Essay by Eric Worrall
A new twist in European Genetically Modified Food politics?
Christmas dinners saved by climate change resistant roasties
Date Wed 18 Dec 24
Christmas dinners of the future have been saved by scientists after they created climate-change resistant roast potatoes.
A team from the University of Illinois and University of Essex has developed a heatwave-surviving spud.
With the adapted plant growing 30% more potatoes when under extreme stress in the field – a milestone achievement.
It is hoped this will help families dependent on the staple crop and safeguard its future in a changing world.
The project is a collaboration from the international Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE) project, led by the University of Illinois.
…
The potatoes were adapted by tweaking a process called photorespiration, a photosynthetic process that has been shown to reduce the yield of soybean, rice, and vegetable crops by up to 40%.
Read more: https://www.essex.ac.uk/news/2024/12/18/christmas-dinners-saved-by-potato-research
…
Potatoes are already versatile and resilient. Maine potatoes which grow in chilly Maine grow equally well in subtropical Bundaberg in Australia.
So why describe high yield potatoes as “climate resistant”? A 40% 30% jump in yield seems an incredibly valuable achievement in its own right.
There is an obvious possible explanation for spinning high yield GM crops as “climate resistant”.
…
Almost all soya beans, cotton and maize now planted in the US are genetically modified, often to resist pests or deal with herbicide use, according to the FDA.
Alongside feeding people, GM maize and soya beans are frequently used to feed animals. More than 95% of livestock and poultry in the US eat genetically modified crops, the FDA says.
In the EU and other parts of the world, GM crops are not widely grown. The EU’s rules require GMO foods to be labelled as such for consumers and permit individual EU countries to ban genetically modified crops, if they choose. Most EU countries do not grow GMO crops.
The EU’s GMO rules still apply in the UK. But, in 2023, the rules in England were eased to allow the development of plants that are genetically edited using modern methods such as Crispr.
Further laws are needed to allow these gene-edited plants – and, later, animals – to be sold in England. The legislation for plants is set to be brought in this summer.
…
Read more: https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-the-evolving-debate-about-using-genetically-modified-crops-in-a-warming-world/
In Britain, Europe and Australia, GM food has been subject to a relentless multi-decade fear campaign. GM food is characterised as “Frankenfood”, an unholy conspiracy by uncaring and untrustworthy big agriculture and biotech companies to inflate their profits at the expense of our children’s safety.
But many of the same British and European people who distrust government and big tech assurances about the safety of GM food paradoxically trust government claims that we are in the midst of a climate crisis.
So why not combine the two narratives to see what happens? Obviously we’ll need super crops to survive the mythical coming age of deadly weather extremes and climate change disasters. Perhaps GM is the answer to saving our children’s future.
I could be reading too much into this. Potatoes which grow faster likely are more resistant to heatwaves and other stressors. But it is going to be fascinating to see if mixing GM with climate change narratives leads to greater British and European acceptance of GM.
Correction (EW): 30%, not 40%.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The objections to GMO crops are quasi-religious, based on Biodynamic Agriculture (Organic) principles, which are a rejection of science. The Precautionary Principle is itself antiscientific, as proving a negative is one of those philosophic conundrums like disproving solipsism.
One of my many pet peeves is lefties who sneer at Republicans as flat Earthers and Creationists, folks who don’t believe in science.
I always respond that believing in a 6000 year old flat Earth only hurts the believers, and then only if they want a career where that matters. You can even be an airline pilot and believe in a flat Earth, as long as you follow the GPS navigation instructions. Same with evolution — you’ll do fine in just about every field you can think of except biological evolution — even creating GMO crops.
Whereas lefties don’t believe in GMO, and do believe in Marxist central planning — the spontaneous beauty of evolution doesn’t seem to extend to free markets. And that difference does harm people other than the left disbelievers. Witness the destruction of Golden Rice and the unnecessary blindness and deaths for millions of children. No flat Earth or Creationist belief ever killed anybody.
And then there’s Climate alarmunism and Faucism. I know which political slant is more friendly to science, and it ain’t socialists.
My pet peeve in that vein is believing in both “invasive species” and “survival of the fittest”.
I don’t like invasive species alarmism either. But survival of the fittest at least has some truth behind it.
ETA — Ah, just saw your “both”. My mistake.
I see how my meaning might only be obvious to me. Words. I wish I used words as well as I wish other people would learn to use words.
I never understood why a food crop being genetically modified necessarily made it toxic or less nutritious. Maybe that’s true in some cases- but probably not in most cases. Just guessing here as I haven’t studied the issue. My late wife took it seriously and would never buy any GMO food- and mostly only buy organic food. It was a topic I didn’t care to argue over and let her have her way.
I go out of my way to avoid organic food of all kinds. It’s just an excuse to charge more to the gullible.
I also figure genetic mods are inevitable. I doubt there’s a single crop which hasn’t been modified by human direction of evolution. And as we understand more about genetics and DNA, targeting that change directly to the DNA will improve crops far faster than random hybrids.
If you have a GMO child, my child sort of has to… or can’t keep up.
And this justifies banning GMO crops?
No, it is the problem. Once we get “good at” genetic editing and do things like cure human cancers, it seems unlikely medicine would stop there. Logically any disadvantage that can be removed by gene editing would be debatable, then IQ or 100-yard dash time might be called a disadvantage, then your kid has a 180 IQ and outruns Ben Johnson while my kid… can’t. So once we GMO one human we have to GMO all humans or non-GMO humans would be futuristic chimps serving french fries to GMO kids.
What you or anybody else currently thinks about humans being genetically modified means nothing. They will be. Aren’t you aware of Dolly the Sheep?
Why not let the people of the future figure out what to do about any pluses and minuses. Same thing with AI; nobody knows what the future will look like.
If you think that government politicians and bureaucrats can enact laws and rules about future economies and technology, just think about their climate projections and “solutions” if their COVID19 responses don’t scare you enough.
I don’t think that at all. I agree with your guess about the future. By human nature, humanity will become something else.
Scientifically speaking, every hybrid plant in existence is a GMO – even the “organic” ones.
Yeah, Mary, just think about corn. Look at its “roots” ( pun intended). From a common grass plant to one of the main sources of food and other things nowadays.
GMO crops go through much more stringent testing than do other types of crop modifications.
In the old days they would expose seeds to mutagens and then plant the seeds to see what grew. Of the few seeds that grew, they would be tested to see if they had gained any useful traits.
Now days they extract genes from one plant and place then into new host plants.
Why anyone would consider the first to be good and the second to be bad is beyond my comprehension.
When the modification is, for instance, to have the plant produce its own insecticide to a common pest of that plant, and knowing that crisper type genetic changes do indeed result in many other unintended changes, I tend to wonder how thoroughly the testing for any human harmful chemicals is done. This is not to say all GM food plants are problems.
However, while gene modifying of sorts has been going on for as long as humans have been doing agriculture, deliberately putting the poison producing genes of a poisonous snake or poisonous spider into my broccoli makes me want a more comprehensive release of information.
I think the biggest issue with GMO crops is that you have to get new seeds every year. (I don’t remember if that has to do with the patent or if they just don’t breed true – a little of both I think)
That’s not a concern for me since I get new seeds every year anyway. I grow different varieties too close together to ensure purity of the succeeding generation.
Cultivars produced by selective breeding can achieve the same goals, just a bit more slowly. Genetic manipulation has other goals, unstated goals. The long term effects on animals or humans are unknown. American food has been nearly totally adulterated via genetic manipulation, and we all know – you ARE what you eat.
It is a conspiracy of mad scientists, perhaps? Back to the 50’s, professor, your nihilist paranoia is past its shelf life.
” you ARE what you eat.: The SAD diet of ultra processed food’s effect on the
citizens of this country is visually evident just in the publics body mass scores.
It was big tobacco’s purchase of Kraft-General Foods back in the 80’s that has been implicated
in this health crisis. RFK Jr’s view on thisis correct IMO.
The SAD diet of ultra processed food’s effect on the citizens of this country
Yeah that’s a much bigger issue than GMOs IMO
“The long term effects on animals or humans are unknown”
Are the short term effects known?
Don’t forget, there is no DNA anywhere that is toxic.
It’s the results of DNA’s activity that may cause any toxicity.
All hybrids are genetically modified organisms. This is normal, it’s called “evolution”.
Whenever you eat anything, you are eating DNA 100% of the time. It’s all different as it should be.
Google
“What is a simple definition of a virus?
Virus. Viruses are microscopic organisms that can infect hosts, like humans, plants or animals. They’re a small piece of genetic information (DNA or RNA) inside of a protective shell (capsid). Some viruses also have an envelope. Viruses can’t reproduce without a host”
Now you’d have to parse the word “toxic” to get to an argument.
Cultivars produced by selective breeding … are GMOs, scientifically speaking.
GMO food has no unknown long term effect, we’ve been at it for decades and nobody has found any major health risks associated with them, and they are much better for the environment.
Ultra processed foods on the other hand have been shown very clearly to increase risk of premature death, cardiovascular disease, mental health disorders, diabetes, obesity, and sleep problems to name but a few.
Selective breeding can only modify traits a plant already has. It can’t create new traits.
If you are so convinced that these “unstated goals” exist, then you should have no trouble listing them. If you can’t, you just come across as a paranoid nut.
I’ve noticed from Roundup Ready crop use there were some weeds that
became glyphosate resistant a number of years ago. That led to some in the
range science-agronomy sector to then figure out the solution which was simple but very effective.
They just added a bit of 2-4D. The PHD”s wearing cowboy boots are an amazing
group.
MEDIA BIAS CHECK:
Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on promoting consistent human-influenced climate denialism propaganda and several failed fact checks.
Detailed ReportBias Rating: CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Ah, Warren! Sucking up to The Deep State? Wearing a mask while driving alone?
I.e., WUWT promotes fantasy and mysticism, and is beloved by its small and shrinking Denier audience
Thanks, Warren, you are helping to keep up WUWT’s Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE. We need more like you.
I prefer facts, but I sometimes enjoy a trip through the fantasyland of WUWT.
No evidence of this either.
“I prefer facts,” rather rich coming from a person that evidences being completely impervious to logic! LMAOROTF! You accept only the facts fed to you by your preferred ideologues; you show no ability to think beyond the approved narrative! What a maroon!
“I prefer facts, “
Yet you are totally incapable of producing anything remotely scientific to back up your so-called “facts”.
Why is that.
Could it be your so-called facts are nothing but mindless hand-waving ??
If you prefer facts, why have you been unable to ever present any. BTW, your insistence that peer review is infallible, is nothing more than your opinion. I know of no scientists who would agree.
It shows that the beetroot has absolutely ZERO clue what climate journal peer-review is, or what its aim is.
Seems totally ignorant about peer-review in general.
I do prefer facts– those pesky conclusions of peer reviewed scientific research that you reject
More assertions w/o evidence — these are “facts” in warren-the-troll world.
“I do prefer facts”
Yet you are totally unable to present anything backed by actual scientific evidence.
Why is that ??
And once again, the unthinking drone goes on and on about how scientists who agree with him not only can’t be wrong, but must never be questioned.
“WUWT promotes fantasy and mysticism”
Yes it regularly publishes alarmist junk science.
Then rips it apart and ridicules it. 🙂
But that isn’t really “promoting” it is it, beetroot. !
Why all the red thumbs? It’s a well-deserved negative comment on mainstream perceptions and on “fact-checkers”. Interesting that they paid the high compliment “Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE“, which surely no mainstream climate website could attain. Most such assessment sites would surely not have admitted that, just as no fact-checking site for example can ever admit that climate science is not actually settled (the latest contribution by Andy Pitman may help to change that). We need a source, though.
Gullible Deniers always rate facts with a red thumb.
Gullible is not a word. It’s not in any dictionary. Look it up, its not there.
But he only deals in facts so it must be legit.
/sarc
It is in mine… am I missing YOUR point
It is in mine
Did you actually look it up?
You do realize that “Deniers” is classified as hate speech.
Yes, the description “Denier”” is an awful designation to earn. It implies the individual claims to have found fundamental flaws in decades of scientific research. Many of these people exhibit strong Dunning -Kruger behaviors, ie, they demonstrate little knowledge about science but think they are experts
Again, tell us what we “DENY” that you can provide solid empirical scientific evidence for,.
So far, you have failed utterly and completely to do that.
You have credibility ZERO. !
And obviously have near zero knowledge of any real science.
You have definitely earned the designation, “MORON”
“they demonstrate little knowledge about science but think they are experts”
Wow, you must have a BIG mirror.
Such introspection for such a tiny mind. !
What facts??
You haven’t produced any !!
MBFC is based on mindless far-left opinions.
Spammer.
Overall I rate Media Bias/Fact Check as yet another leftist political site that doesn’t bother to check facts at all.
WARREN BEETON BIAS CHECK
positive
Overall we rate Warren Beeton as 100% biased and unworthy of attention. Can’t figure out anything for himself, and regurgitates whatever his overseers deem worthy to regurgitate.
No independent thinking discernible.
According to the MBFC rating criteria, anyone or anything that questions CAGW is a conspiracy-pseudoscience person or publication. Automatically. Do not even have to read.
The criteria are extremely subjective, although they make it look highly mathematical. Of course, they do not allow transparency into who is doing the reviews.
CAGW is not used in the scientific literature. And anyone who refuses to accept the findings of mainstream published science without being able to cite peer reviewed science to support his case is a Denier or conspiracy theorist, with no scientific facts at his/her disposal
“without being able to cite peer reviewed science”
That would be YOU !!
Again, tell us what we “DENY” that you can provide solid empirical scientific evidence for.
That means you have to actually present the science rather than just empty blather.
So far, you have failed utterly and completely to do that.
You have ZERO scientific facts, and ZERO scientific credibility.
Most of the literature doesn’t say there’s a crisis, either.
That’s three times at least that you have spammed us with this same nonsense.
It impresses you, but it doesn’t impress anyone with a functioning cortex.
It’s a reminder to you that you should read some science before you weigh in with one of your crackpot opinions.
You have obviously never read any science yourself, otherwise you could at least attempt to present some specific evidence to back up your anti-science claims.
You have NOTHING to offer rational scientific discussion.
Just empty regurgitated blather.
Care to try.. just once.. be precise, not some nebulous link you have never read yourself. Or are you too much of a cowardly mindless troll.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
You’re becoming, if not already are, quite boring and lacking in relevancy.
Dear troll e trollette:
The marxist-leftwing hate website you are spamming is not peer-reviewed literature.
Sux2BU
Climate change resistant
Fantabulous… but
Greenpeace argues that GM crops ‘encourage corporate control of the food chain and pesticide-heavy industrial farming.
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/are-we-making-a-meal-of-gm-foods/
The greens are puritans underneath
The NSDAP was very heavily a promoter of Biodynamic Agriculture, Heinrich Himmler especially.
There is a real downside to GMO. It forces corporate ownership of seed. Even a non GMO producer that has crops invaded by GMO variants can be forced to pay tithe to the corporate GMO patent holder. I don’t agree with the purported health risks of GMO crops but do take exception to the corporate takeover of the basic means of production.
Excellent point. There have been a couple of trends in food production.
One is the factory farm which lowers the cost of food but in some
cases increases risk eg large poultry production areas that if hit with
a virus wipes out large numbers of birds. Those are not really farms but more
of a food factory.
Another trend is “farm to fork”
production. A friends son stepped in to run his farm went to a series
of seminars and came back and changed the farms direction and as a result became
very successful on several levels. Others in the area took note and have followed suit.
There are a number of very large seed potato farms near here and I haven’t seen
or heard about any GMO spuds. They do require ground with certain specs such
as not having grown any potatoes for many decades. I’ll have to ask about this
the next chance I get.
If you don’t want to use GMO crops, then don’t.
BTW, all seed producers, regardless of what methods they use to develop new variants, claim to own the seeds they have produced.
Do you deny the protection of one’s own intellectual property and the ability to profit from others’ use thereof?
Went and read the Essex statement. The new potatoes are true GMO—they have two ‘foreign’ added genes. So not a cultivar developed by selective breeding like Norman Borlaug’s draft rust resistant wheat.
The whole GMO fear is irrational ignorance of basic biology.
GMO adds one or more ‘foreign’ genes that code for proteins conveying a benefit. For example, ‘Roundup Ready corn and soy contain two ‘foreign’ soil bacteria genes that make proteins that make the plants ‘immune’ to glysophate.
But basic biology guarantees that all proteins—whatever the source—are digested in the gut back into their constituent amino acids. It is those (only) that are absorbed by the gut and then transported by blood circulation to nourish all body cells. Cells take in the amino acids, then use their DNA/RNA instruction set to assemble new proteins used by the cells.
If this were not so, then proteins or fragments would trigger a severe immune response. For example, celiac disease is metabolic intolerance of wheat gluten protein by the gut lining itself before digested.
But there are 132 genders 🙂
Now 142.
question.
Can all these genders interbreed and make people with new genders.
Or does that still take a man and a woman.
There are only 42 of anything. And the chance of anything occurring is always 50/50; it either happens or it doesn’t.
From quoted article: “reduce the yield of soybean, rice, and vegetable crops by up to 40%”
From analysis article: “A 40% jump in yield seems an incredibly valuable“
Going to go back and read again…
On reread… just potatoes optimized to yield best at different ambient temperatures… the premise assumes that potatoes are good thermometers.
Which “quoted article”? Please don’t waste my time.
Ctrl-F
I think it’s clumsy wording. They clearly say the potatoes yield 30% more.
That is only half of it. They say that the potatoes yield 30% more when under extreme stress. Which doesn’t imply anything about the yield under normal conditions. Nor does it imply anything about the actual yield since it is only 30% more than varieties that have a low yield when under extreme stress.
Re: frankenfood
Has any solid research shown negative health effects from eating GMO food? I don’t see the logical reason GMO food would cause health problems, but its not my field.
The health studies I see are almost as bad as climate studies – not enough data, biased data, badly designed experiments.
Of course not. In order to do that you would need two groups, one that ate all naturally evolved foods and one that ate all GMO modified foods. Both over a lifetime.
And it must be a double blind study.
Since that can never happen because people eat anything they like, whenever they like, it’s impossible to determine.
See comment above. From first biology principles (digestion and immune system) no GMO protein can have any harmful biological effect, ever, in an animal. Albeit proven beneficial in plants. So animal studies proving same experimentally would be a waste of time.
Golden rice is an interesting beneficial to humans GMO exception, because the GMO ‘golden’ rice does not code for a protein per se, rather a protein transporting a needed ‘mineral’ biocarotine precursor to vitamin A synthesis. The protein is digested, but its carried ‘mineral’ survives. No different than eating liver can boost blood hemoglobin. Liver proteins do not survive digestion, but its hemoglobin does.
But there is more to food than just proteins. Lots of foods are poisoneous and if you wanted to you could incorporate the genes for the poison into previously safe foods. Alternatively you could use genetic editing to remove the poisons.
Wasn’t there another occasion, coincidentally involving potatoes, where the government-mandated food for the masses caused famine, depopulation, and poverty?
Ask the Irish.
The led to some of the best regiments fielded by the Union during the Great War of Secession.
