Heard of stem rust? You should

It's not just superbugs (bacteria) resisting antibiotics that can threated the health and welfare of humanity, it's previously defeated scourges of agriculture.  Stem rust is one of the most virulent killers of wheat - a staple of human existinence.  Wheat was bred to resist the worst stem rusts in the 1950s, an effort that won the lead researcher, Norman Borlaug, a Nobel Prize. 

Unfortunately, stem rust is resurgent and the re-engineeerd variety of wheat is no longer resistant.  The rust has serious implications, with a potential to reduce world wheat harvests by 10 percent.

The looming catastrophe can be avoided if the world’s wheat scientists pull together to develop a new generation of stem-rust-resistant varieties of wheat. But scientists must quickly turn their attention to replacing almost all of the commercial wheat grown in the world today.

This is similar to the threat to bananas, where the only variety shipped around the world could be ruined by a leaf fungus.

Good bye banana?

You may not realize it, but nearly every banana you've ever eaten is genetically identical.  Born and bred to be tasty, ship internationally, and to be resistant to a leaf fungus that almost completely destroyed international banana trade in the 1950s.  This banana is called the Cavendish, and it's now threatened by the same kind of fungus that did in its predecessor, the Gros Michel (which apparently was bigger and tastier).

Food price spikes: not so crazy if we kept some in the bank

I read this weekly farm policy column and it occasionally translates into the vernacular. This week's post notes the political unrest in many parts of the world as higher prices for food staples - corn, rice, and wheat - are creating significantly problems for developing countries. Part of the problem? The U.S. government nixed its policy of grain storage in 1996 as part of the ill-fated "Freedom to Farm" Act. Thus, a couple droughts or short seasons is all it takes to make people go hungry.

Dumb.

"There's shit in the meat"

If you haven't seen "Fast Food Nation" on video, I don't recommend it over the book by Eric Schlosser. But this op-ed manages to summarize nicely why industrial-sized agriculture isn't always compatible with health and environmental well-being.

First, if you've missed the news:

over 30 million pounds of ground beef in 18 separate recalls have been necessary this year alone

Many of the leading public officials are calling for irradiation of the nation's food supply (bombardment with gamma rays) to kill harmful bacteria:

We should require that our entire food supply be subjected to irradiation before consuming it. Once again, we see a solution posed that is designed to treat the effect while ignoring the cause. It is somewhat akin to the cigarette smoker who would rather wait to develop cancer and then undergo treatment for it rather than just quit smoking.

See, the reason we have bacteria, on the shit, on the meat, is because of how we make meat:

Cattle are ruminants, and they have evolved to eat grasses and forbs. Feeding grain to cattle makes their digestive tracts abnormally acidic. Over time, the E. coli in their systems become acclimated to this environment, thereby rendering it more resistant to the acid shock of our digestive juices. However, few E. coli from grass-fed cattle will survive because they have not become acid-resistant. Consequently, when cattle are fed a diet of grass, our natural defenses are still capable of protecting us.

How much difference does the process make?

A study by Swedish researchers in 2001 found that 100 percent of calves raised in pens had some level of E. coli contamination, while those raised in pasture showed no signs of contamination at all.

Feedlot cattle stand around in dirt and fecal material. Grass-fed cattle stand on grass.

Maybe we should stop eating things that walk around in poop all day. Or at least get them out of the poop first. Just a thought.

No buzz, no buds: bee colony collapse could jeopardize many foods

You've probably not given much thought to the role honeybees play in bringing foods to your plate (other than honey), so you may be surprised to hear that "every third bite" of food you take has likely come from a food pollinated by bees. With that in mind, the colony collapse disorder striking bees across the United States and now Europe (destroying 70% of bees) could precipitate an agricultural disaster.

The issue is significant enough to have the federal government involved, with the Senate Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture holding hearings last week to gather more information about the phenomenon. The environmental blog Celsias has an excellent account of the news to-date, with some of the theories about the cause. Potential culprits range from a insect neurotoxin used as a pesticide, genetically modified crops (such as Bt corn), poor bee nutrition, an unknown bee pathogen, limited genetic diversity of bees, parasites or mites. The Congressional Research Service has already put together an excellent brief on the Colony Collapse Disorder, including theories on the cause and the immense agricultural value at stake.

It's worth noting that folks with an agenda are quick to take advantage of the issue. The Organic Consumers Association focused on pesticides as the potential cause, not a surprise for an organization working to advance organic agriculture (disclosure: I heartily support organic agriculture, but it's interesting nonetheless).

Anyway, let's hope the scientists can figure this out fast, since there's more than $1 billion in agricultural products (food) at stake.

Does Wal-Mart make it not organic?

Picture organic farms and you might see a farm family, carefully avoiding the use of pesticides or even mechanized equipment in order to raise the most natural animals, vegetables or grain. Technically, you might be overreaching, as the USDA defines organic food as stuff raised without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers. But you probably don't imagine mass produced products at Wal-Mart as falling into the organic category. And there you'd be wrong.

Recognizing that organic food is a rapidly growing industry, Wal-Mart has decided to jump whole (grass fed) hog into the organic market. But the question is: once Wal-Mart goes organic, does organic really mean the same thing?

Beyond the USDA definition, Michael Pollan says that organic food "should be priced not high or low but responsibly." In other words, Wal-Mart's promise to reduce the premium on organic foods to just 10% of the conventional food price means that it won't be possible to do organic farming the same way. Pollan mentions the concept of "organic feedlots," where milk cows are raised - not roaming a grass-covered field - but in virtually the same way as conventional milk cows, substituting in organic grain.

The other factor in low prices is transporting organic food from the cheapest locale. However, while this organic food might avoid pesticides and herbicides, as Pollan puts it, it will be "drenched in petroleum." With oil profits often enriching large corporations - or more worriedly - illiberal regimes in the Middle East, perhaps cheap organic food is too costly to the concept of sustainability.

But at least it won't be elitist anymore...

Don't test the meat - it's safe

Mad cow disease took the world by storm in the 1990s as English herds were found to carry a form of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The fear spread quickly, causing many countries to ban beef imports from counties where even a single cow tested positive.

The United States avoided much of the challenge, one could argue, because the USDA refuses to test more than 1% of the herd.
Despite the emotion around mad cow, the USDA asserts that its policy of testing 1% of the American herd is sufficient because the American herd is safe (one could argue that from a statistical standpoint, 1% might suffice). Supporting the USDA's position are the facts that we've banned the use of slaughtered cattle as animal feed and only 3 cases of mad cow disease have been discovered in U.S.-raised cattle.

Since the USDA is confident of our beef safety, how might we expect them to react when one American beef company displays interest in testing every head of cattle it slaughters (at its own expense)?

Dismay, of course. If we test more cows, we might find more disease. And 58 countries banned US beef after the first mad cow case was discovered here in 2003. In fact, the USDA is so afraid that regular and thorough testing might expose previously hidden mad cow disease that they plan to prohibit Creekstone Farms from implementing full testing.

The irony is almost overwhelming, since Creekstone is pursuing full testing in order to instill confidence in its foreign customers that US beef is safe. Statistically, testing every head of cattle is silly, but Creekstone Farms has hopes to sell beef to more than just the statisticians.