How many of you guys here really, really enjoy cooking and planning meals?

[IslandTractor]

How's it different? Selecting genes in a lab or selecting them in a field, its still manipulating one thing to get another thing.

Here's a link to an article in this month's issue of National Geographic to a story about why do many reasonable people doubt science. One of the things they discuss is genetically modified foods. Its a good read.

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? - National Geographic Magazine

Excellent article. May I suggest that the moderators have everyone on the "friendly politics" forum read it.

 

[tcreeley]

I am not suspicious of science, but I am suspicious of people marketing new products that reflect new processes.
Science is a wonderful tool Recently I was at a research facility where the waste sludge from paper mills was being converted into fuel and a new material was being synthesized for industrial applications.
Why am I suspicious - because every toxin that finds its way into our environment did so inadvertently. Nobody set out to pollute, to poison anything- but the chemicals utilized did so - some more than others. DDT, Mercury, PCBs, Dioxin, lead, asbestos. They were all "safe" as used, but time and more science later tells the rest of the story.
Monsanto wants us to trust them on GMO's, roundup. Tobacco was once "safe" as well. To be blunt - I don't trust them, not because of the science, but because I think they are liars out to make a fast buck, regardless of safety.

 

[IslandTractor]

I am not suspicious of science, but I am suspicious of people marketing new products that reflect new processes.
Science is a wonderful tool Recently I was at a research facility where the waste sludge from paper mills was being converted into fuel and a new material was being synthesized for industrial applications.
Why am I suspicious - because every toxin that finds its way into our environment did so inadvertently. Nobody set out to pollute, to poison anything- but the chemicals utilized did so - some more than others. DDT, Mercury, PCBs, Dioxin, lead, asbestos. They were all "safe" as used, but time and more science later tells the rest of the story.
Monsanto wants us to trust them on GMO's, roundup. Tobacco was once "safe" as well. To be blunt - I don't trust them, not because of the science, but because I think they are liars out to make a fast buck, regardless of safety.

There have definitely been many instances of toxic compounds entering the environment that were at the time not recognized as toxic. The science of toxicology is a fairly recent one so much of those disasters were not really preventable using existing knowledge or understanding of how to look for toxic side effects. We've come a long way since those days.

Tobacco was never, in the modern era, considered safe. The Tobacco companies lied and tried to undermine scientific and medical evidence about tobacco toxicity but science never declared tobacco to be a safe product. Same is true of asbestos and lead. They may not have been recognized as toxic initially but methods that are standard today would have detected their toxicity before they were widely introduced. Penicillin by the way would never be licensed today because the incidence of serious allergy would be detected in even early phase FDA trials. Same goes for sulfa drugs and aminoglycosides.

GMO foods are not "Frankenfood". Science and specifically plant genetics have allowed development of food plants that are heartier, more tolerant of both drought and flood, higher in desirable nutrients and even resistant to pests without need for pesticides and with genetically transferred qualities that limit food waste/spoilage. We need GMO foods to safely and adequately feed the many billions of people on this earth. Not everyone has access to or the money to feed their family from Whole Foods or farmer's markets.

A far bigger concern IMO is the trend of allowing companies like Monsanto to dominate the seed market. We need to stimulate GMO food research at university and government institutes so that new GMO foods remain in the public domain.

 

[downsizingnow48]

Coming back to this thread after a while. Maybe there should be a thread on GMO. On the topic of cooking, 2Lane (post 51) mentioned a green chili stew. Please post the recipe. I make a simple green chili using green chiles (anaheim and jalapeno), onions, garlic, and pork roast. I serve it in bowls, or in burritos, or in tacos, or for breakfast with eggs and tortillas. A family favorite for many years. Always looking for new options though.

 

[TomSeller]

GMO foods are not "Frankenfood". Science and specifically plant genetics have allowed development of food plants that are heartier, more tolerant of both drought and flood, higher in desirable nutrients and even resistant to pests without need for pesticides and with genetically transferred qualities that limit food waste/spoilage. We need GMO foods to safely and adequately feed the many billions of people on this earth. Not everyone has access to or the money to feed their family from Whole Foods or farmer's markets.

