McDonald's Won't Buy Simplot's GMO Potato
Source: Associated Press
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved Idaho-based J.R. Simplot Co.'s new genetically modified potato. But one of the company's oldest business partners McDonald's hasn't.
The fast-food giant says it doesn't use genetically modified potatoes, the Idaho Statesman reported.
"McDonald's USA does not source GMO potatoes, nor do we have current plans to change our sourcing practices," the company said in a statement.
<snip>
This isn't the first time the fast-food industry has resisted GMO potatoes. More than a decade ago, Monsanto brought its bug-resistant "New Leaf" line of genetically modified potato to market. Buyers, led by the fast-food industry, rejected the Monsanto spud, and it was pulled from production due to lack of business.
<snip>
Rupert potato grower Duane Grant said he's been told by buyers in the dehydrated potato industry not to plant the GMO potatoes. But he hopes to line up willing buyers so that he can plant the biotech potatoes and reap the higher yields that come with their reduced bruising, he said.
<snip>
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mcdonalds-buy-simplots-gmo-potato-26941023
7962
(11,841 posts)Old Nick
(468 posts)"At McDonald's, we insist that our fries have trace amounts of heroin, which these GMO spuds do not." - E. Jack Ulator, Vice President of Agricultural Inspection.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)Old Nick
(468 posts)By the way, you bear a remarkable resemblanse to former Secretary of State Clinton!
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)I get that a lot actually
Next thing you know Mcdonalds will be using "real" meat!!
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but come on- the company that makes hamburgers from pink slime is coming out against GMOs?
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)Maybe the GMO potatoes are more costly.
marble falls
(57,106 posts)"the food".
sendero
(28,552 posts).... you get the gold star.
Fact is, many if not most GMO foods provide little or no actual benefit to the consumer. I predict that more and more companies are going to publicly eschew using them, as the miniscule actual benefits to anyone but Monsanto hardly outweigh all of the liabilities.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... their food is no better than non-organic food, and they are actually utilizing deceptive fear mongering as a marketing tactic, which is just plain old unethical.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)If I simply refuse to buy and consume GMO foods?
Does that personal choice bother you in some way? ...
Of course, so we can know, they must be identified as GMO in the marketplace ... May we have labels applied to all foods that contain GMO materials?
Is that ok with you, even if it is based on a superstitious fear of genetically engineered foodstuffs?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's your preference. However, pretending that a label for one of many types of seed development technologies makes any sense is just bizarre. You don't a science based reason, so mandatory labels are not ethical, and they certainly are not logical.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)fridge. I got a couple os half gallon cartons before Thanksgiving and the expire date printed on the cartons is 10-10-15.
I don't drink a lot of milk so it is great for me.
http://www.horizondairy.com/our-story
bananas
(27,509 posts)From what I''m reading, the potatoes are more expensive, and have no real benefits other than cosmetic.
Simplot sells frozen cut potatoes, this will let them sell non-frozen (refridgerated?) cut potatoes because they won't brown.
It allows farmers to sell bruised potatoes because they won't appear bruised.
They offer no benefit to McDonalds, because the potatoes are fried soon after being cut.
And the reduction in acrylamide has no real health benefit.
Links:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=939449
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/mcdonalds-fries-innate-potato-genetically-modified-food
...
Cole offered this pitch: "Since Innate potatoes provide less bruise and less black spot and browning when peeled, as well as less asparagine, they provide a sustainable, healthy option for consumers, especially in the fresh-whole and fresh-cut markets where no preservatives or additives are needed," he said. He emphasized that "fresh-cut" potatoes are a new category, and expressed confidence that consumers would embrace the convenience.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/11/simplot-innate-new-gmo-potato-mcdonalds
sendero
(28,552 posts).... pink slime in 2011.
In fact, the company that produced pink slime (Beef Products) has practically gone out of business because once publicized nobody wanted their product. They have sued various news organizations and others claiming slander but they have almost no chance of winning.
marble falls
(57,106 posts)for them. If they start paying living wages and provide a reasonable benefits package plus some healthier options on the menu - I might break my boycott.
sendero
(28,552 posts).. I do not eat there and am not defending them. There are plenty of other instances where the composition of their food is suspect. That one just hit a nerve with the public, and for good reason.
