NON GMO feeds

[Chris09]

That's not the question. The question is, "Are Rutgers Tomato seeds heritage tomato seeds?"

A simple yes or no will suffice if you are unwilling to commit to a more in depth response.

Sorry, by your post I thought you was asking if it was a good tomato.

Yes the Rutgers tomato is a heritage tomato.

The Rutgers tomato has been available to the public since 1934 and was bred by Lyman Schermerhorn at Rutgers University.
Lyman used a Campbell's tomato which was of a Marglobe/ John Thompson Dorrance cross as a parent stock for the old Rutgers tomato.

There are very few seed companies that have the true Rutgers tomato, most sell a bred down version that really doesn't come close to a Rutgers. If I was to order the Rutgers seed I would get them from Harris Seeds.

There are at least two other "Rutgers" tomatoes, one being the Ramapo and the other is the Moreton F1 both are said to have the true Rutgers tomato taste and are all round good tomatoes.

 

[CrazyTalk]

Is it possible that the attack on GMOs is intended to increase the market share of the Non GMO concerns?
Seems like two of most often used weapons against science are again being deployed; appeal to emotions and accusations of greed.

Bingo.

 

[Cindy in PA]

Bingo.

JYHO

 

[gggeek]

Please answer one question for me. Do you like the HERITAGE tomato variety called Rutgers?

Now to answer the question you asked of me, my information comes from the United States Department of Agricultural and the United States Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the Royal Society, among other highly respected scientific organizations.

My second question for you is where do you get your scientific information?

You do realize that none of the mentioned organizations are scientific in nature nor are they in any manner highly respected. They are administrative arms of a government and if they were highly respected then why is there such a debate about their "science" behind such topics of GMO?

I would certainly question your scientific information if it came from an organization as suspect as those you listed. To me a "scientific" organization would be one such as the "Union of Concerned Scientists"; an organization made of scientists... not administrators.

And this coming from someone who is on the fence with GMOs (their initial promise of higher yields and health benefits is huge) and also someone who inherently is trusting of government. However, I am very much in the camp of "trust but verify" and there is nothing you can verify with the FDA, FSIS, USDA, etc due to the political lobbying of Big Ag.

 

[CrazyTalk]

if they were highly respected then why is there such a debate about their "science" behind such topics of GMO?

This question is a bit of a cop-out. There's controversy for the same reason there's 'controversy' about vaccines, and everything else - controversy sells ad-space better than consensus, and the media (and public at-large) don't understand preliminary studies, and the scientific paradigm of test-refine-test-refine. Much of the time there's consensus among scientific folks, and it takes a generation for the public to believe them.

When you bring up BigAg conspiracies, think about the fact that the Organic Foods industry is significantly larger in the US than the pesticide industry. Why is it that nobody ever asks about BigOrganic, and their lobbying?

 

[gggeek]

This question is a bit of a cop-out. There's controversy for the same reason there's 'controversy' about vaccines, and everything else - controversy sells ad-space better than consensus, and the media (and public at-large) don't understand preliminary studies, and the scientific paradigm of test-refine-test-refine. Much of the time there's consensus among scientific folks, and it takes a generation for the public to believe them.

When you bring up BigAg conspiracies, think about the fact that the Organic Foods industry is significantly larger in the US than the pesticide industry. Why is it that nobody ever asks about BigOrganic, and their lobbying?

I agree; controversy exists on any topic. However, the quoted organizations are very clearly on one side of the controversy and as such one would expect to find a wealth of balanced scientific information on the topic and there simply is not.

Also Big Ag lobbying in the US Government and on the world stage is not a conspiracy, its fact. The question is what impact it has; which if extrapolated from the laws and regulations passed indicates pretty heavily that Big Ag has its butt firmly in the drivers seat.

 

[chickengeorgeto]

You do realize that none of the mentioned organizations are scientific in nature nor are they in any manner highly respected. They are administrative arms of a government and if they were highly respected then why is there such a debate about their "science" behind such topics of GMO?

I would certainly question your scientific information if it came from an organization as suspect as those you listed. To me a "scientific" organization would be one such as the "Union of Concerned Scientists"; an organization made of scientists... not administrators.

And this coming from someone who is on the fence with GMOs (their initial promise of higher yields and health benefits is huge) and also someone who inherently is trusting of government. However, I am very much in the camp of "trust but verify" and there is nothing you can verify with the FDA, FSIS, USDA, etc due to the political lobbying of Big Ag.

Oh come on, the American Medical Association and the British Royal Society are both scientific organizations and neither one is part of the United States government, so all I can say is that you must be looking at a really weird flow chart.

But a highly respected scientific organization in France recently did forcibly remove a (Quote) Scientific (Unquote) study condemning GM corn or maze from their web sight for what can only be described by an honest observer as deliberate falsification of data with malaise a-forethought. This fraudulent study falsely linked GM corn with cancer in lab rats. The real telling thing about you trying to defend opposition to GM crops is that as far as I know the French Government doesn't allow GM corn to be planted inside its borders. So tell us where all this so called collision is coming from? Or did this fraudulent French study just leap out of the forest floor like a mushroom and bite the anti GMO activist on their backsides when their heads were turned? No, there had to be someone opposed to GM crops involved who was both ready and willing to lie to advance the anti GMO position. There is no other explanation.

 

[matt44644]

Michigan bans animals on small farms
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/05/02/michigan-bans-animals-on-small-farms/
Excuse me if im wrong but i got a hunch this falls in line of forcing us to be dependant on others and forcing us to eat what monsanto produces. Michigan can you chime in

That is total misinformation http://www.michigan.gov/documents/m...stions_-_August_28_2014_455493_7_466935_7.pdf
and no i don't like Monsato

 

[chickengeorgeto]

Quote:

When you bring up BigAg conspiracies, think about the fact that the Organic Foods industry is significantly larger in the US than the pesticide industry. Why is it that nobody ever asks about BigOrganic, and their lobbying?

China supplies 40% of the Organic processed food sold in the United States. Just 5 mega farms in California's Central Valley supplies the next 40% of all organic food. Tell me now, what's a poor Locavore to do for a bite of tucker?

 

[chickengeorgeto]

.... Yes the Rutgers tomato is a heritage tomato.

The Rutgers tomato has been available to the public since 1934 and was bred by Lyman Schermerhorn at Rutgers University.
Lyman used a Campbell's tomato which was of a Marglobe/ John Thompson Dorrance cross as a parent stock for the old Rutgers tomato.

There are very few seed companies that have the true Rutgers tomato, most sell a bred down version that really doesn't come close to a Rutgers. If I was to order the Rutgers seed I would get them from Harris Seeds.

There are at least two other "Rutgers" tomatoes, one being the Ramapo and the other is the Moreton F1 both are said to have the true Rutgers tomato taste and are all round good tomatoes.

So in reality the Rutgers tomato is not an Heirloom tomato but instead it is a hybrid tomato that has been bred out or allowed to breed on without any new crosses being made every year, thus allowing it by genetic drift to express the undesirable traits of its parent stock as well as show some of the favorable traits that once made the Rutgers hybrid tomato popular on industrial farms.

You seem to agree with me in regards to the diminished esteem that most home guarders now hold for Rutgers Tomatoes.