No Animals Were Killed in the Making Of This Cheese
June 15, 2015 1:08 PM Subscribe
You Can Thank Genetic Engineering For Your Delicious Cheese (io9) Eventually, calf stomachs became a byproduct of the veal industry. But in the 1970s, America’s growing appetite for cheese collided with its mounting aversion to killing newborn cows. Anticipating a crisis of supply and demand, researchers turned to a then-unprecedented technology in food science
That was what caught my interest in this article in particular. It makes sense (veal - rennet - cheese), but I never really made the connection before.
posted by CrystalDave at 1:14 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by CrystalDave at 1:14 PM on June 15, 2015
Really bugs me when vegetarians are also against GMO. There is a lot of potential to reduce animal suffering when you embrace GMO products and techniques. I'm going to bookmark this article as a case in point. I didn't know the alternative to rennet was a product of genetically engineered bacteria until now.
Chr. Hansen, a Danish company, manufactures of some of the most popular brands of FPC in the world. The company describes its FPC as “GMO-free,” because purified FPC contains little to no trace of the genetically modified fungus, Aspergillus niger, that produces it. (But because organic food cannot even be a byproduct of GMOs, Chr. Hansen states that its GMO-free FPC is not acceptable for organic cheese production.)
This sort of thing really illustrates the flaws in focusing on organic production. Organic sometimes turns down flat out better alternatives because of rules that make no sense beyond an appeal to nature.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:25 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
Chr. Hansen, a Danish company, manufactures of some of the most popular brands of FPC in the world. The company describes its FPC as “GMO-free,” because purified FPC contains little to no trace of the genetically modified fungus, Aspergillus niger, that produces it. (But because organic food cannot even be a byproduct of GMOs, Chr. Hansen states that its GMO-free FPC is not acceptable for organic cheese production.)
This sort of thing really illustrates the flaws in focusing on organic production. Organic sometimes turns down flat out better alternatives because of rules that make no sense beyond an appeal to nature.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:25 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
Did an editor fall asleep and let someone slip some actual journalism onto io9?
posted by indubitable at 1:27 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 1:27 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
(But because organic food cannot even be a byproduct of GMOs, Chr. Hansen states that its GMO-free FPC is not acceptable for organic cheese production.)
*singsong voice* Hypocrisy...
posted by maryr at 1:37 PM on June 15, 2015
*singsong voice* Hypocrisy...
posted by maryr at 1:37 PM on June 15, 2015
And props to io9 for writing an article about genetic engineering without mentioning CRISPR.
posted by maryr at 1:40 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by maryr at 1:40 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Gawker hired Annalee Newitz by some fluke, she then hired Charlie Jane Anders (the current editor) and they've never looked back. They have always tried to do good journalism even when it was about skiffy pop culture.
posted by bonehead at 1:45 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 1:45 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Veal calves are are a byproduct of raising dairy cattle. They are the unwanted males. If you are raising beef cattle, males are fine. They get castrated and become steers and are raised for slaughter that way. The females are kept for breeding. But with dairy you just want females, the males have no value so are turned into veal.
posted by phoque at 1:47 PM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by phoque at 1:47 PM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
"No Animals Were Killed in the Making Of This Cheese"
lol, totes
(what phoque said)
posted by Gymnopedist at 2:01 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
lol, totes
(what phoque said)
posted by Gymnopedist at 2:01 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
What phoque said. The headline
> No Animals Were Killed in the Making Of This Cheese
really isn't right.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:01 PM on June 15, 2015
> No Animals Were Killed in the Making Of This Cheese
really isn't right.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:01 PM on June 15, 2015
I'd rather they continue killing the calves. We kill loads of animals every fricking day, I eat meat. I'm ok with that. I eat organic mostly as well.
posted by mary8nne at 2:11 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by mary8nne at 2:11 PM on June 15, 2015
> Really bugs me when vegetarians are also against GMO.
Lots of smart people are against GMOs because they don't want corporations of proven rapacity actually owning patents on the life forms that make up our food supply.
While I believe that herbicides have a place in sustainable agriculture, "Roundup ready" and other herbicide-resistant plants simply encourage their already-excessive use.
