Research paper written for my Plant Science class, about the challenges surrounding banana agriculture and industry today. When considering bananas, the twentieth century is divided into two reigns: the time of the Gros Michel, and that of the Cavendish. Both of these banana varieties – each the titular variety of their respective subgroups – originate from hybrid crossings of Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana, containing a triploid AAA genome (Ploetz). The Gros Michel banana variety peaked in popularity first, and was the staple banana in the United States from about 1870 to the late 1950s (Frost). As a general rule, triploid plant species are considered infertile, and this was true for the Gros Michel, which is reproduced clonally by planting cuttings from the best plant specimens, resulting in “virtually all bananas grown [around the world] for export [being] genetically identical” (Dunn). A monoculture so expansive it spanned the globe. From an industrial perspective, producing identical agricultural products alleviates a great deal of shipping and commercial stress because of the consistent quality and physical attributes. This contributes to bananas’ low cost and high popularity, which in turn have made them “an important tool in the fight against childhood obesity” and a vital part of the American diet, where the average American eats “25 pounds of bananas a year” (Food Republic). The banana industry also provides millions of jobs across Latin America which entire communities have grown to depend on (Food Republic). It is because of this societary and dietary importance that the discovery of Panama disease (caused by Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense) which affected Gros Michel bananas caused great panic in the scientific community. Planting genetically identical fields “allows pathogens to spread quickly, decimating entire crops” (Turner), meaning that Gros Michel’s commercial strength was ultimately its most fatal weakness. Thus began a global race to find the next mainstream banana variety, one that was similar enough to the Gros Michel in appearance and taste, but immune to Panama disease. A suitable substitute was found in the Cavendish, which became and remains successful to this day, to the extent that Rob Dunn, a biologist and applied ecology professor, writes: “if you were born after 1950, you are unlikely to have ever purchased any banana other than the Cavendish clone–other than what is now the world’s largest organism” (Dunn, 9). Dunn refers to the ‘Cavendish clone’ as such because all Cavendish bananas grown are “genetically identical” to each other due to the fact that the organism is infertile, like the Gros Michel (Dunn). Yet “supermarkets and banana companies are providing us with a banana monoculture…despite the unfavorable history of monocultures and the disastrous effects they can have on our agricultural and consumer societies” (Dunn). Despite Panama Disease exploiting the lack of genetic diversity in the Gros Michel, and the similarly burdened Cavendish variety being deemed necessary to keeping bananas on the market, the monocultural practices endured. While the Cavendish remained safe for decades, it would seem fate has finally caught up to it in the form of a new pathogen known as Tropical Race 4, or TR4 (Turner), originating from a fungus closely related to the Fusarium responsible for Panama disease (Dunn). This new pathogen is already making its way through Latin America, where most of the bananas sold in western commercial markets are grown. TR4 reached Columbia in 2019, and had spread to Peru and Venezuela by 2021 (Kueffner). These nations are all major exporters of bananas in their own right, but together they geographically isolate Ecuador – the global leader in banana exports – as the lone island in a sea of afflicted banana fields (Kueffner). Fighting TR4 once it is present and spreading from farm to farm is difficult, so Ecuador’s best option is to prevent TR4 from entering the nation, sparking the need for strict quarantine measures. Funding was allocated to strengthen border controls, from implementing “container disinfection stations” to an “internet-connected microscope at its main border facility… to quickly identify threats,” with “free lab testing and training of proper sanitary procedures to plantations to stop the spread” (Kueffner). As of now Ecuador remains free of TR4, but how long this will last remains uncertain. Moving forward, if, or more likely when, farmers are unable to grow enough Cavendish to sustain the markets, it will become necessary to find a replacement, just as was done in the case of the Gros Michel. When that time comes, “finding a replacement variety [to the Cavendish] would mean tackling multiple issues, such as maintaining the taste and robust shelf life for global markets,” as well as finding a variety immune to TR4 (Kueffner). Finding a conventionally bred variety is an option that is not off the table, though it is more likely that a genetically modified alternative will be found ‘more suitable’ from an industrial standpoint. One such example has been found in the TR4-resistant, genetically modified Cavendish developed by a group of Australian researchers in collaboration with Fresh Del Monte Produce, one of the main banana-producing corporations (Turner). Genetic modification (also referred to as genetic engineering) remains on the cutting edge of science. In theory, “genetic engineering is one of the best hopes for [the Cavendish]” but even if a genetically modified Cavendish is successful in the fields, selling genetically modified products is illegal in most of Europe, and “Americans are still wary of the goods” (Food Republic). This hesitation in the United States is present despite estimates suggesting that “perhaps 75 percent of the food in [American] supermarkets has at least one genetically modified ingredient” (Turner). The debate surrounding genetic modification is nuanced, though most of it boils down to a lack of trust in products that contain genetically modified ingredients because of the long-term effects they may have on our bodies. It is