[If you haven't missed it (or have just watched it online - yay, Information Age!), feel free to skip ahead a little. The beginning of this essay is explanation for the uninformed.]
The premise of both is the idea that plants actually use us, rather than the other way around. One of the examples given is that of the potato plant, originally of South America. The Inca planted many varieties of potato in a number of different regions because they weren't sure which of, or where, these varieties would thrive best. Potatoes turned out to be an incredibly successful crop for them because of its hardiness in many climates and, especially, its high yield -- even a small harvest would feed a large number of people.
The Spanish invaded the Inca in the 16th century, and took the plant back with them to Europe, where it flourished as well. This introduction was a particular boon to northern Europe where it was difficult to grow wheat. However, the people of Ireland made a fatal mistake when they decided to grow only one variety of potato, the lumper. With none of the genetic diversity characteristic of Incan farming practices centuries earlier, the Irish potato crops eventually all failed when the lumpers fell victim to rot. This famine eventually caused the deaths of about one in eight of Ireland's population at the time.
This next tidbit of information is what really stirred a fire in me to write this essay in the first place: You'd think that such a tragedy would prevent us from ever making the same mistake again, but you'd be wrong. Due to the popularity of french fries -- particularly, the classic long "McDonald's" type -- we Americans have devoted the majority of our potato crops exclusively to the Russet Burbank. And like the lumper before it, this variety is doomed as well, this time to the Colorado potato beetle. Our potatoes are currently swimming in toxic pesticides in an effort to kill these creatures.
In the 1990's, efforts were made to abandon the use of pesticides, by genetically engineering the crop to create the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium which is fatal to the beetle. Though there was never any concrete proof that eating Bt crops is truly harmful, large buyers, such as McDonald's, were not willing to risk the controversy and so they refused to purchase the crop. Even if Bt foods had caught on, it wouldn't have mattered because later research discovered that the beetles began to develop an immunity to Bt.
At this point of the documentary, I had a thought -- why not just go back to farming as the Inca did? Plant diverse varieties of each of our crops, so that we won't have to worry about famines and Frankenfood. And then the documentary went on to answer my question -- because planting varieties is not conducive to massive output of a uniform product.
This answer makes me mad. Everyone can agree that using pesticides and altering genes aren't completely effective because -- regardless of anyone's feelings about it or any long-term health implications -- the pests always adapt. WE ARE HEADED FOR AN ECOLOGICAL DISASTER OF THE HIGHEST ORDER and yet people can give an answer like, "it's more efficient this way" with a straight face. Are you @#$% kidding me?!
The documentary goes on to discuss the advent of a third solution, organic farming -- basically, a new name for the old way of doing things**. There are challenges to mass production of organic food, but our current "efficient" method of doing things didn't spontaneously shape itself on Day One of the Industrial Revolution. I'm sorry, but anyone who can't see this working out has a serious failure of imagination.
And perhaps these mammoth monocultural supply chains shouldn't be the backbone, but rather a supplement to international food production. Perhaps small, independent, but interconnected farms would be a better system. If every region is producing its own local varieties of each crop, with an exchange relationship with neighboring regions, we’d eventually have the same global supply chain, but with less dependence on a single species or variety. High genetic diversity coupled with a cell-like agricultural structure would give the potato -- and our agricultural system as a whole -- the best chance to thrive.
I also propose another, complementary solution. In addition to re-thinking mass production, I think it's time to re-think the idea of mass consumption as well, since I don’t think you can really change one without the other. We, as consumers, need to become more mindful eaters. Our capitalist nation follows the money, so it’s up to us as individuals begin changing before our society changes around us. We need to educate ourselves about our food. Where does it come from? and How is it produced? need to be the first questions we ask when we buy our groceries and dine out. If we begin to make purchasing decisions based on the answers, the food industry will have to take notice and adapt.
And we need to be open to new ideas, if they should come before we expect them. If McDonald’s responded to this potato issue by changing to sweet potato fries, for instance, would you scoff or give them a try?
*It tickles me to no end that this man -- who writes exclusively about agricultural issues -- has a last name that's a homophone to the word pollen.
** Back then it was just called farming. Wouldn't it be nice to go back to calling it that?
