Scientists Successfully Decode the Genome of Quinoa (bbc.com) 292
Gr8Apes writes: Scientists have successfully decoded the genome of quinoa, a hugely popular "super-food" because it is well balanced and gluten-free. They have pinpointed one of the genes that they believe control the production of saponins (bitter toxic compounds that protect the plant from predators) which can facilitate the breeding of plants without saponins, resulting in sweeter seeds without having to process them. The scientists also believe that the genetic understanding now gained will allow them to breed shorter, stockier plants that don't fall over as easily, and that these benefits could be gained without the use of genetic modification. Furthermore, the researchers believe the genetic code will rapidly lead to more productive varieties that will push down costs. "We need the price of quinoa to go down by a factor of five," said project leader Professor Mark Tester, from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology. "If we get to a similar price to wheat it can be used in processing and in bread making and in many other foods and products. It has the chance to truly add to current world food production." The study has been published in the journal Nature.
Somewhat selfishly, I look forward to this. (Score:2)
Quinoa is bloody convenient, but I've never been able to warm up to the taste. A version that didn't have the saponins in it would be a huge improvement. Ain't science wonderful?
Re:Somewhat selfishly, I look forward to this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Quinoa is convenient? How is it more convenient than rice?
I'm the opposite of you, I find Quinoa inconvenient (only because of the price), but is is really tasty. I substitute out about 1/3 of my rice with red/black Quinoa & add 1/3 extra water to the rice cooker & get a lovely rice with different coloured seeds scattered through it, giving it a nuttiness, crunch & depth of flavour you don't get with plain rice.
Re:Somewhat selfishly, I look forward to this. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want nuttiness and crunchiness in your rice, add nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be more caloric, and more of a hassle to cut the nuts into tiny pieces.
Have both (Score:5, Informative)
Costco has really tasty pre-packaged packets of brown rice and Quinoa (under the brand Seeds of Change), that you can heat in five minutes,
I know what you are thinking. Pre-packaged? Brown rice? Quinoa? How could any of that be tasty?
Normally I hate packaged foods myself and always cook everything from raw. I've never liked brown rice, sometimes hated it, and while I like most Quinoa more, I only like it for particular uses.
But for whatever reason, these packets that Costco has are actually really tasty. Somehow the taste of the brown rice and Quinoa mesh together to make something very good, and something you can have with any protein instead of normal rice.
I imagine it's healthier too but I honestly do not care because I just find it tastier.
There's nothing un-pronouncable or strange in the ingredients either - brown rice and quinoa are the first two ingredients and it's just some spices after that.
Cook it in a skillet and it is great. The instructions say without water but I prefer cooking it as is, and you get some nice crunch in it. So tasty.
Re:Somewhat selfishly, I look forward to this. (Score:4, Interesting)
Rice is very water intensive to grow. Quinoa is no where even close.
Re: (Score:3)
Rice isn't particularly water-intensive. It's grown in water because nothing else useful can grow in water like rice can, turning useless marshy land into productive rice farms.
It's grown in water because that's how you have to grow it. They pump water out of the ground in order to grow it in California's central valley, albeit not right now
Re: (Score:2)
Next stop is probably tef: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] unhappily, when Westerners latch on to things, the price rises, with predictable results for the poorer producers.
Re: (Score:3)
What, they become less poor?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not adding buckwheat? The effect should be similar, but for a way lower price (in Germany at least, buckwheat is seriously cheaper than quinoa)
Re: Somewhat selfishly, I look forward to this. (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it more convenient than rice?
It doesn't taste like glue.
If your rice tastes like glue you are cooking it wrong. Try cooking it in stock or at least toss in a few bullion cubes.
Re: (Score:2)
Or use a kind of rice other than white. Black (Italian) or red (asian) are both really nice. That latter has a lot of fibre though, trust me.
Re: Somewhat selfishly, I look forward to this. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, so to disguise the taste, I have to flavor it with something else?
No thanks.
