Yahoo Web Search

  1. Genetically modified potatoes 'resist late blight' - BBC News

    www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26189722

    British scientists have developed genetically modified potatoes that are resistant to the vegetable's biggest threat - blight. A three-year trial has shown that these potatoes can thrive despite ...

  2. Genetically modified potato - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_potato

    In 2014, a team of British scientists published a paper about three-year field trial showing that another genetically modified version of the Désirée cultivar can resist infection after exposure to late blight, one of the most serious diseases of potatoes. They developed this potato for blight resistance by inserting a gene (Rpi-vnt1.1), into ...

  3. New GMO potatoes obtain approval for human consumption in 2017

    agronomag.com/new-gmo-potatoes-obtain-approval...

    Mar 28, 2017 · GMO potatoes controversies. Not all GMO potatoes were an instant success on the market. For example, the Amflora potato, introduced on the market by BASF was banned from the European Union and it was retired from the market after consumers had several objections. The main problem of Amflora potatoes was the gene marker contained by them – NPT ...

  4. Are GMO Potatoes Safe? A Biogenineer Reveals The Truth

    foodrevolution.org/blog/gmo-potatoes-hidden-dangers

    Oct 17, 2018 · The GMO potatoes are likely to accumulate at least two toxins that are absent in normal potatoes, and newer versions (Innate 2.0) additionally lost their sensory qualities when fried. Furthermore, the GMO potatoes contain at least as many bruises as normal potatoes, but these undesirable bruises are now concealed .

  5. People also ask

    Who makes GMO potatoes?

    Are GMO potatoes better?

    What is genetically modified potato?

    Are simplilot potatoes GMO?

  6. GMO scientist admits to worrying about ... - Food Evolution News

    foodevolution.news/2019-03-07-scientist-worrying...

    Mar 07, 2019 · Rommens is the author of a new book, Pandora’s Potatoes: The Worst GMO’s. Rommens is the Ex-Director at J.R. Simplot and team leader for Monsanto. After spending twenty-six years in the agriculture industry as a genetic engineer, Rommens has developed over 150,000 varieties of GM potatoes.

  7. Beware of GMO Potatoes - Organic Consumers Association

    www.organicconsumers.org/news/beware-gmo-potatoes

    Nov 27, 2018 · The Innate® potato has been modified using RNA interference (RNAi) technology to inhibit blackspot bruising and browning by reducing levels of asparagine and certain enzymes in the potato. In addition to white russet potatoes, ranger russet, russet Burbank and Atlantic potatoes have also been modified in this way.

  8. Ten Scientific Studies Prove that Genetically Modified Food ...

    www.globalresearch.ca/ten-scientific-studies...

    Mar 13, 2018 · Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health.

  9. Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their ...

    www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
    • Purpose
    • Results
    • Breeding
    • Future
    • Research
    • Funding
    • Diet
    • Risks
    • Toxicity
    • Clinical significance
    • Effects

    Arguably the most realistic solution for matching increased global demand for crops is to boost the crop yields on currently cultivated land. Currently, the rate of increase in crop-yield is less than 1.7% whereas the annual increase in yield needs to be 2.4% to meet the demands of population growth, improved nutritional standards and decreasing arability (see below) [12]. This is a daunting task, which seems only achievable by means of optimization of crop genetics coupled with quantitative improvements in management of the agricultural system.

    FAO predicted that the finite amount of arable land available for food production per person will decrease from the current 0.242 ha to 0.18 ha by 2050 [13]. This problem confounds those of population growth and malnutrition. Yet our ability to bring additional acreage under cultivation seems limited. The alternative is greater yield per acre, which in turn must come from greater agriculture inputs, such as fertilizer, water, pest and weed control and/or genetic improvement [1]. This scenario is compounded by several complicating factors: (1) the increased demand for biofuel and feedstock production; (2) accelerated urbanization; (3) land desertification, salinization, and degradation; (4) altered land use from staple foods to pasture, driven by socioeconomic considerations; (5) climate change; (6) water resource limitation.

    Conventional breeding relies on sexual crossing of one parental line with another parental line, in hopes of expressing some desired property (e.g. disease resistance) [1]. To select for the desired trait and to dilute irrelevant or undesired traits, breeders choose the best progeny and back-cross it to one of its parents (plant or animal). The process usually takes several years (depending on generational time, e.g. 1015 years for wheat) before actual expression of the desired trait that can be assessed, and further expanded by conventional breeding to commercially useful numbers. Besides the inherently long generation times, the following facts limit the development of conventional breeding: Prerequisite to breeding strategies is the existence of genetic variation that is, existence of an available gene-pool manifesting the desired traits, and sexual compatibility of organisms with those traits. In fact, nowadays genetic variety has dwindled (probably as a result of past efforts at optimization), thus we operate in a restricted space for improvement. Modern methodologies can increase this space by utilizing chemicals or radiation to introduce new mutational variation. However, these are blunt instruments that result in improved traits only by random chance and sparse luck. Indeed, the non-selectivity of these methods probably extend the breeding timeline [1].

