Who Knows about Milk?

[bright eyed]

This paper makes some interesting points - ...Conservation Ecology: The Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops: A Multidisciplinary Perspective "While biotechnology could be used to produce large social and ecological benefits, most GM crops developed to date have been designed to benefit agrobusiness while exposing people and ecosystems to substantial risks. Due to this pattern, there is widespread suspicion of agricultural biotechnology and its advocates."

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND AGRICULTURE

In his statement on crop biotechnology, Conway states "... Biotechnology is going to be an essential partner, if yield ceilings are to be raised, if crops are to be grown without excessive reliance on pesticides and herbicides, and if farmers on less favored lands are to be provided with crops that are resistant to drought and salinity, and that can make more efficient use of nitrogen and other nutrients." This argument is commonly used to advocate the development and use of GM crops, but it is not currently supported by either the consensus of scientists or any comprehensive comparison of agricultural alternatives.
Roughly 95% of the world's farmers live in developing countries. Most of these people engage in small-scale, community-based agriculture. Over long periods of time, these communities have constructed complex systems of knowledge about their environment (Castillo and Toledo 2000). More recently, the "green revolution" succeeded in making food more easily available to most of the world's population. Increases in agricultural production were brought about by a combination of increased irrigation, more intensive use of fertilizers and plant protection chemicals, and the development of new crop varieties capable of responding to higher levels of inputs and management. However, this agricultural intensification often came at the expense of local ecosystems and human health. These changes reduced the ability of the poor to support themselves from local ecosystems while benefiting well-off farmers. The centralized nature of crop biotechnology will further this process by reducing local specificity and adaptation of agricultural practices, which increases both social dependency on external inputs to agriculture and decreases the ability of local agroecosystems to adapt to local environmental contexts (Gadgil 2000). While future biotechnology may be codeveloped in local communities, as Conway proposes, it currently is not.
Furthermore, it is questionable whether technical innovation is what is needed to develop more productive agriculture. The area with the greatest current need for increased agricultural production is Africa, where the green revolution was largely a failure (Dyson 1999). It is unlikely that GM crops will eliminate the social problems that led to this failure. Conway acknowledges that a large body of social science research has demonstrated that famines are caused not by food shortages or a lack of agricultural technology, but by lack of access to food (Sen 1977, 1980). Food access is determined by institutional characteristics such as property rights, political stability, and social security systems. Even with stable or expanding food supplies, inequality in the area of food access can lead to starvation and malnutrition. Genetically modified crops promise to increase the productivity of poor farmers in the developing world, but so do other agricultural technologies (Ruttan 1999, Thomas 1999). Rather than investing in GM crops, one could invest in organic farming, integrated pest management, water management, or crop breeding. A fair assessment of the relative merits of different agricultural practices requires a systematic understanding of these alternatives. However, there has been little systematic research on the relative ecological and economic merits of alternative agricultural systems. Agricultural research has tended to narrow its focus to single goals, such as reducing erosion or increasing crop yields, rather than regarding the management of agroecosystems as a component of regional ecosystem management.

 

[samclem]

greg,
I found the strawman "food label from hell." It's all here. Bitchen radar splattergrams of mineral content, groovy multicolored pyramids with several axes of data on macronutrients, a table of amino acids spelled out by name. As you previously guessed, though, food packages will need to get bigger to hold the label.

I picked a health food for the label example.
Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Sausage, Vienna, canned, chicken, beef, pork

Of course, if we "supersize" the packages to hold the new improved (bigger) label, people will be prone to eat more. Doh! Maybe we're moving in the wrong direction with this idea . . .

 

[ERD50]

in terms of your rebuttal - i just think we fundamentally disagree so there isn't much use trying to convince you i don't like slamming my head against walls, it hurts.

now wait a minute, how can you just 'fundamentally disagree' with this?:

you say: 'some GM crops don't make their own seeds, you have to buy more each year'

we reply: 'some hybrids don't produce fertile seeds, you have to buy more each year'

I mean, it's either right or wrong, isn't it?

-ERD50

YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic (extended)

Man: Look this isn't an argument.
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is.

 

[bright eyed]

i meant fundamentally - in a macro way.

glad we agree on something!

 

[ERD50]

i meant fundamentally - in a macro way.

glad we agree on something!

so, there is no point in discussing any of the details of the document you provided? You disagree on a macro level, so discussions of details (in order to form a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition) is not going to open you up to any new ideas?

