Dan covers a lot of interesting points. However, most of us are
still locked into thinking about things as they presently exist in
our socio-economic system. Part of this discussion was triggered by
Mr. Kuljis's comment about greenhouse gas emissions and the hidden
costs of our production systems. Regardless of what you believe
about global warming, there can be little doubt that energy will
become increasingly expensive as more citizens of India, China,
Africa, etc. gain access to creature comforts and vehicles that most
westerners consider essential for comfortable living. Energy price
increases may occur gradually (especially if we agree to a gradually
increasing level of energy taxation to speed the transition to
alternatives) or with catastrophic suddenness as a result of war or
natural disasters.
What would happen to our food production system if oil prices
increased to the point where gasoline cost $10 or $15/gal? Would
sudden oil price increases (or even gradual increases) make us more
willing to accept food with blemishes if unblemished food cost 2 or 3
times more than blemished fruit and if our disposal income was
simultaneously reduced due to effects of increased energy costs on
all other aspects of our lives? Dan suggests that we would still be
inclined by our "hard wiring" to select the best produce. However,
growing up in a family of nine with limited income, I know that my
mother annually visited a local orchard and purchased 3 or 4 bushels
of peaches that were graded as "seconds" because the seconds were
much cheaper. (Often they were also riper, but slightly bruised.) The
blemishes never affected the final product after the peaches were cut
up and preserved for use during winter.
I guess my conclusion is that most of us still prefer and purchase
"perfect" fruit because we are wealthy and food is cheap. That may
change over the next 10, 20, or 50 years, but I doubt if any of us
can predict the systemic changes that will occur as oil becomes a
limiting factor.
On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Mark Angermayer wrote:
Obviously, I'm not a behavioral scientist but I think instead of
"educated"
in your quote, a better word would be "offered". That is,
agriculture has
continued to offer more attractive looking food. It seems to me the
consumer drives it, rather than the other way around.
I'm no expert on human behavior either, but I still tell my students
that a large part of what drives pesticide applications in fruit and
vegetables is that people shop with their eyes and lower cognitive
functions. I'm convinced that at some level, humans react to
blemishes, spots and rots as potentially dangerous or at least less
tasty, and given a choice, will select food that's unblemished.
Could that be changed? Could consumers come to appreciate the tiny
clusters of black spots and dusky smudgy skin on their apples as a
positive thing, akin to getting a free truffle or portobello with
their fruit? Or at least suggest that such an appearance indicates
that fungicide use on those fruit was low, if that's what they want.
Probably not; I believe we're hardwired to select 'non-rotten' food if
available.
Sooty blotch and flyspeck is an interesting pest problem. It appears
to do very little if anything to the the tree or fruit in terms of
productivity, but is exclusively an aesthetic concern. With some
sodium hypochlorite and water, most of it can be quickly removed. But
even Ron Prokopy, who was devoted to the idea of developing the most
ecological orchard possible found the cleaning process too arduous,
and eventually opted for a couple of well-timed fungicides to deal
with the problem.
I'd add that while consumers perception of quality is certainly one
driver of increased pesticide use, the other one is, as Dave has
pointed out, yield. So pesticides developed over the last 100-odd
years increase yield and quality of many crops. In order to stay in
business, a grower had to produce increasing proportions of blemish-
free apples, and do it at larger amounts per acre.
Someone made a comment that non-chemical alternatives in agriculture
would be cheaper. This is certainly not true in the short-term, though
one might make an argument if all externalities could be accurately
measured and factored in. Unfortunately, our technology often has a
tendency to outstrip our full understanding, and consequences that we
can't directly see or that take many years to develop often go
unperceived or under appreciated. The inventor of DDT was given a
Nobel Prize because the chemical was such an amazing new tool in the
fight against disease and hunger.
It seems plausible to me that the huge introduction of new chemicals
into the environment (not just pesticides) could have significant
unintended consequences on delicate biological processes such as fetal
development. The most prudent course of action to me would seem to be
to evaluate costs and benefits of our chemical soup ASAP, and devise
new methods of agricultural production, preserving the safe elements
of today's technology and eliminating serious problems, rather than
reverting to a mystical mixture of 1930's technology and new age
religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard
<http://www.virtualorchard.net> and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon
Clements <webmas...@virtualorchard.net>.
Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent
"official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for
the content.
--
**************************************************************
Dave Rosenberger
Professor of Plant Pathology Office: 845-691-7231
Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax: 845-691-2719
P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528 Cell: 845-594-3060
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard
<http://www.virtualorchard.net> and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon
Clements <webmas...@virtualorchard.net>.
Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent
"official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for
the content.
