A lot of people are against fruit because it's hybridized - too sugary, too seedless, etc. I decided to write an article to try to clear its name. Check it out here: [www.raw-food-health.net]

A very well written article. It is good to see a logical presentation against the fruit phobics out there.

Maybe it will give them something to think about.

Great article, Andrew. Score another point for the pro-fruit team! My problem is with genetically modified hybrids, like tomatoes synthetically "mated" with GMO salmon. Waaaaay back in 2000, I attended a lecture by the wonderful contemporary American architect William McDonough. While discussing synthetic plant hybrids, he mentioned the tomato and said, "at what point is a vegetarian no longer a vegetarian because of this?" Being a vehement veg, it really struck me . . .

Tamukha can you explain what you just said, about tomato's, please.

paulie,

I don't know whether the long arm of Monsanto has penetrated into whatever country you're in, but here in the States, unless your produce is organic, it has been synthetically genetically spliced with other species, and not just other plant species. The conventional "sandwich" tomato was one of the first such specimens: it was mated with salmon genes to make the flesh a more uniform red color and, more important to growers, to make the flesh more durable for withstanding harsh shipping methods. It can get tossed around after harvest and knocked about in a truck over long hauls without disintegrating. Just like a chunk of raw salmon steak. Later, it was discovered that pork genes increase durability further, as raw pork has even more tensile strength than raw salmon, so pork genes were added to the process. If you've ever wondered why the vegetable or fruit you are eating is strangely sinewy/chewy/dense or whatever, this is likely why. Ghastly.

I agree Tamukha. Ghastly! I didn't know about all those sordid details. Another reason to buy organic whenever we possibly can!

Quote

I've seen no evidence that fruit is sweeter now than it used to be, and I'm fairly certain I'll never see any proof of the sort.

If you don't look for it, no, of course not. Doesn't change reality though. Ever taste a crabapple?

I agree though the "50x" more sugar is just silly. That's why I can't listen to people like Brian Clement & take them seriously.

Tamukha, that's not true. There are no genetically modified tomatoes being sold in the United States. That being said, we must continue to be vigilant and ensure that this remains the case.
See below, from this website: [www.geo-pie.cornell.edu]

Am I eating genetically engineered tomatoes?

Short answer: no. Several genetically engineered varieties of tomatoes have been developed in the US and approved for commercialization, and some of them were available in a limited number of markets for a few years in the mid '90s. For a variety of reasons these GE tomatoes are no longer marketed, and there are currently no GE tomatoes present in US markets either as whole tomatoes or in processed tomato foods.
[top of page]
The rise and fall of GE tomatoes

Read more about GE altered fruit-ripening.


The first genetically engineered food to test the regulatory system in the U.S. was Calgene's ill-fated Flavr-Savr tomato. The Flavr-Savr tomatoes, engineered to spoil less quickly after harvesting, could be left to ripen on the vines longer, developing more flavor and allowing later shipment to stores (ripe tomatoes can't be shipped very far because they spoil too quickly and are normally shipped green and chemically-ripened later). In late 1991, Calgene had a variety of Flavr-Savr tomato ready for marketing, and requested the opinion of the FDA. Using the Calgene tomato as a test case, the FDA issued its formal statement of policy in May of 1992. Bottom line: the FDA decided that GE foods would not be regulated any differently than conventional foods. At the same time, Calgene was permitted by APHIS to begin large-scale plantings of its new tomato, and Calgene announced that the Flavr-Savr would be available in test markets after the 1993 growing season.

In early 1993, public concerns about food safety prompted Calgene to request a ruling from the FDA regarding the safety of antibiotic resistance genes in GE foods (Flavr-Savr carries resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin). At the same time, Campbell Soup Co, which had collaborated with Calgene to develop the GE tomato, announced that it would not include the new tomato in its products until the FDA again ruled on its safety. Later that summer, Calgene sparked controversy by taking a direct hand in the production of its tomatoes-- contracting directly with farmers, and controlling the distribution and marketing system itself. Although Calgene had tomatoes ready for shipment, by the end of the year the FDA still had not issued a new ruling, and the 1993 harvest was never marketed (although it took a longer time to spoil).

