New French Fries Won’t Cause As Much Cancer As Before

Mr-potato.svgGMOs (genetically modified organisms) are back in the news with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recent approval of Simplot’s new potato – the Innate. Simplot has inserted additional fragments of the potato’s own DNA – nothing from bacteria or other organisms. You’d think this would reduce the “ick factor” that bedevils other GMOs. The new potato offers advantages to the consumer, not just to farmers and seed companies, so perhaps it has a better chance of being accepted that other GMOs.

Simplot began selling precut frozen French fries and hashbrowns to fast-food chains back in the 1950s, but they want to create a new consumer product: the fresh pre-cut potato. Unlike most potatoes that turn brown quickly, the Innate stays fresh and white much longer. Whether consumers will embrace this new convenience, and pay a bit more for it, will determine if Innate succeeds.

Another happy outcome is that Innate produces less acrylamide. Acrylamide has been shown to increase the risk of cancer in lab rats and mice, but studies in humans so far have not shown a clear increase in cancer risk in humans. One of Simplot’s biggest customers will not take advantage of the change:

“‘McDonald’s USA does not source GMO potatoes, nor do we have current plans to change our sourcing practice,’ a company spokesperson” said.

The Mother Jones article rings true:

“When you think about it, that cautious attitude makes perfect sense. McDonald’s has been beset by declining sales and questions about the quality of its food. Its customers don’t care about the Innate’s anti-browning quality because they buy their fries cooked. The only potential sales pitch would involve the lower dose of acrylamides. But saying ‘Our new fries might be less carcinogenic than the ones we’ve been selling you for 50 years’ doesn’t have much of a ring to it.”

I also ran across some commercial information on a website supported, in part, by the European Union. Innate isn’t mentioned, but French fries are not the potato’s biggest market:

“Only one in four potatoes grown in Europe actually gets eaten by people. Almost half end up being fed to livestock. The remaining one quarter are used as raw material in the production of alcohol and starch.”

It seems “sticky starch” is used as paste, glue, or lubricant. Currently, the different forms of starch found in a potato must be separated, so plant breeders are working to develop potatoes that produce only one type. More GMO potatoes are doubtless on their way.

Reducing a chemical (a natural chemical found in all potatoes) that may-or-may-not cause cancer seems like a small gain. And, personally, I don’t find cutting my own potatoes a big imposition. But on this blog, we’ve offered cautious support for GMOs and I don’t see Innate as changing that position. We’ll keep watching.

Read more on GMOs here:

GMO labeling 2

GMO labeling 1

GMOs Food Safety and Golden Rice

GMOs Science and Morality

GMOs vs Hybrids

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Report

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report from Copenhagen, Denmark that said, in summary, “Climate change is happening, it’s almost entirely man’s fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emission to zero this century…” (I’m assuming they don’t intend to reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide exhaled by humans and other animals.)

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.”  The report once again mentions the “…melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice…”

I’ve expressed my opinions on this subject many times, and I still consider myself a denier, as the global warming advocates enjoy calling people who don’t agree with them. I still think the earth may warm, or it may cool, but it is certain the climate will change just as it always has.

I intend to focus on Antarctic and Arctic ice levels posted on the National Sea and Ice Data Center web site. Recent peak levels in the Antarctic set a new record over the period of satellite observations. Global warming fans say that isn’t important. I reason, perhaps naively, that warmer temperatures probably would result in less ice and not more. Continue reading

Request to Colorado Senators

Colorado now has a Democrat and a Republican as Senators, and I want them to forget that they are a Democrat and Republican and set an example. I want them to team up to bring legislation that is good for the country regardless of the opposing party lines. Cory Gardner’s defeated Mark Udall despite or perhaps because of the ads from Udall and at least one of his supporting organizations that Gardner was so opposed to birth control that he wanted to outlaw condoms. (That beyond-silly accusation was made in an ad by something called NARAL.) The majority of voters in the race ignored the insulting ads and elected a person they hope will be a better Senator.

