Difference between Fortuna and Innate:
The main
difference of this potato compared to Fortuna is obviously its consumer-friendly
characteristics. This potato has two different generations, the first one has
modified genes that induce a non-bruising effect and therefore fewer waste
along with less acrylamide, which is believed to be a carcinogen [1] . The potato is
therefore “nicer”, with less bruises and less waste and theoretically also
ealthier for consumers. So we can easily say that the big difference is that
this GMO potato focuses on consumers aspects instead of farmers probably in
order to get more accepted by the former. The second generation of the Innate
potato add two more characteristics: lowered reducing sugars and resistance to
late blight (like the Fortuna). Furthermore they’re more efficient in their
first traits (they reduce acrylamide up to 90%) [3].
As a farmer would I grow Innate?
As a farmer
I guess I would react exactly as I did for the Fortuna, this means that it
would depend on the costs associated with the growth of this GMO and my
reluctancy to buy patented seeds for both ethical and economical reasons.
However those are my opinions and of course, as a lambda farmer, certain wins
are made by the lesser losses due to waste and therefore an economical gain. I
guess then I would try to compare the prices of the seeds with the potential
gains and see if it’s worth it.
As a consumer, would I buy it?
As a
consumer, I’m sure that I would never buy such potato in full knowledge of the
facts. Again this decision is lead by my very strong opinions on the GMO matter.
The reasons are that first of all Acrylamide forms at elevated temperatures in
cooking [2] , i. e. especially in
fried food so instead of changing genes, why don’t we change our cooking
habits? Moreover, Acrylamide is carcinogenic in mice and rat when given through
water or other means but “epidemiologic studies of workers for possible
health effects from exposures to acrylamide have not shown a consistent
increase in cancer risk” [1] ,
i.e. probably that the concentration to be toxic for human is far beyond normal
exposure, moreover compared to all other substances that might be carcinogenic.
And even so I totally assume the risks encountered with the intake of
Acrylamide. Many industries just play with fear of people to sell or develop
things and this Acrylamide reduction is surely one of those. Human beings are
absurds in their dealing of fears and desires. If you are afraid of dying, stop
driving your car or smoking before buying potatoes with reduced Acrylamide.
And, of course, I don’t care if my potato looks nice or not, since I know it
actually has almost nothing to do with its nutritional quality.
What about GMO foodstuffs in general?
I wouldn’t buy any GMO plants. I do think that humans are part of the
evolution of life on earth and that GMO is actually a way to quicken this
evolution (in a way or another) but I also feel that we already have quite a
few exponential matters to deal with (I don’t think I need to name them) so I’m
not particularly in a haste to fasten evolution.
Do clear consumer benefits would have changed the debate about GMO?
I do think that, since consumers are easily influenced (me included), it
would definitely have changed the debate if we had directly aimed them. However
one of the strong argument against GMO would have still remain, which is the
reluctancy of the common run of people to play with life or to play God, either
because of fear, jealousy or belief.
What about new research plants? How to advertise them?
Eventhough it is a very fascinating subject I really intend not to work
in that field. I guess I would agree to do some research just for the
knowledge, but since I know that research is hardly done only for that it would
prove difficult for me to find any convenient job, especially in Syngenta or
Monsanto.
References:
|
[1] J. E. Klaunig, «Acrylamide Carcinogenicity,» Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 56, n° 15, pp. 5984-5988,
2008.
|
|
[2] E. Tareke, P. Rydberg, P. Karlsson, S. Eriksson et M.
Törnqvist, «Analysis of Acrylamide, a Carcinogen Formed in Heated
Foodstuffs,» Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 50,
n° 17, pp. 4998-5006, 2002.
|
[3] https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/01/14/fda-approves-gmo-potatoresists-blight-caused-irish-potato-famine/
