a very promising tool to rapidly meet whatever challenges emerge in breeding programs (provided the relevant physiological processes and their genetic regulation is understood).

Regards,

Klaus

Thank you Klaus, I think our fellow correspondent Michael Alabboud might want to look into potato breeding; there are several examples of plant breeding that produced most unintended and unfortunate results!

Best wishes, JAH

PS: Did you know that Vivian Moses has died?

Hi Jonathon,

to my shame, I have to admit that I didn't know about Vivian Moses before your mentioning him. I just looked him up and found that he was very active in the field of biotechnology and science-communication (especially concerning GMOs) in the UK. That is a sad loss for the scientific community, indeed! I will have to check his web sites - maybe I can even find good stuff for my courses I am teaching at university. I am still occasionally attending public meetings discussing the future/safety/danger of GMO crops (mostly depicted as the devilish opponent to the all-positive "natural" methods). It is kind of frustrating - to paraphrase a famous citation: it is very difficult to hear the voice of reason when ideology is always shouting on top of her lungs ... :-(

Regards,

Klaus

Greetings Dr. Harrington and Dr. Eimert

I really looked into some cases of breeding gone wrong, but are these cases enough to stop and cease plant breeding ?

some of the simplest crops we have today such as wheat, rice and corn gone through heavy selection by early agriculturalists. In fact, every thing we consume today was selected and chosen at some point.

Last point, if breeding will make our crops more tolerant to biotic and abiotic stresses this is more than enough. because if I'd have to choose between breeding and using the slightest amount of toxins in our agriculture, I'd choose breeding a million times.

between a definite danger and a risk, I'd take the risk.

Regards

Hi Michael,

you said you found some cases of traditional breeding gone wrong (in a health related sense, I assume). Just out of curiosity - did you find an example of a GMO variety that had reached market approval gone wrong?

As has been mentioned before, "traditional/proven/always used" is not a guarantee of no hazard. Specialists working in the field of food safety often claim that many of our traditional food stuff would not get approval nowadays, as there is a certain health hazard, like the chance of contamination with potential harmful microorganisms, high likelyhood of allergies etc. (like mold cheese, "traditional" salami, mite cheese, sürströmming and so on).

You concerns about using to many toxins in the environment are very valid, though. They have however, not much to do with gene technique. Of course, most herbicide resistant crops in use nowadays are GMO. However, several features first introduced by gene transfer have also been achieved by breeding, later on. For instance, glyphosate resistant brassicaceae have also been achieved by breeding (well, mutagenesis already is counted as "conventional") and are even known to develop spontaneously. So, it is not about the technique used, but the breeding goal aimed for. As long as industrial agriculture is the answer to increasing population numbers, monoculture and associated heavy use of agrochemicals are a given.

On the other hand, GMO or GE-plants could very well mitigate the ecological impact even of intensive agriculture. For instance, pathogen resistant varieties can dramatically lower the need for pesticides. One fast and safe way to produce such varieties are GMOs/GEOs. Of course, one can also try to find a pathogene resistant variety/land race/wild ancestor to use in breeding programs - it will just take much longer to achieve the same goal.

So, I still think that GMOs and GE are valid and valuable techniques to fast and safely achieve many breeding goals. The sense/nonsense/usefulnes/danger of those breeding goals lie in the following field application/practice, not in the technique.

Regards,

Klaus

I compeletly agree with Klaus Eimert

Indeed dr. Eimert and dear mostafa, l'm not debating against GMOs, after all the original purpose of the questions was to compare between CRISPR and other GM producing techniques.

But as a side subject, we went through traditional breeding methods.

So you can add (to my previous answer), between pestecides and pesteside free GMOs l'll choose GMOs

Regards

Hi Michael,

concerning "old-style" GMOs and genome edited plants (CRISPR etc.; from here: GMO and GEO), it is a bit more complicated than I thought first. CRISPR has a huge potential in the precise positioning of the mutagenesis/recombination. So, I would intuitively say that GE are "safer". BUT, the off-target problem still exists - so GE is not (yet) completely precise and there might be unintended changes (which should be caught in the selection/analyses). On the other hand, GMOs usually carry only their target gene (+ selection gene, in most cases) in one copy without off target effects. The critizism of GMOs (apart from use in chemical-intensive agriculture) mostly focuses on possible position effects and the antibiotic resistances used for selection. As for the position effect - if there was an negative effect it should be caught during the evaluation process. So in this respect GMOs are no worse than GEOs. Concerning antibiotic resistances - this is mostly a theoretical hazard. First, the used resistance genes were isolated from E.coli - meaning there are billions of copies of these genes in our guts, already - so, even (unlikely) occasional gene transfers wouldn't really change anything. Secondly, those antibiotics are not medically relevant anymore- the are not prescription drugs. Thus, in this respect, GMOs also do not carry a higher hazard.

So, in my opinion, GEOs are safe - as safe as, but not safer than GMOs :-) They are just a faster way to reach some breeding goals.

Cheers,

Klaus

If I could just add that there is NO SUCH THING AS 'PERFECTLY SAFE' not cars, not aeroplanes, not bicycles not even lying in bed! However the more precise the technique (like CRISPR) the less likely there is of a problem. By definition random mutagenesis (whether it be by chemical or radiation) is far more likely to be 'risky'!

See my earlier comments about 'Hazard' and Risk'.

That is precisely the point I wished this discussion to reach !

both replies are much appreciated

Regards

The major problem with any GMC's that does not exist in terms of conventional breeding (to those who compare) is the GENE FLOW.

1. It is so complicated to produce Highly superior crop's in terms of YIELD by introducing few trans-genes or silencing few genes using CRISPR-Cas9 System..

2. while it is easy to do it to produce highly resistant plants for pesticides and for biotic stress..

That's why many companies adapt the second choice, BUT........

GENE FLOW in this case can't be contained or prevented 100%, so you are producing new level of resistance and forcing biotic diseases to fasten their adaptation. Which can be beyond our control. Bacterial evolution and adaptation is way faster than the plant's one or animal's one.

so how safe it is?

it depends on what you are looking for and where and in which crop (DNA free-product i.e. Oil or not i.e. grain?) or producing less harming diseases rather chaning the plant genome?????

I generarally tend to prefer using the biodiversity that we have by conventional and molecular breeding and avoiding gene editing that might benefit us with negative consequences i.e. developed epidemic biotic stresses.