Gene Editing - A Comment By Bill Gates

I have made remarks here on my blog about CRISPR gene technology as well as a few posts on gene editing and its relevance to modern agriculture and science in general.  I think it is a marvellous technology tool with enormous potential for variety improvement in agriculture.

A recent post highlighted the fact that the USDA has concluded that using CRISPR gene editing is not the same as creating GMO varieties - as no transgenic change occurs.  This allows a less ardous pathway to commercial use for new products developed through this technology, as they are not GMOs.

The comment below by Bill Gates [the one from Microsoft!] might have more clout than me, but he is a strong supporter of genetic improvements across a wide field and now has close contact with eminent researchers  through heading the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which supports international research and development.  And he supports CRISPR work generally.

It is worth reading..........

link below:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-04-10/gene-editing-good?cid=nlc-emc-paywall-free-reading-bill-gates-a-20180411

IP Protection Includes Seeds

The US has made much of the loss of intellectual property to China in recent years.  And in agriculture this includes new varieties and the seeds of those new varieties.

A recent court case has highlighted a new variety that seems to have been on its way to China.......but was detected at the US border.

Sobering reading.

----------------------------------------------------

Chinese Scientist Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Rice-Smuggling Plot

The researcher stole genetically modified seeds and planned to give them to a crop research institute in China, the US Justice Department says.

By Ashley Yeager | April 5, 2018

FLICKR, BLOGTREPRENEURChinese scientist Weiqiang Zang was sentenced yesterday (April 4) to 121 months in federal prison for conspiring to steal genetically modified rice seeds from Ventria Bioscience while working at its Kansas-based facility. Zhang planned to give the seeds to a research institute in China, according to a statementfrom the US Justice Department.

“Weiqiang Zhang betrayed his employer by unlawfully providing its proprietary rice seeds to representatives of a Chinese crop institute,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Cronan says in the statement. The “sentence demonstrates the significant consequences awaiting those who would steal trade secrets from American companies.”

Zhang, who has a master’s degree in agriculture from Shengyang Agricultural University in China and a doctorate from Louisiana State University, worked as a rice breeder at Ventria Bioscience. The company develops rice seeds that are genetically reprogrammed to produce human serum albumin, a protein found in blood, or lactoferrin, an iron-binding protein found in human milk. The proteins are then extracted for use as therapeutics.  

According to trial evidence, Zhang stole hundreds of the company’s rice seeds and stored them at his home in Manhattan, Kansas. In the summer of 2013, visitors from a crop research institute in China came to Zhang’s home, and Zhang also took them to tour research facilities in Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio. When the visitors returned home in August 2013, US Customs and Border Protection officers found seeds, including ones belonging to Ventria, in their luggage. Last February, Zhang was convicted of one count of conspiracy to steal trade secrets, one count of conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property, and one count of interstate transportation of stolen property.

“Ventria invested years of research and tens of millions of dollars to create a new and beneficial product,” says US Attorney McAllister in statement. “It is vital that we protect such intellectual property from theft and exploitation by foreign interests.”

Organic Fertilisers - Contamination with Microplastics Common - Take Care

Users like to belive thay are being positive for the environment by using waste organics that have been converted to organic fertilisers -small pellets or even as bagged compost or by the trailer load.

Recent studies however, confirm the presence of considerable amounts of microplastics in many of the organic fertilisers used around the world.  Most work has been conducted in Europe and North America, but it is highly likely the situation will be broadly similar in Australasia.

While some effort - or even a big effort- is made to eliminate plastics in the original waste stream, it is rarely totally successful, and they get broken up in processing eventually being in the final product as microplastic pieces [ defined as <5mm font="" in="" size="">

There is a lot of discussion about microplastics in both fresh and marine waters, and land contamination is also of  concern.

We really do not understand the potential problem with land, and issues when contamnated areas are used for food production.

More below from a recent article which appeared online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ISTOCK, MAERZKIND

The recycling of biological waste from homes and businesses to make fertilizer, either through composting or fertilization, is a source of microplastic pollution, according to a study published today (April 4) in Science Advances. The particles were present despite efforts to sort and sieve out plastic contaminants either before or after the waste was processed, the authors note.

“The recycling of organic waste through composting or fermentation and subsequent application on agricultural land is, in principle, an environmentally sound practice to return nutrients, trace elements, and humus to the soil,” the study authors write. “However, most household and municipal biowaste is contaminated by plastic material.”

See “Plastic Pollutants Pervade Water and Land”

Microplastics, which the new study defines as plastic particles smaller than 5 mm, result from the breakdown of plastics, and are pervasive both on land and in the oceans. While the extent of their environmental and health effects is not clear, studies have found they’re detrimental to the health of organisms such as earthworms and rodents, and that they make their way into human food supplies.

In the new study, researchers at the University of Bayreuth in Germany investigated fertilizer produced by a biowaste composting plant (which treats waste aerobically) and a biowaste digester (which uses an anaerobic process). There were fewer than 25 microplastic particles per kilogram in the compost from the first plant, while the freshly-digested fertilizer from the second plant had up to 146 particles per kilogram of the pollutants. By contrast, no microplastics were found in digestate from an agricultural energy crop digester, suggesting that the contamination in the products from the first two plants originated in the homes and businesses that were the source of the waste used.

Varieties Developed via CRISPR to be Less Regulated in USA

As CRISPR gene editing only edits the genome and does not insert foreign genetic material from other species the light hand of regulation may be considered as adequate, or does it need more regulation?

So far it seems that less is adequate, which is generally accepted by many involved in new crop and horticulture variety devlopment.

The following article is a brief, but relevant take on the subject from The Scientist online magazine. This attitude is likely to influence other countries regulatory agencies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Will Not Regulate CRISPR-Edited Crops

Restrictions will remain on transgenic plants, which contain artificially inserted genes from other species.

By Diana Kwon | April 2, 2018

PIXABAY, ANALOGICUS

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) will not regulate plants that have been modified through genome editing, according to a statement released last week (March 28) by the agency.

In the announcement, the USDA states that it won’t oversee the use of genetically altered plants, as long as they could have also been developed through traditional breeding methods, such as cross-breeding or selecting for desirable properties. The agency adds that genome editing allows breeders to introduce new traits more precisely, and at a faster rate.

“With this approach, USDA seeks to allow innovation when there is no risk present,” US Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue says in the statement. “Plant breeding innovation holds enormous promise for helping protect crops against drought and diseases while increasing nutritional value and eliminating allergens.” 

MIT Technology Review notes that transgenic crops—plants that contain artificially inserted genes from other species—will still be regulated.

See “The Unregulation of Biotech Crops”

This announcement comes as good news to biotech companies using CRISPR to modify plants. According to Wired, this move will “[shave] years and tens of millions of dollars off the cost of developing a designer plant.”

“Having this consistent position enables smaller companies and academic labs to form this ecosystem of innovation to bring options to consumers,” Federico Tripodi, CEO of Calyxt, a Minnesota-based biotech that has already developed soybeans that produce oil low in trans fats that can be cooked at high heat, tells Wired.  

Whether gene-edited plants require special labeling is still unclear. “Bioengineered foods are defined by containing genetic material that could not otherwise have been conventionally bred or obtained in nature,” Deepti Kulkarni, a former member of the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel who currently works at Sidley Austin, a corporate law firm in the U.S., tells Wired. “If USDA is construing the language this way, there is some suggestive signaling that these products might not be subject to disclosure.”

USDA, regulation, plants , GM crops, genetics & genomics, genetic engineering, crops, crop engineering,CRISPR/Cas and CRISPR