Genetic Maize

James, over at James and the Giant Corn, has written a post about the long lasting tomatoes from India: Scientists at India’s NIPGR Create a Longer-Lasting Tomato (Studying The Regulation of Fruit Ripening). He does a great job of explaining cell wall chemistry, which I neglected to cover in I say tomato… I appreciate that he pointed out something that I forgot to mention (emphasis added):

I shouldn’t have to say this, but there are currently no genetically engineered tomatoes on the market. For a short time in the 1990s Calgene sold the Flavr Savr tomato in California grocery stores, but they weren’t able make a profit doing so, so they stopped. The poor taste of most tomatoes for sale in the grocery store today is purely the result of conventional breeding (my post on the subject and Mat_kinase’s).

James, over at James and the Giant Corn, has written a post about the long lasting tomatoes from India: Scientists at India’s NIPGR Create a Longer-Lasting Tomato (Studying The Regulation of Fruit Ripening). He does a great job of explaining cell wall chemistry, which I neglected to cover in I say tomato… I appreciate that he pointed out something that I forgot to mention (emphasis added):

I shouldn’t have to say this, but there are currently no genetically engineered tomatoes on the market. For a short time in the 1990s Calgene sold the Flavr Savr tomato in California grocery stores, but they weren’t able make a profit doing so, so they stopped. The poor taste of most tomatoes for sale in the grocery store today is purely the result of conventional breeding (my post on the subject and Mat_kinase’s).

Researchers at the National Institute of Plant Genome Research in India have found a surprisingly simple way to extend the shelf life of fresh tomatoes. Most tomatoes will last about 10-15 days before going unappealingly squishy. The enhanced tomatoes last 45 days or more and are firmer than unmodified tomatoes, which I imagine makes for great tomato sandwiches!

Before getting into the how, let’s talk about why this research is important. According to Enhancement of fruit shelf life by suppressing N-glycan processing enzymes in this week’s PNAS, post-harvest fruit and vegetable softening is a big problem, with losses accounting for almost 50% of all produce in developing countries. India, the country that funded the research, and the world’s 2nd largest fruit and vegetable producer, loses 35-40% of produce to softening.

We all know that post-consumer food waste is a big problem, and we can alleviate this somewhat in our homes and by choosing restaurants that try to reduce waste. But there isn’t much we can do about pre-consumer waste – from grain that rots in the silo due to fungus to tomatoes that rot in transit due to ripening. By reducing pre-consumer food waste, we can reduce the number of acres needed to produce the same amount of food. In India, preventing all fruit and vegetable softening would be like reducing the amount of land needed to grow fruits and vegetables by 35-40%!

(more…)

I finally got signed up for a vegetable share with Small Potatoes Farm through Farm to Folk, our local CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) program. This is the fourth year that I’ve had a CSA and I love it. I’m really looking forward to spring, and not just because I don’t want to look at snow anymore.

Having a CSA share is such a good experience in so many ways, but the most important one for me is that I know the farmers who grow the food I put on my table are getting honest pay for their labor, that they can afford to take care of their land and to take care of their employees. I also like the idea of keeping my food dollars in the local economy and of giving the money straight to the producer instead of through a string of middlemen and packagers. Another benefit that small vegetable farms provide is high biodiversity due to the many species of plants (and often animals too!) on the farms. They are often certified organic, but due to the high cost of certification,some farms forgo the label and just list their practices on signs or websites. Customers can actually meet the people who grow the food, ask questions, and make friends.

CSA’s are just one of many ways that farmers can receive fair pay for their produce; others include farmers markets and direct sales to restaurants. The one common factor across these is that they need to convince their customers that an increased cost is worth it. While there are certainly times when a certain fruit or vegetable is so locally abundant that it can be cheaper than the same fruit or vegetable from a large farm, there is no doubt that the economy of scale is lost on smaller farms. In order to break even, small farms have to charge a realistic amount for their produce. I’m ok with that. Are you?

You can look for CSAs (and farmers markets, etc) near you at Local Harvest.

There are a lot of myths out there about high fructose corn syrup. While there are plenty of reasons to avoid corn syrup (and all sugars) on anything more than an occasional basis, that’s no reason to make things up about it.

Have any commonly held beliefs about corn that you’d like to know more about? Let us know in the comments.

