Genetically Modified Foods And American Food Policy

[mojeaux131]

I'm going to take a cue from woody_hawkeye here and create a new topic.

What do y'all think about these issues? Not only GM foods, but American food policy in general.

Besides the poll, here are some statements to get the ball rolling.

E. coli wouldn't be an issue if cows weren't fed corn.

The food lobby has fought proposals to label GM foods.

There are people trying to engineer salmon to eat corn. (I'm serious)

Anyone read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan?

[TheNiche]

Save lives! Outlaw organic zucchini!

Seriously, it can kill you. It's poisonous in its natural state.

Realistically, so many of our foods, including corn, rice, and wheat, have been genetically modified by low-tech selective breeding methods for millenia so as to produce higher crop yields. You just about can't avoid GM foods if you want to be intellectually honest about it.

Anyone read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan?

Anyone read anything by UH professor Thomas DeGregori?

• "Agriculture and Modern Technology: A Defense"
  
• "The Environment, Our Natural Resources, and Modern Technology"
  
• "Bountiful Harvest: Technology, Food Safety, and the Environment"
  
• "Origins of the Organic Agriculture Debate"
  

This guy is terrific at dispelling the pseudo-science perpetrated by hippie scum. He is Whole Foods' worst nightmare...but outside of scientific journals, he doesn't get much press, obviously.

[crunchtastic]

I would prefer that my three-headed fish come with a label explaining how it got that way, but I'd most likely still eat it, provided I can buy it un-processed.

It's the huge amounts of corn syrup and salt to add flavor to otherwise tasteless gruel that's killing us.

[memebag]

Realistically, so many of our foods, including corn, rice, and wheat, have been genetically modified by low-tech selective breeding methods for millenia so as to produce higher crop yields.

There are only a few things humans eat that they haven't genetically modified. Wild game, wild mushrooms, um, ... I can't think of any others. Basically, food sucked until we got our agri-mitts all over it thousands of years ago.

I'm all for freaky new foods that might give me super powers, but I want them labeled. I wouldn't want to eat a normal peanut by mistake when I could be turning into Legu-Man. Or getting cancer.

[20thStDad]

Does selective breeding count as GM? Probably in a literal sense, but they would have to keep that in mind when developing some kind of label policy. If it's just a black and white GM or not, some people will see that label and refuse to buy, when there's no real "mad science" going on anyway. I personally will eat almost anything except green peas (they are the devil) artificial sweeteners. Besides all the cancer causing warnings, real sugar is just too awesome.

[satriela]

US Food policy in general sucks. There is no excuse for all the trans fat in our food except that the food giants are in bed with the regulators.

Also, big sugar has almost killed stevia, the one sweet herb that has little impact on glucose levels and grows naturally.

As for GM, when it gets beyond selective breeding, I'm all for labeling.

[editor]

E. coli wouldn't be an issue if cows weren't fed corn.

I don't think I've heard anything that dumb in a long time. Is that what the vegan lobby is preaching these days? E.coli exists naturally in the environment, and in grass as easily as any other plant. It's not exclusive to corn. Why do you think so many "raw food" types who will only drink grass-fed unpasturized milk get sick?

The food lobby has fought proposals to label GM foods.

This is true, but not really surprising. I don't think anyone really considers it shocking. It's like saying the auto lobby has fought proposals to make seatbelts mandatory. Or saying the telecom lobby has fought proposals to make numbers portable. It's an industry trying to fend off government regulation. ANY government regulation. That's what you hire lobbiests for. Are we supposed to be shocked that they're doing the job they were hired to do?

There are people trying to engineer salmon to eat corn. (I'm serious)

Good. What's the problem? Protein is protein. Who cares if salmon eat corn. Catfish and lots of other fish eat corn, just ask a fisherman. Heck, catfish eat cheese and we still eat catfish. When I would fish, I'd always use corn for blue gill and cheese for catfish.

Anyone read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan?

Nope.

In my mind, I don't see any problem with GM food. But in my stomach it feels a little oogie. Logic tells me there's nothing wrong with it. But my instinct tells me otherwise.

If presented with a $10 steak that says "organic" and a $10 steak that says "GM" I'll probably go for the organic.

But if you show me a $10 steak that says "organic" and a $5 steak that says "GM" I'll chow down on the GM.

I'm illogically slightly bothered by GM food. Probably a lot of people of my generation are. I don't think our children will care because it won't be new and scary to them.

US Food policy in general sucks. There is no excuse for all the trans fat in our food except that the food giants are in bed with the regulators.

Why not just buy healthier food? When I was going through my cancer treatments I had a very strict diet and it wasn't that hard to abide by the rules the hospital set down. All I had to do was think before I bought. You don't have to eat junk. There's plenty of good food out there, just learn to read a label.

I recommend a heaping helping of personal responsibility to go with people's anger toward the food industry.

Also, big sugar has almost killed stevia, the one sweet herb that has little impact on glucose levels and grows naturally.

Sugar "grows naturally," too. It's called sugarcane. It even used to be cultivated in the Houston area. Where did you think Sugar Land got its name? But I guess it works better to raise people's hysteria level to pretend that one naturally-occurring plant is better than another naturally-occurring plant.

