Genetically Modified, Caffeine-Free Coffee

pyrrho writes: "Coffee, Genetic Modifications... perfect for Slashdot. Kona Coffee Growers want to ban GM Coffee from the "Big Island". If you think your are for GM coffee... keep in mind they are trying to grow a type of coffee without caffeine! So, think again(tm). It might be different if they were trying to double the caffeine."

Comments

Why the big concern over GM

[nelsonal]

If someone wants to try to grow GM coffee without caffeine, go for it. Why is it ok to make fairly exotic hybrids to do what we want a plant to do but not go about it using the source? If its labeled properly, so consumers can choose between GM and non GM (or irradiated/non irradiated etc) what is the big problem? Seems like the Kona coffee company is concerned about competition.

I understand that the caffeine that is removed from decaf goes into other products, so this removes a potential revenue source. However, I don't know if the cost of removal is higher or lower than the value of the caffeine.

Re:Why the big concern over GM

[ndanger]

GM doesn't just make crops more plentiful or disease resistant, it introduces a new species. This can cause all sorts of problems. GM plants can destroy biodiversity, become unkillable mutant superweeds, and give corporations more IP power. As an example, I believe there was an old Slashdot story (I searched but couldn't find it) about a Canadian farmer who was being sued because genetically modified seed blew off of passing trucks and cross-fertilized his field.

This doesn't mean that GM is bad, or that Kona coffee growers aren't more concerned with the purity of their brand than their crop, just that we should proceed with care.

Re:Why the big concern over GM

[SEE]

Ahem.

1) The Canadian farmer had investigated Roundup-Ready crops, and decided that they cost too much.

2) The Canadian farmer planted a field, and used Roundup as his sole means of weed control, which would have killed any non-Roundup-Ready plants. He still managed to bring in a full crop, which means that his entire field was Roundup-Ready and, because only a total moron would spray something that would kill his crop, the farmer knew it was Roundup-Ready.

3) The farmer used seeds from the crop to plant the next year's crop, and used Roundup alone again.

4) Monsanto sued him

5) The Canadian farmer claimed in court that he didn't acquire the seed illegally, but that it must have been seed that fell off the truck.

6) The Canadian courts ruled that even in the incredibly unlikely event that the farmer's entire field was accidentally planted with Roundup-Ready seed, #2 proved he knew he was growing a Roundup-Ready crop and #1 established that he knew that he was violating Monsanto's patent when he planted the seed the next year.

In short, the farmer was lying through his teeth, the court knew it, and the court smacked him down.

Re:Why the big concern over GM

[Tackhead]

> GM doesn't just make crops more plentiful or disease resistant, it introduces a new species. This can cause all sorts of problems. GM plants can destroy biodiversity [...]

HuH? Either the GM-hacked coffee cross-pollinates with unmodded coffee, or it doesn't.

If there's no cross-pollination, then there's no risk of the GM-hacked coffee making it into the wild.

If there is cross-pollination, aren't you contradicting yourself? How can introducing new genes into the pool "destroy biodiversity"? The very definition of "biodiversity" makes it an inherent contradiction.

(The real question about GMing coffee not to produce caffeine is "Why bother? What self-respecting geek drinks decaf anyways? Maybe if they can make g3n3-h4x0r3d c0ff33 with more caffeine, I'll be interested.")

Yeah...

[tswinzig]

Right! And someday they'll create BEER without ALCOHOL in it!! Sheesh!

Re:Yeah...

["Zow"]

That's funny - I was just thinking:

Homer: Caffeine free coffee?!? We aren't going to stand for that, are we boys?

Lennie & Carl: No!

Homer: Let's go get them! Ouu! Pengiun Mints...

Well -

[RaboKrabekian]

I'll get excited when they can genetically engineer crack in to coffee. That should help with those 48 hour benders...

Re:Preserving consumer choice

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I was thinking that rather than the government trying to ban things it didn't understand, the multinational corporations were trying to force things on the public they don't understand, or particularly want.

Useless brown water

[Scaba]

Decaffeinated coffee:

"It's useless warm brown water."
"Say goodbye to your will to live."
"It's what they're drinking in hell."

Apologies to David Letterman

Re:Useless brown water

[josepha48]

Well some people do actually like the taste of coffee and they drink it not for the cafene, but the taste. Just like some people like beer for the taste and not the effect.

Also you'd be able to drink a cup of coffee before going to bed which many cannot do and still get to sleep.

Lastly there are some people who have acid reflux and should not have caffene, but this would give them caffene free coffee... oh and decafe coffee does have some caffene, it is just much less than regular coffee....

Louisa's Bakery & Cafe in Seattle

[smoondog]

Louisa's Bakery and Cafe in Seattle (on eastlake) call a double tall non-fat decaf latte a "why bother." I love hearing them yell orders, single short mocha, double tall non-fat and two "why bothers" to go.

Best damn omelettes anywhere, IMO, too....

-Sean

Hey!

[orangesquid]

'ey! I *like* my morning decaf! It wakes me up but doesn't keep me from sleeping through morning meetings like normal coffee does!

