GMO – GMO SAFETY

7 Differences between Radical Feminism and Liberal Feminism

Liberal feminism and radical feminism are the two main forms of feminism. While both advocate for equal rights to women, they differ in their ideologies, views on root of gender inequality and more. The major difference between them being that radical feminism advocates a radical shakeup of the system while liberal feminism does not campaign for a complete reorganization of the system. Here are more ways in which the two ideologies differ.

The Root Cause of Inequality

Radical feminism views patriarchy or male supremacy as the cause of gender inequality. They see society and its institutions as innately patriarchal, with men as the ruling class and women are the subject class. Liberal feminism believes that gender inequality stems from society and legal constructs. Liberals do not believe that society is innately patriarchal and that both genders are gradually becoming equal and this trend will continue over time porno français.

Core Beliefs

Liberals believe that all humans are equal and deserve equal rights. According to them, patriarchy ties down both women and men. On the other hand, radicals believe that patriarchy is oppressive towards women and that the male gender benefits from the subordination of women. Radical feminism believes that the domination of women by men is the oldest and worst form of oppression in the world. For example, Liberal feminism views paid labor as liberating for women and a progressive step toward gender equality. Radicals do not view paid labor as liberating. For them, women endure dual labor of salaried work and unpaid housework. The family remains patriarchal, and men benefit from the paid earnings of women and the domestic labor they provide.

Approach to Solution

7 Differences between Radical Feminism and Liberal Feminism

According to radical feminism, gender equality is possible through a radical restructuring of society to eradicate patriarchy. On the other hand, liberal feminism does not seek to restructure society. The liberals’ approach aims to work within the system to integrate women into the social structure and make society more responsive to women’s rights.

Individualism versus Sisterhood

Liberal feminism bases its philosophy on the principle of individualism, where all humans have equal moral worth with entitlement to equal treatment despite their sex, color, age, race, or religion. Therefore, it focuses on individuals’ right to fight for their rights instead of fighting collectively as women. Radical feminists claim that stress mounted on “personhood’ makes it more challenging for females to reason and collaborate as brought together by their gender identity – “sisterhood.” They fear that individualism allows the male gender to impose their attributes and aspirations onto females.

Militant versus Reformist

Radical feminism exhibits a more militant approach toward attaining gender equality. It aims to eradicate patriarchy or male supremacy from every sphere of society. Furthermore, radicals do not believe that changes in the law can bring equality because the system is innately skewed favor of men. Liberal feminism does not aim to obliterate the distinction between political and personal. It pursues a reformist approach. Liberals believe that opening public life to equal competition between both genders is crucial – it ensures equal political rights, the right to education, to vote and pursue a career, and more.

Biological Determinism

Liberal feminists believe in biological determinism – women and men exhibit biological differences. Women are naturally suitable for specific responsibilities like childbearing, taking care of the home, and more. Radicals believe that biological roles such as childbearing cause women to skip work (maternity leave), so women fail to attain promotions as fast as men.

Focus on Cause of Gender Inequality

Radical feminism tends to focus on the root cause of gender inequality and gender-based issues, which is patriarchy. Radicals are angry against patriarchy and the system and want a total overhaul of the political, legal, societal, and social organization associated with patriarchy. Liberals do not focus on the cause of gender inequality and believe that patriarchy is oppressive to both genders. They recognize the problem of patriarchy but believe there is a need to change that through political, legal, and social organizations.

Nestlé Removes GMO Ingredients from Their Ice Cream

The food manufacturing giants have recently announced that they will be removing GMO ingredients from a couple of their ice cream flavors. Nestlé are one of the biggest companies in the world today and the fact that they are actually listening to the demands of their customers who oppose GMO technology is a watershed moment for those who are putting an effort into removing GMO from the best-selling and well known food products.

A large number of consumers have contacted Nestlé demanding the removal of GMO ingredients from six ice cream products. Even though it has taken Nestlé some time to make a final decision, eventually they did reach the verdict and in order to keep their customers satisfied, GMO ingredients will be taken out of all of the requested products.

