Food & Beverage Technology Blog

Food & Beverage Technology

The Food & Beverage Technology Blog is the place for conversation and discussion about Processing, Packaging/Storage/Preservation, Materials Handling, and Inspection/Quality. Here, you'll find everything from application ideas, to news and industry trends, to hot topics and cutting edge innovations.

Previous in Blog: Is Nano-based Food Really Food?   Next in Blog: Do Organic Processes Eliminate Contamination?
Close
Close
Close
57 comments

What is the Future of Food?

Posted August 14, 2010 7:44 AM

To feed a growing population, scientists are convinced the future will require industrial farming and bioengineering. But at the grassroots level, many people are returning to local farmers' markets and community gardens. How can we reconcile both approaches? Can we buy local and still feed global? Are there communities that have mastered the balance? Have we reached a population level that prohibits the use of community-based farming?

The preceding article is a "sneak peek" from Food & Beverage Technology, a newsletter from GlobalSpec. To stay up-to-date and informed on industry trends, products, and technologies, subscribe to Food & Beverage Technology today.

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Anonymous Poster
#1

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/14/2010 8:58 AM

There are many comunities that consume what is locally produced, wich is very helpfull to reduce airborne pollutants and "global warming" according to some researchers.

The reason for this is that you use a lot of energy in transportation of foods from distant places, and conservation of the same to make them available out of season.

Many say that as long as you can complete your dietary requirements, you should eat what is locally produced.

So, the next time you crave for a mango from Pakistan, eat a fish from your hometown lake instead.

Yahlasit

Reply
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4274
Good Answers: 213
#2

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/15/2010 1:06 AM

Fortunately, mangoes also grow in Panama...but 90% of the fish caught in Panama are sent to the US...

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 2105
Good Answers: 87
#8
In reply to #2

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/15/2010 5:07 PM

"..but 90% of the fish caught in Panama are sent to the US.."

Is that a problem? Are Panamanians going hungry because fish is being sent to the US?

__________________
J B
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#3

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/15/2010 3:34 AM

Local is a mantra of the green community but makes zero sense. The time when local (meaning within say 50 km) would feed everyone is long gone.

To me local food is similar to reading a comment by a lady that was complaining about the owner of Whole Foods politics while paying him 5 USD per pound of 'organic' tomatoes. He has a right to his politics but paying that much for tomatoes is silly.

Subsistence farming as done in parts of the 3rd world barely feeds the peasant family living on that farm. Local can only fit into the fringes of a larger modern agricultural system - that way it can make the Audi/Volvo drivers feel good and have something to discuss during wine tasting sessions where they tell each other how wonderful they are.

Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 70
#4

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/15/2010 8:22 AM

You apparently haven't noticed, we are now seeing the results of industrial farming in the cost of health care going through the roof. The use of ultra pasteurization, high temperatures, and pressures to produce "food" is taking the nutrients out of food.--- Nutrient and mineral loss is also coming out of the soil. Ethanol production will further deplete soil and more and more of it. This is Due to PC ignorance---that will have to be eliminated... PC will only last so long before it kills itself off. Eat natural fats lose fat should be the new mantra. It will actually work and at the same time produce a healthy human. Young or old.

A test was conducted with rats. processed cereal, the box, natural unprocessed food. The box actually did better for the rats than the processed cereal. Believe it or not.

The FDA, in the USA, is part of the problem and not any solution. Food production is going to need to be lead by knowledgeable people not PC nutritionists. The reality is you, all of us evolved needing, a high percentage of natural animal fats, proteins, fermented foods (enzymes), and raw foods, which allows our digestive systems to digest food without overworking it and depleting our bodies.

However we can deliver those natural conditions that the human body evolved with is what we need and will not only resolve the food problem but the chronic medical problems. The health costs will plummet and let countries do a better job of caring for the old age population. They will take care of themselves with proper nutrition.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#5
In reply to #4

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/15/2010 10:10 AM

Must be good stuff you are smoking!

That post sounds like it came out of a green bible.

I don't know many things the green movement is more incorrect about than agriculture.

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#6
In reply to #5

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/15/2010 3:18 PM

"I don't know many things the green movement is more incorrect about than agriculture." Are you f-ing kidding??!!! Big Agriculture is the biggest culprit of all industries to our current (poor) health conditions world wide. They feed the Pharma industry by keeping people malnourished and therefore sick, largely from subsidized foods that are heavily over consumed, and are some of the all time biggest consumers of energy (next to defense/industrial complex). My friend, you Must learn about Codex Alimentarius if you think that this is just hippy-conspiracy kook rhetoric. Wake up!!

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Active Contributor

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boulder, Co.
Posts: 14
#7
In reply to #6

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/15/2010 3:50 PM

"Are you f-ing kidding??!!" -- With the current state of McHealthcare, it's become painfully obvious that we the people are being fed like cattle. Not farm raised free range cattle who eat their normal diet of GRASS, but rather the industrial cow who's life is in a stall, or packed into a heard like a can of sardines (literally) (spreading disease) and fed corn, antibiotics and hormones. (BTW, cows can't actually process corn for crap as for nutrition, but it's the Cheapest filler we can give them because of subsidies). And because of longstanding conditioning of the public into believing their's nothing wrong with GMO's, pesticides and the like, many of us are oblivious to what the USDA, FDA and others are doing under Codex. The information is there in the original documents of Codex Alimentarius for anyone who's skeptic. It's an unarguable fact - He who controls the food, controls the people. Put that in your pipe and smoke it !!

