I wanted to say something in favor of sweet potatoes, so did some research:
[0] says:
The best lettuce has 2.5mg of beta-carotene in 47g of lettuce.
The best sweet potato has 31mg of beta-carotene in 328g of sweet potato (sweet potatoes are the beta-carotene leader BTW :strong:).
If this modified lettuce can really have 30 times as much beta-carotene, that's a significant amount. I was expecting the numbers to show that lettuce had almost no beta-carotene, and after you times it by 30 it's still almost nothing, but apparently it's more significant than that.
Oh, also, if you want a stupidly easy way to eat sweet potatoes, cut one up into bite sized chunks and cook it at 350 fahrenheit for 45 minutes or longer (it won't burn easily at that temperature). No need to remove the skin, but wash it first. They aren't bad even plain. This is an easy no-preperation-necessary to get at least 1 veggie.
Amazing. Lettuce that has increased beta carotene content – something we can already get from carrots – and, as a bonus, now looks unappetisingly like past-its-best regular lettuce.
Golden rice had the same problem if I recall correctly. The populations that it was designed to serve were reluctant to eat it because the yellow coloration was similar to that of a particular species of mold they were enculturated to avoid.
I’m not up for making a thorough post about it right now, but one thing to be aware of is that beta carotene converts to vitamin A at rates that range from abysmal (single digit percentages or less) to barely adequate depending on personal factors like genetics.
I’ve also come across indication that beta carotene byproducts can potentially inhibit vitamin A use (also likely connected with personal genetics), throwing another wrench into the works.
Basically I do not recommend naively conflating carotenoid intake with vitamin A intake, especially in regards to populations vulnerable to malnutrition. For me and most of you reading this however the difference is not much of consequence.
I see the title was fixed here. The original said 30x more vitamins, but it is only beta-carotene. They created a version of lettuce that has a little more beta carotene than Kale, basically, but not as nutrient dense in any other way.
On the other hand, kale is goitrogenic. With two little kids I like to make sure they get a good mix of vegetables which aren't all from the cabbage family. I'm lucky living in California; my local Safeway has all kinds of fresh vegetables, including various (non-cruciferous) lettuce greens, year round, but in many other places in the U.S. it's just iceberg plus cruciferous vegetables for long stretches.
The problem with kale is that it’s shipped with ice over the top. This itself is not a problem. But a box that won’t fall apart when the ice melts has to be slathered in pfas.(if you’ve ever received a shipment of kale you’ll know what I mean, the box is this weird stuff oily thing) Kale has staggeringly high levels of pfas that bioaccumulate in our bodies and cause organ failure.
Not a criticism of kale itself. Love the stuff. If anything an example about how 3m’s suppression of the science of pfa exposure has resulted in the largest mass poisoning in human history.
They took one of the healthiest foods on the planet and made it bad for you.
I actually am getting more concerned about transgenic food. Nassim Taleb’s arguments about limited upside with unlikely, but massive downside of these organisms if they have unexpected outcomes.
I’m obviously fine with genetic modification to plants to create crossbreeds of various types of, say, lettuce, but it seems like we are trying to change out plants instead of trying to change our farming practices.
---
Edit: since people are likely looking for a citation here, and are likely to down by default (again, I don't think their is anything "wrong" or "unhealthy" about genetically modification), I'll add one of his papers on the subject. Again, the concern is only to do with the effects that significant modification could have on wild species, and not on consumption:
>Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and their risk are
currently the subject of debate. Here we argue that they
fall squarely under the PP [Precautionary Principle] because their risk is systemic. There are two aspects of systemic risk, the widespread impact on the ecosystem and the widespread impact on health.
>Ecologically, in addition to intentional cultivation, GMOs
have the propensity to spread uncontrollably, and thus their
risks cannot be localized. The cross-breeding of wild-type
plants with genetically modified ones prevents their disentangling, leading to irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides. The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested empirically before release.
I understand these kind of concerns but it's comes from ignorance of context.
Direct genetic modification is an improvement of the previous method of forced mutation by exposing seeds to UV and hoping for positive mutations. That method does not count as GMO.
The major concerns of agriculture are still the same, monocultures and disease vulnerability.
>> change out plants instead of trying to change our farming practices.
Because investors. Because new plants can be copyrighted/trademarked/patented/owned and then sold. New farming practices must be taught and cannot generally be owned by their inventors.
> Taleb’s arguments about limited upside with unlikely, but massive downside of these organisms if they have unexpected outcomes
When did Taleb become an expert on bioengineering?
Nassim Taleb is the Malcom Gladwell of popular finance. He had to shutter his fund in 2005 after three consecutive years of losses [1]. (In fairness, after a 50+ percent gain in 2000. Nobody lost money on him. But a 4% CAGR over four years isn't hedge fund stuff, nor qualification to speak authoritatively on finance much less bioengineering.)
Golden lettuce is an anti-evolutive move. As a new product can be successful, but I predict that It will need an obligatory supply of chemicals on its production. Probably more chemicals than the green lettuce. The benefits as healthy food will be a balance between the carotene plus the other parts in the equation. Should be treated as a cold season product at least.
As a fancy product provides a new color in the market and can bring the company a lot of money (I'm not against that as long as is grow accurately) but IMO must be cleaned thoroughly by the consumer.
I do not see much value in a golden lettuce, because nothing stops you to eat one carrot every day, which will provide enough beta-carotene.
Moreover, the carrot is certainly cheaper, because it is not patented and it is available from a myriad of sources. Also a boiled carrot is unlikely to cause any health problems, while raw lettuce periodically causes disease outbreaks, so it is not a good choice for a staple food that you must eat every day to ensure your recommended intake of a vitamin.
There are other domains where genetic engineering can provide results that cannot be obtained by any alternatives.
For example, there are genetically-modified strains of the fungus Trichoderma that can be used to produce high-quality proteins, either whey proteins or eggwhite proteins.
Such fungal cultures have the potential to become a much better source of proteins than the milk and eggs or the meat produced by animals and they would have important advantages over plant proteins, by having a superior amino-acid profile and not requiring expensive methods for separation from starch.
A large part of the problem in the us is soil depletion. We need to regenerate it by allowing roots of various weeds to pull nutrients up to the surface.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Golden Rice, developed in the 1980s, which offered similar nutritional benefits. Golden Rice failed to gain significant traction because of dogmatic opposition to bioengineered foods. Personally, I hope Golden Lettuce receives more pragmatic review and support.
Golden rice attempts to solve a real problem: Vitamin A deficiency in many parts of the world, where rice is also a food staple and where the poorest cannot afford a diet with enough vitamin A in it.
Prepare for Greenpeace et al to shoot this down just like Golden Rice. Decades wasted, millions with damaged eyesight because of some weird Westerners with backwards ideas about what's "natural" telling people in the global south how they should live their lives (or rather, should suffer for their ideals).
At least in America, Greenpeace is on the verge of bankruptcy after they allegedly "incited the Dakota Access protests, funded attacks to damage the pipeline, and spread misinformation about the company and" the Dakota Access Pipeline [1].
[+] [-] Buttons840|1 year ago|reply
[0] says:
The best lettuce has 2.5mg of beta-carotene in 47g of lettuce. The best sweet potato has 31mg of beta-carotene in 328g of sweet potato (sweet potatoes are the beta-carotene leader BTW :strong:).
If this modified lettuce can really have 30 times as much beta-carotene, that's a significant amount. I was expecting the numbers to show that lettuce had almost no beta-carotene, and after you times it by 30 it's still almost nothing, but apparently it's more significant than that.
[0]: https://ods.od.nih.gov/pubs/usdandb/VitA-betaCarotene-Conten...
