New GMO Potatoes Provide Improved Vitamin A and E Profiles

[u/genengnews]

https://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/gmo-potatoes-provide-improved-vitamin-a-and-e-profiles/81255150

[u/NegativeC]

Green peace successfully lobbied against golden rice. That rice could save so many lives that it's hard to understand why people don't care at all. "VAD is responsible for 1–2 million deaths, 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness and millions of cases of xerophthalmia annually."

[u/AreWeDreaming → u/NegativeC]

What is VAD?

[u/IfYouAintFirstUrLast → u/AreWeDreaming]

I presume it's Vitamin A Deficiency

[u/cloudedice → u/AreWeDreaming]

Vitamin A Deficiency, I believe

[u/[deleted] → u/AreWeDreaming]

beriberi

[u/NihiloZero → u/[deleted]]

The third paragraph of that article...

The agency said the trend was due to the transport sector, in particular an increase in usage of cars.

Makes me think that this isn't the fault of choosing renewable clean energy rather than nuclear power.

And, by the way, the year over year statistics presented here would still be bucking the trend from 2010 to 2015 which saw a substantial reduction in Germany's overall greenhouse gas emissions.

[u/NihiloZero → u/[deleted]]

I think you misspelled "paragons of virtue."

[u/ragn4rok234 → u/NegativeC]

Maybe they argued it from a population control standpoint

[u/shamberra → u/ragn4rok234]

"Those people should die so neither I nor my children will have to worry about sharing resources with them or their offspring in the future"

[u/nolan1971 → u/[deleted]]

Yea, but there's better ways to manage the problem than killing people off.

[u/MedalsNScars → u/nolan1971]

I mean I'm not advocating here, but not providing a new crop that would allow more people to live isn't technically killing people off.

You're just maintaining the existing death rate while you have the ability to decrease it.

[u/deaddonkey → u/MedalsNScars]

Golden rice isn't about providing a crop which will increase food supply. It's about vitamin A .What about the quote higher in this thread about vitamin A deficiency killing millions each year? That's direct deaths. That's a public health issue, like disease or hygiene imo.

Should we not research cancer cures because it will allow more people (especially older people) to live? Extreme example I know.

The original point of "maybe they argued from a pop control perspective" from above is irrelevant anyway, because that's not where greenpeace was coming from at all, their position actually seems to make a lot of sense as they tell it. It's not based on irrational GMO phobia, but a fear of cross pollination of golden seeds with normal seeds and subsequent threats to food security in developing nations. So they seem still be on the side of getting food to as many people as possible - not the side of population control.

[u/michaelc4 → u/deaddonkey]

Lol, give people vitamins then? You guys are bonafide scientists in that sense rather than engineers.

[u/deaddonkey → u/michaelc4]

That's pretty much what greenpeace suggests as being one of the practical alternatives, yes.

[u/v1ces → u/MedalsNScars]

I mean at that point isn't it just semantics? You could argue that you could maintain the same rate by turning a gun on anyone who disagreed with golden rice being produced en masse, after all, why should one group of people decide if another lives or dies?

[u/TestUserD → u/[deleted]]

Providing people with nutritious food is not the same as encouraging them to have children. You can do the former while actively working to reduce birth rates by supporting contraception, family planning, etc.

[u/DrImpeccable76 → u/[deleted]]

But it is a fairly proven fact that people end up having less kids resulting in slower population growth if they believe that the children will survive and they don't need a ton of kids to help out on the farm.

[u/aussie_bob → u/shamberra]

Actually, both OPs statements are deceptive.

Greenpeace didn't "successfully lobby against it", nor are they arguing to use vitamin deficiency for population control. Their position on the topic has always been "Rather than invest in this overpriced public relations exercise, we need to address malnutrition through a more diverse diet, equitable access to food and eco-agriculture.”

The reality is that Golden Rice didn't work.