Is that what you are saying?


-ERD50

 

[ladelfina]

you say: 'some GM crops don't make their own seeds, you have to buy more each year'

we reply: 'some hybrids don't produce fertile seeds, you have to buy more each year'

I mean, it's either right or wrong, isn't it?

You have to buy new seeds each year because the company will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you don't.

It's disingenuous to say this is not a new paradigm.. it is. It's radically new. When you buy GM seed; it's essentially as though you don't OWN it. You have a one-crop LICENSE to use it.

--
"Traditional" hybrids developed in competing markets and different zones of the world to deal with local needs over centuries. GM is different less (perhaps) for the nature of the food product it yields, than in the nature of the political and economic changes it enforces. When NO corn on the planet remains without traces of patented GM material.. well I think Dickens' Jarndyce and Jarndyce would blanche at the cascade of never-ending lawsuits that could ensue.

Aside from it being GM or non-GM, these practices highlight the trend towards monoculture, which is risky in itself. The sheer scale of crop production in the hands of a few companies with only a few strains has never been experienced before, nor has it ever come about this precipitously. That is a huge difference that can't be ignored.

Just as there's a difference in the sun's radiation and Chernobyl, there's a difference in how plant hybrids have historically been used and diffused, and Monsanto GM corn.

You are putting your faith in the people who gave us Olestra, and in the "helpful" companies giving nutritional "aid" in Africa in the form of powdered infant formula. They are amoral. They are just in it to make money, not to save the world from hunger. And they have a lot invested in this one product (GM seed) and its ancillaries (the pesticides you need to use with it). Think Microsoft. They need people to be so twisted up in it that they can't break free even if they want to. They MAY provide a benefit (Powerpoint ) as a by-product of cash generation.


------

I will try to get back to your other comments which are discussable (I appreciate that!), but I need to comment on this most important comment!

I would NEVER pasteurize or micro-filter home-brew beer! It affects the taste, and there is no need.

ERD50-I appreciate your appreciation! OF COURSE there is no need, but that doesn't mean our wacky system allows it. I was reading that at a home-brew festival no one was allowed to offer non-pasteurized beer.

SO: natural home-brew BAD; cloning and GM corn GOOD.. seems to be the prevailing logic of the 'competent' authorities?

All I can say is that I am for working with nature and not against it. I don't see how cloning and monoculture monopolies are, in the long run and in the larger view, defensible or sustainable, despite what their immediate benefits may appear to be.

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!
("If you think it's butter, but it's NOT.. It's CHIFFON!")

What's "self-evident" to me is highlighted in the citation provided by bright eyes.. that in the rush of private firms to provide narrowly-focused (and highly profitable) "solutions" to a problem, the larger system is ignored, leaving the GM "hammer" to drive the "nail" of African food shortages.

I'll repeat: just because there is one OK-in-some-ways solution, doesn't mean there isn't a better one. The optimal solution is self-sustaining and balanced, and I'm not convinced Monsanto offers that, or that a self-sustaining solution is in Monsanto's best interests.


---
As for labeling.. what's creepy and totalitarian is less how they DON't put certain things on the label.. but the fact that they CAN'T put certain things on the label. I can't remember the circumstances but I definitely recall a group wanting to label their food as "not irradiated" or "not treated with Pesticide X" or "GM-free" and it was ruled that they COULD NOT advertise this, since it would be "unfair" to the majority of producers who irradiated/used Pesticide X/GM. If this is the regime, consumers can't choose. (And so much for the free market and freedom of speech...)

And at this point it is almost moot, since essentially ALL corn, soy, canola etc. is GM "contaminated". There is virtually no product you can buy containing these that is GM-free. Maybe this will or won't matter nutrition-wise, but it is a genie that won't be put back into the bottle. There's a level of arrogance and presumption in this situation that I find unsettling.

I agree in part with samclem that it's more important to know WHAT you are ingesting than WHY.. but maybe "why" is important in other ways. Maybe someone might want to know if product X was made with slave labor, or that Farm Y eggs are from free-range chickens, and make purchasing choices based on that info.


---
The potted meat product (if not for the "potting") would be a treat to my DH. He loves tripe, coratella (lamb heart/liver/lungs/kidneys) and eats the fatty parts I leave behind from my pork chops.

---

The total amount of DNA changed was miniscule, even though their appearance was markedly different.

There's only a "miniscule" amt. of difference between our DNA and a chimp's, too!