Myth: Huge amounts of the sizable US corn crop go to HFCS production. Here’s a condescending example that sums up this idea from Grist: “The Big Corn People began to grow so much royally-subsidized GMO corn that they turned it into millions of gallons of high fructose corn syrup.”

It’s true, a portion of the US corn crop is used for HFCS production. It’s also true that corn syrup is cheap because the corn industry receives subsidies. But there’s a lot more to this story.

How is corn used?

Most of the US corn crop is used for animal feed. In 2006-2007, 5.6 billion bushels of corn were used for animal feed, 2.1 billion for exports, 2.1 billion for ethanol, 753 million for corn sweeteners, 272 million for corn starch, 190 million for corn foods (tortillas, cereal, etc), and 137 for alcoholic beverages, according to Iowa State University’s High Fructose Corn Syrup – How sweet it is (pdf).

It’s more than a little dishonest to blame the monocultures on HFCS, when so much of the crop is used for feed. Again, that’s 5.6 billion bushels of corn for animal feed versus 753 million bushels for sweeteners in 2007. We might also take a second look at ethanol.

Corn is used for so many things because it can be separated into fractions fairly easily. According to that same ISU Factsheet, a single bushel of corn (about 60 lbs) produces three primary products after wet milling:

• 1.6 lbs corn oil
• 13.5 lbs corn protein gluten animal feed
• 2.6 lbs corn gluten meal used for poultry feed, pre-emergent herbicide, and fur cleaner.

The remaining starch can then be used to produce one of three alternatives:

• 33 pounds of corn sweetener
• 32 pounds of cornstarch
• 2.5 to 2.7 gallons of ethanol or beverage alcohol

In other words, a bushel of corn can be used to make animal feed and either corn syrup or ethanol – not both. Over the years, the percentage of the crop that’s gone for sweetener or ethanol has changed a great deal. According to Table 27  – US use of field corn, by crop year (.xls), in 1991 7% of the corn crop was used to make sweetener, and 6.10% was used to make alcohol. In 2009, 5.78% of the corn crop was used for sweetener, while 35.82% was used for ethanol. Over the same years, the amount of corn harvested increased, so total corn syrup production did increase, but not much compared to ethanol.

If you’re looking to blame something for corn monocultures, it makes sense to turn first to animal products and then to ethanol… not to corn syrup.

How much does it cost?

Corn syrup is cheaper than sugar because of the climate in the US, tariffs on imported sugar, and because of corn subsidies. Sugar can be refined from two crops: sugar cane and sugar beets. Sugar cane is a tropical crop, and there aren’t many places in the US where it can be grown (see this map of US sugar cane acres in 2007 from the USDA to see just how few places). Sugar beets aren’t grown in many places in the US either (see this map of US sugar beet acres in 2007). Sugar cane and sugar beets both produce about 50% of US sugar, according to University of Florida Extension’s Overview of Florida Sugarcane.

Since there isn’t much sugar produced in the US, and due to the climate in the US we couldn’t produce much more even if we wanted to, we would need to import it from Brazil, India, or Europe. That could be a problem for locavores looking for sugar, but it’s definitely a problem for US sugar producers who want to stay competitive with producers overseas. Sugar producers have been successful in lobbying for high tariffs, so we don’t import much sugar. I don’t understand all the tariffs and other programs, but you can learn more at the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service’s US Sugar Import Program.

Since we can’t and don’t produce much sugar in the US, and there are trade barriers to importing sugars, it makes sense for food producers to look for an alternative sweetener. We have excellent climate and soils for corn (see this map of US corn acres in 2007), and it’s not that difficult to make sugar from corn starch.

More questions

I have to wonder if, in the absence of trade barriers, we would still have more corn syrup than corn sugar. Similarly, how much would the balance of sweeteners actually change if corn subsidies were removed? Since such a small amount of the crop is used to produce all the sweetener we need, I wonder if things would change much at all. Finally, even if we had enough sugar to meet consumer demand for sweet processed foods, would Americans actually consume any less total sugar than we do now? I’m thinking it wouldn’t change at all. As for what might change consumption of total sugars, we might consider subsidies on healthy (or at least healthier) foods and/or a tax on unhealthy foods and sodas. Here’s hoping.