There’s a new genetically engineered potato in town that doesn’t brown when cut or fried, nor does it make acrylamide. J. R. Simplot Company petitioned the USDA to deregulate their Innate™ potatoes, and the public comment period has just been opened up on that petition. We sent Simplot some questions about their new potatoes and the technology used to make them, and their Vice President of Plant Sciences, Haven Baker, was happy to respond. Here is that interview, and if you have more questions about it feel free to ask more, as we have asked Haven to stick around for the discussion.
1. Can you tell us about the new Innate potato traits? How was it decided that these traits would be important to work on?
Absolutely. Simplot is both a pioneering potato processor and food company. With over 60 years in the potato business, we are aware of a number of significant areas where biotechnology can benefit many of the entities that make up the potato food chain. The trick is always matching what is scientifically feasible with what makes business sense. We think that seed growers, farmers, processors and consumers can all benefit from reduced black spot bruise, low asparagine, and slow degradation of starch to sugars during storage.
We know that potatoes’ susceptibility to black spot from impact and pressure during harvest and storage results in significant product losses. Innate™ potatoes’ reduced black spot from bruising will therefore result in a larger usable yield, making potato farming more profitable. Reduced sugars – under certain conditions – provide consistent golden color, providing ideal taste and texture qualities. Reduced levels of asparagine decrease the potential formation of acrylamide, a chemical compound that occurs when potatoes, wheat, coffee, and other foods are cooked at high temperatures. In California, Innate™ potatoes provide a potential means for potato processors to address the acrylamide issues under Proposition 65.
2. It seems that “Innate” is more than just the traits, but is a technology for introducing many traits into potatoes. Can you tell us how this works? Is it intragenic/cisgenic? Why did you choose the name “Innate”?
We thought “Innate” technology was an appropriate term because of the inherent nature of the potato DNA transferring to the potato plant. Simplot’s Innate™ technologies allow researchers to isolate genetic elements from any plant genome, rearrange them, or link them together in desired permutations, and introduce them back into the genome. Inserting an extra copy of a gene into the potato activates a self-defense mechanism known as RNA interference, which silences the genes related to expression of black spot bruise, asparagine, and reducing sugars in tubers.
The inserted genes come from cultivated potatoes or wild potatoes (a group of related plant species that are sexually-compatible with potatoes). We incorporate no foreign genes, no antibiotic resistance markers, and no vector backbone sequences, into the plant genome. We used a vector called pSIM1278, which incorporates two silencing “cassettes” into the potato. Expression of the first cassette lowers transcript levels for the Asn1 (asparagine synthetase-1) and Ppo5 (polyphenol oxidase-5) genes and, consequently, limits the formation of the acrylamide precursor asparagine, and the formation of impact-induced black spot bruise that occurs when the enzyme polyphenol oxidase oxidizes phenols to produce dark pigments. The presence of black spot bruise results in lower quality and subsequent production losses during processing into fries or chips.
A reduction in the formation of reducing sugars is accomplished by the down-regulated transcript levels for the PhL (phosphorylase-L) and R1 (starch associated) genes resulting from expression of the second cassette. These traits function by slowing the conversion of starch to reducing sugars (glucose and fructose). Benefits include improved quality, especially relating to color control, and thus contributing to the desired golden brown colors required by most french fry or chip customers. Also, the reducing sugars react with amino acids, such as asparagine, to produce Maillard products including acrylamide. So by reducing the levels of these sugars in stored potatoes, we can significantly reduce the levels of toxic acrylamide in the food.
3. How many and which varieties have been transformed with the new traits, and was each transformation done separately?
We transformed five different varieties including three popular varieties – Ranger Russet, Russet Burbank, and Atlantic – and two proprietary chipping varieties. These varieties each involved transformation for two traits (the genes related to expression of black spot bruise & asparagine, and the genes related to reducing sugars in tubers) for a total of ten events, which were done separately.
4. Can Innate potatoes be baked, fried, or cooked like regular potatoes? Do they look of taste different after cooking compared to regular potatoes?
Yes. In extensive field tests and subsequent tasting research, Innate™ potatoes were found to look, taste and have a similar texture as their conventionally grown commercial counterparts and can be cooked exactly the same. However, due to the non-browning trait, they no longer need to be soaked after cutting to prevent browning (for those who used to do that).
5. How long do the non-browning potatoes last after being cut compared to normal potatoes? Would Innate Potatoes help to decrease food waste?