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#10
In reply to #7

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/15/2010 6:17 PM

"Codex Alimentarius"

I've never heard of it.. but I'm not in the food industry. thank you for your fervor and your information. you go!

Chris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alimentarius

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#12
In reply to #7

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 1:00 AM

Another of the fruitcake conspiracy bunch!

People have to be responsible for their own intake. The fat pigs of the US & world are doing it to themselves!

Constant eating and no exercise (except for whining) are a recipe for disaster. That is the life style of too many today. People can't admit that as then they themselves would have to take responsibility.

The greens and conspiracy bunch (mark idiots) support the thought that the general population can't be responsible for them selves. As they can't think for themselves the fruitcake bunch should do it for them.

I agree that the general population can't think for themselves but I certainly don't want the fruitcake left or gestapo right to do the thinking for me either.

Your 'codex' is silly! Anyone that follows that line of thought - what is wrong with them? What are they lacking in life to need others to do their thinking for them.

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#13
In reply to #12

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 1:14 AM

"People have to be responsible for their own intake."

so if someone poisons the water supply to a whole village, and then the village dies, are the people responsible?

It is war. It is not a good war, as most of the people (including children) do not know they are at war, and they are the purest sort of victim. The government that has been voted and hired to protect them is participating in the delivery of goods that can shorten the lives, and cause great misery to, those same citizens.

The lobby of the food industry is so strong that they don't even have to put all the ingredients on the labels.

I agree about the responsibility to healthy choices and activity that you outline, but that is based upon a notion that the political environment is not actively and deceptively contrary to the citizen's health. That is war against the innocent.

Chris

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#14
In reply to #13

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 2:10 AM

What you put into your mouth can not be compared with someone poisoning the well - There is plenty of good food available - one has to make the correct choices.

We eat perfectly good and once in every few months I have a bag of potato chips. Once a month I drink a cola.

Snacks? Plenty available - they just don't come out of a package most of the time.

People have gotten lazy and want everything delivered to their front door - free of thinking and free of responsibility. Anyone that won't bother to think for themselves deserves what they get!

I once read a comment about the Med diet - fine if one wants to eat like a peasant on Crete then they should also work like a peasant on Crete.

The schools could certainly do better teaching about nutrition!

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#11
In reply to #4

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/15/2010 6:21 PM

"The FDA, in the USA, is part of the problem and not any solution."

Jack Marcotte

"you will not find a more vile hive of wretched scum and villainy"

Obe Wan Kenobe

I'm sure you are speaking of the same thing.

Chris

ga

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#24
In reply to #4

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 12:19 PM

Wow this is kind of crazy. Industrial agriculture does not necessarily correlate with highly processed food stuffs, you can grow large quantities of tomatoes and not make tomoato sauce. Growing the tomatoes would be large scale industrial level farming, making tomatoes sauce would be the high degree of processing that you elaborate to. As a former soil scientist i can tell you that in the highly industrial farming operations in many parts of the US, nutrient loss in the soil is not a problem. Actually, we tend to put more plant nutrients into the soil than plant need to marginally survive. Thus we attempt to approach agronomic rates of nutrients returns. For plant production to be optimized you almost always need more nutrient than are naturally occurring in nearly all soils (even virgin soils). Ethanol production doesn't have to deplete soils if they utilize the current sources that are produced in excess like Dairy farm assets. Dairies have to produce large quantities of corn and wheat just to dispose of the waste they generate, typically exceeding the feed production needs of the dairy. There is a tipping point in size where this over production occurs for dairies, so frequently the large to medium dairies, supply the excess feed to the smaller un-regulated dairies.

Also, I would like to know what is an unnatural fat under your narrow classifications?

fermenting foods leads to alcohol production, which i thought you were against, most of which beside ethanol are fairly toxic (ethanol is mildly toxic) Fermentation is a process utilizing microbial agents, not just a few enzymes. So correctly you should be indicating (yeast for fermenting, or if you want to extend this to something more bacteria).

And, the whole last paragraph is just poorly considered. Are you trying to say humanity needs to go back to a state of being hunter gatherers? Admittedly elderly care would not be an issue then, as 30 something would become elderly at that point. I believe your post is problematic of much of the internet today, a propigation of too much unsubstantiated and unreliable disinformation. For ever internet psuedo-factoids that indicates 2+2 is 4 in base 10 numeral addition, there seems to be 20 more that indicate 3+4,5+7, 100,000 +10,000, etc equal 4.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#25
In reply to #24

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 12:31 PM

Well put!

Reply
Guru
Australia - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2131
Good Answers: 251
#9

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/15/2010 5:48 PM

While there is probable benefit in continued research into better ways to grow things, there is also a significant need to change the level of consumption of modern man in the developed nations. (My opinion, but please read on.)

Balanced nutrition is important. But look at the volumes that many of us currently consume. And then we drive to a "health" gym to use a machine to help us simulate walking and running.

Someone earlier mentioned we are being fed like cattle in a feedlot. That is a wonderful analogy. Food always available whether we need it or not. Food as the comfort item in our lives.

Reduced per capita consumption will also be required if the future world is going to be able to feed itself.

__________________
Just an Engineer from the land down under.
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#15

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 4:13 AM

Oh! I had the most horrible experience at breakfast this morning!

Sat down and Mr Corn Man appeared and forced me to eat cereal! Didn't have any so I was forced to run to the market and buy. The Mr Sugar Man forced me to cover it with sugar saying it was only right - what to do. They forced me to eat three big bowls full!

