The future of agriculture

A new report has highlighted the effect a rapidly growing human population is having on the world’s economy and environment. In the wide-ranging People and the Planet report, the Royal Society says that science and technology has a crucial role to play in offsetting these effects, including in the area of agricultural production.

According to the report, published this week, the global population will have reached 9.3 billion by the year 2050. While recognising the significant yield increases that have (and will be) achieved via the genetic improvement of crop plants, the authors also called for a focus on better crop management practices: “These include integrated pest control and inter-cropping systems, in addition to capital-intensive technologies such as precision agriculture which may offer large benefits in countries already practising intensive agriculture”.

The report recognises that technology will play “an increasing role” if more food is to be grown without requiring significantly more natural ecosystems to be turned over to farmland. 

So, if yield is so important, is there a future for organic agriculture? I’d argue yes, but as part of a new system which incorporates the best features of all agricultural ideals.

The Royal Society report comes as new research further confirmed the yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture but has shown that, given the right crop and growing conditions, organic can "nearly" match conventional yields.

Organic systems provide a number of tangible benefits over conventional agriculture, despite having generally lower yields. However, given the need for some crops, particularly cereals to keep pace with rapidly growing demand, the gap between that which can be provided by organic systems and which is required by a rapidly increasing global population is growing. 

In a paper published in the journal Nature this week, US and Canadian researchers used a meta-analysis of available information to conclude that, on average, organic yields are 25% lower than those produced in conventional agriculture. 

Depending on the type of crop examined, yield gaps varied significantly. For example, organic fruit production had, on average, just 3% lower yields than conventional fruit production. On the other hand, cereal production was seriously hampered by an organic system, with a yield reduction of 26% compared to conventional cereals, i.e. those produced with chemical pesticides and fertilisers.

The researchers showed that organic systems performed better in terms of yields, without matching conventional agriculture, when high levels of organic nitrogen were present, the organic system was well established and rain-fed irrigation systems were used.

Correct soil pH and the use of best management practices also influenced the yield gap, leading the authors to conclude that the results “suggest that today’s organic systems may nearly rival conventional yields in some cases—with particular crop types, growing conditions and management practices—but often they do not."

These new results support a study published earlier this year which also demonstrated a significant yield gap between organic and conventional. Researchers in The Netherlands used a meta-analysis to show that the yield gap was, on average, 20% in favour of conventional systems. 

These data should encourage further research in organic agricultural systems. The amount of research done on organic is tiny compared to conventional crop production. It is reasonable then to assume that, while perhaps never reaching the maximum yields possible with conventional systems, the advantages of organic, including biodiversity and soil conservation benefits should encourage us to look more closely at this type of agriculture.

the key will be to move away from the hard-line ideology of an organic versus conventional debate In my view, the key will be to move away from the hard-line ideology of an organic versus conventional debate and look to examine what features of all agricultural systems could be utilised in a multi-faceted approach, using complementary ideas from each camp. The importance of creating and maintaining high levels of soil biodiversity, such a crucial component of organic agriculture needs to be recognised in any new system. Conversely, the limiting factor that low levels of nitrogen in organic systems poses needs to be overcome. 

As the authors of this new research put it, there should not be winners and losers in this debate. The result should be a combination of what is best about organic and conventional crop production:

"There are many factors to consider in balancing the benefits of organic and conventional agriculture, and there are no simple ways to determine a clear ‘winner’ for all possible farming situations. However, instead of continuing the ideologically charged ‘organic versus conventional’ debate, we should systematically evaluate the costs and benefits of different management options. In the end, to achieve sustainable food security we will probably need many different techniques—including organic, conventional, and possible ‘hybrid’ systems—to produce more food at affordable prices, ensure livelihoods for farmers, and reduce the environmental costs of agriculture."

We need a new agriculture- one which is not limited by ideology but is informed by science and which is relevant for an era of a rapidly growing human population and an ever increasing demand for food and food security.

An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian's Notes and Theories blog. You can read it here.

On a lighter note...

Singing vegetables? Well, surely with current advances in GM crops, it can only be a matter of time! :) Via (broadsheet.ie)

The Vegetable Song (tweet @totallyeustus) from Si Bennett on Vimeo.

Potato Could Reduce Blood Pressure

Scientists report that just a couple servings of spuds a day reduces blood pressure almost as much as oatmeal without causing weight gain. Scientists reported on the research, done on a group of overweight people with high blood pressure, at the National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS), in Denver, Colorado this week.