 

[ERD50]

Ladelfina, I need to get back to your earlier post, there were some points that were well made that I would like to address, but time now just for this:

(re GM):You have to buy new seeds each year because the company will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you don't.

It's disingenuous to say this is not a new paradigm.. it is. It's radically new. When you buy GM seed; it's essentially as though you don't OWN it. You have a one-crop LICENSE to use it.

Ahhh, that is a much more accurate statement than bright eyed, who simply said that GM does not produce fertile seed. But, we are comparing to hybrid crops. So there is really no practical difference. The GM producers do require you to sign a document that you will not re-plant that fertile and true-to-the-parent GM seed from the crop you grow so that they can re-coup their investment. However, hybrid seeds are mostly NOT true-to-the-parent, so those crops seeds cannot be reused either. So in practice it is the same.

The 'argument' was being put forth that GM was bad, yet those same people seemed to take no issue with organic farmers using trad hybrids, they are not calling for labeling of products w/trad hybrids, so it is this difference I was focusing on. And the differences listed by bright eyed seem to fall apart in that regard.

--

"Traditional" hybrids developed in competing markets and different zones of the world to deal with local needs over centuries.

Aside from it being GM or non-GM, these practices highlight the trend towards monoculture, which is risky in itself.

Yes, monoculture entails risk and it seems reasonable to have some diversity in our crops. Again, many trad hybrids have resulted in a monoculture (the single 'Cavendish' variety of banana provides the majority of that market today). Maybe if GM was not facing such resistance, the scientists could produce a wider variety of GM types than we can come up with the somewhat hit-miss trad methods? Maybe GM is the answer, not the problem?

I was reading that at a home-brew festival no one was allowed to offer non-pasteurized beer.

I can only imagine you read some bad information (edit/add: or this was a very unique restriction). I have never, never heard of a home brewer pasteurizing their beer. The home brew club I am in just recently attended a beer festival, and offered samples of our members beer/mead to the public along with 5 other clubs. No pasteurization; never mentioned. This was an AHA nationally sanctioned event. Held in a state that knows pasteurization well (Wisconsin - Land of MILK!).

The optimal solution is self-sustaining and balanced, and I'm not convinced Monsanto offers that, or that a self-sustaining solution is in Monsanto's best interests.

And I'm not convinced that 'organic' and the automatic exclusion of GM crops is the optimal solution either. I suspect a blend of these techniques may get us closer to optimal, but I think it is worthy of analysis rather than an automatic rejection of new technologies.

Which really gets back to the question posed to greg - how do we implement new technologies under this 'fear all new things' view?

Even the processes of organic farmers were 'new' once - will bringing in an unnaturally large population of ladybugs, for example, upset the balance of nature? Will concentrating the toxins in plants and spraying those in unnaturally high concentrations have an impact on the environment?

You are putting your faith in the people who gave us Olestra, and in the "helpful" companies giving nutritional "aid" in Africa in the form of powdered infant formula.

No way! I don't 'trust' companies! But, I do 'trust' the free market to help weed out bad products over time. It's a far from perfect system, of course. But again, offer a better one. Remember Adam Smith: 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.'

- There's a level of arrogance and presumption in this situation that I find unsettling.

With all due respect, I find the same arrogance and presumption in the automatic rejection of potentially beneficial technologies unsettling. Is 'organic' really better in all ways, in all cases? Are GM, 'chemicals', and new technologies always worse, in all ways, all cases? That is the arrogance and presumption that I see.

Maybe someone might want to know if product X was made with slave labor, or that Farm Y eggs are from free-range chickens, and make purchasing choices based on that info.

I for one, would like to see some sort of labeling that a product was created with some standards of environmental and labor conditions. I personally don't want to pick a marginally cheaper product over it's equivalent if those underlying 'hidden costs' are unknown to me. Voice your opinion in large numbers, and the free market will provide it. Electronics manufacturers, for one example, are voluntarily signing up to labors standards that exceed the local laws because the public is demanding it.

If you want free range chickens - farmers supply it, they are on the market. But not everyone wants to pay the higher price, they have that choice. Sure, you have to seek it out, but that is the way with 'niche' markets.

There's only a "miniscule" amt. of difference between our DNA and a chimp's, too!

