• 0 Posts
  • 19 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?



  • I don’t see how these claims are supported by the research in question?

    The main reason is that the article is paywalled (disappointed to see the authors chose to publish in a non-open access journal in 2024) but judging purely by the abstract it seems like this is just a study showing an association between being a black woman in Georgia and signs of stress-induced health issues? Also, they didn’t seem to have a control group?

    The negative effects of chronic stress are well-known but in the linked article this is spun into a weird narrative about microaggressions with seemingly no evidence for it? I am surprised to see the first author of the scientific article deviate so much from the published findings in her journalistic article.







  • I’m not a liar, you just have a very simplistic view of things.

    They knew glyphosate (aka RoundUp) causes cancer and did not disclose it. This likely led to some severe exposure cases and thus they had to pay out (although I strongly believe prison sentences should also have been part of it). This is just as terrible as if I sad sold you lye and never told you it is corrosive, thus endangering you.

    None of this means you cannot use lye for making pretzels/ uncloging your sink. For those uses it is safe. Same for Glyphosate.

    I’d clarify I’m not Bayer fanboy - genetic modification for the sale of a herbicide is a poor use of modern genetic technology. But I cannot deny the measurable climate benefits of using it (in terms of CO2 emissions and soil degradation) source