U.S.D.A. Approves Genetically Modified Potato

azmastablasta

New member
U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato. Next Up: French Fry Fans.
By ANDREW POLLACKNOV. 7, 2014

A potato genetically engineered to reduce the amounts of a potentially harmful ingredient in French fries and potato chips has been approved for commercial planting, the Department of Agriculture announced on Friday.

The potato’s 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 new potato also resists bruising, a characteristic long sought by potato growers and processors for financial reasons. Potatoes bruised during harvesting, shipping or storage can lose value or become unusable.

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 McDonald’s in the 1960s and is still a major supplier. The company’s founder, Mr. Simplot, who died in 2008, became a billionaire.
The potato is one of a new wave of genetically modified crops that aim to provide benefits to consumers, not just to farmers as the widely grown biotech crops like herbicide-tolerant soybeans and corn do. The nonbruising aspect of the potato is similar to that of genetically engineered nonbrowning apples, developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, which are awaiting regulatory approval.

But the approval comes as some consumers are questioning the safety of genetically engineered crops and demanding that the foods made from them be labeled. Ballot initiatives calling for labeling were rejected by voters in Oregon and Colorado this week, after food and seed companies poured millions of dollars into campaigns to defeat the measures.

The question now is whether the potatoes — which come in the Russet Burbank, Ranger Russet and Atlantic varieties — will be adopted by food companies and restaurant chains. At least one group opposed to such crops has already pressed McDonald’s to reject them.

Genetically modified potatoes failed once before. In the late 1990s, Monsanto began selling potatoes genetically engineered to resist the Colorado potato beetle. But the market collapsed after big potato users, fearing consumer resistance, told farmers not to grow them. Simplot itself, after hearing from its fast-food chain customers, instructed its farmers to stop growing the Monsanto potatoes.

This time around could be different, however, because the potato promises at least potential health benefits to consumers. And unlike Monsanto, Simplot is a long-established power in the potato business and presumably has been clearing the way for acceptance of the product from its customers.

Simplot hopes the way the potato was engineered will also help assuage consumer fears. The company calls its product the Innate potato because it does not contain genes from other species like bacteria, as do many biotech crops.

Rather, it contains fragments of potato DNA that act to silence four of the potatoes’ own genes involved in the production of certain enzymes. Future crops — the company has already applied for approval of a potato resistant to late blight, the cause of the Irish potato famine — will also have genes from wild potatoes.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

“We are trying to use genes from the potato plant back in the potato plant,” said Haven Baker, who is in charge of the potato development at Simplot. “We believe there’s some more comfort in that.”

That is not likely to persuade groups opposed to such crops, who say altering levels of plant enzymes might have unexpected effects.

Doug Gurian-Sherman, a plant pathologist and senior scientist at the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group, said that the technique used to silence the genes, called RNA interference, was still not well understood.

“We think this is a really premature approval of a technology that is not being adequately regulated,” he said, adding that his group might try to get a court to reverse the approval of the potato.

He said one of the substances being suppressed in the Innate potatoes appeared to be important for proper use of nitrogen by the plant and also for protection from pests.

The Agriculture Department, in its assessment, said the levels of various nutrients in the potatoes were in the normal range, except for the substances targeted by the genetic engineering. Simplot has submitted the potato for a voluntary food safety review by the Food and Drug Administration.

The company says that when the Innate potatoes are fried, the levels of acrylamide are 50 to 75 percent lower than for comparable nonengineered potatoes. It is unclear how much of a benefit that is.

The chemical causes cancer in rodents and is a suspected human carcinogen, though 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.

Still, Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology project director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group that deals with nutrition issues, welcomed the approval. “We support clearly trying to reduce consumers’ exposure to acrylamide and if this product helps do that, I think it’s a benefit,” he said.

Last year, the F.D.A. issued draft guidance advising the food industry how to reduce levels of acrylamide, which is also found in some baked goods, coffee and other foods. The agency listed numerous steps that could be taken in the growing, handling and cooking of potatoes. Many food companies no doubt have already taken steps to reduce acrylamide levels and might not need the genetically engineered potatoes.

Whether McDonald’s, which did not respond to requests for comment, adopts the potatoes is somewhat academic for at least another couple of years. Simplot anticipates that only a few thousand out of the nation’s more than one million acres of potatoes will be planted with Innate potatoes next year, far too little to serve fast-food chains.

Instead, the company will focus on sales of fresh potatoes and fresh-cut potatoes to supermarkets and food service companies and to potato chip manufacturers, said Doug Cole, a spokesman for Simplot.

The National Potato Council, which represents potato farmers, welcomed the approval, albeit with reservations.

