[News] Where's the Super Food?

[Moontanman]

Where's the Super Food?

 

Scientists have genetically engineered several biofortified food plants to tackle a scourge of developing countries—micronutrient malnutrition. The crops have yet to be planted on a wide scale, but that may be about to change.

 

Where's the Super Food? :The Scientist [2009-09-01]

[maikeru]

I feel cynical as I read this, because micronutrient deficiencies often come into play when people are eating inadequate diets, living off of only one or a few staple crops (like wheat, rice, corn, etc.), or the growing methods are poor or quality of the food is low (I've read several scientific reports that strongly suggest how we grow our food, such as soil type, organic fertilizers, chemical fertilizers, what animals are fed, etc. strongly influences nutritional content).

 

Humans need a wide variety of foods and nutrients to be healthy. There are very few foods which can supply everything we need, and some foods are healthier and better than others. (And the ones I'm thinking come close to being naturally occurring "super foods" often don't even grow on land, like salmon, shrimp, shellfish, seaweeds, etc. which contain loads of trace elements and micronutrients as well as antioxidants and healthy fats.) This suggests we need to eat more different types of nutritious foods and to have higher quality food over all. It doesn't mean we need staple crops modified into "super foods."

 

There are also several varieties and heirloom variants of modern crops that provide more nutrition, antioxidants, protein, etc. that have been lost or reduced in more widely cultivated versions of crops. An obvious example is corn or maize, which often comes in white and yellow colors, but Indian maizes comes in a wide variety of colors which owe their deep purples and blacks, reds and oranges, to anthocyanins, carotenoids, and other powerful antioxidants.

 

We have not even broached the issue whether GM crops will be adapted or cultivable in the areas they are introduced, whereas native crops and animals have that advantage of having been adapted.

[Moontanman]

I feel cynical as I read this, because micronutrient deficiencies often come into play when people are eating inadequate diets, living off of only one or a few staple crops (like wheat, rice, corn, etc.), or the growing methods are poor or quality of the food is low (I've read several scientific reports that strongly suggest how we grow our food, such as soil type, organic fertilizers, chemical fertilizers, what animals are fed, etc. strongly influences nutritional content).

 

Humans need a wide variety of foods and nutrients to be healthy. There are very few foods which can supply everything we need, and some foods are healthier and better than others. (And the ones I'm thinking come close to being naturally occurring "super foods" often don't even grow on land, like salmon, shrimp, shellfish, seaweeds, etc. which contain loads of trace elements and micronutrients as well as antioxidants and healthy fats.) This suggests we need to eat more different types of nutritious foods and to have higher quality food over all. It doesn't mean we need staple crops modified into "super foods."

 

The problem is that in many no most areas of the world, especially the third world, are completely denied the opportunity to get the broad diet they need to obtain the micro nutrients needed. It's not because they don't want to grow the varied crops or because they won't eat right they quite literally do not have access to such foods as seafood or seaweed or other sources of nutrient rich foods. All they have is the staples that are nutrient deficient. it does indeed indicate the staples need to be more nutrient rich and GM can accomplish this.

 

There are also several varieties and heirloom variants of modern crops that provide more nutrition, antioxidants, protein, etc. that have been lost or reduced in more widely cultivated versions of crops. An obvious example is corn or maize, which often comes in white and yellow colors, but Indian maizes comes in a wide variety of colors which owe their deep purples and blacks, reds and oranges, to anthocyanins, carotenoids, and other powerful antioxidants.

 

Yes this is true but in these third world places these crops will not grow, their yield is low per acer in a place where the maximum food must be squeezed out of ever tiny piece of cultivable land. Your idea is totally outside the realm of possibility.

 

We have not even broached the issue whether GM crops will be adapted or cultivable in the areas they are introduced, whereas native crops and animals have that advantage of having been adapted.

 

If you had read the article you would have seen that the GM crops were indeed cultivable in the regions they were needed. In fact they were produced for those areas specifically. In fact they are GM versions of the very native crops that are being grown now. It's the heirloom crops you mentioned that are not native to those areas and usually cannot be grown their even if they were willing to drop actual production of food in favor of those crops.