Innate™ potatoes will not turn brown after being cut for many days until they dry out and degrade naturally, while normal potatoes often begin to turn brown within ten minutes. Obvious signs of potato degradation due to blight, rot or virus will still be apparent in Innate™ potatoes in advanced stages and these will be identified during normal quality control at the grower or processor level since potatoes are typically stored after harvesting. At early stages of growth, most conventional potato varieties do not express the polyphenol oxidase (PPO) enzyme that creates browning when cut or damaged so Innate™ would be no different.
(Editor’s Note: this is the same gene and mechanism that was changed to make the non-browning Arctic Apples.)
In terms of food waste, the blackening that occurs after potatoes are bruised affects the quality and recovery in processing French fries and chips – in bad years this can be more than 5% of all loads, according to the industry. The affected potatoes must be trimmed or face rejection before processing, resulting in quality challenges or economic loss. In fact, some processors reject loads with reducing sugar content above 2%, which we understand can be up to 20% of potatoes produced. However, Innate™ potatoes exhibit significantly less black spot bruising and lower reducing sugar content, which could save growers and processors tens of millions of dollars.
6. How many potatoes are lost during and after harvest due to bruising and black spot?
The answer to this question is more complicated than it seems. Weather, soil temperature, storage conditions and different potato varieties can all affect black spot bruise. It can vary significantly from year to year. That said, in terms of food waste, processors and growers tell us that low black spot bruise will result in savings of up to 5% in rejected loads, reducing post-harvest waste significantly.
7. What sorts of efforts have been made to achieve these traits with conventional breeding? Are there any barriers to developing these traits through breeding?
Traditional plant breeding has undergone efforts to reduce acrylamide and eliminate plant viruses and pests, however the progress has been slow and commercially ready solutions are many years away. Today’s traditional breeding techniques simply result in random genomic rearrangements and trait segregation, and do not allow for the simultaneous addition of multiple desired traits.
There currently are no varieties available that produce tubers with low acrylamide potential, reduced black spot bruise and reduced sugars, while displaying all other traits important to the food industry. Therefore, instead of attempting to develop new varieties, the J. R. Simplot Company improved the quality of five existing potato varieties by transforming them with Innate™ technology.
Because our Innate™ technologies effectively accelerate the process of conventional crossing, it allows desired changes in traditional varieties to occur much faster than is currently possible, while maintaining the desired characteristics of the original parent plant. For potatoes, InnateTM technologies are particularly attractive because potatoes are notorious for having a high degree of heterozygosity, suffering from inbreeding depression, and limited predominantly to clonal propagation. These inherent factors significantly hinder and prevent us from commercially introducing quality, sought-after traits into this valuable crop.
(Editor’s note: see this video to see how potatoes are bred.)
8. What is the current regulatory status of the Innate Potatoes in the US and elsewhere?
Simplot initiated its USDA regulatory approval in January 2013, and the public comment is now open and will be open until July 2. We hope that approval will come in the following year. In addition, we have initiated the FDA voluntary safety review process and should receive approval as early as this fall. We are currently pursuing regulatory approval in foreign export markets in Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Japan.
9. Will Innate potatoes only be sold to commercial growers, or will they also be available for home gardeners to grow? Will we see Innate potatoes in the supermarket, or are these destined only for processors?
When approved, Innate™ potatoes will initially be available to commercial growers due to the limited availability of mini-tubers used as seeds. We are investigating the opportunity to introduce these potatoes into the supermarket via the fresh market in the future. In the near term, they most likely will not be available for home gardeners.
10. What types of safety evaluation have been conducted for Innate potatoes? How do we know what effect they will have on the environment or on human health? How much of a concern is cross-pollination?
The USDA safety review process is extensive and involves an environmental assessment with results from widespread field trials. These field trials demonstrate that Innate™ potatoes were found to pose no health or environmental risks, create no harm to other species, and grow just like conventional potatoes without the need for special pesticides or fertilizers. There is virtually no risk of cross-pollination since commercial potatoes are grown from tubers, not seed. In addition, many commercial potatoes are either sterile or not sexually compatible with wild potatoes. Wild potatoes are rare and flowers are not frequented by honeybees due to a lack of nectar.
The FDA’s parallel review of Innate™ potatoes, which is also underway, will ensure that they are safe for consumption. Although the FDA submission is voluntary, we consider the FDA review to be an important endorsement of food safety. Simplot’s extensive testing shows these potatoes have the same nutrients, taste, and appearance as conventional potato varieties, which have been proven safe over many years.
