A Genetic Fix to Put the Taste Back in Tomatoes(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
A Genetic Fix to Put the Taste Back in Tomatoes
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/science/better-tasting-tomatoes-genes.html
158 comments
I wish there was a brand dedicated to optimizing for taste of fruits and vegetables vs appearance. And by taste I don't mean sweetness. I'd actually optimize for less sweet fruits.
One of the interesting areas our startup http://8-food.com/ hopes to explore is allowing for the effective distribution of short-run/seasonal/non-standard produce which would normally be unavailable due to conventional distribution chains / market forces. We are able to look at this seriously because of our emphasis on consumer choice, custom products, and dynamic pricing... whereas established chain restaurants seek reliable perennial large volume suppliers and supply-chains first (usually to support a year-round stable, unchanging, generic product), and optimizations for marketing (color, taste, etc.) a distant second.
Shop local and "real" fresh, like picked that day.
"Local" is grown from the same exact seeds as the large farms most of the time. Because of market forces local farms actually have higher overheads due to the laws of scale.
You might have to pay double-triple for the variety you like.
You might have to pay double-triple for the variety you like.
> "Local" is grown from the same exact seeds ...
Yes, but the process is different, as it optimizes the quality at the time of picking, rather than after several days spent in a container.
Yes, but the process is different, as it optimizes the quality at the time of picking, rather than after several days spent in a container.
Give the MJ industry a few years to spearhead experimentation with highly controlled farming techniques, then watch the tech scope out to custom strains of all sorts of different consumable plants as it comes down in price and people with related expertise gradually spread out as well.
> I wish there was a brand dedicated to optimizing for taste ... vs appearance
It will happen when enough people will be ready to choose tasteful vs "cheap & looking good".
It will happen when enough people will be ready to choose tasteful vs "cheap & looking good".
Pro tip: never eat canned goods. The coating inside of them is loaded with endocrine disruptors.
Edit: nice to see downvotes without any discourse. Keep it up HN!
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726844/
Edit: nice to see downvotes without any discourse. Keep it up HN!
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726844/
Those are good links, and you shouldn't be downvoted.
That being said, it's a little more complex than that. From http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/health/canned-foods-bpa-risk/ :
>Now, a study published in the journal Environmental Research on Wednesday not only reveals that consuming canned foods can expose our bodies to BPA, it pinpoints the worst offenders. The study suggests that canned soups and pasta can expose consumers to higher concentrations of BPA than canned vegetables and fruit -- and although those foods are tied to BPA concentrations, canned beverages, meat and fish are not.
That being said, it's a little more complex than that. From http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/health/canned-foods-bpa-risk/ :
>Now, a study published in the journal Environmental Research on Wednesday not only reveals that consuming canned foods can expose our bodies to BPA, it pinpoints the worst offenders. The study suggests that canned soups and pasta can expose consumers to higher concentrations of BPA than canned vegetables and fruit -- and although those foods are tied to BPA concentrations, canned beverages, meat and fish are not.
For me personally I still wouldn't risk it with meat or fish. What if the brand you actually eat wasn't researched and actually does contain BPA (or a similarly unhealthy replacement) and thus you ingest it? Better safe then sorry..
Besides that, its pretty easy for me buy either fresh or glass-stored food at the supermarket, both of which are safe (but that easy access could be just because I live in Europe and its more usual to cook at home here).
Besides that, its pretty easy for me buy either fresh or glass-stored food at the supermarket, both of which are safe (but that easy access could be just because I live in Europe and its more usual to cook at home here).
It's pretty easy here in California, as we have a ton of agriculture in-state.
There are several states where the fruit n' veg selection is pretty sparse in the winter, though.
//
There are several companies that make it a point to use BPA-free cans.
http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/7-companies-you-can-tru...
Wild Planet's tuna, in particular, is really, really good. If you like fish, you should give it a try, if you can find it.
There are several states where the fruit n' veg selection is pretty sparse in the winter, though.
//
There are several companies that make it a point to use BPA-free cans.
http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/7-companies-you-can-tru...
Wild Planet's tuna, in particular, is really, really good. If you like fish, you should give it a try, if you can find it.
Reasons for downvoting -
>nice to see downvotes...
HN asks people not to complain about downvoting. It karma whoring.
> Pro tip:
If you are a professional please state how? Else this is just more of the Reddits we are trying to escape.
> The coating inside of them is loaded with
Your linked article do not show it's 'Loaded with'
> without any discourse.
Seems to be a fair amount of it? Once again Reddit style making out like you're the under dog.
And the obvious
Most experts currently state there are no issues with BPA's in our diets in foods like cans, so more than one sentence is needed for this to be a constructive start to the conversation that opposes medical advice.
>nice to see downvotes...
HN asks people not to complain about downvoting. It karma whoring.
> Pro tip:
If you are a professional please state how? Else this is just more of the Reddits we are trying to escape.
> The coating inside of them is loaded with
Your linked article do not show it's 'Loaded with'
> without any discourse.
Seems to be a fair amount of it? Once again Reddit style making out like you're the under dog.
And the obvious
Most experts currently state there are no issues with BPA's in our diets in foods like cans, so more than one sentence is needed for this to be a constructive start to the conversation that opposes medical advice.
[deleted]
Do you have anything showing that these are used in canned foods?
Sure. Here you go.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/health/canned-foods-bpa-risk/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/health/canned-foods-bpa-risk/
... are you seriously too lazy to do ctrl+t->'canned food endocrine disruptors'->enter ?
And don't use the argument that the onus is on me for giving more links. If googling it is too much effort for you, how can you expect me to do it for you..?
And don't use the argument that the onus is on me for giving more links. If googling it is too much effort for you, how can you expect me to do it for you..?
I only asked because you listed research listing the problems with endocrine disruptors, but nothing showing they were used in cans.
I love the edit.
There's a strange thing about canned tomatoes in North America: manufacturers seem to always put a firming agent (calcium chloride) which makes canned tomatoes supernaturally firm. But imported European canned tomatoes are fine.
I don't have the reference at hand, but I read a paper a few months ago that explained this. You prefer flavors you grew up with. Flavors change, so as you get older, you think flavors get worse. Except they don't, the double blind testing showed age cohort related preference clustering, but no proof for 'everything was better in the old days'. This study was for strawberries but I don't see why it would be different.
Meanwhile I'm 31 and have semi-recently had both strawberries with a distinct strawberry flavour and strawberries that tasted like edible water. Ditto for tomatoes and even watermelons.
It's not that the flavour got worse, it's that a lot of fruits and vegetables were selected for other factors than what they taste like. They don't taste different, they just don't taste much like anything.
I'm not saying this confirms that "everything was better in the old days" but flavour differences are real and being picky about strawberries or tomatoes isn't just about preferring what you grew up with. The watery breeds aren't so widespread because younger people prefer them, they're widespread for economical reasons and younger people (allegedly) prefer them because they're more familiar with them.
It's not that the flavour got worse, it's that a lot of fruits and vegetables were selected for other factors than what they taste like. They don't taste different, they just don't taste much like anything.
I'm not saying this confirms that "everything was better in the old days" but flavour differences are real and being picky about strawberries or tomatoes isn't just about preferring what you grew up with. The watery breeds aren't so widespread because younger people prefer them, they're widespread for economical reasons and younger people (allegedly) prefer them because they're more familiar with them.
While in principle I agree, I'm afraid that when it comes to supermarket goods, they are really tasteless and age has nothing to do here. Do a simple experiment: get generic strawberries from a supermarket and fresh ones from a garden. You would be amazed by the difference, it's like a totally different thing. Same goes for pretty much any fruit or vegetable.
Alternatively, younger people don't know what they are missing. As the article points out it's not a sudden drop it's a low change over time where A is almost as good as B and B is almost as good as C ... until it's cardboard.
I have done this experiment with Apples and Oranges kids really prefer the full flavor options and they are not just preferring their childhood tastes as they are still kids.
I have done this experiment with Apples and Oranges kids really prefer the full flavor options and they are not just preferring their childhood tastes as they are still kids.
Time to break open a seed vault and see who's right. We give young'uns the old stuff and see how they react. And then make a fortune if you're right, and make nothing if your parent comment is right.
I think you're missing the point: it's not that the flavour of the breeds has gotten words, it's that the breeds with the more distinct flavours have largely gone away.
When there are less than a handful varieties widely available anymore and the breeds that made it were picked based on practical concerns rather than taste, it's pretty obvious why someone who experienced the full range of flavours might consider today's offerings quite bland.
Case in point: there is a wide range of apple breeds with very different flavours that was used for various dishes traditionally. Trying to use the same one or two breeds that are still widely available for the same dishes leads to naturally very different (and arguably inferior as the recipes were specifically created with those breeds in minds) results regardless of whether the apple by itself would have been any tastier.