They released an official statement in which they pointed out that Nestlé Dreyer’s Ice Cream will be updating the ingredients of the following flavors: Edy’s 1, Häagen-Dazs, Outshine, Skinny Cow, Nestlé Ice Cream and Nestlé Drumstick. The focus will be on maintaining the well-known flavors with all new non-GMO ingredients. Therefore, the consumers will remain happy and get the healthiest possible version of their favorite ice cream product.

Nestlé will also closely examine a number of other products in order to determine if they need any modifications when it comes to ingredients. Their scientists will be inspecting over one hundred products and make a decision whether they need updates in terms of removing both GMO ingredients or artificial flavors and colors.

Their efforts should be praised because not many food manufacturers are ready to plunge into this so readily. They mostly ignore the critics and continue to use untested ingredients in their products anyway. Of course, there are plenty of research we need to complete in order to know exactly how GMO products influence our bodies and environment. But there are already so many people who oppose GMO technology and request that the big companies at least put a GMO label on their products.

As a matter of fact, other huge companies such as Kellogg’s and Mars made the announcements in March that they will be following Campbell’s’ steps and start putting GMO warning labels on the products that contain GMO ingredients. This seemed like a huge deal when it first came out, but Nestlé took it to a whole new level with the actual removal of GMO ingredients from their ice creams.

The labels appeared in April of 2016 all around the United States and that decision was rushed after a new GMO law was accepted in Vermont. The manufacturers have decided that it will be impossible to put the labels on their products in Vermont only, so they went big and nationwide and updated both the labels and the packaging of their products in all of the fifty states.

The bar was raised by Nestlé and we are eager to see what the other manufacturers will do in the future regarding the labels. The food production business is obviously very huge and they simply have to listen to the demands of their customers in order to keep them satisfied. If there is a request that an ingredient needs to be closely examined and revised, the large companies take the criticism very seriously and do their best to make further inquiry as soon as possible.

Knowing the ingredients that are in the food you consume is very important and we applaud Nestlé for listening to their customers. It is a big victory for the people who are not fans of GMO and we are sure that there will be more developments with this story in the future.

Production of GMO Roundup Ready Soy plants

There is a broad range of methods that are employed in the process of producing GMOs. This often involves insertion of a gene of interest into living organisms depending on the species that you are working on. In plants mainly, two most common biotechnology-based techniques include; Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and bombardment of particles. According to the regulations given by FSANZ, it is a requirement that clear description of the method employed in genetically engineering plants is given.

Case study- Roundup Ready soy

This was produced using the particle bombardment method. This process of biotechnologically engineering soybeans involved; bombardment of the plant cells with microscopic particles of gold coated with DNA that contains the gene of interest. The gene of interest is the EPSPS gene that is derived from Agrobacterium. The aim of this is to introduce the novel gene of interest through the cell wall so that it integrates into the genetic material of the soy plant.

The new round up soy that is genetically engineered contains a new gene that codes for the EPSPS enzyme. The new plant cell controls the activity of all the genes through the use of regulatory sequences. These regulatory sequences do not code for any protein but rather plays a central role in the regulation of gene activity in the soy plant by either switching the genes on or switching them off. However, in the case of the roundup soy, plant cells often do not recognize the regulatory genes derived from bacterial cells. This means that when the regulatory sequences are introduced from the bacterium into the plant, the regulatory DNA has to be replaced with those that can be recognized by the plant. Thus, the EPSPS gene derived from Agrobacterium works in the soy plant through replacement with those that are recognized by the soy plant.

The figure above demonstrates the manner in which gene regulation takes place in the roundup soy. At the front of the bacterial EPSPS gene in the roundup, soy is the regulatory sequence that directs the plant to switch genes on or off. This is the CaMV 35S promoter sequence is derived from cauliflower mosaic virus. At the end of the EPSPS gene is another regulatory gene that directs the gene of interest to end. This is referred to as NOS 3’’ and is derived from nopaline synthase gene in bacteria but can function in plants.

