Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday May 04, @08:15AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the sweet-corn dept.

Mutant corn gene boosts sugar in seeds, leaves, may lead to breeding better crop:

An abnormal build up of carbohydrates — sugars and starches — in the kernels and leaves of a mutant line of corn can be traced to one misregulated gene, and that discovery offers clues about how the plant deals with stress.

That is the conclusion of Penn State researchers whose previous study discovered the Maize ufo1 gene responsible for creating the mutant corn line. They now are assessing its effects and potential for inclusion in breeding new lines of corn better able to thrive in a warming world. The finding of higher sugar levels in plant tissues in their latest study is just another aspect for plant geneticists to consider.

"This discovery has implications for food security and breeding new crop lines that can better deal with a changing climate — with corn, there is still a lot to be done," said Surinder Chopra, professor of maize genetics in the College of Agricultural Sciences. "In fact, there is a great deal of genetic and phenotypic diversity in corn, and we can use that diversity and ask the question, 'How is the ufo1 gene distributed in the existing 10,000 germplasm lines?'"

Can plant geneticists select for some of that diversity and incorporate the ufo1 gene to improve corn? That is the question Chopra is trying to answer, starting with this new study that found elevated sugar levels in seeds and leaves of the mutant corn line.

[...] "Certainly, stress tolerance, but also likely seed development, which has implications in seed yield as well as improved biomass," Chopra said.

[...] Chopra started research on the Maize ufo1 gene because of its association with an orange/red pigmentation in the mutant corn line. Celebrated maize geneticist Charles Burnham, at the University of Minnesota, identified this conspicuous ufo1 mutant circa 1960. Another well-known maize geneticist, Derek Styles, with the University of Victoria, Canada, a student of Burnham's, then chose the name, which stands for "unstable factor for orange."

Journal Reference:
Chatterjee, Debamalya, Wittmeyer, Kameron, Lee, Tzuu-fen, et al. Maize unstable factor for orange1 is essential for endosperm development and carbohydrate accumulation, Plant Physiology (DOI: 10.1093/plphys/kiab183)


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @11:11AM (43 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @11:11AM (#1146080)

    Are the worshipers of The Science still selectively applying the precautionary principle to GMO foods? Or now that we've decided phase three vaccine trials don't matter if enough people are dying, can we maybe consider how many people starvation and lack of access of nutrients kills every year? Golden Rice took 13 years to receive FDA approval despite 9 million people (including 3 million children) dying of starvation and malnutrition every year, and as far as I know, it has never caused a single blood clot or heart attack.

    At what point is the science of agriculture going to catch up with the science of vaccines?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Ingar on Tuesday May 04, @12:43PM (36 children)

      by Ingar (801) on Tuesday May 04, @12:43PM (#1146109) Homepage

      GMOs aren't created to solve world hunger. They're here to line the pockets of Big Agribusiness.
      I doubt the poor people dying from starvation could afford the royalties.

      That genetically engineered red corn was called "Kassa" in Stargate SG-1.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @01:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @01:04PM (#1146115)

        Vaccines aren't created to solve global death from respiratory illnesses. They're here to line the pockets of Big Pharma.
        I doubt the poor people dying from COVID could afford the royalties.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @01:09PM (33 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @01:09PM (#1146116) Journal

        GMOs aren't created to solve world hunger. They're here to line the pockets of Big Agribusiness.

        Motive != outcome.

        I doubt the poor people dying from starvation could afford the royalties.

        There are less poor people dying from starvation now than there were in 1970. For example, see here [ourworldindata.org] for an estimate.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @01:39PM (32 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @01:39PM (#1146126)

          Extreme poverty is defined as living on less than 1.90 international-$ per day.
          International-$ are adjusted for price differences between countries and for price changes over time (inflation).

          So basically this data is only as good as the method we use to calculate inflation. So it's probably fine.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @01:57PM (31 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @01:57PM (#1146135) Journal

            So basically this data is only as good as the method we use to calculate inflation. So it's probably fine.

            I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but yes, that is indeed the case.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @02:09PM (28 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @02:09PM (#1146138)

              I mean, your graph would fit in pretty well on "WTF Happened in 1971", but that's probably a coincidence.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @02:46PM (18 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @02:46PM (#1146154) Journal
                Actually not much happened in 1971 on that graph. The shift in relative poverty happened gradually over centuries and the peak of absolute number at this level of poverty happened over the span of time from 1980 to 1993.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:03PM (17 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:03PM (#1146159)

                  There are less poor people dying from starvation now than there were in 1970. For example, see here [ourworldindata.org] for an estimate.

