[Wondergirl]

I'm not wrong about this .This article makes it sound like tomatoes were discovered by Europeans. In fact the early tomato was harvested by the Aztec centuries before the European arrived . Wild tomatoes had naturally occuring toxins ;as do all foods of the nightshade family . When these plants were domesticated ,these traits were greatly reduced .

Tomatoes have never been toxic. Their leaves are, though. Tomatoes have several edible cousins in that family. And they did originate in Mexico and Central and South America.

[paraclete]

Look potatoes are toxic under certain conditions perhaps the tomato got its reputation in the same way. I know that tomato juice can interact with certain things to cause illness

[tomder55]

Tomatoes have never been toxic. Their leaves are, though. Tomatoes have several edible cousins in that family. And they did originate in Mexico and Central and South America.

It was once a wild plant . It was domesticated in Mexico. When it was domesticated the fruit of the plants that did not make them sick were the ones that were cultivated . The tomato did not become what it is today in the wild . It is the result of careful selection.

[NeedKarma]

No different that selecting the specific mushroom varieties that aren't poisonous. People don't have issue with that at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with GMO.

The big concern has got to do with what companies like Monsanto are doing with GMO: patenting food and consolidating the control of food supply.

[tomder55]

Efficiency is they key to production. Industrial farming means greater yield on smaller acreage .We have already cleared 35% of the Earth's ice-free land surface for agriculture. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet's ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. The challege is to feed the world on less land .
In 1940, each farmworker supplied 11 consumers.In the 21st century each worker supplies 90 consumers,and that number is increasing. In that time ,the world’s farmers doubled their output to accommodate a doubling of the world population. And they did it on a shrinking base of cropland. Agricultural productivity can continue to grow, but not by turning back the clock.
Increased yields mean that food prices drop .That is the reason you pay much more for locally grown organic produce .

The potential of GMO is to increase crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing chemical and land use . It's a win -win for humanity .

[NeedKarma]

Nope, only those who can afford to buy the seeds.

[cdad]

Im just going to drop these here as food for thought.

Monsanto’s GMO Feed Creates Horrific Physical Ailments in Animals | Alternet


GMO feed turns pig stomachs to mush! Shocking photos reveal severe damage caused by GM soy and corn - NaturalNews.com#

[NeedKarma]

cdad - I'm with you on this but surely there has to be a better source than Natural News, that site is horrible.

[paraclete]

Tom loves a end justifies the means argument, he doesn't see beyond those dollar signs

[tomder55]

Im just going to drop these here as food for thought.

Monsanto’s GMO Feed Creates Horrific Physical Ailments in Animals | Alternet


GMO feed turns pig stomachs to mush! Shocking photos reveal severe damage caused by GM soy and corn - NaturalNews.com#

snopes.com: Monsanto Corn

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...-gmo-activism/


“The study's conclusions don't really stand up to statistical scrutiny. The authors focus on 'severe' stomach inflammation but all the other inflammation categories actually favour the GM-diet. So this selective focus is scientifically inappropriate. “When analysed using appropriate methods, the stomach inflammation data does not show a statistically statistical association with diet. There are also 19 other reported statistical tests, which means we would expect one significant association just by chance: and so the apparent difference in uterus weight is likely to be a false positive.” [Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge]

"The paper by Carman and colleagues avoids rigourous analysis of whether the differences are attributable to chance. In the study there is no clear-cut hypothesis about what component(s) of the diet is different and what affect the component might have specifically on the animal.“Instead of a well formulated prior hypothesis the investigation consists of a survey of a fairly large number of parameters -18 are mentioned in one table, 17 in another, and there is no necessary statistical analysis to check for false discovery of effects because of repeated searching for differences.
“It's what some call a fishing expedition in search of a finding, and a known pitfall of animal feeding trials on whole foods…Using the standard criteria of a one in 20 chance that observed differences are randomly generated, about one or two apparent effects in this study might be a false discovery.”
[Australian geneticist David Tribe (Ph.D.) ]

A co-author of the study, Howard Vlieger is president and co-founder of Verity Farms, a US 'natural foods' outfit which markets non-GMO grain.He would have a very clear commercial interest in scaring people about GMOs in order to drum up business of his GMO-free products.Verity Farms also funded the study ,along with Dr Judy Carman's non-profit IHER (Institute of Health and Environmental Research Inc) an organization entirely dedicated to anti-GMO activism.

Here is what the American Association for the Advancement of Science says :

The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20..._statement.pdf

[paraclete]

Ah so that's what causes my IBS, GMO and no wonder Monsanto wouldn't want this to get out, think of the law suits, all that lovely compensation. Tom don't use snoopes as an authoritative sourse.. I don't trust these research organisations they all have a vested interest in keeping their grants and so can be selective regarding what data they publish

[NeedKarma]

don't use snoopes as an authoritative sourse.. I don't trust these research organisations they all have a vested interest in keeping their grants and so can be selective regarding what data they publish

What? What grants?
snopes.com: About the people behind snopes.com

[paraclete]

The grants scientists get for doing research, you don't think they just get to do it for nothing do you?

[NeedKarma]

Are you still talking about the Snopes website? If so what grants are you talking about?

Also, who keeps rating comments on a discussion board where we aren't supposed to have the ability to rate comments?

[tomder55]

Also, who keeps rating comments on a discussion board where we aren't supposed to have the ability to rate comments?

It is an annoyance .
BTW I cited other sources besides Snopes . Why don't you post disclaimers when other commenters use them as a source ?

The grants scientists get for doing research, you don't think they just get to do it for nothing do you?

Do you think these organizations have a bias too ?

Here is what the American Association for the Advancement of Science says :

The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
[COLOR=#0000ff]http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20..._statement.pdf[/COLOR]

[NeedKarma]

BTW I cited other sources besides Snopes . Why don't you post disclaimers when other commenters use them as a source

Your beef is with paraclete, I'm OK with Snopes and agree with your link.

[tomder55]

Your beef is with paraclete, I'm OK with Snopes and agree with your link.

sorry about that. I need to get another cup of coffee before continuing .

[NeedKarma]

[paraclete]

More ducking and weaving, Tom if it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck.

The whole point is GMO is a risk, a risk most of us would rather not take. We can all remember a number of plans involving chemicals and companies like monsanto which have had bad outcomes. I wonder what union carbide is doing these days

[tomder55]

like I said ;Luddites . What's really amazing about this is that most of the opposition comes from the same crowd that treats science like a religion.