McDonald’s “Pesticide Conundrum” and the Solution it Will Probably Not Pursue (Part 1)
Companies with prominent, valuable, consumer “brands” are prime targets for activists because these entities cannot afford to ignore threats that might hurt their public image. Remember Nike and the foreign “sweat shop” issue. Consumer brands don’t get much bigger or more valuable than that of McDonald’s. To its credit, based on outside pressure or not, McDonald’s has provided leadership on nutritional, packaging and animal wellness issues over the years.
Recently, McDonald’s has come under lawsuit pressure from a number of groups over the issue of pesticide use on potatoes – one of the signature offerings of this chain. They had to agree to work to reduce those applications. It would be best to focus on reductions of the pesticides with the greater associated risks, but unfortunately the litigants probably don’t understand that there are huge differences between pesticides.
There are actually a lot of pesticides used on potatoes compared to other crops grown at that scale. One of the main reasons is that it is incredibly difficult to breed new potato cultivars. I’ve blogged about the difficulties of improving a non-hybrid crop like wheat, but that is nothing in comparison to potatoes. First of all, it is not a seeded crop. It is actually a “cloned” crop grown from “seed pieces” and it grows from the “eyes” that occasionally sprout in your pantry. It is possible to breed via the flowers and seed, but it is very slow. Potato cultivars that are 20 to more than 100 years old dominate the industry. Breeding in pest resistance isn’t really an option.















