Genetically-modified purple tomatoes heading for shops
98 replies, posted
Couldn't they engineer them to be more healthy AND red? I love tomatoes, but don't find them purple being very appetizing.
[QUOTE=J!NX;43667486][t]http://assets.adamriff.com/images/purpleketchup.jpg[/t]
plz[/QUOTE]
the green ketchup was way better
[QUOTE=cqbcat;43674966]Couldn't they engineer them to be more healthy AND red? I love tomatoes, but don't find them purple being very appetizing.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SmX3tYqpYec/TUcUt58yByI/AAAAAAAAAL8/f7hQvL2Ih9M/s1600/purple-carrot.jpg[/img]
the purple tomatoes are just the beginning :v:
[QUOTE=cqbcat;43674966]Couldn't they engineer them to be more healthy AND red? I love tomatoes, but don't find them purple being very appetizing.[/QUOTE]
The compound that is in the tomatos that makes them healthier is what gives them the coloration.
So no.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;43675025][img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SmX3tYqpYec/TUcUt58yByI/AAAAAAAAAL8/f7hQvL2Ih9M/s1600/purple-carrot.jpg[/img]
the purple tomatoes are just the beginning :v:[/QUOTE]
The saints will rule everything.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;43674777]Looks like 'ol Zenny's gone off his meds again.[/QUOTE]
n1ce rebuttal pr0 zinger
I am growing my own tomatoes. I have 3 varieties. Why would I ever want store bought produce?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43674763][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptDd9ftNaq8[/media][/QUOTE]
#5 is based on a commentary piece that is designed to sway the opinion of the reader while avoiding facts. It makes unfair comparisons of yield between undeveloped regions being developed to change of seed base. A change of seed base, which based on the info within it shows an average yield increase of 0.4% with a theoretical of 3-4%.
#4 is pretty simple really, in those 15 years pesticide use has increased by 7%, while the population has increased in the us by 15%. so we are using 93% of the pesticide per capita. I'd call that less pesticide.
#3 is non peer reviewed research and preliminary testing. Nothing final or conclusive.
#2 People who argue this aren't the brightest, but the description in the video are not what selective breeding is.
#1 Never underestimate human stupidity. Remember monosodium glutamate? Guess what, equivalents of it and stuff that metabolizes into it are labeled as natural flavors.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43673837]This is exactly what I'm talking about.
You're treating science like a religion, like something that you can 'believe in', that's 100% correct because someone performed a test once and got a result.
Science must be falsifiable, or it's not science.[/QUOTE]
Yeah here's the thing dude. Scientists have actually done more than one test on it. In fact, they've been doing them consistently for over 20 years and not only have they found nothing each time, but all of the meta-analyses have found that pretty much all of the studies are in agreement with each other.
So the default now is that these foods are safe. Your challenge is to actually try and provide strong evidence as to why we shouldn't think that to be the case, perhaps with a study so groundbreaking it overturns the past 40 years of agricultural research.
Most importantly of all, I would like to hear what specific problems these foods/crops cause, and by what mechanism.
What i want. Is truely -Blue- food.
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3vlglh07B1qgickko6_1280.jpg[/img]
I would eat the shit out of those.
Guys GMO really can do much much more than just color food.
It's literally one of the ways that could potentially stop world hunger, and this isn't even remotely a hyperbole.
[QUOTE=proch;43675854]Guys GMO really can do much much more than just color food.
It's literally one of the ways that could potentially stop world hunger, and this isn't even remotely a hyperbole.[/QUOTE]
Rapid Growing Food is a potential thing. So yes this is true.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43674936]Except it's not performing a test [i]once[/i], it's performing a test dozens of times through a dozen variations while recording literally everything that happens during those tests. And it's typically not just one person or group thats performing the tests, theres going to be other people and groups that are going to be doing the same tests across the entire fucking planet.
Science isn't infallible but you'd be hard pressed to disprove most of the facts we've learned over the years.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and still anomalies occur that could have never been predicted - even with the most foolproof, 100% airtight theories.
With GMOs you can't risk a single rare anomaly arising, ever, as the results could be catastrophic.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43675745]Yeah here's the thing dude. Scientists have actually done more than one test on it. In fact, they've been doing them consistently for over 20 years and not only have they found nothing each time, but all of the meta-analyses have found that pretty much all of the studies are in agreement with each other.
So the default now is that these foods are safe. Your challenge is to actually try and provide strong evidence as to why we shouldn't think that to be the case, perhaps with a study so groundbreaking it overturns the past 40 years of agricultural research.
