"The GMO Test: The Black Tomato" by Randi
When people are saying that GMOs are dangerous and not tested enough, they are not fully doing their research. But this is actually a wrong assumption. In fact they are more tested than non-GMO food. They go through voluntary testing, there has not been a case in which there has not been extensive testing on GMO products. There are hundreds of trials that these plants go through to see if they are saf, what conditions they can grow in,and to test the nutritional value. When the plants go through enough testing the numbers go to the FDA for approval and they are thoroughly looked over and test results are replicated before any GMO is approved for market.
People spread the widely propagandized fact that GMOs are “dangerous.” In 2006 Dr. Cathie Martin split the genes of a snapdragon flower, and put two of its genes with the genes of a red tomato. This in turn created a black tomato both inside and out. The snapdragon tomato was tested thoroughly and proved that in mice, it treated and prevented cancer. It had significant nutrients and anticancer properties. This tomato is not available on the market. But this proves the double standard that is now placed on GMOs. Genetically modified organisms are tested far more because they are abnormal. For the safety of the consumers it is tested far more than a normally produced piece of food. There is more than one occurence of this, In 2008 Dr. P. Petra in Italy, created the same tomato. This tomato was a cross between a white and a red tomato, this tomato got approved within years of its invention. But the difference between these two tomatoes besides legal to sell and not, is significant. The tomato had a lot less nutrients, equivalent to the average tomato at the market that is not modified, but also it is the amount of genes. There are hundreds of genes introduced in this tomato that made it black, and when this happened it is only skin deep, the tomatoes insides are actually red. This tomato has been through a lot less testing than the United Kingdom.
People spread the widely propagandized fact that GMOs are “dangerous.” In 2006 Dr. Cathie Martin split the genes of a snapdragon flower, and put two of its genes with the genes of a red tomato. This in turn created a black tomato both inside and out. The snapdragon tomato was tested thoroughly and proved that in mice, it treated and prevented cancer. It had significant nutrients and anticancer properties. This tomato is not available on the market. But this proves the double standard that is now placed on GMOs. Genetically modified organisms are tested far more because they are abnormal. For the safety of the consumers it is tested far more than a normally produced piece of food. There is more than one occurence of this, In 2008 Dr. P. Petra in Italy, created the same tomato. This tomato was a cross between a white and a red tomato, this tomato got approved within years of its invention. But the difference between these two tomatoes besides legal to sell and not, is significant. The tomato had a lot less nutrients, equivalent to the average tomato at the market that is not modified, but also it is the amount of genes. There are hundreds of genes introduced in this tomato that made it black, and when this happened it is only skin deep, the tomatoes insides are actually red. This tomato has been through a lot less testing than the United Kingdom.
Works Cited
Arguments for and against GMOs.” Debating Europe, www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-
gmos/#.WnOIPEuGPrf.
“Weighing the GMO Arguments.” Weighing the GMO Arguments: Against, 2003,
www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo8.htm.
“Panic-Free GMOs.” Grist, grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/.
TEDxTalks. “GMO Controversies - Science vs. Public Fear: Borut Bohanec at TEDxLjubljana.”
YouTube, YouTube, 10 Jan. 2014, www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz4_TwdaYeI.
Randi (or should I say Brandi)
ReplyDeleteYour blog was over something that I was going to talk about, but it was a good thing you picked this topic before I did. Your detailed explanations and statistical facts were very important in this blog, and it was something that we all need to read. You put so much effort and detail that it was almost too intellectual for my readings, but I understood your topic and enjoyed learning more. This is a big issue plaguing our world today, and the more people write about it, the bigger a world change will be. Good job!
I think your blog addressed something interesting with the tomato. The fact that a single modified tomato can do so much is very surprising. I wish you had also addressed the other side of the GMO issue though as your first paragraph was very clearly leaning towards GMOs. It always helps to hear more about the other side to prove your point.
ReplyDeleteRandi,
ReplyDeleteGood job. Your post actually made me reflect on my personal views about GMOs. I thought they didn't have many pros at all, but the example of the black tomato is an eye-opening statistic that is making me think twice. If this tomato has been thoroughly tested, has great nutritional value, and has anti cancer properties, why isn't it on the market? Is it because it's stigmatized because it's modified? Not a lot of human testing? I am confused on that part. Any way, if black tomatoes were on the market I would definitely be eating them...for the health benefits but mainly because they look really cool.