Caffeine Free Coffee

[Bouncings]

A caffeine free cup of coffee just isn't right. It's kind of like combustion-free motor oil, scandal-free whitehouse, defect-free Windows, or troll-free slashdot.

It's just not natural.

Re:Caffeine Free Coffee

[Smelly Jeffrey]

It's kind of like combustion-free motor oil...

Yep, if the oil in your engine is burning, you have got a serious problem. I don't think what's left over after that sort of fire would lubricate very well at all. Don't get me wrong, motor oil does burn, but it shouldn't be combusting in your engine. Gasoline combusts in my engine.

If this ends up like maize in Mexico...

[schmaltz]

it could wipe out caffeinated coffee.

Before you flame or down-mod me as being anti-GM or anti-futurist, review the facts and double-check the counter claims and rebuttals.

Re:If this ends up like maize in Mexico...

[schmaltz]

Well, that's an interesting point... up to a point. The assumption I sense in your message -which is the message also put out by the biotech industry- is that genetic modifications to organisms is no different from wild cross pollination *or* selective crossbreeding in a hothouse or lab.

But is that true? The purpose of genetic engineering is to add new sequences which result in the expression of new features (proteins, hormones, &c) not previously found in that organism -are we agreed on this point, at least?

With crossbreeding, wild or selective, the species of the pollen/sperm/germ plasm sources need to be pretty closely related to the species which will bear the seed/fruit/offspring -otherwise it just won't take. Still with me? So, new characteristics will come about when crosses are from already related species -my understanding, anyway.

GM does an end-run around the related species "requirement" of crossbreeding, by employing techniques which splice, inject, shotgun or otherwise introduce a new sequence into the recipient species' genome. Correct? Now, from what I've read, many of the sources for the new sequences come from species that are not related to the recipient species. They sometimes don't belong to even the same phylum or order.

A quick example is the now-demised Flavr-Savr tomato -genes from the flounder fish and a bacteria species were inserted, to add shelf life and toughen the overall structure of the fruit.

Would evolution bring these specific additions about on its own, or could you obtain those sequences through crosspollinations? Doesn't seem so -it seems that if they could have, they would have. The tomato plant and the flounder would have to spend another hundred million years evolving or more before the possibility of them becoming compatible enough to exchange genetic material on their own.

So to answer your original question, it doesn't matter to me as I don't drink coffee! But the interesting thing is, whether crosspollinated or engineered, genes do escape into the wild, and the cousin species do pick up the new characteristics -even from the GM plants. That's pretty scary.

Re:If this ends up like maize in Mexico...

[Tackhead]

> But the interesting thing is, whether crosspollinated or engineered, genes do escape into the wild, and the cousin species do pick up the new characteristics -even from the GM plants. That's pretty scary.

How so? Evolution takes care of its own.

For instance, I happen to think that decaf is an abomination unto my sight. Were I in the business of running a coffee plantation, and GM-hacked decaf beans started showing up, I'd (a) be pissed, (b) rip out the decaf plants, and (c) probably sue the inventors of decaf beans for the cost of replanting. The gene for decaf stops at the border of my field because I select against it.

Suppose I'm wrong, and most people prefer decaf. I can either (a) go out of business, or (b) grow decaf or less-caffeinated beans. The gene for decaf propagates, but it propagates because I choose to stay in business and select for it.

Suppose everyone's wrong, and human civilization stops. Then we're back to natural selection.

Caffeine is bitter stuff, and toxic to some insects. That may be why it evolved in coffee beans. Within a few dozen generations, predators will take advantage of the decaf beans - low-caffeine plants will have their beans eaten more often, thereby producing fewer offspring, and things will return to normal.

In the case of the Flavr-Savr tomato, the same thing applies -- I'd expect that a tomato with a tough skin and long shelf life, in the absence of human intervention, would sit on the ground and act as a tasty morsel for predators for longer periods of time than unmodded tomatoes.

Meantime, unmodded tomatoes that rot after a day or two - get their seeds into the ground faster, have their offspring germinate sooner, and have more nutrients (from the soil created after the fruit rots away) - than the Flavr-Savrs.

Farmers planting GM foods are no different than farmers who select crops for desirable traits. In neither case are farmers selecting traits that are advantageous to the food plants -- they're selecting for traits that are advantageous to humans.

And if you think that's somehow wrong or immoral, I suggest you research how we've directed the evolution of corn over the past 1500 years.

Whats the point?

[Innomi]

Removing caffeine from anything is WRONG. You're supposed to ADD caffeine, not remove it!

Remember your first drink of coffee?

[Observer]

Did you like the taste? If you're like myself and most of my acquaintances from Uni time, probably not. A nasty, bitter taste - not just because for most of us our first experience was with the instant variety which was pretty vile in those days. After a while I got to tolerate it, now I like it, but I'm pretty sure it's a learned response from the caffeine jolt. (Ditto tea, BTW - I'm a Brit but couldn't stand that brew either till I reached Uni.)

Coffee without caffeine seems somehow pointless.

corollary forces rethink

[Martin Spamer]

I can't help think about a strong corollary, where the geek sympathis are like to be reversed.

