OT: share thoughts on GMO food

nolaegghead · December 2016

gmac said:

I have considered adding malic acid for the same reason. I have malic for cider making and since I smoke my bacon with Apple, it just seems a good choice but I haven't done it yet.
Maybe I will make cider today...??!!!??

Malic acid isn't known for it's anti-oxidant properties. It's a tartness additive. That said, I'm not sure it wouldn't inhibit nitrosamines, but I know for a fact citric and ascorbic do the trick. I didn't do that much research, so I might be wrong.

gmac · December 2016

nolaegghead said:

gmac said:

I have considered adding malic acid for the same reason. I have malic for cider making and since I smoke my bacon with Apple, it just seems a good choice but I haven't done it yet.
Maybe I will make cider today...??!!!??

Malic acid isn't known for it's anti-oxidant properties. It's a tartness additive. That said, I'm not sure it wouldn't inhibit nitrosamines, but I know for a fact citric and ascorbic do the trick. I didn't do that much research, so I might be wrong.

I'm admittedly assuming that acid is acid in this case and may be wrong too.

JustineCaseyFeldown · December 2016

all acid is good except the brown acid. stay away from the brown acid

JohnInCarolina · December 2016

JustineCaseyFeldown said:

JohnInCarolina said:

My father was a Chemistry professor. He used to start every semester of Basic Chem by asking the class "how many of you would eat a pile of chemicals?"

Of course, almost nobody would raise their hand. Pile of chemicals? Yuck.

Then he'd explain to them that food is made from chemicals, just like Soylent green is people.

this is a big one for me.

it's like the frigging "un cured" bacon sold at whole foods. everyone is amazed it tastes and cooks just like bacon, without being "cured". of course, the definition of that word they are using is the convenient USDA one, which means cured with nitrites added as a discreet ingredient.

then there's a little asterisk on the package which casually mentions that the only nitrite in the bacon is that which just happend to be naturally occurring in the celery powder that is used in the flavoring. um... how many people here think of celery when they want bacon? guessing 'zero'.

the only reason they use celery powder is so that they can add nitrite to the bacon and CURE it. ...while getting around the USDA definition of the word 'cure'. it's bvllsh!t.

'natural' chemicals are always better, don't you know? they are magic.

what's sad is people don't think about it for more than a second, and are happy to assume they are eating healthier bacon (fat and salt notwithstanding)

We've all been "brainwashed" to varying degrees at one point or another. I'm trained to constantly challenge and revisit assumptions, and I still get caught up in the BS from time to time.

JustineCaseyFeldown · December 2016

JohnInCarolina said:

JustineCaseyFeldown said:

JohnInCarolina said:

My father was a Chemistry professor. He used to start every semester of Basic Chem by asking the class "how many of you would eat a pile of chemicals?"

Of course, almost nobody would raise their hand. Pile of chemicals? Yuck.

Then he'd explain to them that food is made from chemicals, just like Soylent green is people.

this is a big one for me.

it's like the frigging "un cured" bacon sold at whole foods. everyone is amazed it tastes and cooks just like bacon, without being "cured". of course, the definition of that word they are using is the convenient USDA one, which means cured with nitrites added as a discreet ingredient.

then there's a little asterisk on the package which casually mentions that the only nitrite in the bacon is that which just happend to be naturally occurring in the celery powder that is used in the flavoring. um... how many people here think of celery when they want bacon? guessing 'zero'.

the only reason they use celery powder is so that they can add nitrite to the bacon and CURE it. ...while getting around the USDA definition of the word 'cure'. it's bvllsh!t.

'natural' chemicals are always better, don't you know? they are magic.

what's sad is people don't think about it for more than a second, and are happy to assume they are eating healthier bacon (fat and salt notwithstanding)

We've all been "brainwashed" to varying degrees at one point or another. I'm trained to constantly challenge and revisit assumptions, and I still get caught up in the BS from time to time.

exactly.

paraphrasing Marilyn Vos Savant: there's knowing or being aware that something happens. that's your standard level of intelligence (i.e. "I know that water boils at 212"). then there's understanding (or wanting to know) "how" something happens. that's above average intelligence. knowing why it happens, is superior intelligence.

i always ask try to "why" or "how". i don't always get there. maybe i rarely do. but it shouldn't be enough to just be content with what we are told. that's merely knowing something, not understanding it. spoon feeding.

w/r/t bacon, it was a case of... "well why the hell are they mentioning celery in bacon?" something is fishy here. my assumption that it was healthy ('healthy' bacon is an oxymoron to begin with) just because it was at whole foods. a place where 'organic' is a sliding mushy term that means damn near anything.

