Sci/Tech Genetically-modified purple tomatoes heading for shops

[FireCat]

The prospect of genetically modified purple tomatoes reaching the shelves has come a step closer. Their dark pigment is intended to give tomatoes the same potential health benefits as fruit such as blueberries.

Developed in Britain, large-scale production is now under way in Canada with the first 1,200 litres of purple tomato juice ready for shipping. The pigment, known as anthocyanin, is an antioxidant which studies on animals show could help fight cancer.

Scientists say the new tomatoes could improve the nutritional value of everything from ketchup to pizza topping. The tomatoes were developed at the John Innes Centre in Norwich where Prof Cathie Martin hopes the first delivery of large quantities of juice will allow researchers to investigate its potential.

"With these purple tomatoes you can get the same compounds that are present in blueberries and cranberries that give them their health benefits - but you can apply them to foods that people actually eat in significant amounts and are reasonably affordable," she said.

The tomatoes are part of a new generation of GM plants designed to appeal to consumers - the first types were aimed specifically at farmers as new tools in agriculture.

Genetically-modified purple tomatoes heading for shops

The prospect of genetically-modified purple tomatoes reaching the shelves has come a step closer, with large-scale production under way.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[KMilz]

I still haven't seen anything convincing that suggests why GMOs are gonna be worse than any of the other bullshit we eat. I'm all for this as long as they still taste as good or better.

 

[Eyonix]

That's like saying "Oh well I am already eating shit that's going to kill me, why not add to it"....

 

[KMilz]

Can you explain why they're bad? Maybe I'd be a bit more understanding of the nonsense, then.

 

[Snowbizzle]

From my understanding, GMOs are largely undesirable not because they're inherently unhealthy but for a number of other reasons:

1) They might have other side effects we're unaware of -- that is, although we've supposedly changed only one small part of the organism, it's possible that another part has changed without our knowledge, or that over time the genetics could drift to reveal undesirable traits, which could be a problem because...

2) GMOs often pollinate other non-GMO crops, thus forcing farmers to grow out GMO varieties of fruits, veggies, etc., rather than their traditional, artisan, and/or heirloom varieties. This homogenizes the gene pool so that the original organism (a tomato, for instance) is not able to be enjoyed in its various forms (cherry, plum, etc.), the different types having been made obsolete by the dominant GMO variety. This is also a problem because the companies who own GMOs will actually sue farmers out of existence because the farmers are "illegally" growing GMO varieties...even though this usually happens without the farmer's knowledge or permission. Which leads to

3) GMOs are really bad because they're almost exclusively (if not exclusively) controlled by the same companies who mass produce chemical pesticides, insecticides, etc., for the same GMO crops that these companies mass produce and sell to the general public. If the GMO itself isn't bad, the barren soil and chemical fertilizers (which often, often, often contain cancer-causing materials among doing other dirty things to your body) certainly are.

I'm sure there are more reasons. Like, dude. God did not make the tomato this way. Obvs.

But Eyonix, your (I think) sarcastic comment is actually pretty true. Most people don't care about growing or eating organic, so we eat chemically grown food produced by companies like Monsanto...so why not let them make it a little healthier, at least? It's already shit, so if you're gonna eat that shit, you might as well let them turn it blue, let it be a little less shitty. Right?

That's what I think, K.

 

[KaerfNomekop]

If the new color has health benefits over the old ones, I don't see why not. Random mutations are still going to happen even without genetic modification.

 

[Varine]

GMO's are cross pollutant, they have little to no government oversight (not that it is very useful to begin with), they have potentially negative side effects. Not to mention the companies that make most of your GMO's (Monsanto) are the same companies that said Agent Orange and DDT were safe. And they're all covered in herbicides and pesticides. The crops might be immune, you are not.

 

[KMilz]

From my understanding, GMOs are largely undesirable not because they're inherently unhealthy but for a number of other reasons:

1) They might have other side effects we're unaware of -- that is, although we've supposedly changed only one small part of the organism, it's possible that another part has changed without our knowledge, or that over time the genetics could drift to reveal undesirable traits, which could be a problem because...

2) GMOs often pollinate other non-GMO crops, thus forcing farmers to grow out GMO varieties of fruits, veggies, etc., rather than their traditional, artisan, and/or heirloom varieties. This homogenizes the gene pool so that the original organism (a tomato, for instance) is not able to be enjoyed in its various forms (cherry, plum, etc.), the different types having been made obsolete by the dominant GMO variety. This is also a problem because the companies who own GMOs will actually sue farmers out of existence because the farmers are "illegally" growing GMO varieties...even though this usually happens without the farmer's knowledge or permission. Which leads to

3) GMOs are really bad because they're almost exclusively (if not exclusively) controlled by the same companies who mass produce chemical pesticides, insecticides, etc., for the same GMO crops that these companies mass produce and sell to the general public. If the GMO itself isn't bad, the barren soil and chemical fertilizers (which often, often, often contain cancer-causing materials among doing other dirty things to your body) certainly are.

I'm sure there are more reasons. Like, dude. God did not make the tomato this way. Obvs.

But Eyonix, your (I think) sarcastic comment is actually pretty true. Most people don't care about growing or eating organic, so we eat chemically grown food produced by companies like Monsanto...so why not let them make it a little healthier, at least? It's already shit, so if you're gonna eat that shit, you might as well let them turn it blue, let it be a little less shitty. Right?

That's what I think, K.

1. I get that. But new things rarely work as they're intended the first time around. GMOs as we know them have only been around for 20 or so years - we're messing with stuff we have very limited knowledge of, and so there will be mistakes and problems at first. This does not seem like a good enough reason to me not to pursue something that could potentially solve so many other problems. I think the potential is there, even if we haven't quite hit on it yet, and if we give it enough time and get the right people working on it then we'll be coming away with some truly spectacular products.

2. Once we do have a fuller understanding of how GMOs work, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to genetically modify the produce to exhibit like or even greater characteristics of its heirloom/artisan counterpart that people so desire. I can only see it making the things we already like better once we understand what we're doing. And as for Monsanto and the other 'evil' corporations taking advantage of the situation... we're a capitalistic economy. We're supposed to make as much money as we can and trample across the competition while we're at it. People are gonna get screwed and shit on, it's a part of the world we live in. I don't have the time or care to feel bad for every little farmer that gets put out of business by a company that knows how to work the system.

3. Even most organic farmers use organic pesticides, and they're still found on and in the food when they reach our tables. Granted, I can't defend a GMO plant meant for public consumption if the only thing altered was its tolerance to pesticides so that the farmers can better utilize it, but as long as we have an option of pesticide-resistant produce and non-pesticide resistant produce, I don't see this as a serious issue. People need to make choices for themselves, and choosing what they're putting in their bodies is no exception. Now, if those plants overcame the non-GMO populations and we no longer had that choice, I could see the harm in that since they've been shown to transfer some of those toxins into the people that eat them, but until then I don't see what's wrong with the choice.
Most of these issues aren't so much a problem with GMOs but a problem with their creators and distributors. If there were other firms out there creating GMOs that focused on providing effects that were beneficial to the consumer (purple 'maters, for instance), do we still have all these same problems with them? Are GMOs inherently bad, or is it only the practices and procedures that have governed their creation and distribution that people have so many problems with? I just think there's far more good that could come of them than a lot of people give them credit for, and I'm hoping stuff like purple tomatoes that are actually better for you and add some neat color to a dish will cause people to look at them with a less critical eye.

I'm sure there are more reasons. Like, dude. God did not make the tomato this way. Obvs.

Touche.

 

[Varine]

GMO's aren't labelled, that's the whole issue is no one CAN decide what they want to eat because there isn't any requirement to tell you.

And in response to the capitalistic society thing, normally capitalistic societies don't make Congressional laws to protect companies like Monsanto from lawsuits. And if they did, you would think they would be smart enough to not call it The Monsanto Protection Act. Something more subtle might be put to good use here.

 

[seph ir oth]

If you're in America you probably already are eating GMO's. It's whatever to me, I'll get used to the color.

 

[KMilz]

GMO's aren't labelled, that's the whole issue is no one CAN decide what they want to eat because there isn't any requirement to tell you.

And in response to the capitalistic society thing, normally capitalistic societies don't make Congressional laws to protect companies like Monsanto from lawsuits. And if they did, you would think they would be smart enough to not call it The Monsanto Protection Act. Something more subtle might be put to good use here.

Isn't it safe to assume that if you're not buying specifically labeled organic produce that you're likely gonna be getting GMOs? There are gonna be some products where you won't be able to tell, but produce itself offers a pretty clear choice.

I can't say anything for sure because it's naught but speculation, but the way I see things working is that the government itself has been growing steadily in power and authority over the years, while the people in government have become more figurehead than official. It's the people taking advantage of our economic system, the few that are stupidly, stupidly wealthy, that are making the real decisions, and that's because money can buy practically anything in this world, presidencies and other political seats being no exception. That's how companies like Monsanto can have things like the Monsanto Protection Act passed without issue, and how they can keep it in place when everyone that's ever heard or read about it knows how corrupt it is. In my eyes, that's what capitalism is all about - if you play your cards right, you can take over the world one day. Can't blame someone for doing shit right.

 

[FireCat]

Hmm What's wrong with "natural organic?"

 

[KMilz]

Hmm What's wrong with "natural organic?"

