|
Post by PatrickW on Oct 28, 2008 4:53:56 GMT -5
Look at the picture of these new GM tomatoes a team of scientists created in the UK by inserting the genes of a snapdragon into an ordinary red tomato: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7688310.stmUgh! That's one of the most disgusting looking things I've ever seen. Rebsie did a great post on this recently on her blog, discussing the issue of anthocyanins and the like. You have to understand, except for the Kumato sold by Syngenta, purple tomatoes aren't sold in Europe, and so most people have never seen a real one. Syngenta is very protective of their Kumato, it's only available in a few supermarkets in a few countries, so most people haven't even seen that. UPDATE: I see this is old news to you guys, and the discussion has already taken place here: alanbishop.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=tomatoes&action=display&thread=312&page=1
|
|
|
Post by PapaVic on Oct 28, 2008 10:06:23 GMT -5
Okay, so this new purple tomato story is spammed all over the garden message boards. I guess the reason it has drawn so much attention and mention compared to the OSU Blue tomato is that this tomato is a GMO ... always a controversial subject.
Point #1: The anthocyanin content in this GM tomato and in the OSU traditionally bred tomato can be a benefit to some humans via dietary intake.
Point #2: The anthocyanin content in this GM tomato is higher than in the OSU Blue tomato.
Question: If through tests, this new GM tomato is proven safe for human consumption, what is the harm?
Question: With regard to folks who immediately raise objections to anything GM, what exactly are you doing to advance the betterment of humankind via food research or breeding programs? And by that, I mean products that are out there on the market or pending availability to growers and consumers.
|
|
|
Post by canadamike on Oct 28, 2008 10:28:16 GMT -5
I do not see the addition of a color gene in the same way I see disease resistance and such. In many areas, like medication producing bacterias etc, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by plantsnobin on Oct 28, 2008 12:26:16 GMT -5
I personally think it boils down to the matter of unintended consequences. For me it really isn't even about what they are able to do, or even a question of what they 'should' do. It is more about the control motive. No one can fault a company for having a profit motive, but these companies are not content to just make a decent profit. Now, am I doing anything to better humankind through food research? Hell no. And neither are any of those companies.
|
|
|
Post by canadamike on Oct 28, 2008 15:19:03 GMT -5
The round up ready crops are already showing their danerous effects in cross breeding with wild plants in certain areas, paving the way to ''monocultural'' weeds that take over habitats. This is frightening. But not the blue gm tomato.
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Oct 29, 2008 7:10:51 GMT -5
PapaVic, on your points and questions, I think you're making an awful lot of assumptions. In just a few words you go from the idea eating anthocyanin is probably good, so eating these new GM tomatoes must also be good. Since the GM tomatoes have more anthocyanin, they must be better than the OSU ones. This is like saying sugar is bad for you so you should drink diet coke or smoking is bad for you, you should smoke light cigarettes. You sound a little like a marketing slogan. What about questions like: If a little anthocyanin is good, is more better? Does the GM process (or traditional breeding) change something else that reduces the availability or benefits of anthocyanin? Is it like taking vitamins, where it's more important to just eat healthy foods rather than how much anthocyanin you eat? In fact this is one of the complaints of GM varieties that they are rarely of any benefit to consumers. Okay, like roundup ready varieties, they can make the work of farmers easier and make it so one farmer can manage a larger farm. This of course makes it harder for smaller farms to stay in business and consumers don't see any benefits. I personally can't see any clear benefit to consumers in this new tomato. As far as testing goes, what are you expecting to be tested? You can't prove a negative, like nothing in the tomato is harmful. You always have to test for something specific. Sometimes even when you know something is harmful statistically, it's very difficult to prove it in a lab. Tobacco is a good example of this, because even though everyone knew it was bad for you, the exact mechanism for causing cancer wasn't found until the 1990's and until then tobacco companies were able to deny it. Before you test any food product