And while I personally believe from scanning the literature now and then that GMOs probably offer no hazard to the health and also have a few marginal benefits now and possibly greater benefits in future, I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are deeply suspicious of the science due to the influence of the chemical companies, who have a generations-long history of mendacity.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:12 PM on June 15, 2015 [21 favorites]
Lots of smart people are against GMOs because they don't want corporations of proven rapacity actually owning patents on the life forms that make up our food supply.
While I believe that herbicides have a place in sustainable agriculture, "Roundup ready" and other herbicide-resistant plants simply encourage their already-excessive use.
And while I personally believe from scanning the literature now and then that GMOs probably offer no hazard to the health and also have a few marginal benefits now and possibly greater benefits in future, I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are deeply suspicious of the science due to the influence of the chemical companies, who have a generations-long history of mendacity.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:12 PM on June 15, 2015 [21 favorites]
How your food would look if it weren't genetically modified over millennia.
The Evolution of Corn
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Evolution of Corn
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
people who are deeply suspicious of the science due to the influence of the chemical companies
Yup, just like the anti-vax crowd.
posted by neroli at 2:18 PM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yup, just like the anti-vax crowd.
posted by neroli at 2:18 PM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
If you want a non-woo, pro-science, pro-GMO take on veganism I am warming more and more to Unnatural Vegan's youtube channel every day.
posted by Gymnopedist at 2:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Gymnopedist at 2:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
For most "serious" anti-GMO types its actually more about these issues Cool Papa Bell - the GMO Seed Monopoly.
and its not just all Anti-VAX types who are suspicious of the Corporate involvement in science:
Ben Goldacre is a Doctor and has written a lot about "bad science"
posted by mary8nne at 2:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [9 favorites]
and its not just all Anti-VAX types who are suspicious of the Corporate involvement in science:
Ben Goldacre is a Doctor and has written a lot about "bad science"
posted by mary8nne at 2:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [9 favorites]
I wish cheeses were required to indicate what type of rennet they use, since there are strong feelings on both sides.
posted by miyabo at 2:26 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by miyabo at 2:26 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Indian dairies had to find a solution to this problem, for other reasons.
"We do not use any animal-derived rennet in our cheese. That makes it pure vegetarian, which is important for Indians. That is also why it says "vegetarian cheese" on the pack. As it also has a unique taste because it is derived from buffalo milk, NRIs across the world prefer to buy Indian cheese,'' said Amul marketing head RS Sodhi.
Yes, I did bring a half kilo can back with me last week. For the taste. Yummy.
posted by infini at 2:28 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
"We do not use any animal-derived rennet in our cheese. That makes it pure vegetarian, which is important for Indians. That is also why it says "vegetarian cheese" on the pack. As it also has a unique taste because it is derived from buffalo milk, NRIs across the world prefer to buy Indian cheese,'' said Amul marketing head RS Sodhi.
Yes, I did bring a half kilo can back with me last week. For the taste. Yummy.
posted by infini at 2:28 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Ugh. Getting all pissy because the rennet is made using GMO and comparing to soybean oil... why? The chymosin gene is inserted into bacteria. Grown in a lab. This can't honestly be compared to GMO soy, because lab-grown bacteria don't spew pollen containing their modified genes back into the non-GMO gene pool. I can safely grow my own bacteria in my own lab and know there isn't any chymosin added. But who knows where the pollen came from that fertilized my field?
It's a totally different level and trying to compare the two equally is just frickin' dumb.
Let's assume a worst case scenario. The GMO bacteria escape. Did we just contaminate the entire bacterial supply? Is our stock of E. coli now contaminated forever?
No.
First, the altered gene is almost certainly on a plasmid, not incorporated into the bacterial genome. Second, in the absence of the selection pressure used in the lab, the chymosin gene probably will be lost. It confers no evolutionary advantage. It costs the bacteria energy to make a product that they don't benefit from. They'll drop that plasmid and be fine. Heck, even if they pass it around, no big deal. Bacteria trade plasmids all the damn time. It's what they do. (The plasmid will have an antibiotic resistance gene added. Antibiotics are used to kill any bacteria without the plasmid. That's how the lab ensures the bacteria will keep the plasmid to make the chymosin in the lab - if they stopped adding the antibiotic, the bacteria would dump the extra DNA.)
