jz -- Interesting info, tks. I know there's a burgeoning grass-fed meat and dairy industry in the U.S. (mostly small farmers distributing locally, but some bigger outfits too, like Niman Ranch). I wonder how they'd respond. You're reminding me of a funny thing I witnessed at the media company I used to work for. The place went thru a "let's go Green" spasm, which largely boiled down to telling all of us to use two wastebaskets, one for non-recyclables, one for waste that could be recycled. We were going to save the world. But working late one night, I noticed something: the lady who was pushing a cart around collecting the trash (and who spoke no English, and probably had no concept of "going Green") was emptying all the wastebaskets into one large collector. We office drones were making the effort to be conscientious, but it was making no diff whatsoever.

Judith -- Hey, I like Kerrygold too. Great flavor, and The Wife (an excellent cook) tells me it's fabulous for cooking -- takes heat really well. Her in-process food always smells great, but there's something even more special about it when she's cooking with Kerrygold. Great aromas in the air. We like picking up butters from other countries too -- English, French ... They're often delightful. Here's hoping their labeling is semi-honest. One grass-fed tip someone gave me recently re New Zealand meats. Basically, all New Zealand meat animals are pasture-raised. Buy NZ lamb, for instance, and you're definitely eating grass-fed meat. NZ simply doesn't have our kind of antiobiotic/corn-powered feedlots. I hope that's a trustworthy tip.

ST -- That's a great rant, eloquently put. I feel similarly. No idea what art and progressive social change are supposed to have in common, or why one is supposed to contribute to the other. Or rather, I'm familiar with the way some people do jam them together, I just can't buy it. We may differ (or not!) on one small point. I think art often has to do (whether it intends to or not) with quality of life. It can make life a more rewarding thing than it might otherwise be by supplying distraction, beauty, giggles, coolness, chic, a sensual buzz, a danceable beat, a pause that refreshes, etc. A life that includes good food, travel, music, ideas, etc, can be a more rewarding one than one that doesn't. An example: To some people the New Urbanism is part of a social fight that goes hand in hand with the fight against global warming, big cars, racism, etc. Not for me. As eco-nutty as I can be (and you have no idea ...) I don't for a minute think that NU is going to save the world. To me, the New Urbanism is about bringing to market a housing product that many people find enjoyable and rewarding, and preferable to what they're generally offered. New Urb developments are to housing what Apple computers are to home computing -- slick, quiet, high-end, and (if you have the money and that kind of taste), why not? You may enjoy your computing life more with an iMac than a Dell. (I certainly do.) One practical thing that I think needs to be recognized and accomodated: often the people who come up with nice culture-products are nuts, or unsound in other ways, and often it's at least partly the nuttiness that enables them to come up with these products. If they were sane and reasonable they wouldn't be spending their time coming up with crazy new culture-stuff. A lot of what's good in American food culture comes from socialist ex-hippies, for instance. I wouldn't vote any of them into office but I often enjoy their food. If the people who really power the New Urbanism think that their product is going to change the world for the better in a big way, well, that's OK with me. I don't have to agree with them about that in order to sample (and, in the case of New Urbanism) enjoy their creations. As you know well, almost everyone in the cultureworld is nuts, or impractical, or ego-deranged, or just a lousy thinker. Dismiss their work because the people behind it are unsound and you'd wind up with no cultural life at all. (Which is OK too, of course, though it wouldn't suit me.)

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 24, 2009 10:54 AM

Disclosure: It's been 35 years since my dairy-farmer-daughter days of feeding cows and taking them to and fro the pasture. So, I'm still wondering what's "grass fed" mean? Does that term apply only during the first two weeks when we put them to early pasture, and they get diarrhea for it? Does that include all winter when they're fed hay (ie. dried grass)? Are these cows that never are fed the extra nutrients added to the ground oats/corn mixture? Can a cow live on only "grass"? If so, are these cows skinny with low milkfat? What's wrong with feeding corn too? All these questions to ask at my next high school reunion.