You're right man, this whole eating food cooked thing is a passing fad
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Kindergarten
Re: (Score:2)
It tastes and feels like boiled cardboard. Rice is better.
That is subjective, I think Rice has an inferior taste and texture. I like Quinoa, the fact that it is so much healthier than rice is just a bonus.
Agreed (Score:2)
No matter how its prepared the taste is always there under everything else and I find it quite unpleasant.
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Funny)
Try replacing it with medium rare rib-eye. I find the taste improves significantly, and as a bonus you have all this unused, very expensive, kitty litter that your cat can avoid too.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people are "bitter" tasters.
If artificial sweeteners taste bitter to you, then you may be as well.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's got a bitter taste, are you rinsing it enough? I find bitterness can be an issue if it is not thoroughly rinsed several times before cooking. There's also some pre-rinsed brands on the market now.
Also, maybe try the red quinoa if you can. Personally, I think the red one on the market is better than the white varieties.
Already done with regular breeding techniques. (Score:4, Interesting)
So what? Someone already bred a low saponin Quinoa that immediately harvested by the birds. Maybe leaving in the natural pesticide that is easy to process is a good idea?
good for them (Score:2)
Re:good for them (Score:5, Informative)
Spelled like q-u-i-n-o-a.
Sounds like keen-wah.
Tastes like tiny cardboard balls.
What does it taste like ? (Score:2)
And how do you cook it ?
And speaking of that has anyone tried golden rice (Score:2)
It's the GMO rice with vitamin A precursors. Sounds like it should have a different taste than regular rice.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It tastes OK, but the additional arm it's grown on my back makes sleeping inconvenient. However, it's nice to be able to type and scratch my ass at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't know, you have no idea what you are talking about. But, GMO SCARY and everyone should think that.
Is that your position, or was there nuance I missed ?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about the flavor.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want vitamin A (and a whole bunch of other nutrients), eat some liver.
Liver not only tastes far worse it is full of cholesterol and is part of the body that absorbs lots of toxins. Liver has the highest concentration of mercury, lead, and other harmful heavy metals of any part of the body. Pesticides eaten by the animal in the feed also tends to concentrate in the liver.
Liver tastes bad and is very bad for you. Quite the opposite of quinoa which tastes good and is good for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Rinse it thoroughly several times (when water runs off it the water should be clear) and throw it in a rice cooker. I like to make a bed of it and throw something else on top, like a curry or stir fry, much like one would use rice.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks I'll probably give it a try this week.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you cook it ?
It tastes like rice with a pleasant richness behind it. I'm not sure where all these people are coming from on Slashdot saying it tastes bad/bitter, I've never had bad/bitter quinoa, these are probably the same people who eat nothing but McDonalds for lunch every day and never eat vegtables.
I like to fry the seeds in a little olive oil in a deep skillet for a few minutes before cooking it in the same way as rice... gives it a slight toasty flavor.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks
Still work to do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tell you what, take yourself to the Green Seed restaurant on Almeda St in Houston and order the Big Tex quinoa burger. It's got this toasted zucchini that tastes like bacon and is goddamn delicious. Seriously, if you've never tasted quinoa made well, you've got to try it. I'll offer a fully money-back guarantee if you don't like it. Get it with an order of sweet potato dill fries. On me.
Seriously,
What is up with this anti-gluten bullshit? (Score:5, Insightful)
quinoa, a hugely popular "super-food" because it is well balanced and gluten-free
Seriously, wtf? When and why did gluten become an evil boogeyman? Was there a recent research that found gluten causes cancer or something? Or is it just a new age hippie thing?
Gluten is just wheat protein. It's nutritious. It's how Roman soldiers were able to go everywhere and fight because they had a reliable, portable, long-lasting and nutritious food supply. Wheat is actually the first superfood.
Yes a tiny percentage of the population can't eat wheat because of celiac or wheat allergies. So what, peanut allergies are far more common and yet I don't see a lot of anti-peanut crusading.
