Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

At Tampa Bay farm-to-table restaurants, you’re being fed fiction

tampabay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: At Tampa Bay farm-to-table restaurants, you’re being fed fiction

#51

Post by splawn »

alva wrote: post #41
splawn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If done accurately it means that the food is produced using the most unsustainable and inefficient ways possible so that only the most privileged can partake. Other than that its just marketing that is targeting people that either want to think of themselves as upper class or have been falsely led to believe that this type of food production is actually eco-friendly and more healthy. (Also see "Organic" food)

I think it is a noble cause. You are correct in that it means the price of some of the food groups increases dramatically, so many people are left out of regularly consuming it. I believe that 50/60 years ago, people did not expect to eat meat/fish every night due to the price. I would like to know why you think farm-to-table is inherently unsustainable? Many farmers in the Highlands of Scotland make a good living se…

I see it as unsustainable because it doesn't scale and the results don't produce any actual benefit. I see it in the same light as a golf course... a huge waste of resources so that someone has something silly to throw away their money on. Not saying that it shouldn't exist, per se... but it is at odds with the greenwashed way it is marketed.

Re: At Tampa Bay farm-to-table restaurants, you’re being fed fiction

#52

Post by ChrisDutrow »

hyperpape wrote: post #44
ChrisDutrow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does sound like a "throw the baby out with the bath water" scenario. In theory, GMOs could be more healthy than not GMO. In practice, this has not happened. The objectives instead have been to increase crop yield. The side effects have been to make the plants more toxic in very subtle ways that are hard to track and take decades for people to show symptoms. Maybe in a few more decades we'll see "good" GMOs. It sho…

Do you have something I could read for that claim regarding toxicity? I'm not super up on the debate surrounding GMOs, but I have a few friends who have scientific backgrounds and are interested, and I've never heard anything quite like what you're saying.

Probably my favorite book is "Death by Food Pyramid". I can't remember if she went into this particular topic though.

I don't know of any definative proof, which I think is what makes issues like this so dangerous. Scientific proof is a high bar when dealing with something this complex, pit that against powerful food lobbies and truths can stay buried for a long time.

For me, it's been an observation of many cues, then making a personal decision about how I eat from that. One interesting place to start is corn: Most corn that you eat isn't the sweet corn you buy in the store and cook on the grill. It is very hard and must be broken down with lye before being eaten.

Re: At Tampa Bay farm-to-table restaurants, you’re being fed fiction

#53

Post by jere »

wyldfire wrote: post #9

> “It’s really hard to find non-GMO produce,” Moran said. Aside from the IP problems of patent-infringement-via-unintended-germination, I don't understand what's not to like about GMO. GMO seems like a great idea -- modern human medicine seems to include techniques that are similar to or just-short-of "GMO." Are there any HNers who can articulate what they don't like about GMO?

Even if there's nothing wrong with GMO produce, consumers shouldn't be lied to. If they want something, pay extra for it, and are told they should get it, then they damn well better get it.

I tend to think GMOs are fine, but at the same time, I understand why one might be skeptical. Humans are pretty great at inventing toxic consumer products (e.g. plastics, lead pipes, asbestos) and even "health foods" that later turn out to be disastrously unhealthy (e.g. trans fats). Sometimes the lag between invention and the confirmation of deleterious effect is many decades.

Re: At Tampa Bay farm-to-table restaurants, you’re being fed fiction

#54

Post by EvanPlaice »

hibikir wrote: post #43
smelendez wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an expert, but one criticism I've seen is that a lot of genetic modification is used to either get plants to produce pesticides or be immune to commonly used weed-killers, like Roundup. Some critics worry that lets farmers basically saturate their fields in herbicides to eliminate weeds, and that some of them are toxic to humans, other animals and plants near to the farm. Another issue is that most genetic mo…

In this case, the problem is that there's a huge difference between public perception and reality. For instance, you talk about herbicides: A modern GMO actually lets you use LESS herbicides and insecticides, and often far less dangerous ones than many that are OK for labeled organic crops, and happen to be far more toxic. As far as updates on the field producing toxins, GMOs are actually more controlled, genetically…

Producing higher yields is not analogous to producing healthier food.

The interests of farmers (ie produce more yield/mass that is impacted less by weeds/pests) do not match the interests of consumers (ie purchase healthy/tasty food with no unforseen side-effects).

Considering the turnaround time between the time a seed is purchased and when the resulting food is consumed, the 'testing period' of newly introduced GMO breeds is very long compared to software iterations.

At the very least, consumers should be able to trace what GMO breed they're consuming and where it was produced. That way, if there are any unforseen side effects, it'll be easier to trace the source.

