Laura, there are no problems b'c no GMO tomato seeds are sold to the public and at this point I'm not even sure that any are being used commercially. I'd have to Google that to confirm that statement, but regardless, you won't be faced with even considering that when buying your tomato seed.

And yes, heirloom varieties are pure tomato.

If there are still any GMO tomato seeds out there they would be hybrids, not OP (open pollinated) varieties such as the heirloom varieties are.

Carolyn

PHEW! Thanks.
Coming from an expert such as yourself, I am very much reassured.
Now let the seed shopping begin!

laura_k from your post your seem to be a bit paranoid about gmo's.

There is a good reason to be paranoid about gmo. I'm sure she is not the only one.

I think bakersville is trolling for an argument.

laura_k I don't think GMO's are anything to worry about. While I don't feel that they are necessary I understand the technology and know they are safe for consumption. I have never seen GMO's offered in any seed packets. If anyone would like to discuss GMO's with me you can get my email from my userpage.

bakersville so basically you no clue, and have decided to waste laura_k time by post the fact you don't know the answer.

tinytom I was trying to find out more about the her fear. Since, gmo's cause more fear, then they cause real world damage to this point.

Posted by tinytom 8 (My Page) on Sat, Feb 16, 08 at 23:39
bakersville so basically you no clue, and have decided to waste laura_k time by post the fact you don't know the answer.

Is there a Formula for Watering Tomato Plants?
Posted by bakersville (My Page) on Sun, Feb 10, 08 at 8:37

seedboy so basically you no clue, and have decided to waste sumilea time by post the fact you don't know the answer.

bakersville, are you responding to your own posts now?

aka_peggy: tinytom was just trying to pick a fight.

sammyqc if there such danger from gmo's show me the the proof.

if there is NO such danger from gmo's show me the the proof.

Proof of a negative is a logical fallacy.

No, it's not. The proof of non-existence, MAY be, but proof of negative impact, or negative circumstance is not.

It looks like this thread will be getting out of control so I would like to say a few things to try and calm the waters. My personal standpoint is that I don't feel GMO crops are completely necessary just yet but I think the technology and concept of GMO crops is absolutely amazing. I am currently working on my Master's in Bioinformatics so proteins and DNA are like my bread and butter. Any new technology always has unforeseen risks, GMO crops are no different. Because these crops are used for human consumption they are tested over and over again.

Some people say these crops are not tested and I assure you that is not the case. Some people have the opinion that companies that do this sort of work are evil and I really doubt that, but let's assume they are. Even if they are evil I am sure they are all still after that almighty dollar. And since they want your money there is no way they would do something that could potentially get them sued because then they would lose all that money and more. Based on that I would say that even evil companies wouldn't do anything to intentionally hurt their consumers. Besides, they will end up eating these crops as well and I am sure they don't want to hurt themselves.

I would like to hear some of the concerns that people have and maybe I can help put your minds at ease. Another opinion of mine is that not all GMO crops should be lumped into one category. I would like to hear how people feel about various types of gene manipulation. I am going to just list some possibilities I don't know if anyone is actually doing research on them.

1. A gene from an existing food source is moved to a different food source.

2. No genes are added but the regulation of existing genes within the crop are altered to be turned on or off at different times.

3. A gene for disease resistance from some bacteria is put into a food source.

There are other things that could be done but I think these are three good categories to discuss. I feel the first manipulation is the least concerning to the general public because it is just moving something from a crop we already eat to a different crop we already eat. I feel the third one I listed is most concerning to the general public because most people consider all bacteria to be dangerous. The second one is somewhere in the middle because I don't think the general public would understand what regulating gene expression does but I think they would like that no new genes would be added. When I speak of the general public I mean the people out there that don't know much about plants or science, I am not specifically talking about anyone on this forum.

Lastly I think we need to all remember that we aren't here to prove someone wrong. I think the subject of GMO crops is worth discussing and I would hate to see anyones feelings get hurt and the thread closed.

