You Say ‘Tomato’, I say ‘Tomato’

A while ago had a Swedish paper an article about the taste of tomatoes Svd. The topic was a scientist research on how tomatoes should taste like. The article described how a panel of people had tasted different types of tomatoes and come up with a description of how an tomato should taste like. That is the ”recipe for the perfect tomato”.

Well I got my own opinion about that, or rather my own taste buds. Searching the net on the scientist name and tomato, gave me some more information about his research and background of the subject. A good one, was an article in Wall Street Journal.  My favourite part of the article is the headline: They Say Tomato. We Say Tasteless (I do have a soft spot for good titles)

My thought from the beginning was, that any group of people would vote for the sweeter tomato. That is, the more sugary, the better they would like the flavour of the tomato. A  point I like to make, is that I do not like the idea that some unknown people should define how a tomato should taste like. Taste is not about who get the most votes. Just like as in science.

I known for years that it been a complaints that the food produced nowadays are losing taste. That is, the industry been more interested in having higher yields, and better shelf life,, than products that taste good.

And I did agree that it one should produce food that taste better. But I did that without knowing couple of things. That sugar is so important for us to ”like” the flavour of something, and what it does to our bodies.

Now I questioning the search for better tasting fruits and vegetables. When the aim is making them sweeter. I got this idea that especially fruits, have been selected and cultivated in the search for more sweeter products.

The Wall Street Journal did say something differently. That tomatoes was sweeter in the past. Before a mutation of a gene appeared 70 years ago. And it could be that among vegetables, have the trend been opposite.

But the point I like to make here, is that the whole discussion missing the most important thing about food. That it contains the different nutrients we need. And though the big fields of for example apple trees give big yields of fruits that are sweet. Do they contain what we need?

We all know that we need different mineral, vitamins and other whatever it is called. And even though science have found many of them. Is it very unlikely they found them all. That is why this talk about grass feed cattle, or egg hens who not only eat grains but also allowed to eat bugs and worms, is so important.

If the things we eat, is being feed what they are suppose to eat. And vegetables and fruit was grown in environments that was natural for them.  Is it very likely that they would  contain more of the nutrients we need. No matter if we know about them or not.

But then of course. They could also contain things that is bad for us in the long run. But I take my bet on that mother nature is not stupid.

Sugar decay the rich tooth

I looked on a Time Team special on you tube.
Time Team Special 43 (2010) – Nelsons Hospital
They pointed out when they looking on the skull of unknown 18 century burials. That they very likely where poor people.

One reason for this assumption was that the teeth was in good condition. Poor could not afford sugar. And if you where well off at that time. Would you have strong teeth decay.

I think this tells us something of sugar. And also correlate with what Weston Price studied and found.

Update
I have added an very short article about Weston Price under LCHF-Science