• 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 15th, 2023

help-circle

  • I’m glad it was interesting! I think we’ll all appreciate more variety in our diets.

    The apples you mentioned are a good example of this. Apple breeders used to always breed the flavour away in favour of looks since that’s what sells. When one guy bred a tasty apple, only for his colleagues to make it tasteless again, he decided to brand it and enforce some quality control. Breeders were very skeptical, and few could imagine that consumers would care about what apple variety they’re eating - do you know what type of potato or cucumber you buy? But in the end, consumers proved willing to engage and branded apples are now widespread. Tenderstem broccoli has recently inspired Brassica breeders to start branding and marketing their new varieties.

    I’m involved with some breeders trying to do the same with potatoes!


  • Not quite, but close! Molecular plant breeder here.

    There is no set “limit” to flavour but it’s a complex trait that is easy to lose if you don’t select for it. If you breed for size, and don’t track taste, it’s very easy to leave the flavour-producing aspects unchanged, thus resulting in a “dilution”. Furthermore, you’re often actively selecting against flavour, indirectly and unintentionally, by selecting for shelf life - if something doesn’t ripen, it won’t over-ripen and spoil.

    This is what has historically happened to a lot of produce but it doesn’t have to be the case - modern breeding lets us breed for flavour and nutrition too! Heirloom varieties can offer some reprieve, but for all their taste they tend to be quite unproductive and sickly (ofter “heirloom” means inbred and that does not produce very fit organisms).

    Good news is, new varieties are being bred that have it all - yield, taste, and nutrition! It’s just hard to convince consumers and businesses to switch over to new varieties, as you don’t really buy according to the flavour, just the looks.

    Greetings from the UK ;)




  • Greenpeace, as usual, argues against GM by jesting towards a nebulous cabal of shady globalist BigAg companies. They are endlessly malicious and no amount of benefit can ever be a convincing reason to take even one step back on this issue. This is a classic case of paranoia and it cannot be reasoned with.

    A quick reality check on some of those points. Many of them are based on a paranoid belief that the Golden Rice will somehow invade and take over. We are discussing introducing a new variety, not erasing any - farmers will continue to grow other varieties. Thus, many of the arguments about monoculture and control over seed fall apart. Syngenta have excluded smallholder farmers from paying licensing fees, so they’d get the seeds are a reasonable price. Lastly, countries which grow GM also grow organic crops - the farmers fearing losing their licenses are swept up in the paranoia. There is also no evidence of GM genes finding their way into other varieties in any meaningful amount. If this was a common occurrence, maintaining any discrete variety would be impossible (and we’ve been doing it for over a century).


  • Introgresion of the beta carotene-giving T-DNA locus into local varieties would take a decade before we can obtain a cultivar that resembles local varieties, and this is only if said local varieties are highly homozygous. If they are not, what you are suggesting is simply not possible with 2024 technology and I don’t see it becoming possible soon. Such a delay would mean large numbers of children dying and many more suffering. The Monsanto boogeyman’s profit desires are not relevant, unless you’d like to give them some credit for making the damn thing, and I’m not even sure they were involved? A company called Syngenta made Golden Rice 2, maybe you’re referring to that?