You city people scare me.

Posted by: jz on July 24, 2009 12:51 PM

"All USDA AA butter is identical..."

My taste buds call bullshit on that!

If you like Kerrygold try Strauss Family cultured butter. It's $1.50 more or so but it's so good I think I could live on it. Their yoghurt is also amazing.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on July 24, 2009 1:25 PM

@Todd and Judith,
I haven't the time now, but I'm suspecting that "cultured butter" is not USDA AA by specifications.
Be back in a week.

Posted by: jz on July 24, 2009 1:41 PM

jz,

Watch the Independent Lens show "King Corn" (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/). The problem with feeding cows corn is that it kills them. They can't digest corn almost at all, so they get sick quick, and then they are pumped with antibiotics to stay alive.

The life expectancy of a corn-fed cow is something like 18 months.

Cows are not meant to eat grain or corn. They are meant to graze on grass.

Posted by: Steve-O on July 24, 2009 1:59 PM

On the butter post, anybody who uses GMO as a pejorative loses my interest immediately.

Posted by: Ted Craig on July 24, 2009 2:30 PM

Ted -- Being wary of the GMO thang and preferring more trad or "organic" foods isn't a respect-worthy stance? Really? Why?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 24, 2009 3:13 PM

couldn't resist checking back,
@Steve-O ,
that documentary left you misinformed. I personally fed cows ground corn. It keeps them healthy and they live about 20 years.
If you have doubts, I suggest you speak with a real dairy farmer, and examine cowpie for corn.

Posted by: jz on July 24, 2009 3:18 PM

I have no independent personally-acquired knowledge to contribute, but here's an interesting link:

LINK

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 24, 2009 3:27 PM

Michael, I visited the King Corn site.

This is a classic of what I just wrote about.

Two kids, just out of college, raise one acre of corn, make a movie... and the kids thinks they know more about how to produce food that farmers who've been doing it all their lives?

Silly shit. What in the fuck do those two kids know? Absolutely nothing. And, as soon as the moment of celebrity passes they'll move on to doing something else.

Then we'll continue to rely on people who farm year after year to produce food.

Why does anybody take this "activist" movie shit seriously? The only thing these kids know is how to play the political game of the corrupt art world.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on July 24, 2009 8:18 PM

Of course cows aren't designed by natural selection to feed on oats or corn -- hell, humans have only had them for 10,000 years at most. Feed lots are even more recent for cows.

My favorite snack is to use a spoon to slice off a small chunk of pasture-fed cow's butter, dip it in crunchy unsweetened almond butter to get a little on there, and eat them together. Much more of it is butter, and just a little is the almond butter.

In case you're choosing between brands, I get Organic Valley's pasture butter (in green foil) and Blue Diamond's crunchy almond butter.

Posted by: agnostic on July 25, 2009 2:06 PM

Michael,

> often the people who come up with nice culture-products are nuts, or unsound in other ways, and often it's at least partly the nuttiness that enables them to come up with these products. If they were sane and reasonable they wouldn't be spending their time coming up with crazy new culture-stuff.

Yes, this has been studied and claimed formally. See here, especially the comment from bgc:

LINK

As for anti-GMOism. My brain clicks off too when I come across it. More because of the unempirical and BS-ey nature of almost everyone who is vocal about it. It's not that I consider it an absolutely and positively unrespectable position per se. I do generally disagree with most of its points, though.

Posted by: Eric Johnson on July 25, 2009 9:23 PM

ST - The artistic, literary people who write books, make movies and write songs have no practical expertise. Usually, they don't know what they're talking about. They've made a dilettante pass at "studying" something, and then proceed to make sweeping moral and aesthetic judgments.

MB - As you know well, almost everyone in the cultureworld is nuts, or impractical, or ego-deranged, or just a lousy thinker.

No sweeping over-generalizatons (not to mention moral and aesthetic judgments) here folks; move along, move along.