    Taking these facts into account, the emergence of biological technologies and the development of GM foods promise to reduce dramatically production timelines to new strains, and to provide us with optional strategies to achieve sustainable global food security.

    The use of Agrobacterium tumefaciens opened a new era for inserting exogenous genes into plant cells. The soil bacterium A. tumefaciens infects plants, forming a gall at the crown. The bacteria actually alter the genome of the plant, not only causing proliferation of the plant cells, but also enabling the plant to produce modified amino acids as a specialized food source for themselves. The bacteria possess a tumor-inducing plasmid (Ti-plasmid), which enable them to accomplish gene-insertion; researchers hijack the plasmid by inserting designer gene's into the T-DNA (transfer DNA) section of the Ti-plasmid. In 2012, the CRISPR-Cas9 system was developed. It constitutes a revolutionary genome editing tool, and provides another method to alter genes in various type of cells [17], [18]. This technique dramatically increases the efficiency of genetic engineering, making the work with plants much easier [19].

    From 2006 to 2012, the global increase in farm income from GM food had reached $116 billion, almost triple that of previous 10 years [20], [21]. According to the estimation from James and Brookes, about 42% of the economic gain was from the increased yield due to advanced genetics and resistance to pests and weeds. The decreased costs of production (e.g. from reduced pesticide and herbicide usage) contributed the remaining 58%.

    Enhanced nutritional value in transgenic products has been obtained by manipulating their composition of carbohydrates. Let us consider further the example of Amflora. The bulk of polysaccharides in the potato-bulb is formed by two types of starch: amylose and amylopectin. Amylose is useful only as food starch, while amylopectin is widely used in the production of non-food starch, paper, and in textile processing. The synthesis of starch requires various enzymes, which include a granule-bound starch synthase (GSBB), the primary function of which involves the production of amylose. In the absence of GSBB, amylopectin is produced exclusively. Exploiting this knowledge has led to methods to modify the composition of potato starch. The transgenic process involves the introduction into potato bulbs of an additional copy of the GSBB-coding gene. Counter intuitively, the extra gene in fact suppressed expression of GSBB, by a process know as co-suppression, a.k.a. gene silencing. The resultant Amflora potato is with decreased amylose, but rich in amylopectin [25].

    Three major health risks potentially associated with GM foods are: toxicity, allergenicity and genetic hazards. These arise from three potential sources, the inserted gene and their expressed proteins per se, secondary or pleiotropic effects of the products of gene expression, and the possible disruption of natural genes in the manipulated organism [10].

    Starlink maize provides an example of a food hazard caused directly by the expression of the inserted gene [29], [35], [37], [38], [39]. The modified plant was engineered with genetic information from Bacillus thuringinesis in order to endow the plant with resistance to certain insects. The inserted gene encodes a protein, called Cry9c, with pesticidal properties, but with an unintended, strong allergenicity. Several cases have been reported of allergic reaction in consumers after consuming the Starlink maize.

    Modification on the expression level of natural components of the manipulated organism can also exacerbate allergy. One example is the production of soybeans enriched in the amino acid methionine. The enhanced synthesis of this amino acid is the result of a gene isolated from Brazil nuts. As a consequence, some consumers allergenically sensitized to these nuts have allergic reactions to the transgenic soybean.

    Secondary and pleiotropic effects are much less straightforward to recognize than direct effects of the gene or its products. The modified gene may encode an enzyme involved in otherwise natural metabolic pathways of the modified organisms. Such changes might alter the levels of other metabolites, including toxic ones, at some metabolic distance from actual metabolic perturbation. Connecting the causative dots presupposes an intimate understanding of the biochemical and regulatory pathways which may be beyond current comprehension.

  10. GMO Potatoes - Everything You Need To Know | GMO Answers

    gmoanswers.com/everything-potato-lover-needs...

    The company worked with farmers to grow approximately 6,000 acres of the potato to be sold in 2017. By comparison, there were over 955,000 acres of potatoes planted in the U.S. in 2015. Why would farmers choose to grow genetically modified potatoes?

  11. The GMO Potato: What Consumers Need to Know | Living Non-GMO ...

    livingnongmo.org/2018/10/31/the-gmo-potato-what...

    Oct 31, 2018 · The potato has been added to the High-Risk list of the Non-GMO Project Standard because GMO versions of the potato are now “widely commercially available” in the United States. The Non-GMO Project Standard is the controlling document that defines the requirements for a product to be Non-GMO Project Verified.

  12. People also search for