

A Race to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA - kpozin
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/a-race-to-save-the-orange-by-altering-its-dna.html

======
rogerbinns
The real problem is that all oranges are clones - genetically identical. That
means anything that can overcome one orange tree can overcome them all.
Shuffling genes around will just delay the next killer. It will be interesting
to see if they can come up with a way to cause sexual reproduction to happen
again. The resulting genetic diversity will make oranges less of a target.

Somewhat related is how they and much other modern agriculture is done - huge
fields of exactly the same species only - a monoculture. This too makes it
easy for invaders. The fix of multiple species being grown together is often
shown to work, but makes the farming and harvesting considerably more
complicated and expensive.

Recommended reading is Michael Pollan whose books and articles about food are
great [http://michaelpollan.com/articles/](http://michaelpollan.com/articles/)

~~~
jonknee
> Somewhat related is how they and much other modern agriculture is done -
> huge fields of exactly the same species only - a monoculture. This too makes
> it easy for invaders. The fix of multiple species being grown together is
> often shown to work, but makes the farming and harvesting considerably more
> complicated and expensive.

It's not necessarily optional. Humans have cultivated the food supply through
cross breeding since we have been around and even common foods aren't
"natural" anymore. A lot of what we like to eat doesn't like to reproduce
itself so we end up reproducing what we like to eat.

~~~
rogerbinns
The quoted bit was about growing conditions - ie instead of a field of only
one species, combine multiple species. The species diversity helps control
pests, and allows for a greater variety of birds etc. And is way harder to
harvest.

Your point was about reproduction. Sexual reproduction doesn't have to be out
in the wild - it is offspring combining DNA from parents producing something a
little different. It is possible to try and introduce genes to make out in the
field reproduction more likely to happen, and also to work out some lab based
way of reproduction. Admittedly it is way harder than making cuttings, but
does bring benefits.

------
acheron
I wish them good luck in overcoming the anti-scientific hysteria. But I fear
relying on scientific literacy is going to end in failure.

How many other advances in agriculture are we going to sacrifice to appease
these superstitions? (Not to mention similar superstitions of anti-vaccine
activists, who are probably the same people in many cases.)

~~~
x0x0
you say anti-scientific hysteria, I say reasonable fears regularly ignored by
industry and whitewashed by an industry captured fda. example 1: bpa

from the wiki article [1]:

    
    
       In 2006, the US Government sponsored an assessment of the scientific 
       literature on BPA. Thirty-eight experts in fields involved with bisphenol A 
       gathered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina to review several hundred studies on 
       BPA, many conducted by members of the group. At the end of the meeting, the 
       group issued the Chapel Hill Consensus Statement,[100] which stated BPA at 
       concentrations found in the human body is associated with organizational 
       changes in the prostate, breast, testis, mammary glands, body size, brain 
       structure and chemistry, and behavior of laboratory animals.[101]
    
       The Chapel Hill Consensus Statement found that average levels in people are 
       above those that cause harm to many animals in laboratory experiments. They 
       noted that while BPA is not persistent in the environment or in humans, 
       biomonitoring surveys indicate that exposure is continuous, which is 
       problematic because acute animal exposure studies are used to estimate daily 
       human exposure to BPA, and no studies that had examined BPA pharmacokinetics 
       in animal models had followed continuous low-level exposures. They added 
       that measurement of BPA levels in serum and other body fluids suggests the 
       possibilities that BPA intake is much higher than accounted for, and/or that 
       BPA can bioaccumulate in some conditions (such as pregnancy).[100]
       
       A 2008 report by the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human 
       Reproduction within the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is 
       within the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, reported the 
       results of its exhaustive review of the literature. Its conclusions, 
       expressed relative to current estimates of general population exposure 
       levels in the U.S., were the following:
    

and yet bpa is still used. So when we hear that monsanto pinky-swears their
experiments, even when they contaminate neighboring fields, are super duper
safe, or orange growers promise up and down that, well, their genetic
modifications they introduced to prevent their business from being destroyed
are absolutely positively safe (we promise!)... forgive me for being
skeptical.

Not to mention the freakout about labeling foods; if they weren't knowingly
poisoning us, why exactly would corporations be so very afraid of properly
labeling foods? Any reasonable adult should have his or her bullshit detector
going off when they are told gmo is absolutely safe, but it's the end of the
world if we tell people which foods have gmo ingredients so that they can
choose what to eat.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A)

