GM Apples That Don’t Brown to Reach U.S. Shelves This Fall
technologyreview.com
technologyreview.com
That being said, I believe GMO food is the future. It's safe and environmentally friendly: we can use far less land and water to produce larger amounts of crops.
And at the end, what's the point? Regulate what you actually care about in the food, not what process was taken to get there.
They don't get worse. The antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" are not actually super in any other way. They just have a resistance to antibiotics. In other ways, they are just normal bugs, not super.
Just like vaccinations make people immune to certain diseases, but doesn't give us any other superpowers.
It's a hypothetical and a strained one at that, but all I'm saying is there are often long term consequences to short term gains that may not be considered in a prisoners' dillema ecological/economic scenario.
I'm not convinced market forces alone would be able to actually fix problems of this nature, but I'm inclined to consumer education over under labeling as a component in the mix.
Also, pest insects are not parasites. They're just insects that like to eat tomatoes, just like we do. Eating food is not parasitism.
The apple case is about modifying the levels of an enzyme, polyphenol oxidase [1]. But that is not what plant-eaters are interested in. They're interested in the food in an apple, not some enzyme levels.
I also believe in the promise of GMO food. Unfortunately the business practices of the main players get wrapped in with junk science for many in the anti-GMO crowed. It becomes an involved process to convince someone I don't think that someone's business practices are ethical while I admire the science they do, and isn't always received well.
I fear that with GMO we're going to go much farther and more quickly in that direction than we've been able so far using only "traditional" selective breeding. And that's already had a big impact on fruits and vegetable which have now less vitamins and minerals than varieties that used to be grown a few decades ago.
"Brown" is a sign of aging. And generally, fruit and vegetable nutritional content declines with aging.
So, by hindering these apples' browning, is this essentially facilitating their selling us a less nutritious product?
There is nothing in GMO technology that prevents making an unsafe or environmentally unfriendly GMO food.
It's just a tool, one that gives food makers power to produce a wider variety of new foods more rapidly than they could with non-GMO techniques. Whether they use it to produce safe foods or dangerous foods is up to each food maker.
To get good carrots, make sure you are digging/disturbing at least 8 inches of soil so that the carrots can easily grow downwards. Otherwise, when they face resistance, they will fatten and sprout other carrot limbs, etc.
Lemon juice used to be the trick, but if this does the trick then cool.
I know, my point was that so far my experience with apples made to be better commercially fail when it comes to taste. I wonder if this will be different.
A lot of the commercial varieties have lineages that are high in sugar.
Here is a nice 2013 article about a man who hunts old and abandoned orchards for old heirloom apple varieties. It also explains about the genetics of apples.
If you like the apples made by a particular tree, and you want to make more trees just like it, you have to clone it: Snip off a shoot from the original tree, graft it onto a living rootstock, and let it grow. This is how apple varieties come into existence. Every McIntosh is a graft of the original tree that John McIntosh discovered on his Ontario farm in 1811, or a graft of a graft. Every Granny Smith stems from the chance seedling spotted by Maria Ann Smith in her Australian compost pile in the mid-1800s.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/heritage-appl...
Even though the American ones were instantly attractive, it slowly dawned on me that perhaps something is wrong. Now I appreciate the Indian vegetables a lot more.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-why-cut-a...
Personally, I’d rather eat a gm crop that’s been altered to resist insects than eat an organic crop that’s been sprayed with organic pesticides such as (the now not used) rotenone.
That's why people distrust GMO - the companies that distribute don't want informed choice going on.
There are a bunch of therapies where Cas9 is being used by to therapeutically knock out or repair particular proteins. Indications currently targeted at Intellia: ATTR, Hepatitis B, AATD, PH-1, etc. [2].
[1] http://investors.biomarin.com/2017-07-11-BioMarins-Investiga...
Sigh.
It helps in no way to assess the freshness, taste, quality or anything about the apple. It just makes the exposed flesh turn brown after a few minutes.
More concerning is the (now) routine injection of carbon monoxide (CO) gas into packaging of beef steaks and mince. The meat can be literally spoilt/rotting, but will appear deep red and fresh in the packaging. One sniff betrays the appearance, however.
And antibiotics is now routine in pre-shredded cheese packages to reduce mold growth.
It looked like I just bought it when I found it again.
Realizing that honestly made me uncomfortable.
This is how we get out-of-season apples. They basically get stored in refrigerated warehouses.
Granted not all apples are like this. Some become mealy pretty quickly.
My crop easily lasts for 3 months in my storage fridge (and I don't take the time to sort them to properly eliminate bruised fruit, etc), but the key is cold and humid, not cold and dry.
I didn't notice how much I care until I recently went on vacation and there was no declaration on the restaurant menu on where the meet comes from and what it may contain.
Edit: For clarification, I live in Switzerland
Restaurants here are required to declare origin of the meat and will clearly state meat from certain places may contain those extra ingredients.
I actually don't know what you mean here. Do restaurants normally list the farm they get their meat from? Around here (Pittsburgh, PA) I don't think I've ever seen that, except at the "eat local" places, where it's basically their selling point, but they're not the norm.
For instance, I do not eat eat oysters from China (due to their record of gross pollution) or japanese seafood after the Fukushima incident (which continues to poison the ocean).
More than all the coal plants and mines in the US?
While it's commonly understood that coal-fired power plants release more radiation than (properly operated) nuclear plants per year, with Fukushima we are talking about a core meltdown and uncontrolled release for nearly a decade!
We are talking about anywhere from 100 to 400 Tons of contaminated water per day. It is truly a man-made disaster being ignored.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+tons+of+water+per+...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/fukushima-radiation...
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/376607-leakage-radiation-fukushim...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/world/asia/struggling-wit...
I have a hard time thinking of general reasons why you’d care of the meat was from, say, USA vs. New Zealand. Assuming you trust your local regulators that approved the meat for import.
I would doubt anyone would disagree with you in wanting to provide accurate information about what you are consuming. The question is, does a generic "GMO" label tell you anything useful when applied as a label, and conversely, does it tell you anything useful when not applied as a label? I'm not sure that label provides any meaningful information.
Because you (or anyone?) certainly knows all the genes that have been selected via cross and selective breeding and all possible ramifications, right?
You cannot prove something is harmless. Thats literally the opposite of science... you can not prove a negative.
He does have the courtesy to recognize that his thinking goes against the scientific method:
"While evidentiary approaches are often considered to reflect adherence to the scientific method in its purest form"
But then he just declares that his principle is superior to the scientific method:
"In the case of ruin, by the time evidence comes it will by definition be too late to avoid it."
He knows nothing about biology or argiculture:
"The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested empirically before release."
(In reality, crop plants don't survive in the wild even if you release them. No more than farm animals would.)
But then in section 12.8 he goes on to explain why he actually knows better than people who actually have domain expertise in the relevant sciences. It is a crafty tactic: He almost manages to convince you that you shouldn't listen to experts, and then he cites that there is a historical track record of experts having been wrong in their subject domains. And that you should listen to outsiders like him.
Why? There are always many unknowns with cross breeding.
> transgenics
Not all GMO is taking genes from other species. Some, like this article, simply turn off the expression of a specific gene.
> The latter relies on the "genius" of the human
How is that any different than selective breeding?
> something which is inherently fragile.
We've selectively bread many species into very unhealthy breeds. Just look at many do breeds with hip or breathing issues. Selective and cross breeding isn't without risks either.
> We need honest conversation about agricultural biotechnology, both about the facts regarding its health and environmental risks and benefits, and also about how this technology fits with or conflicts with our values about large scale monoculture farming and big companies having too much influence and about the harm that some modern technologies certainly do to the natural world. Sadly, the essay by Taleb et.al. poses as objective argument but is clearly advocacy trying to hide in a rationalist’s clothing. It doesn’t hide very well, and in its deceit only further polarizes discussion of an important risk issue we do have analyze carefully, objectively, and honestly.
I think the bigger issue I have with this kind of argument (beyond the lack of solid scientific basis) is that we do so many things that are known to actually be terrible or have terrible ramifications if done wrong (burning coal, mining coal, removing mountaintops to mine, drilling for gas, drilling for oil, transporting gas and oil thousands of miles, &c) and yet very few people blink an eye.
The day every person who is concerned about the effects of GMO plants also is as concerned and vocal about the amount of greenhouses gases, particulate matter, as well as the toxic and radioactive chemicals released by coal powered power plants, then we can start to talk. Those emissions are known to be extremely dangerous to us and the environment. Yet, no one seems to care because they're used to it -- it's not a change.
The only thing a label that says “GMO” would tell you is that there has been more regulatory review of what is in it than if it wasn't a GMO.
When you consume food, you are consuming the GMO/non-GMO elements by definition.
Hormones: I guess we should ban birth control as well, correct? Because that's all it is...
But, I believe in a free society, so if people wish to remain ignorant of science, that's their prerogative. But it's important to recongize those are just marketing campaigns: there is nothing "healthier" about eating beef raised antibiotic/hormone free, all other things being equal (living conditions for the animals).
Issues around proper usage of antibiotics, especially now with the constant emergence of new resistant strains of bacteria is one concern, along with proper disposal and excess dosage making it into the environment. There are also animal welfare issues and concerns, I'm unfortunately not well-versed enough in ranching to know how true those are. (And as a vegetarian find growing animals for food repulsive to begin with.)
Hormones stem again from animal welfare issues.
It's unfair to just toss out all concerns over hormones and antibiotics just because some concerns aren't merited or as merited.
We don't usually give birth control hormones to male humans. I don't know if they are bad when they are given to animals (it's forbidden here in Europe) but female hormones are definitely not good to developing children or adult males.
They're just good/neutral (well, not functionally neutral of course, but not causing unplanned disruption) to adult females because they're part of their normal physiology.
This comment presents a false premise. The amounts in beef are ridiculously small, especially when compared to other foods. Any "advantages" to "hormone free beef" are pseudoscience and a marketing campaign, and that's it.
My point was the original comment implying that hormones are not harmful because they are used for birth control, which is shortsighted and plain wrong.
Bottom line: You clearly don't mind the idea of additional hormones in farm-raised beef. That's great you've made a decision based on your risk assessment and information.
I'm simply asking to be extended the same courtesy. I want information to make my own informed choice.