Re:What is up with this anti-gluten bullshit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I buy the glulten free stuff because it tastes nice. Sometimes its worth trying these dubious health foods just to see if they are delicious.
Re:What is up with this anti-gluten bullshit? (Score:5, Interesting)
That means a Gluten Free diet improves their symptoms, not because of the gluten, but because of a correlated change in FODMAPS. This is why most self-diagnosed people with a gluten insensitivity also claim to have problems with dairy products which are completely gluten free, but are rich in FODMAPs. Unfortunately, when you try to explain this to someone with a self-diagnosis, they seem to take the information as an attempt to call them stupid or crazy. It's not that their symptoms are imaginary, nor that the relief they get from a gluten free diet is imagined, but simply that they've misattributed cause and effect due to the correlation between FODMAP and Gluten in many foods.
I don't know much about quinoa on this regard, but if it is also high in FODMAP's despite being gluten free, then it won't help these people all that much.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re:What is up with this anti-gluten bullshit? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes it is a hipster thing exploited by the marketing of food companies. I've even seen "Gluten free" on packages of meat.
In fact a couple of double-blind studies of gluten versus a placebo found little evidence to suggest the existing of gluten sensitivity outside of celiac's disease. What we're probably seeing here is the nocebo effect perpetuated by mass hysteria.
Re:What is up with this anti-gluten bullshit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it is a hipster thing exploited by the marketing of food companies. I've even seen "Gluten free" on packages of meat....What we're probably seeing here is the nocebo effect perpetuated by mass hysteria.
I'm having a hard time blaming "hipsters" at this point when I can't tell if greedy food companies are merely marketing, or if they are more responsible for perpetuating or even creating the mass hysteria, especially when you consider the example you provided regarding selling meat, which gives sellers a convenient excuse to increase profit margins.
If we want to go after something to take out of our food supply, let's go after the real killers, which exceed well beyond allergy concerns. Humans aren't compatible with HFCS, and there's little left to debate on that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a marketing thing.
Gluten-free foods are more expensive than gluten ones, often by 2 or more times the price.
Gluten makes dough ... doughy because what happens (and why you must let dough proof) are the gluten molecules interlink and provide it that nice stretchy smooth texture. Most gluten-free foods are adapted such that it bec
Re: (Score:3)
Gluten-free foods are more expensive than gluten ones, often by 2 or more times the price
Only if you want the gluten-free substitutes for traditionally gluten foods. I've switched to a low-carb diet without grains, and as a consequence I'm not getting any gluten either. I'm not paying more than before.
Re: (Score:2)
So want to explain to me why you are avoiding *ALL* grains then?
Can you read ? I'm eating low-carb. I'm not purposely avoiding gluten.
Re: (Score:3)
It is to some people, just not many of them.
There's coeliac disease (around 1 in 70 people prone to it apparently), and yes it does sometimes result in cancers in that group of vunerable people but it's not common. For everyone else (such as myself) - no problem. I know a couple of people with coeliac disease and I'm sort of happy th
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
quinoa, a hugely popular "super-food" because it is well balanced and gluten-free
Seriously, wtf? When and why did gluten become an evil boogeyman?
Because you cant sell bullshit without first providing the bull.
The alleged problem with gluten is that it's a carborhydrate and the current dieting fad is low carb diets. Of course there is nothing wrong with carbs being eaten in a suitable amount, but not in excess (much the same as fats, sugars, salt or whaterver the next craze is). The real problem with Gluten is that it gives marketers a new demon to sell to people with fewer than 2 brain cells. After all the previous great satans of sugar, salt and fa
Re: (Score:2)
The alleged problem with gluten is that it's a carborhydrate and the current dieting fad is low carb diets.
Gluten is a mixture of proteins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that 'gluten sensitive' people are mostly full of bullshit, I'm all for making the lives of the small percentage with real allegies to wheat better.
