16 CapitalPress.com
January 15, 2016
FDA approves 2nd generation of Simplot GMO spuds
By JOHN O’CONNELL
Capital Press
BOISE — The J.R. Sim-
plot Co. announced Jan. 13 it
has obtained federal Food and
Drug Administration approval
for the second generation of
its Innate line of potatoes, de-
veloped with biotechnology.
The company plans to
raise less than 100 acres of
second-generation
Innate
Russet Burbanks this season
in anticipation of approval
by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, which is
expected by December and
would represent the final
step in the review process.
Innate’s second gener-
ation was previously ap-
proved by USDA, and the
company voluntarily sought
FDA approval, said Simplot
spokesman Doug Cole.
“(FDA approval) is some-
thing most all biotech com-
panies will go through be-
cause it gives customers an
assurance of safety,” Cole
said. “We will pursue it for
all of our various (Innate)
generations.”
Courtesy of J.R. Simplot Co.
These second-generation Innate potatoes, bred by J.R. Simplot
Co. using genetic modification, show their resistance to U.S. late
blight strains in Michigan test plots. Simplot announced Jan. 13 it
has obtained federal Food and Drug Administration approval for
the second generation of its Innate line of potatoes.
Innate lines utilize genes
introduced through biotech-
nology from wild and cul-
tivated potatoes, which has
led to concerns by some in
the industry that the product
could affect foreign trade
markets where consum-
ers are wary of genetically
modified organisms. The
first generation of Innate,
which offered low bruis-
ing, non-browning and low
acrylamide, was approved
by FDA last March and saw
its first significant commer-
cial production in 2015. The
second generation includes
the original traits, plus im-
proved cold storage and late
blight resistance.
Because of the late blight
resistance trait, the second
generation of Innate must
also undergo review by EPA,
which is tasked with assess-
ing pesticides, despite the
fact that the protection is in-
corporated into the plant.
Cole said field trials
were conducted last sea-
son in Idaho, Michigan and
Pennsylvania, which were
all hard hit by late blight,
and the second-generation
Innate spuds showed “very
strong resistance.” He said
the potatoes resist all com-
mon U.S. strains of late
blight.
“Growers should expect
a significant reduction in
sprays as a result of Innate
generation two,” Cole said.
Cole said Simplot has
submitted petitions for ap-
proval of Innate in foreign
markets including Canada,
Japan, Mexico, Korea, Tai-
wan and China and hopes
to have OKs from Mexico,
Japan and Canada by the
end of this year. The foreign
approvals would represent a
major step toward introduc-
ing Innate into the frozen
and dehydrated potato mar-
kets, Cole said.
He said it’s uncertain if
Simplot will seek to segre-
gate frozen or dehydrated
Innate products and market
them separately from con-
ventional potatoes.
For now, however, he
said Simplot is focused ex-
clusively on the domestic
whole-fresh and fresh-cut
markets, marketing Innate
spuds under the White Rus-
set label.
“The industry is feeling
more and more comfortable
with (Innate) every passing
day,” Cole said.
Oakley, Idaho, farmer
Randy Hardy, chairman of
Sun Valley Potatoes and a
past president of both the
National Potato Council and
U.S. Potato Board, said both
grower organizations have
followed Innate closely be-
cause of the sensitivity of
export markets. Hardy em-
phasized gaining approval to
export into a market doesn’t
necessarily mean a product
will be accepted by foreign
consumers.
“I’ve personally been op-
posed to the idea because
of what I know about ex-
port markets, but Simplot
has been very diligent in
assuring us they’re doing ev-
erything they can to prevent
(market disruptions) from
happening,” Hardy said, add-
ing he considers Innate to be
an impressive product.
Hardy said Idaho dehy-
drated potato producers don’t
allow suppliers to raise Innate
because of the potential for
GMO spuds to be mistakenly
intermingled.
Cole said Simplot intends
to produce roughly 6,000
acres of first-generation In-
nate spuds in 2016. The pota-
toes reduce waste and enable
the food service industry to
save time by utilizing pre-cut,
fresh potatoes that stay white
without preservatives.
“We believe we’ve got
a product consumers want
that’s been shown to have bet-
ter quality, reduces waste, and
in the case of generation two,
reduces the amount of pes-
ticides being applied,” Cole
said.
Farm transparency relieves
consumer suspicion, experts say
Capital Press File
A Kansas researcher is developing a type of wheat that people with
celiac disease can eat.
Researcher aims
at developing
‘celiac-safe’ wheat
Miller wants to ease
disease’s disruption
for patients
By MATTHEW WEAVER
Capital Press
A Kansas researcher hopes
to develop wheat varieties
that people with celiac disease
can eat.
