By Alexander Paulchell

With its mild flavor, creamy texture, and bright yellow peel, the banana almost seems designed for human consumption. Although dozens of banana varieties exist, the most traded is the Cavendish (fig. 1), with global production exceeding 50 million tons annually (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Native to Southeastern Asia (Reynolds, 1927), the banana’s global spread reflects a complex history of human intervention. Scientific manipulations, including selective breeding and clonal reproduction, have shaped the fruit consumers enjoy today while producing plants that are also highly vulnerable to disease. Bananas could be given genetically engineered immunity, but early evidence suggests consumers distrust genetically modified (GM) foods. Science education encourages trust but overwhelming, contradictory information creates a misalignment between science and individual thought.

The banana’s dominance results from a combination of inherent biological traits and technological developments. Bananas possess a thick, protective peel and require little preparation before eating, making them popular with Western consumers by the early 20th century (Rogers, 1913). The nutritional and economic value of the fruit furthered its popularity as bananas were cheap, controlling for cost per pound and per calorie. Advancements in refrigeration technology allowed bananas to reach distant markets as steamships and trucks were integrated into the supply chain. With favorable biology, improved technology, and effective marketing, the banana became a sustenance for the masses. Yet the fruit reaching store shelves had already been manipulated to solve one pesky problem: large, inedible seeds.

 Wild bananas contain seeds that humans cannot digest, requiring agricultural intervention to be commodifiable (fig 2).  Most commercial bananas are hybrid species with triploid offspring containing three sets of chromosomes instead of the typical two (Cenci et al., 2019). Triploid plants are sterile and therefore seedless, producing the smooth texture consumers expect. But because they cannot reproduce through seeds, farmers propagate bananas by planting cuttings from existing plants. Over generations, this process produced uniform crops but eliminated genetic diversity, leaving bananas highly susceptible to pathogens.

Prior to the Cavendish rise in the 1950s, the Gros Michel banana dominated global markets. Grown through the same hybridization and cutting techniques, the Gros Michel was devastated by Fusarium wilt, a fungal disease infecting roots, thereby killing the plant and contaminating soil for months (Robinson, J. C., & Galán Saúco, 2010). The Cavendish replaced Gros Michel because it was resistant to the original Fusarium strain. But while bananas are kept unchanged, pathogens evolve. The new, rapidly spreading strain of Fusarium wilt, Tropical Race 4 (TR4), is lethal to the Cavendish. In response, agricultural scientists in Australia developed a GM Cavendish banana by inserting TR4-resistant genes into their genome (Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, 2024). But despite scientific opportunity, public skepticism towards GM foods may limit the adoption of this solution.

Following the development of TR4-resistant bananas, Australia’s Department of Health and Aging conducted a formal risk assessment (Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, 2024). Scientific experts interviewed expressed little concern about human health risks, noting that unintended effects from GM crops are similar to those of traditional breeding techniques. Consumer responses differed sharply, voicing concerns about long-term human side effects and suggesting that trust in science has eroded. American attitudes reflect similar patterns as discussions of GM foods evoke fear, anger, and disgust (Sohi et al., 2023; Kolodinsky et al., 2023). Public attitudes towards biotechnology are shaped by varied influences including education, social media, and online news sources. As a result, decisions about scientific issues are increasingly guided by emotional reactions rather than scientific evidence. 

There is a growing epistemic distance between the knower and the knowledge which must be reduced to restore trust in science. Social constructivist learning theories emphasize that knowledge develops through social interaction and collaboration (Vygotsky, 1978). Within this framework, newcomers learn the practices of a community by participating alongside experienced members (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Science classrooms function as communities of practice in which students gradually learn how scientific knowledge is produced and legitimized. While students are unlikely to all become genetic engineers, they can learn the central practice of scientific argumentation. Constructing scientific arguments requires claims, evidence from trusted sources, and reasoning to connect them (NGSS Lead States, 2013). One of the most challenging aspects of argumentation is identifying credible evidence. In many classrooms, argumentation is situated around innocuous examples, such as data showing acreage of GM crops in the United States. (Miller & Levine, 2019). When addressing contentious topics, however, students must learn how to evaluate the credibility of sources. Osbourne & Pimentel (2023) recommend teaching students to examine conflicts of interest, institutional accreditation, and forms of peer recognition that signal expertise. In this way, students learn not to simply accept scientific claims but to understand how credibility is established to hopefully reduce the epistemic distance between science and personal understanding.

Science education teaches students how to make informed decisions about the natural world. Increasingly, these decisions involve complex interactions between science, technology, and society. Addressing scientific mistrust therefore requires teaching scientific knowledge but also the practices through which that knowledge is established. By learning how to identify credible evidence, students can better navigate competing claims and develop confidence in scientific information (Urry et al., 2017). The future of the banana illustrates the stakes of this challenge. The Cavendish banana faces a disease capable of destroying global production. Both the cause of this vulnerability and the proposed genetic solution require public understanding of modern biotechnology. While emotions are part of the social reality of science classrooms, teaching students how scientific communities evaluate evidence can build informed trust. The banana’s domination of tropical forests and breakfast tables was shaped by scientific innovation, and its survival depends on a public reorientation towards scientific understanding.

References

Cenci, A., Hueber, Y., Zorrilla‑Fontanesi, Y., D’Hont, A., & Rouard, M. (2019). Effect of paleopolyploidy and allopolyploidy on gene expression in banana. BMC Genomics,  20(1), 244. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-5618-0

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). Bananas. FAO Markets and Trade. https://www.fao.org/markets-and-trade/commodities-overview/bananas-tropical-fruits/bananas/

Kolodinsky, J., Rose, N., & Danielsen, J. (2023). U.S. consumer support for genetically modified foods: Time trends and assessments of four GM attributes. GM Crops & Food, 14(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2023.2278683

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, K. R., & Levine, J. S. (2019). Biology. Pearson.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. (2024, February 12). Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan for DIR 199: Commercial release of banana genetically modified for resistance to Fusarium wilt tropical race 4 (TR4). Queensland University of Technology.

Osborne, J., & Pimentel, D. (2023). Science education in an age of misinformation. Science Education, 107(3), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21790

Reynolds, P. K. (1927). The banana: Its history, cultivation and place among staple foods.Houghton Mifflin Company.

Robinson, J. C., & Galán Saúco, V. (2010). Diseases. In Bananas and plantains (2nd ed., pp. 217–232). CABI.

Rogers, J. E. (1913). The book of useful plants. Doubleday, Page & Co.

Sohi, M., Pitesky, M., & Gendreau, J. (2023). Analyzing public sentiment toward GMOs via social media between 2019–2021. GM Crops & Food, 14(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2023.2190294

Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V., & Reece, J. B. (2017). Campbell biology (11th ed.). Pearson.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

---

Alexander Paulchell is a doctoral student in the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Sociocultural Studies in the College of Education at the University of Arizona.

---

---