A small portion of the population is crippled, but we have parking and mandatory accessibility for them. It's a significant expense for businesses, but it makes their lives notably better. Having a more widely available (and cheaper) gluten free grain would improve the lives of those suffering from celiac; even if a large chunk of other people unne
Re: (Score:2)
quinoa, a hugely popular "super-food" because it is well balanced and gluten-free
Seriously, wtf? When and why did gluten become an evil boogeyman? Was there a recent research that found gluten causes cancer or something? Or is it just a new age hippie thing?
Gluten is just wheat protein. It's nutritious. It's how Roman soldiers were able to go everywhere and fight because they had a reliable, portable, long-lasting and nutritious food supply. Wheat is actually the first superfood.
Yes a tiny percentage of the population can't eat wheat because of celiac or wheat allergies. So what, peanut allergies are far more common and yet I don't see a lot of anti-peanut crusading.
I have celiac disease and have been gluten free for 36 years. i used to think I had to become a geneticist and create a super fungus to wipe out the worlds supply of wheat, barley and rye to eat normally, but they were largely replaced by a marketing campaign! Genius! Now I go on every forum I can and deliver alternative facts - eating gluten free is healthier, lets you live longer, cures cancer, regrows lost limbs - adding to the hype. Had to discourage a friend from spouting truth, it was cutting int
Re: (Score:2)
In many western countries a noticeable amount of the people are alergic against gluten.
How come we didn't notice for... uhm... 15,000 years ?
Re: (Score:2)
Because like diabetis it is a so called 'civilization' sickness.
On the other hand, I guess in earlier times people died due to allergic shocks or eating grain/wheat was not as widespread as people think. No idea.
I guess if you ask around amoung your friends you figure about 1% - 2% is alergic to gluten.
I don't have so many friends but I already know about 10 who are alergic.
Stop apologizing (Score:3, Insightful)
A. No it can't, selective breeding and direct genetic modification end up with the exact same result, and are both "genetic modifications" by any reasonable definition of the term.
B. This is exactly the same as saying "and these benefits could be gained without the use of wifi!" or "without the use of satellites!" to make "radiation" schizos or flat earthers feel better about themselves. They don't deserve to feel better about themselves; they're crass, ignorant halfwits and don't need their idiotic beliefs affirmed anymore than they already are. And that goes for the stupid assed "gluten free" thing too. Almost no one on earth has celiac disease, and anyone that does can take care of that themselves.
At no point should scientific results be apologetic, the universe doesn't apologize for existing the way it does, and reporting how it exists should need no apology either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When most people say 'genetic modification' what they mean is genetic engineering, which is to say, recombinant DNA techniques, which is different than so-called 'conventional' breeding techniques (for example inserting a spinach gene into an orange for disease resistance which is not naturally present in the citrus genepool), although not different enough to warrant the baseless opposition to it . Unfortunately, most people do not know what they are talking about when it comes to plants, agriculture, and
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they are lazy IMHO.
It's like the recent stuff about people who are "woke" instead of a longer description that actually makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, stop apologizing for this shit
As long as there are widespread, public misgivings about terms like GMO and genetically modified, there will be good, commercial reasons for pointing out that you haven't used it; it means that more people are willing to buy it. You and I may know that there is little to no scientific basis for the fears that people have, but it takes time for people to understand and accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
It like the researchers are afraid of the hipsters, "look, we used highly advanced genetic engineering techniques to sequence the genes but we would try to modify/remove this genes, that we now know what they are exactly, using other advanced genetic engineering, we will however use a trial and error technique that will take a lot longer and may not do exactly what was intended (such as get seeds without saponins but with less yield) because we depen
Re:Stop apologizing (Score:5, Insightful)
...They don't deserve to feel better about themselves; they're crass, ignorant halfwits and don't need their idiotic beliefs affirmed anymore than they already are. And that goes for the stupid assed "gluten free" thing too. Almost no one on earth has celiac disease, and anyone that does can take care of that themselves...