Another regulatory sequence that is introduced into the soy plant is the chloroplast transit peptide gene that is derived from a petunia. The role of this gene is to direct the soy plant cell to transport the bacterial EPSPS gene into the chloroplast of the plant cell. This is because for the soy plant to demonstrate tolerance to roundup herbicides, the EPSPS enzyme has to be present in the chloroplast. This is because this is the location where the amino acids that make up the protein are produced. Once the EPSPS enzyme is in the chloroplast, the chloroplast transit peptide is eliminated for the gene of interest to function.

With this GMO soy plant, standard molecular biotechnological methods were employed in demonstrating that a single complete copy of the bacterial EPSPS gene was present and flanked by two DNA sequences found in the genome of the roundup ready soy plant. This is an indication that the right size and correct sequence of the gene of interest were genetically engineered into the soy plant to confer resistance to herbicides.

Additionally, the novel gene introduced into the roundup ready soy was assessed in the third and the sixth generation of soy plants using biotechnological approaches. This indicated that the new gene of interest was stable and had integrated itself well into the Soy genome. Again, the roundup ready feature of the soy plant was examined across a wide range of generations thus indicating its ability to be passed on from the parents to the offspring in a rational and predictable manner following the laws of heredity.

The issues that arise from the discovery and production of the GM roundup ready soy are mostly relevant to the potential transfer of the gene that confers antibiotic resistance from the GM soy foods to the gut of the bacteria. However, it is important to note that roundup ready GM soy does not contain the antibiotic resistance gene, but the only gene that could potentially be transferred to the human digestive system is the bacterial EPSPS gene. This gene does not have any impact on the people’s health since EPSPS gene in the GM soy plant functions in a similar manner as the one predominantly found in the bacterial gut. There is also no evidence that points at the ability of the new gene in GM soy having a potential to integrate into the DNA genome of humans and thus poses no known health hazard. Additionally, there is no sequence similarity to the gene to allergens and thus has no ability to cause allergenic reactions.

The genetically engineered soy is similar in structure as well as function to the naturally occurring soy plants while the EPSPS gene in plants and bacteria are also similar regarding the roles they play. However, the difference between the two soy varieties is based on the fact that the GM soy is more tolerant to herbicides as compared to the other naturally occurring type. According to scientific publications of GM soy, there is a single amino acid alteration in the EPSPS enzyme that confers its tolerance to glyphosate. On the other hand, the bacterial EPSPS enzyme is made up of over 400 amino acids. Additionally, bacterial EPSPS levels present in fresh edible soy constitutes less than 0.1 % of the total protein levels. According to research, the enzyme of interest in the GM soy has not been demonstrated to have any activity when eaten. This is because the enzyme is inactivated upon exposure to heat during food processing.

The safety of genetically modified plants produced through use of biotechnology

The safety of genetically modified plants has been at the forefront of many scientific debates trying to ascertain the safety of the plants and its produce to human and animal health upon consumption. This is where the Society of Toxicology comes into play to ensure that they offer maximum protection and enhancement of the human, animal as well as environmental health. This is achieved through the sound application of biotechnological processes in production. Typically, in this context, biotechnology refers to the processes that involve the transfer of transgenes from organisms to plants hence food production. This may also apply to the expression of individual existing genes s modified permanently by employing genetic engineering techniques. Therefore, it is important for you to realize that it is not the method of modification of plants that is the concern of human and environmental safety but rather the product.

In this article, the question we will try to answer is whether the product of the transgene is capable of presenting a risk to both the consumers and the handlers of genetically modified plants. This means that the potential toxicity of the transgene plant product has to be considered by case-by-case design. This means that taking into consideration the possibility that the transgene produces toxins that are known such as protein allergens.

