Print Topic - Archive

BTD Forums  /  The GenoType Diet  /  What's the take on hybrids?
Posted by: kate4975, Friday, February 1, 2008, 11:54pm
Fruits that is. Like a Minneola tangelo or a plumcot. If the fruits that created the hybrid are okay, is the resulting hybrid okay?
Posted by: OSuzanna, Saturday, February 2, 2008, 12:50am; Reply: 1
Quoted from kate4975
Fruits that is. Like a Minneola tangelo or a plumcot. If the fruits that created the hybrid are okay, is the resulting hybrid okay?


I would say yes, IMO, as long as both original species are compliant. The other 1/2 of that guess is if one of the species is not compliant, and you like it, don't have it real often, is all... just my opinion... :B ;D
Posted by: TJ, Saturday, February 2, 2008, 1:15am; Reply: 2
I have been wondering this too.  Especially about the tangelos!  Tangerines are super, oranges are toxin.  Should I split the difference and call them neutral?
Posted by: kate4975, Saturday, February 2, 2008, 1:45am; Reply: 3
Well, according to this link Minneola tangelos are Dancy tangerine/Duncan grapefruit hybrids, which are both Nomad supers!

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_CH072

However, I have also read that they are crosses between mandarin oranges and grapefruit. I'm still trying to figure out whether tangerines are a type of mandarin or if they are exactly the same or what.

I'm not going to worry about it much since I wasn't thrilled with the tangelos, just got some in my CSA box this week. But I do love plumcots!
Posted by: Ribbit, Sunday, February 3, 2008, 2:34am; Reply: 4
Plumcots?  Our little labels say "pluots."  We LOVE them.  Let 'em sit till they're mushy but not rotten.  Mmmmmm.
Posted by: kate4975, Sunday, February 3, 2008, 8:50pm; Reply: 5
Quoted from Ribbit
Plumcots?  Our little labels say "pluots."  We LOVE them.  Let 'em sit till they're mushy but not rotten.  Mmmmmm.


I've seen them called both but I think the more popular name is pluot. I just prefer plumcot because it's more obvious.
Posted by: 2459 (Guest), Wednesday, February 6, 2008, 7:14am; Reply: 6
Tonight I was at the grocery store and I saw apples that are supposed to taste like grapes, over-packaged in hard plastic.

No long-term studies have been done on the safety of genetically modified foods.

If you consider how long wheat(hybridized) and peanuts have been a staple of the human diet, yet thousands of years later some people have developed severe, even fatal allergies...it's hard to imagine how deadly our allergies could become when our current genetic lot has acclimatized to these new monsters of the human thirst for novelty.

Perhaps candy was a better idea?
Posted by: Lola, Wednesday, February 6, 2008, 7:48am; Reply: 7
http://www.dadamo.com/bloggers/nap/archives/00000018.htm

enjoy! on allergies....
Posted by: Carol the Dabbler, Wednesday, February 6, 2008, 6:44pm; Reply: 8

Quoted from 2459
Tonight I was at the grocery store and I saw apples that are supposed to taste like grapes, over-packaged in hard plastic.

No long-term studies have been done on the safety of genetically modified foods.


I agree with you regarding the potential dangers of genetic engineering.  But -- just because a variety of apples happens to taste like grapes, you cannot assume that they have grape genes spliced in.  The original Delicious apple (which bears scarcely any resemblance to what's currently being sold under that name) tastes like strawberries, but they sure weren't doing genetic engineering back then.

Posted by: Carol the Dabbler, Wednesday, February 6, 2008, 6:55pm; Reply: 9

OK, I got curious about those "grapples" and did a Google search.  It turns out (http://www.grapplefruits.com/process.html) that they're merely Fuji apples with grape flavoring added after harvest.

Apparently the idea is that kids will be more likely to eat apples if they don't taste like apples.  *sigh*
Posted by: 2459 (Guest), Wednesday, February 6, 2008, 7:16pm; Reply: 10
Carol The Dabbler, thanks for finding that out, but I'm still going to pass. ;D

Sometimes genes that are used in hybrids in no way even resemble either fruit they propose to be amalgamating. I've heard of frog DNA being used in genetic manipulation (pretty sure that's an avoid), and it's not uncommon for corn, etc to find it's way into unlikely items.

I wasn't talking about my allergies. I was talking about your great-great-great-great-great grandchildren. We have no way of knowing how our bodies are adapting or failing to adapt to the changes being made to our food chain. Especially as savvy observers of the BTD, GTD we already have some idea that there is a direct relationship between our DNA and what we eat. Birds and fish will eat plastic thinking its food. I hope that we can be conscious consumers to the degree that we will demand no less than what we know is safe for our bodies.

Take care!
Posted by: Carol the Dabbler, Wednesday, February 6, 2008, 9:00pm; Reply: 11

Quoted from 2459
Sometimes genes that are used in hybrids in no way even resemble either fruit they propose to be amalgamating. I've heard of frog DNA being used in genetic manipulation (pretty sure that's an avoid), and it's not uncommon for corn, etc to find it's way into unlikely items.


There is a HUGE difference between true hybrids and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

A hybrid is created "the old-fashioned way" -- in the case of plants, this means that the pollen from one desirable variety is applied to the flower of another desirable variety.  The resulting seed is collected and planted, in hopes that the seedlings will have the desirable traits of both parents.  Plants have been doing this sort of thing without human intervention for millennia -- they just don't usually choose their sex partners the way we'd hope they would.  Hybrids between two related species are rare, but do occur, even without our help -- mules have been occurring ever since horses and donkeys have shared their grazing grounds.  Plumcots are an example of human-directed inter-species hybridization.