for safety, you need to make some decisions about what you are going to test for, quantities that have to be consumed, types of lab animals, etc. If you are a scientist hired by a food company, the FDA or the USDA, who's job it is to get food approved, of course you are going to make initial decisions on these matters with the intention of not finding anything. Even if you do find something, it's more of a political process than anything else as to if anyone pays attention to it. Then if an unsafe product gets to market, there's almost no way to get it recalled. Under these circumstances, testing for safety doesn't mean anything. Aspartame is an excellent example of a very dangerous product making it to market, even though it was tested for safety. Michel, this is also an example of how medicine producing bacterias can also be very dangerous, because this is how aspartame is made. Even though the FDA knew of a long list of symptoms associated with it at the time it was approved, including 'death': www.321recipes.com/symptoms.htmlWhen Ronald Reagan came into office he fired the head of the FDA because he refused to approve aspartame, and instead appointed someone who would. Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO of Searle labs at the time, and his job was to get it approved. He bulldozed it through the approval process just like he took the US into war in Iraq, just not letting anyone tell him he was wrong. There's a mini documentary about it here: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-566922170441334340Even though an Italian study proved a link between aspartame and cancer, and at least 50 doctors have come forward and said they believe it causes serious medical problems, there's no prospect of it being removed from the market. This is why I am against all GMOs. When the time comes they are created for consumer benefit, clearly labeled, alternatives where they exist are just as easy to obtain and all environmental issues are dealt with, I'll start softening my position. Somehow I can't picture finding Alan's tomatoes in the supermarket along side GM varieties. As soon as the consumer has fair access to all alternatives, which are clearly labeled for what they are, I don't think it's going to be an issue choosing between an inky tasting blue GM one or one breed for taste.
|
|
|
Post by PapaVic on Oct 29, 2008 9:29:11 GMT -5
Patrick, you are wrong in your statements. I did not make the assumptions (or leaps of logic) that you assigned to me. You need to read more closely and comprehend more clearly before making your false statements regarding my intent or my conclusions ... as the only conclusion I hinted at was that if the new tomato is proven safe for human consumption that there may be no harm in consuming it. And that assumption is clearly definitive.
On the other hand, you appear to have a "food-politics" agenda. I don't. I am pointing out the obvious and asking questions, one of which you conveniently, with all your words and wanderings, neglected to answer: "(Since you are wholesale condemning GMOs), what exactly are you doing to advance the betterment of humankind via food research or breeding programs?"
|
|
jason
gardener
Posts: 246
|
Post by jason on Oct 29, 2008 11:45:01 GMT -5
This is really interesting. I kind of think that GMOs are just a more scientific extension of traditional food plant development. In a lot of ways, I think, traditional breeding methods still exploit the natural accurances in plants. People still try to cross strange things, but as long as it is done by pollen it is assumed safe. I think the intention aspect plantsnobin pointed out is important too. I'm guessing if they are genetically crossing a snapdragon and a tomato they arent looking specifically for big money makers, but who really knows..
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Oct 29, 2008 13:18:07 GMT -5
The round up ready crops are already showing their danerous effects in cross breeding with wild plants in certain areas, paving the way to ''monocultural'' weeds that take over habitats. This is frightening. But not the blue gm tomato. What wild crops have been affected by crossing with Roundup ready corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, or sugar beets? Offhand, I can't think of any wild relatives to those species. Martin
|
|
|
Post by PapaVic on Oct 29, 2008 13:35:36 GMT -5
Martin,
I read an article earlier this year regarding specific wild relatives of beet roots that have crossed with Roundup-Ready beets in Europe, proliferated at the field edges and are resistant to Roundup. Apparently, this has become a problem. I think it was Ireland or Wales. Maybe Germany, too. I'll look and see if I can find the link.
But this is not material to the discussion of the GM tomato since 1) we're not talking about herbicide resistance transferring to wild relatives of the tomato, and 2) the chance of the GM tomatoes cross pollinating with any wild relatives is extremely remote, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by grungy on Oct 29, 2008 14:42:03 GMT -5
Even if I am a Canadian, I guess, I am from Missouri - show me. Who will prove that they are "safe". I keep thinking of the thalidomine (sp?) babies. We have had several thousands of years to "adapt" to "naturally" occurring foods, but somehow I question being used as a guinea pig for some company's profit.
|
|
|
Post by bunkie on Oct 29, 2008 17:19:51 GMT -5
i agree about the not knowing how the GM tom when digested will affect people in the long run. it seems they are putting things on the market without addequate trials of length.
also, with these GM toms, one cannot save seed, right? the plants are sterile? that's gonna be expensive for the farmers. and if the sterile pollen attaches itself to other plants, will that make them sterile also? and will this affect the bees?
it just seems like there could be more secure ways to combine the plants for medical uses.
i did not know that they have no purple tomatoes in Europe? why not? my first thought when i saw this new GM tomato in the news was is there going to be confusion with our heirloom purple tomatoes? are customers going to be afraid to buy the heirlooms thinking they are GM? so much to consider in this day and age.
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Oct 29, 2008 19:04:06 GMT -5
also, with these GM toms, one cannot save seed, right? the plants are sterile? that's gonna be expensive for the farmers. and if the sterile pollen attaches itself to other plants, will that make them sterile also? and will this affect the bees? Since any work on a terminator gene was terminated ages ago, none of the above applies. Martin
|
|
|
Post by PapaVic on Oct 29, 2008 19:25:32 GMT -5
Bunkie, chill out a bit. Have you been subjected to disinformation, are your spreading disinformation, or are you just asking questions without reading and digesting information?
"i agree about the not knowing how the GM tom when digested will affect people in the long run."
So are the researchers agreeing about the unknown. That's why the tomato is still in the research stage.
"it seems they are putting things on the market without addequate trials of length."
What things? Certainly not this GM tomato. It's not "on the market" at this point. It's still being fed to lab rats apparently with the intent to complete the research ... "trials" if you will.
"it just seems like there could be more secure ways to combine the plants for medical uses."
Just how would you propose to "combine" plant genes when the plants are unrelated species? It takes a gene gun to do it, bunkie. That means GM.
And what do you mean about "more secure ways?" This thing isn't radioactive. And besides, it's still secured in the lab, I'm assuming. Do you have any evidence that this plant is a biohazard and has been spilled out into the streets?
"i did not know that they have no purple tomatoes in Europe?"
Who says there are no "purple tomatoes" in Europe? Where is that disinformation coming from? What do you mean by "purple?" If by purple you mean something resembling Black Krim, Paul Robeson, Japanese Black Trifele, Bruno, on and on ... those came from Europe.
"my first thought when i saw this new GM tomato in the news was is there going to be confusion with our heirloom purple tomatoes? are customers going to be afraid to buy the heirlooms thinking they are GM?"
Which "heirloom purple" toamtoes would be confused with this micro dwarf, small fruited, blueberry colored tomato? Certainly not Cherokee Purple, etc.
Why would anyone be afraid to buy "heirloom" tomatoes just because a news article is out there about a genetically modified experimental tomato that hasn't yet left the lab?
Oh me ... the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!
|
|
|
Post by canadamike on Oct 29, 2008 19:51:19 GMT -5
Big hug to Bill!! And Bunkie too btw If I understand correctly folks, Bill has a bit of the same attitude than me. I adhere to some (organic in my case, but it could be otherwise) gardening principles, but this is NOT a religion. The day it will be forced upon me will be the day I'll start using synthetic fertilisers. Oh! not much, certainly not grow all my food , but enough to piss somebody off.... We have to keep our mind open with science, and that does include GM. It is science that is proving the benefits of natural and organic,the rest is a matter of economics. Pasteur was once ridiculed. You all know what happened to Copernicus. ALL GMOs are NOT the same. Rejecting them just because they are GMOs is exactly like putting all the muslim in the terrorist bag. An idiocy at best. I am fiercely rejecting the terminator gene and Roundup Ready crops exactly for what they are, a grave danger. Not because of the process to create them. And I looked at my bank account yesterday. I think I should get the Warren Buffet gene grafted
|
|