This is of course a classic example of the simplistic, slick, deceptive, and emotionally manipulative arguments that the boosters of GM so called "foods" use to promote their own financial interests. Financial intersts which are potentially hugely enormous. And already are for Monsanto and other companies.
Monsanto is of course the principal exponent of such manipulative propaganda and in-your-face lies.
Why not do a google search using the words: Monsanto lies again, and again, and again.
Meanwhile I much prefer these two truth-telling sites:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk
http://gmo.mercola.com

Very interesting and important topic.

Of course kids are not going to be interested in the likes of celery or broccoli. Boring little bits of green plant material, which taste like… well… nothing. They’re just bland!

So if a young child checks them out just once, he/she will know not to bother again. Especially if there are much more interesting things around like keys, pipe-cleaners and spoons!

But when it comes to brightly coloured and yummy-tasting fruit, of course a kid would be interested, wouldn’t they?? Especially if they squash easily and can be use to make a lovely big mess!!

I deal with genetically modified organisms (not food) on a daily basis, and have not problem with the techniques/methodologies used. I have yet to see any valid criticism of creating and consuming GM food that it not actually a criticism of business/capitalism and/or farming practices rather than the GM food itself. I am happy to discuss this further if anyone is interested in a constructive discussion.

I think a better area for research into GM food would be products such as Golden Rice, containing a metabolic precursor to vitamin A, or other products that prevent food spoiling for longer periods of time. These products have the potential to prevent starvation and disease in the 3rd world.

Areas I believe we need to be careful with GM food include engineering resistance to pathogens, or simply to increase yields. These things are not necessarily dangerous themselves, but have the potential for unintended consequences.

The authors suggestion is a very expensive way to try and "trick" ourselves into eating healthier food. The problem is not with our food, we have everything we need to eat healthy and tasty meals. The problem is with the western lifestyle, which needs to be solved with cultural change. Correct problem, wrong solution.

"Then one can also speculate if the coloured pigments in the different plants are acting as signals to primates like us in the approach-avoidance behaviour that our young seems to have inbuilt... naturally occurring pigments have been purified and are sold as nutritional supplements in our health food stores but the fascinating coupling to co-evolution of the source of these nutraceuticals and us..."

One solution is to combine the best of all the possible worlds.

The precedence has already been set in at least mice and rabbits, so why not apply GMO technology towards 'Glow in the Dark' vegetables?

Plus, we can extend an existing portmanteau word for some fruits and vegetables into the even more impressive, fluoronutraceuticals.

Yes unintended consequences indeed.
If you combine the ancient warnings of hubris and Pandorra's Box with chaos theory and fractal pastterning you can be certain that sooner or later somewhere down the line there will be a never ending occurence of unintended consequences.
And we will not be able to put these ceaselessly multiplying fractal patterns back into Pandorra's box.

Probably started that first time we decided to pick that colourful fruit, domesticate that wild animal, or plant that seed many millennia ago. That unintended genetic modification of our environment did have unintended consequences, as will every action we ever take. Fear of these consequences is irrational.

But there is a hugely enormous quantitative and qualitative difference between old-style human caused genetic modifications within the same species of plant and animal life, and introducing "foreign" genetic material from entirely different species (or no species at all) into the DNA or genetic sequence or whatever, of any given naturally occurring plant or animal.
Anyone who pretends otherwise has their head up their butt.

A difference in the methodology used, but practically how is it different?

The genes added to golden rice to enable it to produce the precursor of Vitamin A are not endogenous to the plant, it is in many other plants. The consequence of adding these "foreign" genes is the same as if a person ate normal rice and took Vitamin A supplements.

I can make a much more severe change to a species by simply turning on or off a gene that it already has. Same could be said for cross/inter breeding. The difference is with GM is that we are only targeting the specific changes we desire. This means less unintended consequences, not more.

The irrational fear of GM seems to stem from misunderstanding of the methods and goals of the field. Would you rather a doctor prescribe a single drug targeting your specific disease, or try every drug he has, in many combinations to see what works best over a long period of time?

Here is an article that explains how a memories can be passed down to later generations through a genetic mechanism that allow the offspring to inherit the experience of their ancestors in this case the phobia of spiders....
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/phobias-may-be-memories-passed-down-in-genes-from-ancestors-20131202-2ymh5.html
In a similar fashion the avoidance of certain plants as foods could have been inhereted down generations of primates like us....