When there are less than a handful varieties widely available anymore and the breeds that made it were picked based on practical concerns rather than taste, it's pretty obvious why someone who experienced the full range of flavours might consider today's offerings quite bland.
Case in point: there is a wide range of apple breeds with very different flavours that was used for various dishes traditionally. Trying to use the same one or two breeds that are still widely available for the same dishes leads to naturally very different (and arguably inferior as the recipes were specifically created with those breeds in minds) results regardless of whether the apple by itself would have been any tastier.
I have friends who grow heirloom varieties of vegetables, they often complain that it's hard to compete with supermarket stuff because of productivity (price), seasonality, appearance (I.e. some tomato never gets properly red and people think it's less tasty) etc.
Their stuff tastes great, but you won't be making a fortune with it unless you cater to people who care about this stuff and are willing to pay more.
Afaict this is what "whole foods" does in the US and they are pretty successful.
Their stuff tastes great, but you won't be making a fortune with it unless you cater to people who care about this stuff and are willing to pay more.
Afaict this is what "whole foods" does in the US and they are pretty successful.
>Flavors change, so as you get older, you think flavors get worse.
Yeah, except that it's more like flavors didn't change so much as disappear.
Yeah, except that it's more like flavors didn't change so much as disappear.
I thought I disliked tomatoes as a kid, eating around them as you describe. Only when I discovered garden-grown cherry tomatoes did I flip the other way. So far the other way I'm surprised I didn't get sick eating so many of them. They're incredible.
My family has a countryside house with a small greenhouse. Whenever I visit over the summer when the tomatoes are getting ripe, I go to see it. On a sunny day, opening the doors hits me with such an incredible fragrant tomato aroma followed by a eating a fresh off-the-vine tomato, that buying any tomato in a supermarket now just ends in big disappointment with how flavourless it is.
Have you tried sungolds? They are a little smaller than cherry tomatoes, yellow-orange and even better, IMO. They are sweet but still retain a ton of tomato flavor. They also grow like crazy. If you give them something to climb on, plenty of sun and water the plants get huge. Here in CA I had them fruiting this year from May all the way into December. Finally the frost got them.
Oh man! Those are actually what I was thinking of. I used to live in CA and my folks had a plant. The thing got out of control huge.
When people say I'm full of it or delusional, I ask them to try one of the tomatoes and tell me if it tastes anything like spaghetti or pizza sauce, or simple, un-seasoned tomato sauce, or even goddamned ketchup.
I could totally be delusional about the popcorn, though — I'm not that old. But one could do a taste test: 5600 year old kernels were shown to still pop.
I could totally be delusional about the popcorn, though — I'm not that old. But one could do a taste test: 5600 year old kernels were shown to still pop.
> canners use varieties that have not been ruined for shipping
This explains why I love canned/boxed tomatoes, but hate the slimy, bland sliced ones they put on sandwiches.
This explains why I love canned/boxed tomatoes, but hate the slimy, bland sliced ones they put on sandwiches.
A home grown heirloom tomato is amazing. The stuff that they try to pass off in the stores as a tomato is awful.
If a sliced tomato is slimy on your sandwich, that's not a variety problem, it's a preparation problem (in that application, tomatoes, regardless of variety, should be seeded.) Bland may be a variety problem, though it can also be a poor handling problem.
If there is no flavor, you are left only with texture.
There are 2 really good canned variety's available in the US (IMHO):
1) San Marzano (imported) 2) Muir Glen Organic
1) San Marzano (imported) 2) Muir Glen Organic
Worth noting that San Marzano is an Italian DOC, distinct from the US brand SMT, which has previously called their tomatoes San Marzano, despite not actually being that. They engage(d) in various shady practices so I personally avoid them and suggest others do too.
For more info, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68538/are-these-t...
For more info, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68538/are-these-t...
Odd. Either I have terrible tastebuds or it doesn't matter in this particular application, but last time I made sauce with San Marzano vs generic tomatoes no one could tell the difference.
Someone more experienced want to pipe in and help my ignorance?
Someone more experienced want to pipe in and help my ignorance?
Depending on how you cooked it, the difference might be subtle enough that only someone familiar with it would notice.
Try eating the tomato raw, like an apple. A good tomato is wonderful with just a sprinkle of salt.
I only started noticing the difference after I grew my own heirloom tomatoes. I was amazed when I ate my first harvest, fresh off the plant. I had never tasted a tomato before in my life! Basic supermarket tomatoes just taste like water.
Try eating the tomato raw, like an apple. A good tomato is wonderful with just a sprinkle of salt.
I only started noticing the difference after I grew my own heirloom tomatoes. I was amazed when I ate my first harvest, fresh off the plant. I had never tasted a tomato before in my life! Basic supermarket tomatoes just taste like water.
Not experienced, but (1) unless tomatoes feature prominently in a recipe, the details of their flavour won't have that much impact, (2) for any expensive protected-origin kind of stuff, there's a chance somebody just took the plain stuff and relabelled it.
You can make popcorn in a saucepan, it's easy and fun. Gourmet popcorn (different kernels) also tastes far better even than the bulk kernels you can find in the store.
It's hilarious. I grew up in the rural midwest and I was taught to make "popped corn" on the stove in a pot with a little bit of oil by my grand mother. I love it this way, so does my wife, and I still prefer to make it this way to today. However, we had a very good friend over recently and I made popcorn for the 3 of us on the stove and she thought it was way beyond weird. She actually bought us one of those air popcorn makers for Christmas and was like, "Here, now you guys don't have to use the stove to make popcorn anymore!"
My parents had a pot with a top, and a crank in the handle that could be turned to stop the kernels from sticking. I suppose it's the more commercial version of what you grew up doing. It looks like they're still available for $20 or $30.
Those hand crank popcorn poppers can be pretty good at roasting your own coffee, if you're interested.
I don't know about others, but I for one would like to learn more. Do you have any links or further info?
http://legacy.sweetmarias.com/stovepopmethod.php
I've been roasting coffee stovetop for about a year. Takes me about 10 minutes to roast 12 ounces, the result is great, and it only ends up costing about $1/lb more than what I used to pay for roasted beans at Costco. If you like coffee at all, I highly recommend giving it a try!
I've been roasting coffee stovetop for about a year. Takes me about 10 minutes to roast 12 ounces, the result is great, and it only ends up costing about $1/lb more than what I used to pay for roasted beans at Costco. If you like coffee at all, I highly recommend giving it a try!
Yep - me too, and I've used a variety of beans from that same source to great effect. Good luck. Also, if you're in the bay area, I'll be happy to give you a demo if you need it.
I used that for a while, eventually we switched to a hot air popper which seemed to do a better job with less fuss. Then, in December, I got a Behmor 1600+ which is really nice.
And from experience, they're hands down the best option in every factor but convenience. Air poppers are basically flavorless (you need the oil), and electric auto-stirring machines are bulky and don't get hot enough.
The brand we've always had is Whirlypop.
The brand we've always had is Whirlypop.
Waiting for the oil to get hot, and cleaning up afterwards, are both basically wastes of time. I remember switching to air poppers happily.
I guess? I mean, if that's your stance then isn't cooking any food at all is a waste of time because of waiting on things to get hot and the ensuing clean up?
I can tell you that getting the oil hot takes all of ~2 minutes and it's not like I'm standing over top of the stove waiting for it to happen. Cleaning up takes about 30 seconds to wash the pot, the lid, and whatever bowl I used to hold the popcorn. If I ever find myself thinking, "Geez, I really wish I had that 3 or 4 minutes back" then I'd be trying to find out what's really going on in my life that is making me feel that way. I can tell you with certainty that it sure wouldn't be the 3 or 4 minutes it takes to cook the popcorn and then clean up a pot, it's lid, and a bowl afterwords.
My thing with air poppers is that the oil imparts a flavor that you obviously don't get otherwise and which I happen to prefer greatly to air popped popcorn.
I can tell you that getting the oil hot takes all of ~2 minutes and it's not like I'm standing over top of the stove waiting for it to happen. Cleaning up takes about 30 seconds to wash the pot, the lid, and whatever bowl I used to hold the popcorn. If I ever find myself thinking, "Geez, I really wish I had that 3 or 4 minutes back" then I'd be trying to find out what's really going on in my life that is making me feel that way. I can tell you with certainty that it sure wouldn't be the 3 or 4 minutes it takes to cook the popcorn and then clean up a pot, it's lid, and a bowl afterwords.
My thing with air poppers is that the oil imparts a flavor that you obviously don't get otherwise and which I happen to prefer greatly to air popped popcorn.