That is right brothers and sisters - they forced us to take the path to the dark side - the land of unhealthy food!

They informed me that Mr Fat Man, Mr Potato Man and Mr Corn Man would be there at lunch to force me to eat their products - and not just a light meal but a very-very large meal they insist!

All this really worries me as normally we have veggies, cheese and fruit for breakfast and fruit during the day with a small meal at dinner - a small amount of meat is normally with the meal.

Now with Mr Corn Man, Mr Potato Man, Mr Sugar Man and probably Mr Twinkie Man coming to make sure that we eat their products in large amounts what to do! They are forcing us! Next Mr Cola Man will appear to force his products on us! Mr Twinkie Man can not be far behind!

Guess we will just have to exorcise the silly buggers and eat healthy like we normally do in reasonable amounts all the while ignoring the garbage available that people eat and then whine about.

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#29
In reply to #15

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 1:56 PM

How do you know the sugar is bad for you?

Only because some other vigilant person in the past took the time and energy to educate the public. Left to their own, the sugar mongers would have every product in the world contain sugar...

your assumptions are very neatly hidden in the wall of sarcasm.. good job.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#31
In reply to #29

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 2:05 PM

If someone has a medical condition causing a weight problem then they have my sympathy and well wishes.

If they are like the sister of my ex-wife that complained she couldn't lose weight while shoveling in the potatoes and gravy, I have zero sympathy.

I believe 99% of the over weight problems today fall into the second group.

Normally no one forces people to overeat, to eat all the junk food around or to drink excessive sweet drinks - people do it all by themselves.

Blaming the food available in the market for health problems when a person only has to use a bit of common sense is a crime in itself - often committed against one's own family.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#33
In reply to #31

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 2:10 PM

Of course the desire to eat in excess is now defined as a medical condition. Depending on the individual psychological and/or pysiological conditions may be designated as the underlying cause, both of which are considered medical conditions.

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#35
In reply to #33

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 2:29 PM

Russ, RCE,

I respect your expertise, and obvious logic when it comes to overeating. I agree.

However, there are addictive substances being put into fast foods. This alters the 'choice' factor. Even the 24/7 multimedia barrage of advertising of food, changes the choice factor.

Chris

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#38
In reply to #35

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 2:57 PM

@ RCE - Any more there is a medical condition for about everything. That way what ever happens is not the fault of the individual but of society as a whole.

@ Chris - For the addictive additions to food - not sure what they are but it is not like alcohol to an alcoholic or nicotine addiction. People have to take control of their own lives - whether they want to or not.

The failure of most to get any exercise can not be blamed on any outside agency. Too many people follow the couch potato routine. It doesn't take all that much effort to walk a bit. Time problem? Rather than watch the news which is generally worse for you than junk food go for a stroll.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#39
In reply to #38

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 3:00 PM

true. I'm going out to do that right now.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#43
In reply to #38

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 3:24 PM

Exactly my point, so why did you employ the disclaimer relating to unless they had a medical condition. Just being obese is a medical condition in and of itself actually, and the solution usually is more exercise.

Reply
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4274
Good Answers: 213
#45
In reply to #38

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 3:27 PM

Russ-

GA for the suggestion to take a stroll rather than watching the evening news- but I can not tear myself away from CR4 long enough to get adequate exercise!

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#48
In reply to #45

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 4:19 PM

Thats because CR4 puts special addictive bits in to the Java Script, and they don't have to show the ingredients in the parts list.. because of the strong lobbying power of Globalspec. Even a day without CR4 can cause severe anxiety amongst other things. Symptoms are:

  • Disorientation
  • Lack of awareness
  • Memory loss
  • Productivity at work
  • Increased focus on family members
  • Yelling at the tv
  • Excessive sleeping
  • Increased use of x-rated publications
  • Increased physical activity
  • Increased self-talk aloud to imaginary people and animals (cats, squirrels, etc)

and there are even indications that user's computers show signs of poorer performance.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#40
In reply to #35

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 3:00 PM

I am not sure about the use of the term addictive. That would imply that you must have a Big Mac or suffer physiological withdrawl symptoms. The ingredients in most fast foods are just simply cooked foods we would eat at home if we cooked (admittedly the use of MSG in some chinese food does enhance the flavor making it more palatable). However, if they were truly addictive, people would only eat at Mcdonalds or such. The truth is most people eat fast food because they are too busy or too lazy to cook at home (with similar though actually lower quality food stuffs). Fats and Sugars are just as available at home, I can easily cook a lasagna that is just as fatty as something i could buy or a tira misu with just as much sugar. Advertising, well that is a different matter, it is intended to coerce people with relatively weak and suggestive minds into spendign extra money on something they do not need, whether it is food, sex opportunities (or sex appeal for women), health (huge money pit there), or any other need or desire.

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#41
In reply to #40

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 3:12 PM

Here is a link that discusses some of the issues...
more

and another of interest.

chris

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#37
In reply to #31

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 2:56 PM

I apologize for my own sarcasm. yours was funny though!
I should wake up more before I write in the morning.

Reply
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4274
Good Answers: 213
#36
In reply to #29

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 2:50 PM

Chris-

Sugar, in and of itself, is not bad for you. Most "natural" vegetables contain sugars of one form or another. What is bad is sugar in excess- just as anything in excess is bad for you.

Which is why I prefer my sugars fermented...

