[HN Gopher] A genetic modification boosts grain yields, shortens... ___________________________________________________________________ A genetic modification boosts grain yields, shortens the growth duration of rice Author : zeristor Score : 96 points Date : 2022-07-23 10:25 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.science.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org) | zeristor wrote: | A very impressive improvement, it would nice if taste and | nutrients improved. | adrian_b wrote: | According to the description, there should be no changes in | either taste or nutrients, which is a good thing. | | This kind of genetic manipulation, where the control of gene | expression is modified for greater productivity, is much more | promising than the attempts to make a plant produce different | chemical substances than it was producing previously or behave | differently in the presence of pesticides, because for the | latter cases it is still very difficult to predict whether the | genetic changes that are done will have only the desired | effects, without other undesirable consequences. | prirun wrote: | > it is still very difficult to predict whether the genetic | changes that are done will have only the desired effects | | This is true universally IMO. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | Is there much research into doing the same for non food crop | plants? Like for trees with the goal of faster reforestation? | irthomasthomas wrote: | There was a study shared here, a while ago, that found total | nutritional content remained the same while total yields | increased. In other words, all the efforts to increase yield | have, so far, only increased the water content of the produce. | Our vegetables, today, are fatter, but less nutritious. I expect | this development will be similar. | jimmygrapes wrote: | Interesting anecdote: ever since "supply chain issues" became a | thing, my local big name grocery stores (Kroger, etc.) have had | much smaller but much more flavorful produce as they've | resorted to sourcing more locally. Also more expensive, at | first, and they go bad/get bruised much faster than they get | sold, so they get marked down back to affordability within a | few days of a shipment, until there are none left and the cycle | repeats. I can't say I mind the change. | photochemsyn wrote: | This is the kind of GMO that's generally considered fairly benign | as they're only increasing the expression of genes already found | in the plant, not doing weird stuff like putting fish antifreeze | genes in strawberries. You still have to be careful in some cases | (for example, humans have bred toxins out of many food crops by | reducing expression levels over generations; the genes for toxins | might still be there, i.e. potatoes, so you'd not want to trigger | their expression accidentally). | | As far as nitrogen use, the claim is that these plants utilize | nitrogen more efficiently than wild-type, so that you'd actually | have to apply less nitrogen fertilizer and thus there'd be less | nitrogen runoff from fields into lakes/streams etc. | | From the materials and methods: | | > "For nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) measurement, rice plants | were grown in three independent field blocks supplied with 0, | 100, or 200 kg N/ha. The study was performed in the Experimental | Station of the Institute of Crop Science, CAAS, in Beijing from | May to October, 2021. The N fertilizer was applied as urea at two | stages: 40% at the tillering stage and 60% at the heading stage. | Each line was cultivated in randomized plots with 20 cm spacing | between rows and plants, and each plot contained at least 50 | plants per line." | | Oddly enough, the publisher makes materials and methods freely | available but not results and discussion, go figure. | kaiusbrantlee wrote: | > This is the kind of GMO that's generally considered fairly | benign | | not by me. The rpecautionary principle is not followed in any | GM process so invasive. | | Even breeding, which is a far less invasive form of genetic | manipulation, has caused serious issues. The vast majority of | commercial produce has had a lot of its nutrition bred out of | it, for example. | | These kinds of long arc problems for the consumers of the food | are not possible to track over anything but multiple | generations (generations of the consumers of the food, not | generations of the plants). They become all but impossible to | track when the incentives of the systems at play essentially | guarantee fuckery with regards to the gathering, | interpretation, and dissemination of data that jepordizes | profits. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > The [pr]ecautionary principle is not followed in any GM | process so invasive. | | While that is true, the precautionary principle is also not | followed in any other process. It can't be, because the | precautionary principle is nothing more than the statement | "never do anything, not under any circumstances". | BurningFrog wrote: | Phrased a bit nicer, the PP will always result in the | decision to not do something, because you can never be 100% | nothing bad will result. | | This is why people only apply PP to things they don't want | done. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > the PP will always result in the decision to not do | something, because you can never be 100% nothing bad will | result. | | It's worse than that; the precautionary principle will | tell you that you can't do [whatever it is], because | there might be risks, and it will _also_ tell you that | you can 't refrain from doing [whatever it is], because | there might be risks to that too. It is completely | logically incoherent, an intellectual embarrassment. | | The _only_ thing that determines what the precautionary | principle will tell you to do is what question you choose | to ask. | inkblotuniverse wrote: | "Let other people put this stuff in their bodies, and see | what happens to them". | jiggawatts wrote: | What "happens to them" is that their life is sustained by | calories and nutrition they would not otherwise be able | to afford. | | This kind of GMO is literally (not figuratively!) _life- | saving_ technology. | | Just like the Haber process enabled fertilizer to be | produced cheaply, saving billions of lives. Without it, | India would have faced mass-starvation and its population | would be half of what it is now. | | Now, you may wish to argue that the World has become | overpopulated as a consequence, but then the question | becomes: How would _you_ reduce the population? | | Most people would prefer to elevate societies through | sufficient sustenance, comprehensive health-care, and | stable governments. This seems to reliably result in | negative or zero population growth. | | Your view seems to be that it's preferable to starve | hundreds of millions to death, leaving the survivors in | abject poverty to avoid... what... "meddling with | nature"? | thereisnospork wrote: | That is a perfectly fine personal position to take, but | an awful position to take as a society. | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | >vast majority of commercial produce has had a lot of its | nutrition bred out of it | | Citation please. | matthewmacleod wrote: | _The vast majority of commercial produce has had a lot of its | nutrition bred out of it, for example._ | | As far as I am aware, this is very much untrue. Modern | agricultural practices have indeed resulted in lower levels | of nutrition in many fruits and vegetables--there was a bit | of chat about this earlier in the year--but to say it has | been "bred out" is not accurate. | | I'm no GMO hawk, but it seems entirely feasible that breeding | or GMing produce to reduce dependency on various aggressive | agricultural techniques offers the possibility of | _increasing_ the nutritional content of produce, rather then | diminishing it. | jorblumesea wrote: | Easy to say when you're not going hungry. | feet wrote: | Why is a higher degree of invasiveness a bad thing? | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | OC misused the term invasiveness afaik in their previous | statement. | feet wrote: | What did they mean in that case? | msla wrote: | > not doing weird stuff like putting fish antifreeze genes in | strawberries. | | Oooh! Weird! Modifying my immune system to be able to fight | cancer is "weird" too, right? Is there a good reason to use | "weird" as a criterion in any of this? Because I like being a | GMO organism who _isn 't_ dying of cancer, and people using | "weird" as a metric make me a bit uneasy about how much longer | such treatments are going to be allowed. | | Remember: GMO isn't just about the "Organic" aisle at Amazon | Whole Foods. | photochemsyn wrote: | Well, your immune system is already capable of identifying | and deleting cells that have escaped the normal cell cycle | control and have become cancerous, but if there's damage to | your immune system then it can lose that capability. Immune | system damage can occur by many means: viral infections, | chemical carcinogens, ionizing radiation, etc. | | Using gene editing technology to repair your immune system | using a human template wouldn't be transgenic technology and | is probably a relatively safe use of CRISPR gene editing, for | example. Throwing in some shark genes to see what happened, | because some species of sharks don't seem to get cancer IIRC, | that would not be such a great idea I don't think. | ALittleLight wrote: | If you were dying of cancer and told your doctor you planned | on drinking a lot of tea I assume your doctor would be like | "Yeah, sure - couldn't hurt." Drinking tea is not weird, lots | of people do it, and there are no real risks because you're | dying anyway. | | On the other hand, if you were like "I'm a biohacker, I'm | going to genetically modify a virus to infect me and alter my | immune system." Then I assume the doctor would say "Hey, let | me get some people to take a look at that." Because that is | weird and there are risks. | | "Weird" doesn't mean good or bad, it means unusual. Unusual | things have the property that we don't do what they will | cause, because they haven't been done much, because they are | unusual. Genetic biohacking probably does have a greater | chance of saving your life, or increasing your farm yields, | but there are possible downsides to it that are not present | in more mundane interventions. | puchatek wrote: | You and your clones are not gonna be spread around in nature | and multiply uncontrollably. Also you and your clones are not | gonna be eaten by predators and affect them in unforeseeable | ways (i hope). Those differences matter to the people who | worry about GMO technologies. The fact that the development | is spearheaded by for-profit companies does not help either. | justinpowers wrote: | Well some ancient ape's "clones" have already spread around | and multiplied uncontrollably. Who's to stay that this | one's won't either? | krageon wrote: | Apes do not clone themselves, now or in the past. Unless | you believe in fairy tales :) | Dylan16807 wrote: | > Modifying my immune system to be able to fight cancer is | "weird" too, right? | | By adding genes? Definitely! | | > people using "weird" as a metric make me a bit uneasy about | how much longer such treatments are going to be allowed. | | It shouldn't. This is at most a concern for inheritable | modifications. | krageon wrote: | > By adding genes? Definitely! | | It might be weird, but it works and it cures people of | cancer. You quite simply cannot convince me that's not a | positive result for everyone. | Dylan16807 wrote: | Did I say or imply I wanted to do that? | | Is the last line of my previous comment not clear enough? | It's weird but there's no concern. | matthewdgreen wrote: | I think "weird" here means "things that may have unexpected | side effects." Cancer treatments have loads of those but we | put up with them because death is worse. Eating strawberries | and rice maybe exists at a different point on the risk | continuum. | d4mi3n wrote: | This is true up to the point of food scarcity. Between | geopolitical conflict and crop failures around the world | this year due to severe heat waves, we're looking at a | rough few years ahead of us for the global food supply. | tsimionescu wrote: | So instead of stopping the wars and the global warming | which increases the chance of the heat waves, we should | jump straight to genetic engineering? Is that the better | solution? | goatlover wrote: | More realistic as stopping wars and climate change are | much harder. The war in Ukraine hasn't ended despite the | West's efforts. And CO2 emissions continue on a large | scale despite all warnings. | tsimionescu wrote: | The West's efforts have been to continue the war, not to | stop it. When you're supplying arms, you're not acting to | stop a war. | | Not saying that Ukraine didn't have a right to be | defended, but it should be pretty objectively obvious | that the war would have stopped long ago had the West not | intervened. This would have been unjust and a massive | slap to the people of Ukraine, and arguably worse for the | world in other ways - so I'm not saying that we shouldn't | have supplied them. | | But we also can't claim we are doing what we can to stop | the war: we're (at best) doing what we can to help the | right side to win, while prolonging the war. | undersuit wrote: | Your immune system already fights cancer. Strawberries don't | need to prevent their blood from freezing in the arctic. | krageon wrote: | Strawberries don't _need_ to exist in the first place. | Nothing does. That doesn 't mean we don't want to cultivate | them in places that may have a cold climate. | echelon wrote: | Frost resistance genes make for more arable land and | greater crop yields. It's a desirable trait. | brigandish wrote: | Is there another situation where the words "fish", | "antifreeze" and "strawberries" are used together to describe | it and it doesn't sound weird? | | I'd be surprised if there were. | jonplackett wrote: | "I'm just popping down to the shops do you need anything?" | | "Yes, could you get some fish and strawberries? Oh and some | antifreeze, I hear it's going to snow tomorrow" | | Seems totally normal to me. Nothing to worry about here... | leeoniya wrote: | reminds me of | | http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/funny-pictures-meme- | fis... | brigandish wrote: | If you think it's normal to put those three things | together on a shopping list then I have a bridge to add | to it. | | Edit: I think this reads as if I'm disagreeing, whereas | I'm piling in together! | Turing_Machine wrote: | Are you not from the United States? Here, it's very | common to find all of those things in one "super store". | Walmart, Meijer in the Midwest, Fred Meyer in the Pacific | Northwest, no doubt others in other regions of the | country... | vostok wrote: | When I've talked to anti-GMO people in real life, they seem | to (1) be anti-Roundup and similar pesticides more so than | literally anti-GMO or (2) be anti-IP laws that won't allow | farmers to use seeds from their last crop. | Turing_Machine wrote: | The overwhelming majority of farmers haven't "used seeds | from their last crop" for well over a hundred years. | photochemsyn wrote: | Yes, the opposition is as much about things like patents on | seeds and refusing to allow farmers to harvest seeds for | their next planting season. | | There's also the problem of making plants resistant to | herbicides, then applying more herbicides, so you get lots | of herbicide runoff into lakes and streams. This is really | more about upping sales for the chemical manufacturer. | | Also there are better methods for getting rid of weeds, I | particularly like these field-crawling robots that identify | weed seedlings with AI-vision and blast them with IR | lasers. | vostok wrote: | That's a great point. I forgot to mention the IP issues. | I hope you don't mind that I've edited my comment to | include them. | iroh2727 wrote: | "Generally considered" may not be good enough given that that | general considerment is corporately influenced (in terms of | research funding, media, narratives inside the industry, etc.). | | I mean, I'm not an expert, but altering the expression of genes | already present could be hugely dangerous in theory. These | expressions are based on extremely precise feedback loops and | interrelationships. | | I guess we could use a coding analogy: if you're using a | statically compiled language and you make a code change that | compiles and makes the unit tests you have in place pass, it | probably works. But it might not... and in this case, what are | the risks of the "might not," especially when we're layering | these modifications on top of each other? And do we need to | take such risks? | scoopdewoop wrote: | I'm really not a fan of Round-Up Ready GMOs, but breeding | plants already alters their genes and gene expression. | Horticulture has radically altered every food we eat. The | natural world already can't sustain 7 billion people, there | simply isn't enough nitrogen in the soil. Fertilizer is the | reason you and I are alive right now, and its a huge source | of greenhouse gasses, so yes, we do need to take such risks. | | A better coding analogy would be genetic algorithms versus | intelligent fuzzing and manually patching. | Gatsky wrote: | This is an oddly anti-scientific view. We can test and | evaluate the safety of the resulting GMO product. | | Some of the most important and useful pharmaceuticals are GMO | products, produced by genetically modified cells in | bioreactors. Do you have an issue with those? | | There is also the fact that we allow rampant and unregulated | frankenfood production which is obviously harmful and purely | profit driven (ie modern processed food production). But when | it comes to GMO crops, which would improve the nutrition of | the hungriest populations, suddenly it is too dangerous and | must be banned. A privileged double-standard if there ever | was one. | [deleted] | i_am_proteus wrote: | Questions I ask upon seeing these results: | | How much more fertilizer and water input is needed to realize | these results? As these two resources become scarce, we should | start thinking about yield per unit input rather than simply | yield per acre. | | Is this new crop safe for humans and animals to eat? How do we | know? | bilsbie wrote: | Worth asking but our time and land are still very important | inputs that probably need to be the top considerations. | | And sunlight is one of the biggest inputs which is free and | constant. | bilsbie wrote: | The safety thing is a weird question. Why is eating one pattern | of DNA more dangerous than another? | | (Assuming you didn't modify it to produce novel proteins, etc) | pulse7 wrote: | "Why is eating one pattern of DNA more dangerous than | another?" => Because some plants/animals have poisons, which | is encoded in their DNA... | dukeofdoom wrote: | Generally people carve out potato blemishes, and blight | spots, and rotten parts, and smelly parts and butchers will | carve out cancerous growths. It's a standard practice, | something that humans do, partly do to our sense of disgust. | Our senses are not always correct, but most of the time it's | a good survival adaptation to avoid rotten food and getting | sick. | xwdv wrote: | It isn't. And that's why people who argue that GMO food is | bad for you just don't get it. It's not the food that's bad, | it's the business practices. The GMO food itself is perfectly | fine to eat. In fact, humans have been genetically modifying | food for centuries, we've just gotten much faster at it. | imtringued wrote: | >In fact, humans have been genetically modifying food for | centuries, we've just gotten much faster at it. | | No we didn't, we have been conducting artificial selection | for centuries, farmers just pick among the best varieties | available to them. By your logic the act of buying GMO | seeds is what modifies their genes rather than their | production process. | xwdv wrote: | No, the artificial selection is genetic modification, on | a slow scale. | pfdietz wrote: | Why are the business practices bad? Details, please. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | Suing small farmers for copyright infringement isn't very | nice. | pfdietz wrote: | You are aware you're spouting bullshit there, right? | | First of all, copyright isn't the applicable IP; patents | are. | | Second, no farmer has ever been sued for accidental | contamination with patented GMOs. There have been cases | where farmers deliberately tried to concentrate trace | contamination, but the courts properly recognized the | deliberate nature of that. | | These urban legend arguments are one of the reasons I | view the entire anti-GMO movement with a very jaundiced | eye. | Dylan16807 wrote: | > Second, no farmer has ever been sued for accidental | contamination with patented GMOs. There have been cases | where farmers deliberately tried to concentrate trace | contamination, but the courts properly recognized the | deliberate nature of that. | | Yes, deliberate use of the patented gene/interaction. | That's still suing small farmers, doing farmer stuff, for | IP infringement. | | So it's not bullshit. | pfdietz wrote: | The farmer deliberately attempted to concentrate the | gene. The only reason he would do this is to try to | violate the patent. This was not an innocent action. Your | argument here is like blaming a homeowner for catching a | burgler. | yetanother-1 wrote: | Many explinations are available on the web, but it comes | down to the dependence on these seeds and thus on the | producer of them. | pfdietz wrote: | How is that different from use of hybrid seeds, which | have been available since forever and don't breed true? | | The solution to dependence is to have multiple suppliers. | One can always use an older variety of seed. If the | complaint is that the benefits are going to the company | that made the seeds rather than the farmer, then how is | that different from any other patented technology? The | farmer is never going to be worse off, since he can | always just use older varieties if the cost > his | benefit. | | Perhaps your actual argument is that this will reduce | food prices, driving out producers who don't keep up with | the latest advances. But again, how is that different | from any other improvement in agricultural technology? Is | this just more European objection to the steamroller of | US industrial agriculture? | xwdv wrote: | sillystuff wrote: | GM crops that produce BT toxin are supposed to be safe for | humans due to the acid in our stomachs breaking down the BT | toxin. But, I wasn't able to find any studies that | investigated the safety of BT toxin in contact with mucus | membranes in the mouth etc. before being processed by the | stomach. It seems, at least, possible that this could lead | to an increased risk of throat and mouth cancers. GM BT | corn, egg plant (aubergine), and potatoes are common. | | Herbicide resistant GM crops used to get slathered with | more herbicides than non-GM crops, so you probably were | getting less exposure to these herbicides with non-GM | conventional crops vs. GM conventional crops (I guess you | could argue this falls into business practices, but it is | the point of these GM crops). But, Ag schools, at least in | the US, have been promoting using herbicides like | glyphosate and Reglone to desiccate crops immediately prior | to harvest[1] to avoid having to mow the crops to get a low | uniform crop moisture content for harvesting equipment. So, | conventional non-GM grains, oil seeds and legumes may also | have high herbicide residues. Of course, buying organic | avoids both sources of herbicides. | | [1] https://extension.umn.edu/small-grains-harvest-and- | storage/m... | xwdv wrote: | Meh, none of those issues are inherent to GM crops | themselves, and even some non-GM crops can be bad for you | in certain circumstances. | sillystuff wrote: | Your "meh" is similar to disregarding contemporary | environmental PFAS contamination because of historic lead | contamination from tetraethyllead. "There exist bad | things already" does not automatically make the | additional potentially bad thing harmless. | | BT is sprayed on some food crops, but with GM food crops, | it is contained within every cell of the plant, and | cannot be washed off. You _are_ consuming BT toxin, if | you eat GM BT crops (the US EPA requires BT crops to be | registered as pesticides). Putting poison in contact with | mucus membranes seems, at the very least, 'possible' to | have negative long-term health consequences. | | Non GM conventional crops can use systemic pesticides | (the irrigation water contains the poison and/or the seed | is pre-treated. This also incorporates the pesticide | within plant tissues so it cannot be washed off). These | systemic pesticides are usually neonicotinoids. Presence | of systemic neonicotinoid use in conventional agriculture | does not negate concerns about GM BT crops. | | My point was that GM, as it exists today, makes | conventional agriculture's issues of pesticide exposure | and low genetic diversity in our staple food crops worse, | not that conventional agriculture doesn't already have | issues. | arcticbull wrote: | I think it's fair to say eating one plant is not comparable | with eating a different plant. Why is eating one pattern of | DNA (rice) less dangerous than another (Castor beans, where | ricin comes from)? I think that's pretty self-explanatory. | They code for different proteins. | | I think the answer is more that we have no reason to believe | that these modifications introduced harmful proteins, and we | tested it on animals and humans, and they were fine. | | The problem I have with GMOs generally speaking is the | business model of patenting, selling sterile seeds that put | farmers on mandatory subscription model - and that frequently | the only genetic modification is to make the crop resistant | to pesticides and herbicides so you can soak the fields, | sterilize them and kill everything else. Or all 3 at once, | like RoundUp Ready corn and soy. | gruez wrote: | >The problem I have with GMOs generally speaking is the | business model of patenting, selling sterile seeds that put | farmers on mandatory subscription model | | What you said also applies to hybrid varieties, yet they | don't receive nearly as much pushback. Furthermore, what's | wrong with a subscription model? GMO seeds costs money to | develop and that has to be recouped somehow. The | alternative is paying some sort of upfront fixed cost, | which is probably even worse on a farmer's finances and | gives large scale operations even more of an advantage | (they have easy access to capital). | imtringued wrote: | >Furthermore, what's wrong with a subscription model? GMO | seeds costs money to develop and that has to be recouped | somehow. | | Developing countries must import seeds which forces them | to export something to maintain balanced trade. Most | developed nations are fighting currency wars against each | other and developing countries which means they can at | best export natural resources like oil, gold, raw copper | or diamonds. | gruez wrote: | This seems like a self-correcting problem. If you can't | export stuff then foreign currency/GMO seeds would get | more and more expensive, until the increased productivity | of GMO seeds isn't worth it anymore at which point you | switch back to conventional seeds. Considering that you | can't eat "natural resources like oil, gold, raw copper | or diamonds", having the option to turn those things into | more food (ie. by exporting them and using the money to | buy GMO Seeds) seems like a net positive. | [deleted] | memco wrote: | > Furthermore, what's wrong with a subscription model? | GMO seeds costs money to develop and that has to be | recouped somehow. The alternative is paying some sort of | upfront fixed cost, which is probably even worse on a | farmer's finances and gives large scale operations even | more of an advantage (they have easy access to capital). | | A subscription isn't in and of itself a bad thing, but | the expectation is a little strange given that the plants | themselves spread and grow in places that cannot be | regulated by the developers. Thus someone could subscribe | once then cancel but still grow the crop. Further, people | who didn't subscribe could end up having some of the crop | spread onto their land then could unintentionally grow it | without permission. This has sometimes led to attempts to | either force people to pay for services they didn't agree | to or to destroy something growing on their own land | through no fault of their own. In those cases, non- | customers are actively penalized for their non- | participation rather being left alone or being | incentivized to try product through positive means. | gruez wrote: | >but the expectation is a little strange given that the | plants themselves spread and grow in places that cannot | be regulated by the developers. Thus someone could | subscribe once then cancel but still grow the crop. | | 1. As mentioned before, what isn't applicable to hybrid | crops. If you try to collect the seeds of hybrid crops | and try to plant them, you'll get the seeds of the | parents, which aren't going to have the attributes you're | looking for. | | 2. I take it that you're also against copyrights? After | all, you can theoretically buy a blu-ray once, and copy | it infinitely. | | >Further, people who didn't subscribe could end up having | some of the crop spread onto their land then could | unintentionally grow it without permission. This has | sometimes led to attempts to either force people to pay | for services they didn't agree to or to destroy something | growing on their own land through no fault of their own. | In those cases, non-customers are actively penalized for | their non-participation rather being left alone or being | incentivized to try product through positive means. | | Source for this? It's been often alleged that monsanto | engages in this behavior, but according to wikipedia[1] | they've only gone after farmers that were intentionally | trying to reverse engineer/breed their seeds. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As | _plaint... | Dylan16807 wrote: | If I kept getting sent single frames of a bluray whether | I want them or not, but I was forbidden from putting | those frames together into the full movie, I'd be pretty | annoyed about that use of copyright too. | [deleted] | adrian_b wrote: | From the description, proportionally more fertilizer (and | water) is required, because one of the effects of the genetic | change is an increased rate of extraction for the nitrogen | compounds from the soil. | | The increased rate of nitrogen extraction, together with the | higher rates of photosynthesis (which needs water to provide | the hydrogen for reducing carbon dioxide, nitrates and | sulfates) and of carbon dioxide reduction lead to a higher | productivity. | | Unlike for some of the other genetically-modified crops, from | the description there does not seem to be any reason to worry | about eating such a rice, as the genetic modification does not | seem to have any qualitative effects, but only quantitative | effects, resulting in higher rates for the same chemical | processes as in non-modified rice, obtained by multiplying the | reaction sites. | 32163704 wrote: | owl57 wrote: | I'm no biologist or chemist, but generally plant growth is a | huge chain of chemical processes, and if you make some subset | of these faster, can it lead, for example, to accumulation of | byproducts that are normally used up nearly completely? Or to | unexpected regulation of some other reactions, including | possibly expressing something bad that's usually only made in | the cells we don't eat, up to the anti-herbivore toxins? | adrian_b wrote: | Such things cannot be completely excluded, but they should | also be easy to detect. I assume that for any such new | cultivar many detailed chemical analyses will be done | before deciding that all went well. | | Such side effects can also happen when using more | traditional methods, i.e. selection of improved cultivars | from plants that have suffered spontaneous random mutations | or random mutations caused by mutagenic agents. | | On the other hand, when you insert a foreign gene in the | plant genome, e.g. with the purpose of making it pest- | resistant, the results are far more unpredictable then in | cases like this, where an already existing gene has been | duplicated, in order to increase its activity. | alexfromapex wrote: | Or do these GMOs yield the around the same amount of nutrients | which is the main desired output | gruez wrote: | Rice is pretty poor in micronutrients to begin with, so | you're not missing out on much even if it was 50% lower. | adrian_b wrote: | That's right. | | As food, rice is mainly an excellent and easy to transport | and store source of energy, with up to 80% of its weight | being starch, more than in most other cereals. | | All the other nutrients are present in a quantity so small | that their contribution is negligible. Rice can cover all | of the energy needs of a human, but it must be accompanied | by other food for enough proteins, vitamins and minerals. | mdf wrote: | Land use throughout the globe is at an unsustainable level, | causing habitat loss for species and reduction in carbon sinks. | Getting farmland to produce more per square meter would be very | important, and the results presented in the article seem like a | possibility in that regard. | | I wonder how this would combine with the effort[1] to modify rice | to use the C4 kind of photosynthesis, if realized. | | [1] https://c4rice.com/ | hyperpallium2 wrote: | Growing more quickly means higher ratio of calories to other | nutrients. | skybrian wrote: | Yes, but I wonder if it matters when vitamins are widely | available? Or alternatively, some nutrients get added at a | later step. Iodized salt, for example. | | This might seem less "natural" but it seems like it would work? | hyperpallium2 wrote: | That helps, though an issue is bioavailability - vitamin | forms are typically harder for the body to process than the | forms in food. There can also be other nutrients required | together (e.g. calcium with vitamin D). Finally, I am 100% | sure that, despite progress (e.g. fortified bread), we don't | yet know all the nutrients, forms, and interactions. | | Nutrition science is historically dodgey. | oofbey wrote: | Diet research is super hard. But the current consensus is | that nutrients are best obtained from natural sources. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | How would you know what kind of "nutrients" would you need to | add? | | We don't even know all the molecules that make up a single | grain of rice. Do you think we've already discovered all the | required nutrients for humans? | | You don't want to end up like these cats: | https://www.latimes.com/archives/la- | xpm-1987-08-14-mn-805-st... | skybrian wrote: | It seems pretty low risk. Given that not all cultures are | rice-based, it seems unlikely that rice has any mysterious | nutrient that's essential but not in other foods we eat. | It's also unlikely that having somewhat less of it in rice | will have dramatic effects. | | After all, people do eat a variety of different diets and | often change their diets. | osigurdson wrote: | I think we should try to do more with automation to produce food | more cheaply. I'd rather have a zillion little robots clipping | weeds than spraying roundup on GMO roundup resistant crops to | achieve the same effect. A farmer's job should be to press one | button in the spring. | xbar wrote: | How much more Roundup is required? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-23 23:01 UTC)