I am certainly not weighing in on one side or the other.
My concern has always been, that ONE side always gets the attention or exposure. It's usually people with great influence or great wealth. I'm not condemning the practice of GMO, I'm QUESTIONING the implementation. Many things are untested and unproven, and then shoved down people's throats as fact. When someone questions it, they're usually considered paranoid or even hysterical over nothing. I believe money IS behind it. You can shroud it in morality or necessity, but it won't jive with everyone.
GMO's have been irresponsibly introduced into the food supply without consent. That is probably the biggest gripe most people have with it. There are many people here apprised of the situation because that's their hobby or profession. But what about people who innocently pick up groceries off the store shelves, unaware of the practice?

There have been very few credible studies on GM food safety.
If everyone's okay with that, that's fine with me. Unfortunately, contrary voices are never heard. They have neither the clout nor the funds.

Why do you see more stores carrying "Organic" foods? Because after decades the voices of the minorities were heard and the awful truth about pesticides finally surfaced. I believe a rosier picture is being painted about GMO rather than the truth. Time will tell. Until then, I don't think it's anything to lose sleep over.

As far the comment - "I think we need to all remember that we aren't here to prove someone wrong".
A bit relativistic wouldn't you say? The reason for discussion is to find the truth. Either GMO is okay, or it's not. Opinions don't win in the battle for truth. Experience and research do.

" And since they want your money there is no way they would do something that could potentially get them sued because then they would lose all that money and more."

Oh you don't think? I think you are naive.

I can a$$ure you that "they" have money to burn.

Here is a link that might be useful: Pollution, Contamination, and Betrayal

oregon_veg,

I agree with your concern and you make some very valid points. The one thing I will question is whose consent do you feel GMO crops need? The FDA does have safety regulations that food crops must pass before then can be released. If you are talking about consent from the general public why would GMO crops need that? No one is concerned when a new hybrid is released into the market. What makes these GMO crops different in your eyes that requires them to need special consent that other new products do not?

I also agree that the reason for discussion is to find the truth. What I meant by my comment is that people on both sides of the argument seem to be making very personal attacks rather than discussing the issues, which is not an environment that encourages open discussion. I personally enjoy gardening because it is calming and relieves stress and I like to post on GardenWeb for the same reasons. I merely want the discussions to be friendly and calm because there is enough stress in life and we don't need to add to it.

aka_peggy,

I really don't appreciate you calling me naive. I am certainly not naive. It is that kind of a personal attack that is absolutely not necessary to get your point across. You could have easily made your point without saying anything at all about me. I never said anything about you and I am offended that you felt those comments were necessary.

The bottom line is I just want to try and give some peace of mind to people that have worries about GMO crops. It doesn't do anyone any good to worry about things that are out of their control. I don't know if anyone on here is part of an activist group for or against GMO crops, but unless you are then why get so worked up about this issue. GMO crops are out there and we either need to do something to try and stop it or just trust that we are being protected and no one would try to intentionally hurt us.

Also I really would like to hear how people feel about the three types of gene manipulations I mentioned, I think that is a topic worth discussing. I can go into detail if anyone wants me to. It is unlikely that we can stop what has started, I think a more reasonable goal is to try and find a compromise to make both sides happy.

The bottom line is I just want to try and give some peace of mind to people that have worries about GMO crops
------------------------------------------------------------
There's the problem. What is your justification for such a comment and what makes you an expert?

You're right, The FDA does have safety regulations that food crops must pass before they can be released, but they do not always apply aptly to GMO's. The reason?
"substantial equivalence." It means that a GMO crop can be considered to be just the same (and safe) as a conventional crop, therefore escaping regulation (and testing).
IMO, oversight of agricultural biotechnology is failing in it's job to keep the public safe.

Your comment:
"It doesn't do anyone any good to worry about things that are out of their control"
This one really hits the nail on the head. It's completely out of our control..... Isn't that sorta Communism?

FWIW, naivety does not imply stupidity, just lacking understanding.

¿Ã¶
~

"No one is concerned when a new hybrid is released into the market. What makes these GMO crops different in your eyes that requires them to need special consent that other new products do not?"