Correct. The point is, those GM crops seem no more likely to 'pollute' the DNA of other crops than a trad hybrid - again, that is the comparison. And, as Darwin found in pigeons, crosses tend to revert to the wild state over time. Remember 'Killer Bees'? That was headlines and fear for a long time, this super race got released to the wild , we are doomed! These was a trad invasive species - not GM. So why pick GM out as unique in this regard?

-ERD50

 

[OldAgePensioner]

[SIZE=+1] Back to my "wash" the teets insight.


Methods and devices for removal of toxic compounds from breast milk [/SIZE]
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent 20070005006
Kind Code:
A1
Link to this page:
Methods and devices for removal of toxic compounds from breast milk - Patent 20070005006
Abstract:
Filter devices are described for removing organic toxins and/or inorganic toxins, such as halogenated endocrine disruptors, heavy metals and radionuclides from breast milk. The filter device can comprise a nipple shield device having a filter positioned in the interior of the nipple shield. The nipple shield device can be positioned on a female mammalian breast to filter expressed breast milk. Alternatively, the baby bottle can incorporate a filter device. Further, a breast milk pump can comprise a filter that is positioned interior to a breast milk pump to filter the breast milk as it is collected. General methods are described for removal of toxins from breast milk through filtration.

-----------------------
Now this is a serious issue what with large breasted (which magnifies the toxins according to something I read) women desiring to breast feed babies.

BAN breast feeding! It's worse than GBH or GM toxins in cows.

 

[ERD50]

OAP, what happened to your avatar?

And shouldn't it be 'YOU'RE BANNED'? (YOU - ARE BANNED), not YOUR BANNED?

It's kind of small to read, so maybe I'm missing something but I'm having trouble constructing a sentence with possessive case there that makes sense.

I had no trouble making sense of your previous avatar, though a possessive case there would get me in trouble with my wife!

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

ERD50,
I got a private and polite request to remove what was considered a merely salacious avatar.

Well, if it was a polite request, then I am glad that you complied. On another forum, this issue blew up to huge proportions, free speech and all that. My feeling is that stuff is available for anyone who wants to search it out. I'm no prude, but there is a time and a place for some things. So, if someone was uncomfortable with it (maybe because they check the site on their lunch at work, or in a public place), just as well to let it go.

Though it did reflect your on-line persona, so I kind of got a kick out of it.

No biggie, AFAIAC.

-ERD50

 

[OldAgePensioner]

ERD50,
I'll get a new avatar as soon as the dusting powder settles.

Back to the milk wars!!

I hate cow's milk, honestly.

Soy for me. Lots of toxins, GM modified beans, uuummmmm, yummy. And you never have to shovel soy shite or listening to the mooing.

 

[ERD50]

I've never tried the soy - no particular reason. I have not had any milk 'solo' for years, but drink it in stuff almost daily (over oatmeal mainly). So taste really isn't an issue for me personally, can't taste it much under the oatmeal, almonds, and fruit. I guess I think I need the calcium and Vitamin-D, but who knows? At any rate, it adds to the diversity of food that I eat, and I think that is important in general. A good oatmeal stout might work out nice with breakfast, but very long naps would result.

But the wife and kids drink milk solo, so they do care about the taste. They've tried the expensive organic and other trendy stuff, she almost always buys the cheapest stuff at costco, so I guess it is no big deal to her.

In the overall scheme of things, I put more effort into getting them to develop good survival skills (they take the advanced drivers test from the insurance company to lower ins rates), keep your car maintained, avoid unnecessary trips, be smart about entering bad 'hoods, among other things. I think that has more real impact on their health than some exposure to tested, regulated food additives, or whatever.

-ERD50

 

[ladelfina]

ERD50.. I just wanted to respond to a couple of things that are related in all this. (Unfortunately it borders on the p*litical, so apologies in advance to anyone that may offend.)

There seem to be a few parallel lines of objection to GM crops: one is the physical (does it change anything for the environment, or for the species that come in contact with them --be they human or any of the other millions of non-human species-- and if so, is that change important?). The second is the process of patenting, monopolization and market control. The third that declines from the second is the mono- (or lets say oligo-) culture.

The "experiment" of the first aspect is still open to debate, but it's a bit of closing the barn door after the horse has left. We've got it, and now we're stuck with it.. this came about neither through any particular end-consumer choice NOR through social (gov't.) planning either pro or con.

The worries that aspects 2 and 3 create, it's true, are not unique to GM.. with ONE major exception: the process of patenting which is inherent to the GM process as practiced today.