Stevia isn't a good replacement for sugar in all circumstances because its taste isn't the same. Even though the overall sweetness level is much higher than sugar, people end up consuming more of it because it takes so long for the "sweet" flavor to kick in, unlike with all-natural sugar where the sweetness is right there.

That's worrisome since at least one study has shown that Stevia can cause liver damage. I'm not against Stevia in principle, but it needs more testing and hasn't gotten much, even from its proponents. It wouldn't bother me at all to see packets of "stevia" next to the "Equal" and "Sweet-n-Low" at the diner.

As for GM, when it gets beyond selective breeding, I'm all for labeling.

I'm OK with that.

[KatieDidIt]

Modified foods scares me.

Of courseheading into the summer, the whole freezer full of wild game in the garage scares me too. BUt that's a whole other story.

[satriela]

I'm illogically slightly bothered by GM food. Probably a lot of people of my generation are. I don't think our children will care because it won't be new and scary to them.

Why not just buy healthier food? When I was going through my cancer treatments I had a very strict diet and it wasn't that hard to abide by the rules the hospital set down. All I had to do was think before I bought. You don't have to eat junk. There's plenty of good food out there, just learn to read a label.

I recommend a heaping helping of personal responsibility to go with people's anger toward the food industry.

Sugar "grows naturally," too. It's called sugarcane. It even used to be cultivated in the Houston area. Where did you think Sugar Land got its name? But I guess it works better to raise people's hysteria level to pretend that one naturally-occurring plant is better than another naturally-occurring plant.

Stevia isn't a good replacement for sugar in all circumstances because its taste isn't the same. Even though the overall sweetness level is much higher than sugar, people end up consuming more of it because it takes so long for the "sweet" flavor to kick in, unlike with all-natural sugar where the sweetness is right there.

That's worrisome since at least one study has shown that Stevia can cause liver damage. I'm not against Stevia in principle, but it needs more testing and hasn't gotten much, even from its proponents. It wouldn't bother me at all to see packets of "stevia" next to the "Equal" and "Sweet-n-Low" at the diner.

I'm OK with that.

Well my anger isn't toward the food industry, its toward the regulators who are supposed to be monitoring/regulating the food industry. As far as not eating junk, I don't.

However, there is a connection between income and diet. If you have $5 bucks with which to feed a kid, you can afford about 4 pieces of fruit on that (2 if its organic fruit) OR you could afford a double cheeseburger and some fries.--which will leave you more full?

When it comes to glucose levels, stevia IS better than cane sugar, and thousands times better than high fructose corn syrup. And the very fact that its not sitting side by side with sweet n low and splenda on a restaurant table reflects on how the food industry has cripped the FDA.

[RedScare]

I recommend a heaping helping of personal responsibility to go with people's anger toward the food industry.

That's kind of what the poll is about. If the label had any info on it, like say, whether the food is GM, I'd be more than happy to be responsible. In our current climate of letting the agri-giants do what they want, and withhold info from us, it is a little (actually, a lot) tougher to be responsible.

I'm not crazy about GM food. It might be OK, but the problem is that we just don't know. The people telling us it is safe have lost credibility. There are too many instances where testing is shortcutted or doctored altogether (see Big Pharma for examples) to trust what they are telling us. Frankly, I am far more concerned with the chemicals and petroleum products used to grow and harvest and process the foods than the genetic modifications, but that is only because I already know about the cancers and illnesses that chemicals and pesticides can cause. It may be years before the curtain is pulled on GM foods.

Then again, in a country that pops pills like they are candy, I wonder why many people are concerned at all. It's not like people who ingest so many pharmaceitical toxins should suddenly worry about their food, should they? Isn't that like asking for a Diet Coke with your desert?

[mojeaux131]

Save lives! Outlaw organic zucchini!

Seriously, it can kill you. It's poisonous in its natural state.

Realistically, so many of our foods, including corn, rice, and wheat, have been genetically modified by low-tech selective breeding methods for millenia so as to produce higher crop yields. You just about can't avoid GM foods if you want to be intellectually honest about it.

Anyone read anything by UH professor Thomas DeGregori?

• "Agriculture and Modern Technology: A Defense"
  
• "The Environment, Our Natural Resources, and Modern Technology"
  
• "Bountiful Harvest: Technology, Food Safety, and the Environment"
  
• "Origins of the Organic Agriculture Debate"
  

This guy is terrific at dispelling the pseudo-science perpetrated by hippie scum. He is Whole Foods' worst nightmare...but outside of scientific journals, he doesn't get much press, obviously.

Genetic modification by selective breeding over time is not the same as using electricity and microscopic flakes of gold to inject foreign DNA into cells. I see no problem with "natural" genetic modification, but using the latter technique oversteps natural means of evolution.

I will try to read DeGregori, but it is not intellectually honest to label opposing opinions as "pseudo-science" and their advocates as "hippie scum".

There are only a few things humans eat that they haven't genetically modified. Wild game, wild mushrooms, um, ... I can't think of any others. Basically, food sucked until we got our agri-mitts all over it thousands of years ago.