Celiac disease causes ex-
treme sensitivity to the glu-
ten in wheat and some other
foods.
In theory, celiac-safe wheat
would still contain the pro-
teins such as gluten necessary
for making bread, but would
have none of the reactive pro-
tein epitopes, which cause
the body’s immune system
to produce antibodies, said
Chris Miller, director of wheat
quality research for Heartland
Plant Innovations in Manhat-
tan, Kan. He is working with
the Kansas Wheat Commis-
sion at the Kansas Wheat In-
novation Center.
Miller is measuring the
variability for reactivity
within a large pool of wheat
lines, including commercial
varieties and wild relatives.
This helps determine wheth-
er any existing varieties with
low levels of reactivity are
already in the center’s collec-
tion.
Miller’s work came about
when researchers discussed
the need to address wheat’s
role in celiac disease.
“We feel confident the
gluten-free craze will fade
out, but the medical condi-
tion will obviously contin-
ue,” Miller said in an email.
“Most food allergies are pro-
tein-based, such as soy, milk,
eggs, nuts, etc., which is no
different from celiac disease.
The issue is that most people
can avoid nuts and even milk
and eggs without too much
disruption, but wheat is in
everything and really diffi-
cult to avoid without major
changes to diet and routine.”
Celiac disease affects
roughly 1 percent of the U.S.
population, or about 3 million
people, 97 percent of whom
are undiagnosed, according
to the University of Chicago
Celiac Disease Center.
Variety development is not
included in Miller’s current
work, so it could be sever-
al years before a celiac-safe
wheat is available commer-
cially, he said.
The research uses standard
breeding practices, although
Miller said GMO technology
would speed things up. The
U.S. wheat industry is hesi-
tant about developing a GMO
wheat variety without accep-
tance from overseas custom-
ers.
“We just can’t take the risk
of having a GMO solution
sitting on the shelf with no
ability to actually get it into
the market,” he said. “I will
say our work is compatible
with GMO technology, and
if by some stroke of luck the
regulation changes, we won’t
need to start from scratch.
We will simply accelerate our
progress.”
Washington State Uni-
versity Professor Diter von
Wettstein is also working on
wheat that celiac patients can
eat. Miller is familiar with
von Wettstein’s work, but
says it’s a different approach.
“I think the problem of
celiac disease is so big that
it won’t be solved by a sin-
gle group of researchers, so
I support his effort to look at
this from a different perspec-
tive,” Miller said.
Medical researchers are
still trying to understand
what triggers the disease,
Miller said. Some patients
have it from childhood, while
others develop the disease
later in life. This and better
tests to diagnose the disease
still need to be studied, he
said.
Miller’s work, in general,
is about understanding wheat
protein, including agroeco-
nomics, end-product quality
and human health and nutri-
tion.
“The overall theme is
wheat improvement, so I can’t
imagine a negative outcome
for farmers or consumers,”
he said. “If we can identify
the underlying cause of celiac
reactivity in the process, and
we have the means to reduce
it, we should be working to-
wards those types of goals.”
Researcher says
consumers believe
agriculture has
‘motivational bias’
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
ORLANDO, Fla. — Public
suspicion of agriculture may
seem like a recent phenome-
non, but consumer researcher
Charlie Arnot traces it back to
the turmoil of the 1960s.
After the U.S. victory in
World War II, the nation was
characterized by a collective
optimism about the future and
public confidence in institu-
tions, said Arnot, CEO of the
Center for Food Integrity, a
nonprofit that studies consum-
er attitudes.
That began to change in
the 1960s, with the assassi-
nations of high profile leaders
and clashes between young
people and the political es-
tablishment, he said this week
at the American Farm Bureau
Federation convention in Or-
lando, Fla.
Scandals from Watergate
to the subprime mortgage
crisis have since continued
to erode public deference for
institutions, Arnot said. “Mis-
trust of institutions has be-
come the cultural norm.”
How does this affect farm-
ing?
While the consolidation
and industrialization of ag-
riculture has increased the
availability and affordability
of food, the industry is now
also viewed by the public as
an institution, he said.
That means many consum-
ers regard farming practices
with more skepticism than in
the past, particularly for oper-
ations that they see as large,
Arnot said.
About 28 percent of re-
spondents to a Center for
Food Integrity survey said
they strongly agree with the
statement that small farms
put their own interests above
those of consumers, compared
to 48 percent when asked the
Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press
Charlie Arnot, CEO of the Center for Food Integrity, said his nonprofit’s research indicates consumers
are growing more distrustful of agriculture, which can be overcome with transparency.
same question about large op-
erations, he said.
The “large” category is
also broader than many farm-
ers expect — consumers gen-
erally define this as any farm
with more than 100 acres or
100 animals, he said.