The bad news is that the research was not done with chips or fries, but with potatoes cooked without oil in a microwave oven. Although researchers used purple potatoes, they believe that red-skin potatoes and white potatoes may have similar effects.

"The potato, more than perhaps any other vegetable, has an undeserved bad reputation that has led many health-conscious people to ban them from their diet," said Joe Vinson, who headed the research. "Mention 'potato' and people think 'fattening, high-carbs, empty calories'. In reality, when prepared without frying and served without butter, margarine or sour cream, one potato has only 110 calories and dozens of healthful phytochemicals and vitamins. We hope our research helps to remake the potato's popular nutritional image."

In the new study, 18 patients who were primarily overweight/obese with high blood pressure ate 6-8 purple potatoes (each about the size of a golf ball) with skins twice daily for a month. They used purple potatoes because the pigment, or coloring material, in fruits and vegetables is especially rich in beneficial phytochemicals including phenolic acids, anthocyanins and carotenoids. Scientists monitored the patients' blood pressure, both systolic (the higher number in a blood pressure reading like 120/80) and diastolic. The average diastolic blood pressure dropped by 4.3 percent and the systolic pressure decreased by 3.5 percent, said Vinson, who is with the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania and has done extensive research on healthful components in foods. The majority of subjects took anti-hypertensive drugs and still had a reduction in blood pressure. None of the study participants gained weight.

Vinson said that other studies have identified substances in potatoes with effects in the body similar to those of the well-known ACE-inhibitor medications, a mainstay for treating high blood pressure. Other phytochemicals in potatoes occur in amounts that rival broccoli, spinach and Brussels sprouts, and also may be involved, Vinson added.

high cooking temperatures seem to destroy most of the healthy substances in a potato Unfortunately for French fry and potato chip fans, those high cooking temperatures seem to destroy most of the healthy substances in a potato, leaving mainly starch, fat and minerals. Potatoes in the study were simply microwaved, which Vinson said seems to be the best way to preserve nutrients.

The purple potatoes used in the study are becoming more widely available in supermarkets and especially in specialty food stores and farmers' markets. Vinson said that he strongly suspects a future study using white potatoes, now in the planning stages, will produce similar results.

Chocolate & the Heart

I've currently got a large box of milk chocolates in my office. I'm being very good and limiting myself to a few every day. I know they aren't much good for me, but they are very tasty!

To attempt to use the recent chocolate research that says it is good for your heart as an excuse to eat the whole box here and now is missing the point completely.

The results of a 'meta-analysis' - i.e. combining the results of a number of studies, in this case seven, allowed the researchers to look at the chocolate consumption of 114,009 individuals along with their overall health. In this case, they looked at heart disease, diabetes and strokes.

The results show a 37% decrease in the incidence of cardiovascular disease in people who eat a high level of chocolate compared to people who eat a low level of the stuff. Although the work does not go into why this would be the case the authors note that this association may be due to "the high content of polyphenols present in cocoa products".

The authors are quick to caution against deciding that chocolate is the way forward for a healthy diet noting that commercially available chocolate is chock full of calories meaning that weight gain, hypertension and diabetes may be the side effects.

They suggest that we might look at the high levels of sugar and fat in commercially available chocolate and reduce it. This would allow us to be exposed to the beneficial effects of 'pure' chocolate, without too much of the nasty fats and sugars.

This is backed up by the British Heart Foundation. Their Senior Dietitian Victoria Taylor warned that "We can’t start advising people to eat lots of chocolate based on this research. It didn’t explore what it is about chocolate that could help and if one particular type of chocolate is better than another.

"there are much better places to start than at the bottom of a box of chocolates" - British Heart Foundation “If you want to reduce your heart disease risk, there are much better places to start than at the bottom of a box of chocolates. You can still eat chocolate as part of a balanced diet but moderation is key because this sweet treat is usually packed with saturated fat and calories.”

The authors noted that the studies they looked at in their meta-analysis didn't allow them to look at the differences between 'good' and 'bad; chocolate and the association with heart problems.

There are also problems with the use of such observational studies. As the authors themselves note: "Chocolate intake is likely to be underestimated by consumers". Now, where was that box of chocs?

The research is Open-Access and free to view by all here.

The Potato and Walter Raleigh: Never let the facts spoil a good story

I've got a particular interest in potatoes. Lots of my research is based on dealing with potato pests, so I've got an affection for the tuber.