The introduction of genes from a totally unrelated species, on the other hand, can only be done by genetic engineering (aka genetic modification, gene splicing, etc.).  That's how you get carp genes in the MacGregor tomato (which was known as the Flavr Savr until people caught on that it was a GMO).

Genetic engineering could also be used to introduce genes from one variety of an organism into another variety of the same species, but the procedure is expensive, so hybridization is generally used in such cases.

Posted by: 2459 (Guest), Thursday, February 7, 2008, 7:35am; Reply: 12
Oh, I've heard about cross-pollination before. I guess even nectarines were probably some kind of spinoff from the "original" peach.
I just think it's scary that we might not even know what we're eating.
Posted by: Carol the Dabbler, Saturday, February 9, 2008, 5:09am; Reply: 13

Quoted from 2459
I just think it's scary that we might not even know what we're eating.


That's quite true for inter-species hybrids.  With the pluots that started this thread, you're at least told that they *are* an inter-species hybrid, but I've run across several inter-species hybrids that were not marketed as such -- for example, a variety of "tangerine" that turned out to actually be a cross between a tangerine and an orange.  Oh, and Meyer lemons are also an inter-species hybrid, apparently between lemons and mandarin oranges (though no one seems to be sure exactly what they are).

And it's far, far truer for GMOs.  They are not required to label them as GMOs, so of course they don't, because hardly anyone would buy them.  The only way to be (reasonably) certain that your fruits and veggies aren't part carp or something is either grow them yourself or buy organic.

Posted by: Ribbit, Monday, February 11, 2008, 4:06am; Reply: 14
Quoted from Carol the Dabbler


That's how you get carp genes in the MacGregor tomato (which was known as the Flavr Savr until people caught on that it was a GMO).



So when are we going to start hearing about people with severe fish allergies dying because they ate a tomato?  Elimination diets will be impossible.
Posted by: Carol the Dabbler, Monday, February 11, 2008, 6:29pm; Reply: 15

The good news is that people caught on about "MacGregor" too, and stopped buying it, so it was withdrawn from the market a few years ago.  And the USDA actually refused to approve one GMO that contained, as I recall, Brazil-nut genes, out of concern for people with nut allergies.

But I've heard of no such concern for people with uncommon allergies, or those with religious or ethical dietary restrictions -- and precious little concern for long-term effects.

The aforementioned rare instances of restraint don't stop them from going on to create even weirder GMOs.
Posted by: Schluggell, Wednesday, February 13, 2008, 8:59am; Reply: 16
Quoted from Ribbit
Plumcots?  Our little labels say "pluots."  We LOVE them...Mmmmmm.


Plum, Pflaume, Prunier, Ciruela, Ameixeira
{Prunus spp.-Rosaceae,Subfamily:Prunoideae,Sect. Prunus & Prunocerasus}
Apricot, Aprikose, Albercoquer
{P. spp. typ. P.armeniaca - Rosaceae, Subfamily: Prunoideae, Sect. Armeniaca}

Kissing cousins shall we say. Which is really a more legitimate natural hybrid.

On the other hand there is the orange bits in store-bought tinned soups. Not a Carrot & Not a Rutabaga. THese are the wrong form of hybrid.
Then there is the tissue cultured plants that create sterile plants. Promote Agribusiness (rather than the natural seed-saving). THere is link to increased allergies and pollens from sterile {hybridized} plants/trees (roadside conifers, Canola).
Posted by: Ribbit, Wednesday, February 13, 2008, 3:54pm; Reply: 17
Schlüggell, while I've got you here, can I ask you something?  What's a tamarillo?  I googled it, but I couldn't tell from all the Latin words what it really is.  If it's truly related to a nightshade, I'm not going to touch it.  But if it's not, I'll try it.  They're supposed to be beneficial for me, unlike the other nightshades (which I'm allergic to anyway).  What say you?

Also, why not save seeds?  I like the idea of seed-saving.  Is there a reason not to do this?  I save my okra seeds every year because they're always a true okra the next year, exactly like what I wanted.  Some of my other vegetables don't work that way.
Posted by: Carol the Dabbler, Wednesday, February 13, 2008, 5:07pm; Reply: 18

I'm not Schlüggell, but I do know a little about tamarillos.  They're also known as "tree tomatoes" (you see them advertised in those ridiculously unrealistic magazine ads).  According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_tomato), they are not only in the nightshade family (Solanaceae), they are currently in the same genus as tomatoes.

Sorry about that!

P.S.: They are a natural species, however.

Posted by: Ribbit, Wednesday, February 13, 2008, 6:30pm; Reply: 19
I know they're in the same family technically, but the plant classifications were done many, many years ago and aren't always exactly right.  If they grow on trees, they aren't a vine like a tomato.  I want to know if they contain the same chemical compounds that tomatoes do that people typically react to.  Are they really tomatoes, or did somebody 200 years ago say, "Hm.  Looks sort of like a tomato.  Let's classify them in the same family."
Posted by: Carol the Dabbler, Wednesday, February 13, 2008, 6:53pm; Reply: 20

They are closely related to tomatoes.  The experts keep changing their minds as to just how closely, but they are definitely a nightshade.  Tomatoes are apparently more closely related to tamarillos than they are to peppers.

Here's a write-up from Wikipedia on the alkaloids in various members of the nightshade family: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanaceae#Alkaloids, but it doesn't have much to say about tomatoes or tamarillos.

Posted by: Ribbit, Friday, February 15, 2008, 3:40am; Reply: 21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_nightshade

Hark, all ye who are allergic to nightshades:  goji berry is a nightshade. :o ??)
Posted by: Carol the Dabbler, Friday, February 15, 2008, 7:21pm; Reply: 22

Hmmm, so it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycium_barbarum
Print page generated: Thursday, December 18, 2014, 4:16am