Rot-Proof Apple Developed: Stays Fresh for 4 Months
treehugger.com:
Scientists in Australia have developed an apple that won't rot. Or, won't rot for a long, long time.
treehugger.com:
Scientists in Australia have developed an apple that won't rot. Or, won't rot for a long, long time.
Timothy LaSalle: Organic Agriculture Beats Biotech at its Own Game
The organic community may eventually be open to biotech crops if long-term, independent studies show there are no ecological or human health impacts. Before then, why risk it?
Wayne Pacelle: Frankenfurters: Genetic Engineering of Farm Animals
We at The Humane Society of the United States have focused much of our farm animal welfare reform efforts on combating intensive confinement and inhumane...
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't care how long it lasts, I will not eat it.
No GMO food!!!
This isn't a GMO. It's a gene transfer between species that could have been crossbred naturally, but it could have taken 50 years to achieve without biotechnology.
Nature intended for closely-related species, such as two kinds of apples, to be able to propagate their successful genes. This just speeds up the process to achieve human-directed objectives.
GMO is when genes are transferred between substantially different species that could not interbreed in nature, such as inserting the Roundup Ready gene in a variety of commodity crops.
At least it is the same species, but if they use a gene gun, there will be collateral genetic alterations.
How is modifying the apple "green" and eco-friendly?
Keyword - "developed".
Yup the say it tastes good, yeah right if you like mushy cardboard. One can only turn to the flopp-flavr savr gentically altered tomato.
If I can't get around to eating the apple within 4 months, I probably wasn't serious about it to begin with.
In short. No thanks, bad idea!
Healthy food goes bad. Ever noticed how your organic vegetables go bad if you keep them around as long as you do conventional?
Disgusting.
I can't wait for the Non-GMO labels to be used widely.
I want to know that the products I buy are free from GMO.
In the meantime, I buy mostly at Farmers Markets and CSA's.
Granny Smiths already are long lasting without any gene modification.
Admittedly they're as sour as can be, so that these new apples may really represent a useful advance.
You can be sure though that the outcry about them being Unnatural will be loud, as it always is with gene modified products. The folks doing all the yelling don't seem to recognize that Mother Nature makes such changes herself, only slower & more haphazardly :)
Not sure what the big deal is. Apples are already one of the produce items that last the longest under refrigeration. I've had apples in my fridge for longer than that that were still edible.
haha seriously. I don't think this is what nature intended. Rotting/decomposing is a natural part of the cycle of life and should be respected as such. Notice that Organic produce tends to have a shorter shelf life than it's genetically modified, insecticide and petroleum-laden counterpart. it's not a bad thing. It's still far better for you and the earth, despite how long it may last What is bad is our attachment to everything looking just like in the picture, and our throwing it into a landfill if/when it doesn't. We need to work on better distribution chains so that we waste less, and a state-mandated composting system to utlilize what we don't eat. Korea and Japan may not have it all right, but they recycle 97% of their trash, in large part because of composting. The idea of the U.S. being the leader of the free world is a joke on many levels- One that only people who've never left still believe.
An apple that does not go bad really soon is a great idea.
And inserting naturally occurring genetics into a new variety of apple is just fine.
Mother nature has been cross pollinating and transferring genes for a very long time with very good results.
I agree to the extent that genes are transferred between species that could be crossbred (cisgenesis) and not transferred between substantially dissimilar species that could not crossbreed in the natural world (transgenesis).
In my view, there's a significant ecological difference between an accelerated simulation of crossbreeding two species of apple and inserting the Roundup-Ready gene into a variety of different commodity crops.
I also object to the intellectual property framework as it applies to the proprietization of genomic sequences. If they can't prevent genes from propagating through natural crossbreeding, then they can't press charges when "their" gene shows up in "unlicensed" organisms.
Posted: 11-13-09 05:28 PM