                  Actually not much happened in 1971 on that graph. The shift in relative poverty happened gradually over centuries and the peak of absolute number at this level of poverty happened over the span of time from 1980 to 1993.

                  Wow, the ripple effects of monetary inflation always show up right away, so that's super odd. But I'm honestly just as happy to blame the offshoring of US industry between the Reagan and Clinton administrations for simultaneously lifting up the third world and destroying the US middle class while hiding it via inflation calculations which have no bearing in the real world as I am Nixon for killing Bretton-Woods, so whatever. It's all ultimately the same con game.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @03:18PM (16 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @03:18PM (#1146166) Journal

                    But I'm honestly just as happy to blame the offshoring of US industry between the Reagan and Clinton administrations for simultaneously lifting up the third world and destroying the US middle class

                    Again, your attempts to be sarcastic hide a lot of truth. Offshoring is probably a big driver of reducing poverty and starvation worldwide.

                    As to the "destroying of the US middle class", that isn't working [reason.com] according to narrative. At that link, a Pew study found the middle class shrunk from 61% of the US population to 50% of the US population over a 34 year period (from 1971 to 2015). That's not much destroying. And during the same period, the portion they designated as upper class grew roughly 50% faster (from 14% to 21% of the population) than the portion they designated lower class (from 25% to 29%).

                    It's all ultimately the same con game.

                    Unless, of course, it's real.

                    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:29PM (4 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:29PM (#1146173)

                      Wow, well if Pew Research says the middle class only reduced from 61% to 50% from 1971 to 2015, I guess that's why the Russians had to rig the election for Trump to win. Because if it was more than that, there'd probably be a lot of pissed off industry workers in 2016 who wanted to give the system a middle finger. Thankfully things aren't getting noticeably worse for the middle class, which is why they had to be tricked into hating neoliberalism.

                      Good enough for me. Go home guys, turns out everything is getting better and actually always has been.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @03:34PM (3 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @03:34PM (#1146178) Journal
                        Hysteria by definition [dictionary.com] is irrational.
                        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:38PM (2 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:38PM (#1146183)

                          Hysteria by definition [dictionary.com] is irrational.

                          Now do COVID, which, even by the very questionable statistics provided, is responsible for a third of the deaths to the overall global population as starvation, and a hell of a lot fewer of its children.

                          Starvation is a solved problem at 9 million deaths a year, but COVID is a pandemic worth shutting down entire economies for 3. Link me a graph to explain that or a PEW Research study to justify that.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @03:50PM (1 child)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @03:50PM (#1146192) Journal

                            Now do COVID, which, even by the very questionable statistics provided, is responsible for a third of the deaths to the overall global population as starvation, and a hell of a lot fewer of its children.

                            You ignore that covid in the absence of mitigation measures like "shutting down", is an exponentially growing threat which can swamp hospitals with dying people - killing also indirectly by redirecting scarce medical resources.

                            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:57PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:57PM (#1146195)

                              You ignore that covid in the absence of mitigation measures like "shutting down", is an exponentially growing threat which can swamp hospitals with dying people - killing also indirectly by redirecting scarce medical resources.

                              Which is why places that never shut down are doing so much noticeably better than the ones that did, right? Can you point to anything other than New Zealand and Australia as a success story at this point? California is doing no better than Florida. The UK is doing no better than Sweden. India was doing great because they were following the rules, but now they're doing poorly because they aren't.

                              Your mitigation measures did nothing. What happened was what was always going to happen, and you made it worse by being hysterical. The reality is you only cared because you perceived it as a potential threat to yourself, whereas at the moment you probably are at no threat of dying of starvation. Then you disguised your selfish impulse for self preservation as precaution and empathy and regard for science.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:32PM (10 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:32PM (#1146177)

                      Also, when I say "lifting up the third world", I largely mean East Asia and Mexico/Central/South America. Africa North of the Sahara and the Middle East are by pretty much no measure historically better off now than 50 years ago.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @03:42PM (9 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @03:42PM (#1146185) Journal

                        Also, when I say "lifting up the third world", I largely mean East Asia and Mexico/Central/South America. Africa North of the Sahara and the Middle East are by pretty much no measure historically better off now than 50 years ago.