Toxin production

The level of toxins that are produced by the genetically modified plants and the threat it possesses to the producers and the consumers is often the focus of interest of toxicologist. This is through the use of standard toxicological approaches such as the evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) endotoxins as described by US EPA in 2001. The safety of these plants is therefore determined by their digestibility and absence of intrinsic activity in the mammalian systems. In this case, therefore, in-depth comprehension of the mechanism of action of the Bt toxin and the selective pressure that takes place in their biochemical systems increases the surety of safety assessments. However, each transgenic novel product of plants has to be considered individually. This is based on the levels of exposure, potency in causing toxic effects among other safety paradigms.

Allergen production

Allergenicity is one of the major safety concerns of consuming foods derived from transgenic plants. In as much as we are raising eyebrows on the safety of GM plants and their products, consumption of conventional foods is not equally safe. This is because the occurrence of allergies has been reported with conventional foods. However, some of the issues that have to be addressed with a high level of stringency are the potential Allergenicity associated with genetically modified plants/crops. Some of these issues include;

Do the products of the novel gene inserted into plants elicit allergic reactions in humans or animals that are already sensitized to the same protein? Does the transgenic approach employ induce alteration of the level of expression of the proteins that exist in the host crop? Do the products derived from genetically engineered plants used for food have the ability to induce de novo sensitization among humans or animals that are susceptible?

Characterization of the potentially allergenic proteins produced by the GM plants produced through biotechnological technique is based on three factors;

Structural similarity, serological and sequence homology; the principal aim of this is to determine whether and to what level does the protein produced by the genetically modified foods have similarity to other known proteins that have the potential of causing allergies among humans and animals. This is through the determination of the overall structure of the protein of interest and its similarity to allergens that are known. The use of the protein database offers the possibility of determining the similarity of the novel protein of interest with those of allergens that are known on their sequence alignments homology. This could also be compared to discrete motifs and domains in the protein where there is complete sequence similarity with that which is present in known allergens, therefore, indicating possibility of shared protein epitopes. The third approach is the use of serological techniques to determine whether there are specific IgE antibodies present in the serum of sensitized humans or animals capable of recognizing the protein of interest.

Proteolytic stability: According to research, there is evidence of a correlation between protein resistance to proteolytic digestion and their potential to cause allergic reactions. The theory, in this case, is that relative resistance plays a role in inducing allergic responses on condition that the protein of interest possesses allergenic characteristics. In this case, the approach that is effective is characterizing the susceptibility of the protein of interest to its digestibility by pepsins and other gastric stimulated proteins. However, it is important to note that this approach alone may not be sufficient for the identification of cross-reactive proteins that have the potential of eliciting allergic responses in foods.

Use of animal models: animal models are the other biotechnological approach that may be used to assess the safety of products derived from GM plants. Currently, there is the absence of adequate animals that can be used as model organisms to simulate the same environment as humans thus facilitating their use in identification of protein allergens. However, there is ongoing research geared towards the development of techniques that are suitable for characterization of allergic responses in rodents and other species that mimic human physiological surrounding.

The safety of the GM plant and plant products has been lots of concern across the globe. However, it is important to appreciate the fact that despite the safety concerns, it is also playing a significant role in charting the path towards food security. However, a major limitation is predicted to occur in future if the transgenic technology gives rise to more substantial and complexity in the products derived from GM plants. This means that there is a need for improving the methods that are used in plant profiling of their proteins as well as studying their gene expression. This is especially important in detecting any changes that occur unexpectedly in the GM plants to determine their substantial equivalence. Therefore, continuity in the evolution of toxicological methods, as well as regulatory strategies, are necessary to be put in place to ensure that safety of GM plants and products comes first as far as human, animal and environmental factors are concerned.

Golden Rice and the Possibility of Overcoming World Famine Through Genetic Modification

Golden rice is a crop that has been in development in one way or another since 1984. The crop itself is named after the golden yellow color it has, which contrasts greatly with the normal white color of rice. The signature trait of golden rice is that it is infused with beta-carotene, an extremely important nutrient that is the source of Vitamin A. It is the addition of that nutrient that also gives the rice its distinctive color.

