The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), armed with their infinite wisdom and complete disregard for the health of Americans, have ruled a new genetically engineered mushroom will not need any regulation to enter the market place!

This particular mushroom, created by Yinong Yang, a plant pathologist at Pennsylvania State University, looks exactly like the white mushrooms found in our local grocery store. Of course, this mushroom is actually different from the mushroom in the grocery stores, some of its genetic code as been removed by CRISPR technology, in a process being called genetic editing.

Online Yoga Classes

Traditionally, genetic engineering involves changing the genetic makeup of an organism by adding things like viruses, bacteria and DNA from animals to seeds. Conversely, genetic editing also changes the genetic makeup, but does so by removing genes. They are simply the opposite sides of the genetic manipulation coin. However, the USDA ruled genetic editing does not need to go through the pre-market regulation process, unlike its traditional genetic engineering counterpart.

The USDA and FDA pre-market “regulations” on GMO crops are laughable already, consisting of the biotech companies running their own criminally-shortened 90 day “long-term” safety studies. However, this ruling allows biotech to avoid the safety studies all together, resulting in unsuspecting consumers buying this mushroom with the assumption the mushrooms are  safe to eat.

How can they allow this?

Well, they are using a 100-year-old genetics theory called one gene one protein/enzyme hypothesize, which theorizes that every individual gene is responsible for coding one specific enzyme. Therefor, if this theory is right, removing DNA from an organism — in this case to stop the mushroom from browning — will only affect the browning process because that trait is all those genes are responsible for.

However, this is a very simplistic theory that drastically underestimates the true complexity of genetics. Oversimplification and underestimating a complex situation is almost expected when exploring new scientific frontiers. Although, what is not expected is regulatory agencies using outdated theories that have long-sense been proven wrong to allow genetically engineer plants into the environment.

Simply put, we now know that the genome is much more complex and that one gene can code hundreds of enzymes (meaning one gene can be responsible for creating hundreds of traits). Dr. Jay Wile has written quite a few good articles on this subject, including the articles entitled One Gene = One protein? Not even close, where he explains:


Well, recent studies show that the cSlo gene uses alternative splicing to create 576 different proteins, each with a slightly different electrical response. As a result, when researchers studied the hair cells on one end of the cochlea, they found one of the proteins. When they looked at the hair cells on the other end, they found another protein. In between, they found 574 other proteins, each of which was ideal for producing a strong response to a specific sound frequency.

In other words, the exons and introns of the cSlo gene have been set up so that each hair cell can use alternative splicing to produce a protein that is perfect for the frequencies to which it is supposed to respond most strongly! The design is so detailed that each hair cell can choose from among 576 different proteins in order to get a good response. All of this is the result of a single gene!

This illustrates how we simply do not know every trait each individual gene is responsible, making removing any traits extremely dangerous. Therefor, until scientist get a firmer grasp on the complex nature of the genome, banning foods that are genetically edited (and genetically engineered crops) is the only logical conclusion. However, the USDA completely throw caution to the wind by allowing these crops in the food supply WITHOUT any safety studies!!

Congratulations USDA, you out did yourself on this one.

Although, you may have inadvertently exposed your true goals and agenda to those that still believe your purpose is to protect the American people. It should now be abundantly clear  you were designed to protect the interest of the industries you claim to regulate.