I'm all for freaky new foods that might give me super powers, but I want them labeled. I wouldn't want to eat a normal peanut by mistake when I could be turning into Legu-Man. Or getting cancer.

Food was good enough to sustain humankind for the vast majority of our time on this planet. Within the scope of human history, the time occupied by agriculture is a blink compared to the age of hunting and gathering.

I think food sucks now because a twinkie costs less than a carrot. Only could boneheaded policies and subsidies render a naturally occuring object more expensive to the consumer than a modern day creation like the twinkie.

Also, food sucks now because eating as cheaply as possible makes it more likely for one to get diabetes. I think it's sad.

[TheNiche]

I will try to read DeGregori, but it is not intellectually honest to label opposing opinions as "pseudo-science" and their advocates as "hippie scum".

These are the sort of people responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of human beings. They're scum. I'm not backing down from that.

DeGregori is more diplomatic, though...usually.

[Edited by Editor to remove flamebait.]

[crunchtastic]

I think food sucks now because a twinkie costs less than a carrot. Only could boneheaded policies and subsidies render a naturally occuring object more expensive to the consumer than a modern day creation like the twinkie.

Also, food sucks now because eating as cheaply as possible makes it more likely for one to get diabetes. I think it's sad.

Very well said. I agree. There is now a class and race component to food and nutrition, as a result of food policy and big agra. It's difficult to eat well if you're poor. It's difficult to eat well if the only store in your hood is a CVS. And we all know what happens then. Poor people with poor diets become become sick. But wait! There's meds to fix that. Except no meds, because they're not insured.

But wait! There's more! All that groovy ethanol, that costs energy to to produce, and fattening the pockets of oil and agribusiness, has the ripple effect of taking corn out of the mouths of really poor people. Seriously. It's the 21st century, and people are killing each other over food.

[mojeaux131]

I don't think I've heard anything that dumb in a long time. Is that what the vegan lobby is preaching these days? E.coli exists naturally in the environment, and in grass as easily as any other plant. It's not exclusive to corn. Why do you think so many "raw food" types who will only drink grass-fed unpasturized milk get sick?

The vegan lobby is nothing compared to the chemicals-in-our-food-are-totally-cool lobby. I'm not a vegan anyway. I love meat. E. coli exists mostly in intestines, not grass. The reason why feeding cows corn makes it more of a problem is because cows are naturally grass-eating ruminants. That's why they have rumens, so they can eat grass, not corn. Corn is grain that was cultivated in the Americas thousands of years ago. There are no cattle that are native to this hemisphere. Anyway, when cows eat corn, it changes the pH in their digestive tracts, making it more easy for the bacteria to survive than if they were eating what they were designed to eat. It also doesn't help matters that most of the beef that is eaten comes from CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations), where animals stand in their own feces much of the time. I say get those cows out in the open and let them eat grass, darn it.

Why do you think we have to feed them so many antibiotics? If they were eating naturally and not standing in their own dung all the time, they wouldn't need antibiotics. We raised cattle just fine for millenia before we had corn and drugs to feed them. The only reason we started feeding them corn is because of its surplus, cheapness and its ability to get cows to slaughter weight faster than grass. That doesn't make it better, though.

And pasteurized milk is a good thing. There's no need to lump multiple, supposed "hippie/vegan" arguments into the same position.

This is true, but not really surprising. I don't think anyone really considers it shocking. It's like saying the auto lobby has fought proposals to make seatbelts mandatory. Or saying the telecom lobby has fought proposals to make numbers portable. It's an industry trying to fend off government regulation. ANY government regulation. That's what you hire lobbiests for. Are we supposed to be shocked that they're doing the job they were hired to do?

No, but aren't seatbelts a GOOD thing? Shall we just pat those lobbyists on the back for a job well done? If we can expect to know if there's sugar in something, why can't we know if there's GM ingredients in it, too? Why would they want to obscure this? I'm not surprised at their lobbying efforts, but that doesn't make it right.

Good. What's the problem? Protein is protein. Who cares if salmon eat corn. Catfish and lots of other fish eat corn, just ask a fisherman. Heck, catfish eat cheese and we still eat catfish. When I would fish, I'd always use corn for blue gill and cheese for catfish.

Using little bits for bait and raising crops of fish on it are totally different. Do we want to see commercially-produced fish develop the same types of problems as cows? More pollution from CAFOs? More antibiotics? More superbug resistance to said antibiotics? Why can't fish just eat what they were designed to eat? People like fish partially because they contain those precious omega-3 fatty acids, right? Well if you start feeding them corn, you can wave bye-bye to that. What's wrong with catching fish naturally anyway?

In my mind, I don't see any problem with GM food. But in my stomach it feels a little oogie. Logic tells me there's nothing wrong with it. But my instinct tells me otherwise.

If presented with a $10 steak that says "organic" and a $10 steak that says "GM" I'll probably go for the organic.

But if you show me a $10 steak that says "organic" and a $5 steak that says "GM" I'll chow down on the GM.