important to state that as of now, there is nothing to suggest that consuming genetically modified organisms is harmful, which is why genetically modified products are allowed to enter markets in the United States after approval like any other agricultural product. Unlike with many other agricultural products, however, the field of genetic modification is changing, so it is imperative legislation keeps up with advances to ensure products remain safe and to prevent unintentional loopholes from being exploited, even by well-meaning research teams. This has not been the case. For instance, between 2010 and 2021, “more than 35 gene-edited products have been submitted to the USDA inquiry process and deemed exempt from regulation” after new products and technical advancements required inquiries “because there were no clear rules in the legal text guiding the treatment of gene-edited products” (Garland). It is irresponsible for the national Department of Agriculture to pass exemptions on any products under their domain that enter the market, especially those surrounded by as much controversy and misinformation as genetically modified products. Citizens rely on the USDA to approve the products that enter the market and keep producers accountable, especially as corporations and researchers undertake a job as difficult as saving the banana. Any replacement for the Cavendish must possess a very specific list of desirable traits before major banana producers will put their company resources behind large-scale production, and any banana along the way is likely to be protected from competitors by hiding it behind a patent. It is expected Del Monte will patent their genetically modified Australian Cavendish, which can put Chiquita and Dole (the other major banana corporations) at a sizable disadvantage unless they can find their own TR4-resistant banana varieties soon (Turner). While the collapse of Chiquita and Dole’s banana production would create a harmful monopoly controlled by Del Monte, eliminating the possibility of a patent and simply replacing one banana monoculture with another will not work, as proven by the (original, non-genetically modified) Cavendish. Even if the elusive ‘super banana’ that corporations are searching for is found, another pathogen will eventually put it at risk. The only way to truly solve the banana production crisis in the long term is to step away from a monocultural production style and cultivate a diverse set of banana variants. Perhaps patents over banana varieties may be what finally sets corporations on this path because science–and experience–have argued against monocultures for decades to no effect. Bananas are not the only genetic monoculture in the modern world. In fact, out of the over 20,000 species of edible plants present today (Edible Uses), only 12 species contribute to 80 percent of the calories humans consume globally, and an additional 3 species bring that number up to 90 percent (Dunn, 3). Fewer people are hungry today than at any other point in history, in part because of the benefits of cultivating large monoculture fields around the world (Dunn, 10). This is the convenience of monoculture farming, it allows for more food to be grown per acre of land and therefore feeds more people. The downside of this system, of course, is that if any of these crops were to face their species equivalent to Panama disease or TR4, one of these vital species could become practically impossible to grow, and cause whole swaths of the world to starve. Simplifying and globalizing agriculture have provided short-term benefits, but these come at the cost of long-term sustainability (Dunn, 10). We cannot change the decisions that have brought the world’s agriculture to this precarious position. What must change, however, are our practices going forward. It is vital that biosecurity measures and monocultural farming are reconsidered from a scientific perspective, as opposed to a commercial one, and that appropriate practices replace unsustainable ones (Turner). Innovations in technology such as genetic modification can and should be explored to our furthest ability because they can help protect and restore agricultural biodiversity going forward. Still, it is irresponsible to exploit them for cheap, temporary solutions to our problems. Perhaps the Cavendish, with its decline, will truly succeed where the Gros Michel did not and push us to add genetic diversity to agriculture, before another crop shows us how much we have to lose. References
Dunn, R. (n.d.). Humans Made the Banana Perfect—But Soon, It’ll Be Gone. Wired. Retrieved November 28, 2022, from https://www.wired.com/2017/03/humans-made-banana-perfect-soon-itll-gone/ Dunn, R. (2017). Never out of season: How having the food we want when we want it threatens our food supply and our future. Little, Brown and Company. Edible Uses. (n.d.). Retrieved December 8, 2022, from https://pfaf.org/user/edibleuses.aspx Food Republic. (2011, July 26). The Banana Problem. Food Republic. https://www.foodrepublic.com/2011/07/26/the-banana-problem/ Frost, N. (2018, February 28). A Quest for the Gros Michel, the Great Banana of Yesteryear Atlas Obscura. Retrieved November 30, 2022, from http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/best-bananas Garland, S. (2021, March 22). USDA Definitions Around Biotechnology Need Some Crucial Updating. Slate. Retrieved November 28, 2022, from https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/usda-coordinated-framework-regulation-biotechnology-gene-editing.html Kueffner, S. Deadly Banana Fungus Puts World’s Top Exporter on High Alert. (2021, April 23). Bloomberg.com. Retrieved November 29, 2022, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-04-23/supply-chains-latest-deadly-banana-fungus-puts-top-exporter-on-alert Ploetz, R. C., Kepler, A. K., Daniells, J., & Nelson, S. C. (n.d.). Banana and plantain—An overview with emphasis on Pacific island cultivars. 27. Turner, J. (2021, May 10). Bananas Are in Danger. Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2021/05/banana-disease-cavendish-tr4-genetically-modified-crops.html Comments are closed.
|
Categories
All
|