Production Blog

Will We Swallow GE Potatoes?

A new genetically engineered potato reduces bruising and the amount of an undesirable chemical created when the potato is cooked at high temperatures, but will consumers buy it? (Photo by by Alpha CC BY-SA 2.0)

DECATUR, Ill. (DTN) -- I've always said the fastest way to consumer acceptance of genetically engineered food could come if a nasty disease or insect hit the coffee industry. Denied coffee, the most irritated consumer might stop long enough to listen to facts. Or, perhaps faced with higher prices and diminished supply, the world might just accept and swallow the GE coffee. I know I'm that addicted.

Last week I made a quick stop on the way home from a seed corn meeting to see a farmer friend. We kicked a few ice clods before he popped a question I wasn't expecting: "Should I be planting genetically altered crops? Are they safe?"

I was surprised because I know this farmer to be an early adopter of herbicide traits and Bt insect technologies. He's thoughtful and efficient. It turns out several of his children, who have left the farm for lives beyond farming, are questioning his methods and doing it with enough verbal ammo that he's begun to squirm.

I'm betting you've faced similar questions and I'll urge you to do what I suggested to my friend -- it's time to learn enough about the science to have some talking points. There's a whole new round of biotech foods on the horizon. We should at least make the effort to have enough facts to convince our own children they are safe.

It has been nearly two decades since GE seeds started going in the ground and it is true the controversy that still stirs has done little to slow adoption. In 2014, a record 448.5 million acres of biotech crops were grown globally, according to a report released in January by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA). A total of 28 countries grew biotech crops during the year. The 20 developing and eight industrial countries where biotech crops are produced represent more than 60% of the world's population.

"The accumulated hectarage of biotech crops grown in 1996 to 2014 equals, roughly, 80% more than the total land mass of China," said Clive James, ISAAA founder and report author in a news release. "Global hectarage has increased more than 100-fold since the first plantings of biotech crops."

Since 1996, more than 10 food and fiber biotech crops have been approved and commercialized around the world.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

The U.S. continues to lead production of biotech crops at 180.6 million acres -- a growth rate of 4% over 2013, according to the ISAAA report. In the U.S., GE crops to date have mostly meant major commodities such as corn, soybean and cotton with traits that address issues that face farmers. GE consumer benefits in soybean oils are becoming more available, but have been largely introduced to the industrial use market or used in restaurant settings.

It is a new potato that could give us a better taste of how U.S. consumers will tolerate GE traits that have more direct consumer benefit. In November 2014, USDA approved J.R. Simplot's first generation of Innate potatoes. The varieties resist bruising, have lower sugar content and won't brown when cut. Simplot has indicated intentions to license three varieties to select partners in test markets in 2015.

Innate potatoes also contain low levels of acrylamide, a chemical that has been linked with cancer risk in high temperature cooking of potato chips and French fries. A second generation of Innate awaits approval and these varieties also include several additional resistances to disease, improved water-use efficiency and better nitrogen utilization on top of the appealing feature of 40% less bruising compared to conventional potatoes.

According to Simplot's website, scientists used some new genetic tactics to develop these spuds. Put simply, they isolated genetic elements from a potato plant genome, rearranged the genes and introduced them back without incorporating any foreign genes. In the case of bruising, scientists silenced or dimmed down some genes. Learn more here: http://www.simplotplantsciences.com/…

Will consumers swallow the new-fangled potato? I don't know. One of the first GE efforts (first sold in 1994), Calgene's slow ripening Flavr Savr tomato, failed more because of poor variety selection and taste issues, than fear of the technology. Fundamental shifts in consumer acceptance have happened since that time.

Thinking back to those early days, I recall that we assumed consumers would buy into GE because they trusted us -- agriculture. We became good at explaining how and why we use traits and technology, but when pushed, often dismissed consumer objections with defensive attitudes such as: "If I didn't believe GE food was safe, I wouldn't feed it to my children or grandchildren."

Sorry ... statements like that do little to further trust or acceptance. What consumers -- and sometimes our own children -- need is reassurance their food supply is safe.

ISAAA documents show at least 70 potential products wait in the wings -- some are new crops and others contain multiple modes of action to fight resistance to insects and diseases and tolerances to herbicides. The fact that agriculture now "needs" new products to tackle resistance problems doesn't do much to show consumers we value these technologies either.