I'm illogically slightly bothered by GM food. Probably a lot of people of my generation are. I don't think our children will care because it won't be new and scary to them.

Should we approach food with more logic and less instinct? Ever smell something to see if it's gone bad? Hmmm.

Unfortunately, it's true that organic foods are more expensive than conventional foods. But this is because the pricing doesn't take into account subsidies and other costs like pollution. There's a dead zone the size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico because of fertilizer runoff from farms in the Midwest. I think we can change the system so foods that are produced more naturally at less cost to the environment (and more honestly, at less cost to people in general) cost less in the supermarket. A carrot should be cheaper than a twinkie.

You don't seemed bothered by it. You seem like you're defending it right out of the starting gate. Why is it "illogical" to be bothered by it? Why isn't it logical instead?

Why not just buy healthier food? When I was going through my cancer treatments I had a very strict diet and it wasn't that hard to abide by the rules the hospital set down. All I had to do was think before I bought. You don't have to eat junk. There's plenty of good food out there, just learn to read a label.

I recommend a heaping helping of personal responsibility to go with people's anger toward the food industry.

I think more people would healthier food if they could, but like satriela said, it's all about what's cheapest. Poor people on limited incomes will buy the cheapest calories they can. $5 will get you more food at a fast food joint than it will buy vegetables. So it's not sufficient just to suggest that people eat healthier. Food-related illnesses increase the further you move down the socioeconomic ladder. Poor people are much more likely to be obese and diabetic than wealthier people. That's not to say personal responsibility has no role to play, but for crying out loud, why does a carrot cost more than a twinkie? Why? Why does more complicated food like a combo meal cost less than some fruit? I'll tell you why. Misguided policy and subsidies. And corporate interests. (Disclaimer: I am not a hippy and will admit right now not all corporations are bad.)

Edited April 17, 2008 by mojeaux131

[mojeaux131]

These are the sort of people responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of human beings. They're scum. I'm not backing down from that.

DeGregori is more diplomatic, though...usually.

What are you talking about, the movement to ban DDT?

I think what made lots of people die of starvation is their governments' forcing them to change from subsistence farming to producing cash crops in order to pay off loans from wealthier countries.

What "sort of people" are you talking about?

Explain.

[memebag]

Genetic modification by selective breeding over time is not the same as using electricity and microscopic flakes of gold to inject foreign DNA into cells. I see no problem with "natural" genetic modification, but using the latter technique oversteps natural means of evolution.

It's only "unnatural" if you view humans as outside or above nature. Everything we do, whether it's planting the seeds of the biggest strawberry or splicing frog DNA into a turnip, is natural. A turnog is more adventurous than a fat strawberry, but just as natural.

Food was good enough to sustain humankind for the vast majority of our time on this planet. Within the scope of human history, the time occupied by agriculture is a blink compared to the age of hunting and gathering.

Feel free to hunt and gather. I won't stop you. But no fair gathering wheat, rice, corn, apples, pears, cabbage, peaches, beans, broccolli, eggplant, or any of the other vegetables agricultural man created. And no hunting cows, chickens, lambs or pigs.

I think food sucks now because a twinkie costs less than a carrot. Only could boneheaded policies and subsidies render a naturally occuring object more expensive to the consumer than a modern day creation like the twinkie.

But carrots taste like crap, while twinkies are full of yummy sugar and fat. Millions of years of evolution left us craving those tastes. Rejoice in the fact that they are abundant!

And the same factors that led us to putting HFCS in everything are responsible for agricultural technology that humans all over the world depend on for survival.

[mojeaux131]

It's only "unnatural" if you view humans as outside or above nature. Everything we do, whether it's planting the seeds of the biggest strawberry or splicing frog DNA into a turnip, is natural. A turnog is more adventurous than a fat strawberry, but just as natural.

Please. There's no need to play semantic games here.

Feel free to hunt and gather. I won't stop you. But no fair gathering wheat, rice, corn, apples, pears, cabbage, peaches, beans, broccolli, eggplant, or any of the other vegetables agricultural man created. And no hunting cows, chickens, lambs or pigs.

I wasn't advocating a return to that system. I was refuting someone's claim that "food sucked" before agriculture. It was good enought to keep us alive for the majority of our existence. Mmkay?

And man didn't create anything by himself. Man worked within nature to create all the wonderful crops and livestock we subsist on today. I'm not a hippie.

But carrots taste like crap, while twinkies are full of yummy sugar and fat. Millions of years of evolution left us craving those tastes. Rejoice in the fact that they are abundant!

That's true, evolution did cause warm-blooded animals like ourselves to crave sweet, energy-packed foods. But that craving evolved before twinkies could be bought by the dozen. And we have not yet evolved to counter such abundance in foods like that. So yes, twinkies do taste better. Go ahead and feed your kids twinkies. My kids who would've been eating carrots will enjoy poking their pudgy little tummies.

And the same factors that led us to putting HFCS in everything are responsible for agricultural technology that humans all over the world depend on for survival.

Really? Care to elaborate on this? The food processing lobby and the surplus of corn in the United States in the postwar period and subsidies are responsible for international agricultural technology? Wow. I had no idea.