BizGreenEgg · December 2016

nolaegghead said:

Eggcelsior said:

nolaegghead said:

They could have added citric acid, which is natural, but I guess it sounds too much like an unnatural chemical.

What do you add? B3-amide?

lol. That's a continual infusion.

Usually ascorbic or citric acid to the cure. Must add after it's mixed with the salt or you an get a reaction.

Not to go too off topic, but can you share your usage of ascorbic or citric?

nolaegghead · December 2016

BizGreenEgg said:

nolaegghead said:

Eggcelsior said:

nolaegghead said:

They could have added citric acid, which is natural, but I guess it sounds too much like an unnatural chemical.

What do you add? B3-amide?

lol. That's a continual infusion.

Usually ascorbic or citric acid to the cure. Must add after it's mixed with the salt or you an get a reaction.

Not to go too off topic, but can you share your usage of ascorbic or citric?

In context of curing - I add a few grams to the final cure (after everything is added). A better way of doing it would be to add after it's cured because the antioxidants can react with the nitrite. There is not discernible taste added.

odie91 · December 2016

I don't think the issue is necessarily that foods are genetically modified. To me, the problem is that a lot of crops are genetically modified for the specific purpose of being resistant to powerful pesticides. So it's the more potent chemicals they spray that concerns me. But I understand, we as a society are accustomed to cheap food commodities, and to accomplish that, you need high yields. So it is what it is.....

gmac · December 2016

odie91 said:

I don't think the issue is necessarily that foods are genetically modified. To me, the problem is that a lot of crops are genetically modified for the specific purpose of being resistant to powerful pesticides. So it's the more potent chemicals they spray that concerns me. But I understand, we as a society are accustomed to cheap food commodities, and to accomplish that, you need high yields. So it is what it is.....

How do you define potency? I can speak to Roundup which is actually one of the safest chemicals available. It is very specific to one biosynthesic pathway in plants (shikimic acid pathway) that doesn't exist in any other type of organism. I would politely suggest that effectiveness and powerful are two very different things.

HeavyG · December 2016

odie91 said:

I don't think the issue is necessarily that foods are genetically modified. To me, the problem is that a lot of crops are genetically modified for the specific purpose of being resistant to powerful pesticides. So it's the more potent chemicals they spray that concerns me. But I understand, we as a society are accustomed to cheap food commodities, and to accomplish that, you need high yields. So it is what it is.....

Pretty much my take on GMO foods also. It's already a problem, but it is one that GMO's exacerbate - sooner or later the increasing reliance on big ags practice of monoculture is quite likely to bite us in the a$$.

gmac · December 2016

I'm gonna go ahead and comment on Roundup
Ready crops since my thumbs are rested now.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. It has an extremely high LD 50 because it is water soluble. Essentially it is impossible to feed enough to rats to kill them because it is water soluble and they pee it out before it ever gets high enough concentrations to hurt them. Same for you and I but I don't advise drinking it. It has lots of surfactants and soaps that aren't palatable. A few years ago someone said it was safe to drink and then was challenged to an refused and that got lots of media coverage. Here is my response - urine is safe to drink. Would you like me to pour you some?

So when applied to a plant, it is absorbed and being water soluble travels through the xylem to the growing points. Glyphosate blocks an enzyme needed to make shikimic acid which is a precursor to the production of the 3 aromatic amino acids - tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine. Without these the plant can't make protein and repair itself and dies.

With GMO, a gene from a soil bacteria is inserted that allows the plant to produce shikimic acid in another fashion that doesn't require the same enzyme. That it. It's essentially a detour to get to the exact same point. There is no discernible difference.

As I said above, it really isn't powerful as much as specific. Without the epsp synthase enzyme the plant can't survive. Only the plants modified to produce the exact same material in a different fashion can.

HeavyG · December 2016

gmac said:

I'm gonna go ahead and comment on Roundup
Ready crops since my thumbs are rested now.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. It has an extremely high LD 50 because it is water soluble. Essentially it is impossible to feed enough to rats to kill them because it is water soluble and they pee it out before it ever gets high enough concentrations to hurt them. Same for you and I but I don't advise drinking it. It has lots of surfactants and soaps that aren't palatable. A few years ago someone said it was safe to drink and then was challenged to an refused and that got lots of media coverage. Here is my response - urine is safe to drink. Would you like me to pour you some?

So when applied to a plant, it is absorbed and being water soluble travels through the xylem to the growing points. Glyphosate blocks an enzyme needed to make shikimic acid which is a precursor to the production of the 3 aromatic amino acids - tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine. Without these the plant can't make protein and repair itself and dies.

With GMO, a gene from a soil bacteria is inserted that allows the plant to produce shikimic acid in another fashion that doesn't require the same enzyme. That it. It's essentially a detour to get to the exact same point. There is no discernible difference.