That's why I was so excited to see a new website, potato.ie launched to promote the Irish potato as 'Ireland's Feel-Good Food'. Take a look, it's full of recipe ideas, fun facts and information about Solanum tuberosum.

If I've got one complaint, it is that the website highlights the supposed connection between Sir Walter Raleigh and the potato. A connection which is just not supported by the facts.

Under the the 'History' section of the website, they note that "popular myth credits its introduction at Youghal, Co. Cork by Sir Walter Raleigh. Other anecdotal evidence suggest that the potato was washed up on the shores of Cork after the wreck of the Spanish Armada in the area".

To be fair to the Irish Potato Federation, they make it clear that they consider the Raleigh story an urban (or should that be rural?) myth and so it is.

The potato originated in South America and what is at question here is how it got to Europe and, in particular, how it got to Ireland and the UK.

The Walter Raleigh myth is a really nice story and in many ways, I'd really like it to be true, but academics and historians are pretty sure that it's not. The story 'dies hard' though due to is widespread publicity and legendary status.

The most likely theory for the introduction of potato to Ireland and Britain is that it arrived from Spain. The author William Coles wrote in London in 1657 about “the potatoes which we call Spanish because they were first brought up to us out of Spain, grew originally in the Indies…”

Even as far back as 1727, there was clearly a view that the potato came from Spain (and indeed there was people willing to reject that argument). The Anglo-Irish botanist Caleb Threlkeld wrote pompously:

“Those who would give to the Spaniards the honour of entrencing (sic) this useful root called the potato, give me leave to call designing parricides, who stirred up the mislead zeal of the people of this kingdom to cast off the English government which is the greatest mercy they ever enjoyed… To ascribe the honour of the English industry to the effeminate Spaniards cannot be passed over without remark… and if I might advise the inhabitants, they should every meal they eat of this root be thankful to the Creator for English navigation.”

"every meal they eat of this root be thankful to the Creator for English navigation"What a wonderful rant! But perhaps he protests too strongly? It's useful to note that nowhere does Threlkeld mention Raleigh to back up his assertions. Surely if the Raleigh myth was in play back in 1727, the author would have played it as his trump card? This suggests that Raleigh's name was introduced at a later date to support this argument.

The Spanish theory is also supported by Irish oral tradition.Seán O Neachtain wrote the poem Cáth Bearna Chroise Brighde (The Battle of the Gap of St. Bridget’s Cross) in 1750 and this clearly supports the Spanish theory.

The poem is a very lengthy account of a fictional battle, which takes place near Tallaght in Co. Dublin (the poem extends to 218 short verses).

In it, O'Neachtain refers to the potato as "An Spaineach Geal" - the kind-hearted Spaniard and refers to its supporters as "the friends of the Spaniards". At the beginning of the poem, the poet mourns the loss of "my dear Spaniard" saying his death will be "death for the gaels, woe to them all".

Clearly then there were cultural references to the Spanish Introduction in 18th Century Ireland. When exactly Raleigh's name became involved in the story is unclear. Brewer (1826) certainly links Raleigh to the introduction and says it happened in 1588 when Raleigh was Mayor of Youghal.

Whatever the truth, the Raleigh myth is an endearing one and there is little doubt that the southwest of Ireland is a location were potato cultivation was understood and practiced at an early stage, perhaps because of the mild climate. It is possible that Raleigh was used as a figurehead for those wanting to give the vegetable a more 'appropriate' or British image in light of its connections to Spain.

As a piece of fiction, the Raleigh myth is a great one, but we shouldn't confuse fact with fiction, even if it does spoil a good story.

Is Féidir Linn: Obama was right

Image: WhiteHouse

Barack Obama visited Ireland this week and while visiting his ancestral home in Moneygall, he announced that the Guinness really does taste better in Ireland than anywhere else in the world.

"The first time I had Guinness," Obama said, "is when I came to the Shannon airport. We were flying into Afghanistan and so stopped in Shannon. It was the middle of the night. And I tried one of these and I realized it tastes so much better here than it does in the States."

"What I realized was, is that you guys are -- You’re keeping all the best stuff here!”

And maybe he's right.

According to a recent piece of research published in the Journal of Food Science, Guinness does not travel well. 

Like all great funny stories to come out of a pub, it started with an Irishman, Englishman, Dutchman and German walking into a bar. The four spent a year of their spare time (probably quite happily) testing the stout across 14 different countries.

During what the authors light-heartedly describe as "extensive pretesting", a number of factors were considered as to what makes the perfect pint. Ultimately this included such measurements as the height of the head on the pint, temperature and flavour.