Most importantly of all, I would like to hear what specific problems these foods/crops cause, and by what mechanism.[/QUOTE]
Your challenge is to try and provide strong evidence that rare and unexpected events have never taken place. If you look, you'll actually find that unexpected anomalies emerge in almost every discipline or field possible.
It could be simply that a company, with widespread use and relaxed tolerance, pushes out a GMO to solve a particular world problem in a careless manner, and irreversibly fucks up some other ecosystem without realising it.
The only way to test GMOs to a rigorous enough standard is to adopt them widely, but by then it'll already be too late to do anything about it, if time prevails.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43676080]Yeah and still anomalies occur that could have never been predicted - even with the most foolproof, 100% airtight theories.
With GMOs you can't risk a single rare anomaly arising, ever, as the results could be catastrophic.
Your challenge is to try and provide strong evidence that rare and unexpected events have never taken place. If you look, you'll actually find that unexpected anomalies emerge in almost every discipline or field possible.
It could be simply that a company, with widespread use and relaxed tolerance, pushes out a GMO to solve a particular world problem in a careless manner, and irreversibly fucks up some other ecosystem without realising it.
The only way to test GMOs to a rigorous enough standard is to adopt them widely, but by then it'll already be too late to do anything about it, if time prevails.[/QUOTE]
Can you actually tell us anything concrete or solid about any risks? (Or even fucking describe how they operate).
All you are doing is going "it might be dangerous but i cant explain why"
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43676080]Yeah and still anomalies occur that could have never been predicted - even with the most foolproof, 100% airtight theories.
With GMOs you can't risk a single rare anomaly arising, ever, as the results could be catastrophic.
Your challenge is to try and provide strong evidence that rare and unexpected events have never taken place. If you look, you'll actually find that unexpected anomalies emerge in almost every discipline or field possible.
It could be simply that a company, with widespread use and relaxed tolerance, pushes out a GMO to solve a particular world problem in a careless manner, and irreversibly fucks up some other ecosystem without realising it.
The only way to test GMOs to a rigorous enough standard is to adopt them widely, but by then it'll already be too late to do anything about it, if time prevails.[/QUOTE]
You are assuming that us fucking with genome of a thing makes it VoLaTiLe and that it can suddenly cause an apocalypse.
You realize that we aren't doing anything unnatural, right? Arbitrary changes of genetic code - that's literally how evolution works, and if it didn't, you wouldn't be there, spewing misinformed demagogy.
Nature literally works with things being one way and suddenly turning to be another way and the ecosystem adapts to it. Our changes to genome of a thing isn't going to make the tomatoes go and devour all other plants, we can't do that even if we wanted, and mainly, if it was [I]possible[/I], the tomatoes would have probably figured it out on their own, through evolutionary development.
All we do is take a thing and give it properties that fit [I]us[/I]. From natural point of view, selective breeding is just forced evolution in some particular direction, and genetic modification is just stepping that up and cutting the chase with megageneration long-time progress. We [B]can't[/B] just randomly create some archtomato that would rule the world, we aren't really ABLE to do that.
Yeah, if we specifically took a species and made it as fast spreading and as resilient as possible, we could get something that would grow out of control and take up a lot of place but
a) Nobody Is Trying That
b) It's Never Going To Be As Global As You Want To Believe
Plants are always going to be limited to a particular biome in which they will grow the best, then some where they will sorta survive, and then places where they won't grow at all, and that's something that would take a FUCKTON of specifically targeted engineering to achieve, which as I said, nobody is doing, and it would be most probably at the cost of the speed at which it spreads and it's vulnerability to some specialized predator etc etc.
You are also forgetting that almost any positive trait comes at cost of a negative one, as there is no such thing as universal perfect lifeform. You make something grow real fast, it becomes excessively vulnerable to drought. You make something poisonous so there won't be parasites on it; you just likely stunted it's spreading rate as there will be less stuff willing to get near it to spread the seeds and shit.
You are stuck with a mental image of "genetic modification" being assigned to FOKKEN WOLVERINE MAN, CAN'T BREAK HIM HE WILL HEAL EVERYTHING AND SLICE YOU TO BITS COZ HE BE MUTANT MAN
That's not how things work. Everything we grow and engineer will always have to compete with species that evolved for billions of years and you can't just assume they will suddenly be better than everything else, it will just suit our NEEDS, better, and even then, you usually have to work with compromises.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43676102]Can you actually tell us anything concrete or solid about any risks? (Or even fucking describe how they operate).
All you are doing is going "it might be dangerous but i cant explain why"[/QUOTE]
Sure.
Unexpected, rare and impossible-to-predict events (black swans) underlie almost all human achievement.
However, unexpected, rare and impossible-to-predict events go both ways. Thus negative unpredictable events also exist.
