The Future of Food

March 29, 2006 2:58 PM

Everyone knows big business does things better than nature, god and everything else. Not everyone agrees though. The Future of Food (1hr 29 mins) has the nerve to criticize Monsanto for simply protecting its own rightfully acquired genetic property from thieving farmers. And why do they steel it? Because it’s good for you and it’s going to save the world. (warning: glossy corporate brochure in pdf format).
posted by piscatorius (16 comments total)

oops, everyone knows, but not everyone agrees.
posted by piscatorius at 3:03 PM on March 29, 2006

The future of food is going to be less for all of us. Unless the 'all of us' becomes less.

Assuming energy to run the machines, gas for Nitrogen fixation and water are not a limitation, you have only 130 years of projected Phopsorus.

Whee!
posted by rough ashlar at 3:06 PM on March 29, 2006

Steel food will be much better.

Given that 'you are what you eat' this will surely turn us into a race of supermen. Whilst this may cause new traffic problems in the sky mankind , or superkind, will be able to solve them.

X-ray vision for all should also be a boon to the Lingerie industry.
posted by sien at 3:06 PM on March 29, 2006

I don't have the teeth for steel food.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:15 PM on March 29, 2006

There are a million reasons to hate Monsanto, but this isn't one of them.
posted by Kwantsar at 3:15 PM on March 29, 2006

oops again,
posted by piscatorius at 3:27 PM on March 29, 2006

The Meatrix II: Revolting
posted by homunculus at 3:39 PM on March 29, 2006

I'm ashamed of the Canadian Supreme Court. That was an inane and immoral decision.
posted by jb at 3:53 PM on March 29, 2006

ecology 301: world hunger is a food distrbution problem, not a food production problem.

A technological answer will not solve a political problem, and companies, governments, and NGO's who hide behind technological solutions to these problems obviously have other interests besides feeding people.
posted by eustatic at 4:37 PM on March 29, 2006

There are a million reasons to hate Monsanto, but this isn't one of them.

please elaborate. i'd like to hear where you draw the line.

thanks!
posted by eustatic at 4:41 PM on March 29, 2006

Isn't Monsanto the, kind of, Jack Abramoff of the con-agra world?

Didn't those assholes sue farmers for growing crops, after Monsanto's crops invaded the other farmer's land?

Wasn't it Monsanto that sued a milk company for including a label saying that they're milk was free of artificial hormones?

And aren't they the sons-of-bitches who are forcing Iraqi farmers to buy their seed?

Fuck Monsanto.

They're the god damned mafia of the agricultural world.
posted by rougy at 5:57 PM on March 29, 2006

rougy: Is there anything new on Monsanto/Iraq? I couldn't find any articles after January 2005.
posted by thrako at 6:26 PM on March 29, 2006

rough ashlar, where does the phosphorus go? Isn't it a closed system?
posted by jam_pony at 6:53 PM on March 29, 2006

rough ashlar: Assuming energy to run the machines, gas for Nitrogen fixation and water are not a limitation, you have only 130 years of projected Phopsorus.

How's that work? You can't expend an element through use, and we aren't shooting it into the sun or anything. Phosphorus we use for agriculture should just end up in the oceans and get taken up into the ecosystem. Maybe you mean conveniently available phosphorus or something, but in that case, we could always move on to mining algae or krill for fertilizer. A lot of fish end up in fertilizer as it is.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:00 PM on March 29, 2006

Global insects who are controlling farmers with seeds.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:54 PM on March 29, 2006

Monsanto also produce(d/s) pesticides in the US for export, which are illegal to actually use or sell in the US.

My wife and I blow raspberries at their St. Louis campus every time we drive by, just as we do for the Scientology building in U. City.
posted by Foosnark at 10:51 AM on March 30, 2006