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#46
In reply to #36

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 3:28 PM

GA, most people seem to think purified sucrose is some how different than sucrose in plants. They dont realize that we use a very old very siomple extraction process to get the sugar from plants (all the processed or refined sugar we eat comes from plants, sugar beets in europe and sugar cane or beets in US are typical sources). Refined sugar is like peanut butter, regular butter or preserves, except less processed with fewer additives.

Reply
Active Contributor

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boulder, Co.
Posts: 14
#52
In reply to #15

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 9:12 PM

Russ I Totally believe you!!! But you forgot to mention that they came to you with their force through channels 1, 7, and 12. And that they spoke in the language of bright colors and catchy jingles... Russ I believe you are totally right about making Good decisions for OurSelves! But some are to uneducated, to poor to afford healthier choices, and some just don't care- or can't believe that our precious Gov. doesn't want us to have Too much control of our own lifes. other than that I think we largley agree. But I suppose you don't care to look up facts like Codex, or what Monsanto has done to farming??!

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#53
In reply to #52

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/17/2010 12:44 AM

Right - forgot to mention Mr TV!

I have known the name Monsanto and other agritech suppliers since I was a little kid.

I can remember the hue and cry when Elmer wheat was introduced back in the 50's when I was a little guy. It was one of the first that you couldn't save seed from as it would not reproduce true. Short stems meant more energy available for the plant to grow seed. Farmers quickly forgot about buying seed as the yield was much better than normal.

The saving seed thing is kind of a red herring as it is bad practice anyway. Plants build up virus loads over time becoming less productive. Buying seed grown in controlled and monitored areas only makes good sense. It has been done for many years on farms.

Chemical fertilizer is such a bad thing according to some. I was under the impression that all fertilizer (including cow stuff) was chemical. Same with sweetners - some are described as chemical and bad whereas another is natural - BS - all are chemical.

As was pointed out earlier by others, proper application and use is essential whether with natural fertilizer or manufactured fertilizer.

Pesticides approved for use on organic foods include sulphur - one of the more toxic things now used. Many of the newer generation of pesticides are safer than ever. Many are less toxic than table salt, ibuprufen, and other common household items used every day. If you buy organic leafy veggies in the market and they don't have any bug damage - why? They have been protected and not by a magic wand either.

The 'dirty dozen' of fruits to avoid drawn up by EWG (environmental working group) is one load of horse stuff! The don't look at pesticide toxicity only quantity and make up some silly list telling everyone how wonderful they (EWG) is and that everyone should follow them. They apparently don't have any idea what they are talking about but want 'to do' something - turns out what they did is publish misinformation.

GMO foods - all for the approach. The present knee jerk reactions are silly.

Healthy food choices do not have to be more expensive. If someone wants to be and act stupid by consuming nasty stuff - fine that is their problem. They should not ask others to feel sorry for them or to support them at a future date.

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#16

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 4:58 AM

Read up the story of Belo Horizonte in Brazil and how they solved the hunger problem.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#17
In reply to #16

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 6:13 AM

Why?

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#18

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 7:09 AM

The real problem is too many people. We should be encouraging birth control (contraception) and pushing the idea that having more than two kids is anti social - multiple births e.g. twins etc. excepted.

More people cause more polution and take up space leaving less room for wildlife and the worlds green lungs I.e. forrests and jungles.

Tony Lee.

Reply
Commentator
Canada - Member - Proud to be Canadian

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 68
Good Answers: 4
#21
In reply to #18

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 9:59 AM

The question at the beginning of the post was,

"Have we reached a population level that prohibits the use of community-based farming?"

The answer is no. The proof is what has happened in Cuba. When Cuba lost it's supply of Soviet oil in the 90's, they switched to community-based farming. Today there is enough food for everyone and the health of the general population has improved since they eat better and do not use pesticides.

The farmers in Cuba are among the best paid people in the country.

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-4/2003-4-01.htm

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1994/11/mm1194_06.html

We in the west need to wake up to the fact that big business does not want us to eat healthy food because they make too much money off poor health. Organic, locally grown food should be cheaper than food produced with pesticides and transported great distances.

If it is not then stop being so lazy and turn your lawn into a garden. Your health depends on it.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#22
In reply to #21

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 10:19 AM

They don't import food? From the US? Yes they do. They are now allowing private plots to try to increase the minimal production a bit.

They don't use pesticides? Where do you get such information from?

You want to live and eat like a Cuban then you might check up on immigration possibilities.

I am not interested - not even 1% interested.

Cubans are fine people but the got totally screwed by Castro and his long winded speeches.

Reply
Commentator
Canada - Member - Proud to be Canadian

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 68
Good Answers: 4
#23
In reply to #22

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 10:59 AM

I did not say I agreed with the political situation in Cuba, I am quite happy to live in Canada. This discussion is not about politics. I gave links to two articles, if you do a google search there are many other articles on Cuba.

I am sure there are some things that don't grow in Cuba that they have to import and that there are probably some pesticides being used but the majority of the farming is organic and they use companion planting to control most of the pests.

Yes I would like to eat more healthy food and each year I dig up more grass and plant a bigger garden. Most people are not interested in the work involved in doing that but are willing to pay the higher prices for organically grown food.

Cuba was forced to make changes because of oil shortages. The rest of the world is past "peak oil" and will soon be forced to make major changes to our way of life. Cuba is a live case study that should not be ignored.

"Cuba is like the United States in that both countries face labor shortages in agriculture, yet both are experiencing booms in organic farming, which is normally very labor intensive. Eighty percent of the Cuban population lives in urban areas and only 20 percent is rural, (the U.S. figure for urbanization is in the high 90s). Cuba and the United States thus need more labor-saving technology for organic farming than does a country like China, where the vast majority of the population continues to live in the countryside; hence the emphasis on biotechnology in Cuba."