marble falls
(57,106 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)undrgrndgirl johnflagg 21 hours ago
not so. in the past, mcdonalds has listened to its customers...for example, they removed beef tallow from their frying oil due to the demands of vegetarians and vegans; they also quit using trans fats...they sell lamb burgers in india because cows are sacred...if consumers don't want gmo spuds i doubt mickey d's will use them.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The ridiculousness of the anti-science movement can only be equated to Fox News.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)have at it. There should be some truth in advertising. Same thing with the McRib. I will just ground my on chuck roast at home.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It would mean that Big Organic and all its silliness would have to face reality.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)to redefine what beef is, and not for science but more profit. Taking the scrap parts of a cow that you wouldn't feed to a dog, grinding it up and hitting it with ammonia to make it somewhat safe to eat may fit the loose definition of ground beef, but most wouldn't eat it if they knew what it was. Like I said, if you want to eat that garbage go ahead, but don't say that those who don't are against science. We want real food, not garbage scraps that allow the share holders to get richer.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Just because you say so. Hmm.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...while you're not busy equating those to the left of you with those to the right of you, of course. Wouldn't want to slow down your Boudelang rant.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Maybe you should learn how science works before you go off again.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But the bottom line is that I don't accept correction from people of your ilk. See ya.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And your bet is lost. Goodness, but it's funny to see someone who doesn't begin to understand science but actually believes he or she does. Yikes!
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Haven't eaten at one in over a decade and never will again.
Laffy Kat
(16,383 posts)evirus
(852 posts)climate change denial
Another pro-corporate sleeper/sock is activated to post the usual pro-GMO smear.
How cute.
Instead of trying to demonstrate how I'm wrong you instead assume I'm a paid conspirator
Nihil
(13,508 posts)I assume you are merely an amateur.
The proof of how you are wrong is spread across every GMO thread, usually to
different incarnations of the same people - none of whom ever modify their
stance, merely their usernames.
If you think I'm wrong then give me an example or two
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Abstract
Our previous studies have demonstrated that stable microRNAs (miRNAs) in mammalian serum and plasma are actively secreted from tissues and cells and can serve as a novel class of biomarkers for diseases, and act as signaling molecules in intercellular communication. Here, we report the surprising finding that exogenous plant miRNAs are present in the sera and tissues of various animals and that these exogenous plant miRNAs are primarily acquired orally, through food intake. MIR168a is abundant in rice and is one of the most highly enriched exogenous plant miRNAs in the sera of Chinese subjects. Functional studies in vitro and in vivo demonstrated that MIR168a could bind to the human/mouse low-density lipoprotein receptor adapter protein 1 (LDLRAP1) mRNA, inhibit LDLRAP1 expression in liver, and consequently decrease LDL removal from mouse plasma. These findings demonstrate that exogenous plant miRNAs in food can regulate the expression of target genes in mammals.
CELL RESEARCH: Full Study
"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."
Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
[center]America's premier POISON MAKERS.
[/center]
Not surprised these poison makers got their start in the poisonous town of St. Louis....
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)evirus
(852 posts)Leads people to point to single articles or studies and think that their job is done, science isn't just the article itself it's the response to the article, for example cold fusion was claimed to be possible in an article but that never paned out
closeupready
(29,503 posts)as a treat once in a while, and enjoy their fries. Had some last night, in fact.
I still would like to see them do better in terms of employee pay, but this is a nice nugget of news from them. K&R
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)in Idaho for 3 decades. It looks like the decisions made to create and grow GMO potatoes has backfired with the people of Idaho are left to pick up the pieces. We lost the McD's contract but hey, when you are sitting in an ivory tower you can do no wrong. Balukoff (D) lost by 18 points.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)A farmer friend of mine packs onions and said that McD makes you lock in a price a year in advance and you have to deliver or buy on the commodities market and suck up the difference if that price is higher than what you contracted with to McD.
adigal
(7,581 posts)I love their french fries, although my waist doesn't!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)However, anyone who applauds such a decisions clearly does not care about the health of people. This potato is healthier than what McD's serves now.
The anti-GMO movement is fast becoming a health danger, it appears.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Shame on them!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I'm glad to know you support GMO-labeling laws. Took a while, but I knew you'd come around.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You actually think I'm foolish enough to believe in baseless fear mongering.
BTW, if you really want to know which technology was used to develop the seeds that led to the plants that led to the food you're eating, you would be asking for labels for all seed development technologies.
The fact that you're not is part of what informs others that you are pushing baseless fear mongering.
Just an FYI.
Cha
(297,322 posts)And, stay away.. those pushing Monsanto corporate bullshite... I ain't buyin your boring monotonous refrain.
ffr
(22,670 posts)What doesn't fit? There's one commenter who has nothing positive to bring to the discussion and that one person repeatedly has nothing positive to bring to the discussion. On top of that, if you look at some of their other DU posts, they are similarly disruptive in nature. Hmmm.
Web troll: a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Thank goodness for DU ignore lists!!!