According to the article “In A Grain of Golden Rice, A World of Controversy Over GMO Foods” on NPR, the idea for golden rice came about from a group of master plant breeders talking after a Rockefeller Foundation funded meeting at the International Rice Institute. Peter Jennings, who had helped to orchestrate the Green Revolution that had saved billions, suggested that altering rice to include beta-carotene could vastly improve the lives of millions or even billions itself.

The reason for this was simple. In many poorer and less developed countries in the east, most children grow up on rice from a young age. Because rice lacks the ability to give meaningful amounts of Vitamin A, children tend to grow up malnourished and suffer from that lack for their whole lives. Because parents in many of those countries wean their children on rice gruel predominantly, it would be imperative to have some way of introducing the absolutely important vitamin into the diet of the less wealthy masses.

One of the hurdles that must be overcome in selling the long developed idea of golden rice to people in both the developed and developing world is to overcome the stigma of the odd coloration. While gold is not a color that is generally looked at with disdain, it still triggers the parts of our brain that warn us about off coloration of food. Those parts of the brain were evolved to protect us from spoiled food and edible items that may have been poisonous, and they also allowed us to notice the natural warning colors that dissuaded us from trying to touch harmful plants or animals. But now it is serving to scare people away from trying the healthier rice for their benefit.

On the goldenrice.org website under the heading “Sociocultural Issues”, the team behind golden rice points out that early in their inception carrots were actually white or purple. They state that while they understand why people may be hesitant to try their golden rice out of tradition for using only their specific kinds of grains, they hope that the curiosity of people in places ranging from Africa to Latin America to Asia will have them try out their golden rice.

Back on the NPR article, the writer states that while golden rice has taken decades to cultivate and turn into a viable product, the developers have gotten close to the release of the rice and were working on passing rigorous testing standards and accompanying legislation so that they could plant in countries like the Philippines and Bangladesh. Being that the rice was designed so that very low income people would have access to the nutrient it provided, it was important to make the most headway in those locations. Even with their positive goals, though, the comments were ripe with anti-gmo sentiments, and illustrated how even with the best intentions it would still be hard to get the passage approved to where the rice could do the most good- in some of the most tradition focused areas on earth. However, there was hope that all the effort that has gone into the rice would pay off for those in need.

Source:

Charles, D. (2013). In A Grain Of Golden Rice, A World Of Controversy Over GMO Foods. NPR.

Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. (2016). Sociocultural Issues. Golden Rice Project.

Plenish Soybeans and the Genetic Reduction of Trans Fats in Oil Use

Soybeans are an incredibly useful crop necessary around the world for their protein content and their use in creating oils. However, the health liabilities of using soybean oil cause a danger to the public- soybean, when cooked or fried on intense heat create trans-fat- and so DuPont has created “Plenish” soybeans genetically engineered to reduce the amount of trans-fat in their soy.

To put into perspective how in demand soybean oil is, the website Soyconnection states in their article “Soybean Oil Uses and Overview” that, due to its use in numerous food products such as margarine, shortenings, mayonnaise, salad dressings, frozen foods, imitation dairy and meat, and baked goods, soybean oil is the most highly used food oil in America and takes up 55% of the market of vegetable oils. While this is obviously good for those in the industry there is a problem with such widespread use of soybeans as oil- the health content.

As reported on GMO-Compass.org, the amount of oleic content available in soybeans is around 23% with higher linoleic acid content. Genetically modified soybeans have a much higher available amount of oleic content at 86%, with a correspondingly lower amount of linoleic acid. The report, “Soya Bean”, goes on to state that it is the linoleic acid that causes the formation of trans fat during the high temperature heating/frying process, and that soybeans like Plenish form less trans-fat as a result.

The health benefits do not end there. The article “A GMO Soybean, Engineered to Improve Your Health” on fastcoexist.com reports that in addition to lessening the amount of trans-fat, the higher oleic acid content contributes in other ways. The monounsaturated fatty acid is already a main component of heart healthy oils in general, and they contain lower saturated fats in addition to trans-fats, which are culprits in exacerbating high blood pressure. Furthermore, oleic acid plays a large role in maintaining the shelf life of soybean products, improving it to about two to three times the length of normal soybean oil products on the market.