Additionally, in order to capture the entire experience, such factors as pub temperature, bartenders sex and nationality, level of experience and technique were also considered. It was certainly a thorough approach. 

Even the presence of females in the drinking company was considered.  The authors found that the presence of women did not “inflict any unplanned blinding of the testers, who were all dedicated to the measurements”.

For the statistically minded amongst us (come on, admit it), the research paper also involved one of the most appropriate uses of a statistical test I've seen.

From the factors considered, the authors were able to score each pint using a specially designed Guinness Overall Enjoyment Score (GOES) which, of course, needed to be compared from country to country.

To do this, the authors used what is known as Student's t-test: a relatively simple way of establishing whether there are significant differences between two groups of data, in this case, between pints in Ireland and pints consumed outside Ireland.

Student: Willaim Sealy Gossett

This is particularly apt, given that the t-test was developed at the Guinness brewery in Dublin by one William Sealy Gossett. In 1908, Gossett developed the test to monitor and improve the average annual yield of barley. Due to the competitive advantage the test could provide, Guinness were reluctant to let Gossett publish the work under his own name so he used the pseudonym Student.

The results of this t-test are clear. Pints consumed in Ireland had a mean GOES score of 74, compared to a score of 57 in pubs outside Ireland. While Ireland may not necessarily keep the best stuff to themselves, the science is clear, it tastes better over here.

[Is Féidir Linn: (Irish) Yes we can!]

An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian's Notes and Theories Blog. You can read it here. 

Enjoy this post? It's been shortlisted for the 3QD Science Writing Prize. Please consider voting for it. It takes just a few seconds. See here for details.

A weighty matter

I think we all recognise that over the past few decades, the average person has become a more sedentary creature. It's nice then to get some data to back it up.

Researchers have looked at US data on occupations and physical activity and shown that, since the 1960's, the estimated mean daily energy expenditure due to the job we do has dropped by more than 100 kcal.

While this is US data, it should inform the obesity debate in this part of the world. A recent report from the European Commission found that 23% of Irish adults are considered obese. While an OECD report in 2010 found that Ireland was the second most overweight country in Europe.

The researchers used data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

The findings suggest that this significant reduction in calories expended daily accounts for a "significant portion of the increase in mean US body weights for women and men".

Figure 1. Service, goods producing and agriculture jobs in US from 1960 to 2008.

The proportion of Americans in 'service' jobs as opposed to manufacturing, construction and agricultural jobs has increased hugely since 1960. (Fig 1)

As you might expect, the amount of physical activity involved in something like financial services or teaching is much less than that required for agricultural or construction (the most energy intensive) jobs (Fig 2). Hence, the fall in average daily energy expenditure.

Figure 2. Estimated median and range of physical activity intensity (METs) as well as the estimated caloric expenditure of each occupation.

Employment is, of course, not the only factor involved here. For example, the authors note that since 1960, the amount of energy spent on housework has 'greatly decreased' for women and slightly increased for men.

Diet and exercise probably remain the two most important factors which we can influence but it is interesting to see that the job we do also influences our likelihood to be overweight.

Things like how we travel to work, whether we use stairs or not were not considered in the study and it is unlikely to be as clearcut as we might like to think.

The results come as Safefood Ireland launch a two-year Stop the Spread campaign to encourage Irish people to measure their real waist size.

Safe Food say that only 38% of adults believe they are overweight. In fact, 66% of the public are overweight. The other 285 just don't know it or are in denial!


Reference: 
Church TS, Thomas DM, Tudor-Locke C, Katzmarzyk PT, Earnest CP, et al. (2011) Trends over 5 Decades in U.S. Occupation-Related Physical Activity and Their Associations with Obesity. PLoS ONE 6(5): e19657. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019657

Oldest Wine Making Equipment Discovered

Scientists working in Armenia have confirmed the discovery of the oldest wine-making equipment ever found.

The group of archaeologists, including Ron Pinhasi, from University College Cork have been excavating the cave site in the Little Caucasus mountains near the Armenian border with Iran since 2007.

It is the same cave where, last June, Pinhasi announced the discovery of the world's oldest surviving shoe - a 5,500-year-old leather moccasin.

Gregory Areshian (UCLA), co-director of the excavation announced that "For the first time, we have a complete archaeological picture of wine production dating back 6,100 years".