Hybrids, as I think of them, and I believe most others think of them, are made by doing controlled crosses of closely related organisms. By chance, these same crosses could occur naturally (which has been going on for eons). The hybridizers speed up the process and selectively breed to better the chance of producing desirable qualities in the offspring.

I see GMOs recombining genetic material in ways that would not occur in nature by chance. I consider that significantly different than hybidization and needing scutiny ("special consent") that hybridization does not require. I am concerned about the release of significantly different genetic combinations into the world outside the grower's field. I wonder how such a large change will affect life on earth which normally adjusts to small changes over long time periods. How will it affect not only humans, but insects, fungi, soil microorganisms, etc? I wonder about the short term, and even more about the long term effects on these and other species. Information I have seen does not completely satisfy my concerns.

And perhaps my questions and concerns are related to nonGMO issues that I've seen over the years. Products with great promise (and safety assurances) were put into widespread use relatively quickly. Organochlorine pesticides were declared safe and then I never saw a bald eagle in the wild for 30 years. Convenience food was supposed to free the housewife to do greater things...and she had time to visit the gym to try to reduce the excess weight and blood pressure that accompanied the convenience food. Medications were approved and later caused serious harm. I wonder if GMOs will withstand the test of time and significantly help the world or if problems will arise.

So I ask questions of the scientists and government today and feel there is good reason to do so.

First, I would rather eat from a plant that has characteristic breed within it to keep away pests and disease than to eat a plant that had to be sprayed to control pests and disease.

Second, I believe (and I may be wrong, ask my wife) that "organic" foods can be treated to a limited extent or growing period with pesticides and fungicides. Just because pesticides and fungicides come from "natural" products does not make them any safer than those produced by the "bad" chemical industry. Apple seeds contain deadly toxins.

Finally, as written before, time will tell. Does that mean that if many of us live past the age of 100, GMO's are succesful? Maybe not, as then "Big Pharma" may be in control.

oregon_veg,

I have never said I was an expert, but I can assure you I know more than most people on the subject. Why is it a problem that I want to try and give peace of mind, I must be a horrible person. I could easily turn your argument back at you, just like you did to bakersville, and say what makes you an expert on GMO crops. You would have to be an expert to be able to understand what is going on and determine that things are being mishandled. And I really don't think this situation is anything like Communism. It would be unrealistic for the public to have control over every event that could affect them. This is why we have government officials and laws. You clearly already have your own opinions on GMO crops and do not wish to change them and I can respect that, but if anyone (yourself included) does have actual questions about GMO crops I would be happy to share what I know.

I don't think agricultural biotechnology is failing to keep the public safe, although maybe they should have made the public better informed so that these worries wouldn't have arisen. Unfortunately there is no way they could have known what would happen. If you feel the public is unsafe please tell me why. Consumers are already eating GMO crops and there are no stories of any problems because of them, so where is the danger. I realize that an argument to what I just said is that there could be long term consequences that we aren't seeing yet. This is true and we will have to wait and see but there has been nothing to suggest that there will be any long term consequences. I am here now trying to inform you that you are safe and you don't seem like you want to listen.

I know what naive means and I still feel it was inappropriate since I made no comments about her. But thanks anyway for your concern.

I have never said I was an expert, but I can assure you I know more than most people on the subject
---------------------------
that's presumptuous

I could easily turn your argument back at you, just like you did to bakersville, and say what makes you an expert on GMO crops. You would have to be an expert to be able to understand what is going on and determine that things are being mishandled.
-----------------------------------------------
No, if you read my original argument, you would see that I only question certain things, not taking a firm stand.
You do not have to be an expert to understand what's going on. (as I'm sure YOU do).

It would be unrealistic for the public to have control over every event that could affect them.
---------------------------------------------
So give up your freedom, see if I care. Just don't make that decision for the rest of us.

You clearly already have your own opinions on GMO crops and do not wish to change them
-----------------------------------
Again, if you could read, you'd see what I said.

