Slashdot Mirror
Weird New Fruits Could Hit Aisles Soon Thanks To Gene Editing (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Smooth or hairy, pungent or tasteless, deep-hued or bright: new versions of old fruits could be hitting the produce aisles as plant experts embrace cutting-edge technology, scientists say. While researchers have previously produced plants with specific traits through traditional breeding techniques, experts say new technologies such as the gene-editing tool Crispr-Cas9 could be used to bring about changes far more rapidly and efficiently. Among the genes flagged in the new study in the journal Trends in Plant Science are those behind the production of a family of substances known as MYBs, which are among the proteins that control whether other genes are switched on or off.
"MYBs are great targets because they are central to several consumer traits or features like color, flavor [and] texture," said Andrew Allan, a co-author of the review from the University of Auckland whose own projects include working on red-fleshed apples and changing the color of kiwi fruits. "Russet skin in apple and pear [is linked to MYBs]. Hairs on peaches but not nectarines -- another type of MYB." Dr Richard Harrison, head of genetics, genomics and breeding at the horticultural organization NIAB EMR, who was not involved in the article, said tweaking MYB genes or the way such genes are themselves controlled was a fruitful approach. Gene-editing of MYB genes and other genes could bring a host of benefits, Harrison said, adding: "There is a large opportunity to improve the nutritional profile of fruits and vegetables in the future using gene-editing technology, as well as other techniques." Such techniques, he said, introduce the same sort of DNA changes as plant breeders have introduced by artificially selecting traits that cropped up through spontaneous DNA mutation -- but much faster. Next week, the European Court of Justice will decide if or how plants that have been gene-edited will be regulated, and whether they will be treated like genetically modified plants. In April, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it will no longer regulate genetically altered plants, so long as the changes could have been produced through traditional plant-breeding techniques.
"MYBs are great targets because they are central to several consumer traits or features like color, flavor [and] texture," said Andrew Allan, a co-author of the review from the University of Auckland whose own projects include working on red-fleshed apples and changing the color of kiwi fruits. "Russet skin in apple and pear [is linked to MYBs]. Hairs on peaches but not nectarines -- another type of MYB." Dr Richard Harrison, head of genetics, genomics and breeding at the horticultural organization NIAB EMR, who was not involved in the article, said tweaking MYB genes or the way such genes are themselves controlled was a fruitful approach. Gene-editing of MYB genes and other genes could bring a host of benefits, Harrison said, adding: "There is a large opportunity to improve the nutritional profile of fruits and vegetables in the future using gene-editing technology, as well as other techniques." Such techniques, he said, introduce the same sort of DNA changes as plant breeders have introduced by artificially selecting traits that cropped up through spontaneous DNA mutation -- but much faster. Next week, the European Court of Justice will decide if or how plants that have been gene-edited will be regulated, and whether they will be treated like genetically modified plants. In April, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it will no longer regulate genetically altered plants, so long as the changes could have been produced through traditional plant-breeding techniques.
People don't like change or unexpected tastes. There is a reason that green ketchup died.
A faaar better use would be to make healthy foods slightly more palatable without sacrificing it's high nutritional value. Sadly, I foresee this being used to make fruits far sweeter which would make them very unhealthy.
What we need the government to start doing is evaluating goods based on their heath impact and how addictive they are and then place a tax on the food that will later be used to pay for the healthcare you'll need from consuming them. Humans are bad a long-term decision making therefore turning the long-term decision into a short-term one helps people make better choices.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I think the most appropriate objection to GMOs is that Monsanto (now Bayer) uses them to lock farmers into hyper-exploitative contracts and uses heavy-handed legal tactics to enforce them, leading to collateral damage (farmers being wrongly sued for using unlicensed seeds) and suicide by farmers crumpling under the pressures exerted by Monsanto/Bayer.
On the GMO topic per se, I'm with the large number of scientists who can't see anything wrong with it. Gene splicing and editing are just new and different ways of doing what we've always done with crops. With technological developments like these, I think we're due for a review of our agricultural policies and laws but in the public interest, i.e. no corporate and lobby money allowed. But I guess that's just a pipe-dream.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Nothing new about using crispr for fruits. I've been using my crispr for fruits and vegetables for a long time. The drawer next to the crispr is where I keep my cheese and stuff. Milk goes on the top shelf, eggs in door.
why? most of what you eat has been genetically modified by humans, either through selective breeding for animals or crops, very few things we eat today are in the state they existed when discovered. The only difference with this particular method is it is faster and less error prone. So really almost everything should be labelled as GMO.
That's what makes the labeling arbitrary. Labeling mutation breeding or hybridization is never brought up, which is arguably less predictable and safe, presumably because people would realize that everything they eat, including their favorite brands, has been substantially mutated from their "natural" state.
Unjustifiably labeling GMO can sway uninformed people into incorrect assumptions, such as equating it to dangerous products and ingredients that are also labeled in many countries, like tobacco, alcohol and allergens.
This isn't putting fruit fly genes in your grapes, this is editing the grape genome with intention rather than depending on blind luck. The other produce at the store you're eating was mutated with radiation, unless you're only eating heirloom varieties.