• Genetically-modified purple tomatoes heading for shops
    98 replies, posted
[quote]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.[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25885756[/url] The end is nigh...
[IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72512000/jpg/_72512337_tomat_01.jpg[/IMG] That's the image they used in the article Ehh...
oh no healthier plants with no proven negative effects
that picture reminds me of how I imagined chocolate-covered cherries growing on trees looked like. :v: seriously, they don't look purple enough.
I could see myself getting this shit confused with plums.
It starts with harmless-seeming purple tomatoes and then before long, you've got Tomacco.
How long before these are a reality? [img]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111105234433/spongebob/images/8/82/PrettyPatties.jpg[/img]
[t]http://assets.adamriff.com/images/purpleketchup.jpg[/t] plz
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;43667480]How long before these are a reality? [img]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111105234433/spongebob/images/8/82/PrettyPatties.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] you can already make this sort of thing. all you need is food coloring for the buns, the meat is going to be a harder proposition, though if you did make a tofu burger in the same vein, you could color the tofu patties instead.
[QUOTE=J!NX;43667486][t]http://assets.adamriff.com/images/purpleketchup.jpg[/t] plz[/QUOTE] Man that looks gross.
[QUOTE=Saturn V;43667505]Man that looks gross.[/QUOTE] you wanna fight? bub?
They look like plumbs from a distance.
[QUOTE=J!NX;43667486][t]http://assets.adamriff.com/images/purpleketchup.jpg[/t] plz[/QUOTE] This reminds me of something out of Goosebumps. I think there was an actual story that had something like this, though I don't remember which one it was.
I can already hear Alex Jones ranting about this.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43667390][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25885756[/url] The end is nigh...[/QUOTE] I'm going to bop you on the nose with a pair of my purple tomatoes
Somehow i still don't see a problem with gene food. I mean if we can perfect a plant which is used for human use we should do that.
[QUOTE=TorashVD;43667686]Somehow i still don't see a problem with gene food. I mean if we can perfect a plant which is used for human use we should do that.[/QUOTE] Most people who have problems with GMO don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
[QUOTE=Cockslap;43667424]oh no, healthier plants with no proven negative effects[/QUOTE] Why is this getting dumbs.
[QUOTE=TorashVD;43667686]Somehow i still don't see a problem with gene food. I mean if we can perfect a plant which is used for human use we should do that.[/QUOTE]Any evidence that GMO foods are harmful is negligible at best, and within that very crap and better studies have come up with different findings in every case I've seen. The problem falls on the corporations that are responsible for them, basically being incredibly corrupt and abusive towards everyone and trying to extort money from farmers they sell them to. [editline]25th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=katbug;43667727]Why is this getting dumbs.[/QUOTE]Dumb people.
[QUOTE=katbug;43667727]Why is this getting dumbs.[/QUOTE] Smoking didn't have proven negative health effects for thirty years. We shouldn't be so quick to trust something on day one.
[QUOTE=Monkah;43667790]Smoking didn't have proven negative health effects for thirty years. We shouldn't be so quick to trust something on day one.[/QUOTE]These are two entirely different things. These plants are well studied and very, very carefully designed.
[QUOTE=katbug;43667727]Why is this getting dumbs.[/QUOTE] I'd rather wait for some studying to be done than to accept this right off the bat. Especially if they aren't sure if it could improve nutritional value. Also it has yet to be studied [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43667811]These are two entirely different things. These plants are well studied and very, very carefully designed.[/QUOTE] No not yet [quote]The tomatoes were developed at the John Innes Centre in Norwich where Prof Cathie Martin [B][U]hopes[/U] the first delivery of large quantities of juice will allow researchers to [u]investigate[/u] its potential.[/B][/quote] Dumb me down, but I'm waiting till' the investigation on it's potential is done first, I'm not eating stuff on the first month it gets released
[QUOTE=Monkah;43667790]Smoking didn't have proven negative health effects for thirty years. We shouldn't be so quick to trust something on day one.[/QUOTE]It's ill effects were known in even the 1600's (refer to "A Counterblaste to Tobacco"), it was only in the 50s that it's link to cancer specifically was recognised. Before that, people just thought it smelt bad, made you breathless etc.
[QUOTE=lolo;43667851]I'd rather wait for some studying to be done than to accept this right off the bat. Especially if they aren't sure if it could improve nutritional value. Also it has yet to be studied No not yet[/QUOTE]Yes, they are. They literally have to be. This is wider range studying which comes with just about everything.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43667897]Yes, they are. They literally have to be. This is wider range studying which comes with just about everything.[/QUOTE] Well uh, where can I see it.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43667811]These are two entirely different things. These plants are well studied and very, very carefully designed.[/QUOTE] Plus, there (hopefully) isn't a giant industry working to keep them under wraps, unlike with cigarettes.
[QUOTE=Monkah;43667790]Smoking didn't have proven negative health effects for thirty years. We shouldn't be so quick to trust something on day one.[/QUOTE] I'd really like to assume that our standards and methods have improved since the the 1870s. Or even earlier, if you want to get technical. I guess we can say 1950s if you want to talk about when the first solid articles outlining it's negative health effects came into play. Considering how, currently, companies producing these genetically modified foods could get sued at the drop of a thimble if someone found a legitimate health problem with them - I'm sure they're being just a little more than cautious. To go against my own point though, we use to think Agent Orange was moderately safe. Rather than play sides, I encourage you to do your own research. It's sort of hard to find scientific articles against GMOs, though - you're mostly going to find "10 Reasons why GMOs are bad!" with absolutely no sources backing it.
[QUOTE=Cockslap;43667424]oh no healthier plants with no proven negative effects[/QUOTE] It only takes one fuck up to screw up the food chain.
For those wanting articles to research, here's a neat and tidy list organized by the Italian University of Perugia and Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policies, Rome. [URL="http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ge-crops-safety-pub-list-1.xls"]1738 Articles Categorized in Excel Format[/URL]
[QUOTE=Monkah;43667790]Smoking didn't have proven negative health effects for thirty years. We shouldn't be so quick to trust something on day one.[/QUOTE] Hasn't smoking existed for hundreds or thousands of years?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.