It's impossible to avoid this entirely. What you can do, however, on an individual basis, is become aware of this mechanic, how it relates to pretty much everything, and build systems that are designed with that in mind.
I'll give you some examples of this in the real world:-
As things scale up, their potential to harm as a result of an unexpected event increases.
In business and economics it is possible to build something to the point where it is 'too big to fail' - look at banks for instance. In pretty much every country you have a centralised banking infrastructure that depends on the continued existence and success of the four or five banks in order for the financial system to continue functioning.
When they flounder they absolutely [I]must[/I] be bailed out:- Allowing them to die the deaths they brought about by their own recklessness would be catastrophically harmful. Unfortunately, doing so opens the floodgates to further erroneous activity.
This risk could be mitigated by utilising many (hundreds of) smaller localised banks. They would be much more responsible with their smaller capital, and bailing them out would be far easier than bailing out a large bank.
On a personal level it is possible to mitigate risk in investment by firstly never investing an amount that would harm you if it became null - if it does harm you, rethink your ethos - and secondly, making hundreds of smaller investments as opposed to depending on the success or continuation of one.
The risk/reward can be scaled up to exceed the potential of the other, and even if some of the smaller investments collapsed - a few of them might come true. Even if they all fail, your ethos should leave you unharmed (unless you were just pretending to not care).
The basis of the above is that small, localised and contained risks enable a system to benefit and grow from disorder, as opposed to becoming overwhelmed and destroyed in the event of catastrophe, in the way that large centralised systems are.
GMOs are clearly not a small, localised risk - but a large, centralised risk that has the potential to destroy our way of life if an unexpected catastrophe occurs.
Recommended reading is [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Antifragile-Things-that-Gain-Disorder/dp/0141038225]Antifragile: Things that gain from Disorder[/url] and N.N.Taleb's other books.
[editline]26th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43676371]
Nature literally works with things being one way and suddenly turning to be another way and the ecosystem adapts to it. Our changes to genome of a thing isn't going to make the tomatoes go and devour all other plants, we can't do that even if we wanted, and mainly, if it was [I]possible[/I], the tomatoes would have probably figured it out on their own, through evolutionary development.[/QUOTE]
If nature is anything, it's black swans.
The Earth is a black swan.
Organisms are a black swan.
You are a black swan.
[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]
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/05a1315f1d19ab807131e66f0cd1624f/tumblr_mwrsvwXoVx1scx9owo1_500.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43676438]Sure.
Unexpected, rare and impossible-to-predict events (black swans) underlie almost all human achievement.
However, unexpected, rare and impossible-to-predict events go both ways. Thus negative unpredictable events also exist.
It's impossible to avoid this entirely. What you can do, however, on an individual basis, is become aware of this mechanic, how it relates to pretty much everything, and build systems that are designed with that in mind.
I'll give you some examples of this in the real world:-
As things scale up, their potential to harm as a result of an unexpected event increases.
In business and economics it is possible to build something to the point where it is 'too big to fail' - look at banks for instance. In pretty much every country you have a centralised banking infrastructure that depends on the continued existence and success of the four or five banks in order for the financial system to continue functioning.
When they flounder they absolutely [I]must[/I] be bailed out:- Allowing them to die the deaths they brought about by their own recklessness would be catastrophically harmful. Unfortunately, doing so opens the floodgates to further erroneous activity.
This risk could be mitigated by utilising many (hundreds of) smaller localised banks. They would be much more responsible with their smaller capital, and bailing them out would be far easier than bailing out a large bank.
On a personal level it is possible to mitigate risk in investment by firstly never investing an amount that would harm you if it became null - if it does harm you, rethink your ethos - and secondly, making hundreds of smaller investments as opposed to depending on the success or continuation of one.
The risk/reward can be scaled up to exceed the potential of the other, and even if some of the smaller investments collapsed - a few of them might come true. Even if they all fail, your ethos should leave you unharmed (unless you were just pretending).
The basis of the above is that small, localised and contained risks enable a system to benefit and grow from disorder, as opposed to becoming overwhelmed and destroyed in the event of catastrophe, in the way that large centralised systems are.
GMOs are clearly not a small, localised risk - but a large, centralised risk that has the potential to destroy our way of life if an unexpected catastrophe occurs.
Recommended reading is [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Antifragile-Things-that-Gain-Disorder/dp/0141038225]Antifragile: Things that gain from Disorder[/url] and N.N.Taleb's other books.
[/quote]
You are comparing behavior of arbitrary economical system which we [I]KNOW[/I] to be unstable and faulty at core, with many people presenting supported social and mathematical evidence of why is it so, which is proven to be true through time, which is holding up for arbitrary social reasons...
