New GMO Tomato: More Nutritious, Stays Fresh Longer

angelatc

Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
50,703
oh yeah, and can help fight cancer:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/purple-...-coming-soon-grocery-shelves-canada-uk-268021

By introducing a gene from the snapdragon, genetic engineers have imbued the tomato with the healing cancer-fighting power of compounds nature placed in less popular (and more expensive) fruits, such as blackberries and cranberries.

“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.”


The purple tomato may help improve the nutritional value of meals from pizza to pasta, with another variety already under development for use in skin care products. The fruit’s color comes from high levels of anthocyanins, compounds found in blueberries, blackberries, and other dark-colored berries. Compared to nature’s tomato, the new plant shows anti-inflammatory benefits — also slowing the growth of soft-tissue carcinoma in laboratory mice genetically designed for cancer experimentation.

So it's bringing the price of eating healthy down! A win-win!
 
good for the person that is modifying plants for health benefits, not just to accept more toxic chemicals without dying.
im not a fan of unnatural food, but im sure there is a market for it. look at how well fast food does.

i think i will just eat tomatoes and blueberries separately as i have always done.
 
No word on the taste and texture? I'll eat them as I always do. Heirlooms from the garden.
 
Nifty :) ...but I think I'm going to let other people be the guinea pigs on this one...

Honestly, I don't think the consumers will go for it, and here's what I am basing that on: Milk. Milk goes bad or loses nutrients or something when exposed to the light. SO the manufacturers made a big push to turn the clear plastic jugs into yellow plastic jugs, which would serve to keep the product fresher.

People didn't like it. I don't know why. Maybe because they couldn't see how much milk was left in the jug since it wasn't opaque, or maybe because the bottles were yellow and subconsciously they were conditioned against seeing milk in a yellow container.

People are fickle creatures, and I'm not convinced that the "purple tomato" is something they'll embrace.

And of course, I'd be curious as to how it tastes....that's the deal breaker for me. If it doesn't taste like a fresh tomato, I don't care how good it is for me.
 
God said, don't mix the seeds. This goes way beyond mixing seeds into messing with the seeds DNA. That is a mistake. Disobeying God will only give you problems.
 
Last edited:
Mmm frog DNA spliced into a tomato DNA--no thanks. I'll take my heirloom beefsteak and Roma tomatoes any day of the week. The problem is we better make sure we grow ours in a greenhouse where they cannot get infested with GMO's.


And What If I Spoke of Despair


…perhaps a huge silence

might interrupt this sadness

of never understanding ourselves

and of threatening ourselves with death.

—Pablo Neruda


And what if I spoke of despair—who doesn’t

feel it? Who doesn’t know the way it seizes,

leaving us limp, deafened by the slosh

of our own blood, rushing

through the narrow, personal

channels of grief. It’s beauty

that brings it on, calls it out from the wings

for one more song. Rain

pooled on a fallen oak leaf, reflecting

the pale cloudy sky, dark canopy

of foliage not yet fallen. Or the red moon

in September, so large you have to pull over

at the top of Bayona and stare, like a photo

of a lover in his uniform, not yet gone;

or your own self, as a child,

on that day your family stayed

at the sea, watching the sun drift down,

lazy as a beach ball, and you fell asleep with sand

in the crack of your smooth behind.

That’s when you can’t deny it. Water. Air.

They’re still here, like a mother’s palms,

sweeping hair off our brow, her scent

swirling around us. But now your own

car is pumping poison, delivering its fair

share of destruction. We’ve created a salmon

with the red, white, and blue shining on one side.

Frog genes spliced into tomatoes—as if

the tomato hasn’t been humiliated enough.

I heard a man argue that genetic

engineering was more dangerous

than a nuclear bomb. Should I be thankful

he was alarmed by one threat, or worried

he’d gotten used to the other? Maybe I can’t

offer you any more than you can offer me—

but what if I stopped on the trail, with shreds

of manzanita bark lying in russet scrolls

and yellow bay leaves, little lanterns

in the dim afternoon, and cradled despair

in my arms, the way I held my own babies

after they’d fallen asleep, when there was no

reason to hold them, only

I didn’t want to put them down.

~ Ellen Bass
 
Mmm frog DNA spliced into a tomato DNA--no thanks.


I think someone spliced a frog brain into yours. One sentence in, and you're wrong already.

The gene is already present in the tomato, but it's dormant. The material from the snap-dragon just serves to wake it up.
 
I think someone spliced a frog brain into yours. One sentence in, and you're wrong already.

