Re: Re question on labelling genetically modified foods

From: Eugene Leitl (
Date: Fri Jan 07 2000 - 14:40:24 MST

Current high-energy crops are optimized for profit maximization (and
hence centralization), not optimal taste. _Truly_ (i.e. not just a
marketing ploy) organically grown foods have typically a better taste
(when cost is less an issue and goodies are grown locally, you can
harvest at optimal ripeness) and less pesticide residues. They
preserve energy (nitrogen fixation is still most efficiently done by
legumes), don't contaminate the ground water and do not kill the soil
(latter an important but often-overlooked factor), and are less a
species diversity killer, which tends to stabilize ecosystems.

Of course if all you want is to provide calories cheaply (strangely,
people are still starving out there) and do not care about
environmental long term impact (Singularity aloha), fossil-fuel
powered gene-tweaked turbocrops are the way to go. Beats soylent green
or fidipur any time ;)

Personally I think if technology develops as expected the problem of
food generation (and hence its very noticeable environmental impact)
will not be an issue for very long.

Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
> ...and you'll have to change your standards for "best" to
> include dirty, shriveled, unappealing produce with bugs
> and high levels of minimally-tested "natural" fertilizers
> and pest control agents.
> Give me a nice juicy, plump, ripe, hydroponic greenhouse-
> grown genetically engineered tomato any time. And it's
> probably more healthful anyway. "Organic" food is just
> a consumer scam like premium gasoline--an excuse to charge
> more for a product that doesn't have any benefits.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:08 MDT