[+] [-] Buttons840|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] aszantu|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] oniony|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] brnaftr361|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Modified3019|1 year ago|reply
I’ve also come across indication that beta carotene byproducts can potentially inhibit vitamin A use (also likely connected with personal genetics), throwing another wrench into the works.
Basically I do not recommend naively conflating carotenoid intake with vitamin A intake, especially in regards to populations vulnerable to malnutrition. For me and most of you reading this however the difference is not much of consequence.
[+] [-] singlow|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] wahern|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] more_corn|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] scoofy|1 year ago|reply
I’m obviously fine with genetic modification to plants to create crossbreeds of various types of, say, lettuce, but it seems like we are trying to change out plants instead of trying to change our farming practices.
---
Edit: since people are likely looking for a citation here, and are likely to down by default (again, I don't think their is anything "wrong" or "unhealthy" about genetically modification), I'll add one of his papers on the subject. Again, the concern is only to do with the effects that significant modification could have on wild species, and not on consumption:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267214303_The_Preca...
>Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and their risk are currently the subject of debate. Here we argue that they fall squarely under the PP [Precautionary Principle] because their risk is systemic. There are two aspects of systemic risk, the widespread impact on the ecosystem and the widespread impact on health.
>Ecologically, in addition to intentional cultivation, GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably, and thus their risks cannot be localized. The cross-breeding of wild-type plants with genetically modified ones prevents their disentangling, leading to irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides. The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested empirically before release.
[+] [-] parineum|1 year ago|reply
Direct genetic modification is an improvement of the previous method of forced mutation by exposing seeds to UV and hoping for positive mutations. That method does not count as GMO.
The major concerns of agriculture are still the same, monocultures and disease vulnerability.
[+] [-] sandworm101|1 year ago|reply
Because investors. Because new plants can be copyrighted/trademarked/patented/owned and then sold. New farming practices must be taught and cannot generally be owned by their inventors.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|1 year ago|reply
When did Taleb become an expert on bioengineering?
Nassim Taleb is the Malcom Gladwell of popular finance. He had to shutter his fund in 2005 after three consecutive years of losses [1]. (In fairness, after a 50+ percent gain in 2000. Nobody lost money on him. But a 4% CAGR over four years isn't hedge fund stuff, nor qualification to speak authoritatively on finance much less bioengineering.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirica_Capital
[+] [-] fsckboy|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] pvaldes|1 year ago|reply
As a fancy product provides a new color in the market and can bring the company a lot of money (I'm not against that as long as is grow accurately) but IMO must be cleaned thoroughly by the consumer.
[+] [-] everyone|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] adrian_b|1 year ago|reply
Moreover, the carrot is certainly cheaper, because it is not patented and it is available from a myriad of sources. Also a boiled carrot is unlikely to cause any health problems, while raw lettuce periodically causes disease outbreaks, so it is not a good choice for a staple food that you must eat every day to ensure your recommended intake of a vitamin.
There are other domains where genetic engineering can provide results that cannot be obtained by any alternatives.
For example, there are genetically-modified strains of the fungus Trichoderma that can be used to produce high-quality proteins, either whey proteins or eggwhite proteins.
Such fungal cultures have the potential to become a much better source of proteins than the milk and eggs or the meat produced by animals and they would have important advantages over plant proteins, by having a superior amino-acid profile and not requiring expensive methods for separation from starch.
[+] [-] gadflyinyoureye|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] TheRealPomax|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] imtringued|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] lupusreal|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] CharmingFrock|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron695|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] GenericDev|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] midwestfounder|1 year ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
[+] [-] redprince|1 year ago|reply
Golden lettuce solves what?
[+] [-] formerly_proven|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] slothtrop|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|1 year ago|reply
At least in America, Greenpeace is on the verge of bankruptcy after they allegedly "incited the Dakota Access protests, funded attacks to damage the pipeline, and spread misinformation about the company and" the Dakota Access Pipeline [1].
[1] https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/the-texas-billionair...