...with something that survived billions of years [I]only[/I] because it's capable of self regulation, and practically infinite correction of arbitrary mistakes and oddities (which, our GMO crops will be nothing but, in the big scheme of things, no matter if they turn out good or bad) and actually is based on that to actually continue and progress.
Completely wrong and asinine comparison that brings nothing to the table.
[quote]
[editline]26th January 2014[/editline]
If nature is anything, it's black swans.
The Earth is a black swan.
Organisms are a black swan.
You are a black swan.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Which is why our purple swan won't be anything out of ordinary and by principle can't really change much.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43676438]Recommended reading is [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Antifragile-Things-that-Gain-Disorder/dp/0141038225]Antifragile: Things that gain from Disorder[/url] and N.N.Taleb's other books.[/QUOTE]
can you actually tell me by what process a GMO will go out of control instead of pontificating about something entirely unrelated
yeah you are saying "it if goes out of whack then we get huge problems" well no shit sherlock.
can you actually tell me in what way a GMO will go out of control? what will cause it? why cant scientific studies see this despite decades of research?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43676590]can you actually tell me by what process a GMO will go out of control instead of pontificating about something entirely unrelated
yeah you are saying "it if goes out of whack then we get huge problems" well no shit sherlock.
can you actually tell me in what way a GMO will go out of control? what will cause it? why cant scientific studies see this despite decades of research?[/QUOTE]
The thing about unexpected and unpredictable event is that you neither expect them, nor can predict them.
The likelihood of something going wrong, however marginal, is not impossible.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43676629]The thing about unexpected and unpredictable event is that you neither expect them, nor can predict them.[/QUOTE]
come on what is this?
if you want people to take you seriously about gmos you have to actually provide evidence as to their problems
[quote]The likelihood of something going wrong, however marginal, is not impossible.[/QUOTE]
i could say this about literally anything, this is useless waffle
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43676629]The thing about unexpected and unpredictable event is that you neither expect them, nor can predict them.
The likelihood of something going wrong, however marginal, is not impossible.[/QUOTE]
Do you realize that makes you stand against literally any and all progress that might eventually happen globally, right?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43676646]come on what is this?
if you want people to take you seriously about gmos you have to actually provide evidence as to their problems
i could say this about literally anything, this is useless waffle[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43676652]Do you realize that makes you stand against literally any and all progress that might eventually happen globally, right?[/QUOTE]
We're running in circles here.
There's a difference between progression and advancement via small and localised risk and altering the world's food supply, as I pointed out previously in this thread.
Very few things have the potential to globally effect the world, GMOs is one of them.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43676688]Very few things have the potential to globally effect the world, GMOs is one of them.[/QUOTE]
Very good, so does vaccination.
Explain what makes GMOs bad? I can use your same logic to argue against vaccination.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43676756]Very good, so does vaccination.
Explain what makes GMOs bad? I can use your same logic to argue against vaccination.[/QUOTE]
When Vaccination goes wrong you get [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis]Iatrogenesis[/url]
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43676795]When Vaccination goes wrong you get [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis"]Iatrogenesis[/URL][/QUOTE]
Which prevented us from using vaccines?
[editline]26th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43676688]We're running in circles here.
There's a difference between progression and advancement via small and localised risk and altering the world's food supply, as I pointed out previously in this thread.
Very few things have the potential to globally effect the world, GMOs is one of them.[/QUOTE]
You still didn't explain [B]where[/B] is the potential of GMOs to globally affect the world as compared to selectively bred species or, you know, natural random (spoiler: you can't because it doesn't exist).
I love this fallacy that people seem to have of GMO researchers being like 50s pulp magazine mad professors randomly injecting plants with stuff and just chucking it into the food supply.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43676688]
There's a difference between progression and advancement via small and localised risk and altering the world's food supply, as I pointed out previously in this thread.
[/QUOTE]
yeah bud heres the thing, GMO foods aren't the entirety of the world's food supply and probably will never be because of people like you, and just because you modify or create a new strain of Tomato doesn't mean that the original is gone forever.
Even if some "anomaly" just appears in GMO onions, like they start turning into evil minions controlled by Ghost Hitler, which is a possibility, it wouldn't be impossible to revert back to an earlier strain or fix the issue before the next harvest.
[quote]Developed in Britain, large-scale production is now under way in Canada[/quote]
So Monsanto isn't going to fucking touch it and screw everything up?
Yes...yes this could work...
[QUOTE=J!NX;43667486][t]http://assets.adamriff.com/images/purpleketchup.jpg[/t]
plz[/QUOTE]
How can something look so gross yet delicious at the same time?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.