I do this, and yeah, the results are pretty great, even with ordinary and easy-to-find Orville Redenbacher corn (off and store brands, not so much).
Have you found any varieties that taste like the parent poster describes? I.E. with heavy corn flavor? I've tried a few "heirloom" varieties and they've usually been nuttier-tasting, with smaller pops and a much worse popped-to-unpopped ratio than the Redenbacher corn (though the flavor's usually interesting enough that I don't mind that too much). Definitely not cornier-tasting—farther from it, if anything.
Have you found any varieties that taste like the parent poster describes? I.E. with heavy corn flavor? I've tried a few "heirloom" varieties and they've usually been nuttier-tasting, with smaller pops and a much worse popped-to-unpopped ratio than the Redenbacher corn (though the flavor's usually interesting enough that I don't mind that too much). Definitely not cornier-tasting—farther from it, if anything.
Yeah, I tried some Trader Joe's organic stuff, and the result was smaller kernels that were not very crisp.
Redenbachers seems to do the job texture wise, but I'd love to hear about some really great lesser known stuff.
Redenbachers seems to do the job texture wise, but I'd love to hear about some really great lesser known stuff.
Yes, one of my wife's patients would bring in some of his from time to time, and it was the best popcorn I've ever tasted. Haven't had it in a while though.
I grew up making popcorn like this - my mother had a special pan with a crank on top that stirred the kernels.
I now have a machine that does the same thing. I just put a bit of oil in the bottom (very little) and let it do the stuff.
I now have a machine that does the same thing. I just put a bit of oil in the bottom (very little) and let it do the stuff.
The real pro trick is to not put a lid on the pan. Instead use an inverted metal colander. You will get some small amount of oil on your stove top but it's worth it. This method allows the water vapor to escape which yields much lighter airier popcorn but unlike an air popper you still get all the flavor from the oil. Toasted sesame oil or coconut oil are really good.
Try a whirley-pop popper. It has vents at the top to let out the steam and a hand-cranked rotor to agitate the popcorn as it is popping so that the unpopped kernels fall to the bottom to finish cooking.
I find that I can get near 100% yield with only minimal agitation in a regular pan. The popcorn popping provides plenty of agitation on it's own.
I love doing it this way. Cheaper, tastier, less salty. And once you get the technique down it doesn't even take that much longer.
For popcorn the best I have found is an heirloom variety called "Tiny But Mighty" (http://tinybutmightyfoods.com) that pops up as tiny hull-less popcorn. It looks a bit strange the first time you make it, as the popped kernels are much smaller than standard popcorn, but the taste is worth it. And you should be using a whirly-pop to do the popping :)
I'm under 40, but I know what you mean. My parents always grew some corn in the garden and we'd get popcorn after we got the seeds. I don't know shit about gardening so I haven't figured this out yet.
Canned tomatoes are still less flavorful breeds, they're just fully ripened.
Temple Grandin had some interesting thoughts on how single trait breeding can lead to adverse affects in her discussion on "Rapist Roosters", and how this relates to software[0]. It seems like this is also happening here.
Typically when single trait breeding leads to an adverse, undesirable affect (lack of taste), while the selected trait was obtained (in this case, possibly bigger size) breeders don't start from scratch by trying to isolate the desired trait without obtaining the undesirable trait. Instead, as in software, the breeders iterate by trying to remove the negative trait, complicating the hybrids and possibly more unknown adverse traits. It seems like it might be wise to start from scratch in some cases and keep it simple, rather then make hybrid species whose lineage can be difficult to trace.
[0]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aMVmhqpILOAC&printsec=fron... page 70
Typically when single trait breeding leads to an adverse, undesirable affect (lack of taste), while the selected trait was obtained (in this case, possibly bigger size) breeders don't start from scratch by trying to isolate the desired trait without obtaining the undesirable trait. Instead, as in software, the breeders iterate by trying to remove the negative trait, complicating the hybrids and possibly more unknown adverse traits. It seems like it might be wise to start from scratch in some cases and keep it simple, rather then make hybrid species whose lineage can be difficult to trace.
[0]: https://books.google.com/books?id=aMVmhqpILOAC&printsec=fron... page 70
That explains why most every dog breed that competes on looks and becomes popular gets messed up. Also American breeders have this odd habit of taking large dogs that should be about 80 lbs and breeding them into behemoths, usually to the detriment of the dogs
You are being too nice calling it a habit. Breeding behemoths is what sells. People will pay a premium for the pick of the litter (which is code words for "the biggest"). I don't have any problems with dog breeding per se, but the market forces are seriously broken.
EDIT: In addition to pushing for bigger dogs, it's also profitable to drive down food and vet costs. Kennel clubs like the American Kennel Club are scams. The kennel clubs just receive fees for processing paper. They don't inspect breeders. They don't care if you're a puppy mill. As long as you pay your fees, you will get your papers.
EDIT: In addition to pushing for bigger dogs, it's also profitable to drive down food and vet costs. Kennel clubs like the American Kennel Club are scams. The kennel clubs just receive fees for processing paper. They don't inspect breeders. They don't care if you're a puppy mill. As long as you pay your fees, you will get your papers.
the puppy mill thing is disgusting. I also knew a pathologist who clued me in on the fact that a lot of the breed characteristics are considered diseases in humans, e.g. the achondroplasia of dachsands and basset hounds.
My thinking- you should breed for performance, health and temperament.
My thinking- you should breed for performance, health and temperament.
> I don’t want people to not eat a great-tasting tomato because they’re scared of it
And we also don't want anyone to claim exclusive rights on producing such tomatoes, because some moron came up with the idea to patent genes.
And we also don't want anyone to claim exclusive rights on producing such tomatoes, because some moron came up with the idea to patent genes.
Exactly, and there are plenty of existing varieties that taste as they should. The random colors and shapes are part of the fun.
I'd much rather have one heirloom than 4 identical red tomatoes still on a vine sold in a plastic box.
I'd much rather have one heirloom than 4 identical red tomatoes still on a vine sold in a plastic box.
A heirloom has nothing to do with it, that just means its seeds create fruit true to the parent fruit.
I have taken some really tasty hybrids and grew them back down into a heirloom of sorts. I've started to grow tomatoes 5 years ago. http://unturf2.tumblr.com
That said, yeah we don't need to engineer the flavor back into tomatoes, we need people to vote with their wallets.
I have taken some really tasty hybrids and grew them back down into a heirloom of sorts. I've started to grow tomatoes 5 years ago. http://unturf2.tumblr.com
That said, yeah we don't need to engineer the flavor back into tomatoes, we need people to vote with their wallets.
Uh, plant patents are one of only a handful of patent varieties (in the US), and they exist specifically to cover new breeds. This is very much a patent-able breed, and much more easily enforced because it's a well characterized bit of law, whereas the 'gene patents' only got by on a technicality of requiring cDNA intermediates.
Patents on living beings in general are as ridiculous as patents on genes.
> In the tasting panels, there were noticeable differences in preferences: between men and women, between foodies and nonfoodies, and, perhaps most interesting, between older people and younger people. He recalled one of the students working in his laboratory picking out the supermarket tomato as her favorite in one of the taste tests.
People like what they know. But I'm guessing repeated exposure could end up shifting the tastes.
People like what they know. But I'm guessing repeated exposure could end up shifting the tastes.
Yeah, that doesn't seem like a very objective way to test this kind of thing. We know, based on all kinds of testing done in the past, that our tastebuds react more sensitively to tastes that we don't know to protect us from potentially eating foods that are poisonous or rotten. It's the reason why you have to develop a taste for things like bleu cheese and cilantro and why they taste bitter or strong at first. We're "programmed" to like foods that we've tasted before and are used to and that we know are safe to eat. When you introduce a flavor for something that we "know" what it's supposed to taste like, we naturally are averse to that taste. It's the same reason that people develop taste aversions to foods that they've gotten sick from or why people can't drink a liquor that they've had a terrible experience with. Your tastebuds "recognize" that this taste or flavor got you sick last time and prepare your body for it.
Do you have any citations? This all sounds so obvious and logical but so do most other theories in evolutionary psychology and biology. I don't think we have enough evidence to make such strong claims.
I developed a taste for spicy food after years of avoiding it like the plague for digestive reasons but only found out after I had a strong craving for Indian food and accidentally got something really spicy. I also can't bring myself to order tortas because I ate one too soon after getting really sick from tacos. Reading the word "tortas" makes me feel nauseous but "tacos" does not and I can eat both without any negative response (once the food is in front of me). These examples are orthogonal to yours but I think they're illustrative of just how complex the interactions are. I don't doubt the adaptations you mentioned are there, just how prelevant they are in a modern agricultural society.
