A misguided experiment

davidjtaylor

Short article about the impossible burger.

gozunda

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Short article about the impossible burger.

Sounds vile tbh. I'm not a fan of any type of burgers - but I've never ever seen a beef burger which "bleeds" (sic)

Burgers are normally served fully cooked and do not "bleed" anything. If it does I'd suggest throw it out

As for "the Impossible Burger, the key ingredient of which is soy leghemoglobin (SLH), a protein that's never before been in the human food supply, produced in GM yeast."

No thanks ....

Tar.Aldarion

That's because burgers are not allowed be anything but well done in Ireland unless the meat is minced on site, which is rare. Safety issues. Otherewise you can get it cooked less and see the myoglobin.

I wouldn't be trusting anything with watch in their name unless they are selling timepieces. That article is worded in a pretty misleading way.
Their raison d'etre seems to be just be against anything with GMO, and while there can be some problems with GMO (particularly legal quandaries) I view it as a good thing in general. For reference to reasons a vegan might be pro-gmo in particular that I have read:

Animal Testing: Insisting on unfounded safety testing leads to more animals being harmed in order to perform this testing. For example, the Seralini rat study, which was widely criticized for failing to meet animal-welfare standards and has since been retracted for poor methodology, allowed rats to die of their tumors rather than by euthanasia, well past the point at which their quality of life took a nosedive. This study is an extreme case, but when the safety of GMOs is not in question by the scientific community, animals suffer needlessly when anti-GMO activists push for safety testing solely on ideological grounds.

Animal Alternatives: GE technology can help create alternatives to animal products. For example, insulin used to be obtained from slaughtered animals; now it is manufactured by genetically modified bacteria. It could also be possible to use GE technology to replace animal foods. The flavor and texture of cheese has been difficult to replicate using non-animal ingredients, and the lack of acceptable vegan cheese analogues could be a barrier for many potential vegans.

Nutrition: GE technology can lower the bar for implementing vegan diets by biofortifying plant foods with nutrients those diets might lack, such as vitamin B12 and DHA. For example, scientists have been enabling canola plants to produce DHA. People who are vegan need DHA, and synthetic DHA can help save the lives of fish, who are often used as a source of omega-3 fatty acids. People are animals too, and there are many in dire need of help. GE technology could help bring essential nutrients to starving populations.

Health: Genetic engineering has a huge role in modern medicine and disease prevention for all animals. Better vaccines with less to no animal products and novel delivery methods like vaccines in foods are all possible with genetic engineering. Also controlling vectors for disease by genetically modified mosquitos can benefit all animals who may be at risk.

Environment: Creating plants that use fewer pesticides and fertilizers will help us strive toward a sustainable agriculture that’s less detrimental to all life on this planet. Fewer insects would be killed, less runoff will poison fish, and no- or low-till agriculture will save the lives of ground-dwelling animals.

Big Business: As long as policy and regulations are shaped by unfounded fears, only the larger corporations will have the means to overcome them. Let’s level the playing field and allow for smaller independent researchers to utilize these tools. A more rational approach should be adopted by the people and their representatives.

Scientific Advancement: Scientific innovation in one area contributes to the complete body of scientific knowledge. Because biology is universal discoveries in plants can have ramifications for animals. Example: Leukaemia treatment through plant disease research.

Ethics: It’s just the right thing to do, which is why we’re vegan in the first place. A consistent and effective application of our own standards of morality requires a fastidiousness to the truth.

As to these burgers in particular, along with Beyond Burgers, they are doing a huge amount to reduce meat consumption in the US, Canada etc. and if people use these as a stepping stone to eat a more whole, plant based diet they have quite a good role to play.

davidjtaylor

Where are those quotes from, TA?

gozunda

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

That's because burgers are not allowed be anything but well done in Ireland unless the meat is minced on site, which is rare. Safety issues. Otherewise you can get it cooked less and see the myoglobin.

I wouldn't be trusting anything with watch in their name unless they are selling timepieces. That article is worded in a pretty misleading way.Their raison d'etre seems to be just be against anything with GMO, and while there can be some problems with GMO (particularly legal quandaries) I view it as a good thing in general. For reference to reasons a vegan might be pro-gmo in particular that I have read:

As to these burgers in particular, along with Beyond Burgers, they are doing a huge amount to reduce meat consumption in the US, Canada etc. and if people use these as a stepping stone to eat a more whole, plant based diet they have quite a good role to play.

