FWIW, this is the default broccoli in center italy (hence the name "romanesco"[0]). Took me decades to understand why american media used such weird broccoli (i.e. what the rest of the world call thus).
I've always wondered if those are the ones in the famous Diocletian quote "Would you could see the cabbages planted by my hand at Salona, you would then never think of urging such an attempt [to return from retirement as Emperor]".
Another plant he left out was Arabidopsis, which is the model organism most studied by plant biologists as it has the second shortest plant genome (they used to think it was the shortest). My company (http://www.glowingplant.com) is engineering these to make them glow in the dark... so maybe we can make glow-in-the-dark broccoli next ;) It's not hundreds of years to make new cultivars now, dramatic changes can be achieved in months. Fun fact: you can make an arabidopsis look like a Brussels sprout with the modification to a single gene... it wouldn't taste as good though, that takes more genes!
I've unintentionally known this for about 25 years. Nobody ever believed that I was allergic to broccoli or cauliflower and just thought I hated them. Then one day I tried out kale and found that it tasted similar to broccoli to me. I asked my wife if she felt the same way (brussel sprouts also taste the same) and she said they all taste very different to her.
We then looked up and saw that they're all part of the mustard family.
So if you're ever curious if a plant is part of the mustard family just let me taste it and I'll let you know... and then throw up on you.
Seriously. I try to not get overly annoyed at people finding out common facts: everyone has to learn it once, right? But this is an awfully obvious one. Besides, there's really no justification for linking to Ezra and Matty's Mouth-Breathers-r-Us.
There's a number of people who visit Hacker News and not Reddit... and since HN doesn't have subreddits, they just dump whatever thing they find is interesting in the same place, regardless of how appropriate it is to the site's purpose. It's obnoxious.
The mustard that we typically eat as a condiment or greens are Sinapis alba, Brassica juncea, and Brassica nigra, which are in the same family as Brassica oleracea, but they aren't the same species.
Ah yes, selective breeding... also known as the original method for creating GMOs. Nowadays we can just do things a bit faster without all of the waiting required for multiple generations of crops. But that doesn't mean that we haven't been practicing artificial genetic selection for millennia.
Ah yes, validating all GMOs just because we've been breeding cultivars for thousands of years.
Safety not gauranteed:
The solanine heavy Lenape Potato, sure solanine is in all potatoes, but when did a non-green one make you sick?
The "killer zucchini" from New Zealand with dangerous amounts of curcubitan caused by a aphid outbreak in the organic fields.
Mono-cultures can happen:
The Irish potato famine could have been reduced in severity if there were more variety among Ireland's food crops or their potato cultivars in 1845.
While nowhere near as devasting to humanity, the destruction of the Gros Michel banana cultivar and the impending threat of the newest banana-phage on the current Cavendish cultivar aren't exactly a good faith offering on future mono-cultures, GMO or not, being avoided.
You seem to be making two contradicting points here.
On one end, you talk about food safety, and how altering the DNA of a plant means it might not be safe anymore. But in that case, the best thing we could do is to make sure we are always making plants with the exact same genetics: All clones. That's the only way you can tell what you are eating. There are more genetic changes in a naturally bred, not inbred crop than there are in a GMO event vs the untraited plant.
Then you seem to dislike monocultures: If you want the plants to be safe from some phage, nothing better than high genetic diversity in plants, which leads to us really having no idea of how safe what we are eating is.
We either want to treat them as drugs, and make monocultures the way of the world, or we look for genetic diversity, in which case having some BT toxins embedded in your corn plant won't be that bad. Just ask agribusiness to make sure there's at least 8 different germplasms per bag or something like that.
It is interesting that we can accidentally select for poisonous compounds. It turns out that plants can make themselves resistant to many pests; by filling themselves full of poison. These kind of issues are well known. See Conjuring An Evolution To Serve Youhttp://lesswrong.com/lw/l8/conjuring_an_evolution_to_serve_y...
It can happen by chance or convergent evolution. Mutation rates are sometimes artificially raised to increase the probability of it happening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
It's extremely hard to selectively breed fish DNA into a plant. Convergent evolution doesn't end up with the same DNA sequence. My favorite example is the protease catalytic triad, where 20 or so different evolutionary routes have converged to the same chemical function, even though the DNA for those different superfamilies are different.