Reply
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4274
Good Answers: 213
#27
In reply to #18

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 12:36 PM

Interestingly, there is a trend in the world, unexplained as yet, that birth rate decreases with increasing prosperity...

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#19

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 9:26 AM

The real solution for the future is genetic manipulation of the human genome to incorporate chlorophyl into the human skin.That way, everyone can get all the energy they need by exposure to light.This would eliminate all the in between steps of food conversion that is now required.Water could be harvested from the air, like the desert beetle does, and nitrates likewise could be taken from the air.

Of course, then there would be regulations on how much light you should have daily,and some obese ones that insist on basking in the sun all day without sun screen cream to prevent overfeeding.

The human race would appear and be totally different than it is at present.Perhaps then we could focus on really important issues, since the main ones will have been settled:Skin color and starvation.

Perhaps we could genetically create patterns on our skin to indicate heritage? Then of course, there would be snobbery, like the stars in the Dr.Seuss story.

Could we ever find the genes for hubris,arrogance,self-importance, bigotry, and holier-than thou-ness?

I doubt it.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Commentator

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 70
#20
In reply to #19

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 9:33 AM

A little levity goes along way. However when in a room full of alligators it is best to deal with the task at hand.

Reply
2
Power-User

Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 244
Good Answers: 18
#26

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 12:31 PM

"To feed a growing population, scientists are convinced the future will require industrial farming and bioengineering."

No, they are not. What "scientists" are convinced of is that their income is based on grants and industrial contracts to develop new and novel bio-engineered or chemical-based materials that make bulk food cheaper to produce. If a 'patent' cannot be issued then none of the typical giants can corner and own that process, so it's dead, and the 'scientist' cannot justify his next grant or contract.

There is a massive supply of farm-able land that is not being farmed efficiently right now, or is no longer being farmed at all, due to "nationalization" or simple take-over of land that was being farmed by generations of farmers who developed efficient methods and sold their private production into the market. Look at Zimbabwe, the former "breadbasket" of a large portion of Africa, as a prime example of a totatlitarian takeover "for the good of the people" (yeah, right) which started with the theft of all privately owned farms and farmland, handing them out to cronies. Now Zimbabwe is starving like the rest of the socialist wastelands of Africa. Someday we may see a large enough movement back to private ownership of land to feed another few billion people, but I doubt it. The momentum is still away from Liberty and private property (which depend upon each other instrinsically) and toward international financier's owning everything through ever-more-totalitarian regimes, such as what is now reaching critical mass in the formerly Constitutional U.S.

"But at the grassroots level, many people are returning to local farmers' markets and community gardens."
yes, of course, as there is both better nutrition as well as a basic feeling of supporting the local farmers involved with that movement.

"How can we reconcile both approaches?"
Specialization of effort combined with private ownership of the means of production and the profits derived results in wealth and economic growth.
Nothing must be done to 'reconcile' both approaches, simply allow smaller farmers access to purchase new developments in equipment, better seeds, new pesticides and fertilizers, etc., and the ones that succeed in the market will be the best.

"Can we buy local and still feed global?"
Yes. The global food problem is caused directly by attempts at 'centralized' control of the land, who gets it, who can farm it, with what, planting what, etc., combined with corruption in control and distribution of imported foods.

"Are there communities that have mastered the balance?"
Yes, look at the U.S. prior to the FDA interventions and controls imposed on agriculture of the last few decades. Right now, even simple historically normal foods like natural milk right out of the cow CANNOT BE SOLD without the FDA sending in the SWAT team and confiscating your milk, let alone allowing you to sell it to your neighbors. CRAZY globalist power-grabbing thieves; it's not even a 'conspiracy' any more, it's public policy. "For our own good," of course, since we can't apparently think for ourselves, right? Amazing that at the same time 'safety' is used as the excuse to prevent a market in natural milk, it is the same FDA that is approving the easier importation of mass milk produced in Mexico that does not have anywhere near the level of controls or inspections for safety and health of packaged foods.

"Have we reached a population level that prohibits the use of community-based farming?"
Never have, never will.
But it will always be true that there is better economy-of-scale involved in modern methods that use, for instance, huge GPS-guided tractors. But this is also addressed by a free market, as the more efficient will be more profitable (assuming they are allowed to keep their profits), and only the government-subsidized portions of production will continue to be warped and twisted into non-profitable endeavors.
I could however see the possibility of an unhealthy level of metro-urbanization where the food distribution capacity is exceeded for healthy natural foods to get from private farms to the person desiring a fresh MLT sandwich in an office in Dubai towers. When that happens, the price just goes up, and the market solves the problem.

For the underfed masses in undeveloped nations, they need to overthrow their military governors and get back to private ownership of their farmland, so they can feed themselves again and support the growth of other elements of their economies.

In fact, the best thing that could happen for the population of earth would be a global warming trend of about 3-4 degrees C, that would open up millions upon millions of acres of land nearer the poles to farming.

Unfortunately, we have already passed the peak of the last solar activity warming cycle and are now a few years into a slight decline in solar activity, which is why we are now beginning to level out and begin the next global cooling cycle. Have to wait for another bit of solar increase for that advantageous global warming to occur. Now...if only we could find a way to cause some build-up in the global greenhouse effect, large enough to hold more energy from the sun?