Arnot likened the farm in-
dustry’s situation to that of the
U.S. military.
Prior to the Vietnam era,
leaders of the armed forces
were effective at managing
the public’s beliefs about war
efforts, but that changed when
televisions became pervasive
in American homes, he said.
“We’re seeing the same
thing happen with food,” he
said.
Just as the nightly news
broadcasts hindered the mil-
itary’s power to manage per-
ceptions of war, the Internet
and social media allow infor-
mation and misinformation
about agriculture to be widely
disseminated, Arnot said.
In more recent wars, the
military has recognized the
shift and now tries to affect
perceptions by embedding
journalists with the troops,
he said. “Once they came to
the conclusion that control
was no longer possible, they
changed their strategy.”
Agriculture has tradition-
ally responded to concerns
about its practices with facts
and peer-reviewed studies,
but demonstrating shared val-
ues is three to five times more
effective at building trust than
data and expertise, Arnot said.
In many cases, myths about
agriculture arise due to “tribal
shaming,” such as mothers
talking online about the dan-
gers of high fructose corn syr-
up, he said. In such scenarios,
consumers feel compelled
to act by either avoiding the
product or conducting further
research, he said.
However, it’s not getting
any easier for farmers or
food companies to influence
such decisions, as consumers
are becoming less willing to
study allegations for them-
selves, said Judy Rupnow,
communications strategist for
the MorganMyers public rela-
tions firm.
“We’re starting to see the
effect of information over-
load,” she said.
When confronted with
negative opinions about agri-
culture, farmers should avoid
becoming overly sensitive
and instead listen to the con-
sumer’s concerns, Rupnow
said.
“Resist the urge to defend
right off the bat,” she said.
Some consumers think
farmers have a “motivation-
al bias,” meaning they value
profits more than principles,
said Arnot.
Their suspicions can be
overcome with transparency,
though this solution can make
farmers uneasy, he said. The
industry’s attitude often boils
down to “we have nothing
to hide, but it’s none of your
business,” he said.
The reality is that smart-
phone cameras are now ubiq-
uitous, so producers should
assume consumers can see
what they’re doing at any
time, Arnot said.
“Transparency is no longer
optional,” he said.
One farm has adapted to
the new reality by providing
a live video stream of hens
laying eggs at its facility, not
because this is “must-see TV”
but because consumers find it
reassuring, Arnot said.
At the other end of the
spectrum are state “ag gag”
laws that criminalize secret
recordings, he said. “Unfor-
tunately, I think they send the
exact wrong message to the
public. The message is, ‘We
have something to hide.’”
Oregon county plans class action for state’s forestland management
By PARIS ACHEN
Capital Bureau
SALEM — Linn County
plans to seek more than $1.4
billion in damages in a class
action suit against the state
for breach of contract in man-
agement of forestland in 15
counties.
Linn County special coun-
sel delivered a letter to Gov.
Kate Brown and State Forest-
er Doug Decker Wednesday
to notify them of the coun-
ty’s plan to file the suit after
a mandatory 30-day waiting
period.
Up to 150 local taxing
districts that receive timber
sales receipts from harvests
from the Oregon Forest Trust
Lands contract could be eligi-
ble join the suit. That includes
schools, libraries, public safe-
ty agencies and other districts.
The other counties that
benefit from the trust are
Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop,
Columbia, Coos, Douglas,
Josephine, Klamath, Lane,
Lincoln, Marion, Polk, Tilla-
mook, and Washington.
“There have been gener-
al discussions and angst for
years about the distribution
formula and how counties
have been deprived of reve-
nue by state,” said attorney
John DiLorenzo, who is rep-
resenting Linn County in the
suit. “It’s no surprise they’re
not getting as much of a return
from the arrangement as they
should be.”
The 15 counties have con-
tracted with the state since the
1930s to manage forestlands
for the land’s “greatest per-
manent value.” Linn County
and the state are at odds over
the meaning of that term. The
county claims that the term
means greatest economic val-
ue allowable under state and
federal regulations and that
returns ought to match what
a private land manager could
glean off the land. The state
in 1998 defined the term to
mean economic, ecological,
recreational and aesthetic re-
turns and implemented a man-
agement plan based on that
definition starting in 2000,
DiLorenzo said.
Linn County estimates
that the 150 local districts in
the 15 counties have missed
out on $35 million per year in
revenue in the past 15 years
from the state’s management
of the forestland. That number
is based on forest modeling,
much of which was borrowed
from the Department of For-
estry, DiLorenzo
“All of those local districts
in need of funding especially
in the area of public safety,”
he said. “Lives would be vast-
ly improved if these monies
were distributed to these dis-
tricts.”