OK, now let's compare with soybeans. Soy with a GMO gene added... first, it's incorporated into the genome (it's now part of the plant DNA). So it can't be easily dropped. Second, plants reproduce sexually, and they do it by spreading pollen, often over incredible distances... so every field of similar plants in the vicinity is likely going to get some of the gene. It cannot be contained. It can definitely corrupt the wild source plant population. And plant genetics are weird. Not only can they hybridize with other related plants, sometimes they even pass genes to unrelated plants (go ahead, google search for "round-up ready superweeds") - occasionally it's a viral-mediated transfer, but it happens. Fun stuff.
So let's backtrack again - what is a bigger scary issue? Bacteria making a single enzyme or GMO soybeans? There is an entirely different level of scary at play here. Remember that above I am comparing the worst case scenario for the bacteria (full-on escape from lab) to the normal, everyday use case of GMO soy. I am not saying all use of GMO is wrong. I am simply saying that trying to be edgy by picking on a company for vociferously eliminating GMO soy while simultaneously using GMO rennet... might sound good, for a sound bite, but it's just not a valid complaint. It's not about hypocrisy so much as it is about risk level. There needs to be a little informed science in your scientific reporting.
posted by caution live frogs at 2:35 PM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
It's a totally different level and trying to compare the two equally is just frickin' dumb.
Let's assume a worst case scenario. The GMO bacteria escape. Did we just contaminate the entire bacterial supply? Is our stock of E. coli now contaminated forever?
No.
First, the altered gene is almost certainly on a plasmid, not incorporated into the bacterial genome. Second, in the absence of the selection pressure used in the lab, the chymosin gene probably will be lost. It confers no evolutionary advantage. It costs the bacteria energy to make a product that they don't benefit from. They'll drop that plasmid and be fine. Heck, even if they pass it around, no big deal. Bacteria trade plasmids all the damn time. It's what they do. (The plasmid will have an antibiotic resistance gene added. Antibiotics are used to kill any bacteria without the plasmid. That's how the lab ensures the bacteria will keep the plasmid to make the chymosin in the lab - if they stopped adding the antibiotic, the bacteria would dump the extra DNA.)
OK, now let's compare with soybeans. Soy with a GMO gene added... first, it's incorporated into the genome (it's now part of the plant DNA). So it can't be easily dropped. Second, plants reproduce sexually, and they do it by spreading pollen, often over incredible distances... so every field of similar plants in the vicinity is likely going to get some of the gene. It cannot be contained. It can definitely corrupt the wild source plant population. And plant genetics are weird. Not only can they hybridize with other related plants, sometimes they even pass genes to unrelated plants (go ahead, google search for "round-up ready superweeds") - occasionally it's a viral-mediated transfer, but it happens. Fun stuff.
So let's backtrack again - what is a bigger scary issue? Bacteria making a single enzyme or GMO soybeans? There is an entirely different level of scary at play here. Remember that above I am comparing the worst case scenario for the bacteria (full-on escape from lab) to the normal, everyday use case of GMO soy. I am not saying all use of GMO is wrong. I am simply saying that trying to be edgy by picking on a company for vociferously eliminating GMO soy while simultaneously using GMO rennet... might sound good, for a sound bite, but it's just not a valid complaint. It's not about hypocrisy so much as it is about risk level. There needs to be a little informed science in your scientific reporting.
posted by caution live frogs at 2:35 PM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
caution live frogs: "
First, the altered gene is almost certainly on a plasmid, not incorporated into the bacterial genome. "
Oh great. So now I have to deal with bacteria with Telekinesis and Wrench Jockey?
On the serious side, none of the anti-GMO people say a word about where they want the genetic modification to stop, especially when you consider the fact that just about every food we eat (of a non-synthetic nature) is GMO'd. Yeah, in their case it's by generations upon generations of careful breeding but that is generic modification with less glassware.
So, do we roll back the clock and hit the seedbanks so these folks can assure themselves of the purity of their bodily essences or what?
posted by Samizdata at 2:47 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
First, the altered gene is almost certainly on a plasmid, not incorporated into the bacterial genome. "
Oh great. So now I have to deal with bacteria with Telekinesis and Wrench Jockey?
On the serious side, none of the anti-GMO people say a word about where they want the genetic modification to stop, especially when you consider the fact that just about every food we eat (of a non-synthetic nature) is GMO'd. Yeah, in their case it's by generations upon generations of careful breeding but that is generic modification with less glassware.