I developed a taste for spicy food after years of avoiding it like the plague for digestive reasons but only found out after I had a strong craving for Indian food and accidentally got something really spicy. I also can't bring myself to order tortas because I ate one too soon after getting really sick from tacos. Reading the word "tortas" makes me feel nauseous but "tacos" does not and I can eat both without any negative response (once the food is in front of me). These examples are orthogonal to yours but I think they're illustrative of just how complex the interactions are. I don't doubt the adaptations you mentioned are there, just how prelevant they are in a modern agricultural society.
Wikipedia actually has a fairly good overview of the idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditioned_taste_aversion
You can find more info on Google Scholar for specific studies and papers.
You can find more info on Google Scholar for specific studies and papers.
I think people are often too harsh on supermarket produce. Obviously they factor in time spent during transport, but the growers have ridiculous amounts of experience in what they do.
I grow 6-7 different types of tomatoes in my backyard (including heirloom types). Some are good, some varieties are bland. Have had a few supermarket cherry tomatoes recently that have been great, and similar experiences with others.
Often I end up picking my own tomatoes before they're perfectly ripe anyway to lessen the chance of birds/bugs/rats beating me to it. Little different to growers picking early for transport.
I also grow two different types of strawberries. They're good, but so are those we get in shops.
I grow 6-7 different types of tomatoes in my backyard (including heirloom types). Some are good, some varieties are bland. Have had a few supermarket cherry tomatoes recently that have been great, and similar experiences with others.
Often I end up picking my own tomatoes before they're perfectly ripe anyway to lessen the chance of birds/bugs/rats beating me to it. Little different to growers picking early for transport.
I also grow two different types of strawberries. They're good, but so are those we get in shops.
I'm curious to hear how the men/women split fits into the "people like what they know" paradigm. Is the grocery store secretly swapping out my tomatoes but not my partner's?
amazing tasting tomatoes still exist around the world, if you are on vacation in Italy in the summer buy some "cuor di bue" tomatoes at the supermarket and they will be amazing.
Of course if you happen to know somebody that grows them and you can pick them off the plant they will be even more incredible, but even the "normal" supermarket ones are going to be orders of magnitude tastier than anything you can find in North America in my experience.
The issue is of course that said tomatoes are available only for a short period of time, so if you are having a craving for them in December, you are out of luck, but that's the way it's always been, the summer ones are just as tasty now as they've always been so there's no need to put taste "back" into them.
Of course if you happen to know somebody that grows them and you can pick them off the plant they will be even more incredible, but even the "normal" supermarket ones are going to be orders of magnitude tastier than anything you can find in North America in my experience.
The issue is of course that said tomatoes are available only for a short period of time, so if you are having a craving for them in December, you are out of luck, but that's the way it's always been, the summer ones are just as tasty now as they've always been so there's no need to put taste "back" into them.
Amazing tasting tomatoes are also very easy to grow yourself. Tomatoes are a hardy vine, and hard to mess up, you just need plenty of sunshine. There are seeds available for many heirloom varieties, and when you grow them yourself, you pick them at the peak of freshness. I particularly like the Early Girl variety. It's a bummer that you can't re-plant the seeds from most tomatoes, which are F1 hybrids, so the next generation is really terrible.
I've been growing them for years, even when I was living in apartments with no garden space at all. For really tight space, something like an EarthBox works great - you get very high plant density. I had one of those on a balcony barely bigger than the box itself, and I still had a few fresh tomatoes every week!
Here in the SF bay area, you can sprout the seeds in late Feb, early March, and you've got edible tomatoes by mid may, all the way through October. I'm pretty sure I can build a cheap glass house and have them year round, now that I have back yard.
I've been growing them for years, even when I was living in apartments with no garden space at all. For really tight space, something like an EarthBox works great - you get very high plant density. I had one of those on a balcony barely bigger than the box itself, and I still had a few fresh tomatoes every week!
Here in the SF bay area, you can sprout the seeds in late Feb, early March, and you've got edible tomatoes by mid may, all the way through October. I'm pretty sure I can build a cheap glass house and have them year round, now that I have back yard.
This- very much this. I used to put a tomato cage in a large pot and grow them on my front porch - though I had a shorter growing season. I could put them out in Mid-to-late May. If it was the right variety, they'd keep producing until the plant was killed by frost and cold.
Soil, however, will affect your taste. I really miss good summer tomatoes from Indiana - I knew folks that moved down south and complained about the difference in taste, even when they grew them.
Soil, however, will affect your taste. I really miss good summer tomatoes from Indiana - I knew folks that moved down south and complained about the difference in taste, even when they grew them.
You mention that there are plenty of heirloom tomatoes that area easy to grow. Two sentences later you say that you can't replant the seeds because they are F1 hybrids.
I think a clarification is in order. The general consensus is that if a tomato is an heirloom it is not a hybrid, and vice versa.
I have had excellent luck with growing plants from collected seeds for any of the heirloom tomatoes I've grown. With hybrids, your mileage may vary.
That being said, I find heirloom tomatoes to be a lot more finicky to grow. Various species are sensitive to diseases. Excessive rain increases chances of diseases, and therefore, a green house or at least rain cover helps out.
That being said, I encourage anyone to try growing their own tomatoes. You will get fruit! It's hugely satisfying. Once you eat a good tomato, it feels like you are in on a secret most people don't know about.
I think a clarification is in order. The general consensus is that if a tomato is an heirloom it is not a hybrid, and vice versa.
I have had excellent luck with growing plants from collected seeds for any of the heirloom tomatoes I've grown. With hybrids, your mileage may vary.
That being said, I find heirloom tomatoes to be a lot more finicky to grow. Various species are sensitive to diseases. Excessive rain increases chances of diseases, and therefore, a green house or at least rain cover helps out.
That being said, I encourage anyone to try growing their own tomatoes. You will get fruit! It's hugely satisfying. Once you eat a good tomato, it feels like you are in on a secret most people don't know about.
Sorry, I plant both. I can plant harvested heirloom seeds (but find it more convenient to buy them). The Early Girl tomatoes, whose flavor I really like that I mentioned are hybrids which don't re-plant well.
I agree, that heirlooms are more difficult to keep happy - they're just more sensitive to "stuff".
I agree, that heirlooms are more difficult to keep happy - they're just more sensitive to "stuff".
And even then, you can typically grow a plant from a hybrid seed. Now, whether that plant will produce fruit that resembles the one you got the seed from is an entirely different question. For instance, attempting to grow apple seeds will typically get you a crabapple tree. Cultivars are clones grafted onto crabapple rootstock.
I'll underline the "need plenty of sunshine".
We've planted tomatoes for 16 years (hope springs eternal) in the SF Peninsula hills and gotten nearly nothing in return. Our next-door neighbor has far better sun exposure, and she gives us most of the tomatoes we eat in summer.
We've planted tomatoes for 16 years (hope springs eternal) in the SF Peninsula hills and gotten nearly nothing in return. Our next-door neighbor has far better sun exposure, and she gives us most of the tomatoes we eat in summer.
I recently bought hydroponic equipment, including lamps, to grow herbs. So far I only turn on the lamps after dinner when I read or am on the computer. Probably won't use lamps during summer. Will try tomatoes if the herbs turn out well.
[deleted]
No need to go that far. I grow amazing tasting heirloom tomatoes in my backyard in Pennsylvania, the Bonnie Best variety from 1908. I grew them for the first time last year and got 115lbs from 5 plants - I was giving bags away to my neighbors and co-workers, got rave reviews!
Amazing tasting tomatoes are still common in North America, too. They're called "heirloom tomatoes" and are widely available at farmers' markets, as well as high end and organic grocery stores.
Tomatoes are practically weeds. They grow like crazy, and you can eat heirlooms as sweet or as savory as you like.
Sometimes I think I didn't know wealth until I had a cherokee purple straight off the vine. You can practically make sashimi with it.
Now I'm just gonna come out and say it: fucking with genes worries me. It only takes one unforeseen toxic externality for the whole thing to turn out very poorly. (dangers of monocropping; turning plants into intellectual property, whatever the hell happened to pugs, etc.)
Just know how surprisingly easy it is to grow your own--and do! That's all I'm saying.
Sometimes I think I didn't know wealth until I had a cherokee purple straight off the vine. You can practically make sashimi with it.
Now I'm just gonna come out and say it: fucking with genes worries me. It only takes one unforeseen toxic externality for the whole thing to turn out very poorly. (dangers of monocropping; turning plants into intellectual property, whatever the hell happened to pugs, etc.)
Just know how surprisingly easy it is to grow your own--and do! That's all I'm saying.
