I heard you on Fresh Air and was very interested in the story of the banana. I was confused by one part of the story and I hope you can enlighten me. For the purpose of export to the U.S., the Gros Michel was dying out and needed to be replaced. What I didn't pick up from the interview was how the cavendish was selected as the replacement. Was it the only alternative available? You made it quite clear that the fruit companies did not like dealing with the cavendish because it was fragile and and needed very specific treatment for it to ripen properly and, on top of that, it didn't taste very good. You described how the fruit companies resisted the cavendish and many didn't believe it could ever catch on in the U.S. So, if the fruit companies didn't like it and the U.S. consumer didn't like it, why did it become the dominant banana? Was it the fact that it was the only thing available at the time? If it was/is the only viable alternative for export, shouldn't we be happy that we have it as opposed to no banana at all? The Gros Michel is never coming back to the U.S. through no fault of the cavendish; so it seems to me a little unfair to compare the two varieties because the Gros Michel isn't available and it was not forced out by the develpment of the cavendish or by some nerfarious machination of "Big Fruit."

This is an interesting agricultural story because typically the commercial interest force out the good-tasting heirloom varieties in favor or uniform, good-look and easy to ship varietys that have no flavor at all (e.g., tomatoes and strawberries) and then one day consumers realize they are eating produce with no flavor. The banana story is the opposite because both the commerical interests and the consumer liked the Gros Michel and neither liked the cavendish, yet the cavendish (as opposed to some other variety) took over.

thanks for any response to this.

Matt Paul