The Economist seems to have a thing about potatoes this week. There’s a story about how Peru is trying to cash in on its spud heritage. (Note to editor: the olluco is not a type of potato.) There’s a book review, of John Reader’s Propitious Esculent. And there’s even an editorial explaining how the humble tuber is at the root — as it were — of globalization. The International Year of the Potato cannot be over too quickly.
It’s our ball and we’re not going to play
It’s a scandal! The Minnesota Soybean Growers Association and the Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council have stopped funding research at the University of Minnesota because “the university hurt the farmers’ feelings,” according to the director of the two groups.
How? By discovering that growing biofuel crops on existing farmland may be more damaging to the atmosphere than using fossil fuels. That story has been all over, and we didn’t link to it because it isn’t quite up our main street. But interfering with research in this way affects all of us.
PZ, from whom we picked up this latest twist on the story, sums it up best:
Some people, even prominent, wealthy people, simply don’t understand the fundamental concept of basic research. The goal isn’t to get answers that make you feel good; it isn’t to find ways to rationalize continuing damaging practices; it isn’t even to pat you on the should and salve your delicate feelings. It is to find out the actual answer to a problem, no matter what it may be. Don’t fund research if you’re afraid of the truth.
In other pomegranate news…
My recent post about the wild pomegranate of Socotra (Punica protopunica) elicited a comment from the publisher of an interesting-sounding book called Pomegranate Roads, by Dr Gregory Levin ((Regular readers will know that this fruit has been much on my mind recently.)):
For more than forty years, Dr Gregory Levin trekked across Central Asia and the Trans-Caucasus in search of rare, endangered and mysterious wild pomegranates. His home was a remote Soviet station in the mountains that separate Turkmenistan from Iran. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, he found himself exiled from his own hidden Eden and his collection of 1,117 pomegranates. Gregory Levin has written a fascinating memoir of his life with pomegranates. He illuminates the botany, the history and myths, the astonishing range of tastes, and the health benefits – from folklore to pharmaceuticals – that make it the wonder fruit of our time.
I hope to read the book soon, and review it here, but I wonder what Dr Levin would make of news from Kashmir that the local pomegranate variety — called “Dane” — is threatened by an insect pest. Is this variety conserved ex situ? If so, I hope it is found in a genebank other than the one in Jharkhand that was reported late last year to be threatened with annihilation. We haven’t heard anything on that lately, by the way, and a quick search on Google News revealed nothing. Does anyone know what’s going on?
P.S. Stefano Padulosi of Bioversity International worked with Dr Levin on the pomegranate collection. There’s a video of him talking about it on YouTube.
Svalbard again: ETC’s turn
Another activist NGO talks about Svalbard:
The Bottom Line: The Global Seed Vault is a constructive contribution to the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources.
Excuse me? Yep, you heard me. A must read.
Active ingredients: who needs ’em?
A comment from Karl of Inoculated Mind, on the great Organic Tomato Debate, gives me an opportunity to sound off again on something I feel quite strongly about. That’s because, although a superficial reading of his comments and mine might suggest we disagree, at base, we don’t. Karl’s bottom line reads:
Bottom line: just eat your veggies!
And with that I totally and wholeheartedly agree.
At issue is the nutritional value of organic versus conventional tomatoes and, by extension, other veggies. The thing is, that comes after a discussion in which I say that more than flavonoids is likely to differ between organic and conventional. Karl points out that some compounds that plants produce in response to attack might be harmful, rather than beneficial, to humans. I moan on about the importance of dose.
Karl comes back with a link to a study of a genetically modified carrot that shows that “if you eat a serving of the modified carrot, you’d absorb 41 percent more calcium than from a regular carrot.†But the same report says that the daily requirement for calcium is 1000 milligrams, and that a 100 gram serving of the modified carrots offers only 60 milligrams, of which only about 24 milligrams is actually absorbed.
In other words, you could not possibly eat enough of the carrots to get your calcium without suffering beta-carotene poisoning, which just goes to reinforce my point about dose being important. ((I am certain I remember the case of a bloke in England who actually killed himself with excess carrot juice, but I cannot find it on the tubes: too much botulism and other nonsense clouding the results.))
The bigger point is that there is an obsession with active ingredients. Increasing the amount of this, that or the other is held to produce this, that or the other beneficial effect. And yes, maybe it does. And maybe it doesn’t, and maybe you can go too far. But people don’t eat active ingredients, unless they are rather far gone already. They eat food, and meals. And the interactions among foods and within meals mean that as far as the details of nutrition, especially micronutrition, go, all bets are off.
A far, far simpler way to boost nutrition and health is simply to eat different things, and lots of them, and forget about active ingredients, and high-lutein tomatoes, and super-calcium carrots, and golden rice, and flax oil, and all the other things that are touted because they contain more of some good thing.
Just eat your veggies. And your meat and fish. And your dairy. And your fruits and nuts. And everything else. Dietary diversity is the answer. ((And lest I am accused of ignoring poor people who cannot afford to buy anything, let alone organic tomatoes, it is probably more important to them than to the rest of the world that they maintain and expand the diversity of things they eat. But that’s another story for another time.))