[memebag]

Please. There's no need to play semantic games here.

You're the one who said some genetic manipulation "oversteps natural means of evolution" and called selective breeding "'natural' genetic modification". I'm challenging your semantic distinction and the underlying assumption that man isn't part of nature.

I wasn't advocating a return to that system. I was refuting someone's claim that "food sucked" before agriculture. It was good enought to keep us alive for the majority of our existence. Mmkay?

It kept us alive in small numbers with massive amounts of land, and for the most part, it sucked. It was hard to get and tasted bad, compared to what we grew.

And man didn't create anything by himself. Man worked within nature to create all the wonderful crops and livestock we subsist on today. I'm not a hippie.

Now who's playing semantic games?

That's true, evolution did cause warm-blooded animals like ourselves to crave sweet, energy-packed foods. But that craving evolved before twinkies could be bought by the dozen. And we have not yet evolved to counter such abundance in foods like that. So yes, twinkies do taste better. Go ahead and feed your kids twinkies. My kids who would've been eating carrots will enjoy poking their pudgy little tummies.

I teach my kid not to make fun of fat kids.

Really? Care to elaborate on this? The food processing lobby and the surplus of corn in the United States in the postwar period and subsidies are responsible for international agricultural technology? Wow. I had no idea.

That isn't what I said. Two world wars left us with cheap means for producing nitrates and pesticides and surplus aircraft to distribute them over crops. Those are the "factors" that led us to "putting HFCS in everything" and "agricultural technology that humans all over the world depend on for survival". Without the benefits of the green revolution the planet couldn't support as many people as it currently does.

[mojeaux131]

You're the one who said some genetic manipulation "oversteps natural means of evolution" and called selective breeding "'natural' genetic modification". I'm challenging your semantic distinction and the underlying assumption that man isn't part of nature.

I wasn't implying that man wasn't part of nature. But some of what man does is inherently unnatural, even if he is part of nature himself. This is the distinction between humans and animals. Man is a natural being who can do unnatural things, like creating solids that are lighter than air, or ram particles together and create miniature black holes, or create hydrogen bombs.

It kept us alive in small numbers with massive amounts of land, and for the most part, it sucked. It was hard to get and tasted bad, compared to what we grew.

Why did it suck? Because there were less of us? It tasted bad? Were you there? How do you know? Lots of people say that hunting/gathering societies actually had (for those that still exist, have) more leisure time than agriculturalists. Again, I'm not advocating a return to the system, but it seems many people are biased against it just because it's premodern and foreign to them.

Now who's playing semantic games?

Perhaps it may seem that way, but it seemed like you were implying that man was solely responsible for the process of domestication. We can argue all day about this, but the fact remains that especially with animals, all the domesticated species we eat today more or less allowed themselves to be domesticated by man. Not consciously, of course, but in their natural demeanor and genetic profile. Case in point, humans have tried to domesticate oaks for eons. No luck. Jared Diamond argues that all of the domesticated animals we eat fit a certain profile.

If just any species can be domesticated, why wasn't Europe conquered by Africans riding rhinos and eating giraffe meat? (I'm paraphrasing Diamond here).

That's all I meant, anyway.

That isn't what I said. Two world wars left us with cheap means for producing nitrates and pesticides and surplus aircraft to distribute them over crops. Those are the "factors" that led us to "putting HFCS in everything" and "agricultural technology that humans all over the world depend on for survival". Without the benefits of the green revolution the planet couldn't support as many people as it currently does.

Those factors led to the green revolution, yes. But I disagree that this had to lead to the preponderance of HFCS as a sweetener. That had mostly to do with clever food scientists and the corn surplus.

The green revolution was a good thing. But it is unsustainable. Many of those fertilizers and pesticides are derived from a finite source: petroleum. We are in need of a second green revolution, one that can wean us off of mass monoculture and pollution and environmental degradation. It just seems difficult because it's not currently the norm. But it can be done. Especially if more people speak up and hold their government more accountable for bad policies and if those people speak to industry with what they buy or refuse to buy.

There was a time when it wasn't necessary to fertilize soil in order to grow crops. There was a time when farms were really farms, hosting animals and plants that worked together to produce a variety of crops, the production of which enriched the environment and didn't degrade it. Now we have vast monocultures of corn and soybeans and seeds that won't germinate without brand name pesticides.

It's time for another green revolution.

Edited April 17, 2008 by mojeaux131

[houstonmacbro]

I am not sure about the safety of GM foods but I am also not sure about the long term effects of saccharin or NutraSweet, but they are consumed by the billions of tons each year.

I think GM foods should at least be labeled, and the same thing goes for the upcoming clone meats debates.

[editor]

Well my anger isn't toward the food industry, its toward the regulators who are supposed to be monitoring/regulating the food industry.

I think your anger is misplaced. Don't blame the FDA. There's nothing the FDA would like to do more than to properly do its job. Blame it on your local congresscritters who underfund the agency, saddle it with even more tasks, then cut its funding when it penalizes food companies in certain congressional districts. The reason the FDA relies on so many of the food industries to pay for their own inspections is because congress would rather spend millions of dollars erecting monuments and building museums for local heroes in small towns than allocating money to things that the federal government should be working on, like food safety.

