Brainfood: Genetic isolation and climate change, Not a Sicilian grape variety, Sicilian oregano, Good wine and climate, Italian landraces, Amazonian isolation, Judging livestock, Endosymbionts and CCD, Herbal barcodes, Finnish barley, Wild pigeonpea, Protected areas, Tree hybrids

Nibbles: Heat, Watermelons, Rye, Apples, Solanum melongena, Pinus edulis, Food systems, Indian rice, Glycene

Brainfood: Chinese landscapes, Agroforestry seed, Italian lentils, Carrot heterosis, Taro in islands, Indian wheat, AnGR ex situ, Woodland shrines, Vitamin A, Caraway, Adansonia, Neotropical blueberries, Yeast genetics, Rotations

Genetic erosion gets worse

We get hours of amusement from poking holes in the many ways in which statements about the loss of 75% of agricultural biodiversity are likely to be less than accurate any way you slice them. But here’s an entirely new wrinkle. A friend recently wrote asking for some moral support for a grant proposal, which included a forceful justificatory phrase to the effect that 75% of agricultural diversity has been lost since 1990. ((My emphasis, as the posh editors say.))

I twitted him gently about this, something snitty to the effect of “interesting statistic, have you got a source for that?” And blow me down if he didn’t. Not just any old source either. A communication from the [European] Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, no less, entitled Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, aka COM(2011) 244 final.

And there it is, on page 1 of the Introduction.

[A]ccording to the FAO … 75% of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost worldwide since 1990.

I wonder where they got that figure? Not from FAO. The same year is present in at least one other language, so if it is a typo it entered the proceedings early. But honestly, did nobody find it just the least little bit odd? Then again, my friend didn’t either. I suppose we’re the odd ones.