                        Counterexamples would be human fertility [statista.com] and GDP per capita [worldeconomics.com]. There's something wrong with the narrative.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:46PM (8 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:46PM (#1146187)

                          Countercounterexamples would be open air slave markets in Libya, previously one of the most prosperous African nations in the world, or the refugee crises across Europe. But those are observable realities, not easily tweaked numbers.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @03:52PM (7 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @03:52PM (#1146193) Journal

                            Countercounterexamples would be open air slave markets in Libya, previously one of the most prosperous African nations in the world, or the refugee crises across Europe.

                            Neither which is global in scale. You're just discussing two local problems, moderately poor outcomes to rebellions in Libya and Syria. That's not relevant to the parts of the world that aren't Libya or Syria.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:01PM (6 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:01PM (#1146198)

                              And Egypt. And Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Yemen. And Somalia.

                              You're using global statistics to mask poverty in the countries that didn't made great strides from late 20th to early 21st century neoliberalism. Great, the average citizen in China and India are doing better than 50 years ago.

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @04:10PM (4 children)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @04:10PM (#1146201) Journal

                                And Egypt. And Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Yemen. And Somalia.

                                Are you trying to imply that those countries are doing worse? I don't have time to look up those countries, but I think they're all doing better with the sole exception of Yemen which has a major war going on.

                                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:15PM (3 children)

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:15PM (#1146207)

                                  They've all had major wars and coups in the last decade. Wars and coups funded by a country whose dollar is pinned to nothing other than it's military's ability to enforce trade monopolies in service of it. Monetary policy and the warfare state are inextricably linked, at this point your refusal to recognize that amounts to either willful ignorance or outright stupidity.

                                  The war in Iraq was about maintaining the petrodollar. The war in Afghanistan was about controlling the heroin trade. The rest are largely about relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel, or fighting encroaching influence from Russia and China. It's all a system, and it's all enabled by the money faucet.

                                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @04:55PM (2 children)

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @04:55PM (#1146228) Journal

                                    They've all had major wars and coups in the last decade. Wars and coups funded by a country whose dollar is pinned to nothing other than it's military's ability to enforce trade monopolies in service of it. Monetary policy and the warfare state are inextricably linked, at this point your refusal to recognize that amounts to either willful ignorance or outright stupidity.

                                    Sounds pretty thin to me.

                                    The war in Iraq was about maintaining the petrodollar. The war in Afghanistan was about controlling the heroin trade. The rest are largely about relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel, or fighting encroaching influence from Russia and China. It's all a system, and it's all enabled by the money faucet.

                                    Even if those were all true (none of them are), we still have that these wars are quite irrelevant to the well-being of the people living in those countries with the exception of Yemen which is still undergoing a war (a proxy conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran).

                                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @05:00PM

                                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @05:00PM (#1146231)

                                      we still have that these wars are quite irrelevant to the well-being of the people living in those countries

                                      You are either a troll or an absolute moron.

                                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @09:46PM

                                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @09:46PM (#1146298)

                                      There is still active conflict in every middle eastern country the US has overthrown in the last 20 years.

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 06, @03:53AM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 06, @03:53AM (#1146702) Journal
                                Let's look at some data for the metrics I mentioned, fertility and World Bank GDP per capita (nominal not PPP) estimates:

                                Egypt then and now: Fertility rate: [macrotrends.net] 6.3 children per woman in 1970 and 3.2 children per woman in 2021. GDP per capita: [macrotrends.net] $233 per to $3019 in 2019 dollars.

                                Iraq then and now: Fertility rate: [macrotrends.net] 7.3 children per in 1970 to 3.5 per in 2021. GDP per capita: [macrotrends.net] $331 per to $5955 per in 2019, again in 2019 dollars.

                                Afghanistan then and now: Fertility rate: [macrotrends.net] 7.5 per in 1970 (looks like a really crude estimate since it doesn't change for decades) to 4.1 per in 2021. GDP per capita: [macrotrends.net] $157 per in 1970 to $507 per in 2019 (in 2019 dollars).

