13 ms·
CRISPR tomatoes genetically engineered to be richer in Vitamin D
- giantg2 4y agoOr... Instead of spending money engineering food like this we could actually go outside without being slathered in sunscreen for about 10 minutes a day (depending on skin tone). That might even mean we get some healthy activities in that have additonal benefits while we're out there. Edit: wow so much hate without any argument as to why this is better than existing supplementation, especially considering existing supplements have more stringent dosing. It's like I've somehow argued that supplementation is bad, when all I'm saying is this seems a waste of money if we already have adequate supplements.
- crawfordcomeaux 4y agoIn support of what you're saying. https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science/ https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...
- eatbitseveryday 4y agoNot a great solution for folks in northern climates where sun doesn't exist for 9mo out of the year. Doctors still recommend vitamin D supplements.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoDoctors recommend a lot of things due to herd mentality and syllogistic thinking. Their endorsement doesn't mean much.
- giantg2 4y agoI assume it's difficult to grow fresh tomatoes there too. Why should the tomatoes be benefit over the existing supplements?
- TheSoftwareGuy 4y agoTomatoes are still eaten plenty in places where they cannot even grow, because we are able to ship them. They may not taste as nice as farm-fresh heirloom tomatoes, but clearly people still eat them. On the other hand, most people do not take Vitamin D supplements, even if they should.
- giantg2 4y agoOk... but why would these people who don't take a supplement today suddenly care enough to pick out fresh tomatoes that are engineered for it? Likely at 10x -100x the cost.
- fsflover 4y agoCRISPR doesn't only work with tomatoes.
- crawfordcomeaux 4y agoThis is an argument for preserving salmon habitats, which is how pacific northwest tribes met their vitamin D needs before we dammed their spawning grounds.
- judge2020 4y agoAnd when the engineering might lead to more B12 instead, should we instead go out and hunt for our food?
- giantg2 4y agoThat's pretty off topic. We could have what-ifs about a bunch of other nutrients.
- stevenjgarner 4y agoThose of us with skin cancer because we have had our "10 minutes a day" are reliant upon vitamin D supplements.
- nradov 4y agoEven if you have fair skin, there is no significant cancer risk from 10 minutes of daily sun exposure. (The exception would be some very rare genetic disorders which cause rapid development of cancers.) But sun exposure alone might not produce the recommend vitamin D levels for some people, especially those living nearer to the poles.
- elmomle 4y agoOutdoor workers actually have a significantly reduced rate of melanoma. Sun exposure increases risk of carcinoma, which is almost never fatal (in fact, knowing nothing else about a person, diagnosis with a basal or squamous cell carcinoma implies a longer expected lifespan). Source: https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science/ https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-... Regular exposure to sunlight, in amounts insufficient to cause burns, is probably very good for us. And why wouldn't it be? Life tends to find and use all advantageous resources at its disposal--so of course a diurnal animal with lots of skin collecting sunlight would have evolved all sorts of processes to put that sunlight to beneficial use.
- annoyingnoob 4y agoThe overall prevalence rate of vitamin D deficiency was 41.6%, with the highest rate seen in blacks (82.1%), followed by Hispanics (69.2%). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/
- giantg2 4y agoThat's why I said depending on skin tone.
- nojito 4y agonot everyone can make vitamin D properly from the sun.
- giantg2 4y agoOk, and what is the benefit of this over traditional supplements for them?
- outworlder 4y agoSupplements don't self-replicate.
- giantg2 4y agoI think the general discussion is around whether that's a feature or a bug.
- nojito 4y agoSame reason why putting fluoride in the water was the best decision ever in terms of public health value. People don't care about their health.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- oh_sigh 4y agoBrown/black people in northern latitudes aren't really able to get adequate vitamin D through sun exposure alone for 6 months/yr.
- gjs278 4y ago
- wk_end 4y agoIn response to your edit: nothing in this comment - which is the one that's downvoted - says anything about existing supplements. It just says that we should all get our Vitamin D by hanging out outside - which, as others have already pointed out, is nonsense for much of the world and thus has been downvoted justly. As to why existing supplements are inadequate: well, because at the end of the day huge swaths of the population are Vitamin D deficient. Plain and simple. Those people should be taking supplements, but aren't. Many of those same people eat tomatoes regularly, and this will help them; it's like water fluoridation. You can moralize and lecture about individual responsibility or whatever, but a positive outcome is a positive outcome.
