• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Genetically engineered apples.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IronWing said:
Humans have been genetically manipulating food plants and animals for thousands of years. Why stop now when we are getting really good at it?
Click to expand...


This is my general take on the issue, but the fact remains that transgenic manipulation is not the same beast as manipulation through (Mendelian) genetic crossing--horticulture.

With the proteins created through horticulture, any type of unwanted response is typically weeded out through crossing--the original information is typically still there, but you generally don't have to worry about novel, human-induced information, and how it affects the downstream coding of the handful of genes in involved. We know a lot--but we don't yet know enough, I think, to allow wide spread use of this at the moment.


I am all for GMO practices, and would hate to see crippling regulation that staunches research (I was actually thinking about this the other day--as I have to send organisms--sometimes whole tissue, sometimes just DNA--and sending transgenics is an entirely different issue. The current Fed regulations are actually quite useless: they simply slow down shipping/research and permitting can cost more. It does nothing to "insure the efficacy of this research"), but also feel there needs to be something in place that prevents wide-spread use before we have a better understanding of epigenetic effects, and all that.
 
Last edited:
SP33Demon said:
Unpredicted cyanide releasing GMO grass that killed cattle last week?
http://www.inquisitr.com/262111/gen...-begins-releasing-cyanide-kills-texas-cattle/
Click to expand...

techs said:
Holy Crap! That's true!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57459357/grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths/
Click to expand...


This is not a GMO grass, however. It is a hybrid (which, well...might be more disturbing)

read all of your article, techs:

CORRECTION: As originally published, this story referred to Tifton 85 grass as a genetically-modified product, which is incorrect; it is actually a hybrid of Bermuda grass.
Grass tied to Texas cattle deaths hybrid, not GM
Click to expand...

corrections like this really should be put at the top or, at least, hyperlinked within the body of the article.

At the very least the article as published now, does not suggest that these are GMO crops. But I wonder how many people understand the difference between hybrid and GMO? Further, they could make explicit, within the article, the difference between GMO and hybrid.
 
SP33Demon said:
Unpredicted cyanide releasing GMO grass that killed cattle last week?
http://www.inquisitr.com/262111/gen...-begins-releasing-cyanide-kills-texas-cattle/




Nay, I'm not going to be experimented on.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. if you had done about 15 more seconds of research, or you know, read the bottom, you would know that Tifton 85 is a fairly common simple hybrid grass, not GMO.

Such hybrid grass can produce cyanide in some situations, mostly because many forms of natural grass produce cynanide naturally when stressed and this form of hybrid used a grass that is known to produce cyanide when stressed.
 
NikolaeVarius said:
Yeah.. if you had done about 15 more seconds of research, or you know, read the bottom, you would know that Tifton 85 is a fairly common simple hybrid grass, not GMO.

Such hybrid grass can produce cyanide in some situations, mostly because many forms of natural grass produce cynanide naturally when stressed and this form of hybrid used a grass that is known to produce cyanide when stressed.
Click to expand...

Even if the grass wasn't GMO I'm still not eating GMO. Somehow eating crops that were modified using the e-coli virus to modify DNA/RNA and then doused in RoundUp to increase yield is not something I'm putting in my body. Also why Japan and the EU won't accept our GMO surplus, we are the experiment.
 
great.. im sure those natural enzymes that cause browning do it for a reason. i dont think nature would let apples do it wrong for a billion years.

that would be awesome if those enzymes caused browning to stop infection. so now you dent or cut an apple while packing it and bacteria gets into it and theres no enzymes to stop it so its an infected apple. you eat it and die. but you saved a dollar over the organic!

like i said, i could be very wrong.. but this just doesnt seem right.
 
SP33Demon said:
Even if the grass wasn't GMO I'm still not eating GMO. Somehow eating crops that were modified using the e-coli virus to modify DNA/RNA and then doused in RoundUp to increase yield is not something I'm putting in my body. Also why Japan and the EU won't accept our GMO surplus, we are the experiment.
Click to expand...

scientists say we dont have much choice though. if we want to continue to feed the planet, we have to maximize the amount of production we can get from a given acre of land. gmo is the most promising way to do this.

i dont like it though.
 
Some apples don't brown or spoil as quickly as others; I find it hard to believe that there is any higher evolutionary purpose to this.
 
wirednuts said:
great.. im sure those natural enzymes that cause browning do it for a reason. i dont think nature would let apples do it wrong for a billion years.

that would be awesome if those enzymes caused browning to stop infection. so now you dent or cut an apple while packing it and bacteria gets into it and theres no enzymes to stop it so its an infected apple. you eat it and die. but you saved a dollar over the organic!

like i said, i could be very wrong.. but this just doesnt seem right.
Click to expand...

Of course, browning isn't a well understood phenomena and can't be a byproduct of enzymes in the food reacting with the air. Its also impossible to manually inactivate said enzymes and prevent the apple from browning using simple methods with absolutely no detriment.
 
wirednuts said:
scientists say we dont have much choice though. if we want to continue to feed the planet, we have to maximize the amount of production we can get from a given acre of land. gmo is the most promising way to do this.

i dont like it though.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be better to just grow foods that produce more than to keep modifying a poorly producing fruit? Maximizing acreage should include only farming foods that can actually feed the planet efficiently without the crazy crap we do with granny smiths and the like.