Whether or not a film about this or any other topic is made by an artistic “nut” it does not take being a farmer (or a farmer’s daughter) to do the basic research and discover that “corn fed beef” is a modern (perhaps even “modernist”) intervention in the natural order of things intended to increase the speed at which a cow reaches slaughter weight. It also has meant that the acreage necessary to raise a given sized herd has been dramatically decreased. In the extreme it has enabled giant “feedlots” to replace farms. These are business concerns designed to increase profit margins that have nothing to do with maintaining the health of the herd (achieved in the short run by continual use of antibiotics) or with providing those who eat the results with healthier or better tasting beef. The same dynamic applies to dairy cows as to those raised for beef.

Corn, due primarily to government subsidies, became the cheapest cattle feed, so rather than being employed to add fat and marbling (and not coincidentlally weight) during the period immediately prior to a cow’s slaughter it became the primary feed throughout the cow’s full life cycle, despite the various health concerns for both cow and cow eatin’ humans.

What fascinates me is the way a system in place for such a brief length of time, one favoring gianormous factory farm agribusiness over smaller family farms, is supported by “conservatives” whereas calls from educated consumers seeking healthier, more flavorful, food is considered the realm of liberals and “kids playing the political game of the corrupt art world.” This to me turns the meanings of “conservative” and “liberal” on their heads.

As does the same dynamic vis-a-vis GMO products. How is it “conservative” to accept tinkering with the genetic material of corn or soy or whatever, in large part due to the intent of giant corporations to reap the benefits of creating what they hope will be a market monopoly because of the (mis)use of patent laws? Why is it “liberal” to suggest that planting tens of thousands of acres with crops for which we don’t yet know the full range of unanticipated side effects should be looked upon with scepticism and calls for caution?

Posted by: Chris White on July 26, 2009 8:22 AM

Chris -- I'm not sure how or why you're trying to hook the "creative people are often a little nuts" riff to the corn and GMO topics. Is there any connection?

But, fwiw, where corn and GMO go, I'm with you. Beyond all reasons of taste, health, and eco-fretting, I'd add as well that one reason the food topic is interesting and provocative is that it makes a hash of the usual left/right, Dem/Repub squabbles. One example: Joel Salatin, the usual farmer-hero of the smaller-is-beautiful/organic/grassfed crowd, is a Christian conservative, or at least a Christian "business-oriented libertarian." He even went to Bob Jones University. Deal with it, lefties. Deal with it, righties.

LINK

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 26, 2009 10:53 AM

You are such a dumb crank, Chris.

You've already forgotten that I actually grew up working on a corn farm, working in fact for a family that once owned a small farm, but succeeded in building that into a very large farm.

As usual with your brain dead ilk, lofty, sanctimonious theorizing beats practical experience any day. I know a little bit about what I'm talking about.

On the other hand, you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about. All you've really got going is that damnable sanctimony that gives you such idiot pride.

I actually know the people (at least some of them) involved in this enterprise. I know them to be decent people doing their best to provide food for the world and to succeed at bringing prosperity to their family. In this world, achieving this involves working day after day at something, testing what works against what doesn't. When I say what works, I mean what works in light of human nature, economic reality, governmental policy, etc. You know, Chris... in reality, not in that cloudy dream world of the narcissist you inhabit.

The farmers I know succeeded in preventing global famine, which you might recall was commonly predicted by mutton headed, sanctimonious fools like you in the 70s. No, they did not succeed by proposing angelic, sanctimonious, Utopian solutions. They got their hands dirty and did it the way it could be done.

The attitudes of fools like you are the seeds of incipient fascism. It is hard for you to fathom this, I know, but if sane people really listened to fools like you, the world would break down in famine, war and barbarity. Folks like the farmers I worked for when I was a kid ignore idiots the likes of you and go about their job, thank God.