The find was triggered when ancient grape seeds were discovered in the cave in 2007. Archaeologists subsequently found a 3 feet by 3.5 feet basin which they believe served as a wine press. It is estimated that the basin would have held around 56 litres of liquid.

While no evidence of any implement used to crush the grapes was found, this doesn't trouble Areshian: "People obviously were stomping the grapes with their feet, just the way it was done all over the Mediterranean and the way it was originally done in California".

The researchers found large quantities of grape seeds, pressed grapes, grape must and vines around the basin and paleobotanists were able to confirm that the species of grape used was Vitis vinifera - the same domesticated grape variety which is used to this day to produce wine.

6,100-year-old desiccated grape stems and dried, pressed grapes  found on and around the wine press (Photo Credits: G. Areshian)

 

Up till now, the closet comparable collection of this type was made in an Egyptian tomb and dated to around 3,150 BC.

The scientists say the find is particularly important because of the level of confidence they can have that the site was used to produce wine. Radiocarbon dating of plant material, paleobotanical analysis of the fruit remains and the presence of the chemical malvidin all support the wine-making theory. Malvidin, a deep red molecule which gives grapes and wine their red colour is "highly reliable evidence of wine" according to Areshian.

However, the wine isn't thought to have been used for recreational purposes, or as Areshian says: "This wine wasn't used to unwind at the end of the day". The wine press was found in close proximity to dozens of grave sites and the wine is thought to have played a ceremonial role.

Assessing Risk: GM, Food Safety and Science in Europe

Recent revelations from WikiLeaks show that the US government was deeply concerned about opposition to GM crops in Europe back in 2007. However, a recent poll suggests that just 8% of European consumers believe it is the most important food safety concern.

When respondents to the Eurobarometer survey (pdf) were asked to explain, in their own words, what possible problems or risks they associate with food and eating, there was no single, widespread concern that was cited by a majority of respondents. 

The survey found that the presence of chemicals (such as pesticides, herbicides, etc.) in the food was the concern most cited (19% of respondents). Food poisoning was the second most frequently cited (12%), followed by diet-related diseases (10%), lack of freshness (9%), the presence of food additives (9%), with other issues such as the traceability of food and ‘BSE’ (‘mad cow disease’) also being mentioned.

Eight percent of the respondents throughout the 27 EU member states spontaneously (i.e. without prompting) cited GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) as a problem or risk associated with their food. A similar percentage of respondents “Didn’t know” of any potential risks and 9% said they could think of no problem associated with their food.

When specifically asked about  genetically modified organisms, the percentage of respondents worried about GMOs in their food ranges from under half of the sample in Ireland (46%), Sweden and UK (both 48%) up to 81% in both Greece and Lithuania. Overall 66% of the total EU respondents said they were “very worried” or “fairly worried” about GMOs in their food. This ranked in fifth place when compared to 16 other possible risks that respondents were specifically asked about.

In fact, GMOs in food and drink was a topic found to fit into the “Medium Levels of Worry” list in the survey, alongside such topics as the quality and freshness of food; the welfare of farmed animals; and the risk of food poisoning.

The survey also found that European consumers are almost evenly divided over whether they believe scientific advice on food related risks is independent of commercial or political interference.  The results pose interesting questions for scientists across Europe, particularly in light of the WikiLeak revelations.

Just 47% of respondents agreed that such scientific advice was “independent of commercial or political interests”. A significant minority of 41% of consumers disagreed on this point.

The survey found that consumers felt most confident about information regarding food safety that they obtained from health professionals (84% totally confident) and family and friends (82%). 73% of consumers were totally confident about such information being provided by scientists. In contrast, 19% of respondents were “not very confident” in information of this type from scientists and 4% were “not at all confident”.

The highest levels of total confidence in scientists were in the Czech Republic (87%) and Finland (86%) with the lowest levels of confidence in Germany and Slovenia (both 65%). The EU average was 73%.

While a high level of trust in scientists appears to exist across Europe on this issue of food safety, the results should be seen in light of findings published in June (pdf) of this year where 53% of Europeans felt that because of their knowledge, scientists “have a power that makes them dangerous”.

Consumers appear to be reluctant to rely on the media for information about food safety, with 48% of respondents citing mainstream media (TV, newspapers, etc.) as a source of information they would have confidence in, compared to “the internet” which was a trusted source of information on food safety for 41% of respondents. 

Interestingly, the report shows that when consumers hear news about unsafe or unhealthy food, 25% of them worry about the problem but ultimately don’t do anything about it, by changing diet, etc. Approximately another quarter ignore the news story and do nothing about it. 

