FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

My opinion continues to be tools like CRISPR and genome editing techniques are just that--tools. Can be used for good or bad purposes depending on your context and bias.<p>Most people associate these genome modification tools as inherently bad because the first generation of them were tied to herbicide and pesticide resistance. Whether you agree with those applications or not, its clear those tools worked and were extremely powerful. I would personally argue they work too well and the 2nd and 3rd order effects are doing the most damage. But these tools exist in regulatory frameworks that are archaic and rigid and when billions of dollars are on the line companies figure out ways to play in between the lines.<p>An optimistic person might want these tools to be used to increase taste profiles, shelf-life, nutritional content, range of adaptation, etc. A pessimist probably sees this as a faster way to add more herbicide or pesticide traits to enable those chemicals to be applied.<p>I&#x27;m very bullish on genome editing tech. Lots of these comments are applying 1990s thinking to a 2030 and beyond tech. Akin to 1950s &#x27;futuristic&#x27; predictions showing flying cars.

I don’t want to argue you should be vegetarian, but I hope at least people might consider eating _much less_ meat. I’m trying to save it for special occasions. It’s not always possible, but I try and do my best.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mayoclinic.org&#x2F;healthy-lifestyle&#x2F;nutrition-and-healthy-eating&#x2F;in-depth&#x2F;meatless-meals&#x2F;art-20048193" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mayoclinic.org&#x2F;healthy-lifestyle&#x2F;nutrition-and-h...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;eating-less-red-meat-is-something-individuals-can-do-to-help-the-climate-crisis&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;eating-less-red-m...</a>

From the 12+ Years on HN I know this is an unpopular opinion.<p>I dont like GMO &#x2F; Genome-edited cattle &#x2F; food or crops. Even if it could theoretically occur through a natural breeding process. You can cross breed all you want. GMO is not cross breed as many on HN somehow believes last time we had this discussions. You can do Data Science and other controlled environment in providing better yield as in EUR ( Or specifically the Dutch ). And we may soon have Cattle labeled as GMO &#x2F; Genome-Edit Free as selling point, as US likes to do with Antibiotic Free and Growth Hormones free labels. Part of the reason why EU has never been keen on US Beef import.<p>To add some other context, US Beef export rank third in export volume and first or second in export revenue.

In Belgium we have cows specifically breaded for meat, which are called &quot;dikbil&quot; =(fatbutt). It&#x27;s extremely unnatural, so I&#x27;m very afraid what kind of monstrosity the industry can come up with when using gene manipulation.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=dikbil" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=dikbil</a>

Would count this categorically as one of the ways we do not want to be using technology in the context of climate change, as it’s bypassing the negative feedback loop that already wasn’t strong enough to prevent us getting to this point in the first place.

Horse breeding is a big business. That would probably be a good target for this sort of thing.

judging from the article right above this one, soon we will see<p>&quot;Lawmakers Eats CRISPR Beef to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2055) (modernfarmer.com)&quot;

I want to know what exactly was changed to help them &quot;endure climate change&quot; because to me it sounds like bullshit designed to create a proprietary cow genome with a pretty story to sell it.

They will get more sun burns... at least I do when I shave my head.<p>They are probably doing this because the hair are a nuisance when they process the skins?

Surprised by the negative sentiment here.<p>This is exciting for the obvious reasons of helping make meat production more sustainable and making meat more affordable. It&#x27;s also incredible that we have this technology and we&#x27;re putting to uses with obviously prosocial benefits.<p>I&#x27;m worried that we will reject climate change mitigations because of tradition or religious views. I hope we can change culturally to make it possible to survive for the next century.

It&#x27;s good for climate change because it will gross enough of us out to stop eating meat all together.

This might be an unpopular opinion here but if this puts more beef on the table or at a lesser price, bring it on. I love beef. I want more people to have access to good quality beef at a competitive price. The pandemic for me saw meat in general double in price on average. I can&#x27;t in good faith consume corn, tomatoes, tobacco, or even broccoli while saying I don&#x27;t support GMO. It is not the same but it also is not an entirely unrelated concept. As an engineer we are taught to analyze and overcome and to me this is nothing different.

More patented life and another food product I plan to avoid.<p>I wonder if the average consumer will be as disgusted and turned off by the idea of eating genetically modfied meat as I am.

How do we review FDA&#x27;s analysis? I hope it is available to researchers, and to public. Can someone point me to those?

This is great news, and overdue!<p>Of course there are issues with mere humans editing creatures, and true, coarse-grained crispr editing could result in unintended consequences.<p>But our ethics committees see nothing wrong with this. And as my morality depends on what ethics are commonly said to be ethical, this is a decision I am delighted to accept. And think of all the invalid children this will help!<p>Sure, I&#x27;m not clear on what has been edited here. Nor do I understand the legal implications of the editing, where a corporation is now considered to be a patent holder in a living cereus.<p>And I&#x27;m not sure what the future holds for people, even though I have read talk that dna was changed by vaccines (not just rna). Surely, corporations wouldn&#x27;t argue that they have a legal interest in people, and that their interests need to be accounted for?<p>No, this is great news. Onwards and upwards into the brave new world! And special thanks to the FDA who have bravely represented the best interests of humanity, refusing to kowtow to corporate interests. I only sleep as well as I do thanks to my wonderful government and its 3-letter agencies! Good job.

&#x27;Not&#x27; disappointed by the amount of content-free opinion in these threads. Gell-mann amnesia starts to fade

I sure hope that these cows can reproduce without the authorization of a mega corporation.<p>Everyone loves talking about how their genetic engineering technique is the best and that at worst it is only as bad as selective breeding yet they completely dismiss the fact that you cannot apply selective breeding on a lot of these GMOs.

0) Raise cattle<p>1) Earth gets warmer because we do shit like raise cattle<p>2) Cattle might die<p>3) Bio-engineer cattle that can live on warmer earth<p>4) ???<p>5) Get fucked

“help endure climate change”, while beef and eating meat is one of the major contributors to climate change … This is wrong on so many levels.

okja

I first thought “oh great more GMOs to maximize corporate profits while making animals miserable. Then my hopes rose with this:<p>&gt; They were bred with climate change in mind<p>So they’ve found a way to have happy cows that burp less methane?<p>No? Shorter hair so their methane burb greenhouse doesn’t feel so hot? Oh. This probably just boils down to profits after all.

Dystopian beyond belief

Why is this for the FDA to decide, not the electorate?<p>We&#x27;ve had discussions about abortion for ages, yet here the FDA okays a human intervention just like that?

Address the real problem. We are too many people on the earth for the resources that we are naturally given.<p>That&#x27;s a fact.

If meat is designed and&#x2F;or produced at lab, it is not meat. It is cancer. Do not eat cancer.