2013: The Year of Quinoa

Have you heard of quinoa? If you're one of the millions that shops at specialty groceries like Trader Joe's or Whole Foods, you probably have. It's an ancient grain, grown mainly in South America, which has become quite trendy in the us in recent years, and as a result has gotten more expensive. Can we expect the price to go down as the quinoa supply increases to meet rising demand? Maybe, and maybe not.

An interesting post at the Washington Post Wonkblog (with graphs!) gets into the economic reasons why quinoa farmers are not cropping up all over the world. Mostly, there is an enormous startup cost to growing a new species of plant on a large scale, or in a new environment. Producing more quinoa in the US, for example, would require both. Getting more quinoa from the farmers in Bolivia and Peru that have been growing the grain for centuries isn't such an easy proposition, either, as these traditional farmers use older techniques and equipment that are not so easily scaled up as are industrial agricultural methods. A number of solutions are being studied, including new varieties of quinoa that can grow in different climates. These topics will be discussed at an upcoming quinoa symposium.

Why are we eating so much quinoa? Well, aside from the facts that we love novelty the latest health food fad, quinoa is tasty and actually healthy. It's about 14% protein, which is a lot for something we consider a grain (although not as high as beans), and it is a vegetarian source of "complete protein," meaning that it contains all the amino acids that our body cannot synthesize on its own and needs to get from our diet. It's also high in fiber and a number of other nutrients like B vitamins and iron. So, eat your quinoa, if you can afford it, and hope that in the future, there will be enough to go around.

Also, here is a fun quinoa bonus fact from Wikipedia: While quinoa is not a true grass like the cereal crops we think of as grains (wheat, rice, etc.), it is closely related to tumbleweeds.

A tip of the hat to Ragan for the article!
(Image: Quinoa, a Creative Commons 2.0 licensed image from Renee S. Suen's Photostream)

What is the future of agriculture?

This week I came upon two very different articles online regarding where our food comes from. They both focus on how technology has impacted the way we farm, but come to different conclusions about the benefits of current farming technology. I think they raise some interesting questions about what role technology should play in food production in the future.

The first article, on NPR.com, discusses an art project conducted by photographer David Liittschwager, wherein he photographed all the species that pass through a cubic foot of area in different locations around the world. The result is a unique way of visualizing an area's biodiversity. Locations such as a public park in South Africa and a tree in Costa Rica contained more than a hundred different species of plants, insects, and animals. He also examined a typical Iowa cornfield - part of a huge system of industrial monoculture that provides much of our country's food supply. How many species did he find there? Eight. Including the corn. Over two nights and three days of observation, he didn't even find a single bee.

This total lack of biodiversity strongly contrasts the previous state of the Iowa prairie landscape, where a century ago hundreds of species coexisted in a complex system. Liittschwager's work raises questions about the benefit of our industrial agricultural system. What are we losing when we eliminate almost all species in a natural ecosystem? To what extent does the health of the soil and the crops depend on the complex network of interrelationships that we have destroyed without fully understanding? Industrial agriculture on this scale requires energy input in the form of fertilizer produced by burning fossil fuels. How long can we sustain these practices before we run out of materials or permanently alter our atmosphere and climate?

Another perspective on technology and farming comes from wired.com, where you can find photographs by Freya Najade of another technology-dependent method of food production: self-contained robotic farms. These facilities can produce food, without soil or sunlight, separate from any natural ecosystem. They are touted as possible models for production of food on the moon or in space, and similar systems have been developed to grow food in urban spaces previously considered unusable for food production. These systems, like the industrial corn farm mentioned earlier, feature a stark lack of biodiversity, but instead of destroying an existing ecosystem to create these farms, unfarmable areas have instead been transformed into a place where food is produced. Using computer-controlled systems, food can be grown locally, closer to consumers, and with less effort by humans, increasing efficiency. However, we don't fully understand the consequences of using these systems, which exist completely outside the natural environment or season, and which require the input of energy in the form of electricity and heat to function.