In the "traditional" case of the Cavendish banana, the virtual "triopoly" of United Foods (Chiquita) Dole and Del Monte dictated what cultivars got produced and (**warning-political**) the US had its hand in propping up right-wing governments in the so-called "banana republics" in part to protect these companies. Apparently, banana "trade wars" are continuing today and Chiquita is still resorting to what we might call 'unusual' business tactics (hiring Colombian terrorist groups).

What happens when you cross scenarios like that, with the added legal weight of patented organisms? Look out Nellie! That's the kind of "perfect storm" that GM critics and skeptics fear.. not only the fact that an organism may be GM, but that it's now global, legally shielded, and virtually unstoppable.

You have hopes for a more open GM marketplace, but I think that is slightly naive. Regular farmers and hobbyists --basically anyone with some time on their hands-- were able to come up with "traditional" hybrids, but today's GM technology, and the paired chemical/pesticide regimes they go hand-in-hand with, are only available to the few, as are the funds for filing and defending patents. Just as it's possible for you to write yourself an operating system to get out from under Microsoft, it's unlikely that you have the resources to fully commit to that enterprise.

I think there are deep-seated visceral reactions to finding that a common essential activity (agriculture) and a common essential need (a source of life itself: food!) have been taken from the hands of the many and put into the hands of the few. This may seem, Mr. Spock, highly illogical. But it's non-trivial and something that will have to be confronted.

 

[OldAgePensioner]

ERD50, a very good friend of mine says she likes Almond Milk more than soy and I believe I would also but can't find any.

Maybe I'll try the Amish Market on 9th.

BTW, agree 100%. Gosh, focusing life on micro-management of every aspect isn't worth it. Something else is gonna kill us. Not GM.

Also, anyone wearing shoes is getting megadoses of toxins.

Running is an especially bad way to get toxic chemicals. Runner's World had an article about runners in Los Angeles (my hometown) and the huge amount of asbestos they breathe because the gutters are literally 1/2 deep in powdered asbestos from brake linings and the lack of rain and the constant vortex created by passing cars, means the air withing 10-12 ft of the road is a toxic cocktail.

Bottom line. For those terrified by additives. Get inside a bubble, quick.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

This thread was a lot more pleasant to read when logged in and the 'ignore poster' controls were engaged. In fact, it was a pretty quick read!

I learned all sorts of stuff about milk, especially the part about substandard milk being used to make childrens chocolate milk. I buy prepackaged organic chocolate milk in little containers for those times when I dont have a chance to make up a sippy cup for Gabe. I checked and was reassured that the milk used is in fact real organic milk, its grade A, and its not dry milk from another country.

Very reassuring.

 

[greg]

#151 Nice post.

I slept on what I wrote last nite and this morning sort of came up with the following: Again, things can't be too complicated nor too [-]worthless[/-] simple either.

I suspect that if we had a basic three or four category grading system that could easily be identified while wandering the food marts most folks would start to use it. We could have as category 1, all food with a 1 in a triangle or circle or square (or in OAP's avatar of choice) that currently meet basic agriculture standards. For instance, our current grade A milk, which is probably tested for basic cleanliness and stuff, would be given the 1 label.

A 2 could be posted on foods with a higher level of purity or naturalness, perhaps those using minimal amounts, or better yet none, of pesticides, antibiotics, non-organic fertilizers, etc. I would also prefer that no GMO foods be allowed in these foods or in the case of milking cows no GMO [-]soup[/-] feed for them. Meeting these standards would allow packagers and such to use the 2 label.

A 3 could be posted on all products that currently meet or exceed current "organic" purity standards, whatever the experts decide on.

Such a system would, to my mind, be easy to use by the shopper. It should be easy to remember the three or four basic categories. Simply deciding one wants to eat higher on the number scale could be easily achieved, i.e. switching from #1 milk to #2 milk. The higher the number the greater the purity. Check out counters could display and pass out a small handout with info about the symbol system and further info could be gathered from a web site if desired. Individual buyers could get as deeply into understanding the system as they want, following updates, and changes and monitoring of their purity intakes. They can turn it into a food fetish if they desire, or they can just use the 1-2-3 stuff on the label as the only guide they ever need.

