MarkS September 6, 2016 07:32 AM What ignorant dangerous arrogance to believe that they (the scientists and the SBoA) know what the long term implications are, and to declare it safe. Off course, now that it has been accepted by the SBoA as "non GMO", the door will be flung open to other so called "non-GMO" foods, which are just re-branded GMO foods. It is setting a very dangerous precedent. These so called scientists use science as a religion when it suits them. As with most scientists evidence must be empirically verified, yet when it suits the investors/scientists (in many cases the same people) empirical evidence is spun to suit the desired outcome. Empirical evidence for this sort of experiment is not possible! The combinations of factors are to numerous and not even the combined computing power of all of the computers and humans in the world today can even come close to accurately map out every possible outcome. For any scientist to profess otherwise will be a blatant lie. This is not the first time this sort of greed has trumped common sense; cigarettes, lead in gasoline/petrol, Thalidomide, and many more similar events in history are bloody blotches where 'other humans' are being sacrificed for greed and the perpetrators walk away with no accountability, except with ballooning bank accounts. For the record, I am not against genetic research inside controlled environments, i.e. secure labs. But the scientists/investors want it out of the labs before the shit hits the fan. They want to ensure their own wealth so when the shit eventually hits the fan it is impossible to empirically prove culpability because "other factors, i.e. environmental or human interference such as genetic modification, pesti/insecticides" could conceivably contribute to the undesirable outcome. In the mean time anyone that protests GMO and genuinely ask for empirical evidence will be branded as lunatics, anti-science, ignorant to the suffering of starving millions, or whatever the pro-GMO spin doctors can contrive. JamesParenteau September 6, 2016 10:12 AM MarkS is right on mark with his comment. Although it is a shame that we need to treat GMO in this manner, because of corporate exploitation of growers worldwide, or the poisoning of our food, introduction of poisons in our food and other ingredients which likely cause Bee die-out or some forms of ailments in humans while consumed. There is no science when people go out and cook up whatever they desire and contaminate our biosphere with alien made biologic organisms. We as humans have the capacity for better practices when applying to better health. michael_dowling September 6, 2016 11:04 AM I don't understand what removing the PsBS protein does to the cabbage plant. piperTom September 6, 2016 11:04 AM It's good to see that, even in Europe, the door is opening to technical advances in biology. Far too long, the so-called Precautionary Principle has stifled innovation. The CRISPR technique has just recently made it far easier and cheaper to make accurate changes to genes. The non-GMO fanatics have to realize that CRISPR is not the last advance in bio-engineering, which will resemble electronic engineering in this respect: everything will continue to get cheaper, easier, and faster -- forever! So, there are two basic futures for bio-engineering. One where serious scientist do it in the open, with public review, feedback, and safeguards, or TWO, where talented amateurs do it in their kitchens. Regulators and their cheerleaders must face these two choices. "In the open" is by far the better choice. Dan Parker September 6, 2016 01:16 PM So, what did removing the PsbS protein do to this particular cabbage? Did it taste better? Will it last longer in the fridge? Did the cabbage grow faster or have more nutrients than a regular cabbage? What was the purpose of this experiment other than being the first to do it? This article left a lot of questions unanswered. McDesign September 6, 2016 01:41 PM MarkS - you aren't actually thinking; you're just parroting what you've heard, and conflating it with other things you've heard. That's the kind of thinking (sic) that gives us the candidates we have. C'mon - maybe you're right, but think for yourself. KimHunter September 6, 2016 01:55 PM "Gene silencing" GMO is the same technology as CRISPR genome editing, no? Studies showed gene silencing was found to be toxic long ago. http://kimhunter.ca/gmo/#gene_silencing Kyle McHattie September 6, 2016 04:08 PM This is how you get mutant zombies...do you want mutant zombies!? Noel K Frothingham September 6, 2016 08:47 PM The height of 'dangerous arrogance' is speaking as an authority on a particular subject when they are not while condemning all who do not share the same opinion. I am quite capable of doing my own research and drawing my own conclusions as are others who read this magazine/website. We read New Atlas (still can't quite fathom the name change), using it as a point of origin from which to ask intelligent - and relevant - questions. When I see the need to gather more information to either verify or eviscerate my personal point of view, I seek answers from people whose background I can verify and trust. They generally resist being drawn into 'black hole' arguments - whatever enters can not escape, including the truth. In other words, MarkS, when I want your opinion, I'll ask for it. PeterMooyman September 6, 2016 10:53 PM I agree with MarkS. If this is allowed, it sets a dangerous precedent, knowing that GMO foods can result in complete sterility within 3 generations. When we screw with Nature, it will bite back, and when it does, it will be too late.