In addition, we do extensive internal reviews on the safety of the junction sequences of our Innate™ lines, along with an assessment of potential open reading frames and allergens. For example, the plasmid pSIM1278 was inserted with all expression cassettes intact. An analysis of the insert and junction regions shows no new proteins or allergens that would change the safety of the Innate™ lines compared with the parent varieties. Addition evidence that normal potato characteristics regarding taste and plant growth were not changed was provided in agronomy and composition studies provided to the USDA and FDA.
11. What work has been done on assessing consumer attitudes to these potatoes? Are the details of the acceptance study available for people to examine, or will it be published?
There have been several consumer studies conducted over the past few years. The International Food Information Council (IFIC) has done some research on consumer attitudes to biotechnology foods in general. According to IFIC, 69% of consumers are either likely or somewhat likely to accept biotechnology vegetables, including potatoes if they are tastier or fresher.
In addition, Simplot has commissioned its own proprietary research available on its brochures and website that shows that consumer approval of Innate™ (93%) is similar to traditional plant breeding (94%).
12. It seems that the reduced asparagine trait (and perhaps even the non-browning trait) could be important to consumers. How will they be able to find out about these differences when it comes to purchasing the eventual products, whether as whole potatoes, chips, fries, etc.?
When approved, Innate™ potatoes containing the lower acrylamide will be available in a limited basis in 2014. For 2015 onward, Simplot will increase the supply of Innate™ seed to meet the expected market demand. As appropriate, Simplot will work with chip, fresh and fry processors to communicate the benefits.
13. What do farmers think about them?
Several farmers have been involved in field trials and many more have attended grower-briefing days to see the results. They have told us that they are very excited at the results, in which Innate™ potatoes have the same taste and growth characteristics as their commercially grown counterparts and contain marketable traits for lower asparagine, lower black spot bruise and lower reducing sugars.
One sizeable grower who has seen our field trials, Duane Grant, recently wrote an editorial about them in Truth About Trade & Technology.
14. What other traits are being developed by Simplot that we might see in the future?
This technology shows great promise for future crop enhancements. Simplot Plant Sciences plans to add benefits to current Innate™ potato lines, different potato varieties and even other crops. Our second generation of biotech potatoes will store better and reduce acrylamide by up to a 90%. We have an active research program and are working on Potato Virus Y, improved late blight resistance, and other consumer health traits like increased vitamins or nutrients. Through the endless possibilities of Innate™ technology, we aspire to create better fruits and vegetables, farming and human health.
Feel free to as additional questions, and if you want to comment on the petition for deregulation you can do so here. Thank you Haven for taking the time to answer these questions for our readers, and to Julie Sally for helping to arrange the interview.
Update May 9, 2013: Haven Baker met Frank yesterday! Here is the photo.
Great interview and website. Excellent potential. However, saying the second generation potatoes will lower acrylamide by “up to” 90%. Bit of wiggle room there using “up to.”
There have been plenty of acrylamide-reducing technologies promoting results “up to ” a certain amount, but not delivering what the industry needs or even what they promised. This sounds promising. However, some more direct answers would be even better.
What is the range of acrylamide reduction in test French fries and potato chips in the first generation? I prefer not to hear “up to” but instead would like to hear, “In the first generation, we guarantee potato chip/French fry manufacturers that acrylamide levels in the final end product will be reduced by a minimum of xx%.”
I also don’t want to hear that they haven’t conducted this acrylamide testing. We’re pretty sure they have and it would be good to get a specific number so we can get a handle on the real promise.
Also, when I first read non-browning, I thought they were saying that the final end product French Fries or potato chips would be white, and not have that golden color we all love. Do the chips turn golden and what is the taste? I’ve always thought the sugars going through the Maillard process were a big part of the end product flavor.
Good question, Mark. In the brochure I read about their traits, they said that the first generation tater reduces the acrylamide production by “up to 80%”, which as you point out, doesn’t give you the average or minimum, etc. I imagine that it may also depend on some other variables as well. I will pass on your questions and see if we can get some more details!
I would be delighted to test these personally….I have a serious french fry habit. Send me a giant bag, please.
But really I’m glad to see another example of a consumer benefit product coming along. Good luck with the process and with the production.
Maybe they can be fried in some Vistive oil? All we need is a GMO fish and we can have GMO fish & chips! Oh wait, there is one…
Great article!!! I enjoyed reading this article. What is the estimated time frame in which Innate potatoes is expected to be released/deregulated in USA/Canada. In your article you quoted Baker saying it should be approved for commercial planting by 2014? Is it a reasonable time-frame when we expect innate potato to be commercially made available to farmers? I read some other article suggesting the approval of Innate Potato followed by GM apples sometime in 2016? What is the realistic estimates?
