A Genetic Fix to Put the Taste Back in Tomatoes
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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.
You might have to pay double-triple for the variety you like.
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.
It will happen when enough people will be ready to choose tasteful vs "cheap & looking good".
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/
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.
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).
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.
>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.
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..?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, except that it's more like flavors didn't change so much as disappear.
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.
This explains why I love canned/boxed tomatoes, but hate the slimy, bland sliced ones they put on sandwiches.
1) San Marzano (imported) 2) Muir Glen Organic
For more info, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68538/are-these-t...
Someone more experienced want to pipe in and help my ignorance?
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.
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!
The brand we've always had is Whirlypop.
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.
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.
Redenbachers seems to do the job texture wise, but I'd love to hear about some really great lesser known 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.
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
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.
My thinking- you should breed for performance, health and temperament.
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.
I'd much rather have one heirloom than 4 identical red tomatoes still on a vine sold in a plastic box.
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.
People like what they know. But I'm guessing repeated exposure could end up shifting the tastes.
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.
You can find more info on Google Scholar for specific studies and papers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 agree, that heirlooms are more difficult to keep happy - they're just more sensitive to "stuff".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
At our cooperative store we have amazing flavorful tomatoes.
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.
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...
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.
Even tomatoes bought from farmer's market are not much better because they don't use the tastiest varieties of tomatoes.
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.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/tomato-flavor-...
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...
I would love 5 varieties of hardy tomato each testing better in its own way!
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!
> 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).
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Going back to the backyard and starting again. I think the hard part is finding the right seed.
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.
I do have better luck buying small cherry or grape tomatoes, but when possible I use the tinned tomatoes.
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.
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.
I thought the whole point of organic is that there are no pesticides being used in the first place.
AFAIK they could spray the crops with arsenic and it could still be "organic".
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.
Ethylene: The Ripening Hormone
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.