Genetically Modified Potato Is Approved by U.S.D.A.
Source: New York Times
A potato genetically engineered to eliminate a potentially harmful ingredient that emerges in the high heat required for French fries and potato chips has been approved for commercial planting, the Department of Agriculture announced Friday.
The potatos DNA has been altered so that less of a chemical called acrylamide is produced when the potato is fried. Acrylamide has been shown to cause cancer in rodents and is a suspected human carcinogen. The newly designed potato also resists bruising.
The potato was developed by the J.?R. Simplot Company, based in Boise, Idaho, one of the nations largest potato producers and a major supplier of frozen French fries to McDonalds. The resistance to bruising is a characteristic long sought by commercial users of potatoes because the damage which usually occurs during storage and shipment makes them unusable.
Simplot is also applying for approval of another genetically modified potato that is resistant to late blight, the cause of the Irish potato famine. The U.S.D.A. is considering that application.
Read more: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/business/genetically-modified-potato-from-simplot-approved-by-usda.html
Very interesting. Seems quite useful.
In this instance, this modification creates a healthier potato.
Interestingly, GE is the most predictable of all of them, and the most researched and regulated, to boot.
there needs to be a system of regulation put into place for engineered life forms.
And focusing on only one seed development technology shows that the labeling movement is disingenuous from the word go.
More people are becoming informed. The fear mongering is hard to fight, but the anti-GMO nonsense will fail, in the end.
the ridiculous and dangerous state that the promoters of the technology (that you defend ) have landed us in.
Shame on you!
You have never been able to do so. Thus, your personal attacks are bizarre and lame.
Last edited Sat Nov 8, 2014, 02:24 AM - Edit history (2)
From the article:
acrylamide, which is suspected of causing cancer
the National Cancer Institute says that scientists do not know with certainty if the levels of the chemical typically found in food are harmful to human health.
Claiming it has health benefits is hype and PR, not science.
Even when you know that it's all about careful science.
And you know you'll push anti-science BS to the fullest, with no hedging, the next chance you get.
Intellectual honesty. Why do you hate it so much?
The real reason they made this:
Looks like the acrylamide stuff was added for PR and marketing.
And what other genetic modifications have been made?
sill and for weeks they do not spoil. They have no smell and no taste either. Yea for science. Same goes for apples. I use to work in produce in the 60's and what sells for produce today is not food.
Eat less chips and fries and the problem is solved.
I eat potatoes almost everyday however I boil them.
the ability to make it easier to dump tons of herbicides into the environment so as to maximize the yield of a specific crop.
'Most' by what measure? Most acreage under cultivation? Most individually separately patented? Most by volume processed into food for humans or livestock?
I'm saying that I object to 'Round-Up Ready' GMO and similar for environmental reasons that don't seem to apply in the case of this potato.
I don't think that's a good way to go.
The more research that is done, the more clear it becomes that GMOs are actually reducing pesticide use, land use, and more.
This is about the patent. It's likely an advertising disguised as news.
I remember the dawn of OAT BRAN
One day you saw on the noon news that OAT BRAN would eliminate fat
and cancer in the colon by harmlessly carrying the fat away
THE VERY NEXT WEEK you went to the store and OAT BRAN was everywhere
and OAT BRAN DOUGNHUTS quickly followed, at about $1.79 each
They were the heaviest donuts ever, like they were dipped in lard
In the case of the GMO POTATO:
For organic enthusiasts it's always been the pesticides that cause the worry
If I recall correctly that would be arsenics used to prevent nematodes
now if they could prevent the use of pesticides
THAT would be heathful
preventing cancer by eliminating acrylamides while keeping
arsenic in the mix
not a big enough breakthrough for me
President Obama has approved emergency use of sour cream and chives to combat the starchy menace.
that can handle current mass harvesting, handling, and transportation methods and times, but still taste like the ones you grow in your backyard. I would still like growing them myself sometimes, but this would be another good use of the technology.
I don't think this stuff will change gardening, at least not for me.
Get out of that state,
Get out of that state you're in.
Acrylamides might be in balance with some other component
or something else is produced, a calcified starch, or who knows
No bruising? Is this thing digestible? Impervious to stomach acid maybe?
Sounds like constipation at the least. Maybe it tastes like .... jicama and
All the scientists and all the GOP should test this potato for 6 months.
They're the ones pushing GMOs
There needs to be a regulatory system for the plants that result from this technology. If they won't allow for labeling, then proper regulation is required.
They can be prevented from reproducing with a simple piece of string via tuber ligation.
Of course you don't. They don't have to tell you.
The specific CSA's I deal with? Yes. They let us tour the farm.
If not, how can you actually know? There lack of regulations on organic herbicide/pesticide use is quite astounding.
And another issue is becoming very clear: Organic farms use too much land and resources. The ethics of organic produce on not necessarily positive.
Why Organic Isnt Sustainable
Let's be honest, this was intended to enhance commercial possibilities, not remove something that most people didn't know existed. Still, at least the pursuit of profit had a beneficial side-effect in this instance.
In a hundred years no-one will know what food used to taste like. But I'm sure it will have a very long shelf life after they take all the harmful "flavor".
More nuanced flavors were unusual, or only came about due to the necessity for preservative spices.
...not killing and eating a mastodon.
The potatos DNA has been altered so that less of a chemical called acrylamide, which is suspected of causing cancer in people, is produced when the potato is fried.
The biotech tubers were developed by the J. R. Simplot Company, a privately held company based in Boise, Idaho, which was the initial supplier of frozen French fries to McDonalds in the 1960s and is still a major supplier. The companys founder, Mr. Simplot, who died in 2008, became a billionaire.
McDonald's fries have 16 other ingredients besides acrylamide.
