US Approves CRISPR Pigs For Food (technologyreview.com) 74
The FDA has approved gene-edited pigs for human consumption, potentially marking the first major commercial application of CRISPR technology in the food chain. Created by British company Genus, these pigs have had their DNA modified to remove the receptor that the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus uses to enter cells, rendering them immune to 99% of known virus variants.
PRRS causes losses of approximately $300 million annually in the US alone by killing piglets and spreading rapidly through factory farms. According to Matt Culbertson, chief operating officer of Genus subsidiary Pig Improvement Company, the gene-edited pork could reach US markets sometime next year. Before launching sales to pig farms, Genus must secure regulatory approval in key export markets including Mexico, Canada, Japan, and China.
PRRS causes losses of approximately $300 million annually in the US alone by killing piglets and spreading rapidly through factory farms. According to Matt Culbertson, chief operating officer of Genus subsidiary Pig Improvement Company, the gene-edited pork could reach US markets sometime next year. Before launching sales to pig farms, Genus must secure regulatory approval in key export markets including Mexico, Canada, Japan, and China.
I prefefer my pigs to be more CRISPR-er (Score:5, Funny)
Mmmm, genetically modified bacon, mmmmmm.
Re: (Score:3)
Unironically yes, GMO's and CRISPR food science is cool as shit imo and should be considered an advantage if it cuts down the use of herbicides and pesticides and it makes things cheaper and potentially better in a lot of ways. We all learned the maize to corn story. More tomato? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What problems could it cause that actually matter though? These are livestock and not wild animals with the possibility of some long-tail repercussions to the overall ecology down the road. As long as they can reproduce as needed, grow to the expected size, and stay healthy long enough to make it to slaughter, what else is there?
What problems could it cause? I mean, that's exactly the thing I wonder about. Maybe it will cause unforeseen problems down the line that will impact their ability to "reproduce as needed, grow to the expected size, and stay healthy long enough to make it to slaughter". I'm not saying that means it's bad, or we shouldn't do it, I just figure that when it comes to making genetic modifications there's a good chance we're not able to simulate every possible consequence beforehand.
Re: (Score:2)
I think these are valid concerns, but I think gene editing is strictly better than random mutations, and we are doing literally nothing about random mutations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
These are livestock and not wild animals with the possibility of some long-tail repercussions to the overall ecology down the road.
Sure as long as they stay livestock. Just look at the wild boar issue in Texas to see how that can become problematic. Pigs can and will eat just about anything, breed quickly, and are fairly smart.
Plus they don't really have a lot of natural predators in many countries. Wolves and mountain lions are 2 of the 3 predators in the US that can take on an adult hog. But their numbers are too few to make a dent. Bears being the other. But boars can live in places bears don't do well. The UK has no predators
Hog-killers in the UK (Score:1)
The UK has no predators that can take down an adult hog.
Legend has it [darkoxfordshire.co.uk] that a young man weilding a book of Aristotle took down a wild boar back in the day.
Maybe it was a juvenile boar?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"There's virtually no predators in the western EU that can take down a wild boar either."
Obelix, and Asterix (with the magic potion)
Re: (Score:1)
Bears and Wolves disagree.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't say there were none, I said virtually none.
Greece has less than 150 bears, Spain and Italy less than 100 and France less than 20. Not that they are as big a predator for boar as wolves.
Spain and Italy have estimated wolf populations of 3K each. France has 1100, and Germany less than 300.
Wild hogs start breeding before they are a year old and have 2 litters per year. Each litter can be from 4 to a dozen in size.
Germany has around 8 million wild boar and growing. France population of wild boar is
Re: (Score:1)
Wolves mostly eat small rodents.
No idea about bears.
But they are certainly not hunting boars unless in dire need.
About the numbers you gave, they make not much sense. Both Spain and France are bigger than Germany, and they do less hunting than we do in Germany.
