Kelly
gardener
Posts: 117
|
Post by Kelly on Apr 2, 2009 11:16:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pugs on Apr 2, 2009 21:08:35 GMT -5
If you read comments 56 & 57 they are by the Monsanto people interviewed for the article. They take great exception to what the article says and give better explanations of what they are trying to do.
Pugs
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Apr 2, 2009 23:49:22 GMT -5
The person who prepared the report certainly had little clue about the topic. The entire report is a hodge-podge of different stories combined to make a poor sauce. It's so messed up that everyone who reads it comes away with a different perspective. The two varieties of tomatoes which were specifically mentioned were two that I have grown but Tom Wagner took exception to having his Green Zebra mentioned. All I can say is that there has been one helluva lot of Internet bandwidth wasted by a lot of people who haven't a clue of what they read
Martin
|
|
|
Post by canadamike on Apr 3, 2009 0:08:01 GMT -5
I tend to agree. Hey, it is so stupid it becomes inoffensive, and I am sorry for those who think it is serious.... what can we say...if we grew heirlooms that bear only 2 tomatoes we'd maybe all be rooting for engeneering them Written by a guy who thinks strawberries grow in trees Anybody with some science background will have a well deserved laugh, the others will agree with anything anyway, next edition it will be the opposite and they won't see the difference. I much prefer when they show drawings of tomorrow's spaceships. At least I can learn how they won't look like... ;D
|
|
|
Post by pugs on Apr 3, 2009 0:19:00 GMT -5
Thank Michel,
I needed that laugh.
Pugs
|
|
Kelly
gardener
Posts: 117
|
Post by Kelly on Apr 3, 2009 11:37:45 GMT -5
I'm with you Mike, this article is so silly it becomes completely comical!
The thing with a journalist (or shall I say, a good or even sub-par journalist) is that they don't have to know the subject intimately, but they should be able to talk to the people who do, and then relay the facts in an insightful and truthful manner. This Brendan Borrell did nothing of the sort. Hell, if even the Monsanto people are stepping in and are going "WOAH NOW!" there definitely has to be something wrong.
I've seen this guy post new features since this article was posted, but hopefully Scientific American will realize what a poor job he did and fire him.
I mean, come on, that article just ridiculous. Ludicrous even!
|
|
sphinxeyes
gardener
Suburbia, small garden in side yard, containers on larger back deck. Hot humid summers.
Posts: 154
|
Post by sphinxeyes on Apr 3, 2009 13:13:00 GMT -5
What's even more ridiculous is that Brendan Borrell, the "journalist" behind this piece, got his PhD in biology. According to his website he specializes in investigative science reporting and seems to enjoy taking on controversial topics. It's no wonder then that this piece seems devoid of concrete facts and geared more towards creating unnecessary drama.
|
|
|
Post by fulenn on Apr 3, 2009 22:16:15 GMT -5
Consider the source: Scientific American. It's pop science. After all, it isn't as if this is a respectable peer-reviewed science journal..... It's like taking Psychology Today seriously. (Do they even HAVE that magazine anymore?) Fulenn
|
|
|
Post by grunt on Apr 4, 2009 0:37:03 GMT -5
The guy that did the "Tomato Love" article in The Old Farmer's Almanac admitted to me that he knew nothing about gardening, and he did a much better job than this obvious Monsanto plant. Maybe he's just eaten too much GMO corn.