The odds of mutation breeding producing a new gene (or more likely, changing an existing related gene to correct form) is incredibly small, and the result would be very expensive. Each generation would need to be sequenced, and the ones whose DNA is closer to the target re-bred. You want the mutation rates to be low enough that the rest of the plant isn't killed, so that's what, a mutation somewhere in the target gene every 1,000 generations? Assuming a short sequence of 100 base pairs, and perfect mutation gives 100,000 generations. Assuming a life cycle of 10 days means this will take over 2,500 years.
I deliberately low-balled these numbers.
So yes, "by chance" it's possible, in about the same way that a universe of monkeys could type out Hamlet.
How do these observations lead to a breeding technique where a plant ends up with fish DNA?
You'll notice the the events listed are either in related species, or from ecologically very tightly coupled species (eg, host and gut bacteria), and seem to imply time scales and population counts which are much higher than would be economically feasible for breeding.
Because there's no such thing as 'fish DNA'. There's just DNA. Its a code, and code doesn't 'belong' to any organism or know where its at. So transfer of DNA from one organism to another, like monkeys typing, increases the rate of change in species well above that of mutation alone.
Unless you are my long lost twin, you and I don't have the exact same genome either. Personally, I like the thought that cauliflower is the poodle of cabbages.
The distinction is that dogs and wolves are different subspecies. However these plants have diverged mostly within the last thousand years or so, so they might not be even that different.
I'm not sure if it has changed, but things used to be called the same species if they can interbreed with each other and produce fertile offspring. Dog is wolf, yes; man is ape, no.
What you are describing is known as the Biological Species Concept. It's one of at least 28 species concepts that have been proposed in the scientific literature -- they were surveyed in a review paper whose reference irritatingly escapes me. Anyway, the BSC is not the only game in town (and is particularly useless to those, like me, who are palaeontologists.)
Selective pressure to modify the genome is the goal for altering organism's characteristics not unlike what happens naturally. So it is indirect gene editing. Now if the new organism is still the same species as you started with. I am not sure about that. There must be a test/definition for that. I think man descended from Ape and is homosapien.
I don't believe it. Very interesting read, and I don't doubt that the plants all originated from the same species . However, I'm not convinced that they are still the same species; can one assert that we have, through artificial selection, induced speciation? I believe this is more likely.
I will admit that the definition of "species" is subject to debate. The general definition to which I subscribe requires that two individuals are able to mate, produce offspring, and that can then mate and produce offspring of its own. A major shortcoming with this definition, however, is that it does not address Ring Species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
I'm not convinced that they are still the same species; can one assert that we have, through artificial selection, induced speciation?
One word: "dogs".
(Are you skeptical that chihuahuas and huskies are the same species? Some dog breeds are incapable of mating successfully without artificial insemination, or reproducing effectively -- think of a great dane foetus gestating in a female chihuahua -- but within a small single-digit number of generations they can produce hybridised "mutts" that are interfertile. Similarly, the brassicae are pretty much the same thing.)
It has been suggested that we consider dogs to be separate species. I completely agree with that, but without human intervention, wouldn't breeds that can't reproduce naturally (great dane & chihuahua) most likely lead to separate species given enough time?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-immodest-propos...
I don't understand why you don't believe it. It's quite wide-spread knowledge, and a quick check doesn't show any signs that it's a wide-spread urban legend.
I noticed that your understanding of 'species' doesn't consider obligate parthenogenesis. There are, for example, some 50 species of lizard that only reproduce parthenogenetically. Under your definition, these are not a species because there is no mating. I submit that that is a much more critical shortcoming than a ring species.
Perhaps your objection is more based on a lack of knowledge than anything else?
I submit that you're probably correct about my lack of understanding. I'm really not sure what a species is, not scientifically - and some googling suggests there is debate in the scientific community. How would you define species?
I don't think that it is really a 'debate'. There are different species concepts that are used depending on the needs of the situation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Other_species_concepts). A single definition cannot be found for less divergent groups because speciation is really a continuous process. Also the mechanisms and course of the process differs between taxonomic groups and, in some cases, may never be 'complete'.
The case of horizontal gene transfer mentioned below occurs in eukaryotes as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer#Eukary...).
I don't define species because I don't need to. As you found, it's an unresolved topic. For my daily life, the reproductive compatibility definition you mentioned is a reasonable approximation. (I usually think of it as having the additional proviso "or the parents are compatible", since some individuals are infertile.)