Hypothetically if somebody where to suggest GM tabacco with low/no nicotine, the established tabacco producers would likly follow a similar path and oppose, probably stating similar reasons. GM is bad, taste, choice, et. all.

Geeks would probably be sympathetic/support a GM change 'for the geater public good', after all nicotine is a dangerous addictive drug.

In this case I think many Geeks would follow pyrrho's lead and oppose the GM, since Caffine is also a rather dangerous addictive drug.

Re:corollary forces rethink

[Deagol]

You're wasting your breath, man. Every caffeine-related thread I point out that caffeine isn't the safest substance in the world. And every time I'm either (mostly) ignored or flamed. Many posts I can get an "Informative" or "Insightful" but not when you question a vice of the majority of /. readers.

Re:corollary forces rethink

[Webmonger]

Nicotine-free tobacco would be completely boneheaded. Non-smokers still wouldn't smoke it, because it'd still be bad for you. Smokers wouldn't smoke it, becase the nicotine's what they're addicted to. (Non-chemically-addicted smokers might smoke it.)

Re:corollary forces rethink

[Webmonger]

"No" what? No one would smoke nicotine-free tobacco at all? If that's what you're saying, I mostly agree.

However, there's a lot of talk about the psychological addiction of smoking (aside from chemical). Perhaps those smokers would smoke nicotine-free tobacco.

I still think it's a boneheaded idea, though.

Re:corollary forces rethink

[Webmonger]

I should add: coffee is different from tobacco, because the tobacco itself is harmful, not just the nicotine. AFAICT, Coffee is not particularly harmful, except for the caffiene.

And if GM tobacco plants were introduced, and I was convinced that nicotine-free tobacco was a Good Thing, you'd still have to convince me that this was the only reasonable way to obtain nicotine-free tobacco.

Re:corollary forces rethink

[Tackhead]

> Hypothetically if somebody where to suggest GM tabacco with low/no nicotine, the established tabacco producers would likly follow a similar path and oppose, probably stating similar reasons GM is bad, taste, choice, et. all.

Well, most of the harmful effects from smoking are due to the fact that you're slurping partially-oxidized chemicals straight into the mucus membranes of your lungs, so I suspect that a nic-free smoke wouldn't be much healthier than your current smokes.

Problem is, a nic-free smoke wouldn't provide the pleasure to the smoker that nicotine provides, so it'd do poorly in the market. Cigarette smokers would never switch to nicotine-free cigarettes - why bother? (Just as pot smokers have no reason to smoke hemp - you can't get high off THC-free marijuana, so you make rope out of it instead of smoking it :)

Without the nicotine "high" to addict first-time users, nic-free cigarettes would be useless even as an entry-level product. ("Freddy! We know you're the 'cool' kid on the block, but this Junior Camel your Dad gave you tastes/smells like crap! Why the hell do the grownups smoke this stuff again?")

So yes, you could engineer nic-free tobacco, but the tobacco lobby wouldn't care either way, because nobody would pay money to smoke it.

Side note: I always thought the nicotine patch was a good idea - but that it shouldn't require a prescription.

Nicotine's a drug. It's legal in an air-fouling, often-lung-cancer-causing (cigarette/pipe/cigar) form without a prescription. It's legal in a clean (unless you're kissing the user), sometimes-mouth-cancer-causing (chewing) form without a prescription, why can't it be legal in an even cleaner, non-cancer-causing (patch) form without a prescription?

FWIW, I'm a non-smoker, and the reason I don't hang around smokers is because, well, I think your drug of choice smells like crap. If you nicotine addicts could just dose up with a patch, you might still have a heart disease risk from long-term nicotine use, but your lung cancer rates would drop, and most importantly, none of us non-smokers would have any legitimate reason to ask you to butt out -- because you wouldn't be filling our air with your choice. Just like coffee drinkers, you could enjoy your drug of choice in public or in the workplace without anyone getting on your case! :-)

Re:corollary forces rethink

[epine]

I've always thought that smoking in enclosed public spaces was the moral equivalent to peeing in a public swimming pool.

What's the point?

[olman]

I've never understood why someone would drink decaf.. I you're using drugs, there's little point just taking placebo, is there?

Some people..

A Haiku

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Caffeine-free coffee?
Genetically Engineered.
Slashdot says "No Way".

Re:There are some things

[spike hay]

Genetically modified caffeine free coffee is the same as regular coffee. It just has the gene that produces the protein caffeine deleted. GM foods cannot change your body's DNA. That is a completely unfounded myth.

GM foods are completely safe unless a poison is introduced (NEW!! Nightshade enhanced brocolli!!!) or an allergen is introduced. DNA codes for proteins. That's all it does. Now, scientists usualy know what protein the gene they are splicing in codes for. So GM foods are very safe.

Re:Alzheimer

[epine]

They attributed the affect to caffeine out the 200 odd akalines in coffee because they presume, by the celebrity effect, that caffeine has the highest muzzle velocity. Until this new coffee hits the market, they can't actually do a proper experiment to determine whether caffeine is the active ingredient.