>dangers of monocropping
Nothing to do with biotechnology or genome editing. In fact both technologies can and will be used to make crops more diverse.
>turning plants into intellectual property
There are specific plant breeds that are already closely guarded IP. Not to mention, this is like being against software because software patents exist.
>whatever the hell happened to pugs
Selective breeding? That's what is responsible for every vegetable you have ever eaten, ever, without exception.
>Now I'm just gonna come out and say it: fucking with genes worries me. It only takes one unforeseen toxic externality for the whole thing to turn out very poorly
"Fucking with genes" is what enabled the agricultural revolution, the green revolution, and is responsible for all of the food we eat today. Now we have the biotechnology and understanding to edit genes in ways that are inherently safer, more targeted, and less random. Are you not concerned that your conclusion (biotechnology is too scary to ever use) is not held by the overwhelminh majority of plant scientists and geneticists? Is there anything you and I can talk about that would convince you of not being anti-biotechnology?
Nothing to do with biotechnology or genome editing. In fact both technologies can and will be used to make crops more diverse.
>turning plants into intellectual property
There are specific plant breeds that are already closely guarded IP. Not to mention, this is like being against software because software patents exist.
>whatever the hell happened to pugs
Selective breeding? That's what is responsible for every vegetable you have ever eaten, ever, without exception.
>Now I'm just gonna come out and say it: fucking with genes worries me. It only takes one unforeseen toxic externality for the whole thing to turn out very poorly
"Fucking with genes" is what enabled the agricultural revolution, the green revolution, and is responsible for all of the food we eat today. Now we have the biotechnology and understanding to edit genes in ways that are inherently safer, more targeted, and less random. Are you not concerned that your conclusion (biotechnology is too scary to ever use) is not held by the overwhelminh majority of plant scientists and geneticists? Is there anything you and I can talk about that would convince you of not being anti-biotechnology?
> Is there anything you and I can talk about that would convince you of not being anti-biotechnology.
Sure. I'm not strongly anti-biotechnology.
On reflection, the two points that really bother me.
a) genetic modifications are usually for stuff like "keeping potatoes from bruising because people don't like the look of bruised potatoes." Or "keeping tomatoes flavorful so people can keep mindlessly buying them out of season." They're always fixes that allow the consumer to remain as passive as possible.
b) I've never hear a single scientist make a good argument against GMOs. What, like you can't come up with a single possible downside? I think what finally convinced me to vote for Hillary was seeing the best arguments against her, by people who really hated her guts (like, really, the worst you have are dark insinuations?) I want to hear someone creative/knowledgeable come up with their best argument against GMOs. Like, they got hired to find the worst case scenarios. I just feel like I've never heard that argument articulated well.
Anyway, there are two possibilities: a) this issue is so amazingly stupid that no informed person would ever be bothered by these practices. b) there are real--if unlikely--toxic externalities to genetic modification, but no informed person wants to share them because they don't want to feed the fire of ignorance.
And, yeah, the dismissive tone of scientists I've talked to, coupled with their apparent ignorance, has not reassured me that this conversation is being had in good faith.
Sure. I'm not strongly anti-biotechnology.
On reflection, the two points that really bother me.
a) genetic modifications are usually for stuff like "keeping potatoes from bruising because people don't like the look of bruised potatoes." Or "keeping tomatoes flavorful so people can keep mindlessly buying them out of season." They're always fixes that allow the consumer to remain as passive as possible.
b) I've never hear a single scientist make a good argument against GMOs. What, like you can't come up with a single possible downside? I think what finally convinced me to vote for Hillary was seeing the best arguments against her, by people who really hated her guts (like, really, the worst you have are dark insinuations?) I want to hear someone creative/knowledgeable come up with their best argument against GMOs. Like, they got hired to find the worst case scenarios. I just feel like I've never heard that argument articulated well.
Anyway, there are two possibilities: a) this issue is so amazingly stupid that no informed person would ever be bothered by these practices. b) there are real--if unlikely--toxic externalities to genetic modification, but no informed person wants to share them because they don't want to feed the fire of ignorance.
And, yeah, the dismissive tone of scientists I've talked to, coupled with their apparent ignorance, has not reassured me that this conversation is being had in good faith.
The best argument against GMOs are Black Swans, which, due to their rarity, don't appear often/soon enough to dissuade people in advance. Probably 99.99999% of GMOs are fine, but that one in a million will have disastrous consequences for an ecosystem. It could also be that since our knowledge of human biology is still woefully incomplete, we optimize for the wrong things, leading to lower overall health (we've probably already done this without GMOs just by selecting for size/sturdiness over nutrients.) Multiply the complexity of individual organisms with entire ecosystems, and the reality is we just can't predict the likelihood of an adverse outcome at all.
This would be fine if we had a backup Earth. I'm all in favor of biotech on Mars, isolated moon labs, and interstellar colonies, if we had any. But the current irreplaceable nature of Earth means we have to be extra cautious with it. Our usual standards are insufficient, and thinking otherwise is hubris.
This would be fine if we had a backup Earth. I'm all in favor of biotech on Mars, isolated moon labs, and interstellar colonies, if we had any. But the current irreplaceable nature of Earth means we have to be extra cautious with it. Our usual standards are insufficient, and thinking otherwise is hubris.
>Probably 99.99999% of GMOs are fine, but that one in a million will have disastrous consequences for an ecosystem.
This really doesn't make any biological sense and kind of goes against all of our understanding of evolution and ecology. Can you describe this theoretical situation in any kind of detail? I find it completely incoherent and unimaginable.
GMOs have a huge advantage over traditional methods of crop development because they can be engineered to be safer: they can be designed to not survive off of human farms, and not reproduce with wild plants, or have other safety measures.
The idea that we can create a single organism that could cause an ecological catastrophe (bigger than any of the ecological harm caused by simply moving around invasive natural species) is science fiction; the idea that we could do so accidentally while trying to create food to eat is a complete delusion. We've already created outlandish, strange, non-natural super plants: every single vegetable that you and I eat. We did so with no regard to safety, nor understanding of what we were doing. GMOs only improve enormously on this process.
Again, the utter failure of this argument is apparent in how it can be applied to any technology: we shouldn't make software because that 1 in a million program could destroy the power grid / Internet / cause nuclear war, we shouldn't make medicine because that 1 in a million vaccine will cause people to drop dead en masse 10 years down the road, etc. If those seem preposterous to you, I assure you that to plant scientists, geneticists, and EcoEvo folks, your worry seems equally preposterous.
This really doesn't make any biological sense and kind of goes against all of our understanding of evolution and ecology. Can you describe this theoretical situation in any kind of detail? I find it completely incoherent and unimaginable.
GMOs have a huge advantage over traditional methods of crop development because they can be engineered to be safer: they can be designed to not survive off of human farms, and not reproduce with wild plants, or have other safety measures.
The idea that we can create a single organism that could cause an ecological catastrophe (bigger than any of the ecological harm caused by simply moving around invasive natural species) is science fiction; the idea that we could do so accidentally while trying to create food to eat is a complete delusion. We've already created outlandish, strange, non-natural super plants: every single vegetable that you and I eat. We did so with no regard to safety, nor understanding of what we were doing. GMOs only improve enormously on this process.
Again, the utter failure of this argument is apparent in how it can be applied to any technology: we shouldn't make software because that 1 in a million program could destroy the power grid / Internet / cause nuclear war, we shouldn't make medicine because that 1 in a million vaccine will cause people to drop dead en masse 10 years down the road, etc. If those seem preposterous to you, I assure you that to plant scientists, geneticists, and EcoEvo folks, your worry seems equally preposterous.
>genetic modifications are usually for stuff like "keeping potatoes from bruising because people don't like the look of bruised potatoes." Or "keeping tomatoes flavorful so people can keep mindlessly buying them out of season." They're always fixes that allow the consumer to remain as passive as possible.
I think this is because biotechnology is in its infancy, and these sort of things tend to be pretty low hanging fruit that increase sales. I'm not a big fan either- I'm certainly not a big fan of corporate profits and corporate motives. The GMO world is corporate right now because it still requires substantial monetary investment- in the future technology will become so simplified that nonprofits and university scientists will be able to bring non-corporate GMOs to market in the way we have open source software today.
Here are some more positive gmo projects on the horizon:
C4 rice: http://c4rice.irri.org/index.php/component/content/article/1...
More efficient photosynthesis:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/science/gmo-foods-phot...
Disease resistant Cassava:http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/michael-gomez-wins-prize-h...
Disease resistant tomatoes: http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/bacterial-spot-tomatoes
Drought resistant plants in particular will be extremely important for fighting climate change: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2015/03/31/g...
>b) I've never hear a single scientist make a good argument against GMOs. What, like you can't come up with a single possible downside?