The stupidity that your sanctimony inflicts upon you is preposterous, and you don't have the sense to understand how dangerous it is. You aren't enlightened and progressive, Chris... you are absolutely brain dead and sound asleep at the wheel.

If our goal is to build a world that will seem completely free of corruption and human errors that will please recent college graduates of humanities departments, we will stave to death... and deserve it. Who gives a fuck what recent graduates of a movie department at some college think about the business of farming? Fuck them.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on July 26, 2009 11:08 AM

And, Michael, I've got to ask you, too:

I've known the people actually involved in corn production, farming, hybridizing, etc., all my life.

When I was a kid I worked for them. I attended college at the largest, most important university in the world in the arena of agricultural research, the University of Illinois.

I know the people involved to be very good, conscientious, hard-working people. How is it that you've formed these ugly views of their motivations?

Do you really know what you're talking about here? I've done every job you can imagine in a corn field, from detassling hybrid corn to driving a tractor. I know the people involved from the guys who shovel shit to the people who work in laboratories.

What you seem to view as a sort of conspiracy, from my viewpoint, is the result of the people who are best at this work succeeding. Those who were good managers and successful producers built their "small farms" into mammoth farms that can produce profit on a very small margin. Just as you say, they've created a system to produces cheap, abundant food. And, yet, you somehow have managed to fashion this into an intentional desire to harm.

From the moment I stepped on campus at the University of Illinois, the snobbish contempt of those in the humanities and arts for those farmers was just an everyday fact of life. Those farmers produced the wealth that built the University of Illinois. That wealth produced the zone of comfort that allows for the luxury of building arts and humanities departments. In my arts and humanities courses, derision and contempt for the redneck farmers who financed and built the University of Illinois was just par for the course.

I'm sorry, but it looks very much to me that that same snobbery is at work here. I don't put much credence in your amateur theories of agriculture. I'd put my money behind the families that I know who have been practicing farming for generations any day.

Isn't there a grand element of hubris in these theories you purport to know so much about? It looks to me that you think that farming ought to be about some Utopian devotion to doing things perfectly. If you've ever spent summers out working in the fields, I think you'd discover that this is really not how living, breathing American farmers have managed to feed the world.

The system that produced the mammoth surpluses of American agriculture is not a source of shame. It is a source of immense pride.

These discussions just strike me as the insane ramblings of amateurs who think they know better than the pros. I'm sorry to say this... but, you don't know better than the pros.

If amendments need to be made to our current agriculture methods... and I'm sure they do need to be made... I trust my farmer friends in Illinois, and the researchers at the University of Illinois far more than I trust you. They know what they're doing. You don't.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on July 26, 2009 11:32 AM

Chris,
As best I can tell you make no sense:

> How is it “conservative” to accept tinkering with the genetic material of corn or soy or whatever, in large part due to the intent of giant corporations to reap the benefits of creating what they hope will be a market monopoly because of the (mis)use of patent laws?

Are you suggesting no one else can grow corn of any kind because I patented corn with Bacillus thuringiensis proteins or whatever? I'm not going to get a monopoly (temporary at that) on anything except the GMO I create. If this lets me outcompete others and forces them to license my organism, I don't see why that is disruptive.

Now, the part about G-mod not being conservative does make sense. It may be a bit less conservative than most of the technologies we've adopted. But, they all were dangerous. Also, we had no clue what we were really doing until roughly the time of Copernicus. Now we do. Inventing agriculture in the first place, for example, was a disaster in terms of mean well-being, though it made higher culture possible. Do you actually have the technical skills to evaluate any of the potential problems of G-mod, or even name them.

Posted by: Eric Johnson on July 26, 2009 2:44 PM

Michael:

Being wary of the GMO thang and preferring more trad or "organic" foods isn't a respect-worthy stance? Really? Why?

Why!!!! It's because we have been using genetically modified foods for hundreds of years. Breeding===Genetic modification.

As for organic, organic means made with shit.