But it is not something important to argue or disagree about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I prefefer my pigs to be more CRISPR-er (Score:3, Funny)
Greenpeace is concerned that the pigs will turn into Frankenstein's zombies and eat all of the whales into extinction, because nobody anywhere on the planet knows how proteins work and the unknown is to be feared and avoided at all costs, even if it means every Asian kid goes blind
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be. However, you first have to trust the government organizations responsible for vetting it. I think it's pretty clear at this point that a lot of people have been bought off by various business interests and care more about lining their own pockets rather than public health.
Re: (Score:1)
As they should! Caveat Emptor is the watchword of any free society!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Non-GMO businesses don't stand to gain anything from the government not doing its job. If I were a lettuce grower, I'd want the government to do its inspections correctly and prevent e.g. a salmonella outbreak turning customers away from lettuce.
Meanwhile, if I ran a company that did GMO research, then the government is the difference between making zero money and making hundreds of millions. Paying off a few people to the tune of a few million each would be well worth the cost.
Re:I prefefer my pigs to be more CRISPR-er (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC, one of the arguments against Monsanto's genetic modification of crops was that they effectively made them resistant to glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup. This allowed them to then spray the cancer-causing herbicide all over everyone's food. They also engineered lines of crops that produced sterile seeds, guaranteeing that farmers would have to keep coming back to the company for each crop. This probably shouldn't come as a surprise, though, as Monsanto was also the genius behind DDT, and Agent Orange. At least these guys brought LEDs to market. They were bought by Bayer in 2016 in what is considered one of the worst corporate mergers in history.
In this case, using CRISPR to knock out the receptor PRRS uses, making the pigs immune to it. Similar things have been proposed to knock out CCR-5 in humans, conveying immunity to HIV for a similar reason. Now, what effects it might have on the pigs is a different question, but it isn't going to make the pigs poisonous or something. It wasn't the genetic modification that was the problem back with the crops, it was the fact that Monsanto was a bunch of greedy crooks and used genetic modification to enable them to carpet bomb the world's food with glyphosate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I think unfortunately that's the more likely the scenario of really good and useful tech but wielded by the worst behaving corporate interests. Like roundup resistant crops is actually quite a good idea and it works from the perspective of the science but those negatives were the lawsuits and forced sterility since now it was made into a subscription mode. The science worked
I remember reading the outcome of that case and I believe the cancer contention never came through the data in terms of general
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
IIRC, one of the arguments against Monsanto's genetic modification of crops was that they effectively made them resistant to glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup. This allowed them to then spray the cancer-causing herbicide all over everyone's food.
Does it actually cause cancer though?
The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity. The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), the European Commission, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment have concluded that there is no evidence that gly
Re: (Score:2)
Did all those studies come before or after glyphosate use was approved?
Re: (Score:2)
Both? It's been around since the 70's and is pretty crucial to a lot of industries, I have to imagine this is one of the most studied substances we have.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try but not falling for conspiracy bait. If you want to cast doubt being some facts, I will read it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does cause health problems. Proof that someone's cancer came from their pesticide? That's nearly impossible to prove because there's so many toxic things in the world and it's nearly impossible to isolate everything.
labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated
That's the first redirection. Labeled uses. In practice almost no one applies it as labeled because doing so is so difficult. Roundup is sold in stores like Home Depot. You can avoid it all you want by shopping extremely carefully but if your neighbor misapplies it, which they will,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't heard about that but trying to find more information apparently the company went out of business this year
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/aqua... [yahoo.com]
Unfortunate because you are right that there is a lot of potential in aquaculture and fishing practices.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would make him a cannibal since he is a giant pig of a human being.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And square [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:1)
Crispy CRISPR pork scratchings. Mine's a pint of best, if you're in the chair.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to check on export markets (Score:4, Insightful)
US exports are pretty much over, at least for the next 3.7 years. They might as well release now.
We exported 3 metric tons at 8.63 billion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China isn't blessed with much arable cropland. Pigs eat quite a bit.
