I always think it depends on what it is that's specifically being messed with genetically. Like, farmers have always selected garlic for larger cloves and looser skin, and our new varieties are easier because of that forced evolution. It's technically genetic engineering, but not a problem.

Genetically engineering things that destroy the plant itself, like those seeds that can't reproduce, are a tool to destroy small farms, and are taking over the genetic makeup of the countryside and killing plants all over. They're horrid.

This kind of thing... well, seems in between to me. I mean, as long as it doesn't do harm to other tomatoes (how does this tomato plant behave in the wild, I wonder) and isn't chemically different in any other way than the purple stuff... I'd be willing to try it cautiously. Doesn't scare me too much, depending on how the patent for it is managed (don't want them to use it to shut down other farmers) and so on...

Reply

I think your criticism of science regarding choosing to modify tomatoes versus changing eating habits is a bit too simplistic. Blackberries and cranberries are land and labor intensive to produce. This is reflected in the price of these items. Not to mention it's rather difficult to find them out of season and difficult to grow at home. Tomatoes on the other hand are ubiquitous. If we want people to benefit from anthocyanin why not find a way for them to grow their own at home or produce something that makes it affordable?

As far as franken data. I'm a scientist. Genetically modified mice are incredibly important in this type of study. If the study were done on wild mice there would be no way to control what was due to diet and what was do to different genetic backround. Imagine a drug targeting a gene associated with breast cancer. You'd want to see if it benefited people who are succeptible to breast cancer. So you would only test it on women (specific genetic backround) not a mixed population of men and women (mixed genetic backround). Better yet you would only test it on women with a family history of breast cancer to increase the chances they carried the gene targeted. By only looking at women with the breast cancer susceptibility gene you can control whether changes are due to the drug, or just because someone doesn't have the gene.

Reply