And to the San Patricio brigade during the Mexican war a decade earlier – the largest case of mutiny against the U.S. Army.
If you’re going to go with a non-sequitur, go big.
It also led to some very nasty riots when, due to the change in climate in the South, led to mass migrations to the North.
Mass “migrations” of starved people to where the Anglo-Scottish plantationists had food, but refused to hand it out.
Strangely, the withdrawal of the corn laws came after the abolition of slavery. Also after British confiscation of Irish property, coerced religious conversion, mass burials, and mass deportation.
You also might want to look at the experience of Native American tribes once they were relegated to living on reservations and off government largesse. And the current government recommended diet of a “heart healthy” low fat regimen has been the direct cause of our current epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease; but it is extremely profitable for the multi-national food and drug corporations that appear to being running large parts of the US federal bureaucracy!
Fun factoids. China is the world’s largest potato producer. India is number two. Shows how important potatoes have become as a global food source, and how many climate adapted cultivars there now are. In China, the number 1 potato dish is Todosi, a Sichuan potato stir fry. In India, it is Aloo Masala, a potato curry.
Another fun factoid. A Swedish survivalist made it through an entire winter subsisting off just two ‘home grown’ foods: potatoes and butter. No report on his actual other than still alive physical condition come spring.
Another fun factoid per ‘World in Data’. The number 1, 2, and 3 Countries by potato yield weight per hectare are US, Australia, and Germany. Australia??
They grow well on the edge of the tropics but you have to practice extreme early planting – in tropical states potatoes are planted in Fall.
What about the milk in excess of that required to produce his butter consumption? Was there any winter physiological benefits of his spring, summer and fall foods consumption that masked his winter dietary deficiencies?
Worlds two most populace countries on Earth, both of which foster export economies.
It has been settled science for over a century that rising CO2 levels are very beneficial for crops, including potatoes.
Arrhenius mentioned the benefits in his 1908 book. He was, at the time, one of the world’s most prominent scientists, having won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry five years earlier. He predicted that CO2 emissions would be highly beneficial for both mankind and the Earth’s climate. He wrote:
“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid [CO2] in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”
In 1920, Scientific American reported on German agricultural experiments, testing the benefits of added CO2 on many crops. The benefits were real, and they were spectacular. In fact, they were so huge that the author called supplemental CO2 the “precious air fertilizer.”
Gradenwitz A. (1920). Carbonic Acid Gas to Fertilize the Air. Scientific American, 123(22), November 27, 1920, p.549. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican11271920-549
Those are piles of potatoes in the first photo: “with fertilized air” (extra CO2), and “with unfertilized air” (no extra CO2). Ambient “unfertilized air” averaged about 299 ppmv at the time.
The “big four” staple crops are corn (maize), wheat, rice, & potatoes. OurWorldInData has historical yield data for all of them, from 1961 through 2022, here:
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
Globally…
Potato yields rose from 12.22 tonnes/hectare in 1961 to 21.07 tonnes/hectare in 2022, a 72% improvement.
Rice yields rose from 1.87 tonnes/hectare in 1961 to 4.70 tonnes/hectare in 2022, a 151% improvement.
Wheat yields rose from 1.09 tonnes/hectare in 1961 to 3.69 tonnes/hectare in 2022, a 239% improvement.
Corn yields rose from 1.94 tonnes/hectare in 1961 to 5.72 tonnes/hectare in 2022, a 195% improvement.
I don’t have a problem with potatoes but I would love some more COLD tolerant vegetables.
“The potatoes were adapted by tweaking a process called photorespiration, a photosynthetic process that has been shown to reduce the yield of soybean, rice, and vegetable crops by up to 40%.”
‘reduce’??
(I am laughing at eco-activists supporting GMO foods. Yes, Marxism teaches that it is acceptable to adopt the enemy’s methods, Trotsky wrote about that. What he thought of Stalin adopting Lysenko’s fantasy botany if he was still alive then I do not know.)