THAT would be useful research. Unfortunately again, it is mostly water vapor and a few naturally occuring gases like methane and ozone that cause the greenhouse effect (CO2 changes are nearly negligible in comparison, since increases in locally measurable amounts just get reabsorbed into the Carbon cycle by plants in the same locale). And since all of the gases created by human activity are more than an order of magnitude less than the naturally occuring balancing act of the ocean (gas absoprtion and release), ozone cycle (natural breakup and reforming), water cycle (clouds/rain/evaporation), and carbon cycle (more CO2 just makes plants temporarily grow faster and greener and put it back into the ground), the only real biggies left are massive volcanoes or some such, and I doubt we want to take action to cause more of those. Only thing left is turning up the sun, or slowing down the earth so our orbit moves in a bit closer. That may be happening naturally anyway, though on a similar time scale as the sun reduces it's output, so even that is near some kind of cosmic balance.

Ah, well. Gotta love that nature thing.

For people stuck in that mental disease spiral of "population control," they need to take a flight sometime and get some perspective from 30,000 feet. Or look at a snapshot from space. It amazes me how many of them myopically point to more totalitarian control by government based on their metro-perspective on the world, to stop couples from having children or sterilize the poor or pay for unlimited abortions, for example. They apparently don't realize they are pointing toward more of the CAUSE as if it were a SOLUTION to the problem. Pouring totalitarian Gas on a poverty Fire just causes more ashes and a waste of human potential.

Let the people farm. Get government to step back and only regulate truth in advertising and labelling, and allow the masses to pay what their market demands for foods they naturally desire based on truthful information. It has worked in the past, it is working now where allowed, it will work 100 years from now.

Oh - and let the scientists study whatever they wish, at their own expense without government intervention into 'what' to study by subsidies. Those profiting from the market, and farmers looking for more productive products, will pay them sufficiently for their results, while they avoid studying wasteful avenues with no potential for helping mankind.

__________________
Call it 'half empty' or 'half full' if you must, I've got the other half in a redundant glass...
Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
2
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#28
In reply to #26

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 1:34 PM

Here is the thing about government control of farming, it is there to protect the people. Pre-1930s small scale farming lead to the dust bowl. Small scale industries which do not have many government controls lead to many of the worst polluted areas in the US. Additionally, they tend to be always on the verge of failing and lack any diversity, which means one bad season can break them and lead to un-irrigated and un-cropped lands where native species no longer reside as ground cover. Even mixed plantings tend to be limited to species that are amenable to eachothers growing conditions, which again leads to same problems. Basically small operations are subject to very localized environmental conditions and market conditions, as well as never developing any war chest for lean times. More often then not during the lean times these small oeprations go under, even with no corporate buy outs. The 1930s, showed a lot of poorly managed small operations going under and leaving the farms inactive, with no ground cover. In that case you had dust blowing clear to NYC from Kansas, since so many small farmers were in there thinking the market would always be high and all grew the same thing to maximize their earning. When the market changed, they all went under almost over night and left the farm barren. Unregulated farming is just like unregulated banking. Who would want to go to a bank that has no reserves and only 1 branch, that has loans out all over the town and even when times are good seems to be just barely above subsistence. Of course scale is relative, since small scale operations tend to be operated by people seeking to make a profit, but are living at a subsistence level. These people tend to take short cuts, in addition the public opinion favors allowing the small operations to have some leniency for not understanding regulations that are emant to safe guard the rest of the communities resources like groundwater and air. 50 small operation would typically have substantially more adverse impact than 1 large operation of equivalent size. This sounds wrong, because we hear more about violations by large organizations. However, small farms, not being regulated even at State levels, are exempted frequently from oversights, and thus do not get caught unless there is a regulated organization somewhere downstream of them in close enough proximity to track back to the farming operation. Selling milk right out of the cow is regulated more frequently now, because so many children got sick from E. Coli in the 1990s and 2000's from unprocessed or low processed foods, like non-homogenized orange juice, poorly handled beef and Spinach. (BTW, E. Coli comes from fecal matter of animals, so use of "natural" fertilizers lead to this problem.) The FDR is doing what all those people, who didn't want to see children suffering painful deaths, wanted, trying to control the risk factors for the most dangerous polluntants of food, e.g. bacteria. I don't think you can fault a agency charged with regulating food quality for trying to control the levels of dangerous agents in the food through management of handling and processing procedures, all food gets processed and handled if it gets picked, shipped and/or sold. (Most E. Coli comes from contact at the point of collection and can be spread to other food stuffs along the way.)

Also, I know very few Soil Scientist who have ever gotten a patent. The design of processing equipment, like tractors and conveyor systems, which are patentable, is usually the province of engineers. Even the bio-engineered foods gives you and idea of who is involved, though admittedly hybridizations (a form of bioengineering at a low level of scientific endeavor) are frequently dealt with by biologists, crop scientists and plant scientists.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 2142
Good Answers: 31
#30
In reply to #28

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 1:59 PM

Good post - accurate information and not the huff & puff of the greens.

Sandman provided us with quite a compilation of the myths (mostly green I guess) that you can find floating around the web.

I am not anti green but I am anti BS - both extremes in the how we should live discussions shovel it out real thick.