Consumers are already eating GMO crops and there are no stories of any problems because of them
-------------------------------------------
What kind of evidence would you be looking for? Since it's untested how would you know WHAT to look for?
If you want a story, go read Moby Dick
New question please!

if anyone (yourself included) does have actual questions about GMO crops I would be happy to share what I know.
----------------------------------------------------
I already know enough. Just because I don't come on here and stand on my podium and shout to the world like Plankton "I went to college" (spongebob fans unite), doesn't mean I'm uneducated. So again, presumptuous.

I am here now trying to inform you that you are safe and you don't seem like you want to listen.
---------------------------------------
So, you do claim to be an expert, because you said you'd have to be an expert to know what's going on.
First you said you weren't an expert, now you're saying you are (because YOU know what's going on). So which is it? Are you an expert or not? And do you have to be an expert to know what's going on?
As far as listening. Do you mean I don't want to listen, or are you upset because I don't agree with you? I don't understand the "you're not listening" part.
FWIW, I don't need your comfort. I wasn't worried about my safety, I don't know why YOU were.

But thanks anyway for your concern.
--------------------
I wasn't concerned (but you probably already knew that since YOU know what's going on).

Since I'm so stupid, I'll wallow in my ignorance. That IS bliss!

weirdtrev,

I certainly didn't intend to insult you but I have to wonder just how much you really know on this subject. I can only think that you are uninformed if you believe the statement you made below. (And several others you made in your last post)

"I don't know if anyone on here is part of an activist group for or against GMO crops, but unless you are then why get so worked up about this issue. GMO crops are out there and we either need to do something to try and stop it or just trust that we are being protected and no one would try to intentionally hurt us."

Please!

Have you ever heard of Percy Schmeiser? Anniston, Ala? agent orange? Stevia? I could name others...but just google any one of those + Monsanto.

"Consumers are already eating GMO crops and there are no stories of any problems because of them, so where is the danger."

But you, whose bread and butter is DNA, doesn't know the difference between hybrids and GMO's? >Hybrids occur in nature, GMO's do not.>>>

"I am here now trying to inform you that you are safe and you don't seem like you want to listen."

You can't be serious!

I am here now trying to inform YOU that YOU should seriously question the practices of this powerful company but you don't seem like you want to listen.

Why is it a problem that I want to try and give peace of mind, I must be a horrible person.
-----------------------------------
I don't think you're horrible. I believe your thoughts are well intended and sincere.
But I AM free to disagree.
Truce?

Agree!

Truce?

Naturegirl 2007,

Thank you for your thorough explanation of your thoughts. You have some really wonderful insights. I completely agree with everything you said. As I mentioned before I personally don't feel we need GMO crops just yet. In my eyes they should have been used as a last resort if growers were failing to meet the needs of the consumers.

If you don't mind me asking I would be interested to know what you think about the three types of gene manipulations that I listed earlier. Do you feel they are all equally bad or are some less concerning than others. Here are the manipulations I am talking about in case you missed them:

1. A gene from an existing food source is moved to a different food source.

2. No genes are added but the regulation of existing genes within the crop are altered to be turned on or off at different times.

3. A gene for disease resistance from some bacteria is put into a food source.

oregon_veg and aka_peggy,

I definitely want a truce this is getting way out of hand which is the complete opposite of my intentions. I really want to discuss GMO crops and I am really interested to hear other peoples opinion on the types of manipulations that I mentioned.

I would like to defend myself though there have been some fairly aggressive comments against me. In regards to me saying I know more than most people, maybe I should have been more cautious with my wording. But I do feel that I know more than the general public because I have a relevant major and I really don't feel it is unreasonable to say so.

My point in turning the expert argument back at you was actually to point out that you were being unreasonable. If you notice I used words like could and would I was illustrating my point that you don't need to be an expert. I wasn't actually asserting those things. I realize you can have any opinion and don't need to be an expert to do so, just as I can speak about GMO crops based on my knowledge genetics and molecular biology without being an expert.

When I said it is unrealistic for the public to have control over every event that affects them that does not mean any freedoms are being relinquished. You have no say over new drugs that make it to the market, but there is a group of people that are intended to act on behalf of public interest when new drugs come to market. There are countless other examples of things you don't control but are controlled on your behalf. That is pretty much what the government does.