I cannot get behind the idea of GMO food at all right now. There is so much corruption of the review process, and a lack of long-term data, that allowing such mutations out into the world seems a colossally bad idea. And please, let’s pay some attention to the millions of people who marched around the world recently in anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto demonstrations. Now is not the time for this. It may never be.
Your message does not resonate with the millions of starving people in the world.
As you probably know Mark, there a huge amount of investigation about acrylamide reduction options for fried foods and baked products. The amount of acrylamide is highly influenced by the time and temperature of frying, and there is no assurance of low acrylamide if the cooking is not well controlled. Hence, I imagine, the need to say “up to 80%”. You gotta cook it right too.
This seems like an interesting use of cisgenics and dsRNA. My biggest concern is of a marketing perspective. First, acrylamide will still form when cooking these potatoes, and since the biggest control factor for that is cooking… well, it’s pretty impossible to say what the actual effects will be. I would like to see some experimental data with controls for typical industrial frying and/or baking vs typical home frying vs baking processes with actual levels tested. There is the possibility someone trying to avoid higher acrylamide levels may just assume these potatoes are going to be fine no matter what they do with them… and based on time and temperature they may end up being no better than their non-GM cousins.
Another concern is this statement:
“Innate™ potatoes will not turn brown after being cut for many days until they dry out and degrade naturally, while normal potatoes often begin to turn brown within ten minutes. Obvious signs of potato degradation due to blight, rot or virus will still be apparent in Innate™ potatoes in advanced stages…
So, they don’t show degradation until advanced stages. In other words, “bad” potatoes could be accepted as good? Not sure what this means for public health. Karl, could you or someone other than the Simplot rep comment on possibilities? Dig deep (pun intended).
At the heart of it, this seems to be a product to help potato farmers improve profit baselines.And there is nothing essentially wrong with that. But marketing it as a public health boon seems a little bit iffy.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
Oxidized phenolics have been implicated in plant response to disease inciting microbes, so it will be interesting to see if these varieties differ from their non-GMO progenitors in their resistance to disease.
Starving people will not be able to buy these GMO seeds nor will be able to live on these potatoes alone, even if given for free..
RNAi technology is very new, where gene silencing of asparagine synthetase, polyphenol oxidase, phosphorylase-L, invertase in kind of random way done in these potatoes, was not much researched. Each of these proteins participates in many pathways from producing energy for the entire plant to influencing its immune system. We all belong to eukaryotes, with sometimes very similar amino acid sequences for many proteins. Saying that the separated contents of the final plant are comparable with native plants, not even knowing how the new inserted gene machinery works in very detail, and how it can influence humans gut under condition of only partial digestion is a scientific hazard, with possible unprecedented consequences for the final consumer of that GMO. Not doing absolutely any long terms feed studies, at least on some rats, is just not acceptable. Browning of potatoes, getting their surface scratched, or slightly less sugar in order to make unhealthy fries, is not a treat AT ALL, for having possibly ruined digestion or other serious yet UNKNOWN health issues.
Thanks for the comment. We strive for a fact-based and non-speculative discussion. Instead of saying without evidence that these potatoes might influence the gut, perhaps you could propose a good reason why you would expect this to be true? It might also interest you to know that the non-browning trait is also shared by grape plants that have mutations that deactivate the same enzyme. (Try Golden Raisins) Do you think that these grapes also affect our guts? Read more:
The very first line categorically states: “There’s a new genetically engineered potato in town that doesn’t brown when cut or fried, nor does it make acrylamide”
Wow that sounds impressive. Acrylamide is nasty stuff. None is good!
But wait… later on the text says “So by reducing the levels of these sugars in stored potatoes, we can
significantly reduce the levels of toxic acrylamide in the food.”
“Significantly reduce”? How come Karl said it doesn’t make >anyasks>voluntarily submitted<>long term independent safety tests<< which have been done on this GMO food or any other which is now in our food supply is ZERO. Labels? Zero.
And the industry says the risk from GMOs is…
Really low. Really really low. And there are tons of safety studies, but even armed with a fancy database he can't say how many were over 90 days in duration. Which doesn't matter because NO ONE has EVER documented a SINGLE negative health effect from a GMO (except for some studies which don't count). And long term studies are unnecessary because toxic reactions which almost can't happen take less than than 90 days to show up. Usually. And if anyone (hypothetically) ever finds problems their study will be followed up…
Comments are closed.