So, where do we go from here? What will be the role of technology in the future of food production? We have already used technology to enormously increase the efficiency of food production, with mixed results. The US spends, per capita, the least on food and the most on health care compared to almost any other industrialized nation. Industrial agriculture is changing our climate and eliminating biodiversity in our environment. Currently, the way we produce food is efficient but destroys our health and local ecosystems. Some proponents of systems such as biodynamic agriculture say that going back to a method of farming where we avoid monoculture and grow a diversity of plants on smaller farms that also include uncultivated natural spaces is the way forward. Could we also use more advanced technology to grow food outside of natural systems, farming previously unfarmable areas with the help of computers and other advanced technology. Can technology allow us to farm more efficiently, with fewer people, and closer to the consumers of food? I suspect that both of these approaches will be tested in the no-so-distant future, as we try to address the complicated problems with our current systems of food production. It may be that the best solution is a synthesis of old wisdom about how to care for plants and the soil and new knowledge of how to manipulate energy, information, and plant biology.

(Image: hydroponic farm 035, a Creative Commons 2.0 licensed image from missdrummajorette's photostream)

What are the advantages of organic?

There has been a lot of kerfuffle on the internet in the past week since Stanford University scientists published a meta-analysis of many studies regarding health and organic foods. They found that there was no evidence that organic foods are "more nutritious" than conventional foods. However, they did note some differences between conventionally grown and organic foods. Organic fruits and veggies had less pesticide residue, and organic meats were less likely to be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

At this point, many people have thrown down on either side of the organic food divide. Proponents of eating organic say that we still don't know the long-term health benefits of an organic diet, as these studies mostly looked at short term effects of an organic diet. Opponents say that organic food is a pricey fad, a method of food production that can not feed the world's large population, and offers little benefit to the consumer.

Overall, I do still think organic food offers some benefits. Organic farming reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and prevents the damage done to soil and ecosystems that are a result of industrial monoculture. As the farmer from the CSA that I belong to pointed out, most people on the planet currently do not get their food from an industrial agricultural system like one that we have in the US, suggesting that feeding the world's populations using organic methods might be feasible. Eating organic  also reduces our exposure to pesticides and antibiotic resistant bacteria, the long term effects of which I agree are not well studied. However, this study did not interrogate the long-term health effects of organic food, nor did it consider the effects of organic agriculture on anything besides consumer health, and it also grouped all organic food into one category, when there are a diversity of types of "organic" farming practices, from industrial organic to small-farm biodynamic.

Overall, this study is part of the big picture of food production in the United States. This also an excellent example of a study that can be interpreted multiple ways. We should take the conclusions of this study, that organic produce does not seem to be higher in nutrients than conventional, into consideration. We should also avoid extrapolating the data in an unfounded way to align with whatever political point we're trying to make. This study sought to help inform consumers of organic food to make better decisions about what to buy, but it did not address the larger questions of what type of food production are best for the economy, environment, or long-term sustainability of agriculture. Organic food has not been proven to be healthier, but neither has it been condemned as being completely without benefit.

(Image: The sign reads "Organic no chemicles" a Creative Commons 2.0 image from friendsoffamilyfarmers's photostream)

The Compartmentalization of Violence

Over at BoingBoing, there is a very thought-provoking interview with Timothy Pachirat, who has written a book after going "undercover" at a slaughterhouse in Nebraska entitled Every Twelve Seconds. Rather than the usual expose, his writing addresses how the violence inherent in killing animals for our food on an industrial level is compartmentalized and shielded from society. Although this work is more related to food philosophy than food science, I think it's important enough an issue to think about that I'm blogging about it here.

Pachirat discusses how the actual work of killing cattle at slaughterhouses is broken down into specific tasks, and how the individuals that do each task are separated from each other and the outside world, physically and mentally, using walls, ideology, and language. This separates humans from the violence that is occurring, allowing consumers and even slaughterhouse employees to effectively ignore or believe that they are not responsible for the act of killing. This happens within the slaughterhouse, and, on a larger scale, outside the slaughterhouse where society in general is separated from the nasty work, done mostly by immigrants behind closed doors that few, if any of us, get a glimpse behind.

The issues discussed in this interview and in Pachirat's book raise quite a few uncomfortable questions about industrial meat production. Who is responsible? Is the act of placing responsibility another way to compartmentalize violence perpetrated by an entire society? How does this relate to other acts of violence that occur behind closed doors in order for us to remain "civilized," like torture, inprisonment, and execution? As a consumer of meat myself, I think that it is the responsibility of humans to ask questions about where their food comes from. We must make educated, informed, and well-thought-out decisions about what is okay to eat, and by extension what processes in which we are willing to be complicit. 

(image via BoingBoing)