Still, farmers are their own best advocates. You don't have to know how to sequence the genome. A little homework to arm yourself with a few simple, but relevant facts will show you've thought about the technology in a broader way.

Most of consumers are surprised (and relieved) to learn that companies aren't randomly inserting odd genes into foods or transforming plants for fun. Biotech tactics are nearly always the last deployed in efforts to solve a problem because of the time and expense involved.

ISAAA has a list of online posts called Pockets of Knowledge that have helped me become more comfortable with the science. Grab a cup of coffee while you still can -- because coffee rust is a real threat -- and read up on what's new in the trait technologies you are using here: http://www.isaaa.org/…

Let me know if you develop any good talking points. I'll share them with other farmers.

Pam Smith can be reached at pam.smith@dtn.com

(CZ)

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

edward bowman
3/24/2015 | 7:09 AM CDT
"You are what you eat!" is the old saying. I personally choose to avoid any genetically modified foods and crops. Everything was created perfect and we have destroyed it. I don't know if GE crops have caused the increase in cancer but I can guarantee that there will never be a cure! There is too much money made off of it. As for GE crops, they won't go away either until there is proof they are harmful. Two decades or 20 years is not long enough to prove safety. It will take generations! I am glad that there are two sides to all this debating. Someday one side will find out which side failed, They will be the ones still living! Monsanto and the others own the ag communities and the farmers HAVE to do what they say to plant their crops. But really its all about money. My advise is do your own homework, form your own opinion, and keep an open mind. This is part of the free world. I'm glad that not all people think like I do. However, while some farmers are getting $3.50 for a bushel of corn there are others receiving $11.00 a bushel for corn. One last comment to fuel your fire!! Why are we trying to feed the world cheep food? It should be that we are trying to provide the healthiest food at a reasonable price, and if we are trying to feed the world, then why do we care about ethanol? It appears to me that we are trying to starve the world so we can put their food in our gas tanks.
Pamela Smith
2/20/2015 | 7:58 AM CST
I'm enjoying this dialogue--keep it coming. We now have apples to throw into the GE discussion. I had a fascinating discussion with the Arctic apple folks this week. Stay tuned.
LeeFarms
2/19/2015 | 12:09 PM CST
Some of the issues get cloudy, such as genetic engineering of traits native to the plant, such as it appears is the case with potatoes versus transgenetics using non-native genetics. The disconnect that I see is that many people opposed to GMO are passionate advocates for the science behind anthropogenic global warming. But then farmers want to appeal to science to defend GMOs yet reject the science for global warming! :). Me, I'm skeptical of the science claims for both!
Raymond Haas
2/19/2015 | 11:13 AM CST
All this is food for thought. Thank's Pam and Commenters
MICHAEL BOISSONNEAULT
2/18/2015 | 11:17 PM CST
I think what is really missing is balance. Why is it that one is right and the other wrong. Usually when I see comments about GMO's all I see is bickering. Its to bad. I'm pretty sure not every new biotech food is safe. And I'm pretty sure the GMO's are not going anywhere they are here to stay. Intention is every thing. If we make food to help people in third world countries be able to access nutrients that's good intentions I think. If we make GMO's so we can spray carcinogens on them so we can control weeds and insects. Poison is poison I don't care what anyone says. I am a farmer and some times I burn off in the spring with round up, then herbicide, fungicide and desiccate with round up again. That's lots of carcinogens on one crop. So I hope the consumer educates them selves and starts to pay attention to what how and why the crop is being modified. Because intention is everything in my opinion.
Lonnie Leake
2/14/2015 | 1:51 PM CST
I think that in regard to GMO food, Americans are taking a page from the European anti-GMO playbook (or the whole playbook for that matter). What most advocates of "safe science" and GE traits in food plants and animals is that they ignore the science that exists alongside the GMO- antiGMO debate. The science of psychology. While psychology uses statical methods itself, the irony is that the fear and skepticsim in the human brain and mind doesn't use the "second standard deviation." Put together with the trend that more and more consumers are perceiving that they are always "being sold something" and more general mistrust (the government records our phone calls) it should not be hard to see that advertising and "education" are becoming a tough sell.