I haven't eaten McDonald's since the last century, but this meme is just not honest.
All of the McD's sandwiches showed signs of decomposition. Even the Big Mac began to rot to some degree after several weeks.
However, the fries appeared to resist rotting for up to ten weeks! What's in them?
Since the OP reported on a new GMO in the potatoes that were going to be used by McD's, I wondered just how many unnatural ingredients the new fries will contain.
And I, too, haven't eaten at McD's since the early 1970s! But my "boycott" was due originally to McD's approach to advertising and Ray Kroc's purchase of the San Diego Padres baseball team (1974). I was living in San Diego at this time when this happened--
He proved that class doesn't come from a wallet.
I don't get your response at all. It doesn't appear to be honest in any way, shape or form.
McDonald's serves shoestring potatoes. They are very thin and have no moisture to speak of.
Potatoes do not taste anything like they used to taste. To find anything even close to what they once were (and yes, I ate potatoes 3X a day when growing up) you must buy organic ones.
Many of the organic potatoes you buy are OLD and have been lying around for quite sometime and they have sprouts on them when (and if) you buy them.
Sad situation IMO as I was raised on potatoes as I mentioned and I enjoy them if they taste like potatoes, not some GMO'd crap.
Maine potatoes were known as the best potatoes for cooking. Idaho potatoes for French Fries and Pennsylvania potatoes for chips (Pennsylvania potatoes are mostly raised around Allegheny mountain).
Each areas potatoes tend to be breed for each if that final use. Right now fries are the big market thus Idaho potatoes is the most produced and thus are used in other products i.e. for cooking.
Maine potatoes have seen their market get smaller as the Idaho potatoes take over.
I live in Pennsylvania to the west of Allegheny mountain and our potatoes are still used for chips.
I started years ago to avoid the insecticide heavily used by the vegetable growers, and now even more reason to keep my garden active. Let the Repukes be be the subject of experiments!
All organisms are genetically modified. A GMO is just an organism modified with the aid of human intelligence. And as the very existence of human civilization indicates, our intelligence generally serves us better than unguided nature.
For every corporate foray into GMO foods I'd like to see publicly and privately funded efforts, magnitudes greater, to preserve heirloom genetic combinations and to create new Free and Open Source varieties of fruits, grains, nuts, and vegetables. A development process that works for computer software ought to work for potatoes too.
Imagine if there was a non-patented, non GMO potato, that competed favorably with this potato, and could be further developed by farmers to suit their local environments and practices. The world would be a wealthier place.
Monoculture of patented food varieties creates vast deserts lacking in biodiversity. That's bad.
It's the same reason you don't see tons of farms growing asparagus, brussels sprouts, etc. It's far easier to make money, and in a stable, dependable way, when you offer up the same few crops that everyone is used to, and that you can easily sell to wholesalers, who already have lined up purchasers. Doing 'niche' farming is always more time consuming and dangerous to the pocketbook, because you have to develop the chain to get them to the consumers, and you have to spend time building a consumer base. And, of course, that applies in all production, not just farming. It's why all the major car manufacturers keep spitting out nearly identical cars to one another, year after year, decade after decade. Sure, some people would love more choice, but it's 'safer' to build generically similar cars. They'll sell.
You do realize that niche farmers are doing it because they often make more money. There are many farmers that choose not to do so, because doing so would mean growing less food on more land, and they don't find that to be ethical.
I'm pretty sure if I thought 'farmers should not make a living', I would have actually said 'farmers should not make a living'.
I didn't see any questions in the comment to which I responded, just a set of statements that seemed sort of non sequiter.
In this set of replies, I believe my initial response was to something like 'Why aren't farmers jumping on heritage seeds'. I took that as a statement about large commercial farmers, since, of course, many small farmers and gardeners actually do keep planting heritage crops. So I pointed out that niche farming takes a lot more work to get established, and is possibly more economically unstable than monoculture. Obviously, there still are a number of niche market farmers who take the time and the risks, and, as you pointed out, also the rewards. But of course, the more people who grow any given niche product, the fewer rewards there are as supply grows relative to demand.
Your response to that was something about me not wanting farmers to make a living, which seemed totally unrelated to what I wrote.
So no, I don't know how dumb you are, or how dumb you look. I just don't know what the heck you're talking about.
Part of that is because you responded to this line, and ignored the line above where I also posted a link with information that kind of spells things out in a way that's not helpful to your apparent POV.
I told you I had objections to herbicide resistant GM, you said it seriously reduced the use of pesticides. You then provided a link that shows that no, it doesn't. If you look at Table 2 in the paper, in the column for GM crops with 'herbicide tolerance', you'll notice that pesticide use actually increases for those crops as opposed to traditional crops. The GM crops in which pesticide use actually decreases are those that have insect resistance, ie, the Bt crops, not the RoundUp Ready ones. I do agree that that table does point out that using GM, even 'herbicide resistant' GM makes farmers a lot more money, but then I also pointed out that people often choose how and what to plant based on monetary choices.
Now if I did make a mistake, it was in underestimating the ratio of Bt crops to RoundUp ones. Given the way in which the 'All GM' column is massively skewed towards the 'insect resistant' values rather than the 'herbicide tolerance' values, there's obviously a heck of a lot more Bt GM out there than I thought.
You don't get to pretend with me. You have to show that your claims can be proven. I point out one of the reasons why I don't trust you, and you offer up an incredibly ridiculous, and untrustworthy response. It makes me think you simply don't care about honest discussion.
I don't think you can come close to proving that claim, and I think you know it. That's why you didn't respond.
Intellectual honesty matters. Your preconceived objections are all good and well, but if they don't have a basis in reality, in science, they really don't matter. Perhaps you don't understand that about the world. You really should.