I have strong opinions regarding onions and most other vegetables as well.  I just do.  While onions may be my favorite vegetable to dice, and delicious to eat, I'm not so into plant matter that defends itself. Except Venus flytraps, cause they obviously rule so fucking hard. But layers of cry-inducing skin? Pass. If I wanted that, I'd just chop a live chicken or something.  At least I'd end up with a main course instead of just one ingredient to compose a side dish. Hell, after onions reduce, they practically disappear altogether. Pussies.

With that established, you would think that this report in The Telegraph left me clicking me heals mid-air.

photo credit: softpedia.com

It did not.

That is way over the line Smokey. Mark it zero.

When you read the report, it doesn't mention the words "genetically modified organisms" anywhere because the very whisper of the GMO acronym sets off a debate that drowns out all other information trying to be conveyed. But these British farmers didn't one day go into their fields and lo and behold, "Hey we've got magic onions!"  No. It wasn't like that at all.


Rather, "After two decades of cultivation, a new "sweet" variety of red onions has been created in Bedfordshire."

Translation: We crossbred the shit out of onions until they lost all those funky inconveniences that leave us in tears in the kitchen.

All they had to sacrifice was the taste.  These new Johnson's Baby Shampoo Onions lack that "strong onion flavor," as a result of the genetic meddling.  Oh, you know, you only have to sacrifice the sole reason that onions exist in the first place.  Total win for food science; not so much of food itself and the people that eat it.

Why why why are we trying to breed convenience into our food.  It is putting blatant laziness in front of public health and safety.  "I want bite-sized banana!" "I want chickens without bones!"

Well too bad.  I want my poop to come out rainbow colored and smell like well-aged oak, but that doesn't mean it is worth working towards.

I can see the counter-point.  "But Matt, are you some kind of dogmatic conservative, grasping to the ways of the past and the words of ancient holy books as modern law, without updating your opinions to incorporate modern technology and innovation."

You're being an idiot.  I love manipulating stuff: Independent variables, objects in space, people's emotions.  But it's not manipulation when you conduct genetic plastic surgery on life's building blocks inside each cell of an organisms make-up.  That's creation, and that's a whole different issue.

It's not like I'm against manipulating our plants.  I mean, have a iPhone, I'm hip to technology.  Modern advancements allow us to test for the perfect soil composition for each crop, along with what the optimal depth and diameter for planting individual seeds.  Manipulate that soil with all the nitrates and fertilizer you can find.  Again though, please refrain from fertilizing a plant with any substance you wouldn't want coursing through your bloodstream because, like, that's how food works.

"I shoulda worn goggles."

Hell, grow your food anywhere you like.  I'm all for green houses that maximize sunlight, and I can even get behind the light setups that open avenues for indoor growing-- even if they aren't particularly energy efficient.  More growing, less experimenting.

So again, concentrate all your "modern innovation" into the soil, light, water, planting technique, pruning, harvesting, and crop rotation of today's grown food. That's a lot of room for innovation.  But please, stop with this extreme GMO nonsense on staple foods like onions, apples, and tomatoes, because in the long run, this genetic engineering is going to cost us way more than a few tear-soaked cutting boards.