There’s a practical farming benefit to the use of modified soybeans over, say, high oleic canola oil. Soybeans are both a highly planted crop, taking up lots of farming space, and they are also very resilient, allowing much of the crop to be harvested even in times of hardships or distress. Making healthier soybeans used in the majority of vegetable oils then aims to be a win-win scenario: there are more plentiful and resilient soybeans to be used in the most produced type of oil in America.

Time will tell if it catches on, though. As the fastcoexist article goes on to mention, unfortunately for DuPont their visual of popular low trans-fat products took too long to make a reality. Because of the time it takes for genetically modified plants to pass rigorous testing and inspections, not only has rival Monsanto come out with their own version named “Vistive Gold”, but producers of other oil products (like that of the aforementioned canola oil) have already moved to corner the market on less trans-fat oils. In addition to that, the stigma surrounding the use of genetically modified plant products, with modified soybeans being a particular focus, has limited the planting and sale of the Plenish soybeans on the world market. There is hope that soybeans can serve as an ambassador of sorts about the wondrous benefits of genetic modification, but in case there isn’t enough interest or market share left for them as edibles there one more option- industrial uses, like use in foam packing and hydraulic fluid.

Sources:

United Soybean Board. (2016). Soybean Uses and Overview. SoyConnection.

Gmo-Compass. (2010). USA: New GM soybean with higher oleic acid content approved. Gmo-Compass.org.

Schwartz, A. (2014). A GMO Soybean, Engineered To Improve Your Health. Fastcoexist.

Examining Inborn Defenses against Pests in Leptra Corn

One of the most prevalent traits of genetically modified plants is their ability to resist insects that would normally consume and destroy the plant. One recent addition to the family of gmo plants created to protect itself from insects is a hybrid plant created by DuPont Pioneer and is known as Optimum Leptra. The website states that the modification is to the corn plant and is designed to reduce the ear feeding of lepidopteran pests which delivers cleaner ears with less kernel damage and that it eliminates the major risk of development of molds and mycotoxins in harvested grain (“Optimum Leptra Hybrids”).

An article by Clarin Rural, covering news in the Latin American regions, talked about how the corn will soon be introduced in Argentina after having the Ministry of Agro Industry approve the marketing of the plant (“Resistant corn comes with four transgenic events”). The article gives more details on the function of the modifications, stating that two of the events protect against stem borer and isoca Tang, a double event for protection against fall armyworm and glufosinate ammonium with a room for glyphosate. The corn has already been made available in Brazil and hopes carry to better yields with it in Argentina.

In the United States the protections on the crop protect it from different pests. In the article “DuPont Pioneer releases Optimum Leptra Hybrid” on AGProfessional, in the United States the insects repelled by the modifications of the corn include European and Southwestern corn borers, the corn earworm, and black and western bean cutworms. In the article, penned by the DuPont Pioneer Company, they cite figures of 98% reduction in ear feeding damage using their crops. The plants are also resistant to herbicides, protecting them from more types of poison control.

Some of the traits found in the corn have long been used in other genetically modified plants produced by DuPont, and have long known mechanisms for working. For example, Herculex I, a trait available in Leptra to kill bugs functions by being ingested by larva who feed on the modified plant. The protein binds to receptors in the gut of the larva and causing a series of reactions which ultimately lead to the death of the larva (“Herculex FAQ”).

As with any genetically modified food, of course, there are questions about the effects these different traits may have on the ecology around it. Modified plants that have natural pesticides and that are resistant to herbicides and pesticides have been shown to cause resistant strains of weeds and pest insects to survive and reproduce, causing a drop in the effectiveness of the traits modified in the plants. The article “How pesticides develop” by Michigan State University explained that worldwide more than 500 species of pests have developed a resistance to pesticides due to the growth of resistance among their populations.

