HFWR
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
That looks like a blow-up doll for someone with a[-]n[/-] [-]imitation[/-] chocolate milk and male wrestler fetish...
A problem with OGM corn for example, though, is that the pollen goes all over.
The cases I'm aware of, those weedkillers are more environmentally friendly than the proprietary weedkillers they replace. Isn't that a win-win?Other strains are solely designed to create a pipeline for sales of proprietary pesticides or weedkillers.
Well that could be, but I don't know where we draw the line. Organic farmers use pesticides too. They use other practices to eliminate pests. So that could impact the environment also. Some studies indicate that large scale organic farming would require a 1/3 or more land to be cultivated. There is a downside to that also. The GM crops that produce their own pesticides are just using the genes from other organisms that produced those pesticides. In fact, GM crops produce Bt, which is a pesticide that organic farmers use. Except, the GM plant produces it where right where it is needed, rather than getting sprayed all over.When you have an OGM crop that kills off pests, it could also negatively affect other beneficial insects, or populations of birds and other animals that might need those pests to live, so you affect a whole ecosystem. I'm not saying the human payoff may not be there, but we have to be attuned to, and prepared for, unintended consequences.
Humans did that. You want to go somewhere with teaming natural wildlife? Visit (for a very short time!), the Chernobyl area. Since there are no humans there, the wildlife has come back in force, and no, they don't have three heads. No, I don't think that's a good solution (had to say that before greg started typing a response!), but maybe we should ask the animals?The apparently bucolic landscape in which I currently live is actually extremely sterile. There are virtually no worms, no squirrels/chipmunks/raccoons or any of that sort of thing. Many bird species have been killed off (even tiny songbirds) due to their apparent tastiness factor.
OK, you hit my limit with that one! I'll take a nice tasty, juicy conventionally grown Apple any day!Sorry if someone has posted this elsewhere here:
Dutch boffins tout green petri-dish synthetic meat | The Register
That looks like a blow-up doll for someone with a[-]n[/-] [-]imitation[/-] chocolate milk and male wrestler fetish...
Toward the Square Tomato - TIME...new machinery will dictate the size and kind of food that Americans eat. In trying to develop a mechanical strawberry harvester, Oregon State University scientists are experimenting with 6,000 varieties of berry to find one suitable for machine picking. The impact of mechanization is such, predicts International Harvester Economist Dr. L. S. Fife, that crops failing to lend themselves to mechanization "will cease to exist as common commodities. They will become delicacies obtainable only at high cost through scarce hand labor."
You want to go somewhere with teaming natural wildlife? Visit (for a very short time!), the Chernobyl area. Since there are no humans there, the wildlife has come back in force, and no, they don't have three heads.
I hope a chicken processing thread appears soon.
But a bit later, as I'll be busy today. I'll be bottling a food product (definitely NOT milk!) that I supervised the production of, except for the raw ingredients.
ERD50:
. . . Reducing the obvious toxins . . . perhaps many of the chemicals in preserved foods, and eliminating all the stabilizers added to packaged foodstuffs--all could help reduce the total health care package costs. I believe it could be a significant reduction.
The milk that gets reused is not considered tainted,its milk that has to be pasturised a second time thus reducing it to b grade.
We shouldn't DEMONIZE industry, but I think skepticism is also healthy.
A problem with OGM corn for example, though, is that the pollen goes all over. Read of one organic farmer who lost his crop due to nearby OGM corn.. and then to add insult to injury got sued by Monsanto or whomever for illegally possessing the OGM hybrid result. Other strains are solely designed to create a pipeline for sales of proprietary pesticides or weedkillers. I'm all for science and testing when it can be controlled adequately. When you have an OGM crop that kills off pests, it could also negatively affect other beneficial insects, or populations of birds and other animals that might need those pests to live, so you affect a whole ecosystem. I'm not saying the human payoff may not be there, but we have to be attuned to, and prepared for, unintended consequences.
I tend towards tree-hugging only 'cause in a world with no trees I don't think we'd be around very long. The apparently bucolic landscape in which I currently live is actually extremely sterile. There are virtually no worms, no squirrels/chipmunks/raccoons or any of that sort of thing. Many bird species have been killed off (even tiny songbirds) due to their apparent tastiness factor. At one point in my life I was quite familiar with a certain crowd (slogan: Better Living Through Chemistry) who would have been thrilled to live aboard the Starship Enterprise, subsisting on synthetic Jell-O-type cubes that represented a steak dinner. While I'm sure it's do-able, I remain underwhelmed by the prospect.
Sorry if someone has posted this elsewhere here:
Dutch boffins tout green petri-dish synthetic meat | The Register
ERD50, those are all good points (except for the one about regular corn pollination;
Another link mentioned they saw cross pollination of corn > 1600 feet away (as far as they tested).Do not plant sweet corn in the same garden with popcorn. The quality of the sweet corn will be reduced if it is cross-pollinated by popcorn.
Well, maybe they do converge. And not everyone wants the same thing. Certainly, many vegetables are grown and bred with shipping, shelf-life, ease of harvest, and other things over taste. But there is consumer demand for inexpensive foods, so the market meets the demand.Another aspect that is more pertinent to the milk thread is: are we interested in producing only the maximum food product X per acre, or are we interested in producing food that is healthful and TASTY!?
The interests of business and of the consumer do not always converge perfectly.
I could buy this argument, except for the fact that we do use some amount of care (maybe not enough for you) before bringing new products/processes to market. Look at what the FDA rejects for example. And, when something is found to be dangerous, it tends to get removed from the market (lead-free plumbing, paints, gasoline; freon, etc). Not a perfect system of course, but really, what is the alternative? I fail to see how we could make any progress with your high standards of acceptance for change.I don't want to find out that we've been slowly accumulating some nasty little toxins inside our bodies that someday, maybe twenty years from now will accumulate to the point that, perhaps, we die early...