Almost no one on earth? In America alone, there are 3 million people who do. Not that any of them would expect an apology from a crass person such as yourself who doesn't believe simple statistics.
Regarding taking care of that "themselves", gluten is found all over our damn food supply. And much like those who suffer from epilepsy, a fucking warning label can often make all the difference in the world.
You had a valid point, right up until your ignorance showed up. And no, I don't have celiac disease or epilepsy. I'm merely fortunate enough to not suffer from a compassion deficiency.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
There is a *WORLD* of difference between a genuine Celiac disease sufferer and trendy fad based gluten intolerance morons. The former I have all the sympathy in the world for. It is a really shitty condition to have. The latter I regard in the same light as Apollo hoxars, anti-vaccination and all other conspiracy and fad based things. These people I consider idiots and morons. They are the sorts of people that allow "alternative facts" to thrive. They are on the same level as Holocaust denial and I have an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
About 1% of the population has Celiac disease and about 1% has a wheat allergy. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity is a recent area of research, but some studies have shown as high as 6% of the population having NCGS (some using a test for an autoimmune antibody that is identified with NCGS).
That works out to as much as 8% of the population may have a medical reason to go gluten free. That is definitely not almost no one. That said, some studies are showing as much as a third of Americans are avoiding gluten. T
Gentetic modification (Score:5, Insightful)
The scientists also believe that the genetic understanding now gained will allow them to breed shorter, stockier plants that don't fall over as easily, and that these benefits could be gained without the use of genetic modification.
I guess plant splicing and selective breading do not count as genetic modification. Who knew? Must have meant direct genetic modification.
Re: (Score:3)
You can breed two different species of plants together and get a new gene that never existed in either one -- even without mutation. I know of at least 5 or 6 ways offhand --- there is often massive chromosomal rearrangement --a lot of which is random.
Apparently it's you thats disqualified to speak her.
Re: (Score:2)
Breeding doesn't modify genes. You cannot breed two animals together or cross pollinate two plants and get arbitrary genes that weren't there to begin with.
Of course it does. I suggest you take a college-level Biology course and learn a little bit about mechanisms of genetic variation before saying things like:
The fact that you don't know that pretty much disqualifies you from any discussion here as you're not fooling anybody.
TL;DR, but I'm confused ... (Score:2)
Anyone else? (Score:2)
I don't really mind the taste, but it gives me terrible diarrhoea. Before anyone says I'm preparing it wrong, nobody else in the family seems to have the problem, including the kids. Luckily they've got bored with it so we don't have it so often now.
Disclaimer: totally not a hipster.
not "decoded" (Score:4, Interesting)
Scientists Successfully Decode the Genome of Quinoa
Ugh. I know this is a primarily a tech site, but why can't we make more of an effort to use the actual scientific terms instead meaningless stupid phrases.
It's kind of like saying "Company develops new method to talk to computers" instead of "Company develops new programming language, Rust"
"Scientists sequence and assemble the genome of Chenopodium quinoa (aka "quinoa")"
There, much better. Heck, that's lifted almost word-for-word from the actual scientific article, so it's not like it requires a ton of effort.
Phenotype changes without genotypoe changes? (Score:3)
The scientists also believe that the genetic understanding now gained will allow them to breed shorter, stockier plants that don't fall over as easily, and that these benefits could be gained without the use of genetic modification.
So with no genetic changes at all we will get different plants? Don't these people know that selective breeding IS genetic modification? No? Well why the hell not? Are they morons? Yes? Why the hell are we listening to them talk about science then? It's Slashdot you say? What difference should that make? Really? So these people read stupid news stories and then comment on them? Wait, what? They don't even read the stories? Wait, what?!? They don't even read the summaries of the stories?!? Well what the fuck do they talk about? Oh.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably would be considered GMO if people didn't mind starving to death.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot. You truly are. You clearly have no background in this field. I mean, GMO doesn't even necessarily mean swapping in a new gene. It could also be knocking out an existing gene. Second, you act like GMO is dangerous when hybridizing and artificial selection can have the same result if not worse than any GMO ever cooked up to date.
