HYBRID FOODS ARE AS USELESS AS CLONED CATS
By Bruce D. Callander
Cheboygan Daily Tribune , MI
7/news/opinion/opinion1.txt
Sept 27 2007
I’ve never seen the need for apricots. They may have some purpose in
the world but it is not apparent.
The point is that the apricot is a nasty tasting peach and, if you
want a proper peach, you should eat one.
Of course the Internet says something else. It claims that the apricot
is from the same subgenus as the plum and that there have been crosses
made between the two known as plum cots. I am not heavily into plums
myself, although I have eaten some. Why anybody would want to mix
one up with an apricot, I can’t imagine.
One source says that the apricot originated in northern China near
the Russian border. Another talks about Armenia as the source,
apparently because the scientific name is Prunus armeniaca. The
consensus seems to be that it started in China around 3,000 years
ago, moved to Armenia and spread slowly across Europe. It came to
the United States via the English on the East Coast and the Spanish
on the West. They now are grown almost exclusively in California,
which should tell you something about the apricot.
I was induced to eat an apricot when I was quite young. My mother
told me it tasted like chicken, which is what they tell you about
everything that tastes awful. An apricot tastes nothing like chicken
and very little like a peach despite it’s appearance. It tastes a
little like a raw beet, only more tart.
The kumquat has an almost identical history. It started in China a
little later than the apricot, spread to Europe and wound up in the
United States, being grown mainly in California
Here, however, the history of the kumquat seems to differ from
that of the apricot. The Internet says that it is grown "mainly
as ornamental dooryard trees and as potted specimens in patios and
greenhouses." Apparently, most people have the good sense not to eat
kumquats even though they look like cute little oranges. They do not
taste like oranges. In fact, they taste more like apricots.
One bit of fruit that comes closer to be edible is the tangelo.
Presumably, it is a cross between and orange and a tangerine, both of
which I like. But I presumed wrong. The tangelo is a mix grapefruit
my sources say. That puts a whole different light on the thing.
One can eat a tangerine or an orange and never go near a tangelo. In
fact, now that I know that the other half is a grapefruit, I don’t
think you could induce me to eat one. I have eaten grapefruits in
the days when I was allowed unlimited sugar and convinced myself that
they were tasty. I do not see how I could be trapped into eating one
now naked and without sweetening.
Grapefruits are far more sour than they need be and much too big to
be eaten all at once. A good orange is the simple solution to both
objections. Better yet, the tangerine is even more compact, just as
tasty and comes in convenient pieces that are easier to eat. This
leaves little reason for eating an orange and none at all for eating
a grapefruit.
If you are looking for a fruit that has even less use, however,
consider the avocado. It looks like a pear, but has none of the pear’s
redeeming qualities. An avocado by itself has almost no taste.
It has the texture of a sweet potato, but none of the flavor. It is
a little like eating library paste.
The only way an avocado is at all flavorful is if it is filled with
something tasty. Cottage cheese is not enough. It needs something
like shrimp with lots of red sauce. When you have filled up the
avocado with enough shrimp and red sauce to make it palatable, you
still have to drink something to give it some real taste. By then,
it should occur to you that you don’t really need the avocado. It
is just an expensive container for the seafood. Nor is it really big
enough to hold a proper serving of shrimp and red sauce. It might be
better mixed with peanut butter for sandwiches.
Bruce D. Callander spent 33 years writing and editing for Air Force
Times. He now is a freelance writer who lives in Cheboygan.