Reply
2
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4274
Good Answers: 213
#42
In reply to #30

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 3:20 PM

One of the problems we all face with any subject is that, generally, both sides of the discussion root their arguments in viable observations- but generally extend basic "truths" way beyond logical applicability, and generally ignoring mitigating factors. For instance, chemical pesticides are poisons, but the proper use of such poisons has greatly increased crop yields (i.e., there is more food left over for people after the harvest), which increases availability and lowers overall cost of food. This can be good- even though there are some cases where such chemicals have been suspected of causing serious medical problems for farm workers...Chemical fertilizers also increase yield- this is well documented, and a good thing if one wants to make more food available to the world population at a reasonable cost. But excessive use of fertilizers can result in "sterilizing" the soil, and pollute surface waters with run-off. "Night soil" has been used for far longer than any other fertilizer, yet such use, when not properly regulated, results in the spread of certain disease vectors.

"Modern" agriculture dates from around the time of World War I, when the military started sucking up all of the excess labor that was once available for framing activities, resulting in the need to mechanize, which requires a larger operation to generate sufficient revenues to pay for the equipment, which means one needs more efficient means of pest control and soil rejuvenation, etc., etc.

Around the year 1900, in the United States, roughly 50% of the US population was employed in agriculture. Today, less than 4% of the population is involved in agriculture, and this very small percentage is producing enough food to theoretically feed about 75% of the world's population (that last statistic may be questionable- it depends a lot on how much food you are going to provide each individual, whether other peoples are going to accept the foodstuffs we consider edible, and, as always, statistics are easy to manipulate to suit whatever argument you wish to make. It is true, however, that a good deal of the food produced in the US goes to waste). Trying to feed the US alone from the production of small holders is untenable, for a number of reasons, including those outlined by a previous poster. Canada does not appear to have similar circumstances as yet- I do not have similar data on the portion of the Canadian population pursuing agriculture as a career, but one would expect the trend is similar (as it is in much of the world, the world now being more than 50% urbanized, according to the UN, if you care to accept their statistics).

For examples of how breaking up large agricultural operations have reduced the availability of food, one need not look too far- Zimbabwe has been mentioned, and now there is Venezuela, and further back, Mexico (the great Land Reform of the early 20th century), Georgia (after collectivation under Soviet control), etc., etc.

This issues should not be couched in terms of small versus large, but, rather, how best to insure that adequate nutrition is available to those who want it (acknowledging, of course, that there will always be those who prefer a Big Mac to a fresh garden salad, for whatever reason, and we should not force people to eat what they don't want to eat).

Maybe something should be done about misleading advertisements, though- Spiderman sould not be allowed to endorse "fortified" sugar flakes for breakfast!

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#44
In reply to #42

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 3:26 PM

I'm so glad we have you as president!

wisdom prevails!

Reply
2
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#47
In reply to #42

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 3:44 PM

Actually it is not the fertilizer that sterilizes the soils. This is where a degree in soil science and one in chemistry actually helps. The effects from excessive use of fertilizers that lead to declining productivity is due to salt build up in the soil or an imbalnace due to mismanagement of nutrients. the salts of concern are those anion/cations we use as carriers for the nutrients. nitrates need something associated, though it is common to use calcium and ammonium in something like CAN17 for this purpose. Frequently to save on cost of fertilizers we employ cheaper mix designs that use things like KCl, NaNO3, NH4Cl, CaCl, CaCO3, etc.. We add constituents that are not necessary at the levels they are being added as cheaper substitues for better carriers that are in and of themselves macro-nutrients. The excessive use of Clorides causes a build up of salt, as will the use of Calcium Carbonates as a buffering agent and filler in fertilizers. These salts compete with plants for water at low moisture contents. BTW Dairies suffer a similar problem with their manure, as the application rates are the maximum allowable for agronomic rate (they need to get rid of manure and fields are the way they doo it). The salt load particularly sodium chloride tend to be quite high in manures and associated wastewaters (or any animal waste). Control of salt is really a issue of good application practices, which most farmers do not consider as it is a long term (decades) issue and they can make a little more profit moving the production rates up a little bit in the short-term (plus most farmers have no education or knowledge of salt loading). As far as run off. Most nutrient related pollution comes from animals and humans fecal waste. Once in a while you see concentrated problems from fertilizer plants (usually sulfates or nitrates). Whether it is processed and manufactured fertilizers or manures, the source doesn't really matter, the issue is really a matter of maangement of nutrients. Teh organic residue from manures has some benefit to nutirent holding CEC and moisture retention, but the downside is that these organics also mobilize heavy metals in the soil making them easier to bio-accumulate in the plant tissues. So pluses and minuses, again an issue of management.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5898
Good Answers: 204
#49
In reply to #47

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 4:21 PM

good to know.

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#32
In reply to #28

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 2:09 PM

with the continued use of non-natural fertilizers and insecticides, we will be able to use soylent green as fertilizer.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#34
In reply to #32

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 2:19 PM

What exactly comprises non-natural fertilizers? As far as I know the majority of fertilizer is made from crushed rocks or compressed air.

Pesticides/Herbicides well that is a different issues, as you are exposing a living organism to a strong stressor. The theory of evolution would lead us to believe that induced stresses cause creatures to evolve to deal with those stresses or go extinct, thus we would evolve insecticide resistance/tolerance in those species eventually. Soylent Green was well human corpses, so that has always made a good soils admixture if decayed and spread sufficiently, (all corpses do). So you'd probably do better to grind and compost them first to get some of the carbon and nitrogen compounds broken down and get a better balance to the C:N ratio.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Safety - ESD - New Member Popular Science - Cosmology - Amateur Astronomer Technical Fields - Technical Writing - Writer India - Member - Regular CR4 participant Engineering Fields - Optical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 18 29 N 73 57E
Posts: 1388
Good Answers: 31
#55
In reply to #26

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/18/2010 12:57 AM

GA

BTW... what food you eat? Great energy of writing!