However, there is a connection between income and diet. If you have $5 bucks with which to feed a kid, you can afford about 4 pieces of fruit on that (2 if its organic fruit) OR you could afford a double cheeseburger and some fries.--which will leave you more full?

If you only have $5 to feed your kids, you're already on food stamps. I spent a lot of my early years poor. Dirt poor. Like no heat in a snowy climate poor. But I was never on assistance, though I did qualify. I'd buy dented cans of discount peas and bags of rice, while the food stampers in line ahead of me were loading up on steaks. When you're on public assistance like that you can mostly only buy healthy food. With the burden of paying for healthy food lifted from their shoulders, I've seen these people use their now-disposable income at McDonald's.

That hypothetical $5 to feed a kid? How about some soup, some good sourdough bread and butter, and still have $1.50 leftover?

When it comes to glucose levels, stevia IS better than cane sugar, and thousands times better than high fructose corn syrup. And the very fact that its not sitting side by side with sweet n low and splenda on a restaurant table reflects on how the food industry has cripped the FDA.

I can't argue glucose levels and such things, because I really don't understand them. I know that a lot of diabetics do and are very passionate about it. There's an entire industry devoted to feeding these people's fears.

I won't argue that the FDA isn't crippled, but I don't think the food industry is entirely, or even mostly, to blame. The FDA needs more inspectors and more money to do its job properly.

[editor]

In our current climate of letting the agri-giants do what they want,

I think you should thank the agriculture companies for becoming giants, rather than label them "agri-giants" as if it's a bad thing. I've lived a lot of my life in farming states (Wisconsin, Illinois, upstate New York, etc...) and the fact of the matter is that farms are going under. For some of them it's financial, but for the majority it's because the next generation isn't interested in farming. Fortunately, the big farming companies come in and take over these farms that would otherwise be abandoned and invest in the automation to keep them running. If it wasn't for the "agri-giants" or "Big Agro" or whatever you want to call it, you'd be heading down to Galveston every day at noon to catch your own lunch.

Then again, in a country that pops pills like they are candy, I wonder why many people are concerned at all. It's not like people who ingest so many pharmaceitical toxins should suddenly worry about their food, should they? Isn't that like asking for a Diet Coke with your desert?

You're right - there are a lot of contradictions in our society. You've got soccer moms who load themselves and their children up with mind-altering drugs, then pay twice as much for organic produce.

I consider this to be the ultimate example of that kind of blindness:

Genetic modification by selective breeding over time is not the same as using electricity and microscopic flakes of gold to inject foreign DNA into cells. I see no problem with "natural" genetic modification, but using the latter technique oversteps natural means of evolution.

So, you're against grafting, then? That genetic manipulation method oversteps natural means of evolution and has been used at least since the 1300's, probably a lot longer.

Only could boneheaded policies and subsidies render a naturally occuring object more expensive to the consumer than a modern day creation like the twinkie.

Or it could be that Twinkies require energy to make than carrots, are easier to package and ship than carrots, can be stored for years unlike carrots, don't need refrigeration, unlike carrots, and don't take six months to make unlike carrots.

You keep talking about "policies" like their the root and only cause of all evil. You need to take off the blinders and realize that there are a lot of other factors in this big, complicated world we live in.

[mojeaux131]

I think you should thank the agriculture companies for becoming giants, rather than label them "agri-giants" as if it's a bad thing. I've lived a lot of my life in farming states (Wisconsin, Illinois, upstate New York, etc...) and the fact of the matter is that farms are going under. For some of them it's financial, but for the majority it's because the next generation isn't interested in farming. Fortunately, the big farming companies come in and take over these farms that would otherwise be abandoned and invest in the automation to keep them running. If it wasn't for the "agri-giants" or "Big Agro" or whatever you want to call it, you'd be heading down to Galveston every day at noon to catch your own lunch.

Perhaps in some places where you've lived the next generation isn't interested in farming because it's become a lot more difficult to be a farmer. There are plenty of young people that are interested in farming. Until recently, many farmers were losing money producing more of a crop of which there was already a surplus. I can't say definitively whether the rise of Big Agra caused the decline in small family farms, but there sure as heck is a correlation there. And no, that doesn't mean causality, but it could. I suppose we should thank goodness for these wonderful companies that are willing to "invest in the automation" that is now necessary for us to produce food. This needs to change. It is possible for small-scale farming operations to proliferate again.

So, you're against grafting, then? That genetic manipulation method oversteps natural means of evolution and has been used at least since the 1300's, probably a lot longer.

No, I'm not. But again, that's just a tad different from injecting foreign DNA into cells and creating turnogs, etc. Until we know that there are no ill effects from eating food derived from such processes, it is my contention only that we label such food. Just so people can know what they're eating.

Or it could be that Twinkies require energy to make than carrots, are easier to package and ship than carrots, can be stored for years unlike carrots, don't need refrigeration, unlike carrots, and don't take six months to make unlike carrots.

