A practical case for reconsidering GMO based on taste

Let me be the first to call myself out: I am not a food science expert.  I am a mechanical engineer with a good background in energy systems, construction, and building design.  I have a fairly decent knowledge of communications systems, economics, and quantum physics.  I am above average in my knowledge of theater, 80s pop/rock, and almost every competitive sporting activity.  But I am not a food science expert, so take the rest of this post with the proverbial grain of salt…

The food in England and France tastes better than the food in the US.

This is not an American self-loathing thing…I really love our country.  Despite several flaws, it's a great place to live, and we have an unwavering hope that things will get even better.  This is not saying that food in America is awful, just that the food in England and France tastes better.

Last month, my wife, my oldest child, and I spent some time in Paris and London.  We are not entirely normal tourists, as we like to trek off the beaten path and get into the neighborhoods of cities we visit.  Our meals do not consist of hitting the most highly rated restaurants in major cities, so my taste comparisons cover the standard fare.  We bought groceries at a standard corner store in London for our breakfasts and snacks, grabbed meals at neighborhood pubs and restaurants for most of our meals, and even sampled a cart vendor or two along the way.  At each turn, even in the highly Americanized sports pub, the food had a richer quality of taste to it.  I am not making claims that it was better for us, just that on the quality of taste, there was a noticeable difference compared with American food.

This is where my observation turns to supposition.  In talking with people over there, and having read about food systems in the UK and mainland Europe, there are two striking differences.  First, much of the food systems are inherently local.  There are certainly South American bananas, but most of the staple crops come from farms within the country…which comparatively would mean within the geographic area of our states.  This short farm-to-table timeframe could easily account for much of the heightened flavor in the food.  Second, European countries practice the precautionary principle.  That means that anything consumed by people must be proven safe prior to consumption.  They have heavy restrictions on food additives, GMO, and processing.  There is still much debate about the safety of food additives, and especially GMO, but little of that discussion has included quality.  A completely unscientific analysis suggests to me that it would help to include it in the discussion.  Lastly, the portion sizes are drastically different.  In the states, we are fine with average tasting food if the portion gives us the quality to match our payment.  Perhaps in Europe, the smaller portion size forces vendors to ensure that the quality of the food matches the customers expectations of value.

Sometimes, our debates in this country become more about the debating than the topic.  We have talked for the better part of the last decade about the food industry from the point of view of safety, energy intensity, and environmental damage.  This brief sampling suggests to me that we should provide equal footing to the quality of the food, and not just look at food as a business, but something that sustains life in myriad ways.

Friday Five: March 21, 2014 Limits to Growth?

This week, there is only one story that I think we all need to take the time to read, dissect, analyze, and pick a course of action to address. The link's author took the most balanced and factual approach to the story, and I recommend it as a starting point (note he has one factual discrepancy addressed in the next link). The study notes that throughout history, civilizations have collapsed...even highly ordered ones. Signals in our patterns of consumption can help identify weaknesses.
Society is doomed, scientists claim
"The researchers used the HANDY model to analyze three different social scenarios: an egalitarian society with no elite class; an equitable society with workers and non-workers (students, retirees, disabled persons); and an unequal society with a robust class of elites.
The egalitarian and equitable societies could produce a sustainable civilization and avoid collapse, even with a high ratio of non-workers. Social collapse was more likely after people overreached and depleted natural resources. Importantly, even without any social stratification, collapse could occur if a society exhausted its natural resources.
In the unequal society, however, collapse was almost unavoidable — and these were the HANDY scenarios that mirrored our current globalized society."

Most coverage of the press release for the study mentioned that NASA funded it. Although NASA funded the development of the tool through another study, it did not fund the research that led to the conclusion about societal inequality.
NASA clarifies its role in new civilization collapse study
"NASA officials released this statement on the study today (March 20): 'A soon-to-be published research paper, 'Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies' by University of Maryland researchers Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota's Jorge Rivas, was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity. As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions.'"

The study ties back to concepts presented in the 1970s by MIT researchers working through the Club of Rome. In their work, Limits to Growth, they identified patterns of consumption and activity that would lead to collapse of civilization. It is worth reading the entire work.
A synopsis: Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update
"These are symptoms of a world in overshoot, where we are drawing on the world’s resources faster than they can be restored, and we are releasing wastes and pollutants faster than the Earth can absorb them or render them harmless. They are leading us toward global environ- mental and economic collapse—but there may still be time to address these problems and soften their impact."

I think it important to hear multiple sides of an issue from learned people with something to say, no axe to grind, and a relatively clear way of stating their position. I disagree with Mr. Lomborg on many issues, and find some of his analysis incomplete, but having read his books and articles, I find his approach fair and reasoned. In order to put some perspective on the predictions of collapse from resource consumption, I recommend reading this post and other work of his.
The limits to panic
"The Limits of Growth got it so wrong because its authors overlooked the greatest resource of all: our own resourcefulness. Population growth has been slowing since the late 1960’s. Food supply has not collapsed (1.5 billion hectares of arable land are being used, but another 2.7 billion hectares are in reserve). Malnourishment has dropped by more than half, from 35% of the world’s population to under 16%."

For another analysis, this time one that verifies the predictions of Limits to Growth, I present the following. I am less familiar with Mr. Turner's whole body of work, but find the presentation of data clear and reasonable. I recommend that everyone take the time to understand the fundamental factors affecting out ability to sustain high quality of life with continued growth of population and consumption (as less developed countries strive to gain the high quality of life we enjoy). It quite literally is a matter of life and death.
Looking back on the limits of growth
"Turner compared real-world data from 1970 to 2000 with the business-as-usual scenario. He found the predictions nearly matched the facts. 'There is a very clear warning bell being rung here,' he says. 'We are not on a sustainable trajectory.'"

Happy Friday!