Even so, the Clarin Rural article goes on to state that the importance of the Leptra crop is that, since it has so many different resistance traits it makes it easier to rotate the amount of herbicides and pesticides needed for cultivating the crop. In addition, the natural pest defenses the corn has should also reduce the amount of poison needed as it is targets the greatest pests that threaten the growth of corn plants in the regions the crop is planted in. All of these different additions may prove to be fundamental in helping feed a world that is highly defendant on its corn plants on production, if they can get past the stigma of genetic modification and scientific uncertainty.

Sources:

Clarin. (2016). Argentina approves new GMO corn with four traits for insect, pesticide resistance. Genetic Literacy Poroject.

Dow AgroSciences. (2016). Herculex I FAQ. DowAgro.

DuPont Pioneer. (2013). DuPont Pioneer releases Optimum Leptra hybrid. AGProfessional.

Gut, L., Schilder, A., Isaacs, R., & McManus, P. (2016). How Pesticide Resistance Develops. Michigan State University.

Pioneer. (2016). Optimum Leptra Hybrids. DuPont Pioneer.

Arctic Apples and the Benefit of Modified Aesthetics

Humans are a visually driven species, now more than ever. The unfortunate result of this has implications through numerous parts of our society, including the food we eat. According to a National Geographic article, “How Ugly Fruits and Vegetables Can Help Solve World Hunger”, 27.5% of all fruits in North America are thrown away either by distributors or consumers at home before they can be eaten, often due to the fruit being damaged or “ugly”. Arctic Apples, a creation of Okanagan Specialty Fruits in Canada, hopes to keep their apples from being discarded due to ugliness through a genetically modified trait they added in- “non-browning” of their apples.

Scientific American explains that apple browning occurs when an apple is sliced into or bruised it introduces oxygen into the cells that activates enzymes called polyphenol oxidase or PPO enzymes in their chloroplasts. These enzymes rapidly oxidize phenolic compounds into something called o-quinones that produce the browning by reacting to form amino acids (“Why do apple slices turn brown after being cut”). It is that browning, resulting from bruising during picking, transportation, and handling, which often has distributors trashing apples without giving them a chance. Then at the home, when a consumer cuts into the apple the browning may be enough to cause them to trash the apple themselves, and it is these two phenomena that led to the introduction of the Arctic Apples that are trying to avoid the fate that befalls so many others altogether.

The way Arctic Apples were created is simple, based on the information Okanagan Specialty Fruits provides on its website. By modifying four specific apple genes in a petri dish the company was able to silence the ability of the apple to produce PPO, which means that when the apple is bruised or sliced and oxygen is introduced there is very little to no ability of the apple to go through the process that leads its browning. With the successful application of the genetic modification the company has developed apple trees which it is planting to grow more of their Arctic Apples to put on the market.

On the website again, the question is answered about whether PPO and the action of browning serves any purpose for apples naturally. The website states that in tomatoes the high amount of PPO is used defensively to protect the fruit from pests, but given that apples produce comparatively less PPO the company theorises that it is just a left over artifact of its development. For its part, the earlier Scientific American article states that brown coloration we are used to and in fact desire- in our teas, coffee, and cocoa- are the product of the PPO process as well.

A Cnet article, “Non-browning apples may be on store shelve soon(ish)” reports that the entire process of creating the Arctic Apples and putting them through the rigorous testing standards to be allowed in store shelves took over ten years. However, even given all that work there could still be many more years until the apples are widely released, and in 2016 the apples are being tried out in test markets to assess viability.

Despite the seeming simplicity of the engineering involved in Arctic Apples, there is still backlash against the fruit. An EcoWatch article, “3 Companies Say No to GMO”, states that Wendy’s, McDonalds, and Gerber have all said they don’t plan on using any Arctic Apples in their apple slice meal options. Even on their website there are dozens of comments going back and forth about the danger of cross pollination of the apples with non-modified trees and whether they present any danger to human consumption or other use. Only time will tell whether Arctic Apples can help to dramatically reduce food waste as advertised.