~~~
eli
You cut off the quote just before it details the experts' estimate that,
extrapolating from animal studies, the threat of BPA ranges from "some
concern" for fetuses (the FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles) to
"negligible concern" for adults. From a much more recent meta-analysis of
existing data: _" The analysis showed that BPA levels were often so low that
it was below the ability of current toxicological methods to detect it,
raising the possibility that most instances of high BPA dose might have been
the result of contamination from tubes and plastics in hospitals."_
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/15/no-toxic-
effec...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/15/no-toxic-effects-
chemical-experts)

Anyway, I agree it's hard to argue with "label the product and let the
consumer decide." But I think the case could be made that it plays on people's
unscientific views of what is and isn't healthy. As with "organic" or "locally
sourced" there's nothing stopping companies that don't use GMOs from putting a
"No GMO" label on their food. Some already do.

~~~
x0x0
No I didn't and you misquoted the paragraph and accidentally (I hope ?)
changed the meaning.

What was actually said was:

    
    
       For adults, the Expert Panel has negligible concern for adverse reproductive 
       effects following exposures in the general population to Bisphenol A
    

you'll note that does _not_ say "negligible concern" for adults, it says
"negligible concern _for adverse reproductive effects_ ".

And you know what was never studied? General safety for adults under actual
dosing as experienced in reality. Further on down the same wiki article, just
one of many concerns:

    
    
        The authors found that higher bisphenol A levels were significantly 
       associated with heart disease, diabetes, and abnormally high levels of 
       certain liver enzymes

~~~
eli
I think this thread is increasingly unlikely to be productive, but I'm puzzled
why you think I've changed the meaning. I think it is accurate to say that the
expert panel concluded the threat of BPA ranges from "some concern" to the
most vulnerable groups to "negligible concern" for most healthy adults. Are
you suggesting the expert panel found that BPA posed more than a "minimal"
threat to adults in regards to something besides reproductive harm? I don't
see that in the report...

Anyway, I think you nail the exact point I was trying to make: no studies have
shown BPA to be dangerous in adults at the levels that are actually
encountered in the environment. (There's little doubt that BPA is bad for you
at doses orders of magnitude higher than those normally encountered, but
that's true of a great many things.)

------
nnq
...if people wouldn't be so freaked off of GMOs and they could just push on
with the science instead of considering the public reaction to everything.
Heck, I'd a take a glass of oj made from fruits with pig and monkey genes in
it over a "natural and non-GMO" one made from plants that need tons of
herbicides and pesticides to grow.

...and if I were a producer that discovered how to make a resistant orange by
genetic engineering, I'd just do my best to spread the damn disease and wipe
out natural oranges together with the competition, making more money to
finance more genetic engineering research, hopefully doing more interesting
stuff than pest resistance genes, like actually improving the flavor and
nutrient profile of grown plants.

~~~
archgoon
>...and if I were a producer that discovered how to make a resistant orange by
genetic engineering, I'd just do my best to spread the damn disease and wipe
out natural oranges together with the competition, making more money to
finance more genetic engineering research...

No, you'd be thrown in jail for bioterrorism. What you propose is seriously
unethical, even if it weren't criminal. Furthermore, your attitude would
convince much of the populace that people who promote GMO food are completely
insane and unethical.

~~~
davvid
I think a more reasonable threat would be that the company that discovers the
resistant gene patents it, and then owns the entire orange market.

Throw in some Monsanto-style "you cannot plant the seeds" and you have a real
problem.