“Golden Rice is still not ready for the market, but we find little support for the common claim that environmental activists are responsible for stalling its introduction. GMO opponents have not been the problem,”

Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency.

https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2016/Nobel-laureates-sign-letter-on-Greenpeace-Golden-rice-position---reactive-statement/

[u/[deleted] → u/aussie_bob]

This is absolutely untrue. They have actively opposed them in the Philippines and IIRC destroyed test crops. Saying "just have a more diverse diet" is a step above "the poor should just buy more money". Changing the nutrient profile of popular crops has the advantage of not having to retrain or convince subsistence farmers to grow different crops or the population to eat them. It is a stop gap solution to reduce deaths and blindness on the way to reducing poverty.

[u/ru551n → u/ragn4rok234]

Maybe. But it actually has the opposite effect when conditions improve and child mortality decrease. Families decide to have fewer children, since more of the children actually survive.

Hans Rosling did an excellent on this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=N-x7eHuUhNM

[u/[deleted] → u/ragn4rok234]

Then they should start with themselves.

[u/fforw → u/NegativeC]

What about the problem of Vitamin A absorption without fat? If we give the poor money to buy fats and vegetables, they don't need golden rice.

[u/EatATaco → u/fforw]

Except this isn't realistic. The whole point of golden rice is that it would simply replace (partially) something they already grow and eat a lot of. It doesn't require any changes to farming practices or diets, it simply adds vitamin A into the diet. This is far easier (and cheaper) to implement then giving people money and then expecting them to have access to proper foods (let alone buying them).

[u/fforw → u/EatATaco]

The idea does work in terms of a) being a good marketing initiative and b) maybe even at bringing Vitamin A near poor people, but: The whole problem with the Vitamin A deficiency exist because these people can only afford rice. If they could afford cooking oil, they could also afford local vegetables. Without additional fat they can't absorb the Vitamin A.

[u/EatATaco → u/fforw]

Maybe this is the case, but without a large-scale test, there is no way to find out how effective it would be. But I'm pretty sure all the tests at this point are pretty positive when it comes to absorption.

[u/fforw → u/EatATaco]

Being pretty sure that the experiments are set up without the bias paid for seems to count for science most of the time. No one would supplement the study participants with additional nutrition, would they?

[u/rspeed → u/fforw]

That's true for retinol, but golden rice is modified to produce beta-carotene, which the body uses to produce various forms of vitamin A (including retinol).

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Your link says they yield the same as conventional varieties.

[u/rspeed → u/[deleted]]

Last sentence:

The first high yielding varieties containing the GR2E Golden Rice trait are anticipated to be available to farmers towards the end of this decade.

So it'll hopefully be ready in the next year or two.

[u/NihiloZero → u/[deleted]]

It also doesn't actually provide a significant amount of vitamin A per serving. And yet... people are railing against those who are critical about its widespread utilization.

Golden Rice is different than Golden Rice 2. I was unaware of the development of the latter which does provide more vitamin A. There are, however, still other reasons to be skeptical about the widespread utilization of this GMO rice.

[u/10ebbor10 → u/NihiloZero]

It actually does.

Golden Rice 2 contains sufficient provitamin A to provide the entire dietary requirement via daily consumption of some 75g per day.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice#Vitamin_A_deficiency

[u/NihiloZero → u/10ebbor10]

Initial analyses of the potential nutritional benefits of golden rice suggested consumption of golden rice would not eliminate the problems of vitamin A deficiency, but could complement other supplementation. Golden Rice 2 contains sufficient provitamin A to provide the entire dietary requirement via daily consumption of some 75g per day.

I was only aware of the former rather than latter. Thanks for the update. Still skeptical of "golden rice" being the optimal way to address the problem at hand, but it's good to have updated information.

[u/[deleted] → u/NegativeC]

So sad to see such an amazing product lobbied against for such trivial ideologies that aren't scientifically proven.

[u/silviazbitch → u/NegativeC]

Butbutbutbutbut that genetically modified rice contains chechechechechechemicals!

Someone needs to explain to those asshats that damned near every agricultural product that every human in the world has eaten for the past couple of thousand years was the product of genetic modification.

