Healthier Bacon Through Biotech

[Meaghan]

The AP on Bacon Biotech

Spooky.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

If bacon was healthy, I would't eat it any more. Any thing that tastes as good as bacon does, by definition, has to be bad for you.

[Barbara]

If bacon was healthy, I would't eat it any more.  Any thing that tastes as good as bacon does, by definition, has to be bad for you.

Yeah, and the smell of bacon cooking is filling our apartment as I am reading this thread; Craig is making Pasta Carbonara for our dinner.

[porcupine]

Any thing that tastes as good as bacon does, by definition, has to be bad for you.

How about a tomato straight from your garden in early August?

[ScotteeM]

How about a tomato straight from your garden in early August?

Especially if it is sliced, breaded, and fried in bacon drippings.

[mdt]

Especially if it is sliced, breaded, and fried in bacon drippings. 

That would be a crime against humanity! Not much beats a tomato fresh from the yard with just a touch of salt.

While not as bad as the gene splicing they have been breeding pigs with much less fat for a long time now to make it healthier.

[ScotteeM]

That would be a crime against humanity!  Not much beats a tomato fresh from the yard with just a touch of salt.

While not as bad as the gene splicing they have been breeding pigs with much less fat for a long time now to make it healthier.

Just trying to stay on topic--notice the wink!

But how do we know that leaner pork is healthier? Because Big Agribusiness says so?

I'm not trying to start an argument, but I fall squarely in the Mo' Natural, Mo' Bettah camp when it comes to the food I and my family (including canines) eats.

The trouble is, Mo' Natural isn't Mo' Profitable.

I'll stick to regular pigs, or at least those with less genetic engineering and more natural diets.

And I'll get my Omega 3s from fish, where they belong. <---again with the wink

[Jacques Gastreaux]

Not much beats a tomato fresh from the yard with just a touch of salt.

Unless, of course, the slice of tomato was on a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich.

[DLB]

This is just crazy! Why can't everything just be natural as it is suppose to be? Mad scientist should just stay away form the animals and my food

[Sthitch]

This is just crazy! Why can't everything just be natural as it is suppose to be? Mad scientist should just say away form the animals and my food

So what would you be eating today that was not changed by the hand of man? Carrots? Nope. Beef? No. Apples? Not hardly. The only foods that you could eat that were not changed in some way by the man, would be wild caught seafood, and wild shot game. Most of the food, especially fruits and vegetables are the way that they are because of selective breeding, and even cross breeding of similar (and in some cases dissimilar) species. Most of this was done long before Hans Janssen invented the compound microscope, or Mendel discovered genes. But there is very little that we eat today that can really be considered in its natural form.

[Al Dente]

So what would you be eating today that was not changed by the hand of man?  Carrots?  Nope.  Beef?  No.  Apples?  Not hardly.  The only foods that you could eat that were not changed in some way by the man, would be wild caught seafood, and wild shot game.  Most of the food, especially fruits and vegetables are the way that they are because of selective breeding, and even cross breeding of similar (and in some cases dissimilar) species.  Most of this was done long before Hans Janssen invented the compound microscope, or Mendel discovered genes.  But there is very little that we eat today that can really be considered in its natural form.

Excellent, and almost always overlooked point. Almost everything we eat is a Frankenfood on some level.

[porcupine]

Unless, of course, the slice of tomato was on a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich.

Bingo! Everything tastes better with bacon.

~porkupine

[qwertyy]

Excellent, and almost always overlooked point. Almost everything we eat is a Frankenfood on some level.

However, it is good every once in a while to remind ourselves that moderately "regular" foods can be just as good for us as uber-engineered stuff. I'm thinking of the article in Express on Friday that reported that scientists had found chocolate milk to be as effective a sports drink as Gatorade. I love that.

[Sthitch]

Not that Gatorade is my favorite thing to drink, but it is certainly more desirable in the middle of a workout than a glass of chocolate milk.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

The only foods that you could eat that were not changed in some way by the man, would be wild caught seafood, and wild shot game.