------
crusso
_Asked if tomatoes containing a gene from a fish would “taste fishy” in a
question on a 2004 poll conducted by the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers
University that referred to one company’s efforts to forge a frost-resistant
tomato with a gene from the winter flounder, fewer than half correctly
answered “no.”_

Genetic manipulation will define the next major shift in human progress.
Computers transformed inanimate things, giving them function and pseudo-life.
DNA hacking will transform living things, allowing us to customize ourselves,
our pets, our food, our plants, and entirely new forms of life.

------
gcb0
Puffy piece?

Almost all fruits have problems, but solution is limiting non native plagues.
Even if it's almost impossible. Like with bananas.

~~~
quanticle
And how, exactly, do you propose to "limit" non-native plagues? Do you want to
shut down the ports and airports?

~~~
gcb0
It's all a trade of. They rather continue planting in a region infested with
plagued but with cheap labor instead of moving to a clean area with expensive
labor.

Remember that the puffy piece lay the facts so that you reach the conclusion
that gene changes are the only way out. Earth is huge. Cheap exploitable
manpower is diminishing.

------
nakedrobot2
I wonder if eventually an immunity to the disease will start to occur within
certain trees.

~~~
quanticle
It might happen. Or oranges might go extinct. There's no way to tell, and,
frankly, I enjoy my orange juice.

------
blackprawn
When did we all become so codependent? I can grow an orange if I want to.

As far as Im concerned, those folks who make their living growing oranges are
responsible for their own outcomes.

I dont need oranges from them. And maybe I dont even want them at all. If the
growers have become so incompetent as to not be able to grow them I wont miss
them. (or the oranges).

~~~
lotu
What are you trying to say? Maybe you can grow an orange but I can't, I live
in an apartment in New York even if I had access to the ground and room to
grow an orange tree the climate is wrong. You might be able to grow your own
oranges but can you make your own clothes, build your own furniture,
manufacture your own car, fab your own chips, or drill your own oil? We have
been codependent since whenever your ancestor stopped being subsistence
farmers. This could be centuries ago if you come from an old money family, or
weeks ago if you a recent immigrant from the poor rural China or India.

Next it sounds like the growers are actively working on fixing the problem of
a plague killing their oranges. Do you think they should be working faster or
just that their isn't a problem in the first place? In the end I don't really
understand your comment.

~~~
blackprawn
Im sorry you cant grow an orange, and Im not sure why you need one.

Also Im saying Im not dependent in any way on citrus farms. If they fail, its
their own fault, and someone, in fact anyone could do better.

I guess when I think about it, a corporate citrus farm isnt much more than a
hedge fund to me. Their crops dying are just a stock going down. "Oh the
oranges are dying!"

They will be replaced. Oranges will be here long after we are gone.

~~~
blackprawn
These downvotes are AWESOME - (hellban me I can change my IP in 30 seconds)

SO, the rules of VC and SV dont apply to oranges, I assume my posts were
downvoted because oranges are a "precious" resource, even though no other
country in the world has problems growing them, so Im being downvoted (and
HOPEFULLY hellbanned) for calling out a corrupt, piece of shit US food cartel
that is committing ritual suicide in its own crops.

Oh "boo fucking hoo". Fact: No one needs OJ. Fact: The idiots that have pissed
on their own crops are complaining about the fact they cant do their jobs.
FACT: no one in silicon valley would have the fucking balls to complain when
they cant run their own business but they feel sorry for pussy farmers who
CANT RUN THEIR BUSINESS.

In fact if these farmers were SV startups they would be taken out and shot by
their own parents and pushed into the bay in front of hungry sharks.

~~~
ars
You are being downvoted for being an idiot. What you write makes no sense at
all. The US is one of the _last_ countries to be affected.

The entire worlds production of oranges is falling. And there is absolutely
NOTHING the growers can do about it.

> and HOPEFULLY hellbanned

If you are an idiot only about oranges then fine (everyone has their sore
spot). But if you are an idiot for other things too then don't come back.