Re: (Score:3)
O Rly?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world... [ibtimes.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you are letting the rules of nature determine the outcome. People have been cross breeding for thousands of years and we know what to expect.
GMO = Man fucking about with genes that may or may not produce something good or bad due to a complete lack of long term studies (i.e. 50+ years).
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? Do they mean to somehow imply that breeding isn't creating genetic alterations? That's the whole point of breeding, which mankind has been doing for millenia. GMO = why humans are different than the fish which crawled onto land millions of years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Am I supposed to hate this or not? (Score:3, Informative)
Simply that some people feel that splicing these unrelated genes into food sources may introduce some poorly understood risk. Further, some feel that not enough research has been done or that the research isn't transparent enough to be comfortable eating those crops.
The process is different from natural cross breeding so it raises more concerns for some.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The point is to state things in a scary way and hope people mistake that for a rational argument. I hate those three tired tropes in the parent poster's comment. 'GMOs produce pesticides and resist poisons!' It only sounds scary to the uninformed.
First, all plants produce chemical defenses, aka pesticides. This is basic botany. An organism that can't run or swat back against the trillions of insects that want to eat it as to evolve defenses somehow. They use chemical defenses. Domestication has remov
Re: (Score:2)
You may have learned in your high school biology class that sexual reproduction is the only or primary method of introducing genetic variation within a species, but it really isn't. Genetic variation very frequently comes from other sources. It is no accident (or malfeasance) that one of the methods for introducing genetic modifications into plants uses a bacterium (Agrobacterium) or, for that matter, that naturally-occurring human viruses are frequently used to introduce mutations into human tissue-culture
Re: (Score:2)
Those alterations have to already exist in order for breeding to get anywhere.
No, they don't. The process is just slower for non-GMO breeding. Random mutations can cause the plant to produce new chemicals that may or may not be harmful. In one case, you end up with oranges becoming blood oranges, in another you end up with a potato with way too much solanine.
Just to add to this. Humans may have accelerated the process of cross-Kingdom genetic variation by bringing organisms from very different geography and ecological context together, but that doesn't make it "unnatural." Breeding is also an acceleration of a natural process, unless you think hundreds of varieties of corn all grow in neatly ordered rows to facilitate cross-pollination in the wild.
Re: (Score:3)
GMO = Man fucking about with genes that may or may not produce something good or bad due to a complete lack of long term studies (i.e. 50+ years).
That's a ridiculous standard. Do you also hold that Wifi and microwaves should undergo a half century of testing?
When someone can explain to me an actual reason as to why genetic engineering is fundamentally different from all the other similar things which occur in nature, then I'll consider advocating a half century of testing. However, the anti-GMO crowd has had over two decades to make their case to the scientific community though, so I'm not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you are letting the rules of nature determine the outcome.
Guess what? Genetic engineering is also subject to "the rules of nature" to "determine the outcome." It is not some magic wand that suddenly results in a new organism. The rules that determine whether particular genetic modifications are lethal (to the plant) or effective (change the phenotype), and whether effective modifications are "safe" (do not result in phenotypic changes that are toxic to humans) or not, are a complex system of interacting regulatory networks. How the DNA modification takes place is
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you are letting the rules of nature determine the outcome. People have been cross breeding for thousands of years and we know what to expect.
That's completely false. We've only had the slightest inkling of what to expect for the past 150 years, and we've only really started to know what we were doing in the last 30. For thousands of years, we we just blindly mixing like with like and hoping for the best, with no predictive understanding of what was actually going on under the surface. The old methods were slow, in multiple definitions of the term. "Slow" and "safe" are not synonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, cross breeding is genetic modification. When you breed, you mix genes from different varieties, sometimes even different species, and select the genetic combinations which are the most favorable. Breeding absolutely is modifying the genetics. True, it is different from genetic engineering, but you are still making modifications. This is why the term 'GMO' is a rather poor term.
