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.
Depends. Will it be cheaper, including any fines and penalties, than doing it right?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Just slap some kind of a GMO label on it and move on. If idiots that believe it's evil or unhealthy want to use something else that's probably less healthy for them, that's on them. The idiocy and fear-mongering will be there regardless, and if companies don't want to put a label on the products, those same people are just likely to take it as proof of a conspiracy or cover-up. Instead, just own up to it being GMO and point out the health and environmental benefits of the product over alternatives. If those crops really are less resource intensive, then price differences will probably decide for most people more than anything else.
developed their soybean by turning "off" the genes responsible for the trans fats in soybean oil.
"Trans fats" are caused by hydrogenation; they don't occur naturally.
I feel like we're a lot safer with gene editing these days than we were in the 50's with Atomic Gardens. They were irradiating entire fields to see what happened, sure we still have peppermint today and other popular produce likes certain types of tomatoes because of the 'IRRADIATE ALL THE THINGS' movement. Though if something mutated in a negative way like an undesirable weed among the crops then we'd be in a bit of a pickle.
We're not going to be able to feed the planet if we don't embrace GMO, we just need more some more focus and care.
GMO is not in itself a bad thing or unhealthy in it self in anyway, it can be quite the opposite. 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.
Or how about modifying pest weeds to make them spread less and grow smaller or not reproduce at all?
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?
A lot of consumers know nothing about these techniques and won't appreciate the subtleties of them. They are convinced organic food is healthier and no amount of facts or science will change that. They think every piece of produce should be heirloom and grown by a small farming family on an idyllic farm of rolling green hills and happy farmers. They have a completely distorted view of where their food comes from and how 7 billion mouths are fed. You can't fix it because these positions are emotionally justified and not rational. Attacking such an emotional position with facts makes people double down.
Better to just label it made with genetic engineering (because it was) and those labels have had a pretty positive impact. Most folks don't see them or don't actually care. Those that do can live in their fantasy.
An EU court has already ruled that things made with CRISPR must follow the same guidelines as GMOs. Short form -- No GMOs in EU
Perhaps, since an EU member has money in the game, this will be reviewed
Good Science demands proper verification through peer review and testing for safety and efficacy, that stance is not anti-science as the shills suggest. The pharmaceutical industry manages this, there is no good reason GMO should avoid this burden of proof. GMO offer great potential, but a disaster such thalidomide, DDT, asbestos could set progress back decades.
DDT wasn't really a disaster. It dropped malaria to zero for long enough to get rid of it in many of the places it was used, and the mosquitoes had become resistant so they stopped. No one actually cared about the condors.
I want cold hardy avacados and mangoes.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
The media has spread the great on gene editing, without informing themselves first.
But can we change them? Fear binds the readers, it brings them money.
The general public is not going to buy into any artificial distinction between GMO and gene-edited, any more than the tech community was able to sell that "hacker/cracker" distinction. The best strategy would be to openly apply genetic engineering to totally new foods, rather than having it just be a convenience for farmers.
This approach is already working for the Impossible Burger. It's not vegan because it's GMO, but foodies and vegetarians don't care.
Given their track record that isn't exactly known for its eco- or consumer-friendlyness.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Depends. Will it be cheaper, including any fines and penalties, than doing it right?
Really nothing to do with that. It's whether the term "gene edited" will be as aesthetically displeasing as "GMO" has become to consumers. I don't see consumers making a distinction between the two. For one, the antipathy to GMO products was never based on science in the first place. Tests to prove safety or increased benefits really won't change consumers' minds. Neither will "outreach". Not when there is an industry based on fear of GMOs that can and will respond to protect its market share.
For another, sophistry and branding aside, the terms "gene edited" and "genetically modified" are identical. Shotgun insertion of a new gene is an edit. Removing a gene via a CRISPR technique is a modification. Yes, the techniques are vastly different, but the terms are not. If they can't come up with a term that clearly differentiates the techniques for consumers, why expect the consumers will do the heavy lifting of figuring out the difference?
Meanwhile, Europe has already decided that "gene edited" is a subset of GMO, thus effectively banning those foods from the European market.
Strike one.
Many years ago a friend told me to watch nutritionist's position on coffee. It seems to switch from good to bad to good again at least one cycle per year. Do I want non trans fat coffee whitener, or the other spread?
Just because a company can synthesize a food, it doesn't mean that it will work well with us. The food we usually eat, we have been eating for quite some years, but with the introduction of a new food, a latent problem could wipe out a great deal of the human population.
I think that all GM modified foods should have to go through the same FDA approval process as drugs. If one rouge prion/protein makes it way through, so many people will have a horrible death that the creator's insurer would afford.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
There are very narrow conditions where the government can force someone, or a company, to print something on a label. It's called compelled speech, and courts take a dim view of it, even in the more tightly regulated commercial speech arena.
You can say that you need an ingredients list on the label for food allergies. You can say nutritional information is required for health reasons. What is the exact reason for putting GMO/non-GMO labeling on food? Is there a scientifically acknowledged health concern? No? Then it's not going to hold up in court. Sure, you can parade a bunch of scientists who don't like GMOs for one reason or another, but they can't point to research that says it's inherently dangerous or unhealthy, and that's going to get the law shot down in court (most likely.)
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Its an interesting idea and it might be true but the evidence isn't in. Tedx isn't ted its just whoever wants to talk. In this case it is better than most, he is actually a PhD in charge of a research organization, but his research is based at least in part on falsified results.
https://www.the-scientist.com/...
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
global warming means we're going to have to do something to maintain crop yields. Period. Like it or not GMOs are happening.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/