The first part of your statement here makes no sense. Do you think it takes more or less energy to produce Twinkies than carrots? Again, even if Twinkies are "cheaper", they're not. Their production is most likely more costly to the environment than that of carrots, even if they can be stored for years. I'd rather have more nutritional food that goes bad more quickly than a sugar fatty chunk bar that lasts for years on a shelf.

You keep talking about "policies" like their the root and only cause of all evil. You need to take off the blinders and realize that there are a lot of other factors in this big, complicated world we live in.

I'm not talking about the entire world and I'm not talking about all evil. I'm talking about misguided food policy in the United States. Our food policy is misguided because it facilitates the existence of an agricultural system which requires vast amounts of fossil fuels to produce food (that should be produced by free, unlimited solar energy) and which pollutes the environment and undermines those same natural systems upon which we ultimately depend for our food.

To borrow a thought from Paul Hawken, our current agricultural system is operating under the rules of chrematistics and not oikonomia, which is sad because agriculture represents our most intimate cooperation with natural systems.

http://www.ianr.unl.edu/ianr/csas/v6ch5.htm

[memebag]

To borrow a thought from Paul Hawken, our current agricultural system is operating under the rules of chrematistics and not oikonomia, which is sad because agriculture represents our most intimate cooperation with natural systems.

There you go again. You have to see humans as being somehow outside of nature to use phrases like that. Neither farming nor nuclear weapon production are "cooperation" with natural systems; bother are part of nature. They are equally "intimate". There is nothing humans can do that is unnatural. We don't have special status. We're animals.

Before you call that a word game, try to think about the mindset behind it.

[TheNiche]

There is nothing humans can do that is unnatural. We don't have special status. We're animals.

We have a winner!

Anything that can induce higher crop yields per acre ought to be applauded, especially by those that like to think of themselves as environmentalists or conservationists. The United States' big agricultural firms are more successful at doing this--and doing it cost-effectively--than anyone else anywhere else.

Think of the alternative to high-yield agriculture. Think of all the millions of additional acres that would have to be planted in order to sustain the world's population. Those are acres that could otherwise be put to alternative uses. For instance, in places like Brazil, the alternative use is rainforest. You like rainforest, right?

Edited April 18, 2008 by TheNiche

[mojeaux131]

There you go again. You have to see humans as being somehow outside of nature to use phrases like that. Neither farming nor nuclear weapon production are "cooperation" with natural systems; bother are part of nature. They are equally "intimate". There is nothing humans can do that is unnatural. We don't have special status. We're animals.

Before you call that a word game, try to think about the mindset behind it.

I regret ever typing the phrase "semantic games".

I'm not willing to quibble about whether or not human capabilities are unnatural. (Really? Nukes are natural? Really?)

Yes, we are animals: very smart animals that can create very nasty things that wouldn't occur naturally.

Anyway, whether or not one believes that GM foods are "unnatural", it is still necessary for them at least to be identified. If my use of the word "unnatural" is disagreeable to you, I can easily replace it with "potentially harmful" or "unprecedented" or something else.

Even if you want to call the gene gun treatment "natural", you must at least concede that this is not something that (other) animals and plants can do by themselves, without high levels of technology. That fact alone accounts for my position that we must at least label these foods, lest there be side effects from their consumption.

Edited April 20, 2008 by mojeaux131

[mojeaux131]

We have a winner!

Anything that can induce higher crop yields per acre ought to be applauded, especially by those that like to think of themselves as environmentalists or conservationists. The United States' big agricultural firms are more successful at doing this--and doing it cost-effectively--than anyone else anywhere else.

Think of the alternative to high-yield agriculture. Think of all the millions of additional acres that would have to be planted in order to sustain the world's population. Those are acres that could otherwise be put to alternative uses. For instance, in places like Brazil, the alternative use is rainforest. You like rainforest, right?

I do like rainforest.

Large-scale monoculture is not truly cost-effective. There are externalities that are not considered. This is what I meant by chrematistics as opposed to oikonomia. You assume millions of additional acres would have to be planted, but this is not necessarily true.

A recent article by Michael Pollan in the New York Times mentioned that as much as 40% of the produce Americans ate during WWII was grown in victory gardens.

Also, over the long term, it may become less necessary to sustain a population as large as the current one. What I mean is that if globalization is successful in lifting more and more people in developing countries out of poverty, the birth rates in these places could go down (as we've seen in nearly all developed economies). Or, pollution could get worse and eventually cause human sterility, and that would cause a decline in population as well. (The Children of Man scenario, you could call it).

In any case, the thing about applause is that it fades soon after the performance is finished. These higher yields are produced with heavy use of fossil fuels, which are finite. It is better that we relearn methods of purely solar farming now while we have the luxury of time and remaining fuels. Also, these yields are produced in monocultures that degrade soil over time and require more and more fertilizers (and thus more petroleum). I know it's cliche, but it's simply not sustainable and it's bad economics.

[memebag]

I'm not willing to quibble about whether or not human capabilities are unnatural. (Really? Nukes are natural? Really?)