So, do we roll back the clock and hit the seedbanks so these folks can assure themselves of the purity of their bodily essences or what?
posted by Samizdata at 2:47 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's super annoying to be accused of being anti-science when I'm anti corporate. Right now profit-driven corporations with shitty track records on human rights and environmental stewardship steer the GMO ship which displays apparent lack of caution. So yes, I'm very worried about GMOs. Not because "Oh Noes Frankenfoods" but because, "Hey, industrial capitalism has fucked up the world royally and I have strong evidence for the fear that they might do it again."
posted by latkes at 3:08 PM on June 15, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by latkes at 3:08 PM on June 15, 2015 [14 favorites]
Having said that, that was an interesting article that clearly explained some of the lesser-known applications of GMO technology.
posted by latkes at 3:11 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by latkes at 3:11 PM on June 15, 2015
Profit-driven corporations with shitty track records on human rights and environmental stewardship steer everything though.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:11 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 3:11 PM on June 15, 2015
"For most "serious" anti-GMO types its actually more about these issues Cool Papa Bell - the GMO Seed Monopoly."Fermentation-Produced Chymosin (FPC) is not owned by any particular corporation and there is no monopoly in its production.
There is a wide field of competitors with all sorts of diverse strengths developing and manufacturing FPC and all sorts of things that are fermented by recombinant bacteria and are essential to modern life as we know it, but only have a half dozen relatively similar corporations developing recombinant plants in part because until recently there were large technical hurdles but now its mostly just because of bullshit. Its only more frustrating bullshit when its this obscenely self-defeating.
With the advancement of technology, today the largest salient difference between microbial recombinant production and recombinant plant breeding is in how public scientific illiteracy leads us to be as unaware of recombinant fermentation as we are of basic agronomic concepts. If the only reason to dream up conspiratorial fantasies is to combat the corporations that now rely on those conspiratorial fantasies for their dominance, keeping out Flavr Savr tomatoes and and countless other small innovative companies, then where the fuck does that leave us?
posted by Blasdelb at 3:12 PM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
The notion that GMOs are safe is a fallacy just like the naturalistic fallacy people always cite in its support. Genetic modification is a technique, not an end product. There is nothing about that technique that renders its products inherently safe.
If anything, the naturalistic argument is quite a bit more supportable, as we're much more likely to know what the effects are of naturally occurring substances, in naturally occurring contexts, because we have observed those effects in the long term. Not just immediate health effects, but environmental and cultural as well.
There've just been a whole lot of these patronizing pop science articles popping up lately, casting all skepticism as anti-science "woo." It just comes off as punching imaginary hippies.
posted by ernielundquist at 3:13 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
If anything, the naturalistic argument is quite a bit more supportable, as we're much more likely to know what the effects are of naturally occurring substances, in naturally occurring contexts, because we have observed those effects in the long term. Not just immediate health effects, but environmental and cultural as well.
There've just been a whole lot of these patronizing pop science articles popping up lately, casting all skepticism as anti-science "woo." It just comes off as punching imaginary hippies.
posted by ernielundquist at 3:13 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
lupus_yonderboy: ""Roundup ready" and other herbicide-resistant plants simply encourage their already-excessive use."
Herbicide resistant crops don't lead to excessive herbicide use. Or rather, it's not that simple. If you want to apply a herbicide to an area where you have crops, you have two options. Either you can use a herbicide that's highly selective for the type of weed you want to exterminate and doesn't harm your cop (which is sometimes difficult to find, depending on the type of weed and the type of crop), or you can use herbicide resistance crops. Now, the selective herbicides exist, but they are as a class highly toxic. On the other hand, herbicide resistant crops are resistant to RoundUp (Glyphosate), which is by far the least toxic herbicide on the market (though it's wide spectrum and also pre-emergence, which makes its use somewhat limited).
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:37 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Herbicide resistant crops don't lead to excessive herbicide use. Or rather, it's not that simple. If you want to apply a herbicide to an area where you have crops, you have two options. Either you can use a herbicide that's highly selective for the type of weed you want to exterminate and doesn't harm your cop (which is sometimes difficult to find, depending on the type of weed and the type of crop), or you can use herbicide resistance crops. Now, the selective herbicides exist, but they are as a class highly toxic. On the other hand, herbicide resistant crops are resistant to RoundUp (Glyphosate), which is by far the least toxic herbicide on the market (though it's wide spectrum and also pre-emergence, which makes its use somewhat limited).
