<p>The NYTimes reports that a Cornell University scientist, supported by Monsanto Inc., has developed a new variety of broccoli that will stay fresher longer and be produced and transported at lower cost than the stuff typically found in American supermarkets today, which deteriorates rather quickly.</p>
<p>Hey, I know there have been great advances in biology and crop farming in the U.S. over the years, but is this another case of a solution looking for a problem? If local broccoli is the best option, then why should I complain that broccoli shipped from California (the leading producer) is mediocre when sold in east coast markets? In my opinion it’s like insisting that fresh “locally grown” tropical fruit be available everyday of the year in Anchorage, Seattle and Minneapolis. In other words, it really isn’t feasible. Isn’t that why we have frozen vegetables, to make such fresh goods available in places where they can’t be produced by local or regional farmers?</p>
<p>Or that people need to remember to eat their local or not local “fresh” vegetables before they go bad! Not the producers fault if you leave your broccoli in the veggie bin in the refrig for two weeks and then it doesn’t taste good!</p>
<p>Our household eats an enormous amount of broccoli–living in California, it’s cheap and easy to get the good stuff. Until reading that NYT article I hadn’t really grasped that the rest of the country doesn’t get the same thing I take for granted. </p>
<p>LakeWashington, I wouldn’t agree that local broccoli is the best option for the rest of the country. If the new, improved broccoli is easier to ship and store, then the economic and environmental costs might mean that it’s better to be dining in NYC on broccoli brought in from California instead of local broccoli. </p>
<p>“Does the American Kitchen Need New Engineered Vegetables?”</p>
<p>No. We don’t need dishwashers or microwaves, either. Or fresh vegetables instead of frozen, or frozen instead of canned. Some of these things can be convenient, or enjoyable.
Can you cite this? I read an article in the NYT about a Cornell researcher’s work on broccoli. It described the development of a variety that can handle the warm nighttime temperatures of the Eastern US, allowing for greater local production. I don’t remember anything about staying fresh longer.</p>
<p>That’s the same article I read. Unless I misunderstood, he argued that the new variety could be planted on farms on the eastern seaboard, where it would flourish despite the hot summer nights there (as opposed to the temperate California nights). Therefore, he argued, plentiful east coast broccoli would be shipped to eastern markets instead of California broccoli, creating savings in transportation costs. Shorter traveling distance means the product is more fresh than competing goods shipped over longer distances.</p>
<p>Yes, I think that’s right. As far as I know, the new varieties don’t stay fresh any longer after harvest compared to CA broccoli. They just get to consumers in less time thanks to geographic advantage.</p>
<p>You call this an “engineered” vegetable. People create new varieties of vegetables, fruits, and flowers all the time, for one reason or another. I personally adore the Knock-Out roses for their durability and ease of growth; I don’t particularly care how the variety was developed.</p>
<p>Varieties of broccoli developed for the eastern market, where nights are much warmer than nights here in Oregon (which is why my beloved Brandywine tomatoes don’t grow well here), would allow farmers to sell local broccoli at their farmer’s market, as just one benefit.</p>
<p>Engineered produce doesn’t frighten me, as humans have been doing it in one fashion or another for hundreds of years. What raises my eyebrow is the fact that so much effort is being spent on this. I’ve come to accept the fact that in my region, some produce will not be plentiful out of season, or that some winter vegetables from Florida will invariably be bland. As a friend used to jokingly say, a tomato grown in December will never taste good in New York.</p>
<p>emerald----All I have to say is, “OH MY GOD!!” You have ruined my appetite! I will never eat a rock again. Now I have to go console myself with another glass of wine. Jeez!</p>
<p>Monsanto should consider investing into development of better packaging materials for produce to prevent spoilage in transit, e.g., materials that keep moisture at the optimal level and deplete oxygen inside the package.</p>
<p>Okay, busdriver, I need a glass of wine, too, after seeing THAT. :)</p>
<p>I realize that Monsanto has gotten much criticism from folks whom believe that the company has improperly manipulated its share of agribusiness (seed propagation and marketing?), but I’m willing to take an objective look at any new ideas from them to see if there’s a significant, safe and healthy benefit for farmers and we consumers.</p>
<p>I might actually buy fresh broccoli regularly if this product came on the market.</p>
<p>Right now, I don’t buy it unless I intend to serve it on the day when I do the shopping. If I buy it for future use, it usually spoils before I get around to serving it. </p>
<p>Modern life is unpredictable. It’s often hard to know in the morning whether you will have time to cook a meal that same evening. If you don’t, the fresh produce in your fridge gets one day older. Frozen produce isn’t necessarily an adequate substitute. It works fine in some circumstances but not others. (If you intend to serve your broccoli raw as part of a salad, frozen won’t work.)</p>
<p>I think there could be a market for this product. And if there isn’t, it will fail commercially. I would like to see it have a shot at success.</p>
<p>I imagine the new variety they’re making will also be useful outside of the United States.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I imagine for it to be profitable the cost savings of using Monsanto product will have to be greater than the cost of shipping and processing “normal” broccoli (Do we even know where the seed for the current type of broccoli grown in CA comes from?). Does reducing the shipping cost for food really sound like that bad of an idea?</p>
<p>Yes we do. As humans, we have been manipulating nature for centuries. Often blindly with consequences to the environment and our bodies. I would prefer a more scientific approach because the facts are that we will continue to manipulate foods and the environment regardless of the method.</p>