Saturday soapbox

Saturday’s soapbox is yours to use as you will – within the bounds of decency and absence of defamation. You’re welcome to look back or forward, discuss issues of the moment, to pontificate, ponder or point us to something of interest, to educate, elucidate or entertain, amuse, bemuse or simply muse but not to abuse.
Billy Cox Motivation's photo.

7 Responses to Saturday soapbox

  1. Cadwallader says:

    In recent months I have taken an interest in the debate (sometimes hostile debate) between those who regard GMO food as a solution to mass starvation and those who regard it is “Frankenfood.” Those who oppose GMO food seem to laud “natural” food without defining it. Those who champion GMO food often assert that it is better to eat food which has been designed for human consumption rather than something which has apparently randomly evolved. Does anyone here no some sound references for further reading? I have read a few recent publications but expect there are many more. Thanks.

  2. Cadwallader says:

    I see I put in the wrong “know.” Sorry!

  3. Andrei says:

    Cadwaller – no references but I must point out this fallacy in your post

    Those who champion GMO food often assert that it is better to eat food which has been designed for human consumption rather than something which has apparently randomly evolved.

    Almost nothing we eat has “randomly evolved” – we have been selecting cows for greater milk production.grains exhibiting polyploidy (which is freakish but makes for bigger seeds) and so forth for millenia.

    Genetic material can transfer between species in nature, which is why we can do it in the laboratory of course,

    Every human advance has downsides and risks while every innovation has those who fear and oppose it.

    We all have our redlines too – mine is drawn where we fiddle with the human genome in the lab.

  4. Cadwallader says:

    I agree but the issue here is the lack of definition of what is “natural” to those who oppose GMO foods. I too would find it difficult to define natural, as food e.g. bread is dissimilar to the bread consumed even 50 years ago. The “natural” banner is carted around by the opposers to GMO foods seemingly without any degree of forethought.

  5. Andrei says:

    here is the lack of definition of what is “natural”

    Everything is “natural” Cadwallader – unless it is witchcraft or something.

    We use natural processes to acheive our ends, like leavening bread for example, which helps to transform food which would be fairly indigestable to us, grass seeds in this case , digestible and palatable.

    It is newly developed processes that attract the epithet “unnatural” whereas ancient ones like leavening bread pass without comment

  6. Richard says:

    Here is someone who obviously made a very real contribution food and plant life
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11574190/Trevor-Williams-plant-geneticist-obituary.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: