[giantg2]

Or...

Instead of spending money engineering food like this we could actually go outside without being slathered in sunscreen for about 10 minutes a day (depending on skin tone). That might even mean we get some healthy activities in that have additonal benefits while we're out there.

Edit: wow so much hate without any argument as to why this is better than existing supplementation, especially considering existing supplements have more stringent dosing. It's like I've somehow argued that supplementation is bad, when all I'm saying is this seems a waste of money if we already have adequate supplements.

[crawfordcomeaux]

In support of what you're saying.

https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...

[stevenjgarner]

Those of us with skin cancer because we have had our "10 minutes a day" are reliant upon vitamin D supplements.

[elmomle]

Outdoor workers actually have a significantly reduced rate of melanoma. Sun exposure increases risk of carcinoma, which is almost never fatal (in fact, knowing nothing else about a person, diagnosis with a basal or squamous cell carcinoma implies a longer expected lifespan). Source: https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...

Regular exposure to sunlight, in amounts insufficient to cause burns, is probably very good for us. And why wouldn't it be? Life tends to find and use all advantageous resources at its disposal--so of course a diurnal animal with lots of skin collecting sunlight would have evolved all sorts of processes to put that sunlight to beneficial use.

[nradov]

Even if you have fair skin, there is no significant cancer risk from 10 minutes of daily sun exposure. (The exception would be some very rare genetic disorders which cause rapid development of cancers.) But sun exposure alone might not produce the recommend vitamin D levels for some people, especially those living nearer to the poles.

[eatbitseveryday]

Not a great solution for folks in northern climates where sun doesn't exist for 9mo out of the year.

Doctors still recommend vitamin D supplements.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Doctors recommend a lot of things due to herd mentality and syllogistic thinking. Their endorsement doesn't mean much.

[giantg2]

I assume it's difficult to grow fresh tomatoes there too. Why should the tomatoes be benefit over the existing supplements?

[TheSoftwareGuy]

Tomatoes are still eaten plenty in places where they cannot even grow, because we are able to ship them. They may not taste as nice as farm-fresh heirloom tomatoes, but clearly people still eat them.

On the other hand, most people do not take Vitamin D supplements, even if they should.

[giantg2]

Ok... but why would these people who don't take a supplement today suddenly care enough to pick out fresh tomatoes that are engineered for it? Likely at 10x -100x the cost.

[fsflover]

CRISPR doesn't only work with tomatoes.

[crawfordcomeaux]

This is an argument for preserving salmon habitats, which is how pacific northwest tribes met their vitamin D needs before we dammed their spawning grounds.

[wk_end]

In response to your edit: nothing in this comment - which is the one that's downvoted - says anything about existing supplements. It just says that we should all get our Vitamin D by hanging out outside - which, as others have already pointed out, is nonsense for much of the world and thus has been downvoted justly.

As to why existing supplements are inadequate: well, because at the end of the day huge swaths of the population are Vitamin D deficient. Plain and simple. Those people should be taking supplements, but aren't. Many of those same people eat tomatoes regularly, and this will help them; it's like water fluoridation. You can moralize and lecture about individual responsibility or whatever, but a positive outcome is a positive outcome.

[tstrimple]

There was also a problem with populations lacking enough iodine in their diet that was addressed with food additives, specifically iodized salt which had a major health benefit across the nation. These types of solutions work. It's a continual source of frustration when systemic issues are dismissed simply as matters of "personal responsibility".

> The U.S. was historically iodine deficient prior to the early 1920s, particularly in the goiter belt region of the Great Lakes, Appalachians, and the northwestern area of the country, due to the effects of natural atmospheric processes. Following the successful implementation of salt iodization program in Switzerland, the introduction of iodized table salt in the U.S. during the 1920s significantly improved its iodine nutritional status. However, although recent national studies demonstrate that the general population is overall iodine sufficient, salt iodization in the U.S. is not universal, and certain subsets of the population, including pregnant and lactating women and their offspring, may be at risk for mild to moderate iodine deficiency. As such, a public health approach by the American Thyroid Association and the Endocrine Society advocate U.S. women to take a supplement containing 150 µg iodine/day beginning preconception.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3509517/

[wahern]

> a public health approach by the American Thyroid Association and the Endocrine Society advocate U.S. women to take a supplement containing 150 µg iodine/day beginning preconception.