Really. Really. For nukes to be "unnatural", humans would have to be outside of nature. That was a common assumption in the west for thousands of years, but it has become a hard position to maintain these days. If we aren't a unique species with angels and devils dancing over our shoulders then our actions have no special status. Our creations are no more or less natural than the creations of other natural processes.

Yes, we are animals: very smart animals that can create very nasty things that wouldn't occur naturally.

... if we didn't create them. Since we do, they occur naturally.

Anyway, whether or not one believes that GM foods are "unnatural", it is still necessary for them at least to be identified. If my use of the word "unnatural" is disagreeable to you, I can easily replace it with "potentially harmful" or "unprecedented" or something else.

Thanks.

Even if you want to call the gene gun treatment "natural", you must at least concede that this is not something that (other) animals and plants can do by themselves, without high levels of technology. That fact alone accounts for my position that we must at least label these foods, lest there be side effects from their consumption.

I agree that we should label GM foods, but I don't think that will protect us from the side effects. We may be super intelligent animals, but we still aren't as bright as we think we are. We usually have to touch the hot stove several times before we learn.

It is better that we relearn methods of purely solar farming now while we have the luxury of time and remaining fuels.

We don't have the luxury of time. The current human population is already dependent on high yield agriculture. Its OK for a few top income humans to live on "organic" produce and free range meat, but those will remain luxuries unless the human population decreases dramatically.

[mojeaux131]

I agree that we should label GM foods, but I don't think that will protect us from the side effects. We may be super intelligent animals, but we still aren't as bright as we think we are. We usually have to touch the hot stove several times before we learn.

If labeling those foods facilitates recognition of any connection between them and disease, it can be protective, yes. Label the food and that will create a paper trail should one become necessary.

We don't have the luxury of time. The current human population is already dependent on high yield agriculture. Its OK for a few top income humans to live on "organic" produce and free range meat, but those will remain luxuries unless the human population decreases dramatically.

It is fully within the realm of possibility to change this. We may not be as bright as we think we are, but we're a lot more flexible and resourceful than we give ourselves credit for, even with our multiple burn wounds from hot stoves.

The more people are able to grow their own food or obtain it from local sources, the less necessary large scale monoculture becomes.

[TheNiche]

I do like rainforest.

Large-scale monoculture is not truly cost-effective. There are externalities that are not considered. This is what I meant by chrematistics as opposed to oikonomia. You assume millions of additional acres would have to be planted, but this is not necessarily true.

I'd never heard of chrematistics or oikonomia, and upon looking up "definitions", it seems that somebody lacking a fundamental understanding of economics has gone and made up duplicative terms. Chrematistics is finance. Oikonomia is economics. The former is a subset of the latter.

Your goal seems to be Pareto Efficiency (sometimes known as Pareto Optimality). It encompasses short- and long-run considerations as they relate to public policy. Look it up.

A recent article by Michael Pollan in the New York Times mentioned that as much as 40% of the produce Americans ate during WWII was grown in victory gardens.

The America of 1944 differs from the America of 2008 in ways that are really quite dramatic. I really do hope you realize that.

Also, over the long term, it may become less necessary to sustain a population as large as the current one. What I mean is that if globalization is successful in lifting more and more people in developing countries out of poverty, the birth rates in these places could go down (as we've seen in nearly all developed economies). Or, pollution could get worse and eventually cause human sterility, and that would cause a decline in population as well. (The Children of Man scenario, you could call it).

In any case, the thing about applause is that it fades soon after the performance is finished. These higher yields are produced with heavy use of fossil fuels, which are finite. It is better that we relearn methods of purely solar farming now while we have the luxury of time and remaining fuels. Also, these yields are produced in monocultures that degrade soil over time and require more and more fertilizers (and thus more petroleum). I know it's cliche, but it's simply not sustainable and it's bad economics.

In the long term, slowing population growth, increased global trade in different sorts of food products, and diversification of consumer tastes, all occuring globally, will go a long way towards limiting the expansion of botanical monoculture as well as the risks to the food supply that it entails.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the trends towards increased agricultural scale, mechanization, fertilization, pesticide use, and regional specialization are likely to abate, however. And this is really a good thing. It can be safer and more efficient. If fertilizer prices and transportation costs continue to rise as they have, then those costs will either be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher food prices or agricultural practices will be modified so as to consume less of those resources, for instance by way of regional de-specialization such that food sources are nearer to consumers.

It is nearly inconceivable that having consumers grow much of their own food is in any way more efficient or better for the environment than having big agri-business do it for them. Back yard gardens require ridiculous amounts of labor and capital per unit of output as compared to what is grown in big operations. The opportunity cost of peoples' time is that people might either be more productive in ways to which they are better specialized, or might perhaps just enjoy that time as leisure, contributing to their mental health and feeding back positively on their productivity when they're trying to be productive.. Also, to attain urban farming on any large scale would necessitate that the entire population be given a horticultural education. But that kind of education displaces other kinds of much more important education which will prepare them to be productive in such a way as contributes to higher per capita wealth and lower fertility, which is a solution to these kinds of problems that each of us seems to be able to agree upon.

Edited April 20, 2008 by TheNiche