For a while, the farmers complained that the new scientific seeds should be put in contests all by themselves. But after a few harvests, no one cared how the seeds had been produced, and no one cared that they were barren. No one had ever seen such beautiful corn. No one had ever seen such extraordinary yields. No one had ever made so much money.
Soon U.S. universities were constructing their own agriculture and livestock laboratories, and institutes of higher learning joined the new molecular science of food. In the 1920s, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin named Harry Steenbock exposed milk to ultraviolet radiation, which increased its level of vitamin D. Steenbock had figured out how to use radiation to alter the chemicals in food, and with $300 of his own money he patented his method—at which point one of the world's largest companies, Quaker Oats, offered Steenbock $1 million for the rights to use his technology to fortify its breakfast cereals.
Steenbock had created food's first killer app.
Excerpted from Bet the Farm: How Food Stopped Being Food, by Frederick Kaufman. With permission from the publisher, Wiley. Copyright © Frederick Kaufman, 2012.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentNice blog article, but it appears to be apologist in nature for the franken foods created by Monsanto. Yes, modification of food to produce more/better can be a good thing, BUT when you are dealing with a food source for metabolic processes that are not completely understood, or a corporation designing a "food" solely on the profit motive you can and do create un-forseen problems like soy that is resistant to Roundup cross pollinating weeds that also become resistant to Roundup; Or creating corn that is toxic to predator bugs but is ALSO toxic (and carcinogenic) to its intended customer (and worse yet creates a super bug that is no longer affected by B.T.).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Because we can" does NOT equal "It's a good idea".
Well put. I'd add an extension - 'because we [someone else] can make money doing it' does not mean 'it's a good thing to do!'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis comment shows a profound lack of understanding of pretty much everything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. We understand the metabolic processes we manipulate in genetically modified plants extremely well.
2. All products and foods are designed solely on the profit motive; that's entirely how society works.
3. Weeds becoming resistant to roundup is not in any way related to Roundup Ready plants. It's a natural consequence of herbicide use and applies to any herbicide irrespective of whether it's used on GM plants.
4. There is absolutely no biological reason to think Bt CRY proteins would be carcinogenic in any system. You've completely made that up (or got it from a source that made it up).
5. Bugs becoming resistant to Bt is also not a problem, it's expected with pesticides. When it happens, we switch pesticide strategy.
We don't use molecular engineering technology because we can, we do it because it's the responsible thing to do to feed a growing population in a sustainable way.
Interesting excerpt - I'll definitely read the book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting, yes, but who is in charge of making decisions about how, why and which technology is applied to agricultural development and production? Are they motivated to magnanimously feed the starving masses or to increase profits this quarter? Sustainability? Nothing to see here - I'll just move along...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModern wheat is mostly starch. I eat bread made from ancient 'épautre' wheat, rich in protein and requiring little fertiliser or pesticides. Modern starch-rich wheat causes widespread obesity in the USA. Which is the best?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would expect nothing less from a guy with an vested interest in genetically motivating food for human and animal consumption...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin response to Richard Smith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. I am 100% in favor of genetically engineering plants to be drought resistant, or root rot resistant, etc... but I am 100% against genetically modifying plants to be resistant to RoundUp so millions of acres of land and food can be soaked in RoundUp. The genetically modified plants may possibly be safe, but what about the safety of RoundUp residue on the plants? Also, there may be long term negative environmental effects of spraying millions of acres of land with Roundup.
2. I believe sometimes it is in the best interest of society NOT to allow big businesses to do whatever makes the most profit, especially when it pollutes the environment.
3. Actually, weeds becoming resistant to Roundup IS related to Roundup Ready plants. It is called horizontal green transfer. Weeds will continue to become resistant to RoundUp and new herbicides will have to be made. I believe farmers should use kura clover, living mulch in corn fields instead of Round Up. Kura clover is a legume and actually makes soil more fertile.
4. True, BT Cry proteins are not carcinogenic. But, inserting the genes from the BT microbe directly into plants has created many super insects which have evolved resistance to them.
5. Bugs becoming resistant to BT IS a problem, as organic farmers use BT to spray on their crops as organic pesticide, and it will soon become useless. True, you can switch pesticide strategy once you have created super insects that no longer are controlled by BT, but it will be a never ending cycle of creating stronger and stronger insects, which I believe is not the best long term strategy.
There are many useful applications for molecular engineering that can be used to feed our growing population in a responsible and sustainable manner. Unfortunately, Monsanto does not operate their business in a responsible or sustainable way.