ADVERTISEMENT

Banana-killing fungus threatens world's supply; this time, there's no ready substitute

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,434
62,539
113
Six decades after a banana-killing fungus all but wiped out plantations across Latin America, a new strain threatens to destroy global harvests.

A type of Fusarium wilt appeared this year in Australia’s main banana-growing state after spreading to Asia and Africa. While the fungus has been around since the 1990s and has yet to affect top exporter Ecuador, Fresh Del Monte Produce called it a potential “big nightmare.” The United Nations says the disease threatens supply, and Latin American growers are taking steps to limit the risk.

The industry survived the demise of the top-selling Gros Michel banana in the 1950s by switching to a different variety, called the Cavendish. But this time, there’s no ready substitute. Americans now eat bananas almost as much as apples and oranges combined and are the biggest buyers in an export market valued at more than $7 billion.

“We don’t have anything that can replace the Cavendish,” said Gert Kema, a plant research leader at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, who studies banana diseases.

Part of the problem is the way the market evolved more than a century ago, relying on a single breed rather than several varieties.

In 1870, the founder of what became Chiquita Brands International imported 160 bunches of bananas from Jamaica to the U.S. that he sold at a profit, kicking off an American industry built around perishable tropical fruit from overseas that competes with cheap, locally grown apples.

While there are more than 1,000 types of bananas, many are either inedible or consumed where they are grown. To make money on exports, growers had to rely on a single variety to ensure uniformity and keep production costs low. Until the 1960s, that was the Gros Michel, which all but disappeared after a decades-long spread of what came to be known as Panama disease.

“The monoculture, the reliance on a single banana breed that makes all this possible — that makes the low margins work — also makes that fruit very susceptible to disruption,” said Dan Koeppel, who has traveled to 30 countries to sample varieties and wrote “Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World.” “The biggest problem is disease.”

A lack of plant diversity isn’t unique to bananas. After a history in which more than 7,000 species were cultivated for human consumption, today just four crops — rice, wheat, corn and potatoes — are responsible for more than 60 percent of human energy intake, the U.N.’s Food & Agriculture Organization estimates.

Losing breeds can be costly. When Gros Michel was killed off, the Cavendish proved immune to the fungus strain, though the bananas were smaller, less hardy and not as tasty, Koeppel said. It allowed the industry to recover, but the new variety required shipping in smaller boxes, he said. It took years to convert operations from farms to retailers.

Still, demand took off. Global banana production surged fivefold from 1961, with increases in India and China, which together account for 37 percent of output, FAO data show.

The U.S. and European Union are the top importers, while Ecuador and the Philippines are the top shippers. The FAO estimates bananas provide income or food to about 400 million people worldwide.

Over the past two decades, a new strain of Fusarium wilt — called Panama disease Tropical Race 4 — emerged to threaten the Cavendish, including in the Philippines and China and in parts of Africa. This year, it was found in Queensland state, where more than 90 percent of Australia’s $467 million crop is grown.

TR4 enters the plant’s roots and spreads, invading vascular tissue. The first symptom is irregular yellowing of older leaves, which later turn brown and dry out. The disease poses no threat to humans.

Growers from across Latin America met in March to create a regional defense effort and will gather again in September or October, said Eduardo Ledesma, director of the Banana Exporters’ Association in Ecuador. No specific regional measures are in place, though Ecuador growers have asked the government to fumigate all containers, he said.

The strain is easily spread by people — through dirt on shoes, tires on trucks, shipping containers or other infected equipment — as well as through rain, floods and runoff water. Because most of the world’s Cavendish bananas are clones, a disease affecting one plant affects them all, the FAO says.

Dole Food said the disease isn’t present in the Americas or western Africa, from where the company imports supplies, and it’s looking at how to develop a disease-resistant banana. Fresh Del Monte said none of its company farms in Latin America has been impacted and it’s taking steps to prevent contaminated material from entering its farms and container yards. An external spokesman for Chiquita, now owned by Cutrale Group and Safra Group, declined to comment on how the company is managing the risk.

Researchers like Wageningen’s Kema say the disease will continue to spread, despite efforts to contain it, as long as susceptible varieties are being grown.

http://www.omaha.com/money/banana-k...cle_35188954-2714-5e56-b4f9-e74dcfadccb2.html
 
Thank you...........GMO's?