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:37 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
ernielundquist: "If anything, the naturalistic argument is quite a bit more supportable, as we're much more likely to know what the effects are of naturally occurring substances, in naturally occurring contexts, because we have observed those effects in the long term. Not just immediate health effects, but environmental and cultural as well. "
On the other hand, transgenic foods are subjected to systematic testing on a scale that no other food has ever been subjected to. You can hybridize all you want, even subject your plants to radiation to increase the mutation rate and then select interesting traits from the results, all processes that have much less controls on what genes get changed, without having to go through anything resembling the testing regiment that's required for transgenics.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:41 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
On the other hand, transgenic foods are subjected to systematic testing on a scale that no other food has ever been subjected to. You can hybridize all you want, even subject your plants to radiation to increase the mutation rate and then select interesting traits from the results, all processes that have much less controls on what genes get changed, without having to go through anything resembling the testing regiment that's required for transgenics.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:41 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Once again I'd like to point out that there are GMO traits used in plants OTHER THAN Roundup resistance. And that our food supply is pretty damn commercialized and monocultural for us to be making "but corporations!" arguments based on seed companies alone.
Other than that, cheers, I'm going to give myself an ulcer if I stay here. Ha...
posted by maryr at 3:52 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Other than that, cheers, I'm going to give myself an ulcer if I stay here. Ha...
posted by maryr at 3:52 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
PS: caution live frogs, change your comparison to GMO corn rather than soybeans, and you've got me sold. But arguing that bacterial plasmids are somehow less likely to contaminate the biome than genomic DNA sort of makes me twitch. Sorry.
posted by maryr at 3:54 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by maryr at 3:54 PM on June 15, 2015
Yeah, corporations control the market on non-GMO seeds as well. Hybrids are patented, there are contracts required to buy them, and you have to buy them every year (because hybrids don't produce new seeds which reliably retain the hybrid traits). Basically every argument against GMO crops on the "corporations/patents/business practices" side are equally applicable to pretty much all non-GMO seed used today.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:32 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:32 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yup, and I reliably critique conventional big ag practices too.
posted by latkes at 4:35 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by latkes at 4:35 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I wish cheeses were required to indicate what type of rennet they use, since there are strong feelings on both sides.
In Australia we get "non-animal rennet" listed in the ingredients on a lot of our cheeses. Any time it doesn't say "non-animal rennet", and just says "rennet", you can assume it means "animal rennet". And it's pretty surprising how many cheeses still just say "rennet". And by "surprising" I mean "non-surprising".
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:00 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
In Australia we get "non-animal rennet" listed in the ingredients on a lot of our cheeses. Any time it doesn't say "non-animal rennet", and just says "rennet", you can assume it means "animal rennet". And it's pretty surprising how many cheeses still just say "rennet". And by "surprising" I mean "non-surprising".
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:00 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
As someone who takes bacterially grown B12 so I don't die, I'd just like to say, thanks, cheese, for leading the way.
posted by underflow at 6:30 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by underflow at 6:30 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Herbicide resistant crops don't lead to excessive herbicide use.
No, they lead to PROFIT, and that's good for America!
posted by sneebler at 6:31 PM on June 15, 2015
No, they lead to PROFIT, and that's good for America!
posted by sneebler at 6:31 PM on June 15, 2015
And if you want to read more, this article on glyphosate resistance [GR] in weeds is very interesting:
In particular, the evolution of GR weed populations is a looming threat in areas where transgenic GR crops dominate the landscape and in which glyphosate selection is intense and without diversity. If current practices continue in these areas, GR weeds will become a major problem.posted by sneebler at 6:40 PM on June 15, 2015
I wish cheeses were required to indicate what type of rennet they use
Maybe I'm leading myself astray here, but I generally assume that any commercial cheese that just lists "rennet" as an ingredient is using animal-based, since those that don't usually spell it out explicitly in the ingredients list.
posted by threeants at 6:51 PM on June 15, 2015
Maybe I'm leading myself astray here, but I generally assume that any commercial cheese that just lists "rennet" as an ingredient is using animal-based, since those that don't usually spell it out explicitly in the ingredients list.
posted by threeants at 6:51 PM on June 15, 2015
oops, sorry, basically exactly what turbid dahlia said.
posted by threeants at 6:52 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by threeants at 6:52 PM on June 15, 2015
At my work it's rennet if it's animal rennet, otherwise it's 'microbial enzyme'. The factory stopped using rennet in every cheese about 4 years ago so it's just in the aged cheddars now.
posted by Jalliah at 7:45 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Jalliah at 7:45 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you’re vegetarian and anti-GMO, your options are pretty limited.
