I’m thinking of organising a pro-rates-rises campaign. We need to donour part while we still can instead of pushing more costs onto future generations, they’ll have enough existential disasters to deal with.

A significant proportion of voters do seem to be selfish idiots.

The plasmid DNA found in the cows with antibiotic resistance genes were likely inactive, posed minimal biosafety risk, and the issue reflects early QC lapses, rather than inherent dangers of gene editing. It’s good to be cautious, but IMHO overstating risks doesn’t help efforts to avoid real risk.

You’re fine with plants and animals bred based on specific selected genes being present or absent eh?

Yep, but the way you wrote your statements sound like there’s zero oversight and it’s a total free-for-all, which it isn’t. As your submission says SDN-1 edits produce plants indistinguishable from conventional breeding/variation - I agree it should be limited to plants, excluding any native plants.

I’m surprised Greenpeace is saying “If passed, the Bill would allow genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be released into the environment – with no risk assessments, no oversight, no tracking, and no accountability.” - that’s not what the Bill says at all. The whole guts of it is risk-based.