A far bigger concern IMO is the trend of allowing companies like Monsanto to dominate the seed market. We need to stimulate GMO food research at university and government institutes so that new GMO foods remain in the public domain.

The world needs to do something about population growth before we need frankenfood that grows faster and larger to feed more and more people. We have a finite amount of space and we are destroying the planet with too many people as it is. For anyone that is going to disagree, what do you expect the earth to be like in 100 years at this rate? 200 years? 300 years? Roundup ready seed is being made primarily to sell more Roundup, not grow more crops.

 

[dave1949]

How's it different? Selecting genes in a lab or selecting them in a field, its still manipulating one thing to get another thing.

Here's a link to an article in this month's issue of National Geographic to a story about why do many reasonable people doubt science. One of the things they discuss is genetically modified foods. Its a good read.

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? - National Geographic Magazine

GMO techniques can and do include splicing in genetic material that would never occur under natural pollination or selective cross breeding. That's the difference.

Doubting science is not the issue. I have no doubt plant geneticists can splice a variety of genetic material into a crop plant--including make it glow in the dark. Doubting whether that is a good idea or not over the long run is not doubting science; it is doubting societal values that acquiesce to questionable trade-offs.

 

[TomSeller]

GMO techniques can and do include splicing in genetic material that would never occur under natural pollination or selective cross breeding. That's the difference.

Doubting science is not the issue. I have no doubt plant geneticists can splice a variety of genetic material into a crop plant--including make it glow in the dark. Doubting whether that is a good idea or not over the long run is not doubting science; it is doubting societal values that acquiesce to questionable trade-offs.

Well said

 

[tcreeley]

Organic farming can feed the world if done right, scientists claim
Organic farming can feed the world if done right, scientists claim - Environment - The Independent

Organic farming is much more productive than previously thought, according to a new analysis of agricultural studies that challenges the conventional “biased” view that pesticide-free agriculture cannot feed the world.

The study says that organic yields were only 19.2 per cent lower, on average, than those from conventional crops and that this gap could be reduced to just eight per cent if the pesticide-free crops were rotated more frequently.

Furthermore, in some crops - especially leguminous plants such as beans, peas and lentils - there were no significant differences in yields, the researchers from the University of California, Berkeley found.

“In terms of comparing productivity among the two techniques, this paper sets the record straight on the comparison between organic and conventional agriculture,” said Claire Kremen, professor of environmental science, policy and management at Berkeley.

The study comes amid rising concerns that intense farming practices are damaging the environment, with the widespread use of nerve agent pesticides frequently blamed for declining populations of bees and other pollinators. Meanwhile, fertilizers are producing smaller and smaller increases in yields because they are now so effective they are difficult to improve upon.

“With global food needs predicted to greatly increase in the next 50 years, it’s critical to look more closely at organic farming because, aside from the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture, the ability of synthetic fertilizers to increase crop yields has been declining,” said Prof Kremen. ...........

 

[IslandTractor]

You would probably enjoy reading this: Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food by Pamela C. Ronald (Author), R. W. Adamchak (Author). The main author is an agricultural geneticist and the second author (her husband) is the head of the organic farm at UC Davis. They do a nice job of explaining how the two concepts, GMO and organic farming, are synergistic. It isn't really a polemic but rather a folksy but scientific exploration of pros and cons of the practical and theoretical issues. Fast read. Get it used from Amazon for about $5

 

[TomSeller]

Organic farming is much more productive than previously thought, according to a new analysis of agricultural studies that challenges the conventional “biased” view that pesticide-free agriculture cannot feed the world.
.

Agree. What I grow in my garden is organic and when I raise commercial crops it is organically. The grocery store I shop at has an organic produce section which is now at least 40% of the produce area. There is a slight premium at the consumer level and the store is working hard to increase the organic selection due to the profit levels. The produce tastes better and is only slightly blemished compared to the rest of the produce.