Thread by @Botanygeek

As a botanist, let me be clear...

There is zero truth to this claim.

In fact, given the relatively tiny amount of time humans have existed to breed plants, this achievement is biologically (& thermodynamically) impossible.

#TrustScienceNotScaremongers

https://twitter.com/kendberrymd/status/1149769352960532480?s=21

You see, plant leaves are basically living solar panels.

They harness solar energy & turn it into sugars to fuel growth.

But like the electrical grid, this energy is limited.

So to make fruit x100 richer in sugar they would have to...

1) Have over x100 more leaves to generate all this extra sugar.
(Bearing in mind, making new leaves costs energy too)

2) Have over 99% less fruit, so there aren’t so many drains on resources. (Fruit contain other energy-intense things like seeds too)

3) A combo of both

That’s why most fruit, both modern and traditional, contains a broadly similar amount of sugar.

As it’s hard to mess w the laws of physics, plant breeders traditionally make fruit taste sweeter not by upping sugars, but reducing sour & bitter chemicals that mask its sweetness.

In fact, the sugar content of fruit is poorly correlated with its date of introduction.

Because as gardeners will know, some of the sweetest varieties are the oldest. As modern ones have often been bred for stuff like pest resistance & transport durability, not taste (ie sugar)

Yet the myth that modern fruit and veg is somehow unhealthy persists, despite there being really no good evidence to back it up.

I guess the ‘things were all better in the past’ narrative is one we like to hear, in spite of the facts.

But look where that is getting us...