|
|
|
Post by pattyp on Apr 4, 2009 13:16:00 GMT -5
I saw one of the original articles referenced by Scientific American. It was a Science article entitled "A Retrotransposon-Mediated Gene Duplication Underlies Morphological Variation of Tomato Fruit". Basically, it describes how retrotransposons (which are mobile genetic elements that insert themselves into the genome) may be one of the driving forces behind plant evolution and phenotype (appearance). Note that it doesn't discuss heirloom or hybrid varieties at all. The cover is shown below, along with the caption: COVER Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) domestication and selection resulted in an explosion of different fruit shapes and sizes, as exemplified by heirloom varieties. Wild ancestors of tomatoes such as S. pimpinellifolium, the smallest fruit shown here, were round (middle row, second from left).What I find amusing is that Brendan Borrell (author of the Scientific American article) implies that molecular genetics is the only future of creating new and better plant varieties, without acknowledging that plant breeders have been engaging in such experiments for millennia. Steven Tanksley, the Cornell University geneticist highlighted in the story, gives much credit to plant breeders in the materials on his website, although this viewpoint isn't emphasized in Scientific American. Patty
|
|
|
Post by flowerpower on Apr 5, 2009 6:33:10 GMT -5
I read the article. It doesn't look like the author did much research on the topic. There are 1000's of mater varieties & he picked GZ as an "heirloom"? lol I did find the comment section quite amusing though.
In that cover photo, what is that long, red pear-looking one? Very interesting looking. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by pattyp on Apr 5, 2009 8:50:08 GMT -5
I don't know - they didn't identify any of the fruit except for the Solanum lycopersicum.
Does anyone else have any identification ideas?
Patty
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Apr 5, 2009 10:50:05 GMT -5
I read the article. It doesn't look like the author did much research on the topic. There are 1000's of mater varieties & he picked GZ as an "heirloom"? lol But you must remember that Green Zebra is officially an "heirloom" according to pages 126-7 of 100 Heirloom Tomatoes for the American Garden! Martin
|
|
|
Post by elkwc36 on Apr 5, 2009 14:33:31 GMT -5
I read the article. It doesn't look like the author did much research on the topic. There are 1000's of mater varieties & he picked GZ as an "heirloom"? lol But you must remember that Green Zebra is officially an "heirloom" according to pages 126-7 of 100 Heirloom Tomatoes for the American Garden! Martin Martin, We both know that is straight from the Tomato Einstein so would have to be an heirloom then. Jay
|
|
|
Post by canadamike on Apr 5, 2009 15:36:23 GMT -5
There is a lot of genre confusion with this word, and although I have not read the book in its entirety , I disagree that Mrs Goldman pretends to be an Einstein of vegetables if the tone is like in the melon book. I don't think taliking people down when they are absent helps anybody. I sure don't like it.
I have seen ithe book at Chapters though, quietly went through it, and read nothing of the genre, quite the opposite. She spends, on the other hand, time to witness the work of Tom Wagner, as an exemple.
It is not because one writes a book to share a passion that one pretends anything. I write in a newspaper all the time and if anyone here thinks I am a pretentious writer, he/she can take a plane to Ontario and try to tell me right in my face... at least I'll be there to defend myself.
In the mind of the general population, heirloom has come to equate Open Pollinated, giving it a sometimes undeserved old time twist.
OP means nothing to most, while heirloom does bring up a positive feeling ( not sure of my choice of words in english ).
Language being in constant evolution and nothing else than a series of codes, Mrs Goldman might very well have made the decision to go with the general population's linguo rather than the specialist's one.
I am not sure it is a fault if the book is for the general population, which it evidently is.
Words change meanings over time. In french Canada, we use the term ''implication'' in the sens of '' active participation'', it is now part of the regular language and is a very positive term, while according to the french academy it means more someting in the lines of participation to a crime, and is used with lots of negativity in the courts linguo, where it is NEVER positive.
The mass always prevails in language despite the elite's opposition.
The fact a tomato or else has to be 100 years old to be a heirloom is nothing but an arbitrary convention. Why not 50, or 200 or 25?
A new arbitrary convention could be that the stability of the lines , i.e. OP, like tomatoes of the old days, is the new convention. After all, the process of making OP veggies is in itself a very old tradition.
It could be that the process is ''heirloom'' more than the specific vegetables.
The thing is we can disagree or not, but I strongly feel the ''dictatorship of the majority'' is taking that route, and I have a garden to plan and plant, I have no desire nor time to go to the barricades.
And there is nothing for us doing breeding to lose with this thing happening, probably the opposite. It could re-introduce some positive connotation in the term ''breeding'', much hurt by the grocery stores ''trucking designed ''hybrids...
|
|