John Keeling, chief executive of the trade group, said growers wanted new technology. But in comments to the Agriculture Department, the group has expressed concern that exports could be disrupted if genetically engineered varieties inadvertently end up in shipments bound for countries that have not approved the potatoes.

China, for instance, recently turned away shipments of corn containing small amounts of a genetically engineered variety developed by Syngenta that it had not approved for import. Some corn farmers and exporters have sued Syngenta for their losses.

Mr. Cole of Simplot said growers would have to keep the genetically engineered potatoes separate from others and out of exports at least for now. The company plans to apply for approval of the potatoes in the major markets, starting with Canada, Mexico, Japan and then other parts of Asia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/busine...-usda.html?_r=0
 
Personally, I'm getting pretty tired of these companies and their genetically engineered seeds that no one is allowed to replant. What's going to happen to the food supply when these companies decide to start jacking seed prices through the roof, limiting quantities of seed to artificially inflate the market for seed, when they figure out that the foods they've genetically modified are killing us faster than the ones God created?

It's already suspected that neonicotinoids are at least a part of problem in the losses of millions of hives of bees over the last decade. Neonicotinoids are insecticides used on many GMO crops. These insecticides are absorbed by the plant, and are found in every part of the plant; every part, including in it's finished product, which we all consume.

Neonicotinoids don't work like other insecticides however, they attack neurons in the brain, they affect the bugs memory to the point that they forget what they're supposed to eat, they forget they're supposed to eat altogether in many cases, in the case of bees they forget their way home. Oddly enough the incidence of numerous diseases surrounding memory loss in humans, spiked upward about the same time bees started dying, which was shortly after the introduction of neonicotinoids.




More here... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=neonicotinoids&aq=f

Neonicotinoids have been banned in Europe, Australia, Canada is now looking at banning them, but here in the good old USofA our fearless leaders pass legislation granting Monsanto immunity from prosecution. Kinda makes you wonder who's getting all the kickbacks here doesn't it?
 
Quote:In the late 1990s, Monsanto began selling potatoes genetically engineered to resist the Colorado potato beetle. But the market collapsed after big potato users, fearing consumer resistance, told farmers not to grow them. Simplot itself, after hearing from its fast-food chain customers, instructed its farmers to stop growing the Monsanto potatoes.....Quote:Neonicotinoids have been banned in Europe, Australia, Canada is now looking at banning them, but here in the good old USofA our fearless leaders pass legislation granting Monsanto immunity from prosecution. Kinda makes you wonder who's getting all the kickbacks here doesn't it?Not only did our politicians pass legislation protecting Monsanto from prosecution, but it also held Monsanto, specifically, immune from any civil liability for their experimentation....It really upset me that our Missouri Senator was one of the authors of the legislation, much less was willing to sign off on it...
 
Monsanto's answer to killing bees thus far, has been NOT to change anything about their neonicotinoids, but instead to genetically modify the bee to resist the chemical. While there may be some advantage to genetic modification of bugs, bees probably ain't one of them, because the last time anyone attempted genetically altering a bee, through simple hybridization, we wound up with killer bees.

Monsanto of course is NOT genetically altering a bee so that it is resistant to all pesticides, it is genetically altering a bee so that it is resistant to Monsanto herbicides, so that they can sell bee friendly pesticide suckin seeds to farmers that kill ALL OTHER INSECTS IN THE NATURAL FOOD CHAIN, you know the ones that the birds, and the frogs, and the lizards, and the fish, and the other insects all feed own, all of which is eaten by something else, which is in turn eaten by something else, but it won't harm the bee.

But anyhow, Monsanto is going to make a bee resistant to their chemicals, so they can sell their seed and chemicals to the farmer as bee friendly, and sell their insecticide friendly bee to the beekeeper. Thing is bees do this thing called swarming, which is a natural means of propagation of bees in any given area, so their sample strains would have to be rather well isolated to prevent them escaping. Then there is the small matter of the beekeeper having no control over the hive swarming once the genetically altered bee is introduced, and no control over whose bees the genetically altered drone bees are having babies with... It's just not inclined to be real successful in application, in the real world. Most scientists are entirely too ignorant to figure out all of the things that need to be figured out in the bee business. They sit in their isolated little labs, day in day out playing with them, at their leisure, not facing the real world problems of a commercial beekeeping operation. Not subjecting them to the stresses we do, without understanding of which, they are going to fail.

It's all about getting rich while playing God.
 
Professors at a state university told us this would happen in 71/72. They are well aware,and have been for many years,of what they are doing.The thing that is hard to understand is the support of so many in the Ag field through all those years. anytime man thinks he is smarter than nature it winds up bad.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top