It is difficult to come up with an argument "against GMOs", because most definitions of the term have no ingerent biological meaning. If I edit a single base pair of a plant using crispr-cas9, is that a GMO? How is that different than breeding this plant until I get that base pair change by chance? If I edit an entire gene of a plant with crispr-cas9 to match the gene of another organism, how is that different from inserting the gene from that organism into this plant in the right spot?
I personally can't contemplate a general purpose argument against GMOs that doesn't apply to traditional mutagenesis and hybridization experiments: those are really like randomly messing with genes with no idea what you're doing- biotechnology targets systems we understand.
However, the best arguments against GMOs are those concerned with corporate influence. Yes, we do not want big corporations completely controlling our agricultural system (as they do now), especially when their interests do not align with society's. We want a biotechnology more like the open source world and startup world to keep agriculture innovative and open.
I think this is because biotechnology is in its infancy, and these sort of things tend to be pretty low hanging fruit that increase sales. I'm not a big fan either- I'm certainly not a big fan of corporate profits and corporate motives. The GMO world is corporate right now because it still requires substantial monetary investment- in the future technology will become so simplified that nonprofits and university scientists will be able to bring non-corporate GMOs to market in the way we have open source software today.
Here are some more positive gmo projects on the horizon:
C4 rice: http://c4rice.irri.org/index.php/component/content/article/1...
More efficient photosynthesis:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/science/gmo-foods-phot...
Disease resistant Cassava:http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/michael-gomez-wins-prize-h...
Disease resistant tomatoes: http://staskawiczlab.berkeley.edu/bacterial-spot-tomatoes
Drought resistant plants in particular will be extremely important for fighting climate change: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2015/03/31/g...
>b) I've never hear a single scientist make a good argument against GMOs. What, like you can't come up with a single possible downside?
It is difficult to come up with an argument "against GMOs", because most definitions of the term have no ingerent biological meaning. If I edit a single base pair of a plant using crispr-cas9, is that a GMO? How is that different than breeding this plant until I get that base pair change by chance? If I edit an entire gene of a plant with crispr-cas9 to match the gene of another organism, how is that different from inserting the gene from that organism into this plant in the right spot?
I personally can't contemplate a general purpose argument against GMOs that doesn't apply to traditional mutagenesis and hybridization experiments: those are really like randomly messing with genes with no idea what you're doing- biotechnology targets systems we understand.
However, the best arguments against GMOs are those concerned with corporate influence. Yes, we do not want big corporations completely controlling our agricultural system (as they do now), especially when their interests do not align with society's. We want a biotechnology more like the open source world and startup world to keep agriculture innovative and open.
Plant patents are just as onerous as utility patents. Creating exclusive new breeds is the entire intended purpose of this type of patent, one of only six (or seven?) in the US.
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/...
Toxic externalities, as you say, occur readily in traditional breeding when creating hybrids. I find it very difficult to believe you have any experience or background in breeding or agriculture if you're not aware of this. Targeted modifications are much easier to understand and predict; it's a matter of changing a single locus vs. thousands.
Certain modifications could be foolish, but for reasons we understand. Extant transgenics focus on e.g. the Shikimic acid pathway (roundup ready) precisely because it is absent outside of plants, and therefore unlikely to cause complications prima facie.
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/...
Toxic externalities, as you say, occur readily in traditional breeding when creating hybrids. I find it very difficult to believe you have any experience or background in breeding or agriculture if you're not aware of this. Targeted modifications are much easier to understand and predict; it's a matter of changing a single locus vs. thousands.
Certain modifications could be foolish, but for reasons we understand. Extant transgenics focus on e.g. the Shikimic acid pathway (roundup ready) precisely because it is absent outside of plants, and therefore unlikely to cause complications prima facie.
This is perhaps the most hilarious thing I've seen. There are plenty of varieties of delicious tomatoes you can grow or buy.. the idea we need to "reengineer a genetic fix" seems like something the Onion should be running.
At our cooperative store we have amazing flavorful tomatoes.
At our cooperative store we have amazing flavorful tomatoes.
You don't understand the purpose.
The idea is to re-introduce these traits in lines that are amenable to modern agriculture. Namely, drought/pest/salinity tolerance, firmness and ability to ship, yield, use in marginal soils, etc. etc.
I'm all for agricultural alternatives, but modern agriculture obviously plays a huge role in our food production, and will continue to do so for some time.
The idea is to re-introduce these traits in lines that are amenable to modern agriculture. Namely, drought/pest/salinity tolerance, firmness and ability to ship, yield, use in marginal soils, etc. etc.
I'm all for agricultural alternatives, but modern agriculture obviously plays a huge role in our food production, and will continue to do so for some time.
There's a book called "Tomatoland" that discusses the tomato industry and how tomatoes were selected not for taste, but to last through the journey to the supermarket and shelf life once there. Interview with author and excerpt are here: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137371975/how-industrial-farmi...
I like the story of the artificial banana flavour to be like the old tasteful bananas there where. I guess it's not true, but the story of the banana is simmilar to the fate of the tomato, if not worse, because banas have no seeds, are all clones and the old kind of banana got mostly wiped by some fungi.
And there is a new breed of the same fungus that is attacking the modern banana - the Cavendish - and as of yet, there is no replacement banana that we can substitute if the Cavendish gets wiped out.
There are loads of awesome bananas out there, they just either aren't so soft and sweet or don't ship well.
Within the last year I have had lady-finger, apple and Fe'i bananas and various plantains. All delicious!
I want to try red and blue/ice-cream but am having trouble finding them in the UK or on my travels...
Within the last year I have had lady-finger, apple and Fe'i bananas and various plantains. All delicious!
I want to try red and blue/ice-cream but am having trouble finding them in the UK or on my travels...
But, as you say, none of these are a good substitute Cavendish, though they may be fine bananas in their own right.
Apple and lady-finger I have had in the UK, seemed to ship OK and tasted good.
They were much smaller. Red Daccas (the red banana) are commercially available in some countries like Australia, but probably because they grow them.
I think commercial development of a "Cavendish Replacement" ought to be a real plan to diversify the banana business. Monocultures are inherently troublesome. If we could lose this meme in the Europe and North America that there is such a thing as "a banana" and start eating different varieties, I think that would be great.
They were much smaller. Red Daccas (the red banana) are commercially available in some countries like Australia, but probably because they grow them.
I think commercial development of a "Cavendish Replacement" ought to be a real plan to diversify the banana business. Monocultures are inherently troublesome. If we could lose this meme in the Europe and North America that there is such a thing as "a banana" and start eating different varieties, I think that would be great.
You should try importing tomatoes from Eastern Europe. They are still very tasty over here. :)
I was born in Romania, visited there less than two weeks ago, and now I am in the United States. This is simply not true at all. Tomatoes in Romania taste exactly the same as tomatoes in the United States (e.g. bland).
Even tomatoes bought from farmer's market are not much better because they don't use the tastiest varieties of tomatoes.
Even tomatoes bought from farmer's market are not much better because they don't use the tastiest varieties of tomatoes.
In the winter tomatoes have no taste. Real tomatoes are a summer plant. Ask your parents. ;)
I don't have to ask anybody, I have lived in Romania for 21 years. Summer tomatoes that are not specially sourced are just as crappy in Romania, Austria, and United States. Slightly better at the farmer's market though. I have also lived in rural Romania for many months at a time, in the summer, for over a decade, and have grown tomatoes myself.
The only time I ever got good tomatoes was at some tomato faire, or some special organic farmer's market (in the summer, of course). And every time it was outside Romania.
The idea that food in Romania is somehow unaffected by global economic development is a myth that has to die.
The only time I ever got good tomatoes was at some tomato faire, or some special organic farmer's market (in the summer, of course). And every time it was outside Romania.
The idea that food in Romania is somehow unaffected by global economic development is a myth that has to die.
I was in Serbia recently. The tomatoes and cucumbers blew my mind. In the city or in the country, all were great. Seemed like every dinner started with fresh bread and a bowl of tomatoes and cucumbers. I didn't need the main dish, until they put slow cooked lamb or pork in front of me.
That's only because more people have summer houses there (it's a tradition in most/all Eastern Europe) and grow vegetables themselves, so it's easier to come by naturally grown ones. Buy generic tomatoes from a supermarket, and the they'll taste bland as everywhere.
If you refrigerate tomatoes, they go bland --- the cold temperatures kills some of the flavour.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/tomato-flavor-...
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/tomato-flavor-...
Did they actually test for taste in that research? This guy has and he disagrees:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/07/how-to-store-tomatoes.htm...
http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/09/tomato-taste-test-refrige...
http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/09/why-you-should-refrigerat...
http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/07/how-to-store-tomatoes.htm...
http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/09/tomato-taste-test-refrige...
http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/09/why-you-should-refrigerat...