Well, only if you presume a doctrinal belief as opposed to a consequentialist one.
As ernielundquist says, genetic modification is a technique and not a product, and some uses of the technique are tied to more problematic consequences than others in terms of further promoting monoculture, empowering corporate agriculture and chaining farmers to an economic treadmill. You can be glad that synthetic insulin saves the lives of people (and pigs) while noting that the American Way of Food creates a fuckload of people who now rely upon it.
posted by holgate at 9:29 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Well, only if you presume a doctrinal belief as opposed to a consequentialist one.
As ernielundquist says, genetic modification is a technique and not a product, and some uses of the technique are tied to more problematic consequences than others in terms of further promoting monoculture, empowering corporate agriculture and chaining farmers to an economic treadmill. You can be glad that synthetic insulin saves the lives of people (and pigs) while noting that the American Way of Food creates a fuckload of people who now rely upon it.
posted by holgate at 9:29 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
that being said, I feel Joakim Ziegler's points carry weight. the corporations in question have many more tools at hand toward being evil, shortsighted, and destructive than just GMOs, and to focus on those as a pivotal issue is misguided.
posted by 7segment at 11:29 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by 7segment at 11:29 PM on June 15, 2015
Is this where I trot out the Bt cotton seeds lead to farmer suicides story?
The monsoon does have a very real impact on agriculture. But it is by no means the main reason for the farm suicides. And with the bulk of those suicides occurring amongst cash crop farmers, the issues of debt, hyper-commercialization, exploding input costs, water-use patterns, and severe price shocks and price volatility, come much more to the fore. All factors majorly driven by state policies.
posted by infini at 1:44 AM on June 16, 2015
The monsoon does have a very real impact on agriculture. But it is by no means the main reason for the farm suicides. And with the bulk of those suicides occurring amongst cash crop farmers, the issues of debt, hyper-commercialization, exploding input costs, water-use patterns, and severe price shocks and price volatility, come much more to the fore. All factors majorly driven by state policies.
posted by infini at 1:44 AM on June 16, 2015
infini: "Is this where I trot out the Bt cotton seeds lead to farmer suicides story?"
I hope not, since that's a total myth. "But the new analysis suggests that if anything, suicides among farmers have been decreasing since the introduction of GM cotton by Monsanto in 2002."
Now that I read it, your own link doesn't even support the Bt cotton leads to farmer suicides theory. Nowhere does it mention Bt cotton, GMOs in general, Monsanto, or anything remotely related.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:00 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I hope not, since that's a total myth. "But the new analysis suggests that if anything, suicides among farmers have been decreasing since the introduction of GM cotton by Monsanto in 2002."
Now that I read it, your own link doesn't even support the Bt cotton leads to farmer suicides theory. Nowhere does it mention Bt cotton, GMOs in general, Monsanto, or anything remotely related.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:00 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
"As ernielundquist says, genetic modification is a technique and not a product, and some uses of the technique are tied to more problematic consequences than others in terms of further promoting monoculture, empowering corporate agriculture and chaining farmers to an economic treadmill."Agriculture on the scale that is actually capable of feeding people, rather than simply providing pleasant distraction to the rich, is basically the applied art of serial monoculture: growing useful plants to the exclusion of non-useful plants and plants are a hell of a lot more useful when they're not mixed up. The supposed benefits of polyculture farming are, with a couple of notable exceptions, either ridiculously impractical at scale or reaped more practically with sensible rotation. Promoting monoculture in the context of modern agronomy is pretty precisely synonymous with opposing famine.
