Food Inc.

[drmwevr08]

Not a new show but I've just seen it. Does not paint a pretty picture of the food industry, factory farming or most of the companies involved. I'm sure there are some slants but when money becomes the end, the means get sketchy fast. Lots of the greed and exploitation being discussed in other threads is apparent here as well. Neither food nor health is generally about food or health but profit.

IMDb: Food, Inc.
Food, Inc.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/

 

[SoapyCy]

Yeah, im gonna get killed for this but i kind of think the "lifestyle" that farmers peddle is just their own PR. Kind of like the kid who has no other prospects out of high school so he joins the army yet claims it's for the greater good.

You farm to make money. Its not more or less noble than any other job.

 

[IcSyU]

You farm to make money. Its not more or less noble than any other job.

Oh boy. You're right but just wait until some person says, "you wouldn't have any food if I didn't do what I do for a living."

 

[FarminCy]

Yeah, im gonna get killed for this but i kind of think the "lifestyle" that farmers peddle is just their own PR. Kind of like the kid who has no other prospects out of high school so he joins the army yet claims it's for the greater good.

You farm to make money. Its not more or less noble than any other job.

I farm and I completely agree with you.

 

[DeereClone]

Yeah, im gonna get killed for this but i kind of think the "lifestyle" that farmers peddle is just their own PR. Kind of like the kid who has no other prospects out of high school so he joins the army yet claims it's for the greater good.

You farm to make money. Its not more or less noble than any other job.

I agree, at the end of th day it’s a business and the goal is to make money. I take pride in growing food and fuel for people but it’s not some cause that’s more noble than what anyone else does.

 

[drmwevr08]

How about the claim that farm policy has lead us to skew the entire system toward commodity crops and basically find ways to use them even if they aren't really safe or healthy? If you haven't seen it they basically had the average corn farmer at best a pawn in a very screwed up game. Oh, and Monsanto is corporate greed redefined. Ah yes, and ISU is directly implicated. Interviewed even.

 

[ArgentCy]

My in-law's farm but they try to grow decent food but the result is that they pretty much can't/don't make money. Not using any glyphosate (terrible stuff for the ground and body) and non-GMO foods but there isn't much of a market and they don't get paid much of a premium.

 

[DeereClone]

My in-law's farm but they try to grow decent food but the result is that they pretty much can't/don't make money. Not using any glyphosate (terrible stuff for the ground and body) and non-GMO foods but there isn't much of a market and they don't get paid much of a premium.

I raise all non-GMO corn and the insecticides and herbicides I use to do it are far more dangerous for me and are probably more damaging to the environment.

 

[Turn2]

The greatest danger of GMO’s in food is NOT that they are dangerous. It’s in the way a triad of mega-corporations have used GMO’s and plant patenting to corner the market on germplasm of food crops. 40-50 years ago an entrepreneur could go to the land grant universities, snag some seed and begin supplying unique (or not unique) seed products to his neighborhood and beyond. Not possible today. The future of food and feed crops is controlled by corporate boards outside of Iowa.

Soylent Green anyone?

 

[norsemen]

You can still get germ plasm today and make your own hybrids/varieties if you choose. Germ plasm is only patented for a period of time and then it goes off patent and is available to anyone. There is no cornered market.

 

[Turn2]

You can still get germ plasm today and make your own hybrids/varieties if you choose. Germ plasm is only patented for a period of time and then it goes off patent and is available to anyone. There is no cornered market.

Yes you can, but there is virtually no opportunity to market any product you may develop from that 20-year-old product. If you're lucky and are part of an entity that has a licensing agreement for traits, there may be a pathway, but again that is determined by the "Big 3". No start-up in their right mind would attempt this approach. If they have, name them.

 

[norsemen]

Whi

Yes you can, but there is virtually no opportunity to market any product you may develop from that 20-year-old product. If you're lucky and are part of an entity that has a licensing agreement for traits, there may be a pathway, but again that is determined by the "Big 3". No start-up in their right mind would attempt this approach. If they have, name them.

While off-patent material is older, it is far from being useless. Think of how many off-patent drugs are still in use. While off-patent material may not be directly involved in a commercial product, it can and is used as raw material to breed and develop new commercial material. Most if not all smaller seed companies use this approach to develop products (Becks, Agrelient, etc.). As you stated land grant universities used to have plant breeders on staff to provide germplasm for seed products but got out of it as the private seed industry matured and the cost to develop competitive material rose beyond what most thought was feasible for public finds to support.

In my opinion, we are not close to the "soylent green" situation you mention where a sole provider (government, industry) has monopoly on our food. This would be dangerous but there is enough flexibility in the system to prevent this from happening.

 

[Turn2]

Whi


While off-patent material is older, it is far from being useless. Think of how many off-patent drugs are still in use. While off-patent material may not be directly involved in a commercial product, it can and is used as raw material to breed and develop new commercial material. Most if not all smaller seed companies use this approach to develop products (Becks, Agrelient, etc.). As you stated land grant universities used to have plant breeders on staff to provide germplasm for seed products but got out of it as the private seed industry matured and the cost to develop competitive material rose beyond what most thought was feasible for public finds to support.

In my opinion, we are not close to the "soylent green" situation you mention where a sole provider (government, industry) has monopoly on our food. This would be dangerous but there is enough flexibility in the system to prevent this from happening.

In the last 15 years only 3 entities have successfully PVP’d a maize parent line in the US. The deck is stacked and we’re not going back under the current situation.

 

[norsemen]

Don't confuse patenting with germplasm development. Not everyone who develops inbreds ends up patenting them.

The topic is important.....we just have different opinions.