I personally would prefer such a system be run by the federal gov't. Much like current organic milk farmers, each farm that wants a higher label rating would need to meet the new standards. Most farmers are already comfortable with this system and know exactly how it works. An ag worker would show up, check standards, and certify, returning for recertification once or twice/year. Then a bill for services would be sent to the farmer. It would not be a free service; the gov't costs would match or be LESS than income from farmers and/or assembler/distributors. Of course, the farmers would roll all the extra costs into the price of their products. Such a system could be run by a private organization, say some National Food Purity Institute or whatever.

If some caveat or difficulty shows itself, perhaps a 2.1 rating may be needed (are new vaccines mandated for animals?) at a later time.

Of course, the devil is in the details as always. Agriculture experts should be able to devise a comprehensive approach to this outline. This is not that far from what is currently seen in agriculture (from my perspective); it simply draws a number of disparate elements out there under one umbrella.

My hope is that over time such a system while costing folks more money up front would after some time lead to lower health care costs. On a simple, nonscientific level, if folks saw and used such a system and started paying more attention to their food and eating habits and if some health care provider noticed that these particular folks actually used less health care, then there might be a possibility of reducing insurance premiums for these folks. And this might encourage others to participate too. Enlarging a virtuous circle.

 

[TromboneAl]

I am always impressed with your optimism, Greg. I've long given up on the government's ability to implement something like that (two words: food pyramid), or the average consumer's ability to either understand it or care about it.

 

[HFWR]

You can say that again...

 

[ladelfina]

Someone mentioned the UHT milk that's fairly popular in Europe. It's got a long shelf-life (like 2-3 months). I rarely buy it but sometimes keep one on hand for 'emergency' baking projects since we just don't have the milk-drinking habit. It does taste "cooked".

The odd thing is that the price is basically the same per liter! (One might imagine UHT would cost less due to reduced handling/spoilage costs.) The gov't. has its hands in messing with milk quotas, so it's hard to tell how the price is arrived at.

They have also been introducing all kinds of wacky milks (kinda like Tropicana did with juice) so now you can choose milk with Omega-3 added, milk with Vitamin E and Co-enzyme Q, Physi-Cal milk with extra calcium, milk for "growing kids" with vitamins, iron and zinc, milk with FIBER and probiotics, etc.!!! Is that happening in the US?

Strangely, the refrigerated "fresh-squeezed"-type pure juices aren't usually available.. just shelf-stored "juice drinks" (almost always with some kind of artificial sweetener ) plus straight apple, grapefruit, pineapple & nectars. It was only last week they installed a v. small Tropicana fridge display. I bought a blend (they were out of plain orange juice) and it cost the earth.. somewhere around $3.75 for a QUART (well, liter). The euro keeps faking me out; I saw €2.69 and said.. well, for a treat...

 

[bright eyed]

so, there is no point in discussing any of the details of the document you provided? You disagree on a macro level, so discussions of details (in order to form a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition) is not going to open you up to any new ideas?

Is that what you are saying?


-ERD50

Um, I'm always open to new ideas

but i gathered from this incessant thread that you generally have a positive view of this stuff and i generally don't...even if we agreed on some minor points, our conclusions would differ. i'm ok with that, but not going to spend much more time throwing data or observations your way. your viewpoint seems well informed and mine is as well so it is what it is.

 

[ERD50]

Um, I'm always open to new ideas

but i gathered from this incessant thread that you generally have a positive view of this stuff and i generally don't...

OK, let me clarify that. (I need to catch up to the other posts later...)

I do not have a positive OR negative view of any 'stuff', be it GM, organic, additives, processing, etc, etc, etc.

I want the best of our combined knowledge and understanding of risk/reward to help us figure out which paths are best. In some cases, that may be organic practices, in others it may be new technologies. I suspect it will almost always be a combination of things, and different things in different applications.

I suppose that when someone seems to present an undocumented negative view of something, w/o also considering the side effects of going w/o that thing, then my replies may appear negative to them. They are not meant to be. I will try to find time to re-read them (!) and see if my tone incorrectly conveyed this, and I will pay more attention to it in the future.

May I also ask that you try to read them in light of this explanation. Thanks.

More succinctly, I say let the data speak.

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

#151 Nice post.

I slept on what I wrote last nite and this morning sort of came up with the following: Again, things can't be too complicated nor too [-]worthless[/-] simple either.

. . .I suspect that if we had a basic three or four category grading system that could easily be identified while wandering the food marts most folks would start to use it.