As I said above, it really isn't powerful as much as specific. Without the epsp synthase enzyme the plant can't survive. Only the plants modified to produce the exact same material in a different fashion can.

So what is the corporate speak regarding herbicide-resistant superweeds?

gmac · December 2016

HeavyG said:

gmac said:

I'm gonna go ahead and comment on Roundup
Ready crops since my thumbs are rested now.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. It has an extremely high LD 50 because it is water soluble. Essentially it is impossible to feed enough to rats to kill them because it is water soluble and they pee it out before it ever gets high enough concentrations to hurt them. Same for you and I but I don't advise drinking it. It has lots of surfactants and soaps that aren't palatable. A few years ago someone said it was safe to drink and then was challenged to an refused and that got lots of media coverage. Here is my response - urine is safe to drink. Would you like me to pour you some?

So when applied to a plant, it is absorbed and being water soluble travels through the xylem to the growing points. Glyphosate blocks an enzyme needed to make shikimic acid which is a precursor to the production of the 3 aromatic amino acids - tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine. Without these the plant can't make protein and repair itself and dies.

With GMO, a gene from a soil bacteria is inserted that allows the plant to produce shikimic acid in another fashion that doesn't require the same enzyme. That it. It's essentially a detour to get to the exact same point. There is no discernible difference.

As I said above, it really isn't powerful as much as specific. Without the epsp synthase enzyme the plant can't survive. Only the plants modified to produce the exact same material in a different fashion can.

So what is the corporate speak regarding herbicide-resistant superweeds?

And if I reply is it corporate speak or are you actually interested? I'm happy to give you my opinion.

HeavyG · December 2016

gmac said:

HeavyG said:

gmac said:

I'm gonna go ahead and comment on Roundup
Ready crops since my thumbs are rested now.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. It has an extremely high LD 50 because it is water soluble. Essentially it is impossible to feed enough to rats to kill them because it is water soluble and they pee it out before it ever gets high enough concentrations to hurt them. Same for you and I but I don't advise drinking it. It has lots of surfactants and soaps that aren't palatable. A few years ago someone said it was safe to drink and then was challenged to an refused and that got lots of media coverage. Here is my response - urine is safe to drink. Would you like me to pour you some?

So when applied to a plant, it is absorbed and being water soluble travels through the xylem to the growing points. Glyphosate blocks an enzyme needed to make shikimic acid which is a precursor to the production of the 3 aromatic amino acids - tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine. Without these the plant can't make protein and repair itself and dies.

With GMO, a gene from a soil bacteria is inserted that allows the plant to produce shikimic acid in another fashion that doesn't require the same enzyme. That it. It's essentially a detour to get to the exact same point. There is no discernible difference.

As I said above, it really isn't powerful as much as specific. Without the epsp synthase enzyme the plant can't survive. Only the plants modified to produce the exact same material in a different fashion can.

So what is the corporate speak regarding herbicide-resistant superweeds?

And if I reply is it corporate speak or are you actually interested? I'm happy to give you my opinion.

Since you identified yourself as an employee of Monsanto I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that your opinions don't diverge much (if any) from the official corporate position which is all I meant by asking that way.

Having said that, it's been a couple years since I've read much about the topic so sure I'm interested in the current stance of Monsanto regarding that problem and the blowback that causes.

gmac · December 2016

So in general weed resistance is a problem with all herbicide groups. My personal opinion is that Monsanto did growers a disservice early in the introduction of RR crops by not actively promoting tank mixes and alternate modes of action more aggressively. There are some scientific reasons why Roundup was less likely to see resistance develop but it was never fool proof.

Having said that, the concept of a super weed is still a somewhat media driven concept. A Roundup resistant Horseweed can be controlled with a phenoxy herbicide such as Dicamba or with tillage in the fall due to its particular growth habit. But there is no uncontrollable weed, certainly some that are harder to manage and undoubtedly new (and actually old) management practices are needed to growers to remain successful. So are there weeds in GMO crops that are resistant to particular herbicides, yes. Are there weeds in non-GMO crops resistant to conventional herbicides? Yes. The idea that because they are resistant to a herbicide associated with a GMO crop means they are somehow a "super" weed is a media driven fallacy.

Ultimately the question is one of sustainability. Is modern agriculture sustainable in any form. I would suggest that it is not but the reality is that the worlds population isn't either. We will hit a point whereby we can no longer manage using conventional practices and I would venture it will be the corporate world that generates more innovation than the public sector. If people choose to garden and feed them selves I applaud them. I have a large garden and many "weeds" like purslane and lambs quarters that are delicious and edible end up in my freezer with the produce I'm growing.

OT: share thoughts on GMO food

Comments

Categories