No respectable scientist would leave something they created untested. And of course the ultimate test after the initial testing for GMO crops is human consumption. If these crops are unsafe one would think we would see some sort of health concern in the population.

I never said anyone was uneducated and I don't appreciate you making fun of me because I went to college. I mentioned my degree because it was part of my introduction and it lets people know my background so that they can see I know what I am talking about. I was just offering to share what I know if anyone has questions. And actually you saying you already know enough proves my point that you don't wish to change your opinion and as I said before I RESPECT that and I know that I can't change your mind. That comment was for anyone who may have questions.

The you not listening comment was a result of you not responding to questions that I asked you and taking reasonable things that I say and trying to argue them. Like when I was just trying help everyone realize that they can relax and not worry about things that are out of their control and you compare it to Communism. I have never seen people get as argumentative as they do when they discuss GMO crops. I was trying to calm the waters only to have the two of you come after me and tear apart everything I said.

aka_peggy how does my comment about being in an activist group make me uninformed. Obviously your opinion is that you are concerned about GMO crops so you would fall into the group of people who should do something to try and stop it. Telling me about your concerns likely won't stop the production of GMO crops, you would need to join or start an activist group against these crops. While I agree what happened to Percy Schmeiser was absolutely ridiculous and shouldn't happen, I don't own a farm so it is of little concern to me. I am only concerned about safety not how the companies choose to run their business.

I am very aware of the difference between hybrids and GMO crops. I just used hybrids as an example of a new product that consumers don't give consent for. When I said "what makes GMO crops different" I didn't mean different than hybrids, I meant different than any new product. I can't think of (but I am sure they may exist) any product that I as a consumer was asked to give consent for, so why would GMO crops be any different. That was a serious question, I wasn't saying that consent shouldn't be given, but rather I wanted to know why oregon_veg felt it was needed because I personally don't feel they need consent, from me at least.

Now if you two don't mind I would love to hear your thoughts on actual gene modifications, specifically the ones I listed.

weirdtrev,

O.K., can I put get in on the discussion? No argument desired.

1. A gene from an existing food source is moved to a different food source.

I can see how this would be quite advantageous. A food's nutritional value could be greatly increased or production could be increased in order to increase the farmers yield per acre. The issue I have with this is the inability for the counsumer to know the particular gene used for this method. What about people with food allergies? What if someone with a gluten allergy eats something with a wheat gene in it. What happens then? Are they going to have a reaction?

2. No genes are added but the regulation of existing genes within the crop are altered to be turned on or off at different times.

I can see this being used to control ripening and maturation of foods to a more advantageous time schedule. Could be a great idea for marketing foods or timing production to climatic conditions.

I don't have any comment on your third point at this time.

I know that these things are tested and tested, but leaving our health up to the scientists and FDA is scary sometimes. What about Vioxx or Fen/Phen? These were both tested and approved drugs by the FDA that turned out to be harmful. What about Rogaine? It was a drug FDA approved for high blood pressure that had a desirable side effect of growing hair. What about diethylstibesterol? Used by women in the 50's and 60's to prevent miscarriages. Until their babies were born with severe birth defects. I'm sure these drugs passed the FDA approval process, but sometimes side effects don't show up until you have a longer time of usage or start using them with a wider range of population than is available during testing.

Forgive me if I just don't trust the FDA to check things out to my satisfaction.

I welcome comments!

Elaine

Must jump in here.
"1. A gene from an existing food source is moved to a different food source."

Are we talking about the eventual possibility of "gene splicing" or the present method of "gene shotgunning"? It make as world of difference. When we become capable of removing just one gene and replacing it with another, it might not be so much of a problem. However, at present, the method used to insert genetic material is still referred to as shotgunning. We (the general public and the scientists that are preforming the operations) still have no absolute idea what they are going to have without growing out the samples and selecting those "variety options" of several gene combinations they choose can produce. Until we do splice not shotgun, I would suggest a lot more study and a lot less rush to get the technology out into the world.