Now, there probably is a benefit in using organic manure with regard to the soil but not with regard to the product.

The problem with genetically modified food is not nutrition, it's the problems that come about with patent rights as applied to agriculture. If you want to see a world that organic and without genetically modified crops, go off to Namibia my good man. Africa is continent too poor to afford chemicals. Sheeesh! Arts people don't do science well.

Posted by: slumlord on July 26, 2009 6:06 PM

ST -- Good lord, I haven't once claimed to possess any special knowledge about agriculture. Wouldn't occur to me to try to make such a claim. I do like passing along links to food 'n' fitness sources from time to time. You'll enjoy 'em in your own way or you won't.

slumlord -- Are you one of those people who objects when people make a distinction between "natural materials" and "synthetics" because after all a wood table and a plastic cup are both made of molecules, therefore there's no valid distinction to be made?

The distinction between trad breeding and "GMO" is similar. From Wikipedia:

"The general principle of producing a GMO is to add new genetic material into an organism's genome. This is called genetic engineering and was made possible through the discovery of DNA and the creation of the first recombinant bacteria in 1973."

Sheesh, science people. They can't get a grip on common language usage.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 26, 2009 8:25 PM

Michael I agree with you.

Imagine counterfactually that we were doing, effectively, the same thing as traditional breeding does - only way faster and more thanks to modern tech. Even that would change the risks, simply because we'd be doing much more of it. Driving one mile is safer than driving 100 miles.

But of course, you're right - the uncertainty is even higher, because it's not the same thing. A lot of it involves horizontal gene transfer, which is extremely rare in nature in multicellular organisms.

Nevertheless I tend to think the risks can be evaluated and coped with.

Posted by: Eric Johnson on July 26, 2009 8:53 PM

ST,

King corn is actually very sympathetic to the farmers. Any blame is placed on the government and big business.

As a rational being with some sense of justice, I refuse to accept that the beef or milk I get from hormone/antibiotic injected corn-fed cows cooped up in mass feed lots is the same quality as the milk or beef from grass fed cows grazing on local farms.

In any case, I'm glad that I at least have a choice now thanks in part to movies like this.

Corporate food industry spends billions of dollars lobbying government and advertising/promoting their products. A couple of inquisitive college kids spend a few thousands dollars to make a movie for PBS that takes a critical look at this industry and all of a sudden they are painted as self-serving activist nuts spreading misinformation to destroy America.

Don't worry. Most Americans will never see this film, so these well-intentioned farmers are safe.

Posted by: Stev-O on July 26, 2009 10:15 PM

I'm a food fuss-pot, liking things such as high-end teas and cheeses made with sheep's milk (raw if poss). This year I've spent more than I should on First Flush Darjeeling and semi-seasoned pecorino. Yes, I can be posh! Nonetheless, I now actively avoid organic products, without refusing them altogether (because that would be fetishism on my part). With organics, there is always some limitation of quality and forcing of price, however slight. And for what?

In a world of useful synthetic substances, which we use every day on our own bodies and environs, how have we concocted this strange fetishism around food? Really, it's time to buy up some Appreciation Credits to combat Global Ingratitude.

Posted by: Robert Townshend on July 26, 2009 10:48 PM

Hey, Townshend blogs. Checkitout:

http://mosomoso.wordpress.com/

Posted by: MIchael Blowhard on July 27, 2009 2:33 AM

Michael:

Are you one of those people who objects when people make a distinction between "natural materials" and "synthetics" because after all a wood table and a plastic cup are both made of molecules, therefore there's no valid distinction to be made?

Ummm, no. Are you one of those people who thinks wine tastes better if it comes out of fancy bottle? Or food tastes better if it's grown amongst animal shit? Michael my parents grew up on peasant farms and grew their own veggies and fruits naturally, no chemicals, no fertilizers, anything. My childhood was spent wafting in the glory of chicken shit as my Eastern European parents worked their small veggie patch. I was raised on organic before it became trendy and I never knew what the big deal was about it. Some of it tasted better than the stuff in the shop, some of it tasted much worse. And for all those germ freaks out there we never ever got sick eating it, but then again we we never thought mum's carrots had miraculous powers.