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#56
In reply to #26

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/18/2010 11:34 AM

Also, something you should note about water as a global climate change driver. Water in the atmosphere has both a arming and cooling effect. Water droplets in clouds for instance or haze reflect radiant energy from the sun, substantially cooling the earth. Water vapor (gaseous) is substantially effective at retaining heat. Thus depending on the prevailing form of the water you get two substantially different affects. As we all know temperature effects the prevalence of one form relative to the other.

Reply
2
Anonymous Poster
#50

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 5:35 PM

I can understand Russ123's sensitivity to (and aggravation with) the "green" crowd. Of course, I come down in that camp more often than not. Just seems like common sense to me.

If we are honest we all have food "attachments" that we don't want to think are harmful. Some processed foods ARE addictive to some. I happen to have a "chip" addiction.

We could each search the web for studies that support each side of this issue. Here's one for starters. There's WAY more to this debate than anyone here has time for (at least probably; unless it's your job to do so). But anyone who thinks that our highly processed Western diet isn't causing degenerative diseases, is being an ostrich, probably eats a typical Western diet, and will most likely develop one or more of these diseases.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4274
Good Answers: 213
#51
In reply to #50

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/16/2010 6:04 PM

There is another aspect of this whole discussion that has not surfaced yet, but has been getting some press of late. One's digestive tract is filled with various types of bacteria, and these bacteria do a variety of jobs, like helping to digest your food, protecting against invading bacteria that cause harm, and possibly creating compounds that are beneficial for the immune system, among other things. Recent research indicates that there is a significant difference in the "normal" populations of bacterial species between those who eat a typical "western" diet and those who eat a more traditional diet. Add to this the excessive use of orally administered antibiotics, and one sees a potential for totally disrupting the entire system...

Reply
2
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2363
Good Answers: 63
#54
In reply to #50

Re: What is the Future of Food?

08/17/2010 3:06 PM

In what timeline will these diseases develop? That is important to consider. You can live like these healthier diets you believe strongly in, but I suspect you would find the life expectancy of these people who survive that way is shorter than a "western" diet. You live long enough yes, you will develop a dietary related disease. One of the reasons you see a prevalence of the diseases is the life expectancy and quality of life of the elderly now. Second you have a better system for diagnosing these diseases, where before they were overlooked as underlying causes of mortality, people would die before they were identified, and/or the diagnosis was not as precise. In addition, diagnostics in first world "western" countries is better for these underlying causes of disease. what percentage of the population of indonesia actually get regular check ups to diagnose high LDL/HDL ratios or cholesterol even, let alone allthe other diagnostics we utilize in the west. There is just more testing, analysis, and collection of data capacity in the west, simply we know more. So due to this the lack of knowledge about the health of people elsewhere many people in the west seem to assume this implies something is better because they seen any bad information, when really what we know is the mortality is higher but don't know all the underlying causalities (haven't identified any information at all actually because no scientific data was ever collected).

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Anonymous Poster #1
#57
In reply to #54

Re: What is the Future of Food?

12/05/2011 2:58 PM

Unfortunately... or fortunately... I was searching CR4 for a particular word and was linked to this discussion. Reading through it, I realized that I had posted near the end and had a couple of responses to what I had posted. So, please forgive the very tardy acknowledgment of these posts. I do my best, in most responses to any post I make, of offering some kind of response in return. Sometimes it is obvious it doesn't add anything and is just a courtesy.

But I do feel there is a legitimate qualifier to this response.

There is a real difference in life expectancy and disease among different cultures around the world. And it is in countries which have access to and have benefited from the "West's" ability to diagnose disease, collect data and report on it. I'm not going to champion any one study, since I haven't researched it myself, but just one link will help dispel the idea that, just because the West generally has more advanced technology, that means there is no good supporting data from other cultural dietary habits that show a difference or "better" outcome regarding life expectancy and therefore, also, disease states. One paragraph, from the link, for instance shows a longer life expectancy for Japan:

His book lists countries with healthy diets that also have long life expectancies and low obesity rates. These metrics best capture the effects of a lifetime of good eating and exercise habits, he argues. Japan tops his list because it has a 1.5% obesity rate (for men) and an 82-year life expectancy, vs. a 36.5% obesity rate and a 78-year life expectancy in the United States. South Korea, China and Singapore also do well. France makes the list with a 6.6% obesity rate and an 81-year life expectancy, as do Italy, Spain and Greece. Pasternak's rankings aren't scientifically rigorous, but they may shed light on how other countries eat well and manage to stay healthy.

Degenerative disease, almost by definition, and certainly in reality, does happen over "longer" periods than infectious disease and culminates in later life. We are all going to die of something. That's a given. But there are other "non-Western" dietary habits that, seemingly, produce longer lifespans.

Also, more pertinent to the OT, there is data to support the decline of nutritional value of food over decades. I can't remember where I saw it, but I think it might have been at the US Dept. of Agriculture site. If I find time and remember (and that's the main factor) I'll come back and try to post a link concerning that.

Reply
Reply to Blog Entry 57 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Anonymous Poster (8); chrisg288 (11); cwarner7_11 (6); Daddy-O (2); gsuhas (1); Jack Marcotte (2); JBTardis (1); Just an Engineer (1); RCE (10); russ123 (12); Sandman (1); Stan The Man (2)

Previous in Blog: Is Nano-based Food Really Food?   Next in Blog: Do Organic Processes Eliminate Contamination?

Advertisement