The gene is already present in the tomato, but it's dormant. The material from the snap-dragon just serves to wake it up.


LOL! One is done by nature and the other in man-made. Genetic engineering, by its very definition, is not a natural process. Man playing God is a very dangerous thing. But I don't expect you to understand that.
 
LOL! One is done by nature and the other in man-made. Genetic engineering, by its very definition, is not a natural process. Man playing God is a very dangerous thing. But I don't expect you to understand that.
No, but it's neither new nor inherently bad. People have been tinkering with "natural" cross-pollination, cross-breeding, etc for thousands of years. Ever try tangelos?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangelo
 
Last edited:
LOL! One is done by nature and the other in man-made. Genetic engineering, by its very definition, is not a natural process. Man playing God is a very dangerous thing. But I don't expect you to understand that.


Fire is dangerous too. Yet we managed to keep a grip on it.

Resisting technology because you're afraid of it is sort of sad, because it means you don't understand it.
 
The technology itself isn't bad, but we do need to keep a grip on it. We haven't been doing a good job of that, thus far. If they let their pollen fly into organic fields, they better not sue over patent infringement.
 
Last edited:
No, but it's neither new nor inherently bad. People have been tinkering with "natural" cross-pollination, cross-breeding, etc for thousands of years. Ever try tangelos?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangelo


Forcing DNA from one species to another is not farming, it is pharming.




The rationale and impetus for genetic engineering and genetic modification is the ‘central dogma’ of molecular biology that assumes DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) carries all the instructions for making an organism.


Individual ‘genetic messages’ in DNA faithfully copied into RNA (ribosenucleic acid), is then translated into a protein via a genetic code; the protein determining a particular trait, such as herbicide tolerance, or insect resistance; one gene, one character. If it were really as simple as that, genetic modification would work perfectly. Unfortunately this simplistic picture is an illusion.


Instead of linear causal chains leading from DNA to RNA to protein and downstream biological functions, complex feed-forward and feed-back cycles interconnect organism and environment at all levels to mark and change RNA and DNA down the generations … Organisms work by intercommunication at every level, and not by control.


… In order to survive, the organism needs to engage in natural genetic modification in real time, an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life in which RNA and DNA respond to, and participate fully in ‘downstream’ biological functions.


That is why organisms and ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the crude, artificial GM RNA and DNA created by human genetic engineers. It is also why genetic modification can probably never be safe. More importantly, the human organism shapes its own development and evolutionary future; that is why we must take responsible action to ban all environmental releases of GMOs now.”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/06/genetic-modification.aspx
 
The other day, I saw grapefruit the size of a volleyball. They had a different name, but I don't think they were pummelos, unless there are some pummelos that are round.
 
The technology itself isn't bad, but we do need to keep a grip on it. We haven't been doing a good job of that, thus far. If they let their pollen fly into organic fields, they better not sue over patent infringement.

Cross pollination problems predate GMO foods. And for the record, Monsanto has never sued anybody that did not intentionally plant their seeds.
 
Forcing DNA from one species to another is not farming, it is pharming.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/06/genetic-modification.aspx

That's an opinion piece, not backed up by any evidence. Why isn't he bitching about the very first successful GMO product, insulin?


Genes can be moved between species.




]Because of the universality of the genetic code, the polymerases of one organism can accurately transcribe a gene from another organism.

For example, different species of bacteria obtain antibiotic resistance genes by exchanging small chromosomes called plasmids.

In the early 1970s, researchers in California used this type of gene exchange to move a "recombinant" DNA molecule between two different species. By the early 1980s, other scientists adapted the technique and spliced a human gene into E. coli to make recombinant human insulin and growth hormone.


Recombinant DNA technology — genetic engineering — has made it possible to gain insight into how genes work. In cases where it is impractical to test gene function using animal models, genes can first be expressed in bacteria or cell cultures. Similarly, the phenotypes of gene mutations and the efficacy of drugs and other agents can be tested using recombinant systems.

Not only can genes move between species, they do it all by themselves.


You can fret about all you want to about this being your God's domain, but my God is the one that passes out wisdom and knowledge to His people.
 
Cross pollination problems predate GMO foods. And for the record, Monsanto has never sued anybody that did not intentionally plant their seeds.

Saving seeds from a harvest and then re-planting them should never be illegal. That practice is as old as farming itself. Farmers didn't steal the pollen, and don't want it. And when crops are genetically modified in order to incorporate pesticide, it should be the organic farmers suing, not the other way around.
 
Back
Top