The seed business has been dominated by incorporated companies for a century now, and for good reason, the benefits have been amazing. With the advent of the hybrid seed business model in the 20s and 30s, yields went up dramatically as seeds could be designed by specialists who could breed exactly the traits farmers needed at least as well as they could with much less effort per farm, and particularly adapt seeds to the changing needs of modern agriculture much better than farmers ever could on their own. Farmers buying seed every year is something that has fuck all to do with GMOs, and is a good thing that makes good business sense almost all of the time. Recombinant crop technology is also not at all necessarily tied to the hybrid seed business model, the IRRI's Golden Rice trait has been bred into hundreds of local heirloom rice varieties, they just both individually make sense and are thus both used.
The economic treadmills that farmers find themselves on everywhere to varying degrees of exploitation are political in origin not molecular. In the Western world farmers are almost never even mostly paid by the direct proceeds of the crops they grow anymore, food is to important to leave to the whims of capitalists and farming is largely socialized everywhere. Farmers find themselves in trouble when the socialized structures they, appropriately, rely on age and aren't updated to fit changing markets, are captured by Big Ag in ways that mostly have fuck all to do with seeds, or in an American context their votes are captured by politicians who don't even want to acknowledge what those structures are for.
There was a time once, not so long ago, when the Left was more concerned with harnessing the engines of industry and science for the benefit of mankind through socialization or regulation rather than just destroying them to rely on Khmer-esque fantasies. Where did that go?
posted by Blasdelb at 2:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
latkes: "Yup, and I reliably critique conventional big ag practices too".I guess the salient question then becomes, why not just do that then? Because at least the concerns you're communicating have absolutely nothing to do with GMO, and bringing what are ultimately in this context just the technical details of crop science into it just confuses the point you're making rather than strengthens it. At the same time though, not only is Big Ag functionally immune to the bullshit people make up about GMO, the viable alternatives to Big Ag are not. The Leftist-Outrage Industrial Complex can't do shit to Con Agra, but it can harass the Flavr Savr tomato developed by a couple of Berkeley professors or now the Arctic apple off the market, and it can burn the test fields of the IRRI as it develops rice that will save the lives of millions of children and eliminate the most common source of blindness.
As the 90s era patents that created the first genetic revolution in agriculture run out out, and the next generation of recombinant technology is now finally ready, we once again have an opportunity to seize the means of production but we're all to busy wiggling around up our own asses to even see it.
posted by Blasdelb at 2:47 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
At the same time, there is a desperate need for Leftist ideals that built the American agricultural system to return to it, but that will never happen if we continue to not even understand it well enough to critique it.
posted by Blasdelb at 2:50 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Blasdelb at 2:50 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
There was a time once, not so long ago, when the Left was more concerned with harnessing the engines of industry and science for the benefit of mankind through socialization or regulation rather than just destroying them to rely on Khmer-esque fantasies. Where did that go?
At the same time, there is a desperate need for Leftist ideals that built the American agricultural system to return to it, but that will never happen if we continue to not even understand it well enough to critique it.
My take is that the turn to anti-GMO and "woo" is largely the byproduct of a very successful, well-funded, long-term project to push that older Leftism almost entirely out of the political mainstream and to render its bywords and themes politically toxic. Without some of those ideas, the only things that get attention -- and thus the only things that can get any sort of momentum -- are things like like anti-vax and anti-GMO sentiments. Not coincidentally, these have generated profitable niche industries of their own, and they can be covered in the press as culture wars rather than as actual politics.
posted by kewb at 4:31 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
At the same time, there is a desperate need for Leftist ideals that built the American agricultural system to return to it, but that will never happen if we continue to not even understand it well enough to critique it.
My take is that the turn to anti-GMO and "woo" is largely the byproduct of a very successful, well-funded, long-term project to push that older Leftism almost entirely out of the political mainstream and to render its bywords and themes politically toxic. Without some of those ideas, the only things that get attention -- and thus the only things that can get any sort of momentum -- are things like like anti-vax and anti-GMO sentiments. Not coincidentally, these have generated profitable niche industries of their own, and they can be covered in the press as culture wars rather than as actual politics.
posted by kewb at 4:31 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
NB: I'm not suggesting that there's a planned conspiracy, but rather a series of unplanned consequences of the initial political project to discredit those older forms of American Leftism, consequences that have turned into opportunities and been seized by other actors.
posted by kewb at 4:33 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by kewb at 4:33 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
*brings in the cheese plate with some nice mustaleima, Coeur de Lion brie, English Stilton, and whatever's in that foil wrap at the back of the fridge shelf*
posted by infini at 4:59 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by infini at 4:59 AM on June 16, 2015
There is also a really cool interesting effort to modify yeast into expressing all the gene products necessary to make real vegan cheese
posted by Blasdelb at 5:17 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Blasdelb at 5:17 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I guess the salient question then becomes, why not just do that then? Because at least the concerns you're communicating have absolutely nothing to do with GMO, and bringing what are ultimately in this context just the technical details of crop science into it just confuses the point you're making rather than strengthens it.