I suppose it would be tempting to some of the new soon-to-be-Senators such as Gardner to follow the model established by President Obama. I recall seeing news reports of his narcissistic and arrogant response to Republican appeals when Obamacare was being debated, “I won.” I certainly hope that Gardner doesn’t waste any time celebrating that he won. I hope he instead teams with Democratic Senator Michael Bennet to start the process of addressing important issues. Tax reform, freeing up energy production and transportation (i.e. the Keystone pipeline) and addressing immigration should be on the list. Mr. Bennet and Mr. Gardner, put aside “what my party expects me to do” and think about what’s good for the country. Continue reading

Evolution of Codenames

Louise S. Kettle has an interesting article titled “Operation Bunnyhug: What’s in a Name?” She explains, “This year’s First World War centenary also marks another unusual anniversary—the birth of military operational codenames.” The Germans were the first to use codenames during “The Great War,” and those became increasingly important as communications by radio became more common and more vulnerable to interception by the enemy. The Germans used some unwise codenames in World War II that, with minimal thought, revealed the nature of the mission. For example a planned invasion of England was named “Operation Sealion.” It referred to “an attack across the sea to the island with lions in the coat of armor,” which was, of course, England. The invasion of the Soviet Union began as “Operation Fritz,” but was changed to “Barbarosa,” which referred to the Roman Empire expanding power to the east.

American codenames began using colors. Examples were Operation Indigo, Gray, and Black. Winston Churchill might have approved of those names, and he set out some basic rules for establishing codenames: Continue reading

Expect the Unexpected

Our review of a book on the safety – or lack of it – for nuclear weapons, got me thinking. One of the book’s points was that complex, interconnected systems are inherently difficult to predict and control. Many of our nuclear weapons were designed without thought to how they would eventually be decommissioned and destroyed. It reminds me of a saying I had posted over my desk on my first “real” job out of college: if you design only for steady state, you’ll have a system that cannot be started-up, shut-down, or maintained.

Our modern society has many complex systems where failures are serious – for example, nuclear weapons, nuclear power, the electric grid, and commercial airlines. Also where people make up a large part of the system – for example, hospitals, pharmacies, and emergency response. We seem determined to insist people in these systems should be infallible, and many highly-skilled people strive to achieve this level of perfection. When something goes wrong, “blame was placed on human error, but ‘the real problem lay deeply embedded within the technological systems… what appeared to be… a one-in-a-million accident was actually to be expected. It was normal.'” Continue reading

Update on Colorado Proposition to Label GMOs

The commentary posted last week stated that I intended to vote no on Colorado Proposition 105. Two readers made comments supporting the decision and one wrote a long dissention complete with links to back up the reasons for the disagreement. You can read the full comment, but I was struck by the statement that you can’t trust “…the FDA (or EPA) to protect your health, just as you could not count on DOE to protect the workers at Rocky Flats.” The last part of that is certainly complicated. Those who have read my book “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats: Urban Myths debunked” (free at the book link at the bottom of the home page on this site) know that I was critical of DOE about their response to allegations of environmental crimes at the plant. However, today I attended a meeting of Rocky Flats retirees, some are aging more gracefully than others, but we are all aging. Many Rocky Flats retirees have lived well into their eighties and beyond despite the fact many of us worked with plutonium, which the press enjoyed calling “the most deadly substance known to man.”

I don’t intend to get into the “Rocky Flats health debate” in this commentary, but I did feel I needed to at least acknowledge the statement. I do understand it is easy to distrust government, but I’m not swayed that I should distrust the FDA and EPA because “…high ranking FDA and EPA staffers came from Monsanto…” I don’t have to be told GMO opponents emotionally believe Monsanto and all of the current and past employees are evil. Monsanto has indeed done some things that I also dislike, to include that they have sued farmers for patent infringement after their crops were inadvertently pollinated due to winds blowing pollen from a neighboring farm. Hatred of Monsanto inspires emotional responses, but I tend to try to sort through emotions and look for facts to make decisions. Continue reading