[maikeru]

 

The problem is that in many no most areas of the world, especially the third world, are completely denied the opportunity to get the broad diet they need to obtain the micro nutrients needed. It's not because they don't want to grow the varied crops or because they won't eat right they quite literally do not have access to such foods as seafood or seaweed or other sources of nutrient rich foods. All they have is the staples that are nutrient deficient. it does indeed indicate the staples need to be more nutrient rich and GM can accomplish this.

 

I do not believe this is totally the case, Moontanman. Several developing countries *do* have access to the seas and the resources thereof, but perhaps value or utilization of these resources has not been realized or become commonplace. For those countries that don't, such as landlocked countries in sub-Saharan Africa or South America like Bolivia, there are native crops that do meet nutritional needs and sustainable, healthy diets. Reading and study into previous native diets and their crops reveal this. In many cases, it is that the systems and practices of agriculture have changed, crops have changed, and peoples have changed, through colonization, soils have become degraded or unproductive, etc.

 

However, increasingly, I believe we have a problem where native crops may be shunted in favor of ones that provide more calories, are easier to grow, are more productive per acre (but lower in nutritional value), or sell for more money. Thus, the staples are the primary or only crops being grown. Nutritional deficiencies and diseases may be symptoms indicating more pervasive, underlying problems such as sustainable population growth, improper land use or agricultural practices, change in crops thus leading to changes in diet, etc. For example, maize is not native to Africa, yet it is widely grown there. But what types of maize are being grown there? And do they meet the nutritional needs of the people or can better varieties be introduced or developed?

 

Yes this is true but in these third world places these crops will not grow, their yield is low per acer in a place where the maximum food must be squeezed out of ever tiny piece of cultivable land. Your idea is totally outside the realm of possibility.

 

Yield is dependent on many factors, and you know that. It's too easy to say: "These crops will not grow." Why? Is irrigation or sufficient rainfall available? Is the soil proper for the crops being grown? Do they have access to fertilizers, different types of fertilizers, or no? What diseases and pests are present and what impact do they have? What about land and resource utilization? Is acreage being utilized in an optimal manner for farming and production? Has the soil been modified or worked with so that it can support the crops grown? Etc.

 

If you had read the article you would have seen that the GM crops were indeed cultivable in the regions they were needed. In fact they were produced for those areas specifically. In fact they are GM versions of the very native crops that are being grown now. It's the heirloom crops you mentioned that are not native to those areas and usually cannot be grown their even if they were willing to drop actual production of food in favor of those crops.

 

The fact that they are produced for a region specifically does not mean they can actually grow, survive, and be sustainable in the long term in the regions where they're aimed at. Native varieties or cultivars, the "heirlooms" that are the most important, usually are adapted, because of selection, farming practices, and other agricultural knowledge. And after reading the article for the third time, I *do not* specifically see any mention of *local* cultivars being adapted through GM technology, and it's true that "native crops" are being worked on with the GM technology, but rice, cassava, etc. all have many, many different cultivars. Nor is there any guarantee that the genetic modifications introduced can be maintained through constant cultivation, such as when it comes to diseases and pest resistance. Diseases and pests are always evolving, and so too must their host plants, which are the crops grown. The GM cassava, for example, they mention is growing in Puerto Rico, not some place in Africa and probably carries different strengths and weaknesses than the cultivars in those places and is facing different challenges and selective pressures. It may not be noticeable now, but after several years and crop harvests, then perhaps yes.

 

With GM tech, it is easier to work with one cultivar/strain, modify it, propagate, and then distribute it. However, this increases the risks inherent in monoclonal, monoculture cultivation and genetic inflexibility through too much genetic similarity or inbreeding. It is the genetic heterogeneity found in many native cultivars, heirloom plants, or wild ones that give them their disease and pest resistances, nutritional differences, etc. What I am worried about is that modifying and propagating mass amounts of clonal varieties will set up opportunities for disease and pathogen havoc, leading to a high chance for crop failures or inability to adapt crops to changing climate or soil conditions.

 

Heirloom plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Heirlooms are usually better adapted to the places where they're traditionally grown, but it does not mean that they cannot be adapted to new places. Through open pollination and selection, growers can have considerable influence on the suitability of crops and adapt new cultivars to a locality or new challenge, and also preserve the genetic richness of their crops. What we have seen, though, is that many GM crops push out native varieties and reduces the genetic diversity of crops grown in that region. Just as species biodiversity has value in maintaining functioning, sustainable, and productive ecosystems, so does genetic diversity play an important role for crops and animals in the agricultural system.