But Calgene was not alone in the race for the first GE tomato. Campbell Soup Co had also been supporting the UK's Zeneca Seeds to develop another delayed-ripening tomato using the same technology. Threatening mutual lawsuits, Campbell, Calgene, and Zeneca worked out a compromise in February of 1994: Calgene would be given the world-wide rights to sell the fresh-market types of the new tomato, while Zeneca would focus exclusively on processing tomato applications. Zeneca's GE tomato was approved by the FDA in 1994, and by both APHIS and UK food safety regulators in 1995. Although the tomatoes had to be grown in California, in the UK Zeneca contracted the Safeway and Sainsbury grocery chains to sell the world's first (and only) GE tomato paste. The product was clearly labeled as "GE," was considerably less expensive than tins of conventional brands (delayed-ripening made processing cheaper), and was very popular for several years (est. 60% share of canned tomato market in 1999). These products were pulled from shelves in the UK only recently, following the increasing unpopularity of GE foods in the UK.

Introduction of the FlavrSavr into US markets was more problematic for Calgene. Like Zeneca, Calgene received FDA approval for its tomatoes in mid-1994. That summer the Flavr-Savr tomatoes, under Calgene's "MacGregors" brand, arrived in markets in the Chicago area. The tomatoes were clearly labeled as "genetically modified" and supplied with information pamphlets. Despite growing protests by activist groups (notably Jeremy Rifkin), the tomatoes were well received and Calgene had difficulty keeping up with demand.

But by early 1995, Calgene was showing signs of trouble: technical problems made it difficult to ship the delicate GE tomatoes without damage, the tomatoes hadn't grown well in Florida production fields, and Calgene was hit hard by high development costs and several years of low tomato prices. A patent-infringement lawsuit brought against Calgene by Monsanto may have been a final blow: Calgene agreed to sell a 49.9% share to Monsanto in the July of 1995, and by October that fraction was upped to 54.6%. Calgene sustained its dwindling supply of the FlavrSavr throughout 1996 (including some markets in Canada). By the beginning of 1997, however, it became apparent that production problems might be unsurmountable, and Monsanto announced that it would buy the remaining shares of the cash-strapped Calgene. By March of 1997, there were no more FlavrSavr tomatoes left to be found, less than three years after their introduction.

Also, in the mid '90s, two other companies were vying to develop GE delayed-ripening tomatoes, using a different strategy (by controlling ethylene metabolism). Both DNA Plant Technologies (DNAP) and Monsanto gained regulatory approval for their similar GE technologies by late 1994 and early 1995, but then immediately sued each other over patent infringements. DNAP was slightly ahead of Monsanto, and briefly test-marketed its "Endless Summer" tomato in Rochester, NY. In the end, DNAP was the de facto loser: the struggling company was purchased by Empresa La Moderna (ELM) in 1996, and eventually withdrew its regulatory approval to grow GE tomatoes. Neither DNAP nor Monsanto have marketed their GE tomatoes since. Monsanto also developed a variety of insect-resistant (Bt) tomatoes, but it was also never marketed.

A fifth company, Agritope, won approval from both APHIS (1995) and the FDA (1996) for another type of GE tomato, also employing an ethylene-related technique. Agritope is busy applying this strategy to several other fruits in addition to tomatoes, but all of its products are still several years away from marketing.

Several companies are currently developing new varieties of GE tomatoes, including Monsanto, Calgene, Agritope, Aventis, DNA Plant Technologies, Seminis, and others.
[top of page]

And from here you can see that there are very few fruits and vegetables that are genetically modified on the market. Corn, cotton, and soy are the main foods to watch for: [gristmill.grist.org]

In the mid-'90s, amid much fuss, a biotech firm called Calgene introduced the Flav'r Saver tomato. Genetically engineered to last longer on the shelf, the Flav'r Saver didn't turn out to have much "flav'r" to save.

