Slashdot Mirror
Will the Food Industry Botch the Introduction Of Gene-Edited Foods? (sfgate.com)
We've reached a milestone in gene-edited food, according to the Washington Post. "Calyxt's 'healthier' soybean oil, the industry's first true gene-edited food, could make its way into products such as chips, salad dressings and baked goods as soon as the end of this year."
Calyxt's soybean is the first of 23 gene-edited crops the Agriculture Department has recognized to date.... Scientists at Calyxt, a subsidiary of the French pharmaceutical firm Cellectis, developed their soybean by turning "off" the genes responsible for the trans fats in soybean oil. Compared with the conventional version, Calyxt says, oil made from this soybean boasts far more "healthy" fats, and far less of the fats that raise bad cholesterol. Chief executive Federico Tripodi likes to say the product is akin to olive oil but without the pungent flavor that would make it off-putting in Oreos or granola bars.
It has earned praise from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group that says public health will benefit from ingredients with less trans and saturated fats, regardless of how they were developed.... Scientists in university labs and at companies such as Calyxt are already designing plants that are more nutritious, convenient and sustainable, they say.... [U]niversities around the country are working on plants that will withstand droughts, diseases and the ravages of climate change. Such improvements, underway in crops as diverse as oranges, wine grapes and cacao, could protect these plants in the future while cutting down water and chemical use, experts say....
While Congress passed a law requiring food makers to disclose genetically modified ingredients in 2016, those rules will probably not apply to foods made with newer gene-editing techniques, said experts who had reviewed it. Calyxt has marketed its soybean oil to food-makers as "non-GMO," citing the fact that it contains no foreign genetic material. But consumers are unlikely to accept this distinction, said Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumers Union. Hansen argues that GMOs developed a negative reputation in part because biotech companies botched public outreach in the 1980s and 1990s. Should businesses repeat that mistake, he said, consumers will reject a promising technology.
Non-GM foods are already a multibillion-dollar market, the article points out, adding that according to a 2016 Pew Research Center report, nearly 4 in 10 American consumers believe genetically modified foods are bad for their health.
It has earned praise from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group that says public health will benefit from ingredients with less trans and saturated fats, regardless of how they were developed.... Scientists in university labs and at companies such as Calyxt are already designing plants that are more nutritious, convenient and sustainable, they say.... [U]niversities around the country are working on plants that will withstand droughts, diseases and the ravages of climate change. Such improvements, underway in crops as diverse as oranges, wine grapes and cacao, could protect these plants in the future while cutting down water and chemical use, experts say....
While Congress passed a law requiring food makers to disclose genetically modified ingredients in 2016, those rules will probably not apply to foods made with newer gene-editing techniques, said experts who had reviewed it. Calyxt has marketed its soybean oil to food-makers as "non-GMO," citing the fact that it contains no foreign genetic material. But consumers are unlikely to accept this distinction, said Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumers Union. Hansen argues that GMOs developed a negative reputation in part because biotech companies botched public outreach in the 1980s and 1990s. Should businesses repeat that mistake, he said, consumers will reject a promising technology.
Non-GM foods are already a multibillion-dollar market, the article points out, adding that according to a 2016 Pew Research Center report, nearly 4 in 10 American consumers believe genetically modified foods are bad for their health.
It has earned praise from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group that says public health will benefit from ingredients with less trans and saturated fats, regardless of how they were developed
Who else remembers hearing the same spiel about how trans fats were just plain better than other fats? Maybe that kind of talk is more relevant to why customers tend to be skeptical than any specific paranoia over GMO/editing/selective breeding/etc.
It's the dodgy GMO that should be targeted and shunned, none of this Roundup Ready type garbage so we can drench acres in toxic chemicals bullshit. Focus on less inputs (fertilizers and control chemicals) and maximize yield would be an ideal direction IMO.
[...]
Blanket labeling GMO may not be the right direction, we could in theory make a GMO "organic" plant that requires no inputs. Would this wonder plant have to be binned next to the pesticide soaked produce at the grocery store because it's GMO?
This doesn't seem to be a scientific viewpoint. Fertilizers and pesticides (herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, etc.) are demonstrably effective at increasing harvest yield. Organic farming that doesn't use glyphosate-resistant crops just use other herbicide chemicals like rotenone and copper instead, which occur naturally. And the produce themselves are naturally filled with toxic pesticides as an evolutionary deterrent. Herbivores and us large omnivores can usually handle it, but say, an onion is deadly toxic to a carnivorous cat.
Or how about modifying pest weeds to make them spread less and grow smaller or not reproduce at all?
Evolution will not allow it. These shitty weeds would be out-competed by natural weeds due to natural selection.
That's not a cogent argument at all, you are merely patronizing people. A free market requires informed consumers. The analogies you draw are also fundamentally flawed:
- Whether you build a nuclear power plant or not is a political decision, not one made by an individual person, because many people benefit from the power plant and many people would be affected if there is a major incident. Labeling GMO food as such keeps no one from buying it who wants to buy it.
- If you decide for your children that you don't want them to get vaccinated, then you are literally endangering the life of your children and the life of other children who cannot get vaccinated for rare medical reason. By not buying GMO food, you do not endanger anyone's life.
Not buying GMO food is a customer choice just like not buying some food because you don't like the look of its packaging or the logo of the company. If a company doesn't want that to happen, then they are free to offer non-GMO food. Not labeling food is and always has been nefarious, there is simply no cogent argument for not labeling the nature of food ingredients. You can also easily invent compressed codes or put a link to online information on the packaging.
Hey, how about they just make them LABEL these new and exciting foods for being gene-edited, and let the consumer decide?
Okay, but make sure also to label all of the foods that were bred with the use of mutagenic chemicals and radiation, which is a more random and dangerous process than carefully-targeted editing.
Of course, this would require labeling nearly everything in the grocery store. Including nearly everything that is labeled "organic, non-GMO".
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.