Quoting now from Stephen J. Gould (1992):
> I do not say that these criteria are free from exceptions; nature is nothing if not a domain of exceptions, where an example against any clean generality can always be found. Some distinct populations of plants, for example, can and frequently do interbreed with others that ought to be separate species by all other standards. (This is why the classification of certain groups--the rhododendrons, for example--is such a mess.) But the criteria work in the vast majority of cases, including humans.
Since then we've learned a lot more about bacteria, which employ horizontal gene transfer. This completely breaks the traditional model.
Our own human cells can also pull off some odd tricks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa#New_species_proposal for one proposal for why HeLa cells should be considered its own species. (Note also the mention of special rules for an independent unicellular asexually reproducing species.)
Can you cross pollinate cauliflower and broccoli (outside of genetic engineering)? I honestly cannot say with certainty, but I tend to doubt it. If you can, I would think same species; if you can't, I'd think separate. My supporting evidence is non-scientific and anecdotal - having a garden for 15 years with both plants in close proximity I would have thought if cross pollination had been possible it would have happened in that time frame.
Thank you. From the wiki page, I can't tell if that's Broccoflower is the result of cross-pollination as would happen naturally or the result of direct human intervention - I also can't tell if the seeds from Broccoflower are viable - I'll Google around more and learn :-)
As for overlooking - you're right, I did and should have thought of that before commenting. After a few attempts at saving seeds it became obvious to me that buying them each season was preferable.
Yes, they do taste similar, and I absolutely believe that they are all derived from the same species - but I'm not convinced that they are still the same species.
The word 'believe' has no place in a scientific debate. Either you know or you don't know. What you believe does not enter into it, that means you need to do more research or read up on the research that has already been done.
That's nonsense. There are lots of parts of science where someone could reasonably say "I believe it's this, but I'll change my mind if future science changes my mind".
An example of where this is useful is around Neanderthals. "Did they have language?", "Did they have burial with ceremony?" are questions where it's fine to have belief on the current evidence because there's not enough data to know the answer.
This is incorrect. There are many scientific hypotheses that are widely believed to be true, such as P!=NP or global warming. To say that "we don't know", or "it's equally probable that..." would be extremely misleading. And you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist who doesn't believe in one outcome or the other.
Yes and they all are powerful goitrogenic plants. Don't eat them raw... unless you hate your thyroid! When I see people sipping on raw kale juice, I feel sorry for them! Raw is not always better! Would you eat raw potatoes, for example, or raw mushrooms (toxins), or spinach (rich in oxalates)?
If you have a healthy thyroid, raw kale is fine. Similarly, if you have healthy kidneys the amount of oxalates in raw kale or spinach shouldn't be a problem.
So tired of hearing this nonsense from people who read a few blog posts instead of asking their doctor.
Hmmm... I think "healthy" is very relative and Google is planning to put all its powers to determine exactly what that means. How about not relying on something so subjective and just do a little extra effort to cook the problematic foods?
Even calling them "problematic" is hugely exaggerating the risks, getting an iodine deficiency from eating too much kale would be an exceptional case (iodine deficiency is a rare condition to begin with).
I've discussed this with my physician, they said it was nothing to worry about if you're healthy.
Healthy meaning "doesn't have kidney disease." Not very subjective.
You probably wanted to say "doesn't have a diagnosed kidney disease." If you think you can fully diagnose kidney health just by lack of symptoms and basic blood and urine tests, you're wrong. No physician will do, for example, an ultrasound without symptoms - this is how the flawed system works. Iodine deficiency actually is common in many geographies and, if I remember correctly, it's became more common with the vilification of salt as iodized salt is the main source of iodine for many.
Are you suggesting its prudent to assume you have kidney disease? If so, you'll want to avoid a whole lot more than just kale.
Not sure why you're suggesting thats a flawed system, the vast majority of people don't have kidney disease. Are you suggesting we should subject people with no risk factors or symptoms to expensive tests for every disease, no matter how uncommon?
The suggestion is that raw kale, spinach etc. would reliably cause iodine deficiency, which just isn't the case. If someone is eating a diet w/ adequate iodine, some raw veggies are not going cause any problems.
Trans-lycopene in cooked tomatoes is times more compared to raw, for example. Steamed broccoli is definitely more pleasant to eat to most and those chewing it raw mostly do it thinking it's healthier this way. The popular wisdom is that in a soup, cell walls of vegetables are broken and nutrients are released in the broth - is there a PubMed article on this? How about centuries-old practice instead? Just now medicine finds, for example, the merits of Ayurveda. For example, the combination of turmeric and black pepper in curry is now scientifically proven to increase curcumin's bioavailability by orders of magnitude. Should you always wait decades or forever for science to prove something that's passed the test of the ages?