Or, as in this case removing a gene to make something Monsanto can patent and profit more from while not really understanding (or perhaps they do but just don't care) the consequences of doing so.
Plenty of plant varieties are patented and sold for profit, genetically engineered and not. No one gets on Zaiger Genetic'
Re: (Score:2)
They are, you are just assuming that there is a silent "direct" or "artificial" inside the phrase "genetic modification". That's kind of expected since this stuff tends to get discussed in emotive instead of rational terms.
Re: (Score:2)
They are, you are just assuming that there is a silent "direct" or "artificial" inside the phrase "genetic modification". That's kind of expected since this stuff tends to get discussed in emotive instead of rational terms.
Selective breeding could be considered artificial genetic modification. Intentional irradiation as a stressor could be considered direct genetic modification.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be used to make pasta, so yes, you can slather it with cheese sauce, or marinara or whatever your favorite type of sauce is.
Re: (Score:3)
Now if only they can filter the rocks out of it
I've been eating Quinoa regularly for years & never seen grit or sand. Change to a better brand (looked for pre-rinsed varieties)
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, good on the hipsters though. Supporting the cultivation of 'new' species is how you increase the biodiversity of the food supply, which brings all sort of benefits. It is great to see more research and funding going to the support and promotion of less commonly cultivated crops.
Now if only we could get them to stop saying things like 'these benefits could be gained without the use of genetic modification' as if genetic engineering is a bad thing.
Re:Saponins (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Saponins (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a workable issue. Plenty of foods have been bred out of more toxic wild ancestors, like the solanine removed from potatoes or the erucic acid removed from canola. Most plants did not evolve to have their roots or leaves eaten; domestication made them favorable to human consumption. Knowing how to make things better is the first step toward doing it.
Saponins I think are less of a concern, since they're usually pretty easy to wash off of commercially processed quinoa. I'd be more concerned with producing low oxalic acid varieties.
Re:Saponins - besides the point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is about making the uncategorical claim that quinoa tastes good and is good for you after the summary just got done telling us that neither was the case.
I eat quinoa occasionally, and I like both the taste and the (cooked) texture. I can grasp why some people might not like it, but that's true of a whole lot of different foods and beverages.
It seems rather silly to be making definitive claims about the taste, one way or the other, based on a Slashdot summary.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, beer is both bitter and toxic, but we love it, anyway.
Re:Saponins (Score:5, Interesting)
The BBC article isn't clear about it, but the bitter saponins are in tiny, thin shells that are around the individual quinoa seeds. The bad-tasting saponins protect the quinoa from birds.
You can get rid of the coating, but it's messy - the shells go all over the place, and they're hard to clean up. (Maybe I do it wrong.) After you remove the coating, you cook the quinoa, and it tastes good.
You can buy quinoa whose saponins have already been removed (ready to cook), but a box of that quinoa is more expensive.
Re: Saponins (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
How is "gluten-free" an advantage outside of the ignorant hipster circlejerk?
New-agey people think we should all be gluten free, not really any evidence that they are right. That aside, Quinoa is a lot healthier than wheat or rice and has a higher protein content, it's not just empty carbs.
Re: (Score:3)
Quinoa is 70% Carbohydrate. Wheat and Rice are about 80% Carbohydrate. In addition Quinoa only has a few percentages higher protein than Wheat and Rice.
Most people who make statements like yours don't know this and spout mindless nonsense they heard someone say without any personal understanding of what they are talking about. Quinoa like any other grain has very high percentages of Carbohydrate. If your goal is to avoid Carbs you should avoid grains entirely and get the carbs you eat from Vegetables, not g
Re: Saponins (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally... Quinoa is a complete protein, it has all the essential amino acids, you don't have to mix it with a lentil or bean to get a complete protein. This is something important for someone like myself who, for medical reasons, has to limit more meat intake.
Quinoa also fares much better than rice on the glycemic index.