The Case Against Heirloom Tomatoes- A "Science" Article

A friend of mine sent me this link, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=case-against-heirloom-tomatoes in the biology section of Scientific American. After reading this article, I am absolutely fuming!

It states that heirloom tomatoes taste better because they typically only set two fruit per PLANT! It likened heirloom tomatoes to inbred dogs and the list of insults to heirloom tomatoes and their growers goes on and on.

I am new to gardening; this is only my second year, but I know how good an heirloom tomato tastes compared to the store bought ones. I also know that my pathetic attempts to grow them last year netted me way more than two tomatoes per plant.

It appears that this might be about marketing some new genetically modified hybrids (for profit); I can't think of any other reason for the outright lies posted in something that calls itself a science magazine.

I think that this is about the least scientific article I've ever read. The author *clearly* has never grown a vegetable in their life - or is just being paid to support the hogwash of an entity looking to make a buck. Where are the multiple interviews? References?

What does this say about our society? They expect the readers - us, intelligent and discriminating adults - to take this obviously slanted and unobjective bunk for fact just because it's in print. Very sad.

An aside: Maybe they meant to say two fruits _at a time_. Some heirlooms, bearing large fruit and being indeterminate, may be that slow.

That's why scientists invented Velcro - so they wouldn't have to worry about keeping their shoelaces tied!

Okay, to be true, tomato research has developed some great varieties with all sorts of improvements. But that doesn't give this author an excuse to diss somebody else's work just because it seems trivial or unscientific to him. That's not only unethical, but downright unfriendly. I wonder if the author has ever grown, or eaten a fresh tomato in his entire life.

You're right - this article is a crock. I see that he has already been taken to task by several of his peers (Edit).

Al

This message was edited Mar 31, 2009 10:24 AM

Pretty well unbelievable! I would love to see someone with credentials (like Carolyn) respond to the print version of Scientific American. Obviously the article did not have any peer review, or it wouldn't have had so many glaring errors. It's interesting that the main premise (that heirloom tomatoes are weak and inbread) when other reputable sources are clear that tomatoes do not suffer from inbreeding depression.

We are blasting this ridiculous article over on the other forum (TV) and also in the comments section. The whole article is really an embarrassment to Scientific American.

It's worth it to go over there and make well-reasoned arguments with key points about why the article is wrong.

This message was edited Mar 31, 2009 2:05 PM

It says they plan a series of six such articles. I kind of wonder who paid for that? And what the other articles will focus on.

What this person fails to remember is that some of us are old enough to have grown up on what are now considered "heirloom" varieties." I plan to grow some "Money Maker" tomatoes this year. They were the only tomatoes I grew when I lived in Tennessee during the mid-70's - my stepfather sent the seeds for me from my home Country - England. I was able to find the seed online this year. http://www.reimerseeds.com/money-maker-tomato.aspx

This article was interesting and infuriating. But as far as I am concerned, the quotation above really invalidates the rest of the article. I've been growing heirlooms for three years now, and I get more tomatoes than I know what to do with. A very few set a small amount of fruit--for me, Brandywine is one of these--but Mortgage Lifter, Aunt Ruby's German Green, Box Car Willie, Jaune Flamme, to name just a few, are incredibly prolific.
I too wonder what Dr. Carolyn would have to say.