                                Yemen then and now: Fertility rate: [macrotrends.net] 8.4 per in 1970 to 3.6 per in 2021. GDP per capita: $482 per in 1990 (Yemen came into existence as a unification of North and South Yemen in 1990) to $774 in 2019 (in 2019 dollars) [macrotrends.net]. Wikipedia cites [wikipedia.org] UN estimates for 1970 of $85 per in 1970 in North Yemen and $106 per for South Yemen (Egypt has $234 per by that same chart for 1970 which indicates to me inflation adjusting).

                                Somalia then and now: Fertility rate: [macrotrends.net] 7.2 per in 1970 to 5.8 per in 2021. GDP per capita: [macrotrends.net] $94 per in 1970 to $127 per in 1990. Current estimates [wikipedia.org] of Somalia's GDP per capita vary wildly. Wikipedia cites UN and IMF estimates of $105 per (in 2019) and $347 per (in 2021), respectively.

                                By these metrics, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan show clear improvement in both metrics. Everyone shows a reduction in fertility rate with the first three countries showing a huge drop in fertility (keeping in mind that one needs a little over 2 just to maintain the population at its current size by births alone). Yemen appears to show a significant improvement in GDP per capita. The World Bank estimates tend to be closer to the UN estimates on that Wikipedia page for other countries, which, if also true for Somalia, would indicate little if any improvement in GDP since 1990.

                                Basically, you've just found two more dysfunctional countries. Congrats. The Middle East however is far bigger than that small collection.

                                I think it's interesting how this thread played out. It started with an observation about the alleged failure of GMO foods to solve world hunger and devolved quickly into a comment about Big Agribusiness and the alleged lack of impact on starving populations. I noted that by a reasonable metric it appears that starving populations have declined in absolute number (despite overall population continuing to increase). There was a reasonable complaint about inflation (but it'd have to be a lot of global inflation to still the economic growth numbers we're seeing - prices of normal goods just don't seem to be keeping track).

                                Then we detoured into a discussion of "lifting the third world". The AC(s) participating at this point started carving out exceptions.

                                Also, when I say "lifting up the third world", I largely mean East Asia and Mexico/Central/South America. Africa North of the Sahara and the Middle East are by pretty much no measure historically better off now than 50 years ago.

                                Notice that "Mexico/Central/South America" is presently 600 million people! East Asia is nearing 1.7 billion people. Between the two, that's crudely a third of humanity that's benefiting. The Middle East and North Africa are somewhere around 600-700 million people presently. What is the point of noting that regions don't benefit equally (or in unusual cases at all) from offshoring?

                                It certainly remains quite irrelevant to rant about the petrodollar when that's not doing much one way or another, including said wars and coups, to dampen human prosperity.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @03:07PM (8 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @03:07PM (#1146161) Journal
                To add to that, I assume you're obliquely referring to Bretton Woods which happened in 1971 and had effects on inflation (and how inflation is measured). When I looked at the graph of people under $1.90 a day, it's basically a straight line from 1960 to 1970 to 1980. (The stretch before 1980 has decade resolution, the part after 1980 has a much finer resolution of every three years, starting in 1981.)

                And remember that we were speaking of "dying from starvation" not say "ability to buy gold". Bretton Woods had a very selective effect on what goods and assets increased in price.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:21PM (7 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:21PM (#1146169)

                  Yeah, unpinning the entire global economy from the only thing that ties it to material reality definitely has selective effects that only amount to your ability to buy gold. It's not like it creates an infinite war chest or undermines the philosophy of savings, spurring a bunch of speculation/gambling in markets that wouldn't need to take place if people could rely on $20 to buy the same amount of food from one decade to the next.

                  For as much as you hate Bitcoin, you seem very resistant to the one action that would actually drive it to zero: fixing the money.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @03:32PM (6 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @03:32PM (#1146176) Journal

                    Yeah, unpinning the entire global economy from the only thing that ties it to material reality

                    That is incorrect. Every trade involving materials good is another tie to material reality. And a market that trades in a large number of material goods, including the "only thing" (gold, right?) has a stronger tie to material reality than a market that trades only in the "only thing".