Centuries-old practice had people leeching the vile humors out of their bodies when they got sick, too. The ancients got a lot of stuff wrong, and what they got right was largely by accident. I'll trust scientific rigor along with the confidence intervals and error bars over received wisdom every time.
Also, here's a link to a Pubmed article on chicken soup:
Nothing about breaking down the cell walls of vegetables to release the nutrients, so I don't know if that's true.
And here's another Pubmed article about soup, highlighting the danger of food fads (because people don't want to wait for nutritional science to prove something and instead rely on the "test of the ages"):
Homeopathy has survived until nowadays, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy.
You also mis-characterize my position on PubMed. It is a search engine with which I am familiar, not the summation of all scientific medicine. If I can't find something in PubMed, my thoughts on a matter remain "dunno", which is orthogonal to "believe/disbelieve" or "accept/reject". I included links to PubMed articles on soup as a humorous rejoinder to your rhetorical question. That was probably unnecessary, and I apologize.
Well, homeopathy, Dr. Schuessler's salts, and Dr. Bach's flower remedies are most probably just a placebo, which is better than many drugs especially in the States, although I know many who swear the Boiron flu "meds" really work and I don't think placebo performs well with viral and bacterial infections.
Unfortunately, fermentation does not neutralize the goitrogens either, i.e. sauerkraut although much healthier alternative of the raw cabbage still takes its thyroid toll.
I just looked this up in the PubMed biomedical literature database and there aren't many studies that correlate the goitrogenic activity of cabbages, et al., to human thyroid activity.
What's the impact of having kale juice once a day for a year? What if we simply consume extra iodine? Send links to papers if you have any primary references.
Well, a 16 oz bottle of juiced kale is a lot of kale! I've seen people having 2-3 of those a day. It's not precise science to know how much extra iodine to consume, I think. Raw kale is known for ages to make livestock sick. Either Dr. Fuhrman or Dr. Weil recommended that the best way to take full advantage of kale is to blend it, let it sit for 10 minutes, and then put it in a soup or another cooked meal.
Edit: Sorry, I liked to the wrong article! Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't eat kale - just that it's not justified or even scientifically correct to eat it raw! Here's the article I wanted to link to: http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2014/01/the-dark-side-of-kale-a...
The endocrinologist answering questions says Basically the goitrogens are challenges to the thyroid. But in the absence of iodine deficiency, substantial or prolonged ingestion of dietary goitrogens and lastly the absence of an underlying thyroid disorder, the risk in this country of having problems in this area are very, very low, almost minuscule. Again, that’s because the vast majority of people have adequate iodine levels to counteract the effect of goitrogens.
So modest consumption doesn't seem like it is going to bother healthy people any.
Did you actually read that article? Especially the last section, which contains this actually good advice:
But when you see an article that demonizes a food, think about whether or not there are citations and follow those citations. Ask yourself whether they apply to human beings eating a diverse diet with adequete [sic] calories. Or whether they involve very high concentrations no human being eats, isolated chemicals, or preparations that no normal human would put on their plate.
EDIT: Now that you've added an article, I recommend you read the first as preparation for reading the second with an appropriately critical mind.
"Balanced" according to which methodology? To that vilifying saturated fats, for example, or the new that does the opposite, for example? When it comes to nutrition, there's no single source of truth!
(Oh man, it was weird to look up "kale". Google translate seems to offer lots of suggestions that aren't exactly edible)
I eat mushrooms raw, quite a lot. You seem to think that this is a bad idea, but.. I wouldn't know why (and would certainly have a hard time believing that this is Not Good). It might help to present a bit of a disclaimer/"this is.where I'm coming from" statement in your post, before you start?
It depends on the species. I believe most store mushrooms are fine, but for example, raw morels have monomethylhydrazine in them (or compounds that degrade into hydrazine). Rocket fuel. Of course not huge amounts, but it's not good for you.
I eat raw broccoli and raw spinach even together in a salad. I can even go to the store and find raw spinach prepackaged in salads, claiming they are ready to eat.
I guess there are way too many kale sippers here as downvotes are piling up! Like the karma here will pay my bills. I guess the kale makes you aggressively vindictive. No, I don't have a PubMed article for that causation/correlation.
You can make them at home, but it requires a lot of work and luck, since brassicas cross-breed if they are near each other at all.