2. No genes are added but the regulation of existing genes within the crop are altered to be turned on or off at different times.

With what and how. "Terminator gene technology"? Oh by the way isn't the marker here an antibiotic - Tetracycline if memory serves me correctly. Superbugs anyone????

3. A gene for disease resistance from some bacteria is put into a food source.

Already BT has has come under suspect as to removing more than corn borers.

Now back to the discussion. Perhaps one should go to sites such info@gmwatch.org before they make their own decisions. If GMOs are so safe please can you tell me why companies are so determined to avoid labelling of products.

Cheers,
Val/grungy

weirdtrev,
Could you please be more specific as to who is doing the testing? GMO companies or USDA or ?
Thank you.
Val/grungy

Looks like this thread turn into the usual flame war that this type of subject starts. All innuendo,few fact and no independent repeated studies showing any real danger.
Since per review is not proof in science the results have to be repeatable.

I wasn't going to post in this thread again, after I saw it take the turn that it did, but Elaine and Val have made some excellent points.

Since at this age of molecular biology one can't kick out one gene and cleanly replace it with another one, some viruses and bacteria excepted, when one introduces a new gene there can be no to minimal to great change(s) in the DNA which then can lead to deletions of some DNA belonging to other genes, or premature termination of some genes, or even looping out of the DNA causing deletions in several genes on either side of the inserted DNA, etc.

And when the DNA is transcribed into mRNA and then translated into protein, that's where the concern exists b'c there can be the appearance of a former normal gene product that was altered to give an altered protein, etc.

And the main problem as it appears right now is that the altered proteins can lead to food allergies in some folks.

And that's b'c we each have very complicated immune systems, there are many genes involved, so each of our immune systems reacts differently to antigens ( in this case the altered proteins).

You know that only certain folks develop allergies to antibiotics. And only certain persons develop allergies to wheat, gluten, peanuts, aspirin and on and on.

So there's no way to test a GMO food product in the general population b'c you may have only one person in a hundred or one in a thousand, or one in 10K or whatever, who are going to show a particular allergy to a given, now altered protein.

If anyone is interested it might be helpful to Google"

Starlink corn, approved for animals only but got out into the general food supply as a component of many human foods.

Soybean GMO allergy, and soybeans are used in many foods

You may have to mix those words around for each entry to find the best links.

And since this is the tomato forum, you might also like to Google Endless Summer, the tomato into which a fish gene was introduced so it would ripen more slowly, and no longer on the market. Actually there were several GMO tomatoes developed and they all failed with the consumer/

I bought several Endless Summer fruits, and they did ripen up slowly and just sat there forever and ever, so I renamed them SummerSpringWinterFall tomatoes. LOL

Carolyn

Wow. Lots of good posts here. I had originally responded at the beginning off this thread, because I wanted to point out that Laura_k was not being paranoid by asking a legitimate question, as someone insultingly implied. There are very real concerns over gmo, and the path that it is taking us down. People should definitely have a say over what goes into their food, or at the very least, have a choice. That is one of my biggest concerns, the lack of labels identifying gmo in food products, and the fact that the producers don't want it labeled.
Weirdtrev, you have some valid points, as do all the others, and you're right that is a very intense subject for people, and sometimes we may get a bit testy, but it is an important subject.
Who was the wise person that said: "Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should!" ?

I installed Windows Vista, because it was "new and improved", thinking it would solve all my computer illiteracy problems, and then quickly uninstalled it (like thousands of other people).

I also hate the fact that programs go out and sniff the internet and install stuff without me knowing about it.
I hate sneaky deceptive people, doing things without me knowing it "FOR MY OWN GOOD".
Give me a break.

I have no clue what I just said, or how it fits into this conversation, but maybe there's a correlation.

pushindirt,

I think that fit in quite nicely!