Various plant diseases have reached epidemic proportions in the US, now in its fourth year of epidemics of Goss’ wilt and sudden death syndrome and eighteenth year of epidemic of Fusarium fungal colonisation resulting in root rot and Fusarium wilt. Not only does glyphosate affect disease susceptibility, there is also evidence of increased disease severity. Examples include Take All, Corynespora root rot in soybean, Fusarium spp diseases, including those caused by Fusarium species that are ordinarily non-pathogenic. Head-scab caused by Fusarium spp of cereals increases following glyphosate application is now prevalent also in cooler climates when previously it was limited to warmer climates. Nine plant pathogens have been suggested to increase in severity as a result of glyphosate treatment of crops, while some 40 diseases are known to be increased in weed control programmes with glyphosate and the list is growing, affecting a wide range of species: apples, bananas, barley, bean, canola, citrus, cotton, grape, melon, soybean, sugar beet, sugarcane, tomato and wheat [85].

http://permaculturenews.org/2012/11...of-its-hazards-to-health-and-the-environment/
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
This blows. I eat at least one banana per day. Sometimes two depending on my breakfast smoothie of the day.
 
So this Chiq is long gone?



And now this Chiq has a fungus!?!?



Not a good thing. I'm not going plantain!!!
 
Didn't we once fight a war over banannas?

You might be thinking of these:

"The Banana Wars were a series of occupations, police actions, and interventions involving the United States in Central America and the Caribbean between the Spanish–American War (1898) and the inception of the Good Neighbor Policy (1934). These military interventions were most often carried out by the United States Marine Corps.", wiki
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
You might be thinking of these:

"The Banana Wars were a series of occupations, police actions, and interventions involving the United States in Central America and the Caribbean between the Spanish–American War (1898) and the inception of the Good Neighbor Policy (1934). These military interventions were most often carried out by the United States Marine Corps.", wiki
For some reason I thought we fought over actual fruit plantations. I might just be fruity.
 
Thank you...........GMO's?

Various plant diseases have reached epidemic proportions in the US, now in its fourth year of epidemics of Goss’ wilt and sudden death syndrome and eighteenth year of epidemic of Fusarium fungal colonisation resulting in root rot and Fusarium wilt. Not only does glyphosate affect disease susceptibility, there is also evidence of increased disease severity. Examples include Take All, Corynespora root rot in soybean, Fusarium spp diseases, including those caused by Fusarium species that are ordinarily non-pathogenic. Head-scab caused by Fusarium spp of cereals increases following glyphosate application is now prevalent also in cooler climates when previously it was limited to warmer climates. Nine plant pathogens have been suggested to increase in severity as a result of glyphosate treatment of crops, while some 40 diseases are known to be increased in weed control programmes with glyphosate and the list is growing, affecting a wide range of species: apples, bananas, barley, bean, canola, citrus, cotton, grape, melon, soybean, sugar beet, sugarcane, tomato and wheat [85].

http://permaculturenews.org/2012/11...of-its-hazards-to-health-and-the-environment/
Glyphosate, for those who don't know, is Roundup. Glyphosate is not merely used on GMO Roundup-ready crops but is also routinely used as a pre-harvest treatment. Or so I've been told.
 
For some reason I thought we fought over actual fruit plantations. I might just be fruity.

Is it wrong but I found the first Chiq to be sexier than the second? Maybe she is just drawn that way? (Boooooo!) But when she preferred her banana with a little brown on it and then said you can put it in a pie?!?!?! I dropped Betty Boop down to second on my bucket list then and there!
 
tl;dr

so is hyvee going to have bananas this weekend when i go shopping?
 
Glyphosate, for those who don't know, is Roundup. Glyphosate is not merely used on GMO Roundup-ready crops but is also routinely used as a pre-harvest treatment. Or so I've been told.
Actually, glyphosate is the active ingredient in dozens of products sold by dozens of companies. Roundup is the mixture of glyphosate, adjuvant, and surfactants, just like the aforementioned products, For those who don't know.
And no, It is not routinely used as a pre harvest treatment. The opposite is true. It is rarely used in such cases but when it is, there are very strict guidelines under which it can be applied (which is true for any pesticide, organic or synthetic, at any time).
Back to the OP article, In a similar scenario, GM technology saved the Hawaiian papaya industry from being wiped out by the ring-spot virus. It could very well save the banana industry in this article (or protect the orange industry in Florida, or supply vitamin fortified rice for kids, etc. etc.) if the anti-science zealots would get out of the way and let the PhDs (in the appropriate disciplines) do their work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
Actually, glyphosate is the active ingredient in dozens of products sold by dozens of companies. Roundup is the mixture of glyphosate, adjuvant, and surfactants, just like the aforementioned products, For those who don't know.
And no, It is not routinely used as a pre harvest treatment. The opposite is true. It is rarely used in such cases but when it is, there are very strict guidelines under which it can be applied (which is true for any pesticide, organic or synthetic, at any time).
Back to the OP article, In a similar scenario, GM technology saved the Hawaiian papaya industry from being wiped out by the ring-spot virus. It could very well save the banana industry in this article (or protect the orange industry in Florida, or supply vitamin fortified rice for kids, etc. etc.) if the anti-science zealots would get out of the way and let the PhDs (in the appropriate disciplines) do their work.
That's not actually a correction. I referred to Roundup because I suspect most don't know what glyphosate (mentioned in the OP) is.