Also, there's a tipping point at which you are making the land less usable long term by cramming an absurd number of crop into it.

That said, I don't think efficiency issues really relate much to apples. If anything, you'd have to grow less of them (ETA: to meet current world demand) because it takes longer for them to be unappealing and so there is likely less waste. No one is trying to feed the entire world with apples.
 
Last edited:
wirednuts said:
scientists say we dont have much choice though. if we want to continue to feed the planet, we have to maximize the amount of production we can get from a given acre of land. gmo is the most promising way to do this.

i dont like it though.
Click to expand...

if we reduced meat consumption (don't misinterpret--i fucking love meat, but most of us in this country eat way too fucking much meat) and were able to reclaim many vast tracks of land used to grow inedible crops, used only to feed cattle, we wouldn't have to rely on such "offensive" methods of food production.


....but good luck changing conditioned habits :\
 
wirednuts said:
scientists say we dont have much choice though. if we want to continue to feed the planet, we have to maximize the amount of production we can get from a given acre of land. gmo is the most promising way to do this.

i dont like it though.
Click to expand...


They initially said that, but they're wrong. Analysis of the GM crops versus Conventional crops versus Organic crops indicate that long term, Organic crops win with food production. Just as high pesticide yielded a short term increase in crops, so has GM. Does NOT work over many years.
 
SagaLore said:
They initially said that, but they're wrong. Analysis of the GM crops versus Conventional crops versus Organic crops indicate that long term, Organic crops win with food production. Just as high pesticide yielded a short term increase in crops, so has GM. Does NOT work over many years.
Click to expand...

so nature still finds a way to take care of itself? thats pretty intriguing.
 
SagaLore said:
They initially said that, but they're wrong. Analysis of the GM crops versus Conventional crops versus Organic crops indicate that long term, Organic crops win with food production. Just as high pesticide yielded a short term increase in crops, so has GM. Does NOT work over many years.
Click to expand...

What analysis? Do you have a link from a credible scientific source?
 
I'm all for GMO foods. If we can engineer foods that can grow in drought stricken regions and bring abundance to famine zones, I say do it. It's elitist to allow people to die just so we westerners can keep our tree hugging principles intact.

Repeated studies have shown that organic farming methods do not work on a large scale. They can only sustain half the current population, if all fertile land is used to maximum efficiency. It's not a sustainable agricultural solution, to use the environmentalists' own language. I would argue it's more harmful to the environment because you have to allocate considerably more land to agriculture. But even if we did make the switch, who lives and who dies? Remember it can only sustain about 3 billion people. It certainly won't be wealthy westerners who die. Which is why it makes this decision very easy for us. Not so much if you're a poor farmer living in Ethiopia.

Imagine you're that farmer and I come to you with a proposition. I have produced a type of seed that's drought and disease resistant, and will double your harvest without any additional equipment. What are you going to say? Yet we have foolish environmentalists here in the west telling governments in these poor countries that GMO food is poison. Literally. GMO foods are thoroughly tested and shown to be safe, so you're willing to lie because you think it may not be? Who's the real monster. If we have a technology that could improve the quality of life of these people, we should be exploring that avenue.

I'll put my money where my mouth is and gladly try one of these new apples.
 
Last edited:
zinfamous said:
if we reduced meat consumption (don't misinterpret--i fucking love meat, but most of us in this country eat way too fucking much meat) and were able to reclaim many vast tracks of land used to grow inedible crops, used only to feed cattle, we wouldn't have to rely on such "offensive" methods of food production.


....but good luck changing conditioned habits :\
Click to expand...

I read somewhere this was not true. That cattle for instance are typically grown on land that is not good for other crops.
 
Whether its gmo or a hybrid, the point is our grass is trying to kill us!

Its time to take up lawnmowers and strike back!
 
nehalem256 said:
I read somewhere this was not true. That cattle for instance are typically grown on land that is not good for other crops.
Click to expand...

it's the massive amount of land (highly inefficient for protein-production, when soy can do it better; and even kale/chard--things like that to replace iron lost with red meat).

Also, much of the land used to raise cattle has been clear-cut in the Brazilian rain forest, and continues to be done. Now, if this is what you mean by "land not fit for crops," and conveniently choose to ignore the other horrendous problems this practice causes...then I think you need reevaluate your position. 😉
 
SP33Demon said:
Even if the grass wasn't GMO I'm still not eating GMO. Somehow eating crops that were modified using the e-coli virus to modify DNA/RNA and then doused in RoundUp to increase yield is not something I'm putting in my body. Also why Japan and the EU won't accept our GMO surplus, we are the experiment.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't want any of those E. coli viruses... whatever the hell that is.

And what's wrong with Roundup? Pesticides approved for 'organic' produce can be just as toxic as synthetic pesticides. Nothing stops these organic farmers from drowning their plants in the naturally-derived pesticides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top