Ugh. I don't want to get into some un-winnable back and forth because I think that really screws up metafilter threads and also I'm not, nor do I claim to be, an expert in the many and wide-ranging uses of GMO technologies.
However, I think it's screwy that a thoughtful and fairly well informed lay person is not allowed to expressed doubts or concerns about newer and emerging technologies, or to resonate with published critiques from more informed journalists or scientists, without being accused of being anti-science.
Talk about not serving your cause: slapping an "anti-vaxxer" or "anti-GMO-know-nothing" label on any concern or question is pretty crappy way to shut down discussion. If any technology is so flawless or without potential harm to be beyond critique, then one shouldn't have to fall back on insults in it's defense.
posted by latkes at 6:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ugh. I don't want to get into some un-winnable back and forth because I think that really screws up metafilter threads and also I'm not, nor do I claim to be, an expert in the many and wide-ranging uses of GMO technologies.
However, I think it's screwy that a thoughtful and fairly well informed lay person is not allowed to expressed doubts or concerns about newer and emerging technologies, or to resonate with published critiques from more informed journalists or scientists, without being accused of being anti-science.
Talk about not serving your cause: slapping an "anti-vaxxer" or "anti-GMO-know-nothing" label on any concern or question is pretty crappy way to shut down discussion. If any technology is so flawless or without potential harm to be beyond critique, then one shouldn't have to fall back on insults in it's defense.
posted by latkes at 6:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not to mention that the conflation of anti vaccination critiques with anti GMO critiques is not even accurate to who makes each critique - there may be overlap, but these are not the same people raising these concerns.
posted by latkes at 6:31 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by latkes at 6:31 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
In particular, the evolution of GR weed populations is a looming threat in areas where transgenic GR crops dominate the landscape and in which glyphosate selection is intense and without diversity. If current practices continue in these areas, GR weeds will become a major problem.
Isn't that a problem based on the use of glyphosate, not GMO? I mean, yes, the herbicide is used along side the GMO crops, there is certainly a link, but is the resistance actually linked to the same Roundup-ready gene in the GMO crops or is it a naturally derived resistance, as in, say, DDT and flies or MRSA and various antibiotics? The problem sounds like monoculture and bad practices.
posted by maryr at 8:04 AM on June 16, 2015
Isn't that a problem based on the use of glyphosate, not GMO? I mean, yes, the herbicide is used along side the GMO crops, there is certainly a link, but is the resistance actually linked to the same Roundup-ready gene in the GMO crops or is it a naturally derived resistance, as in, say, DDT and flies or MRSA and various antibiotics? The problem sounds like monoculture and bad practices.
posted by maryr at 8:04 AM on June 16, 2015
(Unless it's clearly the same gene in which case the GMOs are root (ha) cause).
posted by maryr at 8:04 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by maryr at 8:04 AM on June 16, 2015
The Round Up ready trait was, interestingly, initially developed from glyphosate resistant weeds growing around the Monsanto facility that manufactured Round Up before it went off patent. There are a variety of ways in which weeds in the wild develop glyphosate resistance but my understanding is that so far none of the resistant weeds found have recognizably developed the trait from horizontal gene transfer from crops.
posted by Blasdelb at 8:39 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by Blasdelb at 8:39 AM on June 16, 2015
I assume you mean, have naturally developed the similar genetics through breeding as exists in the transgenic crops. There's been plenty of spontaneous cross-breeding transfer between transgenic and non-GMO. Canola, for example does it very readily.
posted by bonehead at 1:48 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by bonehead at 1:48 PM on June 16, 2015
« Older I'm Not Ready | OH WOW LOOK AT THAT SPACE PICTURE Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by GuyZero at 1:12 PM on June 15, 2015