In supermarkets tomatoes are usually sold not ripened fully (for a longer shelve life). Keeping them in a warm, bright place will ripe them more and taste improves slightly.
This is good stuff, but I wish so much effort wasn't spent into making a single breed. If you have the greenhouse space (granted I see this is exponential), and some variation is a coin flip whether its better or not, please peruse both!
I would love 5 varieties of hardy tomato each testing better in its own way!
I would love 5 varieties of hardy tomato each testing better in its own way!
Over the decades, taste has drained out of supermarket tomatoes.
And people say that organic doesn't affect flavour! (Ok ok I know, it doesn't have to be organic)
I grew my own tomatoes a few years ago and they had a very strong tomato flavour. Delicious!
And people say that organic doesn't affect flavour! (Ok ok I know, it doesn't have to be organic)
I grew my own tomatoes a few years ago and they had a very strong tomato flavour. Delicious!
Kumatos are pretty flavorful. In the US you can get them at Trader Joe's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumato
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumato
I tried these once, seemed just as tasteless as any other tomato out of season.
From their website:
> The University of Florida has released our first two hybrids. We are in discussions with seed companies about licensing.
I hope they allow people to save seeds. They should patent all their source seeds immediately and mark them as open/allowing people to use any without worry of patents.
Farmers will need to be careful as always. Any seeds that happen to get cross pollinated with seeds from the big producers (Monsanto, DuPont, etc.) run the risk of paying licensing fees in our current fucked up patenting system (thanks GE).
> The University of Florida has released our first two hybrids. We are in discussions with seed companies about licensing.
I hope they allow people to save seeds. They should patent all their source seeds immediately and mark them as open/allowing people to use any without worry of patents.
Farmers will need to be careful as always. Any seeds that happen to get cross pollinated with seeds from the big producers (Monsanto, DuPont, etc.) run the risk of paying licensing fees in our current fucked up patenting system (thanks GE).
>Any seeds that happen to get cross pollinated
You can actually sue your neighbors and/or these companies for geneflow into your heirloom crops.
There has never been a recorded lawsuit where a farmer has been sued for unintentional gene flow. Only intentional patent infringement.
>(thanks GE).
People have been patenting crops for over 100 years.
Nobody cared until GMO's came along...
You can actually sue your neighbors and/or these companies for geneflow into your heirloom crops.
There has never been a recorded lawsuit where a farmer has been sued for unintentional gene flow. Only intentional patent infringement.
>(thanks GE).
People have been patenting crops for over 100 years.
Nobody cared until GMO's came along...
This is exactly why I despise the "urban legend" about Monsanto suing the poor, tiny farmer because their Round-Up resistant seeds blew into his crop. The actual story (much like the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit) makes a lot more sense when you learn that the farmer not only knew that their seeds were Monsanto's but then used Round-Up on all his other crops so that they would die and only the resistant crops were left over. He then took the seeds from those crops and planted something like 95% of his field with them (which was probably 100% but some of the old plants survived). There was no unintentional wind-blown spreading.
There was unintentional wind blown spreading to begin with, how else would he have gotten roundup ready genes into his soybeans that didn't have it?
I agree that he had plenty of intent. But he doesn't seem like the kind of guy to buy the seed from Monsanto first for his "devious" scheme.
Personally I kind of agree with him. If you broadcast a TV show over the air you don't get to cry foul if people watch it. Don't want unauthorized parties getting your genes? Don't let your plants spew them out.
I agree that he had plenty of intent. But he doesn't seem like the kind of guy to buy the seed from Monsanto first for his "devious" scheme.
Personally I kind of agree with him. If you broadcast a TV show over the air you don't get to cry foul if people watch it. Don't want unauthorized parties getting your genes? Don't let your plants spew them out.
Not that it undermines your point, but it wasn't soybeans, it was corn. And, as far as the wind blown spreading, corn doesn't pollinate that far from the source. His farm ran next to the Monsanto test farm and, while there was some wind blowing involved, the majority of the seed was gathered by taking seed from the crop next to his farm and by forcefully killing his crops so that he could harvest the resistant corn only. Like I said, it's not as black and white as everyone likes to think it was and there was even accusations that he trespassed on Monsanto property to get the first stock of seeds and they didn't actually blow onto his property at all.
I still see a problem with this. If GM crops are capable of being wind blown how does his activity differ at all from someone trying to naturally select for crops with herbicide resistance?
Any farmer trying to select for a plant with resistance could accidentally end up reproducing a "patented" plant.
I think there's a fundamental problem with patenting things that are self replicating. Given enough time a superior GMO plant could take over a field all by itself with no intervention... Is the land owner/farmer really to blame if this happens?
A related problem is that it's difficult/impossible to tell if you're growing a patented seed without expensive tests. As long as the plants are virtually indistinguishable patent enforcement should not be allowed.
Any farmer trying to select for a plant with resistance could accidentally end up reproducing a "patented" plant.
I think there's a fundamental problem with patenting things that are self replicating. Given enough time a superior GMO plant could take over a field all by itself with no intervention... Is the land owner/farmer really to blame if this happens?
A related problem is that it's difficult/impossible to tell if you're growing a patented seed without expensive tests. As long as the plants are virtually indistinguishable patent enforcement should not be allowed.
Well, there were accusations during the trial that the seeds weren't even wind-blown and that the farmer trespassed on the property once he saw that the Round-Up wasn't killing the crops. Monsanto argued that they spaced a buffer around their farm to prevent wind-blowing and that they routinely mixed up the perimeter soil to prevent any growth from occurring. Even if we were to be liberal with the probabilities and assume that the seeds could have blown onto his land, the concentration of Round-Up resistant plants on the farmer's land was so unnaturally high that it was easy to prove it was intentional and willful infringement.
>If GM crops are capable of being wind blown how does his activity differ at all from someone trying to naturally select for crops with herbicide resistance?
The only "naturally selected" herbicide resistant crops were made in a lab using fast-neutron bombardment. Not exactly natural, or amenable to traditional methods.
If you tried to select for herbicide resistance in a normal field, all you would get is weeds and a lot of dead crops. It is not impossible to do, simply infeasible.
>Given enough time a superior GMO plant could take over a field all by itself with no intervention
Then you sue the creator and make millions. There is a long precedent with inseticides/herbicide use.
Often if a pesticide blows on the wind into a neighboring field and causes damage, the sprayer is liable. This has already been used to litigate geneflow from one field to another.
>A related problem is that it's difficult/impossible to tell if you're growing a patented seed without expensive tests.
Sampling your soil/crop is actually quite routine in farming. A PCR for a trait can be easily and cheaply performed.
Though, this shouldn't be necessary because farmers usually keep tight control of their genetics. Most commercial farmers (conventional and organic) use hybrid seed. This seed is most fit only for one generation, and as a result they order seed from seed companies to maximize yield. As a result, gene flow is not a huge problem.
Obviously it might be more of a concern for heirloom seed providers, but simply being aware of neighbors and pollination distances can alleviate concerns.
The only "naturally selected" herbicide resistant crops were made in a lab using fast-neutron bombardment. Not exactly natural, or amenable to traditional methods.
If you tried to select for herbicide resistance in a normal field, all you would get is weeds and a lot of dead crops. It is not impossible to do, simply infeasible.
>Given enough time a superior GMO plant could take over a field all by itself with no intervention
Then you sue the creator and make millions. There is a long precedent with inseticides/herbicide use.
Often if a pesticide blows on the wind into a neighboring field and causes damage, the sprayer is liable. This has already been used to litigate geneflow from one field to another.
>A related problem is that it's difficult/impossible to tell if you're growing a patented seed without expensive tests.
Sampling your soil/crop is actually quite routine in farming. A PCR for a trait can be easily and cheaply performed.
Though, this shouldn't be necessary because farmers usually keep tight control of their genetics. Most commercial farmers (conventional and organic) use hybrid seed. This seed is most fit only for one generation, and as a result they order seed from seed companies to maximize yield. As a result, gene flow is not a huge problem.
Obviously it might be more of a concern for heirloom seed providers, but simply being aware of neighbors and pollination distances can alleviate concerns.
What are the odds that any of the farmers seeds from before the windblown cross fertilization were roundup resistant? Essentially zero, so I have no sympathy for him. If he had not sprayed roundup and some of his seeds got the roundup traits and others did not I would have sympathy for him if he was sued for the mix bag where some seeds had the roundup traits.
[deleted]
Since they are hybrid seeds, keeping the next F2 generation is not that useful. You get all the things that were used to make the hybrid cross popping out but they are not the same as the F1 parent plants.
