Yahoo Web Search

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

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

    Oct 17, 2018 · Given the nature of the potato industry, the most common potato varieties, such as Russet Burbank and Ranger Russet, will soon be contaminated with GMO stock. Other GMO Foods Have Hidden Concerns, Too. My book describes the many hidden issues of GMO potatoes, but GMO potatoes are not the exception. They are the rule.

  2. USDA Approves Genetically Engineered Potatoes

    www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/gm-potatoes...

    Oct 31, 2016 · The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved commercial planting of two types of potatoes that are genetically engineered to resist the pathogen that caused the Irish potato famine.

    • NBC Universal
  3. People also ask

    Why are Potatoes Bad for the Irish?

    Are potatoes contaminated with GMO?

    What are the potatoes that are genetically engineered?

    Is Innate potato genetically modified?

  4. USDA Approves Genetically Engineered Potato | Time

    time.com/3574780/usda-potato-genetically-engineered

    Nov 09, 2014 · November 9, 2014 1:38 PM EST T he U.S. Department of Agriculture on Friday approved a genetically engineered potato that is resistant to bruising and cuts down on a possible cancer-causing...

    • Nolan Feeney
  5. These potatoes are genetically modified to reduce the amount of asparagine in them. The reason for less asparagine is so when fried the potato will produce less acrylamide, a toxic cancer-causing substance. The potato itself isn’t carcinogenic, but rather the method of cooking creates a substance that is a carcinogen.

  6. GMO Potatoes Are Here - How to Avoid Them

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

    Nov 08, 2018 · The genetically modified Innate potato was approved by the USDA in 2014. The “Innate” potato is a group of potato varieties that have had the same genetic alterations applied using a new form of genetic engineering known as RNA interference (RNAi).

  7. | GMO Potatoes; Good or Bad?The Hacker's Hangout

    potatohack.com/2017/03/15/gmo-potatoes-good-or-bad

    May 03, 2017 · Far better would be to avoid French fries, potato chips, and all manner of processed foods containing modified potato starches and rancid oils. These are the real dangerous foods. But quite possibly, GMO potatoes such as Innate might be better for us. Potatoes in storage require the use of fungicides to prevent spoilage.

  8. McDonald's GMO dilemma: why fries are causing such a fuss ...

    www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/...

    Dec 04, 2013 · The advocacy group Food & Water Watch is asking McDonald's, the world's biggest buyer of potatoes, not to source a genetically engineered spud that was developed by its biggest supplier, the J.R ...

  9. Pros and cons of GMO foods: Health and environment

    www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324576

    Seeds from genetically modified, insect-resistant crops account for 82 percent of all domestic corn planted and 85 percent of all cotton planted in the U.S. Potatoes, squash, apples, and papayas ...

    • Amanda Barrell
  10. 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.

  11. People also search for