Diskussion über CRISPR und Grundlagen der Biologie

Wie unterscheidet sich die CRISPR-Technologie von der konventionellen Züchtung?

Testbiotech hat jüngst in einer tabellerischen Übersicht einige Unterschiede zwischen konventioneller Züchtung und der CRISPR-Technologie zusammengefasst ( Das hat zu kritischen Reaktionen, insbesondere auf Twitter geführt. Dabei wird die Argumentation von Testbiotech immer wieder als unwissenschaftlich angegriffen.

'EFSI' assesses the risks of genetically engineered maize – teosinte hybrids

Testbiotech exposes “European Food Safety Industry” (EFSI) as unacceptable collusion between European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and regulated industry.

Why is teosinte an issue in Europe?

Feeding study with genetically engineered maize NK603 does not provide evidence of adverse effects on the health of rats

But the debate continues on how to assess health risks associated with GMOs

17 April 2018 / An EU-funded research project known as G-TwYST conducted a two-year feeding trial with rats using genetically engineered maize resistant to glyphosate (NK603). According to the results which are not yet finally published, the diet fed to the rats did not trigger any clear signs of health effects. The study followed internationally agreed standards. However, it is not fully comparable with a previous rat feeding study using the same maize line: the G-TwYST study used a different rat strain and was designed differently to the original study.

Meta-analysis of data from GE maize fails reality check

Pellegrino et al. (2018) meta-analysis substantially flawed due to bias in data selection and methodological insufficiencies

20 March 2018 / In their meta-analysis, Pellegrino et al. (2018) claim to have found evidence that GE maize performs better than conventional maize in regard to higher yield and lower concentrations of mycotoxins. Further, it is claimed that non-target organisms are not affected by the toxins produced in the GE maize. These findings appeared in the media, but closer analysis shows that the publication is substantially flawed due to bias in data selection.