[deleted]
Tomatoes and chickens and pretty much all American agriculture is bred to maximize profit at every step. This means eschewing things like healthfulness and tastiness in favor of volume of product, heartiness, and low production cost.
I highly recommend the book The Dorito Effect to anyone more interested in how the flavors of food have changed over time. Despite the fluffy name, it's a very well-researched and well-written book.
I highly recommend the book The Dorito Effect to anyone more interested in how the flavors of food have changed over time. Despite the fluffy name, it's a very well-researched and well-written book.
I eat tomatoes grown by my father who is retired and does this as an hobby. His tomatoes are extremely tasty and satisfying. I really don't miss the need for any genetic fix. Supermarkets tomatoes are commercialized unripe and then ripen by artificial means.
Do you think the flavour problems with supermarket tomatoes would be fixed by letting them ripen naturally?
I used to eat tomato sandwiches made from tomoatoes grown in my parents' backyard. These beefsteak tomatoes were huge and sweet. The store variety are noticeably bland.
Going back to the backyard and starting again. I think the hard part is finding the right seed.
Going back to the backyard and starting again. I think the hard part is finding the right seed.
I've been spoiled living in Japan. The tomatoes taste amazing here. Is this more about methods? Do we really need genetic fixes? Couldn't a better process to make better tomatoes be a longer service strategy?
I learned that its easier and way faster to quarter tomatoes and freeze them, then to can.
It might be easier and faster but they will lose a lot of flavour during the freezing. There's a reason you don't refridgerate tomatoes.
They don't appear to loose their flavor. I use them as ingredients in beans, chili, and sauce. I'm going to freeze way more next year, it turned out amazing. Sure beats loosing 40 of them to spoilage from a glut harvest! : )
Couldn't they just go overseas? I think it's only in America where produce tastes like cardboard.
The overseas tomatoes don't ship or grow any better, and consumers are demonstrably unwilling to pay for them. The point of this research is that by doing the expensive rare difficult phenotyping & genotyping of flavor of all the varieties they used (domestic commercial, heirloom, even wild), you can get a polygenic score which predicts flavor without having to grow & feed to a taste panel; and with this polygenic score, you can then do molecular breeding piggybacking on top of normal breeding, to neutralize the damage. For the most part, there's no inherent biological reason that a robust fast-growing tomato has to taste bad because the taste chemicals represent such a physically minute part of the tomatoes; it's just that with zero selection for taste, the taste gradually suffers over generations.
> Couldn't they just go overseas? I think it's only in America where produce tastes like cardboard.
No, tomatoes taste pretty bland in many European countries too.
The Netherlands and Spain are the two top tomato-exporting countries in Europe. As you can probably guess, the sunny climes of the Netherlands aren't exactly conducive to ripe, flavourful tomatoes. But large-scale industrial tomato farming is conducive to achieving cheap prices that consumers expect at the supermarket.
No, tomatoes taste pretty bland in many European countries too.
The Netherlands and Spain are the two top tomato-exporting countries in Europe. As you can probably guess, the sunny climes of the Netherlands aren't exactly conducive to ripe, flavourful tomatoes. But large-scale industrial tomato farming is conducive to achieving cheap prices that consumers expect at the supermarket.
Oh, this is definitely false. I'm in Norway, and I'm loathe to buy fresh tomatoes because they are usually mushy. It is no wonder my Norwegian spouse rarely likes fresh tomatoes.
I do have better luck buying small cherry or grape tomatoes, but when possible I use the tinned tomatoes.
I do have better luck buying small cherry or grape tomatoes, but when possible I use the tinned tomatoes.
There is something wrong with the food industry. When I was growing up, they taught us that we eat veggies because when they are fully mature, all the nutrients are there and good for us.
Somehow, they found out how to make them look ready but still not ripe. And now they found out how to screw the taste to taste better.
So they will look and taste good, but the nutritive value will be questionable.
Waste of research effort.
Edit: to the people modding this down: you realize that research will hit the poorest hardest? They can't buy organic tomatoes, they think what they paid for is good nutritive food, except it isn't.
Somehow, they found out how to make them look ready but still not ripe. And now they found out how to screw the taste to taste better.
So they will look and taste good, but the nutritive value will be questionable.
Waste of research effort.
Edit: to the people modding this down: you realize that research will hit the poorest hardest? They can't buy organic tomatoes, they think what they paid for is good nutritive food, except it isn't.
You seem to be mistaking organic for ripe nutritious food. Organic just limits some specific chemicals. That is it. You can replaces those limited chemicals with other "natural" chemicals which may be (and often are) much more harmful.
Organic does not save the earth. Sometimes is does, but other times it is more harmful than the conventional practice.
Organic is not more nutritious. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is less (because the farmer cannot replace the nutrients last year's crop took out)
Organic is not fresher or better tasting. Sometimes it is, but that is not a reflection on organic, it is a reflection on conventional farmers not finding it worthwhile to sell fresher.
Organic does not save the earth. Sometimes is does, but other times it is more harmful than the conventional practice.
Organic is not more nutritious. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is less (because the farmer cannot replace the nutrients last year's crop took out)
Organic is not fresher or better tasting. Sometimes it is, but that is not a reflection on organic, it is a reflection on conventional farmers not finding it worthwhile to sell fresher.
Can you back the claim up that natural chemicals are being used and are harmful?
I thought the whole point of organic is that there are no pesticides being used in the first place.
I thought the whole point of organic is that there are no pesticides being used in the first place.
Organic foods can still use "chemicals", you just can't use synthetically created additives (ferts, pesticides, etc.)
AFAIK they could spray the crops with arsenic and it could still be "organic".
AFAIK they could spray the crops with arsenic and it could still be "organic".
Look at the standards for organic foods. They're quite specific in forbidding synthetic pesticides, and even that has exceptions. Naturally derived pesticides, like pyrethrin, are allowed.
Non-organic: roundup (from http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-gly...) The toxicity of the technical product (glyphosate) and the formulated product (Roundup) is nearly the same. The acute oral LD50 in the rat is 5,600 mg/kg [Rat]
Organic: vinegar (http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9922769) (LD50): 3310 mg/kg [Rat]
Of course there are hundreds of different chemicals to look at, and LD50 is not the only measure. It is enough to back up my claim though.
Organic: vinegar (http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9922769) (LD50): 3310 mg/kg [Rat]
Of course there are hundreds of different chemicals to look at, and LD50 is not the only measure. It is enough to back up my claim though.
Have you actually looked at solid numbers and seen alarming and easily fixable losses in nutrition, or are you trying to shame this guy based on assumptions?
Why do you think this variety will be less nutritious than "organic" tomatoes?
Because they collect them green and then ship them with ethylene so they just look 'red' ?
Ethylene: The Ripening Hormone
http://postharvest.tfrec.wsu.edu/pages/PC2000F
Ethylene: The Ripening Hormone
http://postharvest.tfrec.wsu.edu/pages/PC2000F
Ethylene ripens the tomatoes, which is far more than making them "look red". That link does not address whether there is a difference between the end product of that accelerated ripening and a normal ripening.
Easy to say on a full stomach.
That is not the point. The stomach will stay empty, but money will be spent. This is not gmo research, this is screwing the people that can't buy organic food.
The problem with food policy is that you simply can't get rid of cheap food. If you get rid of cheap food, even unhealthy cheap food, people starve.
So the solution isn't to demonize cheap food. It is to make cheap food better. Adding back the vitamins and nutrients which also impart flavor while keeping the caloric content high is one great way of doing that.
Furthermore, in a modern economy with diverse choice, nutrient deficiency is not a concern. Cheap food alone can more than provide the essential vitamins and nutrients. What is more important is delivery raw caloric content, which cheap food excels at.
Organic is fresh, luxury food built on a foundation of cheap staples. If you erode the pillars that hold up your palace, it will all come crashing down.
So the solution isn't to demonize cheap food. It is to make cheap food better. Adding back the vitamins and nutrients which also impart flavor while keeping the caloric content high is one great way of doing that.
Furthermore, in a modern economy with diverse choice, nutrient deficiency is not a concern. Cheap food alone can more than provide the essential vitamins and nutrients. What is more important is delivery raw caloric content, which cheap food excels at.
Organic is fresh, luxury food built on a foundation of cheap staples. If you erode the pillars that hold up your palace, it will all come crashing down.
People always ask if I don't like tomatoes when I eat around them in salads or remove from burgers. Nope, I love tomatoes, that's why I don't eat flavorless, unseasonal ones.
pro tip: Use canned tomatoes instead of fresh whenever out of season; canners use varieties that have not been ruined for shipping, and seal at the peak of freshness.