It's expensive.

 

[FireCat]

It's expensive.

You think it would be less expensive?

 

[Varine]

Isn't it safe to assume that if you're not buying specifically labeled organic produce that you're likely gonna be getting GMOs? There are gonna be some products where you won't be able to tell, but produce itself offers a pretty clear choice.

I can't say anything for sure because it's naught but speculation, but the way I see things working is that the government itself has been growing steadily in power and authority over the years, while the people in government have become more figurehead than official. It's the people taking advantage of our economic system, the few that are stupidly, stupidly wealthy, that are making the real decisions, and that's because money can buy practically anything in this world, presidencies and other political seats being no exception. That's how companies like Monsanto can have things like the Monsanto Protection Act passed without issue, and how they can keep it in place when everyone that's ever heard or read about it knows how corrupt it is. In my eyes, that's what capitalism is all about - if you play your cards right, you can take over the world one day. Can't blame someone for doing shit right.

You could, I mean there is still risk of some cross contamination, but organic isn't necessarily better. The guidelines for being labelled organic are pretty... eh, they're dumb, there are loopholes, most food USDA certified organic is not completely organic. And it is extremely expensive, in comparison to the same item grown conventionally. Basically what most people want is to have two extremes: Organic on one end, conventionally grown in the middle, and genetically modified on the other side. Currently, as it stands, you know if you're getting organic, or you know if you're conventional OR GMO, but you don't know which of the two unless you did research prior to shopping. Plus, produce is one of many departments of food; GMO's are present in a lot of things, including meat that is fed with GMO grains, prepackaged foods, you know.

And that is exactly what capitalism has BECOME, but it used to be fairly defined. I mean, it's an invented system just like anything else - Adam Smith I think? And technically the blame is on the past populations (and current one). We wouldn't have this problem is anyone fucking voted on a local level, but no. Everyone goes in, votes for president, and has no idea who their Senator is. People are stupid, they buy shit from Earthbound Farms then complain that Monsanto is too powerful while using Google to figure out how to do their taxes that they don't think they should be paying after taping over the camera because the NSA is watching them and is gonna get 'em for that dub he smoked last week. Then they're foodstamps aren't enough or some shit... whatever, I mean the country (well, world, really) is full of hypocrites, but that doesn't inherently mean that access to clear information regarding what I'm eating shouldn't be easier.

 

[KMilz]

[...]but that doesn't inherently mean that access to clear information regarding what I'm eating shouldn't be easier.

I can't really argue with that, except that it would involve more government regulation - not necessarily bad, but generally something we'd hope to avoid. For all I know, a little more regulation on this matter could help speed things along with GMOs in the direction I'm hoping for. On the other hand, it could stagnate things and deal a blow to GMO research (Monsanto, obviously, but I'm sure they could find a way to work around whatever new laws were put into place), and for many that would be a victory... but I still think that the idea of GMOs is worth pursuing, way more than most any of the nonsense we hear about people doing studies for on this website, so the three choices over two wouldn't be a worthwhile trade off for me if it took a decade or two longer for them to start perfecting this shit. Otherwise, it's always nice to have more variety.

 

[Varine]

Of course it's worth pursuing. But so is stem cell research and biological epidemics.

 

[vypur85]

Well, DNA codes for proteins.
Some proteins are bad while some are good.
Theoretically, GMOs designed to produce good product, for whatever benefits they claim.

If the GMO is deemed safe for consumption, then it's safe.
Long term issues? Well, perhaps but pretty unlikely.

Whatever living shit that you eat contains DNA. But any DNA will not work without a perfect system. Ie, when you swallow that shit into your belly, everything is pretty much denatured. I can't see how modified genes can affect a person's body in a long term point of view. Unless, of course, the protein the gene codes is toxic.

Is organic food good? To me, there's nothing wrong with it. Besides being expensive.
Then again, how many of you actually know what or how they are produced?
How can a person consider food 'organic'?
Do you really think they didn't add any sort of pesticide or growth factor to increase the yield?
When you see vegetables sold in market and labelled 'Organic', you see most of the time it's perfectly shaped without any defects. Really? You think plants grow without defects? I'm pretty sure the farmers added 'something' to growing the plants.
Edit: Oh my. I just realised Varine already mention this shit in a different way. Oh well...

In summary, it's just marketing strategy.
The 'organic' label is just an excuse for people to sell the product at a higher price.

If you want true organic, grow them yourself. Pee on them. Give them nutrients.
Then cook and enjoy them...

That said, I still eat both. I don't complain.
We don't live forever.
Just enjoy it.

 

[Varine]

You obviously know very little about food or digestion.

 

[vypur85]

You obviously know very little about food or digestion.

Enlighten me. Please.