What IS wrong with biofortification?

Well, it all started with a paper with more or less that title from Maarten van Ginkel & Jeremy Cherfas last year. Their answer was that biofortification doesn’t work, costs yield and risks genetic uniformity. Ouch. So what to do? Diversify diets, of course.

That was followed by a rebuttal from Prasanna Boddupalli, Jill Cairns and Natalia Palacios-Rojas of CIMMYT. Unfortunately, their letter is not open access, but if you want to know what van Ginkel and Cherfas think of their arguments, they’ve just published a counter:

In conclusion, the charges raised by Boddupalli et al. are exactly those we would expect to be motivated by concerns about funding rather than by an interest in scientific research to benefit farmers and consumers. This emphasis on biofortification as even part of the solution to the continuing problem of hidden hunger inhibits the alternative we presented; a holistic approach based on diversified, nutritious, nutrient dense, sustainable, affordable diets that can address hidden hunger effectively to deliver better health.

This will run and run.

Brainfood: Wild melon dispersal, Fertile Crescent domestications, Angiosperm threats, Wild rice alliance, Wild potato leaves, Brassica oleracea pangenome, Wild Vigna nutrients

Brainfood: US edition

Vamping with VACS

The global movement that is the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils (VACS) has two new reports out and a nifty interactive website.

Investing in underutilized indigenous and traditional corps can strengthen climate resilience and nutrition across the African continent. A portfolio of these crops is essential for regional food security and can improve local resilience in the face of changing weather patterns.

Which we’ve been saying for years here, of course.