Hi All-
I'm still here and reading all the voices. I was waiting for the right time to pop back in. Carolyn, you brought up the topics that gave me the push. Starlink and fish genes in tomatos. I didn't want to bring Starlink up as it isn't the veg of topic here so thank you for doing so.
My choice, as is everyones, is completely my own. I want to stay away from GMO's. I had watched a movie (go ahead and laugh if you must)a few years back that although some of it I took with a grain of salt, found enough of it accurate AFTER doing some investigating of the topic to satisfy me in making my choice. I want to avoid GMO's.
I don't belive in the need for altering vegatables in this way. I like 'em the way nature made 'em. Nor do I like the other un tested ( by independent labs, not Pharma backed...$$$ ) aspects (alergies,ect.)- they are as yet far too suspect for my comfort. The fact that pharma companies fought to not need to label GMO's so the public could make a choice in buying or not, them left me suspect for long term concerns. I may not be 100 % accurate on this but I bevieve that most Europe has already banned the practice. Someone posting may have more info on this.
Athough I had'nt planned on espressing my reasoning behind my prefrence, here it is. That being said- Thank you to you all for your facts and opinions. This is a very interesting thread for many! - or is that assuming too much? :)
I am NO expert, but I will still choose to stay away from GMO's.
Laura

Food allergies are definitely a serious concern. There would have to be tests to ensure that an allergen is not transferred when working with crops that people can be allergic to. I definitely feel that this concern can be managed. And all of your are absolutely right that maybe things are rushed. However, this rushing also works to our advantage. Going back to the drug example, thousands of very safe and beneficial drugs have been found using the same scrutiny that was used for the drugs that turned out to be potentially harmful. There have only been a handful of bad drugs to the thousands of good ones. Some would say that we shouldn't let any bad drugs through and that would be ideal, but at the same time it would slow the introduction of all of the many helpful drugs as well. Countless people that could be helped by these drugs will go without help.

Grungy,

With those three examples I am really just curious to see what other peoples thoughts are about them because I personally don't feel all types of modifications should be lumped into one group. I am talking about the big picture not all of the nuts and bolts just yet. However, I am glad that you are asking questions and I will do my best to answer them. There are many methods currently used to transfer genes, I had no particular procedure in mind. Some of the methods used are electroporation, particle bombardment (sometimes called a gene gun) and the insertion of a modified Ti plasmid from Agrobacterium tumefaciens. I would not consider any of the insertion methods as shotgunning. Shotgunning refers to breaking up a genome in to many small pieces, typically using various restriction enzymes. This procedure is very useful in sequencing genomes. The genome of the host organism is definitely not broken into many little pieces as this would kill the organism. The process of transformation is very inefficient. Meaning that most of the time this foreign DNA is not accepted by the host organism. This is why screening is done. Sometimes a gene for antibiotic resistance is used to identify if the cell has been transformed. In the lab these genes could be tetracycline or ampicillin resistance (or others but those are common). I don't know what screening various companies do because that information is typically proprietary, but kanamycin resistance has been used in the past. There are other screening procedures that do not involve antibiotic resistance and these methods should, in my opinion, be used by the companies making GMO crops.

As far as the testing goes there are very nice articles and videos on Monsanto's website telling how they test their products. However, I know there are many people who believe we can't trust them to tell us the truth. The FDA also tests these GMO crops. If you also feel the FDA can't be trusted, then I don't know what to tell you. Here are some links you can read about the safety of GMO foods:

FDA on Genetic Engineering

Monsanto Video and Article on safety and Benefits

One last thing I would like to point out is that these methods of inserting genes have already been used countless times very successfully. I am sure most of you out there know someone who is diabetic and has to take insulin shots. But did you also know that insulin comes from bacteria that have the human genes for insulin production added into them.

It seems to me that much of this thread is a discussion of science and fact vs ideology. I for one do not like to get my information from sources akin to that Michael what's his name who does political fiction movies thinly veiled as "fact."

Norman Borlaug and his successors did a pretty good job of saving millions of lives from starvation by genetic manipulation. And a few more real facts about the biology involved can be obtained from the website agbioworld.org. Arguments both pro and con using scientific research rather than emotion are discussed in depth with many hundreds of articles and speeches.

I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, but want to point folks to a lot of information readily available if you really want to get the story from the scientific community.