The most common reaction (approx one third of respondents) was to avoid the food mentioned for a while, but then return to eating it. Just one in ten said that they permanently changed their eating habits in response to a news story.

The results of this survey indicate that, while GMOs are a concern for European consumers, they are by no means at the top of the list when it comes to concerns about food. Europeans appear to be much more worried about, what we might call ‘traditional’ food concerns like food poisoning and pesticide residues, than the presence or absence of genetically modified organisms in the food chain.

Despite some misgivings, scientists are seen by European consumers as being the third most trustworthy grouping from which to obtain food-safety information. This makes the need for scientists to communicate effectively about the issues involved in food safety all the more important.

Christmas Science 16: Orange

Tory Parker (Credit :Mark Philbrick)

In the run up to Christmas, Communicate Science offers you 20 Christmas Science Facts. We'll post one every day until the 25th December.

Orange
Scientists in Utah are taking the humble orange - that classic Christmas stocking filler and trying to find the right mixture of its healthy compounds responsible for their age-old health benefits.

The popular stocking stuffer is known for its vitamin C and blood-protecting antioxidants, but researchers wanted to learn why a whole orange is better for you than its components when taken separately. The ultimate outcome of the research could be a super-supplement that captures the best health benefits of eating oranges and drinking orange juice.

"There's something about an orange that's better than taking a vitamin C capsule, and that's really what we're trying to figure out," said Tory Parker, the Nutritionist that led the study. "We think it's the particular mixture of antioxidants in an orange that makes it so good for you."

The research, carried out at Brigham Young University has just been published in Journal of Food Science.
Parker noted supplement companies often mix "high concentrations of extracts from blueberry and blackberry and orange and throw them all together and hope it's good."

He wanted to avoid such assumptions by testing dozens of combinations of the antioxidants found in an orange at the same proportions they occur naturally. 

They identified several combinations of antioxidants that were the most synergistic - the compounds hesperidin and naringenin, in particular, appeared to contribute the most punch in the combinations.

Those are the mixtures Parker will continue to research in human studies to evaluate whether their health effects mimic those of eating an orange. He and his students are also conducting similar work with blueberries and strawberries.

"I'm really most interested in protecting healthy people and keeping the healthy, healthy," Parker said. "And no matter what our research finds, it's very clear that a great way to do that is to simply eat more fruit."

Christmas Science 11: Christmas Cheer

In the run up to Christmas, Communicate Science offers you 20 Christmas Science Facts. We'll post one every day until the 25th December.

Christmas Cheer
Scientists have shown that drinking some alcohol with your Christmas dinner is  not likely to increase indigestion.

While alchol may slow down digestion after a rich calorific meal, it won't cause heartburn, belching or bloating, according to an article published in a recent issue of the British Medical Journal.

In order to determine the effects of alcohol on the digestive system when rich meals are consumed, investigators at the University Hospital of Zurich, led by Dr Mark Fox now at the Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham, studied 20 individuals who either drank wine or black tea with cheese fondue followed by cherry liqueur or water as a digestive after the famous Swiss dish.

Fox and colleagues say that while they concentrated on fondue the results of their research "can be generalised to address the wider issue of alcohol's effects on digestion and digestive comfort after any large, rich meal of the kind we all enjoy over the festive season".

Twenty healthy volunteers (14 male and six female) aged between 23 and 58 took part in the study. None of the participants had a history of alcohol misuse or stomach disease. They had an average body mass index (BMI) of 23.6 and none were taking prescription medicine.

The participants were tested on two days at least one week apart. Half of the group drank white wine with their fondue and the other half drank black tea. This was followed by a cherry liqueur digestive (schnapps) or water 90 minutes later.

The research team used established scientific breath tests to assess the effects of alcohol consumption on the digestive system.

The results show that the process of digestion was much slower in the group that drank alcohol with their fondue. However the results also demonstrate that alcohol did not contribute to an increase in indigestion problems such as heartburn, belching and bloating.

The authors conclude that "healthy readers should be reassured that they can continue to enjoy this traditional meal with the beverage of their choice without undue concern about postprandial digestive discomfort".

Agriculture: Here are the questions...now what are the answers?

A multidisciplinary team of 55 agricultural and food experts from 23 countries have come together to identify the 100 "Questions of Importance" to the Future of world agriculture.

Dr. Colin Sage, from UCC's Department of Geography was the sole contibutor from Ireland.

