Legal definition of....

[TimbaLanD]

Guys, need your expertise. Can you tell me what is the legal definition of "Genetic Modification" ?

 

I am doing a small research and some of the techniques involve genetically modifying a catalyst but I was informed it is only genetically modified if the catalyst in enhanced to do more than it's naturally capable of. i.e. if catalyst "x" is capable of producing products "a", "b" and "c" and it is genetically modified to also produce "d", then it's genetically modified. However if the same catalyst was modified only to produce "a" and "b" but not "c", by law it's not genetically modified, although technically it is modified. Am I making sense here? Can you help?

[CharonY]

I am not sure what you mean by "catalyst" in this context. Actually the definition of genetic modification is simply the alteration of genetic material of an organism by means that could not occur naturally through mating and/or recombination. This is a definition as issued by the EU, but afaik it is rather similar in the US. The rules that follow are different, though.

 

To clarify, in your example it is not critical what the end product is, but how it is achieved. I will now simply assume that you are talking about an organism expressing genes (or alleles) a, b and c. Adding d is a genetic modification if you for instance create recombinant DNA and introduce the DNA e.g. via micro-injection. If, however d is introduced by conjugation or other naturally occuring DNA transfer mechanism then it is not a genetic modification. Likewise if you delete d by using mutagenic agents, for instance it s not genetic modification, but if you use a recombinant deletion construct, it is.

[TimbaLanD]

Thank you for your response CharonY.

 

Well basically say you take an organism and it helps in a chemical reaction to produce 4 products (acting as a catalyst).

 

You then genetically alter it so it does not produce the 4th unwanted product. Apparently by law this is not genetic modification. I don’t know if this is true!

[Mr Skeptic]

Ah, you mean removing a gene? That's fairly simple to do, and is not "modifying" the organism so much as "deleting" part of its genetic code. What remains is "natural" and contains nothing new, its just missing other stuff. Whereas if you remove a portion of a gene (not the whole gene) or change the gene, then you could end up with new proteins that weren't in the original organism. Is this what you were talking about?

[CharonY]

Well, an organism usually cannot be a catalyst, what they do is metabolize stuff. I suppose we do have a problem with definitions here but it should not really affect your question.

 

Actually, I can actually only point back to my former post.

Basically it does not matter if you remove add or do whatever with the genetic material. The main criterion is that you use a means that is different from that what might occur naturally. If you remove the gene that allows the synthesis of a product it does not count as genetic modification (under the law) if you use, for instance radiation or cross-breeding to achieve it. However using recombinant DNA techniques to get to the same result would count as genetic modification.

[TimbaLanD]

Thank you for your responses. Now I understand but I am puzzled to why it’s not genetically modified if you take genes away. It’s still modification I think. If you take one wheel away from a tricycle, it becomes a bicycle! This could be a bad example but I am using it to illustrate what I am trying to say…

[CharonY]

Technically adding, removing or changing a gene is a genetic modification. But legally only non-naturally occurring techniques are considered to be genetic modifications. Basically it is because it would be silly to try to regulate naturally occurring processes by law.

 

"Drop that conjugative plasmid you bastard. That cell is underage!"