Now, a lot of the organic is better crowd remind me of people with the SWPL mentality (I think there is a lot of feel good factor in buying organic and a sense of moral superiority). Organic has both it's pros and cons, as does the use of artificial pesticides and fertilisers. As for the the better taste, the jury is still out when the issue is tested objectively. Choice Magazine, an Australian not for profit consumer advocacy magazine, which is big on SWPL and can in no way be accused of big business advocacy, had this to say about organic food.

As for GMO's we have been modifying animal genetics for years with breading. Finding a good "natural" mutation and trying to breed it into the species. What genetic engineering allows us to do is not wait for the "natural" mutation but to introduce it directly. Now is this a wise thing to do, I'm not sure. But is food that is genetically modified intrinsically unhealthy? Doubt it. Genetic modification like organic farming has both its pro's and cons. Most genetic modification is geared towards trying to improve the growth of plants on marginal soils or make them more resistant to pests, therefore requiring the use of less pesticides, which we all agree is better for the environment.

Did you know that there are genetically engineered elms which are resistant to Dutch Elm disease but which can't be released into the community because of ignorant fear of genetic modification? Genetic modification may be the only thing that saves the American Chestnut and Ash.

In fact quite a few of the miraculous drugs that we have now, are grown in bacteria in which we we have injected human genes into. The product is purer and less risky than the traditional methods of drug production. Insulin, growth hormone etc.

Where genetic engineering has it's faults is in not having any limits (that in turn is dependent ultimately on morals) and in treating genetic material as just another commodity, subject to whims of market forces. What I fear is that a company like Monsanto, run by fucking accountants, will engineer a situation where one strain of crops will be the predominant due to market forces. Suddenly a new pathogen arises which exploits a weakness in the strain and viola! Species gone.

Oh and while I'm ranting. What's with the paleo diet?

Met any Croatian farmers? It's all dead animal, cabbage and the only carbs were the occasional potato and rye bread(all organic). They did pretty well on that diet when they worked in the field all day cutting down their crops by hand. But take that diet and mix it with a Western lifestyle, and it's fat diabetics, clogged coronaries, and dead by 70.

Posted by: slumlord on July 27, 2009 2:56 AM

slumlord -- 1) GMO has nothing to do with traditional breeding and everything to do with using recombinant DNA technology. That's a basic definitional thing, not a matter of opinion.

2) I'm not arguing that organic is automatically good or that GMO is automatically bad. I'm arguing that being wary of the GMO thang and preferring more trad or organic foods is a respect-worthy stance. When you write about GMO, "Now is this a wise thing to do, I'm not sure," as far as I can tell, you're agreeing with me.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 27, 2009 3:24 AM

Re Americans and corn ...

LINK

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 27, 2009 3:31 AM

"I'm arguing that being wary of the GMO thang and preferring more trad or organic foods is a respect-worthy stance."

Out of curiosity – what would it take for you to to consider GMO corn in the same light as corn bred by "standard" techniques?

Posted by: David Fleck on July 27, 2009 8:42 AM

Michael:
1) GMO has nothing to do with traditional breeding and everything to do with using recombinant DNA technology. That's a basic definitional thing, not a matter of opinion.

Yeah sure, GMO is different to traditional breeding in means, but the ends are the same. GMO is a more efficient and powerful way of doing the same thing as traditional breeding with the added power of using cross species DNA. The officially non-GMO fruits that you eat today in many instances bear little relation to their "natural" progenitors. Just Google up "Hierloom vegetables" and you will see. Most of the fruit we eat today is the product of years of selective breeding, otherwise known as genetic manipulation. Traditional breeding limited the extent of genetic manipulation to the genes that were available in the species gene pool, modern techniques take away that limitation.