Curt Zingula
2/14/2015 | 7:12 AM CST
The Atlantic article appeared on Facebook. I responded to it with some common sense and a friend of the person who posted it responded back with a graph showing that increased Roundup use matches the linear uptrend with the increase of world wide disease. I'm not real good at cut and paste or I would have attached the graph showing how well the increase in organic sales matches with autism!!
Curt Zingula
2/14/2015 | 7:01 AM CST
It gets better Bonnie, The Atlantic published an article (against GMOs) that an Amish boy discovered that good soil fertility leads to good plant health and that in turn reduces/eliminates the need for genetic engineering. Kudos to the Atlantic for realizing that the public is stupid about agronomy and scare tactics work.
Bonnie Dukowitz
2/13/2015 | 7:48 PM CST
Boy o boy, Tom. Wisdom from those who do not accept many modern practices, but hide behind the barn to talk on their cell-phone. I thought I had heard all.
tom vogel
2/13/2015 | 7:57 AM CST
Curt: I am not certified organic and don't intend to be such. However, my partner farmers and I attempt to avoid the GMOs. A lot of my thinking has developed over the years as I have learned to listen to the wisdom of my Amish farmer friends. I may be proven wrong, and I do recognize that food volumes must increase, but I am not convinced GMOs are the way to go. Ultimately it will be consumers who make these decisions, just as they have with rBGH...which they obviously don't like.
Curt Zingula
2/13/2015 | 7:40 AM CST
BTW Tom, don't I recall that you were switching over to padding your pockets with organic produce dollars? People like to point at corporations benefiting from GMO dollars but ignore that the organic industry is 62 billion dollars strong. Kudos to those of you who figured out how to sell yourselves as holy-than-thou but at the same time make it difficult for the 46+ million people who already need food aid to afford what you grow!!
Curt Zingula
2/13/2015 | 7:35 AM CST
I agree whole heartedly with you Pam - farmers need to educate themselves so they can help educate the public. Several are already doing this with on- line social networks. I've prided myself in knowing a lot about GMOs but just learned this past week that Bt only works on alkaline guts, not the acid guts of mammals and humans. With the folly of vaccine paranoia, we now have an open door to doubt the anti-science community. Add to that the governments change of position on cholesterol and acceptance of eggs as a dietary benefit. Most consumers don't want/don't understand scientific lingo. We have to approach the GMO concern from another angle. The fact that millions of wildlife and livestock flourish on GMOs gives pause to consider. National Geographic has accepted GMOs as a necessity to deal with endless pests and pesticides. Nat Geo believes GMOs will help feed mega-billions of people in the future. Then there's the anti-corp crowd that can be silenced with the the Golden Rice story. Golden Rice was developed with a beta-carotene gene from corn by non-corporate interests. Radical anti-science groups destroyed and propagandized against Golden Rice even though it would have prevented blindness in millions of children. I ask anti-GMO people if they want to be a part of that?! Then there's the fact that over 1,000 plant and genetic scientists have given GMOs a clean bill of health. Ask the anti-GMO person if they believe 1,000 scientists claiming man-made global warming. The list of support goes on and on, but the challenge is to deal with people who are susceptable to paranoia in the first place.
tom vogel
2/12/2015 | 9:12 PM CST
Pam: I am involved in both grain and beef operations. I have put much thought into the issue of GMOs, and I must say, that I remain skeptical of their future. I have seen many food developments over the years and have always been skeptical of so-called "scientific foods." I have successfully predicted the mediocre acceptance, or actual demise, of so many scientific foods over the years. As a young college student, I took an early stand against cyclamates. They are now gone. I have been skeptical of aspartame, and that sweetener has stagnated if not bombed in the marketplace. When the much-touted Olestra came out, I predicted it would be a huge market failure...and it is. Most recently, I predicted the demise of rBGH, and most of the dairy suppliers in my area have abandoned the hormone supplement. Pam, I see the same fate for GMOs. Most of my partner farmers do not use GMOs...and my farmers are outstanding, well-informed, and highly educated professionals. I predict by the end of the decade, GMOs will be on the way out of our food supplies. When consumers become informed, the will vote with their dollars and avoid GMO foods.