"We need to build greater resilience and adaptability into the global food system and that is likely to involve giving more serious attention to encouraging shifts in patterns of consumption as well as to finding ways of producing more food more sustainably" said Dr. Sage.

The authors began with an initial list of 618 questions before reducing them to the top 100 over a year long period. Thirteen themes were identified as priority to global agriculture and food production.

These themes include "Climate, watersheds, water resources and aquatic ecosystems" as well as a theme on "Crop genetic improvement" and "Consumption patterns and health".

The report was published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability and is free to download here.

Organic veg no more nutritious

New research from Denmark shows that there are no significant health benefits to be had from eating organic vegetable compared to conventionally-grown vegetables.

The researchers examined the nutritional contents of carrots, onions and potatoes grown under both regimes and in particular, they looked at the concentrations of polyphenol antioxidant compounds such as flavonoids and phenolic acids- compounds which are believed to reduce the risk of dementia, cardiovascular disease and some cancers.

The results of the study, published in The Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry show that in onions and carrots, there was no difference in the amount of these compounds between conventionally and organically grown crops; while in potatoes there was a small increase in organically grown potatoes.

The researchers point out that the slight increase in the potato samples may be due to these plants being grown on a different farm.

As reported in an interview in this morning's Irish Examiner, Grace Maher of the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association claimed that this was "an isolated study" and that their research showed that people bought organic because "it is free from pesticides, free from GM materials...we also believe that organic food is more nutritious."

Despite what people might "believe", the evidence that organic food is no more nutritious has been shown previously.

A study in July 2009 by the UK Food Standards Agency showed that there was no significant differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally grown plants. So, the idea that this is an "isolated study" is incorrect.

The incorrect assumption that organically-grown produce tastes better than other foods has also been disproved by a team of Irish researchers.

As reported on this blog earlier this year, scientists based in Dublin Institute of Technology have shown that a panel of consumer tasters could find no significant difference between organic and non-organic potatoes.

As I've pointed out here in the past, while there may be some environmental benefits in "going organic" the effect on the food itself and on consumer health seems to be in some dispute.

Why I don't believe Organic is always best

It's that time of year again. Fresh coats of paint are being applied to university walls and the place is being given a good polish to make sure it's spick and span before the undergraduate students return to the hallowed halls of academia.

While preparing some 2nd-year lectures for the coming term I was struck by an interesting trend which has emerged.

Every year, I begin a module on Plant Biotechnology by putting the raw facts on global hunger in front of the students. In large, bold lettering I display a figure representing the number of people worldwide who the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation say are suffering from hunger or are undernourished.

For the last 15 years (and I haven't been teaching that long!) this figure has grown steadily up to a record of 1.02 billion people last year (the highest number in four decades). So, every year I'd diligently delete the old number and put in the new one. It's such a quick task to take care of that it often fades into the background with all the other updates and changes that I'm making to the module.

However, perhaps we need to pause a little and think of the people behind the figures. Last year, for example, I changed the figure from around 800 million to that staggering 1 billion figure. When you really think about it, that is horrific. In the space of 12 months, 200 million MORE people slipped into such poverty that they were unable to feed themselves and their families properly.

The relatively good news is that this year's report, released this week shows the first decline in this headline figure for 15 years. Today, 925 million people are undernourished worldwide.

This week also marks National Organic Week 2010 and while I have no problem with buying organic as it has significant positive impacts on the agricultural environments; improving soil health and biodiversity, etc., one has to admit that it is a niche market which is a luxury of well-off, developed nations and does little to support those 925 million people on the UN list.

I'm not trying to apportion blame here, and global hunger has much to do with politics and warfare as well as agriculture. Organic food is, by and large, good, healthy, safely produced food, but so is non-organically prodced food. The difference is, yields with organic foods are so low that they must be more expensive and in limited supply.

If human undernourishment is to be tackled, it will be done by supporting farmers to produce food in developing countries using the best, most high-yielding technologies that are available to them. Yes, that will include such organic methods such as good crop rotation, incorporation of nutrient-rich organic matter and the maintenance of high levels of biodiversity to encourage natural biocontrol systems.

However, it may well also include the safe and controlled use of chemical herbicides and pesticides to control weeds and pest species and the use of improved plant varieties with high yields and the ability to grow under adverse conditions.

The onset of global climate change will require new plant varieties which can grow under different conditions: high temperature, high levels of moisture, high salt stress, etc. Some of these new varieties may well be genetically modified.