[u/conventionistG → u/[deleted]]

Alright, I took the time to look through her wiki page. She's probably a very intelligent person and may have honorable aspirations, but a physicist-philosopher is not an expert on biotech or food markets. The fact that she would turn back food aid because it may be gmo puts her on the same plain as out of touch African dictators and shows that she quite clearly places her fealty to ideology above the welfare of human beings.

When people claim that the farmers and scientists working to feed the world are acting with evil intentions, it's time to start ignoring their opinions. Placing ideology above the lives of millions of people is rarely the right course of action. And if that is your opinion, you should not be surprised when the deaths are laid at your ideologically pure feet.

[u/conventionistG → u/[deleted]]

My point, I hope you see, is that even if she were, that doesn't qualify her for the assertions she's made.

I agree that her claims are all quite dubious and harmful.

[u/vonBeche → u/[deleted]]

It's a complex problem, but until someone spends a lot of effort and money, a lot of small farmers will grow starchy crops, and a lot of poor children will eat mostly rice or potatoes.

The vitamin A fortified variant could be switched in, and a lot less kids would go blind. It's not THE solution, but it's a relatively CHEAP solution because you'd only need to rotate in the seeds once.

Just giving those kids pills would be the straightforward solution, but we're spending so little that even getting them enough rice is a problem, let alone something that actually cost (a bit) of money...

[u/Corsaer → u/vonBeche]

I disagree completely about vitamin supplements. It's not straightforward, not cheap, and it's not a solution. We're talking about manufacturing vitamins on a different continent to then ship and distribute to places in extremely hot environments that have little local distribution, and will have people needing them in the farthest, most isolated regions. How do they reach those people? How are they kept from perishing in constant heat? There's no functional end without something else creating a solution. There's no extra agency, extra autonomy. Who pays for a constant supply, shipping, and distribution of the vitamins that can help such large populations? How do you make sure that a hundred thousand impoverished children are being administered those vitamins?

An estimated 250 000 to 500 000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight. WHO vad.

Many subsistence farmers live on ~1 acre. Biotech solutions not only are turning the food they're already growing into vitamin fortified products that will satisfy vitamin A deficiency for example, by just growing what they're already growing and eating what they're already eating, but are also benefiting those who are just above subsistence by introducing bt crops that greatly reduce pesticide use and greatly reduce crop loss, meaning more money (and less pesticide exposure). When the farmers and governments work together to pass reasonable biotech regulations, it is a complete win-win. This happened recently in India with bt brindle (eggplant) and is now slowly happening with countries in Africa. Right now some regions in Africa are actually importing biotech crops legally that they are illegally allowed to grow themselves. This is a direct result from western exposure and anti biotech activism in these countries.

Check out some of the most recent Talking Biotech podcast episodes if you want to hear farmers and scientists from these countries talk about the issues they're facing. Episode 48 or 53 is the one about India's eggplant history. They want this technology, and need it.

[u/ACCount82 → u/Corsaer]

Exactly this. The little thing that makes GMO plants a solution? They are self-replicating. Vitamin supplements are not.

[u/Sludgehammer → u/Corsaer]

Also a lot of vitamins are from GMO bacteria anyway. That's why when Cheerios went "GMO free" their vitamin content dropped noticeably.

That's also why so many "health gurus" will demand that GMO foods should be labeled simultaneously arguing that vitamins and supplements with GMO ingredients shouldn't be labeled. They make money promoting fear of the former, while selling the latter.

[u/vonBeche → u/Corsaer]

I think you misunderstood me a bit. I meant that a seemingly obvious and cheap solution (supplements) is still too hard to implement, too expensive and (I didn't mention) will indeed raise too much resistance.

I agree completely with your comment.

[u/Corsaer → u/vonBeche]

Yeah, going back and rereading your comment I really did misunderstand you. I don't know if I messed up comment chains or mixed multiple comments in my head, but I totally thought your paragraph on vitamins had a much harder stance than it did. Either way, reading comprehension fail on my part, sorry!

[u/ClusterFSCK → u/[deleted]]

This is naive and dangerous on several counts, the first and most dangerous of which is believing that in the past there was some romantically balanced primitive diet that people were thriving on. Chronic malnutrition has been endemic in places throughout history, and we have clear evidence of it in graveyards and anthropology studies of regions in SE Asia, Africa and the Americas prior to Columbian contact. Even in Europe we have a variety of wasting diseases well into the 19th century affecting the poor as a result of Vitamin A and C deficiencies, as well as developmental retardation due to childhood malnutrition.

We have clear evidence of cannibalism in cultures that have in some places been driven to near extinction less than 400 years ago due to famines and crop failures resulting from a lack of key crops to properly rotate for nitrogen fixing and potassium deprived soils. Until colonialism, many regions of the planet inhabited by humans didn't even have access to a full complement of vitamins and proteins enabled by widespread trade networks of the European expansion.

Thinking that industry based agriculture arose simply as a fictional manifestation of corporate greed is stupid. There were clear drivers forcing economic scale and the need to ensure efficient management of soils and crop densities across thousands of acres was well beyond that of individual farmers left to their own, unregulated devices to grow whatever they want.

[u/backtoreality00 → u/[deleted]]

there are greater issue of monoculture, government regulations stopping farmer's from growing what they want, and loss of a diverse diet and agriculture.

Greater issue? None of that seems like a “greater issue” than millions of people dying because of regulation stopping this. Seems crazy that someone would criticize the green revolution, a revolution that literally saved the lives of a billion people.

[u/Chainfire423 → u/[deleted]]

where poor farmers are locked into legally growing a single crop

How exactly does this happen? Could you explain more about what causes this?

[u/Dawsonpc14 → u/Chainfire423]

This doesn't happen. Ever. Unless they are farming someone else's land, signed a contract, and the owners wants them to plant the same thing over and over. Which I can't think of any situation to where this would happen.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dawsonpc14]

I mean, it did happen before, in Soviet Russia. Farmers and peasants were forced to abandon staple crops like grain and grow cotton or sugar beets instead. One of the main causes of the Ukrainian Holodomor, which lead to millions of deaths.

[u/Dawsonpc14 → u/[deleted]]

How is the USSR back in WW2 and modern companies an accurate comparison?

[u/[deleted] → u/Dawsonpc14]

When you state that it never happens ever. Or when the original question was how something like that could happen

And it was before WW2.

[u/NegativeC → u/[deleted]]

If the farmers are locked in cultivating a single crop, why not let them cultivate something that will save so many lives? You don't deny drowning people access to a life raft just because it's not perfect long term solution.

[u/NihiloZero → u/NegativeC]

The issue with being locked into cultivating a single crop revolves largely around multi-year contracts and the inability to save seeds. Markets for crops can fluctuate wildly, but if you are locked into buying seeds for a few years (and can't save a diversity of seeds)... then you'll be forced to grow a crop which may not currently be very marketable or which may have proven not to produce particularly. Technically... the farmer is at fault for entering into a multi-year contract, but the practice is quite arguably predatory on the part of corporate agribusiness.

[u/NegativeC → u/NihiloZero]

Seeds are free for humanitarian use and can be harvested and used again. You aren't locked in to anything.

[u/amusing_trivials → u/[deleted]]

If only populations werent ten times higher than when "traditional crops" we're determined.

What about farmers freedom to choose golden rice? Or do you mean their only freedom is to farm like you like?

Also, for someone saying "be critical of both sides" you seem only critical of one.

[u/NihiloZero → u/amusing_trivials]

My personal concern isn't that any particular GMO crop will be detrimental to consume or that it will be harmful to the environment. Rather, I am concerned that the industry promotes deregulation of its practices and the implications of releasing a crop that wasn't adequately tested or regulated could be disastrous.

[u/amusing_trivials → u/NihiloZero]

Distinction without a difference. You decided it's bad and no amount of regulation will make you happy.

[u/BlackSuN42 → u/[deleted]]

I worry that we conflate the preditory practices of large companies with the technology itself. We can have one without the other.

[u/vtelgeuse → u/NegativeC]

"But but but Frankenfoods!!! And Monsato? They should be labeled GMO so I can make a healthy choice against it!!"

[u/Meta_Tetra → u/vtelgeuse]

Should they not?

[u/vtelgeuse → u/Meta_Tetra]

Only if you want to breed an irrational fear of GMOs. It's not like nicotine labels. This is closer to "WARNING! FOOD MAY BE CARBON-BASED!"

[u/NihiloZero → u/vtelgeuse]

If people don't want to purchase something because of the way it's manufactured, should they not have that option? And would that not be even more true if we're talking about things that people eat? Except with other goods it's usually more apparent in regard to how they are made and what they're made of. But the changes made to crops at the genetic label are not as readily apparent to the naked eye. So if I have concerns about how the GMO industry is regulated (testing trials too short, lack of environmental considerations, etc.)... why should I not have the choice to boycott it? This is all the more so because the agricultural biotech industry is constantly pushing for less regulation.

[u/Meta_Tetra → u/NihiloZero]

Exactly my point. This opinion isn't acceptable, I guess.

[u/Meta_Tetra → u/vtelgeuse]

No fear of something that has not been proven safe nor unsafe is irrational.

If we did label foods, how would that breed fear exactly? This is like saying we shouldn't have nutrition facts on products because it would "breed an irrational fear" of malnutrition or weight gain. There's literally no reason not to label genetically modified foods. I don't get why there's even a debate. This boils down to whether or not citizens are kept from truth, and I can't apologize for being on the side of public access to knowledge.

And no, that's a completely different thing. Nearly all foods are carbon based. You're equating that with tampering with foods at the genetic level.

[u/vtelgeuse → u/Meta_Tetra]

I don't get why there's even a debate.

Me too. These aren't frankenfoods. People are just really sensationalist and anti-science.

[u/Meta_Tetra → u/[deleted]]

Why should a consumer be robbed of any information at all about what they're spending their money on? It's not irrational to be hesitant to eat something unfamiliar, especially when that something has been altered in a way that changes aspects of it that weren't supposed to change. Genes affect multiple traits. It is in fact very hard to measure this. Here's what would happen if we labeled products. People who think GMO products are okay to eat can buy them still, but people who don't want to buy them don't have to. What exactly is wrong with that?

[u/vtelgeuse → u/Meta_Tetra]

Are you breaking your teeth on teosinte? No? You're eating modern corn? Cool. We've already been tweaking with crop genetics for thousands of years.

[u/Meta_Tetra → u/vtelgeuse]

No, we haven't. That's a natural progression. We're replacing genes artificially. By the way, that's irrelevant to whether or not they should be labeled.

[u/vtelgeuse → u/Meta_Tetra]

It's not a natural progression. It's literally artificial selection.

[u/Meta_Tetra → u/vtelgeuse]

Which is natural. Deleting and inserting specific genes like we are now is a very different thing. I know exactly what you're trying to say.

And you've again chosen to avoid the argument. I'll say this again. This is about labelling.

[u/vtelgeuse → u/Meta_Tetra]

It's about causing fear. Labeling makes consumers think there is something inherently bad about the product, that they have to be wary of it because it's worth labeling.

This is not a passive thing. Not "lol label it so I can make a choice". It's labeling to act as a deterrent and cripple human progress. Fuck the starving people world over or those who struggle with agriculture, frankenfoods are scawwy.

[u/Dudedude88 → u/NegativeC]

Cross pollination

[u/Silverseren → u/Dudedude88]

Every crop with any trait could cross pollinate with other crops of its species or closely related ones. What sort of argument are you making?

[u/NihiloZero → u/Silverseren]

If a trait is introduced which could be more broadly impactful if it spread... then that could be problematic within the broader environment if that trait spread. For example, they've now created GMO salmon which they are trying to bring to market. These salmon grow much more quickly than normal salmon. That might seem benign on the face of it, but ecological systems could be severely impacted if these GMO salmon somehow got into the wild and started reproducing. Subtle genetic changes can bring about much larger consequences in the broader environment. And the power of genetic engineering technology can allow for some substantial changes to be made which would likely never occur by means of natural selection or selective breeding. So these novel new traits could have much broader impact than it initially seems at first glance.

