- Does the pressure for impact compromise research? Thought-provoking post from CIFOR’s Director General.
- FAO wants your opinion on the FAO/IPGRI List of Multi-crop passport descriptors. They probably don’t need you to tell them that IPGRI has changed its name. Or do they?
- Ocapoppin’ at Rhizowen acres; 100 varieties! I’ll alert the National Geographic.
- Sacred groves sustain bio-cultural richness in Yunnan forest. Still.
Plant breeding considered sexy at long last
Plant breeding is one of science’s 10 hottest fields!
With the population set to pass 7 billion this year and rising to 9 billion in mid-century, the world faces a formidable challenge. If everyone is to be fed without appalling environmental consequences, the yield of staple crops must increase enormously. Some plant scientists are still licking their wounds from the onslaught against genetically modified crops. But there is an intensified effort, among public-sector laboratories and industry companies, to breed better plants for farmers. This involves both direct genetic modification to make plants more resistant to stress and disease and the use of genomic information to accelerate improvement through conventional breeding.
Nibbles: Beautiful models, Beautiful bank, Organic FAO, Eskimo diet, Indian medicinals, Maya nut studentship, Fishy infographics
- Official confirmation of the need for better crop growth models.
- More on CIP’s high-tech spud bank. In other news, CIP also has banks of other Andean roots/tubers, but don’t get me started on that one.
- “FAO has relegated organic agriculture to a footnote in the discussion of food security in the long run.” Fighting talk. Wonder if that will change with the new DG.
- Cook like an Inuit.
- Cultivating medicinal plants in India. Let’s see how that goes.
- Wanna study the Maya nut?
- More great Guardian infographics, aquatic edition.
- “This one tastes like cotton candy.” Breeding strawberries the hard way.
Quinoa in 2012?
…the Committee took up a draft resolution titled “International Year of Quinoa, 2012” (document A/C.2/65/L.16), with the representative of Bolivia noting that it had been the topic of constructive consultations and would be discussed in 2012. The issue of agricultural development and food security should remain an open item, and the Secretariat of the Second Committee would adopt the necessary provisions for that.
That was in December 2010. So where are we with that? Well, it looks like they’ll be discussing the whole thing in the next few days right here in Rome during the FAO Conference.
The idea seems to have some support from the indigenous people lobby:
Highlighting the agenda’s proposed half-day discussion on the right to food and food sovereignty, Saul Vicente Vasquez, a Forum member from Mexico, said the human right to food was not sufficiently dealt with in national legislation around the world. Not only should that right be recognized in State constitutions, he said, but the ability of traditional knowledge to ensure food for everyone must be advanced. Pointing out that indigenous types of food had not been adequately recognized, he also voiced support for proposals for an “International Year of Quinoa”.
Is it too late to throw in Andean roots and tubers?
US lawmakers taking irony supplements
Missed this first time around, but courtesy of the magic of interconnectivity — Thanks Sam — I am able to reflect on some reflections.
If you’re eager to improve the food (and other) security of smallholder farmers, or the nutritional status of young people you might, once, have looked to the US to lead the way, at least as far as smallholder farmers and young people in other countries, poor countries, are concerned. At home? No such luck.
As Alex Tabarrok said in his post Not from the Onion, over at Marginal Revolution, “The headline says it all”.
Tabarrok quotes extensively from the Washington Post article that furnished the fine headline above. I can do no better than to quote him.
[A]nyone who argues against making school meals healthier because it’s too expensive at the same time as they vote for keeping billions of dollars in farm subsidies is not concerned about expenses. What unites the bill is not ideology but protection of agribusiness.
Say it isn’t so!
Not a peep out of the G20 meeting, yet; although much has been said about controlling prices, the only mentions of subsidies I’ve found are in the context of biofuels which, according to the US, “are job creators, not hunger villain” (sic). (I don’t suppose they could be both?) Far keener intellects than mine have considered the influence of rich-world agricultural subsidies on poor-world food insecurity, and the overall message is that they malevolent.
It’s just a shame, I suppose, that what happens to smallholder farmers and poorly nourished young people at home more or less mirrors what happens to them in other countries, poorer countries.