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:35PM (5 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:35PM (#1146180)

                      Yes, material is still material. Lumber is still lumber. Copper is still copper. Lithium is still lithium. And yet, there are more dollars chasing these goods than there ever have been. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in all of these goods costing a great deal more than they used to. Because even though all those materials are still what they are, the dollar now represents nothing other than the military's ability to back it. Turns out that is worth less and less every day.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @03:43PM (4 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @03:43PM (#1146186) Journal
                        Is anyone here denying that inflation exists?
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:48PM (3 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:48PM (#1146191)

                          No, but you're denying that it's a problem of serious magnitude, which is just as bad.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @03:53PM (2 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @03:53PM (#1146194) Journal

                            No, but you're denying that it's a problem of serious magnitude, which is just as bad.

                            Given that inflation isn't actually a problem of serious magnitude, there's not much point to your complaint.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:04PM (1 child)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @04:04PM (#1146199)

                              Signed, Rudy Havenstein

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @05:50PM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @05:50PM (#1146251) Journal
                                I went ahead and googled that. Rudolf Havenstein was the president of the Reichsbank at the time of hyperinflation of the German mark in 1921-23. The US Dollar isn't experiencing hyperinflation, much less hyperinflation of that scale. There's something wrong with the narrative.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:07PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:07PM (#1146160)

              Do you actually think it's easier to measure how much people live on a day, adjusted for inflation, then to just directly measure the percentage of the population starving to death?

              If the answer is no, ask yourself why we're choosing to measure this indirectly.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 04, @03:08PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @03:08PM (#1146162) Journal

                Do you actually think it's easier to measure how much people live on a day, adjusted for inflation, then to just directly measure the percentage of the population starving to death?

                I think they're about equal in difficulty.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, @03:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, @03:59PM (#1146486)

        They're here to line the pockets of Big Agribusiness.

        Right on, bro! Stick it to the man, man!

        All of this should be done by government, where the real work for society is done so efficiently, without all that evil return-on-investment.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 04, @12:48PM (3 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @12:48PM (#1146110) Homepage Journal

      I can't be bothered to chase down citations - but that Golden Rice doesn't seem to have worked out well. It doesn't grow as well, or something, and the farmers are rejecting it. And, it isn't just the US FDA that is slow in approving of Golden Rice. There are protests against it around the world.

      Bottom line, Golden Rice is a proprietary strain of rice, and farmers need licenses to grow the shit. So, while IRRI advertises their rice as some magic to save humanity, it's actually a new attempt to control the world's food supply. For great potential profit, in case that needs to be pointed out.

      --
      "I didn't lose to him!" - The Donald referring to Trippin' Joe
      • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @01:12PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @01:12PM (#1146119)

        I also can't be bothered to chase down citations - but that COVID vaccine doesn't seem to have worked out well. It doesn't create immunity that lasts as long or is effective as that of natural antibodies and T-cells or something, and the people are rejecting it. And, it isn't just the US FDA and the European EMA questioning the efficacy and side effect profile of the COVID vaccines. There are protests against it around the world.

        Bottom line, the COVID vaccines are a proprietary medical technology, and factories need licenses to manufacture that shit. So, while charlatans like you hold them up as infallible saviors of the world, you inconsistently apply the logic to other facets of medicine, health and the economy because you're actually just regurgitating agit-prop you digested from the media, and your opinions and beliefs are not rooted in any sort of principles or logic. In case that needs to be pointed out.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @05:28PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @05:28PM (#1146240)

          It is happenin! The trolls are finally starting to eat themselves!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, @12:30AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, @12:30AM (#1146332)

            Somehow, the QOTD seems perversely applicable. When the trolls have an orgy and start eating each other, they probably don't care a lot which gender is which.

            You prefer the company of the opposite sex, but are well liked by your own.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, @05:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, @05:53AM (#1146392)

      If you care about nutrition, then stop the war on meat. Meat is the highest dense nutrient food available to humans. It contains everything we need, the nutrients are in their most bio-available forms and aren't locked away by fiber, has the least amount of intolerances, isn't inflammatory, is carbon negative when not produced at farm factory scale, improves the quality of soil, reduces waste, is harvistable year round, is rasiable near everywhere including poor countries, uses land we can't plant editable crops on as well as cropable lands, etc... We are optimized to eat meat, not plants. If you want healthy people, they should be eating meat products. Try pushing for practical solutions instead of feel-good solutions.