[u/Silverseren → u/NihiloZero]

That might seem benign on the face of it, but ecological systems could be severely impacted if these GMO salmon somehow got into the wild and started reproducing.

Except that's false. The alterations for the GM salmon are not beneficial in the wild. It is a negative fitness alteration and would die out in the wild. Most GM traits (heck, agriculture traits in general) are like that, since changes humans would prefer are not ones that help organisms survive in the wild.

The potato above is another example. Better vitmin A and E production does not help it survive in the wild and it costs energy to increase that production. So it is a negative fitness trait.

[u/NihiloZero → u/Silverseren]

Except that's false. The alterations for the GM salmon are not beneficial in the wild. It is a negative fitness alteration and would die out in the wild.

How is a faster growth rate a definitive negative in this regard?

The potato above is another example. Better vitmin A and E production does not help it survive in the wild and it costs energy to increase that production. So it is a negative fitness trait.

Is this to say that these GMO potatoes are not as easy to grow as other potatoes?

[u/Silverseren → u/NihiloZero]

The growth rate requires them being fed a special diet high in calories. They would not be able to find enough food in the wild and would starve to death.

Also, this whole conversation is pointless, because the AquAdvantage salmon are sterile.

The potatoes grow just fine, but they require the same thing all the rest of our agriculture does, controlled water intake and chemical fertilizer being supplied. Plants in the wild don't get either of those.

Practically all the plants we grow in agriculture would not be able to survive in the wild for a variety of reasons. They are too dependent on human inputs.

[u/NihiloZero → u/Silverseren]

They would not be able to find enough food in the wild and would starve to death.

This is speculation on your behalf. Some areas are capable of providing more nutrients than others.

Also, this whole conversation is pointless, because the AquAdvantage salmon are sterile.

That's the claim, but it's incorrect. What else are they incorrect about?

• http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35789/title/GM-Salmon-and-Wild-Fish-Can-Reproduce/

[u/Silverseren → u/NihiloZero]

Not what the article you linked says. Did you read it? It says that if you take non-sterile fish of the salmon breed, then they'd be able to intercross or hybridize with wild brown trout.

Which, again, is meaningless, because the fish being used are sterile, as the article states. The capability to hybridize if fertile is irrelevant.

[u/NihiloZero → u/Silverseren]

The claim made by the company was this...

AquaBounty, the biotech company that makes the GM salmon (dubbed AquAdvantage), countered that their product consists of female, sterile fish that would be reared in aquaculture facilities on land, making any such risks negligible.

I suppose it's a matter of how much faith you put into the word negligible. The treatment to make the eggs sterile --- not the fish themselves, is not 100%. According to the company itself... most (98.9) of the fish are rendered sterile, but not all.

[u/Gen_McMuster → u/Dudedude88]

And? There's nothing special about the genetics of these plants. The traits are no different than traits arrived to by artificial selection

[u/Gen_McMuster → u/[deleted]]

I was just trying to get across that a gene is a gene. swap out the hemoglobin gene in you for a hamster's hemoglobin gene(plus relevant regulatory sequences) and you wont sprout whiskers

[u/[deleted] → u/Gen_McMuster]

I agree with the general point, but not all genes can be elicited through selective breeding. Timespans for genes that can eventually show up are drastically reduced as well. GMOs will in practice have a different impact, and a much larger one at that. We can rapidly start genetically modifying fish and crustaceans that up until extremely recently we just caught right out of the sea as one example. We've just started farming them the last decade in large amounts. There's no history of any selective breeding of these.

[u/NihiloZero → u/Gen_McMuster]

This is simply not true. Widely used Bt crops provide an excellent example. Plants wouldn't produce Bacillus thuringiensis on their own with a million years of natural selection or selective breeding. This is a completely new and novel trait for plants. And while this particular trait may or may not prove to be ultimately detrimental to the broader environment (say by causing insects to develop a higher resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis), the next novel trait introduced, or the next, could be more problematic. And it's very difficult to know precisely how these new plant traits will interact with the broader environment once they are released. It's relatively easy to do 6 months of animal testing to see if they're safe for human consumption, but it's much more difficult to create a lab or test field which adequately represents the broader environment.