GMO tomatoes have been approved for home gardeners - Beware

[worth1]

All this technology and all they can come up with is an ugly purple tomato.
Why not a tomato that doesn't drop blossoms in the heat.

[TahoeQueen]

I agree that is a terrible looking tomato.

[worth1]

NPR on the tomato.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... -gardeners

[DriftlessRoots]

I’m really close to ordering some (if there are any left!) but I don’t need that many seeds—or any seeds, for that matter.

[Rajun Gardener]

GMO for home gardeners isn't a good thing IMO. What happens when we cross it with heirlooms and can be detected by a gene, DNA or other encoded genetic material? Did everyone forget the Monsanto/Roundup ready corn lawsuits?

[alicej]

The purple tomato people seem to be ok with home gardeners sharing seed and breeding with it. They are not ok with sales of any seeds or seedlings with the genes without consent (which presumably means payment). I don’t know if they have considered the cross over between hobby gardeners, hobby breeders and professional breeders and seed companies.

It would be interesting to read restrictions that presumably will accompany the seed packets.

[bower]

If they require consent to sell seeds or seedlings with the genes, then they have a patent on the genes.
That's enough for me to know I don't want their patented genes crossing into my heirlooms or breeding lines.

I think the 'novelty fruit' distribution to home gardeners is probably a strategy for changing attitudes toward GMO. They see the fabulous work done by contemporary breeders to create tomatoes with stripes, antho, and other visually novel traits, and they can see that the same people who reject GMO's are attracted to the novel traits and enthusiastic about unusual tomatoes. So this may just be a way of getting their foot in the door.

[Kurt]

Reminds me of the Kumato craze back then.

[Doffer]

You have to sue them when their GMO genes end up in your heirloom varieties.

[TomatoNut95]

I love nearly all tomatoes with a passion (although I prefer heirlooms to hybrids) but I stand firm against this new Frankenstein GMO so-called tomato. There are plenty of black and purple tomatoes out there that don't have snapdragon genes in them. Bleah!
Improving food does not mean injecting genes from other plants into stuff. Food doesn't need improving. Human minds do.

[worth1]

White Persian cat X purple snap dragon.
I'll take two please.

purple-beautiful-cat-123601625.png

[Mark_Thompson]

You have to sue them when their GMO genes end up in your heirloom varieties.

Unfortunately it’s more likely to go the other way, they’ve certainly got more lawyers than I can afford.

Related topic did anyone read a Michael Crichton book back in the day that had to do with gene patents? I believe it had a courtroom aspect to it at some point but I’m hazy on that.

[maxjohnson]

So this may just be a way of getting their foot in the door.

A trojan horse is a better way to put it.

This will make me research twice if thinking buying new variety of blue tomatoes in the future, at least not anything with antho flesh.

[worth1]

You have to sue them when their GMO genes end up in your heirloom varieties.

Unfortunately it’s more likely to go the other way, they’ve certainly got more lawyers than I can afford.

Related topic did anyone read a Michael Crichton book back in the day that had to do with gene patents? I believe it had a courtroom aspect to it at some point but I’m hazy on that.

You're talking about the book Next I believe.
I've read it about three times so far.
It's about a Chimpanzee and a Parrot with human genes.

[Mark_Thompson]

@worth1 Yeah the chimpanzee part definitely rings a bell. I should read that again, love Crichton.

[worth1]

@worth1 Yeah the chimpanzee part definitely rings a bell. I should read that again, love Crichton.

The newer movie rise of the planet of the apes totally ripped Crichton off.

[MissS]

I for one am very concerned about GMO's in our food supply. Since their introduction we have seen a significant rise in food allergies in our children. When I grew up there was never such thing as a peanut allergy, only a few wheat allergies and corn was fine as a staple to your diet. Today the schools are filled with plenty of food allergies and many of them are from foods known to have a high occurrence of being GMO. I find the numbers alarming.

[worth1]

What else changed in the 90s?
You have to look at everything not just one particular thing you don't like and say it's the cause.
My particular belief is kids started staying in the house more and not getting out in the environment.
And hygiene washing too often.
I'm not saying GMOs aren't part of it in some cases but I can guarantee taking them away won't take away the food allergies.
Growing up there was always those particular kids I knew that stayed sick all the time.
The kids that weren't allowed to run around and get dirty.
It was in the News that Mila Kunis didn't wash her kids all the time for this same reason.
People need to be exposed to everything they can within reason at the earliest age possible.
I've known sickly guys at work that shower at least twice a day.
And they eat highly processed fast food all the time.

My argument against GMO is the simple fact in human history the better we get at something the worse it sometimes gets.
We built really fast cars before we started installing safety features.
We went from healthy hamburgers that were made to order to unhealthy hamburgers that pop out every second that come from industrial cattle.
It's the age old statement, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4617537/

[bower]

I think the biggest issue with GMO foods already out there is that the gene tweaking was intended to facilitate the use of glyphosate. So it's not only whatever the genetic modification might cause (eg BT in the food affecting your gut microbiota, certainly possible) but also the presence of a lot of residue of glyphosate in our foods. It was so strong-arm marketed as "completely safe" they even implied you could drink it, so why would we care about residues in the food.
And TBH there are non-GMO issues around the glyphosate, since it's "so safe" they have been (and some still are) spraying it on grain crops - oats, wheat - to kill and dry down the crop just before harvest. That's how big ag works - efficiency. Sadly this means our kids are getting a dose of endocrine disruptors with their breakfast cereal, unless you pony up and buy organic no matter the cost.
So I agree with you Patti that the rise of allergies is definitely associated with GMOs and their agricultural practices.

I would expect that the anthocyanin genes in this purple tomato are harmless. They aren't pesticides nor associated with herbicide use, the way the other GMOs have been.
That being said, there's always a risk that tinkering with the genome could cause some unintended effects. And since the solanacea do produce nasty toxins as part of their genetic makeup, it's something to watch out for in case of modifications of tomato and potato, which might alter the plant's response to some unforeseen environmental trigger.
Just 2 cents for the cautious approach.

[karstopography]

I for one am very concerned about GMO's in our food supply. Since their introduction we have seen a significant rise in food allergies in our children. When I grew up there was never such thing as a peanut allergy, only a few wheat allergies and corn was fine as a staple to your diet. Today the schools are filled with plenty of food allergies and many of them are from foods known to have a high occurrence of being GMO. I find the numbers alarming.

It is very interesting because I’ve seen the same thing, food allergies, especially to peanuts, were unknown or almost unknown in the 1960s and 1970s and look where things are today.

Something has most obviously changed, but what is it?

The lists and numbers of people with food allergies and food intolerances is astronomical.