Skip to main content

The Dorito Effect -- Book Review

My lab is interested in fruit flavors, mostly strawberry.  Traditional breeding has made fruits and vegetables bigger, helped them ship better and last longer.  Those are the priorities of the modern food-to-market chain.  

In the process, flavors have been relegated to a genetic afterthought.  Acceptable flavor is all that's required if a piece of fruit looks nice and is cheap to produce, and this is why fruits and veggies lack sensory attributes. Today my lab is using genomics approaches to aid marker-assisted breeding to reverse that trend. 

My lab's efforts are just one little offshoot of research endeavors in the Plant Innovation Center at UF.  There are many faculty interested in how to improve sensory content of fruits and vegetables, so a book on the role of flavor and aroma is always of prime interest. 

So when I received a copy of The Dorito Effect by Mark Schatzker, I was excited to dig in.  The Dorito Effect uses the disappearance of flavor as a central hypothesis  as to why Americans suffer from food-related health disorders.  The book is well written, with each chapter serving as a separate story under a united, important theme.

We've wrecked good food and made the bad stuff taste good.  The Dorito Effect explores where food flavors went, how it might explain human health issues, and how science is working to get flavors back.  

In short, good-for-you foods have lost flavor.  Meats, veggies and fruits have been bred for production characteristics at the expense of flavors and aromas.  Therefore, these foods are less attractive to the palate.  This is why we cover everything in ranch dressing and A-1 steak sauce.

At the same time, flavor chemistry has been able to tantalize the taste buds with analogs of flavors lost. The essence of fruits and vegetables now coats everything from corn chips to sports drinks.

Why is it tied to health?   Schatzker describes several biological examples where aromas have meaning, and serve as indicators of nutrition.  Could it be that the flavors that once directed us to good food now steer our brains and bodies to less healthy choices?  That is the hypothesis Schatzker dissects.

The central players in the story are goats, chickens and tomatoes.  Studies on goat eating habits revealed that they use aromas as a proxy signaling needed nutrients.  Additional trials on humans, and observations of wasps, reinforce the concepts presented.

Schatzker then details the interesting history of the corporate chicken, moving from tasty farm creature to fast-growing McNugget piñata on two little pencil legs.  Today's genetics and feeding regimens are designed to make big chickens fast, and do not support optimal flavors.

Similarly, the way we grow tomatoes lends to their less-desirable flavors. Schatzker details the demise of the tomato and then follows with a discussion of new varieties (I wrote about them here) that marry production qualities and sensory superiority. 

The book concludes with forward-thinking advice that is simple and implementable.  It also reminds us that much of the Dorito Effect is a human-derived problem that can be fixed by reading labels and making different food choices.  The future also appears to be a good place for flavor and nutrition, as scientists are finding ways to bring the flavors long lost back into our most healthy food products.

The writing was clever, the science was portrayed in a compelling manner, and the work was an outstanding treatment of an interesting, relevant topic in health and nutrition. I never get to read something I want to read, and The Dorito Effect was a great read relevant to my interests.  

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 

From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…