To make a long story short, consumers generally steered clear of it; farmers had trouble growing it; Calgene burned hundreds of millions developing and marketing it; and eventually ended up tossing it on history's compost pile. In the end, Monsanto ended up buying Calgene at a fire-sale price.

Not many people ever ate a Flav'r Saver tomato; but the tomato in effect ate a multibillion-dollar biotech firm.

Since that time, the GM seed giants have generally steered clear of fruit and veg, focusing instead on big, ubiquitous commodity crops like corn, soy, and cotton. (Monsanto raised eyebrows a few years ago by buying the world's biggest fruit-and-veg seed producer, but the company claims it has no imminent plans of genetic tampering.)

I'm not posting these articles to disagree with the concerns about GM produce. But I do think we need to be clear on what exactly is going on, and to not spread fear of GM tomatoes and such when in fact no such product exists on the shelves.

These companies are constantly attempting to develop new products, so it's important to realize that the possibility of genetically modified fruits and vegetables reaching markets is very real. Currently, however, looking at what's in the pipeline, this would be 4 or 5 years away. And public opinion is very much against GM fruits and veggies so as long as we stay vigilant we can prevent it from happening. For some reason people are more willing to accept it in foods like corn and beans than they are fruits.

In the EU all genetically modified foods are banned.

I believe that there are GM papayas being sold in the US, one of the few GM fruits on the market.

doghouse reilly,

You are correct that currently the main GMO cash crops are corn, wheat, soy, rice and their derivatives and for human as well as livestock consumption. However, everything I've read indicates that submission of GMO foods to the FDA for approval is voluntary, and our government does not fully regulate the importation of GMO crops nor does it require their labeling. This is why the agrochemical concerns have taken their business to South Asia and South America--automatic loophole. GMO fruits and veg do exist, and that is why there is great agitation about them in Autralia and the EU. Otherwise, that would be just tilting at windmills, no?

Which is why we need this:

[www.ehow.com]

And this:

[www.answerbag.com]

From our government:

[www.fda.gov]

As they don't have web postings, you shall have to take my word for it that Midwestern farmers I've talked to have admitted to using GMO seed stocks for crops other than corn, wheat, soy, and rice. Very proud was one that her GMO cauliflowers were each the size of a 3-year-old's head and each almost exactly 16 oz. in weight, cleaned. I'm not a panicker by temperament, but I'm also not naïve. I would err on the side of caution and assume that companies with as great a market share as Syngenta, Archer Daniels Midland, and Monsanto aren't going to voluntarily regulate themselves to niches. It's bad for business. And as someone who's gardened on and off for most of her life, I'd bet my right hand that the freakishly uniform tomatoes I saw at the store today may not be Cargill, but they aren't natural hybrids either.

Thanks for all the info doghouse reilly and Tamukha. We DO really have to be vigilant!

And there is another risk of GM contamination to our food supply.

In an article "Take the Harm Out of Pharma and Industrial Crops", according to the Union Of Concerned Scientists, "Drug and biotechnology companies are engineering food crops to produce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals, and they are growing these crops outdoors, often in food-producing regions."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2009 01:54AM by suncloud.

I really enjoyed that article.

Thanks for putting it up.

Cherimoya,

Love Peace and Happiness,

Not necessarily the case. You might be interested in an update to my article here:
[www.raw-food-health.net]

I'm not talking GM.

RusticBohemian,

I'm not talking GM.


I know; see my first post above! It is a good article, and I'm with you about naturally hybridized fruit. I have actually never really understood why the intense debate about heirlooms v. hybrids, seedless v. seeded anyway. It seems, well, relatively piddling compared to some other raw foods issues.

[It seems, well, relatively piddling compared to some other raw foods issues.]

Yeah, it does. But it's consistent with the prevailing anti-science bent, which often goes hand in hand with an inability to distinguish the more pressing problems from the trivial ones.

I'm not saying it's trivial from an environmental impact standpoint. No question about it, modern agricultural practices are incredibly destructive and we need more diversity, not less.

But it seems trivial from a nutritional standpoint, to me.