      Excess carbs can eventually lead to heart attacks so Golden Rice can indeed case them. However starving people tend to not have excess anything so the percentage of people eating golden rice likely have lower levels of blood clots and heart attacks than the normal population, but that isn't because they're eating rice. Vitamin A is most available from livers, fish, eggs, and cheese. 45% of the population have trouble converting the pre-form of Vitamin A from plants*, so even if Golden Rice was widely available it still wouldn't have been a solution for everyone.

      However the world doesn't have a food shortage, only corruption and distribution issues. Consumerism and profit-above-all-else are far worse problems.

      * https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods-high-in-vitamin-a [healthline.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06, @02:43AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06, @02:43AM (#1146678)

      The lack of FDA approval of Golden Rice in its geographical area of responsibility was not much of a hardship / did not affect 9 millions dying.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Tuesday May 04, @12:03PM (3 children)

    by looorg (578) on Tuesday May 04, @12:03PM (#1146094)

    So "super sweet corn"? I didn't think we really needed more suger in our diets but what do I know. Corn syrup was quite disgusting before but could now then reach new levels of sweetness? Perhaps they should just rename it as liquid diabetes and be done with it. Sweet Whiskey might be nice tho? If you like that sort of thing. It might be some kind of interesting flavor. Moonshine deluxe.

    That said if you can just increase yields while using less resources there shouldn't be any backsides or objects to that.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 04, @12:52PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 04, @12:52PM (#1146112) Homepage Journal

      I don't think that your serving of corn can have too much sugar in it. The problem with corn syrup is, some factory extracts all the sugar from tons of corn, and sells that syrup to you, the consumer. Then, they sell the remaining corn to farmers, who feed all the good nutrients from the corn to their livestock.

      Eating corn on the cob is extremely unlikely to upset the sugar levels in a diabetic's blood, no matter how sweet the corn claims to be.

      --
      "I didn't lose to him!" - The Donald referring to Trippin' Joe
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @03:11PM (#1146163)

        Mutant higher-fructose corn syrup.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday May 04, @05:45PM

      by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Tuesday May 04, @05:45PM (#1146247)

      FYI; there is a notable difference between "corn syrup" [wikipedia.org] and "High Fructose corn syrup". [wikipedia.org]

      Regular corn syrup has been around since 1811. Doesn't taste very sweet but is critical for giving some confections their texture and moisture retention. Try making caramel without it, you get a hard solid mass of burnt sugar more often than not if you leave it out. Not the chewy dental filling and crown removing candy dentists love.

      High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) on the other hand was created in 1965. Corn syrup has been treated in a way to give it abnormally high levels of fructose not often found in nature. And is the sweetener that is used in many sodas, and other processed foods*. It has also been found to have links to obesity and Type II diabetes [princeton.edu].

      Fructose is perceived as being much sweeter than glucose and sucrose (cane sugar) and as such lets manufacturers use less sweetener in their products while still getting the same perceived sweetness.

      Natural foods usually have a ~50/50 mix of glucose and fructose. Glucose is also known as "blood sugar", it is what your body uses immediate as fuel and is regulated by the pancreas. Fructose on the other hand is handled by the liver. Since the body expects a high level of fructose to be matched be a balance of glucose it responds by storing the extra fructose as fat for later use. So when you consume a food with HFCS your body stores most of it as fat and your blood sugar drops because of the confusion caused by the imbalance.

      Depending on exactly what this new variant of corn has in regards to it's glucose/fructose ratio it might just make for a sweeter tasting corn and not much beyond that. Although having a higher sugar content in the leaves and stalk would be useful in the production of fuel from them without having to waste the corn kernels themselves. One of the big criticisms of making methanol from corn is it prevents the corn from being used as food for humans. This variant might be able to do both.

      I'm also expecting there to be a lot of action by Agro companies like Monsatano to try and control any maize plant with this gene in it if there is any potential for profit from it. And even if there isn't just to keep a competing strain of corn from getting on the market,

      * Try reading the ingredients list of foods next time you go shopping. It is amazing/frightening how many foods have HFCS in them that you don't think would have any sweetener in them to begin with.

      --
      "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @07:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @07:52PM (#1146274)

    Look up Luther Burbank or Man O' War or George Washington Carver! It's proof of how intelligent members of mankind have worked for thousands of years, and it's an incredibly beautiful thing. It's in those old history books!

    This is all just a bunch of Cockapoo.

(1)