My hope is that over time such a system while costing folks more money up front would after some time lead to lower health care costs. On a simple, nonscientific level, if folks saw and used such a system and started paying more attention to their food and eating habits and if some health care provider noticed that these particular folks actually used less health care, then there might be a possibility of reducing insurance premiums for these folks. And this might encourage others to participate too. Enlarging a virtuous circle.

greg,
So, as I understand your new system, it grades food by it's purity and "naturalness."
- Conceptually, I'd have no problem with this (or any other labeling thang) if it is voluntary. The government should not be involved in rating foods as to their "naturalness" until this criteria is demonstrated to have something to do with actual health impacts. As you have previously hinted, you can't cite evidence of this, it is based on anecdotal stories, etc. I think is likely also based on a world view and general philosophy of yours. Until there's science behind this idea that the presently allowed amount of additives (or GM, etc) actually has some untoward health impact, then the whole thing is based on gut feelings, intuition, and faith. Any government involvement not based on science would be like the government grading various religions.
- Regarding studying the people who eat "highly rated" foods as to the health impact of such foods. This might be possibe, but I doubt much would be accomplished due to the confounding variables. People who take the time to look at these labels and choose organic foods are probably a lot less likely to go home and eat three 1/2 pound burgers while smoking a pack of cigarettes. It would be difficult to tease apart these other eating/lifestyle issues, and these other things are almost certainly going to have a lot more impact than whether the wax paper in the packaging contains BHT.
- As a basis for insurance ratings: Unlikely for two reasons: As mentioned above, I don't think there will be a health impact found, but even if there were, how would the insurance company check for people who claim to eat only level 3 foods, but actually don't. Blood tests for pesticides?

As a note, under your proposed system a basket of regular supermarket apples would receive a rock-bottom rating of "1", while white cotton candy made from organic sugar and distilled water would receive the much desired "3" rating. Of these foods, which is really likely to have the more positive impact on health?

"Nope, our kids are only allowed to snack on foods rated '3' " sniffed the lady in the hemp halter top and Birkenstocks, as Junior sat nearby eating his tenth sugar cube. "Sure, their teeth are falling out, but we're happy to have given up the unnatural floridated toothpaste. A study of all primitive cultures makes clear that nature intended our teeth to last 30 years and we're right on track!"

 

[bright eyed]

So today, we have tools that allow us to selectively try to make changes to the DNA in a much more controlled, directed methodology. Why shouldn't we do that? It's just a tool.

I would say this is generally a positive view of the purpose of GM crops...but not reflected in the practice and marketing of them...

which is why i point back to this observation from fellow scholars/scientists

"While biotechnology could be used to produce large social and ecological benefits, most GM crops developed to date have been designed to benefit agrobusiness while exposing people and ecosystems to substantial risks. Due to this pattern, there is widespread suspicion of agricultural biotechnology and its advocates."

in my case - i studied this stuff in relation to developing countries and the use of Lobbying by mega corps to push small countries and entities like the world bank to require these types of farm practices as stipulations in their loans...so if you read the rest of that link i posted earlier, it will show how that can drastically, negatively affect small farmers in developing countries who are not the same as the farmers in CA's central valley.

 

[Rustic23]

TA... YOU really have to stop posting such a controversial thread!

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50
So today, we have tools that allow us to selectively try to make changes to the DNA in a much more controlled, directed methodology. Why shouldn't we do that? It's just a tool.

I would say this is generally a positive view of the purpose of GM crops...

Let me explain then. I mean what I say, that GM is a tool. A tool with potential. Whether that tool/potential plays out to be a good or bad thing, I do not intend to pre-judge. But I will not dismiss it w/o data, and I will challenge those that do. And conceptually, I still don't see the difference between GM and trad hybridization. Both of them are 'fooling Mother Nature'. Both of them are done by 'big business' with profit motives, likely short term rather than long term. Since no one asks for labeling of trad hybrids, I ask 'Why label GM?'.

which is why i point back to this observation from fellow scholars/scientists

"While biotechnology could be used to produce large social and ecological benefits, most GM crops developed to date have been designed to benefit agrobusiness while exposing people and ecosystems to substantial risks. Due to this pattern, there is widespread suspicion of agricultural biotechnology and its advocates."

I will read your document in detail - thanks for providing it. At this quick skim though, I fail to see the difference between big business and trad hybrids and big business and GM.

If a tool is misused, we need to deal with the misuse, not necessarily deal with the tool (oh dear, I am dangerously close to another hot button for people - please, let's not go there!).

-ERD50