Not entirely accurate. Agricultural practices have changed the eating habits of most wild game. For Example, the Canada geese that winter on the Eastern Shore used to migrate to South Carolina. When Frank Perdue started his chicken operation on the Eastern Shore, the farmers started to grow a lot more corn than they used to and mechanical harvesters leave a lot on the ground. The abundant food supply "short stopped" the geese and they winter over much further north than they used to. Also, they now have a different diet and probably are much tastier than they used to be. But God only knows how much stuff like herbicide and pesticide they now ingest.

[Meaghan]

Just to mess with ya...

Do what?

[Sthitch]

Not entirely accurate. 

I believe that you simply made my point about the absurdity of very few items being "natural as it is suppose to be". I never intended to mean that the development of all wild caught or wild shot game was untouched by man, only that was the last place to find it. And as you pointed out, that is very rare. Another example might be species of Atlantic oysters that are now harvested in the Pacific Northwest, that taste and look completely different from their eastern kin.

[johnb]

However, it is good every once in a while to remind ourselves that moderately "regular" foods can be just as good for us as uber-engineered stuff. I'm thinking of the article in Express on Friday that reported that scientists had found chocolate milk to be as effective a sports drink as Gatorade. I love that.

I'm not sure how much less "uber-engineered" chocolate milk is than Gatoraide.

In any case, I generally agree with Al and Steve. Everything has been altered and nothing has been changed. If it's alive it's natural. In fact, there is nothing that's not natural, irrespective of whether man has sped up the evolutionary process. Splice those genes baby!

There are plenty of "natural" things out there that will kill you, some slow and some fast. So-called "natural" is not a very good criterion for deciding what to ingest. The constant barage of studies first saying one thing then saying the exact opposite ought to be a pretty clear red flag on that. My suggestion--eat what you like, do everything in moderation, be skeptical of dramatic dietary claims of all sorts, and enjoy life while you have it.

[crackers]

Bingo! Everything tastes better with bacon.

~porkupine

Punch line contest: *.

[is this going to generate some new pick up lines for foodies?]

[deangold]

So what would you be eating today that was not changed by the hand of man? Carrots? Nope. Beef? No. Apples? Not hardly. The only foods that you could eat that were not changed in some way by the man, would be wild caught seafood, and wild shot game. Most of the food, especially fruits and vegetables are the way that they are because of selective breeding, and even cross breeding of similar (and in some cases dissimilar) species. Most of this was done long before Hans Janssen invented the compound microscope, or Mendel discovered genes. But there is very little that we eat today that can really be considered in its natural form.

There is a huge difference between cross breeding and selective breeding and the "Frankenfoods" of today. What really scares me is the loss of biodiversity that is going on.

There are problems when we use gene splicing to insert genes from non related species in a product. A tomato with a fish gene is an example. There are some who would not want to eat this because of religious or personal belief reasons. Yet this product was on the market. And it was illegal to label it as such.

Genes spliced into plants migrate. There is basically no such thing as non GMO soybean because the pollen of the GMO soybeans have infected the non GMO strains with some of the genes. In fact, organic farmers have been sued for stealing the technology of GMO producers. Why don't we prosecute the GMO producers for trespass and intentional damage of another's property. Ohhh yeah, "natural" food forms are in the public domain. The only foods that can be trademark protected are those that have been "manufactured"

Farm raised male salmon who are fed antibiotics are much more sexually attractive to wild female salmon than are the wild males. So when you have open water penning of salmon, that genetic material will dominate the local salmon species as the fish inevitably escape the open water pens.

When a food such as milk is almost universally subjected to UHT pasteurization, its fat chains are broken into forms not seen in nature. While all the chemicals remain in the same amount by weight, how do we know that hey are functionally the same?

Are the chemicals in milk and meat behind the earlier onset of puberty in girls today? The epidemiological evidence seems to say so but there have been no governmentally financed large scale studies of the issue. Could it be all the agro-money behind the whores.... oops typo there, we send to Washington (and why am I insulting hard working men and women by comparing them to our Congresspeople?!?)?

There is new evidence about increased breast cancer and the consumption of red meat. But we also know that breast cancer is hormone influenced (ie all the studies about the use of the pill and increased risk over the lifetime for breast cancer*). But what is not explored is whether the abundant use of hormones in our meat supply is responsible for this. The increase in the rate of breast cancer in BOTH women and men (although a far greater killer of women) also coincides with the increased use of hormones in our food supplies.