All I know about glyphosate (which is the only ingredient that really matters in this discussion) came from a lecture I posted here a while back by a chemist who explained its mechanism of action and risks. He told how it had come to be used as a pre-harvest treatment for a variety of crops and explained why. Of course he could be wrong. Here's a link to one document he mentioned. I don't know enough to question it.
 
I'm curious as to why the politicians/scientists in so many countries have banned gyphosates and gmo's.

Are they stupid? Are they 'anti-science'? Simply paranoid? Rabid tree-hugging simpletons?

Or could it be that our experts in the U.S. have been - ahem - compromised by the financial incentives dangled before them? That couldn't possibly be, could it? Nah! It's obvious that our science is so much more advanced that the rest of the civilized world pales in comparison. :confused:

Contingency planning may become more vital to Monsanto as growing genetically modified crops face partial or complete bans in the following countries:
Ireland

GMO crops have been banned from growing in Ireland, and Ireland has a voluntary GM food labeling system.

Austria, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg and Bulgaria
These countries have banned GMO crops and have banned the sale of GM foods in their countries.

France
France has banned the growing of GM crops. As of May 16, 2012, France has re-instituted its ban on Monsanto’s MON810 GM corn from being grown in the country. A high court in France overturned a 2008 ban last year, but growing sentiment in France pushed the French minister of Agriculture to reinstate the ban this past May of 2012.

Germany
Germans have banned the growing of all GMO crops, except potatoes.

http://www.realnatural.org/many-countries-ban-gmo-crops-require-ge-food-labels/
 
I'm curious as to why the politicians/scientists in so many countries have banned gyphosates and gmo's.

Are they stupid? Are they 'anti-science'? Simply paranoid? Rabid tree-hugging simpletons?

Or could it be that our experts in the U.S. have been - ahem - compromised by the financial incentives dangled before them? That couldn't possibly be, could it? Nah! It's obvious that our science is so much more advanced that the rest of the civilized world pales in comparison. :confused:

Contingency planning may become more vital to Monsanto as growing genetically modified crops face partial or complete bans in the following countries:
Ireland

GMO crops have been banned from growing in Ireland, and Ireland has a voluntary GM food labeling system.

Austria, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg and Bulgaria
These countries have banned GMO crops and have banned the sale of GM foods in their countries.

France
France has banned the growing of GM crops. As of May 16, 2012, France has re-instituted its ban on Monsanto’s MON810 GM corn from being grown in the country. A high court in France overturned a 2008 ban last year, but growing sentiment in France pushed the French minister of Agriculture to reinstate the ban this past May of 2012.

Germany
Germans have banned the growing of all GMO crops, except potatoes.

http://www.realnatural.org/many-countries-ban-gmo-crops-require-ge-food-labels/
This is a good question. I hope you get some replies.
 
This is a good question. I hope you get some replies.

I hope he does to, speaking totally out of my a$$...I wonder if this has anything to do with the disappearing bee problem? In Europe they banned certain pesticides and the bees came back. In the U.S. the science hasn't gotten past the lobbyists yet.
 
This is a good question. I hope you get some replies.

I think the answers are obvious; I was just going for a neutral curiosity type of vibe.:)


Just two weeks before the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) fully deregulated Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, a senior soil scientist alerted the department about a newly discovered, microscopic pathogen found in high concentrations of Roundup Ready corn and soy that researchers believe could be causing infertility in livestock and diseases in crops that could threaten the entire domestic food supply.

https://www.organicconsumers.org/ne...ew-pathogen-discovered-genetically-engineered
 
I'm curious as to why the politicians/scientists in so many countries have banned gyphosates and gmo's.

Are they stupid? Are they 'anti-science'? Simply paranoid? Rabid tree-hugging simpletons?

Or could it be that our experts in the U.S. have been - ahem - compromised by the financial incentives dangled before them? That couldn't possibly be, could it? Nah! It's obvious that our science is so much more advanced that the rest of the civilized world pales in comparison. :confused:

Contingency planning may become more vital to Monsanto as growing genetically modified crops face partial or complete bans in the following countries:
Ireland

GMO crops have been banned from growing in Ireland, and Ireland has a voluntary GM food labeling system.

Austria, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg and Bulgaria
These countries have banned GMO crops and have banned the sale of GM foods in their countries.

France
France has banned the growing of GM crops. As of May 16, 2012, France has re-instituted its ban on Monsanto’s MON810 GM corn from being grown in the country. A high court in France overturned a 2008 ban last year, but growing sentiment in France pushed the French minister of Agriculture to reinstate the ban this past May of 2012.

Germany
Germans have banned the growing of all GMO crops, except potatoes.

http://www.realnatural.org/many-countries-ban-gmo-crops-require-ge-food-labels/

I'm not sure what your or real natural.com's definition of ban is, but if a country allows import or cultivation of a GM crop, that doesn't seem like a ban to me. My last recollection was that there are only 2 countries on the planet that have official bans-Kenya and Peru if I remember correctly. Regarding glyphosate, I'm aware of Sri Lanka making a recent ban. What other countries have banned glyphosate?

My previous point stands even more clear now. The scientific organizations in those countries in Europe on your list, have in fact said that GM crops are as safe as their conventional counterparts. You tell me...do you think the science is ruling in those countries, or is it politics?
 
I'm not sure what your or real natural.com's definition of ban is, but if a country allows import or cultivation of a GM crop, that doesn't seem like a ban to me. My last recollection was that there are only 2 countries on the planet that have official bans-Kenya and Peru if I remember correctly. Regarding glyphosate, I'm aware of Sri Lanka making a recent ban. What other countries have banned glyphosate?

My previous point stands even more clear now. The scientific organizations in those countries in Europe on your list, have in fact said that GM crops are as safe as their conventional counterparts. You tell me...do you think the science is ruling in those countries, or is it politics?
Do you have a link to back up your statement re: GM crop safety?

Dr. Don Huber, a plant pathologist and retired Purdue University professor, wrote in a letter to the USDA that the pathogen is new to science and appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals and probably humans.

"For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks," Huber wrote in his January 16 letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. "Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency."

Huber called for an immediate moratorium on approvals of Roundup Ready crops, but on January 27, the USDA fully deregulated Roundup Ready alfalfa after nearly five years of legal battles with farmers and environmental groups. The USDA partially deregulated Roundup Ready sugar beats on February 4.

The pathogen is about the size of a virus and reproduces like a micro-fungal organism. According to Huber, the organism may be the first micro-fungus of its kind ever discovered, and there is evidence that the infectious pathogen causes diseases in both plants and animals, which is very rare.

So tell me, why did Tom Vilsack completely ignore the dire warnings of a soil scientist with Dr. Hubers credentials? Was it a science-based decision, or could it possibly have been influenced by a company that makes upwards of $16 billion a year (and spends tens of millions on lobbying and advertising designed the decision-makers in D.C.)http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...ng/lobbying-and-advertising.html#.VXidB8nFWCk
 
It's a complex issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there very limited data out there that says the acual GMO crops themselves are bad for your health? There are however many side effects to growing GMO foods. Vice did a report on this and said GMOs are hurting many small farmers in developing countries because crops not native to the area are genetically modified to succeed in the elements (drought resistant, pest-resistant, herbicide-resistant, etc.). Then, you get farmers mono-cropping and building large plantations which are pricing the small farmers out. Thus creating factory farms and eliminated many needed jobs in the area. Plus, mono-cropping is never good for the ecosystem. Another disadvantage, is I think GMOs have changed the diets of many people in the world to include less variety and fresh foods which has contributed to obesity.
 
Do you have a link to back up your statement re: GM crop safety?

Dr. Don Huber, a plant pathologist and retired Purdue University professor, wrote in a letter to the USDA that the pathogen is new to science and appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals and probably humans.

"For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks," Huber wrote in his January 16 letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. "Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency."

Huber called for an immediate moratorium on approvals of Roundup Ready crops, but on January 27, the USDA fully deregulated Roundup Ready alfalfa after nearly five years of legal battles with farmers and environmental groups. The USDA partially deregulated Roundup Ready sugar beats on February 4.

The pathogen is about the size of a virus and reproduces like a micro-fungal organism. According to Huber, the organism may be the first micro-fungus of its kind ever discovered, and there is evidence that the infectious pathogen causes diseases in both plants and animals, which is very rare.

So tell me, why did Tom Vilsack completely ignore the dire warnings of a soil scientist with Dr. Hubers credentials? Was it a science-based decision, or could it possibly have been influenced by a company that makes upwards of $16 billion a year (and spends tens of millions on lobbying and advertising designed the decision-makers in D.C.)http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...ng/lobbying-and-advertising.html#.VXidB8nFWCk
Has Dr. Huber actually shown evidence of this new pathogen yet, or is he still only talking about it vaguely in PowerPoint presentations in high school cafeterias? If he's actually shown evidence of it, that's news, and the world would like to see the organism.
Here are some of the previously mentioned statements from scientific organizations. It doesn't mean they shouldn't continued to be evaluated for safety, btw.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.png
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT