The Future of Food

[lI1|1!]

sez if it's in a climber's pack it's good for you.

 

 

(dissenting opinions? i didn't think so.)

[tvashtarkatena]

This from the guy who is gravely concerned about the health-effects of fluoridation.

 

 

I'm not concerned about water quality at all. Why should I be? I filter it.

 

Your irrelevant lab reference sadly reminds me of that poor kid in every class who can't seem to get through a sentence without reminding others of how smart he his.

Edited April 26, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

Yes - but you were also holding forth at some length about the dire consequences in store for those who imbibe tap water which it, which says quite a bit about your capacity to evaluate scientific evidence and render rational judgments of the same.

 

My own little humdrum example is quite relevant in that it demonstrates just how easy it would be to for someone to use scary sounding generalities in order transmogrify some wholly innocuous, and potentially useful/beneficial work into something that the average person will be both needlessly afraid of and diametrically opposed to. Take any particular GMO crop, and ask the team of scientists who developed it to explain their research and I'm betting that the average person would get a much more accurate and nuanced view of the potential risks and benefits than the folks orbiting research labs with their megaphones or their fellow travelers elsewhere are able to impart.

 

One day I hope to find a diabetic who's dependent upon recombinant insulin out there ranting on about the dire consequences that genetic engineering has for (the rest of) mankind.

[Dechristo]

I'll stick with the consensus judgment of people who are qualified to persist in the conversation - crop scientists, plant geneticists, etc. Thanks.

 

Who are you trying to kid, beside yourself?

 

The changes occurring worldwide in food production are not motivated simply or primarily by altruistic desires to end world hunger. It's about money. Control.

[Seahawks]

we're going to need self-pollinating food soon anyway since all the bee's are dying off. not that the activities of man have anything to do with that, of course.

 

My hives are doing well. Have 3 of them.

[Dechristo]

My own little humdrum example is quite relevant in that it demonstrates just how easy it would be to for someone to use scary sounding generalities in order transmogrify some wholly innocuous, and potentially useful/beneficial work into something that the average person will be both needlessly afraid of and diametrically opposed to.

 

The lab work may well be innocuous, but this issue is not confined to the lab; on this point you sound naive.

 

My concerns are not about devious mad scientists in lab coats devising the latest diabolical threat to mankind, but about manipulative business practices that corporate giants are using to secure increases in profit share at the expense of family farmers, public health, and the diminishment of future food-group bio-diversity.

[Mr_Phil]

My hives are doing well.

 

Gross.

 

 

[olyclimber]

I'll stick with the consensus judgment of people who are qualified to persist in the conversation - crop scientists, plant geneticists, etc. Thanks.

 

Who are you trying to kid, beside yourself?

 

The changes occurring worldwide in food production are not motivated simply or primarily by altruistic desires to end world hunger. It's about money. Control.

 

Got to love the cases where genetic modification has nothing to do with improving life or even improving production...but with enforcing control over the product (i.e. genetic modification so that reproduction of the seed is not possible). It truly is about money (understandably so...the motive of a corporation is to make money, not to save the world).

 

Also the stories of genetically modified plants blowing into the neighboring fields resulting in lawsuits by Monsanto, etc against the farmers who own those fields.

 

There is plenty to be paranoid about when it comes to Frankenfood....much of it isn't actually related to just what happens to you when you eat it, but then I'm not qualified to talk about it because I'm not a plant geneticist or crop scientist.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes - but you were also holding forth at some length about the dire consequences in store for those who imbibe tap water which it, which says quite a bit about your capacity to evaluate scientific evidence and render rational judgments of the same.

 

I'm sure that most of the audience would agree with your assertion that using a Britta water filter completely negates a person's ability to put forth an opinion an just about anything scientific. And I'm sure your putting forth THAT opinion enhances your scientific standing among that very same audience.

 

This argument is not about science as boogeyman, as you've erroneous (and uniquely) framed it. It's about very large companies, with non-altruistic motives, pushing an agricultural agenda that benefits their bottom line; not farmers, not consumers, not poor little Bagladeshis, and certainly not the environment. This agenda flourished (or is it fluorished?) during a time of plentiful rainfall, huge water projects, and lots and lots of irrigation, a lower population, lots of unused land, and very cheap fossil fuels; your so called "Green Revolution"; all of which are fast becoming things of the past.

 

Eating local and organic is a must for a sustainable future, whether you're an African dirt farmer or a Belltown yuppie. It also just happens to result in a healthier diet and greater profits and self determination for farmers and local communities.

 

The Green Revolution world we've built is an unsustainable, short term, environmentally damaging solution developed during a time of plenty that is fast drawing to a close. I realize that this kind of dynamic thinking is difficult to swallow when put forth by a water filtering cretin such as myself, but there you have it.

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

 

"genetic modification has nothing to do with improving life or even improving production."

 

Why would farmers buy a seed that, in addition to having no tangible benefits over the myriad alternatives, must be repurchased as seed from the vendor year after year? Are they being forcibly compelled to grow the crops, or are they assessing the costs and benefits of the various choices at their disposal and electing to grow them? If the "control" that Monsanto or any other agribusiness exerts over the food supply is contingent upon farmers choosing to plant with their seeds, then this is a rather tenuous form of control.

 

 

 

[Mr_Phil]

I'm sure that most of the audience would agree with your assertion that using a Britta water filter completely negates a person's ability to put forth an opinion an just about anything scientific.

[Peter_Puget]

Yikes this whole “It’s the man” “Evol Corporation” stuff is hilarious. It has the same intellectual vigor as anti-semitic or anti-Chinese rhetoric has in the past.

 

The only thing they can agree on tho is it’s "the man’s" fault:

 

Trashy wrote: Eating local and organic is a must for a sustainable future, whether you're an African dirt farmer or a Belltown yuppie. It also just happens to result in a healthier diet and greater profits and self determination for farmers and local communities.

 

Jim wrote: The experts have lately been arguing that the significant decrease in hunger in China (400 million to 189 million past 20 yrs) is the result of the large investment in road building and distribution improvements.

 

 

[JayB]

Yes - but you were also holding forth at some length about the dire consequences in store for those who imbibe tap water which it, which says quite a bit about your capacity to evaluate scientific evidence and render rational judgments of the same.

 

I'm sure that most of the audience would agree with your assertion that using a Britta water filter completely negates a person's ability to put forth an opinion an just about anything scientific. And I'm sure your putting forth THAT opinion enhances your scientific standing among that very same audience.

 

This argument is not about science as boogeyman, as you've erroneous (and uniquely) framed it. It's about very large companies, with non-altruistic motives, pushing an agricultural agenda that benefits their bottom line; not farmers, not consumers, not poor little Bagladeshis, and certainly not the environment. This agenda flourished (or is it fluorished?) during a time of plentiful rainfall, huge water projects, and lots and lots of irrigation, a lower population, lots of unused land, and very cheap fossil fuels; your so called "Green Revolution"; all of which are fast becoming things of the past.

 

Eating local and organic is a must for a sustainable future, whether you're an African dirt farmer or a Belltown yuppie. It also just happens to result in a healthier diet and greater profits and self determination for farmers and local communities.

 

The Green Revolution world we've built is an unsustainable, short term, environmentally damaging solution developed during a time of plenty that is fast drawing to a close. I realize that this kind of dynamic thinking is difficult to swallow when put forth by a water filtering cretin such as myself, but there you have it.

 

 

 

 

Dude. You were arguing that fluoride in drinking water has adverse health consequences. This is completely at odds with the evidence and the scientific consensus. The fact that you opted for unsanctioned paranoia over evidence in this case is an indicator of the manner in which you assess scientific evidence and form opinions based on the same.

 

"It's about very large companies, with non-altruistic motives, pushing an agricultural agenda that benefits their bottom line; not farmers, not consumers, not poor little Bagladeshis, and certainly not the environment. This agenda flourished (or is it fluorished?) during a time of plentiful rainfall, huge water projects, and lots and lots of irrigation, a lower population, lots of unused land, and very cheap fossil fuels; your so called "Green Revolution"; all of which are fast becoming things of the past.

 

Yes - disease, drought, and pest-resistant crops with higher yields and are clearly of no benefit to anyone, certainly not the hundreds of millions of people who have *literally* been spared misery and starvation as a direct result of them. Unsustainable? Unsustainable in that millions of people will face starvation if yields reverted back to the levels that they were at prior to their introduction? Take away the yields and what happens to large sectors of the world that depend on these crops today? "Take comfort - your death brings us one-step closer to sustainability."

 

 

Here's a scary biotech crop that should be nipped in the bud, pronto: http://www.goldenrice.org/

 

"Dietary micronutrient deficiencies, eg lack of vitamin A, iodine, iron or zinc, are a major source of morbidity (increased susceptibility to disease) and mortality worldwide. These deficiencies affect particularly children, impairing their immune systems and normal development, causing disease and ultimately death.

 

In Golden Rice two genes have been inserted into the rice genome by genetic engineering, to account for the turned-off genes, thereby leading to the production and accumulation of beta-carotene in the grains. The intensity of the golden colour is an indicator of the concentration of beta-carotene in the endosperm.

 

According to the World Health Organization, dietary vitamin A deficiency (VAD) causes some 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Blindness and corneal afflictions are but indicators of more severe underlying health problems: more than half the children who lose their sight die within a year of becoming blind. VAD compromises the immune systems of approximately 40 percent of children under the age of five in the developing world, greatly increasing the risk of severe illnesses from common childhood infections."

 

Better start chanting outside the labs before this one gets too out of hand, lest those gains against childhood immunodeficiency and night-blindness get out of control. Way more important to stoke our overfed and unscientific eco-narcissism. Jesus.

 

 

[olyclimber]

Its a part of the package...along with the plant reproduction modifications they do get tangible benefits and are lured down the road of genetically modified (and corporately controlled) crops. obviously people won't by a product unless it purports to have a tangible benefit, which it might...and perhaps along with a few hidden "benefits" (i.e. benefits for Monsanto).

 

at any rate...the point was that genetic modification isn't always done in "our best interest"...its done in the interest of the corporation. historically there are many problems with the product and business practices of these companies, including Monsanto, so why should we trust them now?

 

at anyrate, I'm not arguing for unfounded or nonfactual slamming of frankenfood companies. there is enough historical evidence to validate maintaining a healthy skepticism about the business practices of these companies.

 

and as for the farmers that bought the seed for the "tangible benefits"...well as foolish as it makes them seem for buying the product in the first place, it seems that some of them think they have a court case against Monsanto. who knows how that will turn out.

[Dechristo]

Yikes this whole Its the man Evol Corporation stuff is hilarious. It has the same intellectual vigor as anti-semitic or anti-Chinese rhetoric has in the past.

 

 

Having operated my own businesses all of my life (including as a young kid), in most circumstances, I'm empathetic and defensive of capitalism and business in general. I'm no Utopian and, in my not-so-humble opinion, harbor fewer illusions about our world than most I know. But, just from the personal testimonies of farmers shown in this film, I am very concerned about what our government (and the Canadian government) has allowed to transpire in law resulting in significant erosions of private property rights and the ability of private farmers to operate unencumbered outside the influence of corporate giants.

 

JayB and PP, I suggest you research the topic better (see the film for a start). Afterwards, I doubt you'll be as dissmissive.

[JayB]

My own little humdrum example is quite relevant in that it demonstrates just how easy it would be to for someone to use scary sounding generalities in order transmogrify some wholly innocuous, and potentially useful/beneficial work into something that the average person will be both needlessly afraid of and diametrically opposed to.

 

The lab work may well be innocuous, but this issue is not confined to the lab; on this point you sound naive.

 

My concerns are not about devious mad scientists in lab coats devising the latest diabolical threat to mankind, but about manipulative business practices that corporate giants are using to secure increases in profit share at the expense of family farmers, public health, and the diminishment of future food-group bio-diversity.

 

Again - is someone putting a gun to farmer's heads and forcing them to grow these crops, or are they making a choice to plant them based on the expectation that increased yields will more than offset the increased prices they pay?

 

Is there any credible evidence - or rather, evidence that people who are have the scientific expertise necessary to evaluate these claims broadly agree upon - that public health is threatened by transgenic crops?

 

More seed choices with a wider variety of characteristics will reduce food-group biodiversity?

 

[olyclimber]

lets see...the choice is use the high yield genetically modified crop with "special benefits" -or- use the non-modified crop with much lower yields. its a simple equation. yes...the gun is essentially at their heads...use the modified crop or go out of business/lose the farm. Of course, I'm not a crop geneticist, so I'm totally making this up, might not be true.

 

 

its funny Jay...your arguments are strikingly similar to the ones made in "Thank You for Smoking". Have you seen it? Have you considered a career working for Big Tobacco? Haven't you learned that Corporations are Evil?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Haven't you learned that Corporations are Evil?

 

[JayB]

Its a part of the package...along with the plant reproduction modifications they do get tangible benefits and are lured down the road of genetically modified (and corporately controlled) crops. obviously people won't by a product unless it purports to have a tangible benefit, which it might...and perhaps along with a few hidden "benefits" (i.e. benefits for Monsanto).

 

at any rate...the point was that genetic modification isn't always done in "our best interest"...its done in the interest of the corporation. historically there are many problems with the product and business practices of these companies, including Monsanto, so why should we trust them now?

 

at anyrate, I'm not arguing for unfounded or nonfactual slamming of frankenfood companies. there is enough historical evidence to validate maintaining a healthy skepticism about the business practices of these companies.

 

and as for the farmers that bought the seed for the "tangible benefits"...well as foolish as it makes them seem for buying the product in the first place, it seems that some of them think they have a court case against Monsanto. who knows how that will turn out.

 

I don't find the "farmers are dumb and don't know how to evaluate crop strains or make informed judgments concerning how to operate their businesses as well as I do" argument much more persuasive than the "gun to the head" argument.

 

As far as altruism is concerned, whether a company develops a technology out of avarice, greed, malice, or any other motive is considerably less important than the objective benefits of the said technology or innovation. If you had an otherwise incurable disease and someone developed a drug for the sole reason that they wanted to make money, would you refuse it on principle? I know a few doctors that do lifesaving work, yet were at least partly attracted to the field because of the money. Are their contributions to society less valuable as a result of their motivations for entering into the field?

 

 

 

 

 

[olyclimber]

The dirty unamerican hippie commies have made a website railing about the Evils of the Corporation.

 

http://www.monsantowatch.org/

 

 

Here is a list of no-nothing hippies with mail order degrees in genetics:

 

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/board_of_a.cfm

 

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/staff_bios.cfm

 

looks to be a bunch of lawyers and liberal arts majors

 

 

[olyclimber]

Its a part of the package...along with the plant reproduction modifications they do get tangible benefits and are lured down the road of genetically modified (and corporately controlled) crops. obviously people won't by a product unless it purports to have a tangible benefit, which it might...and perhaps along with a few hidden "benefits" (i.e. benefits for Monsanto).

 

at any rate...the point was that genetic modification isn't always done in "our best interest"...its done in the interest of the corporation. historically there are many problems with the product and business practices of these companies, including Monsanto, so why should we trust them now?

 

at anyrate, I'm not arguing for unfounded or nonfactual slamming of frankenfood companies. there is enough historical evidence to validate maintaining a healthy skepticism about the business practices of these companies.

 

and as for the farmers that bought the seed for the "tangible benefits"...well as foolish as it makes them seem for buying the product in the first place, it seems that some of them think they have a court case against Monsanto. who knows how that will turn out.

 

I don't find the "farmers are dumb and don't know how to evaluate crop strains or make informed judgments concerning how to operate their businesses as well as I do" argument much more persuasive than the "gun to the head" argument.

 

As far as altruism is concerned, whether a company develops a technology out of avarice, greed, malice, or any other motive is considerably less important than the objective benefits of the said technology or innovation. If you had an otherwise incurable disease and someone developed a drug for the sole reason that they wanted to make money, would you refuse it on principle? I know a few doctors that do lifesaving work, yet were at least partly attracted to the field because of the money. Are their contributions to society less valuable as a result of their motivations for entering into the field?

 

 

 

 

 

Believe it or not, I actually don't have anything against corporations or individuals who wish to make money. I only despise those that do so using deceit or harmful practices.

 

I also don't wear patchouli. I hate the smell of that crap.

[Mr_Phil]

JayB and PP, I suggest you research the topic better (see the film for a start). Afterwards, I doubt you'll be as dissmissive.

Why do you believe this film is not just propaganda?

[olyclimber]

As far as altruism is concerned, whether a company develops a technology out of avarice, greed, malice, or any other motive is considerably less important than the objective benefits of the said technology or innovation. If you had an otherwise incurable disease and someone developed a drug for the sole reason that they wanted to make money, would you refuse it on principle?

 

So what do you think about when a corporation possesses the technology to save millions and millions of lives...yet most of those millions and million can't afford to buy that product. Is that just a case of natural selection (i.e. those who manage to find the means to purchase the cure are permitted to live)? That is an aside from the whole idea that the corporation should be awarded monetarily for their innovation.

[olyclimber]

JayB and PP, I suggest you research the topic better (see the film for a start). Afterwards, I doubt you'll be as dissmissive.

Why do you believe this film is not just propaganda?

 

But if the propaganda is really, really effective...he might just be right.

[Mr_Phil]

JayB and PP, I suggest you research the topic better (see the film for a start). Afterwards, I doubt you'll be as dissmissive.

Why do you believe this film is not just propaganda?

 

But if the propaganda is really, really effective...he might just be right.

 

Obviously it is effective to some degree.