I, for one, am anti-Monsanto because I feel they want to take my kind of tomatoes away from me. And since this is a tomato forum....

Carolyn: how about the flounder tomato experiment? A few strands of flounder DNA spliced into a tomato; since flounder has a natural anti-freeze, by inserting that specific genetic material there would be a tomato that could be frozen and thawed without harming the tomato. It failed to become popular.

Carolyn: how about the flounder tomato experiment? A few strands of flounder DNA spliced into a tomato; since flounder has a natural anti-freeze, by inserting that specific genetic material there would be a tomato that could be frozen and thawed without harming the tomato. It failed to become popular.

****

Paul, I referred to that one in my above post just saying it was a fish gene that was introduced. And it wasn't so you could freeze the tomatoes it was for slow,delayed ripening. And I also said it was a failure along with a couple of other GMO tomatoes that had been introduced commercially.

Carolyn

wait one minute! perfectly formed frozen tomotoes? like... on a stick? tomato-sicles ?? sign me up for that! :)
sorry- i couldn't resist a little bit of lightness...

Carolyn: Your post reminded me of another experiment by DNA Technologies reported on by Ronald Bailey in the Dec 5, 2002 National Post in his story, "Bovine Romaine with Ranch Dressing". Must have been another try to change tomatoes by introducing fish genes. He said it was an attempt to be able to freeze and then thaw tomatoes without the fruit turning mushy. My daughter would say,"EEEWWW GROSS."

There was a spirited discussion of this topic in the link below, with many points which have not been brought up here. Wierdtrev, I (and others) answered your three questions there. There were enough links provided for hours of interesting reading, to those so inclined.

Carolyn is right, there are no GM tomatoes on the market at present that we know of... and no GM vegetable seeds are presently available to gardeners. This may well change in the future, given Monsanto's acquisition of a significant portion of the vegetable seed industry (Seminis).
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/seminis30405.cfm

I will confess to being anti-GMO, so the links that I provide tend to support that philosophy. The facts & quotes, however, can speak for themselves.

My chief concerns are the unpredictable results of the technology itself (as expressed by Caroline), the lack of independent peer-reviewed studies, the subversion of our public institutions (such as the FDA) by industry-controlled political appointees, and the questionable practices of GM companies & their proponents.

There is legitimate cause for that concern, on many levels. The companies involved have demonstrated their inability - or unwillingness - to properly control the escape of GMO's into our environment & food supply. Given that fact, to question the current application of bio-technology is not paranoia - it is justifiable apprehension.
http://www.victoryseeds.com/info_political.html

Remember, Common sense is an "Ideology"
And common sense isn't so common is it?

"And since they want your money there is no way they would do something that could potentially get them sued because then they would lose all that money and more. Based on that I would say that even evil companies wouldn't do anything to intentionally hurt their consumers."

_________________________________________________________

Let's just say this Corporate American Company would go on with business as usual until they received the phone call with a hint to "get out". Then, they simply dissolve all assets in the timeframe allowed and go belly up bankrupt only to start up another business next month.

What do I think of GMO's?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
?

I'll tell you in 20 years!

Amen Sister Laura for asking an important question!

I garden for the joy of it. However, I also do it because I like knowing where my food comes from & what went into it, to the best of my knowledge at any rate.

I'm all for science & technology, but when it comes to putting food into my body, I'd rather err on the side of the ancient tradition of eating homegrown produce.

I'm still a beginning gardener, but some day I hope to have a garden that produces enough to put a serious in my food bill.

PS: I recommend the book "Seeds of Deception"

If you want to make sure you don't get GMO seeds, then just buy cheap ones! All this GMO costs $$$, that's part of the reason for doing it.
If you pay $1.79 for a pack of seeds you can bet the money hasn't been spent to modify them. LOL!

Bump

If you want to make sure you don't get GMO seeds, then just buy cheap ones! All this GMO costs $$$, that's part of the reason for doing it.
If you pay $1.79 for a pack of seeds you can bet the money hasn't been spent to modify them. LOL!

Dollar Store seeds rock!