Joined
·
25,214 Posts
Now we have them.
Whaddia u think about gentically modifried taters lol.
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Joined
·
25,219 Posts
And using only genes from potatoes whats the problem? Seems they been doing that for many years now with Apples and nobody seems to care. LOL
Sounds like a good business opportunity to me, and a better potato to eat while at Micky D's Cool.
![]()
Sounds like a good business opportunity to me, and a better potato to eat while at Micky D's Cool.
Joined
·
25,214 Posts
I can see where the price paid for taters a ton will decrease due to the 400 mil saving of russet taters
Joined
·
78 Posts
Wonder what this cost in tax payer money ?
Actually i'm more interested in the "GMO" alfalfa.. lower lignin and ability to delay harvests while maintaining forage quality.. http://www.foragegenetics.com/forage-innovation/harvxtra™-alfalfa
Waiting for more reviews of it in 2015...
Waiting for more reviews of it in 2015...
Joined
·
2,315 Posts
If they only use potato genes then I don't see a problem. My concerns about GMO is when they unleash on markets combinations that they can't possibly know the long term effects from. Combining animal DNA with plant seems like something that needs to be looked upon with a jaundiced eye. This seems more like streamlining the already in practice methods of improving crops.
I grow my own real, natural potatoes so I really don't care if somebody else is using some GMO stuff. As long as they don't pull a 'monsanto' and try to sue people who aren't growing their GMO stuff. I would guess there is little chance of that because potatoes don't pollinate like corn, but who knows what justifications they would come up with.
Joined
·
5,205 Posts
Genetic engineering has its humanitarian benefits. It has huge humanitarian ramifications for the climate changing problems hurting agriculture in Asia and beneficial uses for drought stricken areas in Africa. I am following genetically -engineered milk-free, milk though I may never drink any since I raise dairy animals for milk, but for the easing of the cruel practices in factory dairies; it may ease the suffering of millions of cows and calves.
It also has potential for harm as greed sets in with its short-sighted ideology. I'm farming because I don't believe in big ag. Whether it is a non-gmo potato or a gmo potato makes little difference.
It also has potential for harm as greed sets in with its short-sighted ideology. I'm farming because I don't believe in big ag. Whether it is a non-gmo potato or a gmo potato makes little difference.
I had a Filet 'O Fish combo just yesterday. Wasn't paying any attention and I ate the cardboard box the fries came in, too. Then I heard a big hissing noise outside. A big pressurized tank truck was hosing in the Carbon Dioxide for the Cokes........And on the way home, I had to wonder just what ocean the fish came from. Burp.....
The Genie is already out of the bottle. Down, Genie, down!
geo
The Genie is already out of the bottle. Down, Genie, down!
geo
Where do you draw the line of messing with Mother Nature? By your logic you would still be a hunter gatherer because the act of domestication is "messing with Mother Nature".
Joined
·
25,219 Posts
True this is not 'messing' around it is making what nature gave us and making it better for the masses that has to be fed. Apple using this type of processes has been going on for years only to make apples better. This is the same thing in fact this should not even be called gmo at all, they are not using outside genes at all like in other products. It is only manipulating the genes of potatoes itself, not adding another gene from a completely different item.
Joined
·
148 Posts
Gmo is better? For whom? (Those making GMO's, not those who eat.)
Fact #1) The "safety" studies were originally done by the GMO labs themselves, conducted for 30 days, and only looked for the single FDA reason for forbidding a new product: cancer. Wouldn't matter if food allergies or digestive diseases quadrupled. Seems that most of today's increasing digestive and auto-immune problems are due to "leaky gut". No correlation to the fact that the highly activated BT toxin put into corn kills corn pests by perforating their digestive tract. Or used to. Because their life cycle is short, they're getting immune. Perhaps a hundred generations from now, humans who survive the GMO mistake may become immune too. Oh, and the recent 90 day study of GMO corn and rats, shows lots of cancer, reproductive problems, etc. Good thing those problems haven't shown up as increases in the human population... Now we watch as The GMO lobby (making billions off it) is following the same tobacco industry 'denial of harm' to keep their profits flowing.
The world can't produce enough to eat without GMO?
Fact #2) A 30 year study of corn and soy at the Rodale Institute has proven that Organic yields can easily match or exceed GMO yields in good years. In less than optimum years (wet, dry, hot, cold), Organic production outperforms GMO. In all cases, the scientifically tested nutritive values (proteins, vitamins and minerals) are significantly better with organic. No correlation that bodies craving adequate nutrition eat more to get what they need, and also gain more weight from the nutritionally deficient calories.
Fact #3) GMO crops keep narrowing the gene pool, and in spite of industry assurances to the contrary, contaminating the 'wild' gene pool. GMO corn traits are showing up in native corn in remote parts of Central America where the nearest GMO corn plantings are hundreds of miles away. For real world results of a relying on a small gene pool for the majority of your food production, look at the Irish Potato Famine.
Fact #4) Weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to glyphosate (Round-Up), causing a rush to insert 2-4d resistant genes into crops to keep yields up. 2-4d is far more toxic, far more environmentally persistent than glyphosate. Oh BTW, glyphosate supposedly readily breaks down, yet it is being found in increasing levels in ground water, in cow milk, in human fat, and even in breast milk. Just give 2-4d a couple decades of widespread use. The weeds will win again, and the people won't worry, because the affordable care act will take care of us, with the abundant healthy young paying for the few old and sick. oh, wait...