Our government allows things like Splenda and Olestra in the food supply without any safety testing because they are simply another form of a "natural" food. In fact, they are forms of "natural" foods that simply do not occur in nature. Splenda in a mirror image of real sugar. That is the twist of the sugar molecule is reversed in splenda making it indigestible. Does this create effects from long term use in humans? Drink up human guinea pigs.... we are going to find out as people use Splenda over time. I hope that the manufacturers of Splenda are right! Olestra resulted in more complaints of gastrointestinal distress than any other product ever introduced int he US. By an order of magnitude. Who wants watery diarrhea and possible anal spasms? (Did you know that Google spell check returns "Splendor" for "Splenda"? Not hardly! But I digress.)

Before Whole Foods started a successful consumer campaign, the label Organic would have allowed the use of chemical laden sludge as a natural fertilizer.

The development of e Coli 0157 seems to be directly caused by the corn feeding of cows in the limited space of feed lots.

The problem is that today, if I want to eat as naturally as possible, the roadblock put in my way by agrobusiness allow for misleading labeling of "Frankenfoods" and make difficult the labeling of the food alternatives. Eat what you want, but allow me to do the same. The right to chemically alter your foods should end at the door to my refrigerator! I should be able to pi=ck up a package in the grocery store and really know what is inside.

* please note this is not an attack on the pill. We also know that the risk associated with pregnancy is far greater than the lifetime risk from cancer of all kinds from using the pill taking the worst case scenario for cancer/pill use, so preventing an unwanted pregnancy via the pill is a net safe strategy for those wishing to do so.

[Waitman]

I'm not sure how much less "uber-engineered" chocolate milk is than Gatoraide.

In any case, I generally agree with Al and Steve. Everything has been altered and nothing has been changed. If it's alive it's natural. In fact, there is nothing that's not natural, irrespective of whether man has sped up the evolutionary process. Splice those genes baby!

There are plenty of "natural" things out there that will kill you, some slow and some fast. So-called "natural" is not a very good criterion for deciding what to ingest. The constant barage of studies first saying one thing then saying the exact opposite ought to be a pretty clear red flag on that. My suggestion--eat what you like, do everything in moderation, be skeptical of dramatic dietary claims of all sorts, and enjoy life while you have it.

I know this is months old, but you're not seriously justifying genetic engineering on the grounds that old-fashioned cross-breeding brought us such wonders as the grocery store tomato, the tasteless pork chop and the styrofoam strawberry, are you?

[ol_ironstomach]

Our government allows things like Splenda and Olestra in the food supply without any safety testing because they are simply another form of a "natural" food. In fact, they are forms of "natural" foods that simply do not occur in nature. Splenda in a mirror image of real sugar. That is the twist of the sugar molecule is reversed in splenda making it indigestible.

A minor point, but Splenda (sucralose) is not a reversed (or "left-handed") sugar. It is a chlorine-modified sucrose. No true left-handed sugar has ever been commercially available as a foodstuff...it's just too darn hard to manufacture, since nature doesn't use it. Tagatose was available briefly even though it is technically still a right-handed sugar.

The "accidental" release of GMO materials into non-GMO crops has always pissed me off. If the GMO soybean situation didn't alarm you enough, the GMO corn situation should. While there is theoretically zero tolerance for unapproved GMO corn in human foodstuffs, there are no controls on pollen drift, and little research. Papers such as this one cite "acceptable" levels of contamintion as high as 5% in non-GMO fields, and only set goals of improving that number to 0.5%. This isn't like releasing rabbits in the Outback; when it comes to grasses like corn, the numbers are many orders of magnitude greater. [edited to add: although so far, corn has demonstrated little hopping or running ability]

[cjsadler]

Our government allows things like Splenda and Olestra in the food supply without any safety testing because they are simply another form of a "natural" food.

This is not true. As the FDA notes here in a release approving sucralose (Splenda) for use: "All food additives that have never before been used in foods, including new sweeteners, must be approved by FDA as safe before they are marketed in the United States." In this case, the approval is based on this: "In determining the safety of sucralose, FDA reviewed data from more than 110 studies in humans and animals." The complete info is here.