Just look at the fallout caused by pistachio yields that have been contaminated with E Coli and Salmonella. The long shelf life of nuts means that contaminated foods could still be sitting on store shelves years later.

I'm all for GMO foods if it improves farming effectiveness but the process needs something similar to version control to track quality and a way to clearly indicate GMO foods so people can opt out of beta testing new breeds.

Re: At Tampa Bay farm-to-table restaurants, you’re being fed fiction

#55

Post by hyperpape »

ChrisDutrow wrote: post #52
hyperpape wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have something I could read for that claim regarding toxicity? I'm not super up on the debate surrounding GMOs, but I have a few friends who have scientific backgrounds and are interested, and I've never heard anything quite like what you're saying.

Probably my favorite book is "Death by Food Pyramid". I can't remember if she went into this particular topic though. I don't know of any definative proof, which I think is what makes issues like this so dangerous. Scientific proof is a high bar when dealing with something this complex, pit that against powerful food lobbies and truths can stay buried for a long time. For me, it's been an observation of many cues, th…

There's a lot of ground between definitive proof and "personal observation of many cues".

Put it this way: are there any scientific reasons, however nebulous or merely suggestive, to suspect that this is the case?

Re: At Tampa Bay farm-to-table restaurants, you’re being fed fiction

#56

Post by ska »

wyldfire wrote: post #9

> “It’s really hard to find non-GMO produce,” Moran said. Aside from the IP problems of patent-infringement-via-unintended-germination, I don't understand what's not to like about GMO. GMO seems like a great idea -- modern human medicine seems to include techniques that are similar to or just-short-of "GMO." Are there any HNers who can articulate what they don't like about GMO?

I wouldn't say "dislike" but "distrust" a little, for these reasons:

Modern industrial agriculture is both a triumph and a tragedy of optimization. It is now possible to buy a cheap, beautiful looking, round, red tomato any day of the year in most supermarkets near me - and they all taste like crap. At the same time it is getting more and more difficult to buy a good tomato when they are in seasonal around here. Many groceries store chains can't be bothered to move off their large distributors for a product like that for 3-4 weeks, and consumers have stopped being aware of the times when it really matters. I'm willing to say it is more triumph than tragedy, but the tragedy part is real, and it matters.

GMO as a tool allows for quicker iteration on optimizing various aspects of a crop - my distrust lies in the fact that I already think we have over-optimized some aspects at the expense of things that are important but more difficult to measure directly. So long as downward price pressure exists we are likely to continue this trend.

The other problem is hubris. GMOs tend to lead to more monoculture and more drift from naturally biologically stable systems around them. In this we are messing with complex systems we don't really understand that well, and I'm not sure it's worth the efficiency gains. At the very least, it's not clear...

Re: At Tampa Bay farm-to-table restaurants, you’re being fed fiction

#57

Post by [deleted] »

wyldfire wrote: post #9

> “It’s really hard to find non-GMO produce,” Moran said. Aside from the IP problems of patent-infringement-via-unintended-germination, I don't understand what's not to like about GMO. GMO seems like a great idea -- modern human medicine seems to include techniques that are similar to or just-short-of "GMO." Are there any HNers who can articulate what they don't like about GMO?

[deleted]

Re: At Tampa Bay farm-to-table restaurants, you’re being fed fiction

#59

Post by ChrisDutrow »

hyperpape wrote: post #55
ChrisDutrow wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably my favorite book is "Death by Food Pyramid". I can't remember if she went into this particular topic though. I don't know of any definative proof, which I think is what makes issues like this so dangerous. Scientific proof is a high bar when dealing with something this complex, pit that against powerful food lobbies and truths can stay buried for a long time. For me, it's been an observation of many cues, th…

There's a lot of ground between definitive proof and "personal observation of many cues". Put it this way: are there any scientific reasons, however nebulous or merely suggestive, to suspect that this is the case?

Yeah, if you google it, a lot of stuff comes up. I'm sure if you google "GMO's are not toxic" you'll find a lot of stuff supporting that claim too. My advice would be to start paying attention to nutrition in general, then over time you can draw your own, educated conclusions. Unfortunately I don't think is a topic that you will be able to find a black-and-white answer to.

Re: At Tampa Bay farm-to-table restaurants, you’re being fed fiction

#60

Post by uremog »

alva wrote: post #35

A great bit of journalism here, hopefully it reaches a lot of eyes. I think that the fines levied on restaurants that are knowingly deceiving their customers should be much higher. The articles states $300 is the fine for first-time offenders, this is hardly much of a deterrence considering the premiums placed on 'locally sourced' dishes. If you want to get a good feel of how much proper locally grown food is, pop in…

Lol $300 is a speeding ticket in some places. Pretty useless even as a first time punishment.
Post reply on HN