So, as I see it, one of the solutions to this problem is to use all available farming approaches from organic to GM. There is no reason why a combination of techniques shouldn't be used if that is what it takes to reduce that terrible figure even further.

Global Hunger 2010, Source: UN FAO

How to create GM crops

Scientists at the Sainsbury Laboratory explain how they have produced blight-resistant potatoes using plant tissue culture. For more on this story, see our earlier post.

Man does not live on bread alone...

Examination of paintings of the Last Supper have shown that portion size has increased dramatically over the years.



"If art imitates life and if food portions have been generally increasing with time, we might expect this trend to be reflected in paintings that depict food" according to Brian and Craig Wansink, the former a economist and the later a theologian.


Writing in the International Journal of Obesity, the academics compared the "food-to-head ratio" in 52 of the best known depictions of the Last Supper. In 18% of the paintings, the attendees were depicting as enjoying fish as their main dish. Lamb (14%) and pork (7%) were also recorded with 46% of the paintings having no discernable main dish.


The authors showed a significant positive relationship between the relative size of that main dish and the passage of time from 1000 BC - 2000 BC. This means that as time progressed, portion size got larger.


"The last thousand years have witnessed dramatic increases in the production, availability, safety, abundance and affordability of food. We think that as art imitates life, these changes have been reflected in paintings of history's most famous dinner", said co-author Brian Wansink.

Tasty spuds need not be organic

A group of Irish scientists have shown that there is no difference in taste between organically and conventionally grown potatoes.

In a study published in this month's edition of the International Journal of Food Science and Technology, Clare Hilsenan, Roisin Burke and Catherine Barry-Ryan from Dublin Institute of Technology, reported that a panel of consumer tasters could find no significant difference between organic and non-organic potatoes.

Organic potatoes (of the cultivar Orla) were grown near Navan, Co. Meath and were fertilised with composted manure rather than the synthetic fertiliser applied to the conventional potatoes (also grown in Navan). Since potato blight (caused by Phytophthora infestans) is a serious fungal pest of potatoes in Ireland, the conventionally grown spuds were sprayed with a liquid copper fungicide designed to control the fungus. Since such synthetic additives are not permitted in organic agriculture, the organic potatoes were treated with Burgundy (a mixture of copper sulphate and washing soda).

Despite Burgundy currently being permitted in organic agriculture (like the related Bordeaux mixture) there are some doubts about the impact repeated applications of a copper-based treatment has on the local environment to which it is applied. Copper sulphate is toxic to some fish and if it finds its way into water bodies, can cause significant problems. It has also been shown to cause problems for bees, sheep, chickens and especially earthworms who are crucial for proper soil health and therefore the success of an organic agricultural system.

However, the use of Burgundy is a side issue and the study in question deals with the eventual taste of the harvested potatoes.

The potatoes from both sources were taken to the laboratory and baked in the oven.The colour, texture and the dry matter content of the  potatoes were measured as well as the pH and the amount of sugar present in the samples.

"tasters were asked to assess flavour, texture and aroma"Then comes the fun bit. A group of ten tasters (trained to international standards!) were asked to assess the flavour, texture and aroma of the raw and cooked potatoes. This involved them sitting in specially constructed booths were the temperature and light was controlled to insure that they were influenced by outside interference. As well as that, the order in which the samples were tasted were randomised in order to ensure that each had an equal chance of being first or last.

As well as these specially trained tasters, a panel of 80 regular potato eaters was gathered from amongst the staff and students of DIT and asked to assess cooked potatoes under the headings colour, aroma, texture and taste.

"some chefs may not agree with us" - Roisin Burke, DITThe results of the taste-tests were analysed and make for interesting reading. The trained panel of tasters found the organic potatoes to be harder, and drier than the conventionals.In terms of colour, aroma and taste, no significant differences were found between organic and conventionally grown samples.

When the 'untrained' consumer panel reported, they again found no statistical differences in the appearance, aroma, texture and taste.

Since the price difference between organic and conventionally- grown fruit and vegetables is sometimes staggering, these results indicate that taste should not be a factor in our decision if we choose conventional over organic potatoes. An analysis by the Sunday Times showed that 1 kg of organic potatoes cost €2 in Tesco this week compared to €1.06 for 1 kg of conventional spuds.

Speaking to that newspaper, one of the authors Roisin Burke noted that "some chefs may not agree with us" and that "There are other reasons why people eat organic potatoes, such as the lack of pesticides, but we found no difference in taste.”