- tstrimple 4y agoThere was also a problem with populations lacking enough iodine in their diet that was addressed with food additives, specifically iodized salt which had a major health benefit across the nation. These types of solutions work. It's a continual source of frustration when systemic issues are dismissed simply as matters of "personal responsibility". > The U.S. was historically iodine deficient prior to the early 1920s, particularly in the goiter belt region of the Great Lakes, Appalachians, and the northwestern area of the country, due to the effects of natural atmospheric processes. Following the successful implementation of salt iodization program in Switzerland, the introduction of iodized table salt in the U.S. during the 1920s significantly improved its iodine nutritional status. However, although recent national studies demonstrate that the general population is overall iodine sufficient, salt iodization in the U.S. is not universal, and certain subsets of the population, including pregnant and lactating women and their offspring, may be at risk for mild to moderate iodine deficiency. As such, a public health approach by the American Thyroid Association and the Endocrine Society advocate U.S. women to take a supplement containing 150 µg iodine/day beginning preconception. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3509517/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3509517/
- giantg2 4y agoThat didn't have an easy and free solution in most areas, a solution that carries other benefits. That also didn't involve editing genes that could potentially spread. Also it had a clear benefit. Not so much here. https://www.sciencealert.com/vitamin-d-tablets-may-be-worse-for-you-then-nothing-at-all https://www.sciencealert.com/vitamin-d-tablets-may-be-worse-...
- qgin 4y agoBasically no significant number of people (in the United States and Europe at least) wear sunscreen every day. Furthermore above 37 degrees latitude, almost no vitamin D will be produced by sun exposure even if you spend time outside exposed to the elements for an hour.
- eatbitseveryday 4y agoActual published article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-022-01154-6.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-022-01154-6.pdf
- extrememacaroni 4y agoLove me some crispy tomatoes especially in a shawarma.
- ospzfmbbzr 4y agoDouble plus good cripsy tomatoes mmm More mostly water pale tomatoes like subway etc. Wonderful. Try a eating a real heirloom tomato and if you are still interested in this franken-food I'm not sure what to tell you.
- algoatecorn 4y agoThe GM aspect of food crops has nothing to do with harvest/ripening processes
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoThe FlavrSavr tomato was developed to delay decay so that they could be picked in a riper state. GM doesn't just mean pesticide resistance.
- algoatecorn 4y agoI'm aware of FlavrSavr as my line of work is plant genome engineering. My response was to a comment which was presumably directed toward the article that was posted. In that article, the new tomato variety is not engineered in a way to affect shelf-life. Besides, per acre, almost all of our GM crops are engineered for producers' benefit. Out of the many registered GM varieties, only a small handful are associated with something other than pesticide resistance, Bt, or environmental resiliency.
- mustacheemperor 4y agoA 'real heirloom tomato' represents a plant that has been extensively modified by humans through the slower genetic modification process of artificial selection. The wild ancestor of the tomato is the size of a pea.[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanum_pimpinellifolium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanum_pimpinellifolium
- outworlder 4y agoGreat. I just wish people would stop labeling "GMO == bad" so we can continue tailoring food to our needs - like we have been doing for millennia. Except now we can be more precise about it. Anyone who's ever tried to grow tomatoes will attest that the damn things shouldn't exist. They are just as yummy to pests are they are to us. Even the grocery store ones that are selected for production and looking good are very finnicky. Tomatoes were the size of blueberries originally. People will rave about "heirloom" tomatoes (and some are delicious, currently trying to grow my own) but they are just as mutant as the bland supermarket ones.
- giantg2 4y agoEh, I don't care to have more vitamin D. How would I test my crops for these higher levels if my neighbors start growing these? There's no visual signs that my prior year's seed is contaminated.
- monkeybutton 4y agoI wonder how hard it would be to engineer a logo or trademark pattern onto the skin of the fruit. Probably pretty hard given that SOTA is engineering a pathway to synthesize just one vitamin.
- outworlder 4y agoHow can you tell today that your neighbor's crop hasn't cross bred with yours? And if it has, how can you tell what genes you got? Remember - mutations happen all the time in nature. There's no difference between a seed that mutated 'naturally' and one that we modified, except for intent.
- pkulak 4y agoWell, and that wild mutations are generally single gene or two at a time, right? CRISPER can swap out whatever anyone wants.