That paper was published in 2012. In 2014 (my wife's first pregnancy) no major pregnancy supplement included iodine, and my wife's doctor said it was unnecessary. The only supplement I could find without an outrageous amount of iodine while still being quasi-reputable was a Whole Foods-branded, 225mcg kelp-based pill. (Not USP or similarly certified, but I figured/hoped a large, brick & mortar retailer like Whole Foods would perform some vetting of their supplier and reliability of the product.) Circa 2015-2017 major pregnancy supplement makers, like Nature Made (USP certified, sold at Walgreens, hospitals, etc), quietly added iodine.

The problem with the older conventional wisdom is/was that eating habits have changed: 1) people began eating processed foods and restaurant foods (especially fast food), most of which do not used iodized salt; 2) home cooks, especially those following TV cooking shows, began using kosher salt, which is not iodized; and 3) the medical community was admonishing everybody to consume less salt, so people were less inclined to use table salt. These are also compounded by the fact that the most commonly eaten vegetables, e.g. soy and those from the Brassicaceae family (broccoli, kale, cabbage, etc), are goitrogenic.

Another major and far more important food supplement is niacin. Widespread supplementation of cereal grains began in the mid 20th century. More recently (1990s in the U.S.) folate was made a mandatory supplement in cereal grains. The difference between these and iodine is that packaged foods, most prepared foods (fast food, restaurants using normal supply chains, etc), and the most commonly used home ingredients still contain these supplements. Whereas outside of pregnancy (i.e. fetal development), inadequate iodine is still (arguably) a creeping problem for children. This is sort of similar to vitamin D--eating habits are changing (e.g. less milk consumption) and we need to find new routes for supplementation to reach people, especially groups most at risk.

On the plus side, in relative terms the iodine "problem" is relatively small and mostly only visible at large population scales. And despite the hype over its importance, I suspect the same is true for vitamin D deficiencies--not nearly as impactful to public health as niacin and folate. But if people keeping selling this idea of food supplementation as somehow adulterating, polluting, and contaminating food, these problems are only going to grow.

[giantg2]

That didn't have an easy and free solution in most areas, a solution that carries other benefits. That also didn't involve editing genes that could potentially spread. Also it had a clear benefit. Not so much here.

https://www.sciencealert.com/vitamin-d-tablets-may-be-worse-...

[giantg2]

That's rather presumptive that it's a positive outcome. Maybe some of us don't want supplemented tomatoes and prefer regular ones.

https://www.sciencealert.com/vitamin-d-tablets-may-be-worse-...

[annoyingnoob]

The overall prevalence rate of vitamin D deficiency was 41.6%, with the highest rate seen in blacks (82.1%), followed by Hispanics (69.2%).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/

[giantg2]

That's why I said depending on skin tone.

[oh_sigh]

Brown/black people in northern latitudes aren't really able to get adequate vitamin D through sun exposure alone for 6 months/yr.

[qgin]

Basically no significant number of people (in the United States and Europe at least) wear sunscreen every day. Furthermore above 37 degrees latitude, almost no vitamin D will be produced by sun exposure even if you spend time outside exposed to the elements for an hour.

[judge2020]

And when the engineering might lead to more B12 instead, should we instead go out and hunt for our food?

[giantg2]

That's pretty off topic. We could have what-ifs about a bunch of other nutrients.

[nojito]

not everyone can make vitamin D properly from the sun.

[giantg2]

Ok, and what is the benefit of this over traditional supplements for them?

[nojito]

Same reason why putting fluoride in the water was the best decision ever in terms of public health value.

People don't care about their health.

[giantg2]

Not sure if you're joking since fluoridation is still debated to this day.

[nojito]

Fluoridated water is the most impressive public health victory in the last 200 years in terms of lives saved and improved.

[outworlder]

Supplements don't self-replicate.

[giantg2]

I think the general discussion is around whether that's a feature or a bug.