GMO Potatoes may or may not be "as bad" as corn, soy, cotton, sugar beets, and whatever else they may be cooking up in a lab, but it doesn't excuse or whitewash what has already been done, and the precautionary principle should be used. Plant GMO crops on Mars and let GMO execs live off them with no ill effects for 40 years before releasing them on earth. Otherwise my vote is for working with and within nature, not tinkering with the building block of it. We are not as gods, and are messing in systems far more complicated than we realize as yet.
I could go on, but for most, "facts are relative", and those more concerned about eating cheap (subsidized and toxic) food, or on making money on GMO's rather than the health of people and the planet aren't about to give that up.
Fact #1) The "safety" studies were originally done by the GMO labs themselves, conducted for 30 days, and only looked for the single FDA reason for forbidding a new product: cancer. Wouldn't matter if food allergies or digestive diseases quadrupled. Seems that most of today's increasing digestive and auto-immune problems are due to "leaky gut". No correlation to the fact that the highly activated BT toxin put into corn kills corn pests by perforating their digestive tract. Or used to. Because their life cycle is short, they're getting immune. Perhaps a hundred generations from now, humans who survive the GMO mistake may become immune too. Oh, and the recent 90 day study of GMO corn and rats, shows lots of cancer, reproductive problems, etc. Good thing those problems haven't shown up as increases in the human population... Now we watch as The GMO lobby (making billions off it) is following the same tobacco industry 'denial of harm' to keep their profits flowing.
The world can't produce enough to eat without GMO?
Fact #2) A 30 year study of corn and soy at the Rodale Institute has proven that Organic yields can easily match or exceed GMO yields in good years. In less than optimum years (wet, dry, hot, cold), Organic production outperforms GMO. In all cases, the scientifically tested nutritive values (proteins, vitamins and minerals) are significantly better with organic. No correlation that bodies craving adequate nutrition eat more to get what they need, and also gain more weight from the nutritionally deficient calories.
Fact #3) GMO crops keep narrowing the gene pool, and in spite of industry assurances to the contrary, contaminating the 'wild' gene pool. GMO corn traits are showing up in native corn in remote parts of Central America where the nearest GMO corn plantings are hundreds of miles away. For real world results of a relying on a small gene pool for the majority of your food production, look at the Irish Potato Famine.
Fact #4) Weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to glyphosate (Round-Up), causing a rush to insert 2-4d resistant genes into crops to keep yields up. 2-4d is far more toxic, far more environmentally persistent than glyphosate. Oh BTW, glyphosate supposedly readily breaks down, yet it is being found in increasing levels in ground water, in cow milk, in human fat, and even in breast milk. Just give 2-4d a couple decades of widespread use. The weeds will win again, and the people won't worry, because the affordable care act will take care of us, with the abundant healthy young paying for the few old and sick. oh, wait...
GMO Potatoes may or may not be "as bad" as corn, soy, cotton, sugar beets, and whatever else they may be cooking up in a lab, but it doesn't excuse or whitewash what has already been done, and the precautionary principle should be used. Plant GMO crops on Mars and let GMO execs live off them with no ill effects for 40 years before releasing them on earth. Otherwise my vote is for working with and within nature, not tinkering with the building block of it. We are not as gods, and are messing in systems far more complicated than we realize as yet.
I could go on, but for most, "facts are relative", and those more concerned about eating cheap (subsidized and toxic) food, or on making money on GMO's rather than the health of people and the planet aren't about to give that up.
This sounds like a 'tater to me.
All they did was silence the genes that cause the bruising. Nothing added at all.
Hard for anyone to complain about this unless it is on ideological grounds rather than by studying the facts - these potatoes will harm nobody. The only valid complaint is about genetic diversity, but home-grown spuds are all clones as well, due to the nature of potato propagation. We already rely on seed growers to maintain the various lines of potatoes.
Sorry Bill but it's hard to say that wasting potatoes to keep the price up is the right thing to do. I think we can all agree that less wasted food is a good thing. In the end, less waste = lower prices to the end consumer = more potatoes eaten, and the price should stay more or less stable.
All they did was silence the genes that cause the bruising. Nothing added at all.
Hard for anyone to complain about this unless it is on ideological grounds rather than by studying the facts - these potatoes will harm nobody. The only valid complaint is about genetic diversity, but home-grown spuds are all clones as well, due to the nature of potato propagation. We already rely on seed growers to maintain the various lines of potatoes.
Sorry Bill but it's hard to say that wasting potatoes to keep the price up is the right thing to do. I think we can all agree that less wasted food is a good thing. In the end, less waste = lower prices to the end consumer = more potatoes eaten, and the price should stay more or less stable.
There is a little more to it than the GMO product resists bruising. The GMO potato is being produced to be more useful in products that have nothing to do with food. The potato is currently used in different processes where starch is needed. The starch is being changed to be more useful in such products as paper and fuel, not to make food better. Personally I don't really like to eat paper or fuel. There is more to this than what is being advertised and unfortunately Big Ag is not going to tell us anything that will hurt their bottom dollar, regardless of what it may or may not do to our health.
Mixing an Angus with a Hereford is one thing, playing with DNA in the lab is something else all together.
Mixing an Angus with a Hereford is one thing, playing with DNA in the lab is something else all together.
Off topic but have you seen the purple potatoe variety? Who here would not eat purple mashed potatoes at Thanksgiving? I'm going to find out which in our family won't.
I love those things! Funny enough, they grow the best for me of the few varieties that I have tried. Every year they outproduce the normal russets, so we have lots and lots and lots of purple potatoes.
Yum!!
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!