Sources:

Friends of the Earth. (2015). 3 Companies Say ‘No’ to GMO Arctic Apples. EcoWatch. Kooser, A. (2015). Non-browning apples may be on store shelves soon(ish). CNet.

Okanagan Specialty Fruits. (2016). How’d we “make” a nonbrowning apple? Arctic Apples.

Royte, E. (2016). How ‘Ugly’ Fruits and Vegetables Can Help Solve World Hunger. National Geographic.

Scientific American. (2007). Why do apple slices turn brown after being cut? Scientific American.

Revisiting the Usefulness of Aesthetic Genetic Modifications with Innate Potatoes

Innate potatoes, developed by the agency J.R. Simplot, are the first genetically modified potatoes to be approved by the FDA for consumption. The potatoes have a wide verity of inserted genes added for the benefit of the crop, the farmers growing them, and consumers who purchase them. In the article “What Varieties of Potato are GMO?” on Livestrong, it is reported that the potatoes come in three different varieties- Ranger Russett, Russett Burbank, and Atlantic. Also in the report it was listed that, in their March 2015 press release about their evaluation of the crop and decision that the potatoes passed criteria such as toxicity, potential for allergic reaction, stability of unintended side effect, and more.

The main benefit that is highlighted in media coverage of the Innate potatoes are the same benefits that Arctic Apples were designed to have- a resistance to unattractive bruising and brown spotting on the inside. NPR goes into further detail in “GMO Potatoes Have Arrived. But Will Anyone Buy Them?”, explaining that the reason the agency named the potatoes “Innate” was because the genes used to silence the reaction in the spuds that caused the browning are actual native to potatoes themselves, but that they went unused after a while. Much of the food waste in the world comes from the distribution process, either when processers discard unattractive foods or when consumers at home discard their bruised fruits and vegetables before eating them. The hope is that this process keeps potatoes looking more healthy and attractive so that less will be wasted in the trash.

Another potent benefit of the modified potato, as mentioned in the NPR article, is that the Innate potatoes contain much less of a chemical known as acrylamide, which is triggered in the frying process. Studies on lab rates have shown that consumption of acrylamide increases the potential of cancer in lab rats, a litmus test often showing parallels in humans.

There are a host of other benefits, explains the article “Genetically Modified Potatoes Are Making Their Way to the Produce Section” from Fortune. The potatoes are designed to resist the blight that led to the Irish Potato famine, an inserted gene from another species located in Argentina that grew to resist such pathogens. This kind of blight protection is handy for farmers, as it allows the plant to protect itself from the most common diseases they would have to look out for. The potato is also designed to be able to be stored for a longer period of time at lower temperatures, allowing them to be kept in stores and sold over a greater duration. This is also hoped to reduce the spoils of food waste on the distribution side.

Although there are a great number of seeming benefits to the use of these potatoes, Simplot agency faces the same problems as do the other producers of genetically modified plants- there is still a heavily negative perception of such crops and a reluctance to adopt their use. Big retailers such as the McDonalds Corporation (who has worked with Simplot for many, many years), Frito-Lay, and ConAgra foods have all publically stated they will not use the modified plants. Even with a successful FDA evaluation of the crop, Simplot will have to do more on its end to prove to consumers that their new potatoes are worthy of interest and will do more good for public health than bad. This will be an important obstacle to overcome to a huge market as potatoes are reportedly the third most consumed food crop in the world, according to the International Potato Center.

Sources:
Addady, M. (2016). Genetically Modified Potatoes Are Making Their Way to the Produce Section. Fortune.
Charles, D. (2015). GMO Potatoes Have Arrived. But Will Anyone Buy Them? NPR.International Potato Center. (2016). Potato. International Potato Center.
Renee, J. (2015). What Varieties of Potatoes Are GMO? Livestrong.

The Root Cause of Inequality

Core Beliefs

Approach to Solution

Individualism versus Sisterhood

Militant versus Reformist

Biological Determinism

Focus on Cause of Gender Inequality