pbs special on gmo potatoes from monsanto

[mamaof3peas]

You would not believe how they spin it, explaining why it doesn't need to be labors. Making fun of those who don't want gmo food. Its called botany of desire

[Mulegirl]

Is that actually airing somewhere already? I've seen the book, but not any of the video series. It doesn't start in our area until Tuesday.

I have a hard time believing that anything Michael Pollan is working on would give an unreserved stamp of approval to GMO foods. The website section on the potato episode certainly doesn't seem to do so (see http://www.pbs.org/thebotanyofdesire/potato-control.php). Was it actually the episode itself, or some of the people being interviewed?

[geo in mi]

Originally Posted by Mulegirl

Is that actually airing somewhere already? I've seen the book, but not any of the video series. It doesn't start in our area until Tuesday.

I have a hard time believing that anything Michael Pollan is working on would give an unreserved stamp of approval to GMO foods. The website section on the potato episode certainly doesn't seem to do so (see http://www.pbs.org/thebotanyofdesire/potato-control.php). Was it actually the episode itself, or some of the people being interviewed?

The potato the Pollan talked about, with the BT gene inserted to kill the Colorado Potato Beetle, has been dropped from production and is no longer planted or developed, because of negative public opinion and the potato industry's lack of enthusiasm about it(BT can be sprayed on the plant with equal effectiveness). So that part of the GMO potato debate is outdated and is no longer discussed. However, GMO potatoes do exist in new forms. In India, a potato has been developed that has about 60% more protein, with higher yields then non-GMO spuds--and it is made by inserting another plant gene from amaryanth: http://www.medindia.net/news/GM-Pota...in-74347-1.htm

In the UK, and Europe, a new GMO potato which confers resistance to late blight is being developed and tested. It uses a gene from a South American wild potato which has blight resistant genes. Interestingly enough(or ironically enough) this potato is named "Desiree"......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10254905

As I am seeing it, the PBS program linked in Mulegirl's post is a program named after Pollan's book... see: http://www.pbs.org/thebotanyofdesire/viewers-guide.php Pollan's book was written in 2001, which seems slightly outdated now. The PBS series seems to have a sort of classroom/study guide attatched to it to aimed at eighth graders and above to create intelligent debate on facts and opinions currently surrounding the GMO issue and the general theme of genetic diversity and farming practices in the US. I'm sure folks will find themselves on opposite sides of the fence in this debate, and the fence may once again get heated up from the flaming passions thrown back and forth over it......

Hope this may help.

geo

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by mamaof3peas

You would not believe how they spin it, explaining why it doesn't need to be labors. Making fun of those who don't want gmo food. Its called botany of desire

I'm split on the topic of genetically modified foods. On the one hand I don't believe that they adequately test most of those foods, or even publish test results honestly when they do. On the other hand, genetically modified food has done so much to resolve world hunger that I hate to fight it.

It's been my opinion for a long time that the obesity epidemic has something to do with our food supply, and I suspect that genetically modified foods are a culprit. Given 10 years or so I think we'll all know why it's happening, and the food producing industry will use ignorance as their defense.

[mamaof3peas]

It wasn't all positive, but it did seem to support gmo...I don't know about the book

[arabian knight]

Nearly every fruit in the stores is genetically engineered. This is to make them more acceptable to the buyer in taste, texture and shelf life.
This has been done for hundreds of years by natural selection; propagating seeds from crops with superior characteristics.

GM is done by inserting preferred genes into a plants cell has very little difference. it just speeds up the process.
And GM has now been around so long there is little if any research that has said GM is harmfull to human life. it is Not The Bad deal that some have made it out to be.
it does help feed the world, and now GM corn has gotten the go ahead for Drought areas, and this is a good thing.

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by arabian knight

Nearly every fruit in the stores is genetically engineered. This is to make them more acceptable to the buyer in taste, texture and shelf life.
This has been done for hundreds of years by natural selection; propagating seeds from crops with superior characteristics.

GM is done by inserting preferred genes into a plants cell has very little difference. it just speeds up the process.
And GM has now been around so long there is little if any research that has said GM is harmfull to human life. it is Not The Bad deal that some have made it out to be.
it does help feed the world, and now GM corn has gotten the go ahead for Drought areas, and this is a good thing.

I think we need to make a clear distinction between developing improved food products through cross-pollination and modifying DNA. I agree that GMO can potentially do a lot of good, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that there can't be a significant downside. We really don't know what the long term effects might be.

I've already suggested that GMO might be playing a part in the obesity epidemic, and long-term health risks of cancer, for example, could be serious. We simply don't know for sure.

