Actually I've seen the process of moving from blemished fruit to
"clean" fruit happen, Dave, on research trips to Romania. When we
first went, soon after the fall of communism, the apples being sold in
all the markets I saw were blemished by insects and diseases to the
extent that most would have been culls in the U.S. However, within
about 3 to 4 years, the quality of the fruit in markets had improved
noticeably. I'm told that within 10 years, it was indistinguishable
from that here. That's only to make the point that people will eat the
best they have, and the 'hardwiring' is for comparison, not
necessarily rejection.
You also make a good point about processing fruit rather than fresh.
Prior to the early 20th century, most apples here and elsewhere were
made into hard cider, vinegar, apple butter and sauce, or otherwise
used in ways that made pretty fruit unimportant. For ex., one of the
largest cider mills in the country was in Sutton, MA, a suburb of
Boston today, and it shipped thousands of barrels of hard cider to
England in the latter part of the 1800's. However, there has always
been a premium paid for fresh, pretty fruit, so that is what MA
growers, and most other US producers, have focused on.
So, as we go past peak oil, we may both accept much more blemished
fruit and turn more of it into processed products. Either that or
we'll have developed the solar-powered orchard sanitizer gizzmo.
On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:04 PM, Dave Rosenberger wrote:
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 <[email protected]>.
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 <[email protected]
>.
Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not
represent "official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no
responsibility for the content.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard
<http://www.virtualorchard.net> and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon
Clements <[email protected]>.
Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent
"official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for
the content.