Their dependence on rice patties is an example of a workaround.
Bonus: they're farming crayfish with the rice now which makes more food and almost eliminates some chemical herbicide and pesticide use.
Crayfish is delicious. Fresh - frozen isn't too good but if you're near a bayou in the Spring by all means eat to excess.
Re: (Score:1)
It's pretty weird that China can't produce enough pigs to feed their people.
They can.
But they are good capitalists, and buy what is cheap on the market.
And if you look at your link, a 1.7billion population imports pork for 9million dollars. That is about one bite from a burger per person.
MMM...CHRISPY PIG (Score:2)
Kennedy is okay with this? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Considering how anti-science he is, one would think he would be wholly against this.
For all we know this gene editing might cause autism. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're assuming that he's paying attention to everything happening in his department he's allegedly running. We've already seen several examples of his department announcing things that he's not aware of, usually cuts of things like child cancer research. And then he does his bobblehead routine where he arglebargles for a bit and then says "he'll look into it"
Spoiler: he will not look into it. He just doesn't have time for that shit between his shameless self-promotion and his 6-month promise to finally
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that he has any attention left to pay to anything. Apart from getting (or resisting) his next smack fix.
4 crates left of the Ark, according to the Russian map of the top secret store. Hegseth gave them the plans.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoiler: he will not look into it. He just doesn't have time for that shit between his shameless self-promotion and his 6-month promise to finally shed the light on the causes of autism, once and for all - as if it's sitting in an filing cabinet in that warehouse at the end of Indiana Jones, and all they need to do is find it.
Nah, the autism thing isn't taking any time at all. He -- and everyone else -- already knows the conclusion. The only reason he pushed it out until September was to allow him to at least pretend the conclusion wasn't foregone. Well, probably also so his buddy David Geier, noted anti-vaxxer who was once prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license, can collect a government paycheck for a while. But in due course they'll publish the astonishing conclusion that vaccines cause autism. Without any rea
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, requiring placebo-controlled trials for drugs is an exemplar of being anti-science.
It's amazing that some people remember to breathe.
Re: (Score:2)
Vaccines already [politifact.com] have placebo [nih.gov] controlled [thelancet.com] trials [nih.gov].
It's amazing that some people can't read.
Man, I'm never getting used to the 31st Century (Score:2)
Caffeinated bacon? Baconated grapefruit?
Admiral Crunch??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they could use CRISPR to develop a pig that "chews the cud" so that it could be Kosher, according to Levitical Law.
Do away with farm-based hygiene ... (Score:2)
The money that they save by reducing pre-slaughter food hygiene will increase the frequency of salmonella outbreaks on the farm, speed the cross-contamination between pigs and passing wild birds (particularly the expensive "happy pig" brands) and won't do anything to prevent human pathogens form sewage sludge fertilisers getting into the pigs. All of which will mean the product never gets onto any other country's plates.
Coming next : chlorinated bac
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get the idea that pre-slaughter food hygiene is being reduced? I'm pretty sure farmers don't get to relax just because they have a new tool to fight disease. Disease has a way of adapting.
Re: (Score:2)
History tells us that's what'll happen. It's been done with chicken and bacon. Specifically for bacon, it's the use of sodium nitrates (and celery powder/juice and sea salt) for curing. Eating sodium nitrates increases your risk of colon cancer by 2%. This is known and understood by everyone. The evidence is clear and not in dispute. We used to use nitrates directly and that just flat out killed people if you used a little too much. Prior to that we used more natural methods which were safe but took
Re: (Score:2)
If you're more careful when cutting, that doesn't happen
That's not a reasonable expectation. No matter how careful, mistakes will happen.
we can assume that the disease is spreading across entire factory farms due to those farm's poor sanitation practices
Why can we assume that?
From history, we can assume that produces will do what is inspected, not what is expected. Adding gene editing as a layer of protection is a good thing. Continuing to inspect sanitary conditions, is what keeps farmers from using poor sanitary practices. Both (gene editing and good sanitation) are good and important layers of protection.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a reasonable expectation. No matter how careful, mistakes will happen.
