Hey Chef

I too, am frequently upset by denial of science as a way to improve food. If we have the power as a species to genetically develop and enhance food so that more people can eat, we ought to be doing it. Too many people are starving.

If you're interested, here is a really great video of Michael Specter talking about this very subject quite a bit. Hope you enjoy. I found this very interested, albeit frustrated.

<http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html

-antica

"so yes, it feeds more people, but the trade off is we're creating inferior fruits (lacking taste, nutrients), it's almost impossible to find heirloom varietals (non-modified), and we effect other life cycles (bees, etc.) as a result. we also create a secondary market of supposedly organic premium products at inflated prices. strawberries are a great example of this."

Yes, these are the realistic cons, but I think the lives it would save makes it worth it. You're also forgetting that a lot of the fruits that we like so much today exist because they were genetically engineered to exist in the first place. The concept of enhancing foods goes far beyond fruits, though.

-antica

The drink Tang?

Thats true,, as water becomes more scarce and muni's have to resort to lakes and rivers , additives to purify thus it taste like crapola.I was raised on well water,, so everything i taste tastes like crapola now days...lol.

yep great movie ,, was funny to see folks reaction to ending...lol

Doesn't the fact that turning it pink (which also happens to be the natural color of beef) has no bearing on it being unhealthy in anyway mean anything to you?

You're basically saying that it's bad because it turns it pink. Actually, you're not basically saying that, you are saying that.

Bottled water is treated with guess what? Chlorine. You understand that is a chemical right?

When you reduce proteins you end up with ammonia. There is an amine group on every protein in known universe.

And the ammonium hydroxide gas is no longer present by the time you eat it. If it was, LFTB would not be marketable because it would brown at an uncontrollable rate due to the increased pH. Maillard reaction speeds up at pH above 7 and NH4OH is a base.

There are plenty of documented studies that measure harmful chemicals in foods. From pesticide residues to mutagenic metabolites of food additives. But in this case, the chemical in question is not a health issues. If you did a chemical analysis of beef jerky or smoked salmon you would most likely find traces of ammonium hydroxide.

-chef

Ha! True. But in the industry it's known just as LFTB. Pink slime was the name given to it by the USDA guy that was upset about it.

-chef

by now all up and down the coast should have saline stations changing sea water to fresh,, ahh but the eviors wont allow that...lol well water is same as high mountian streams ,, perfect unless your pump is messed up then you know right away something is wrong...lol

"By the way, I don't want to see normal people in a bad way, either; but your opening paragraph reminded me of the "funeral procession" surrounding american auto plants closing.....

Giant agra-business (the kind that might produce pink slime) has been putting the screws to small farms for decades."

That's fair criticism.

I do have a lot of issue with Big Ag and Big Food. And a lot of it is because of the effects their business practices on small farmers. And a lot of the farming practices are putting profits above long-term economic and environmental health.

"If media hysteria forced teacher layoffs because of low test scores, would you post a similar rant?

I'm guessing a tech company going under, or a marketing firm wouldn't earn a rant.

Is it because when people work with their hands that's "real work?"

It's just this one specific issue that bugs me because the outrage grew from people like Jamie Oliver who have never set foot in a biology class. And from people from "sustainability" organizations that don't realize harvesting every last bit of usable protein from a cow is pretty darn sustainable. So it's the fact that a bunch of people are going to have their paychecks docked in a rough economic time for something so...pointless. It doesn't have anything to do with the specific industry.

-chef

Thanks for the link, Antica. I'll take a look at it.

What kinda bugs me about a lot of the activists out there is that they think things like GMO crops aren't good for *us* but it's okay for *them.* You know what I mean? There is a definite elitist feel to some parts of the food revolution that is really off-putting to me, no matter how much I support the general ideas of a healthy country and a well-fed world.

It's like the celebrity chefs who tell you use fresh herbs in all your dishes because it's so good and health. Nevermind that a bunch of thyme from the store costs more than a four-pack of chicken breasts or that the chefs have their own gardens (with paid gardeners) to pick from. Joe Beercan isn't going to get healthier by spending 1/8 of his paycheck on herbs!

-chef