[nwatson]

In dealing with methylation one doesn't add to or remove the "code" to synthesize any particular protein from the cell(s) of the organism, the DNA/genes per se remains intact. The process inhibits / allows synthesis of particular proteins from the genes/DNA.

Think of it like software -- by flipping an A/B Switch in software configuration you don't add to or remove from a program, you merely turn on/off certain features. Same with methylation -- it's the A/B Switch for protein synthesis, FWIU.

[Gravityloss]

No, they are changing DNA, they are adding DNA code that does the demethylation of RNA.

It's like adding code to the compiler so it produces different assembly from the same higher level code. But it's still added code because the compiler itself is in the codebase.

[oh_sigh]

I think most lay people would view this as genetic modification, or at least "genetic manipulation", which might be even scarier.

Having said that, I'm pro-GMOs and always roll my eyes when brands go out of their way to say that they proudly don't use GMOs.

[bawolff]

Technically correct might be the best kind of correct, but i doubt it will change hearts and minds.

[adrianN]

It's enough to circumvent regulations for marking products as GMO.

[bawolff]

The EU definition is "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination". https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC5...

I'm honestly not sure which side of the definition this falls under. It certainly doesn't occur naturally.

[adrianN]

Yeah, seems like a case for the lawyers.