On the other hand one can use the techniques of Genetic engineering to insert the appropriate DNA from the same gene pool with more efficiency than with trad breeding. See here. I think you will appreciate the article.

Personally, I'm not frightened of genetically modified foods, we eat all sorts of toxic shit every day. I certainly don't think organic is better than sensibly "artificial". Smoked and barbecued food are full of carcinogens. Here is a list of "natural" toxins that occur in food. Repeated unbiased studies have shown no difference between organic and non-organic food.

The production of food is in many ways our direct symbiotic link with the environment. The one thing organic farming has for it, is that it gives something back to the earth in exchange for the goods the earth gives us. It's not the taste of the fruit, it's the better environmental management that gives organic farming its edge over industrial scale modern farming. And then there is the whole small business(petit bourgeois, so hated by the Left)thing. Look I buy free range eggs, not because I think they taste better, I certainly can't tell the difference, but because the farmer who is looking after the chickens is looking after them humanely, he needs a profit to survive and I'm hoping he drives the other bastard out of business. It's not about the nutritional goodness or taste, it's about the process.

I'm not worried about the consumption of genetically modified food, there are far worse things to worry about. My problem is now that we can genetically modify things (including humans), how the hell do we stop this thing from going out of control. How do we preserve genetic diversity in a world driven by dollars,egos, patent rights and and the universal pressure of market share? This is the software of life what happens when we start trading it like a commodity? Who owns the right to a genome? Is such a thing sensible? I am far less worried about the scientists than I am about the social engineers, environmentalists and capitalists who will find a means to utilise the technology for their social or business objectives.

Posted by: slumlord on July 27, 2009 10:02 AM

David -- I'm avoiding corn generally these days. Primal, baby.

slumlord -- Don't let this get around but I'm familiar with the general outlines of the GMO/organic arguments (hard to be a foodie and not have followed the story for some years), and (for an English major anyway) I'm not a total dimwit about science. I share your concerns about social engineers, god knows; I'm a little more wary than you are of scientists and their stunts; and I generally buy organic but not neurotically (as a NYC native I live on diesel bus fumes, for heaven's sake). Why not buy organic? Gotta love the fact that the market offers up the choice. I do marvel a bit that when you write this -- "Traditional breeding limited the extent of genetic manipulation to the genes that were available in the species gene pool, modern techniques take away that limitation" -- you don't see that as an important and worth-taking-note-of distinction. To me it's like saying "Planet A and Planet B are identical, aside from that little thing about having gravity." I mean, that's an important diff, to me anyway. But what the heck.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 27, 2009 11:27 AM

I don't but that farmers are any more altruistic than people in other professions. They're farming to make money, just like I build websites to make money. Now, one is job is more essential than the other, but so what? I've never met any of the farmers who make my food aside from the produce I buy at the local farmers' market, so why should he/she care about me? They don't.

And ST, those holy farmers you write about are not the ones making the decisions, they're reacting to the 2 or 3 very large agri-business companies in order to stay in the market and maximize their profits. Just like anybody else, including me. I have to keep up with the latest web to stay in the market. The difference is, the farmers' products go into my body, so I'm FAR more wary of tinkering in that industry than any other. I really can't see what's so controversial about questioning the BUSINESS decisions of companies who produce the food we ingest into our bodies.

Posted by: JV on July 27, 2009 11:49 AM

Well Michael, for an Arts major you certainly seem to have a better grasp on the science than many of your colleagues.

As for organic, I've certainly got no problem with people wanting to buy it; I'm all for healthy choice. What bugs me is this certain perception that organic fruits and vegetables are nutritionally superior to the conventional stuff, especially when the science looking into the matter proves that there is no difference.

you don't see that as an important and worth-taking-note-of distinction.
Yes I do. But I see great potential, as well as great potential for disaster(as with nuclear power) with the technology. However what is happening, and scientists in the field are beginning to see this, is that the irrationalfear of the technology is putting some irrational limits on the technology.
I'm afraid the technology is going to go the same way as nuclear. Such is life.