- 4y ago
- Krasnol 4y agoI wish they would engineer them to taste like something again. Can't grow them all by myself and those Holland/Spain grown taste like nothing.
- acadapter 4y agoIt's not a matter of genetics. Store-bought tomatoes are almost always unripe, to make transport easier. Then they are treated with ethylene to artificially finish the final steps (but it's obviously not exactly the same result).
- outworlder 4y agoIt's not _just_ a matter of genetics. But I'm pretty sure the supermarket ones have been bred for looks and shelf life. I've grown store bought tomatoes. Last year we hardly bought any as the production was enough even though I have a tiny backyard. There is some difference. Supermarket ones are a little bit more bland, and way bigger. But the difference in taste is minimal and you can only tell if you got them side by side. However, if I compare supermarket tomatoes in the US vs supermarket tomatoes in Brazil, the ones in the US taste like water. They look different too (the brazilian ones don't usually look like a cartoon drawing, they are less 'perfect' visually). If I could import seeds (not allowed!) I would, just so I could finally compare like with like (weather conditions, soil, etc).
- cinntaile 4y agoThe most likely reason for that is that it is simply a different tomato.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoThe first transgenic product was a tomato that decayed slower so it could be picked later. It launched the anti-GMO movement and was taken off the market.
- ch4s3 4y agoYeah, it would be awesome to figure out how to make delicious tomatoes that ripen well after picking and are sturdy enough to transport. There's probably a ton of money to be made on that, especially if you could make it pest and drought resistant. And while you're at it why not make them fix nitrogen like some legumes[1]. I actually mean it, I'm really excited to see how we can mix and match useful genes from other plants or heirloom varieties into sturdy crops that can be shipped to grocery stores. Theres so much potential here. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28712497/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28712497/
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoDidn't we learn on HN a day or two ago, that eating vitamin D doesn't help?
- michelpp 4y agoYes, that article has come up a few times: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=sunscreen+margerine https://hn.algolia.com/?q=sunscreen+margerine The article presents evidence that Vitamin D doesn't cause good health, but instead is a biomarker of good health caused by sun exposure and thus, supplementation does nothing for most people.
- LegitShady 4y agovitamin d doesn't cause good health, but being deficient in vitamin d causes poor health. That being said, vitamin d is a hormone and I'm not sure I want to be unable to figure out approximately how much im taking in.
- michelpp 4y agoI'm not posing an opinion either way, but what the article says is that vitamin D doesn't cause either good or bad health, it's only a marker for sun exposure which does cause good health. "These rebels argue that what made the people with high vitamin D levels so healthy was not the vitamin itself. That was just a marker. Their vitamin D levels were high because they were getting plenty of exposure to the thing that was really responsible for their good health—that big orange ball shining down from above."
- LegitShady 4y agoagain, low vitamin D levels do cause bad health, so it can cause bad health - your body needs vitamin d. Too much vitamin d can also cause bad health although you'd need to ingest a lot of vitamin d supplement over a decent period of time. Having 'enough' vitamin d without having toxic levels of vitamin d is a sign of good health, but being deficient or having too much causes bad health.
- algoatecorn 4y agoOur GM crops are >90% engineered with what are called "first-generation" traits which offer resistance to herbicides, pests, or environmental conditions. First-gen traits are producer-centric, and the reason they make up most of our GM arsenal is because the same companies (Monsanto/Bayer for example) that provide the seed also provide the chemical that works in conjunction with the GM trait. In the past few years, public trust in GM crops has diminished due to false information and fear of the unknown. According to published work, only ~5% of consumers feel like they have a good understanding of GMO. The problem is that genetic engineering is not limited to "first-generation" traits. As a matter of fact, most of the unrealized benefit of GM crops is hidden in second and third generation traits. These are traits which increase nutritional value or improve shelf-life, etc (Consumer-centric traits). Before you bash GM by bringing up Monsanto, super-weeds, or whatever, just think about the second and third generation GM traits which could solve major issues in the world (nutrient deficiencies, carbon sequestration, supply chain resiliency). Plant molecular biologist with a background in genome engineering of high-value crops. AMA Edit: I want to add a snippet regarding the uncertainties of "playing god". First of all, CRISPR is gene editing which is much different than foreign gene insertion via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. But even agro transformation has been occuring in nature without human intervention. These bacterium have the capacity to insert foreign genes into plant genomes and have been doing so on their own for quite some time. There are plenty of known gene-transfer events which happened without human pressure. Plant genomes across the world are littered with agro transfer genes. The only difference is now we use this mechanism to deliberately insert genes of interest for functional purposes.
- picture 4y agoAs a complete outsider, I've got a question for you. How hard is it to do this GMO thing? Why does it have to be limited to only a few big corporations? Why have we yet to see a diverse industry of startups and small companies competing to make the best strains at the lowest prices with the most features, like we saw with the electronics industry?
- algoatecorn 4y agoThose are good questions and I'll try to answer them all together: Creating a stably transformed plant is very difficult. A plant is made of b(tr?)illions of cells, and if you insert a "gene of interest" into one of them, it will exist transiently as each cell in the plant has its own cell line. So the standard way is to insert your gene into a cell and then induce/reprogramme it to go through the process of embryogenesis. This is critical because that single cell is the "parent" of every single other cell that will eventually compose the adult plant. Therefore, we can ensure the entire plant is stably transformed. Anything else is essentially chimeric. The reason it is limited to big corporations is because of: market strategy, regulations, and IP. When the technology reached the point of commercialization, the early adopters decided on producer-centric traits because of: market value, ease of implementation, and ability to upsell. When you are trying to sell a farmer something, you have to solve one of their problems. What does a farmer hate most? Weeds and other pests. So it's no surprise that the companies selling GM seeds are the same companies selling pesticides. In order to use their seed's technology, you also have to buy their pesticides. Now you've changed your whole farm operation to suit their technology and there's no going back. Gotcha! It also turns out that getting these cultivars into the market is a big pain in the ass. The regulatory process to get a GM crop into the field and then onto the shelves is time-consuming and expensive... so again the big companies with money can make the investment. Finally, there is a lot of IP protection for these companies; from the seeds, to the chemicals, to the process of plant transformation. Remember the part about plant transformation and embryogenesis? Very few species can undergo the process reliably - at least we only have methods for a handful. And within each species, there are only a few genotypes that work. Currently, the only GM crops are corn, soybean, cotton, potato, papaya, squash, canola, alfalfa, and sugar beet. Companies can own a patent on certain cultivars of these crops. They also probably own the patent for whatever herbicide the plant is resistant to. You might ask yourself: Why don't they find out what's different about the genotypes that work and the ones that don't? Well, we did! It turns out there are a few native genes called "developmental regulators" which we can overexpress to force a plant into embryogenesis. That technology is also patented. However, there are novel methods coming out, and there are startups and small companies doing this: check out Calyxt and Inari. More will come in the future, but it's an expensive endeavor with a huge upfront cost, overhead, many highly educated employees, and a long time to market. Ag and Food tech VC funding has grown from ~5B (2015) to ~55B (2021) so it's coming. It will be interesting to see what value-added traits come out next.
- mistrial9 4y agoFranken-foods need to compete with whole organic vegetables in a level market playing field. You enthusiasts can purchase them, and I will pick organic. Fair, right?
- fsflover 4y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31510709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31510709
- algoatecorn 4y agoWhat does organic mean to you? Sans synthetic fertlizer? Sans GM? We should probably stop using synthetic fertilizer and large-scale monoculture system. But to truly address climate change and environmental degradation, you should really consider GM as a solution. The most likely path to a sustainable food system incorporates GM crops but leaves behind the destructive framework which was built around the first GM varieties.(roundup ready monoculture systems)
- mistrial9 4y ago> climate change and environmental degradation, you should really consider GM as a solution. could you be more specific ?
- algoatecorn 4y agoClimate change: GM traits to improve the plants ability to sequester carbon in higher concentrations, in more tissue, and further into the soil where it is less likely to re-enter the atmosphere. Environmental: moving away from herbicide resistance traits and focus on yield, crop improvement traits, and crop protection. The current business model of GM is designed to force farmers to buy herbicide from the same supplier as the seed. It's a double money grab. Moving away from herbicide resistance traits will improve environment by reducing monoculture and evolutionary pressure on weeds.
- 4y ago
- uwagar 4y agodont want it.
- li2uR3ce 4y agoI thought vitamin D supplements were lacking efficacy in studies and therefore we need to get sunlight. I'm more excited about them reactivating some dormant genetic code that would make tomato spicy like their ancestors... what ever happened to that promise from some years ago?