Agrobiodiversity is crops, livestock, foodways, microbes, pollinators, wild relatives …
Took me a while to retrieve the proof I knew I’d need to fully convince Luigi. Here it is:
And in case the upload process somehow mangles the EXIF data (which are there in my copy) Lat is 41.88761166666666 Long is 12.466925 and, well, that’s all you really need.
Regarding the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) report Unravelling the Food–Health Nexus, which we mentioned a couple of days ago, I hear that there was surprise in some quarters that biodiversity didn’t get more of a mention in the executive summary. In particular, high-placed sources are saying they would have preferred it to be at least mentioned under the first leverage point:
Leverage point 1: PROMOTING FOOD SYSTEMS THINKING. Food systems thinking must be promoted at all levels, i.e., we must systematically bring to light the multiple connections between different health impacts, between human health and ecosystem health, between food, health, poverty, and climate change, and between social and environmental sustainability. Only when health risks are viewed in their entirety, across the food system and on a global scale, can we adequately assess the priorities, risks, and trade-offs underpinning our food systems, e.g., the provision of low-cost food versus systematic food insecurity, poverty conditions, and environmental fallout of the industrial model. All of this has profound implications for the way that knowledge is developed and deployed in our societies, requiring a shift toward interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in a range of contexts (e.g., new ways of assessing risks; changes in the way that university and school curricula are structured). Concepts such as “sustainable diets” and “planetary health” help to promote holistic scientific discussions and to pave the way for integrated policy approaches. Food systems thinking can also be encouraged on a smaller scale through initiatives that reconnect people with the food they eat (e.g., community shared agriculture, school vegetable gardens).
Apparently, though, when Prof. Molly Anderson presented the report, she described this as an oversight. If you were involved in any of this, and would like to tell us more, please do.
The Osage orange? Yeah, I didn’t know it either, but Maclura pomifera apparently “has a long and interesting history of use by both Native Americans and early pioneers.” I heard about it for the first time when Jeremy sent me a little piece this morning about Jared Rydelek, a YouTuber who goes around the world tasting unusual fruits. Which is a really nice gig if you can get it. Though somewhat disappointing in the specific case of the Osage orange, it seems. Sometimes there’s a reason why neglected species are neglected. Anyway, Jeremy did know about Maclura, it turns out, albeit mainly as a hedge, and because he occasionally walks under some specimens when wandering around Trastevere, of all places.
LATER: Corrected spelling mistake in name of the damn thing.
I knew I’d forget one:
The webcast is live now.
Also, since I’m at it, here’s a useful blog post on the other CFS report, the one on “Nutrition and Food Systems,” from one of the authors, summarizing eight ways why the report is different. This is what resonated with me most:
Third, it is, subversively, a bit radical. Statements such as “The risks of making well intentioned but inappropriate policy choices are much smaller than the risks of using a lack of evidence as an argument for inaction” are fairly heretical for many nutrition investors guided by Lancet 2008 and 2013. For the more market based interventions within the food system the hard evidence is usually not present and one has to trust educated best guesses and calculated risks as a guide to action.
Sometimes, you just have to do it.
Nice to see a story about germplasm evaluation by a genebank make it into the mainstream media in India.
In what is claimed to be the first global mega study, Indian agricultural scientists screened about 20,000 accessions of wheat germplasm conserved in the country’s gene bank to identify genes that can confer resistance against all types of fungal diseases affecting cereal grain grown worldwide.
But why now? The paper to which the story refers came out in December last year, and we included it in a Brainfoond in January. And, more importantly, why are the data not available on NBPGR’s Data Portal?