Still, funny though isn't it, how some people are so radical with the other aspects of their life, but very conservative when it comes to what type of food they put into their mouth.

Posted by: slumlord on July 27, 2009 5:57 PM

slumlord -- Indeed, and well (and sneakily, in a good way) observed!

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 27, 2009 6:05 PM

"Still, funny though isn't it, how some people are so radical with the other aspects of their life, but very conservative when it comes to what type of food they put into their mouth."

Makes perfect sense to me. Tinkering in most other industries does not so directly and immediately impact my physical health as it does in the food industry, so why wouldn't we be more wary of "innovation" there?

Posted by: JV on July 27, 2009 6:18 PM

MB – In answer to your question ... I'm not sure how or why you're trying to hook the "creative people are often a little nuts" riff to the corn and GMO topics. Is there any connection? ... reread the thread above. You offer links to various food related issues, including "Food, Inc." ST dismisses movies like it as being beneath consideration because they are the product of artistic, literary people [who] don't know what they're talking about. Your response to ST accepts the creative people are often a little nuts thesis. Later you offer a link to the King Corn Independent Lens documentary. ST dismisses it. As far as I can see, the connection was already made repeatedly by you and ST.

Eric – You offer, "Are you suggesting no one else can grow corn of any kind because I patented corn with Bacillus thuringiensis proteins or whatever? I'm not going to get a monopoly (temporary at that) on anything except the GMO I create. I suggest you Google "Monsanto lawsuits" for an affirmative answer.

As for the dramatically accelerated speed of introducing genetic modifications impossible under controlled hybridization versus the long-term implications, how about considering the implications if emerging evidence suggesting a possible link between GMO crops and bee colony collapse proves correct? Or any of a dozen other, potentially harmful, unanticipated side effects of GMO crops?

My position about food remains the same as ever. I buy what I enjoy and can afford with preferences weighted toward local and organic and away from conventional agribusiness and GMO. I consider myself far from any kind of crusading vegan nut job, tending toward the Pollan stance "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Posted by: Chris White on July 27, 2009 6:46 PM

Something else worth raising, while we're being fastidious about food production.

I've tried luxury milks, organic milks, raw milks...all to no taste effect. While recognising the benefits of raw milk in the manufacture of cheese - especially my beloved Roqueforts and pecorinos of the Crete Senesi - raw and/or organic milk does nothing for me. Moreover, there's a pretty good case to be made for pasteurisation.

However...

What's with all this homogenisation? It's a pointless procedure which wrecks the flavour and mouthfeel of milk, and may well be unwholesome in other ways. Amazingly, even much raw/organic milk is homogenised, which is probably why it tastes like the the supermarket gunk.

Unhomogenised milk really is delicious. Let's start shaking them bottles again.

Posted by: Robert Townshend on July 28, 2009 6:16 AM

Michael, I'm not looking for a fight but I thought THIS ARTICLE in the local paper was timely.

Posted by: slumlord on July 30, 2009 4:07 AM

I'll circle back to my original question: what exactly is "grass fed"? funny coincident that later that day, I boarded Air Lingus to Ireland and was served KerryGold butter. (thanks for headsup to Judith) From watching the Irish fields, I concluded:
-no corn. the nights aren't hot enough
-mostly cows graze grass, but some haying done. There are a few months yearly too cold for grass to grow.
-barley grown, but more likely it's used for Guinness brewing; don't know if it's fed to dairy cattle or sheep.
-I saw dairy only, no beef cattle.

As for the taste of the Kerrygold, I'll stick with the cheapest USDA AA on the shelf.

@Robert Townsend, re: taste of milk. I think it's mostly a function of the % butterfat. As a kid, I used to "get the milk" for the house by creaming off the top layer from the bulk tank.

Posted by: jz on August 5, 2009 10:27 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?