post corresponding This is an entry in the discussion, written by an external contributor. The publication expresses the views of the author.
political narrative It has long been known that such products are risky and unethical. We are the ones in the majority Genetic Technology Committee means the opposite.
restrictive policy High approval requirements also impede innovation and access to safe and beneficial GMO products in Norway. The negative policy consequences will be even greater when new and pioneering genetic technologies are developed such as CRISPR Really speed up.
Talking about being “for” or “against” the new genetic engineering is meaningless
So our recommendation is Clear: Norwegian and European genetic technology policy needs a major change of course that enables more sustainable food production, and we as a society must trust science. It is more dangerous to maintain strict regulation than to loosen it.
global food production under a lot of pressure. Climate change is making it more difficult to produce enough food. Epidemic and war threaten supply lines. Spray agents and production area should be trimmed for natural variety.
At the same time, Increase food production. Now all the tools are needed in tillage, including genetic engineering. especially those Nobel Prize winning CRISPR technology – Genetic ‘micro-surgery’ method – Referred to as enabling restructuring of food systems by, among others, the United Nations Climate Panel, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Norway’s Science Committee for Food and the Environment.
instead of fighting Diseases that affect plants and animals to pesticides and antibiotics, resistance can be built into genes. Instead of forfeiting more and more of nature to grow food and fodder, plants could be developed that produce more food in less space—and that withstand drought and floods better. In Norway, it may be the current usage Rot-resistant dry potatoesAnd Cattle and pigs are healthier or Sterilized salmon who can’t mate with wild salmon.
Let’s take the elephant Room at once: Is genetically engineered food dangerous? no. Contrary to what some interested organizations claim Broad professional consensus The genetically modified (GMO) food plants that have been approved in the global market so far are no more dangerous than other food plants.
Now all the tools are needed in tillage, including genetic engineering.
It is academically broad Consensus that climate change is man-made. When GMOs were new a few decades ago, a general precautionary approach was warranted because knowledge was limited. The knowledge is now more than good enough to be able to say yes to GMOs also in Norway when the risk assessments show that the product is safe and ethically justified. It is even more important to adapt regulations to new technology.
genetically modified plants, Animals and microorganisms are in fact the same traditional species and are not expected to have different risks either, subject matter experts around the world say. It is critical that policy is adapted to knowledge and that the time has come for a new and more differentiated set of regulations.
We recommend the new Regulations in line with the above arguments. The greater the predictability that a product is safe and ethically sound, the lower the approval threshold should be. We distinguish between different types of genetic changes: gene editing that results in changes similar to (but more subtle than) conventional breeding should be called “exact breeding”.
Strangers are introduced Genes that are not already present in the species should be called Genetic Modification (GMO). We also place great importance on knowledge and experience about the drug being altered: if we knew it before and we knew it was safe, the approval requirements were significantly reduced. We have put in place a safety net to weed out cases where there is genuine doubt about ethical risks or conditions.
European meat source: It is believed that Norwegian consumers can trust German meat
The goal is cutting unnecessary bureaucracy and makes it economically feasible for Norwegian plant and livestock developers to use gene editing. They wouldn’t be able to afford to get plants and animals approved according to GMO requirements when it costs tens of millions of kroner each time. If current regulations are maintained, only large multinational corporations can afford to use genetic technology.
Accuracy derivation Products must be on par with traditional products when they are put on the market. It should not be labeled as GMO, as that would be misleading to consumers. Labeling also requires separate production lines from farm/cage to store shelf, which food producers tell us is practically and financially impossible.
And not least: sheep An easier route for the product to market because it can be compared to a conventional product, and it shouldn’t be patentable either. In this way, the monopoly that has characterized GMOs protected by patents is avoided.
It is crucial That politicians, food producers, consumer organizations and society contribute to a careful and constructive dialogue regarding future genetic technology. This is the only way we can reverse decades of deep-rooted skepticism about technology and succeed in new policies.
“Explorer. Unapologetic entrepreneur. Alcohol fanatic. Certified writer. Wannabe tv evangelist. Twitter fanatic. Student. Web scholar. Travel buff.”