[plowjockey]

From what I read, commercial potato growers, put down a lot of expensive chemicals, to combat, diseases in potatos. The have for many many years.

And this is the better alternative, to GM, because?

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

From what I read, commercial potato growers, put down a lot of expensive chemicals, to combat, diseases in potatos. The have for many many years.

And this is the better alternative, to GM, because?

It's not. I have the same mental conflict about ag chemicals & food preservatives as I have about GMO foods. The long-term effects concern me, but they all have helped resolve the world hunger problem. The question is whether the gain is worth the risk. We don't know the answer to that question yet.

[plowjockey]

Originally Posted by Nevada

It's not. I have the same mental conflict about ag chemicals & food preservatives as I have about GMO foods. The long-term effects concern me, but they all have helped resolve the world hunger problem. The question is whether the gain is worth the risk. We don't know the answer to that question yet.

I have read about GMO crops being "Frankenfood", with present and future unkown, negative side effects.

But, could this not also be the case with cross-pollinated seeds and other seed mutating, which we have been creating, for the last 130 years, since Charles Darwin?

Seeds are cross bred for desirable traits, with possible undesirable traits, either unkown, dormant or non-existent.

Wouldn't we have seen this eventually, some type of "Franken" from cross pollinated crops?

[anniew]

Nevada, do you have a link that outlines exactly how GMOs have helped the world starvation problems.
And GMOs are sometimes met with "shooting" DNA from a completely different species into a crop.
Also, another objection is that there is no labeling required for people to make a choice. I don't care what the science is...I still want to be able to choose...also applied to Country of Origin labeling, rBST, etc.

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by anniew

Nevada, do you have a link that outlines exactly how GMOs have helped the world starvation problems.

Not really, but one of the realized objectives of GMO is increased food production. I don't see how that can help but help but resolve world food shortages.

Years ago I read how food preservatives helped make it possible to bring more food to starving countries. It seems logical that GMO might do the same.

Originally Posted by plowjockey

But, could this not also be the case with cross-pollinated seeds and other seed mutating, which we have been creating, for the last 130 years, since Charles Darwin?

Seeds are cross bred for desirable traits, with possible undesirable traits, either unkown, dormant or non-existent.

Wouldn't we have seen this eventually, some type of "Franken" from cross pollinated crops?

You really can't compare cross-pollination to modifying DNA. They are entirely different technologies.

[Bearfootfarm]

You really can't compare cross-pollination to modifying DNA. They are entirely different technologies.

The end result is still the same.
You have new gene combinations in the resulting offspring

[LisaInN.Idaho]

I'll have to send this link to my future son-in-law and his parents. They are third generation potato farmers in Colorado who decided to go organic years ago. Very interesting...thanks!

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

The end result is still the same.

While the intended results are often the same (larger product, better yield, resistance to disease or insect infestation, etc.), the potential for unintended consequences is much higher with genetic modification. There is a lot yet to be learned about genetic modification.

[tinknal]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

I

But, could this not also be the case with cross-pollinated seeds and other seed mutating, which we have been creating, for the last 130 years, since Charles Darwin?

Actually we have been doing this for 10,000 years or more. Mendel is recognized as the first recorded geneticist but I disagree. I believe that Jacob was the first who's observations and experiments were first recorded.

[Bearfootfarm]

potential for unintended consequences is much higher with genetic modification. There is a lot yet to be learned about genetic modification.

I hear that a lot but none have ever been shown

[Horseyrider]

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

I hear that a lot but none have ever been shown

Google Dr Don Huber, professor emeritus of plant biology from Purdue University.

Genetically modifying crops is nothing like selecting for specific traits by cross pollinating. The latter takes the genes from two different soybean varieties or two different corn varieties and and exchanging pollen in the attempt to select for offspring with certain desirable traits. Genetically engineering is to splice into the DNA of the plant itself a very different organism, such as bacteria, in the case of Bt, or bacillus thuringiensis.

I'm not against GMO per se; but this is a completely different way of approaching life and food, and it seems that caution and prudence should be in order. I feel I have the right to choose whether or not to have it in my dinner, and the lack of labeling jeopardizes my ability to choose.

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by Horseyrider

I feel I have the right to choose whether or not to have it in my dinner, and the lack of labeling jeopardizes my ability to choose.

Yes. They could at least let us know.

[stormwalker]

Hybridization is not inserting alien proteins, tinknal.
One of my worries is for my daughter, who has many food alergies and intolerences.
I am not hearing anything on the impact of GMO foods on this issue.
I would certainly like to know what genes have been put where!