This is why massive centralized food processing plants should not exist. When mistakes happen they get spread out to orders of magnitude more people.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you buy your meat only at small, family-owned farms? If not, then you are a hypocrite. You say that large, industrial operations should not exist, yet you support them with your money.
Why do most people support industrial operations with their money? Because they can produce what we want, cheaper than small operations. For most of us, the tradeoff is worth it. Probably even for you.
Unless you are willing to vote with your own money, don't tell me that industrial farms shouldn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you buy your meat only at small, family-owned farms?
For the products which I can get locally? Yes. Or indirectly through Ferndale Meat Co.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent! I'm glad to learn you are not, in fact, a hypocrite (in the area of meat purchases anyway). Though it does sound like your commitment to avoiding industrial operations isn't *absolute.*
However, most of the rest of us don't want to pay the premium you are paying, to avoid industrialization. IMO, industrialization is an invention that has improved the lot of mankind overall, because it has made better things, including meats, available at lower cost, to the vast majority of people who live in devel
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent! I'm glad to learn you are not, in fact, a hypocrite
That's not how anything works regardless, though it was satisfying to have a pat answer to hand you. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, there are only degrees of inequity. What is available to an individual consumer (as capitalism redefines us) is based on what is offered to them, not what they have asked for, and is limited and directed by law.
I willingly and gladly partake in the industrialization of farms, enjoying the lower price and increased accessibility of the products that these operations make possible.
The race to the bottom is great until you get there.
Re: (Score:2)
To make the claim that there is "no ethical consumption" under capitalism, you have to start with the premise that capitalism is evil. If that is your starting point, then what you are describing when you call capitalism evil, is a religious belief, not logical conclusion. Capitalism itself doesn't see consumption as unethical, it sees it as a necessary and important part of the distribution of goods and services.
Guess what, there is no economic system--none--that doesn't result in inequity. The only differ
Re: (Score:2)
To make the claim that there is "no ethical consumption" under capitalism, you have to start with the premise that capitalism is evil.
No, you don't, although it is.
Capitalism was invented to allow people with power to prevent others from gaining power, so that they could continue to abuse those they see as their lessers. That is evil.
But the only premise you have to start with is that capitalism has allowed people with power to prevent others from gaining power, so that they could continue to abuse those they see as their lessers, to recognize that there can be no ethical consumption under capitalism. Labels like "evil" are not required.
Personally, I'll pick the system that rewards hard work.
H
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism was invented to allow people with power to prevent others from gaining power
You speak as if capitalism were somehow dreamed up in a dark, smoke-filled room, by powerful shadowy figures trying to take control of the world. Right. Conspiracy theories like that are always bonkers. Sure, there are people who conspire, within capitalism, to try to abuse others. But that's not an indictment of capitalism itself, but of evil people who subvert the system. There are people who conspire, within *any* economic system, to try to abuse others.
Capitalism is built on a few core principles: http [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And when the inevitable does happen, you don't continue the shift and hose everything down with bleach at shit-change [tyop : I mean "shift change"]. You stop that machine (line, section) divert the production line to the other segment (or segments) and start to clean down the segment's machinery, now not later. And the contaminated product goes into the "waste - dog food"
Re: (Score:2)
So, since you espouse the EU's approach, I'll point out that there are plenty of industrial factory farms in the EU too. It's not the industrialization that's the issue, it's the lax regulation in the US. Do we agree on that?
Re: (Score:2)
With recent incidents like the ~£6 billion foot-&-mouth disease outbreak in Britain (ascribed to one illegal shipment of illegal un-pasturised Argentinian beef, which then went to a swill farmer who didn't boil the swill for the required period), we've learned (been reminded) why there are regulations.
Food safety regulations are nothing to do with animal welfare
Good (Score:2)
Previous pigs were too soggy. Now will be CRISPR.