Yeah I know how burgers are cooked in Ireland.
And I've seen most of those pro GMO stories tbh. Most of them are highly contentious.

It's not just Ireland where real meat burgers are normally served well done. I've travelled and have not come across meat burgers with alternative cooking options tbh. They might exist but the issue is that the mincing itself carries risk which is overcome by cooking properly.

Plus properly minced meat does not contains blood rather myoglobin - hence this bs about the 'patty bleedin'. I've even seen that stuff written about fake burgers in promotional pieces here. It's complete rubbish imo.

The main issue there is that the product effectively has not been approved for human consumption and introduces a substance previously not found in the human food supply.

You are correct when you say your are suspicious about organisations with the word 'Watch' in their name lol. It was Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang - as part of World Watch who came up with their completly fictitious figures claiming that "agriculture accounted for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions". Not only have their figures been debunked - they have become the laughing stock of their own particuliar vegan propaganda machine.

Anyway back to the product in question - it appears to be pandering to fashion but also sounds like total ****e tbh. It's highly processed gunk and very very far away from the promoted vegan ideal of a "whole food plant based diet" They can keep there frankenburger all the same.

jh79

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah I know how burgers are cooked in Ireland.
And I've seen most of those pro GMO stories tbh. Most of them are highly contentious.

It's not just Ireland where real meat burgers are normally served well done. I've travelled and have not come across meat burgers with alternative cooking options tbh. They might exist but the issue is that the mincing itself carries risk which is overcome by cooking properly.

Plus properly minced meat does not contains blood rather myoglobin - hence this bs about the 'patty bleedin'. I've even seen that stuff written about fake burgers in promotional pieces here. It's complete rubbish imo.

The main issue there is that the product effectively has not been approved for human consumption and introduces a substance previously not found in the human food supply.

You are correct when you say your are suspicious about organisations with the word 'Watch' in their name lol. It was Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang - as part of World Watch who came up with their completly fictitious figures claiming that "agriculture accounted for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions". Not only have their figures been debunked - they have become the laughing stock of their own particuliar vegan propaganda machine.

Anyway back to the product in question - it appears to be pandering to fashion but also sounds like total ****e tbh. It's highly processed gunk and very very far away from the promoted vegan ideal of a "whole food plant based diet" They can keep there frankenburger all the same.

Why are the pro gmo stories contentious? In theory GM should be safer than traditional farming methods and studies to date support that as no adverse effects have been found.

gozunda

jh79 wrote: »

Why are the pro gmo stories contentious? In theory GM should be safer than traditional farming methods and studies to date support that as no adverse effects have been found.

'Safer'? 'No adverse effects'? How so?

I would suggest you read up on the subject. The issues touched in the article linked related to the introduction of substances not previously found in the human food supply and the inherent dangers of such substances to human health

Two decades ago a food supplement, L-tryptophan, produced in GM bacteria killed a couple hundred people and maimed a few thousand, and GM yeast producing the potent mutagen called methylglyoxal was an unintended side-product of ethanol production.

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18498-a-misguided-experiment

Other issues include:
For vegans, vegetarians and those that eat a normal mixed diet gmo plants may lead to more people being exposed to genetically engineered ingredients whether they wish to consume such foods or otherwise.

On an environmental level it has been suggested that herbicide-tolerant crops has led to less need for the herbicide. This is not the case. The use of Roundup and other pesticides and herbicides on genetically modified crops has increased by tens of millions of pounds compared to non-GM conventional agriculture.

That's just a small part of the debate. Best do some research tbh.

A good place to start ...

http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/

jh79

gozunda wrote: »

'Safer'? 'No adverse effects'? How so?

I would suggest you read up on the subject. The issues touched in the article linked related to the introduction of substances not previously found in the human food supply and the inherent dangers of such substances to human health



https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18498-a-misguided-experiment




http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/

Have done a bit of research on it an the idea that GM is harmful isn't evidence based.

Could you be more specific on your concerns ? What research has shown it to be harmful?

Why would the more targeted approach of GM with its lower number of genetic changes be more harmful than cross breeding which introduces more genetic material into the mix?

Regarding the link you provided, I'd be extremely wary of any book that cites the Seralini paper.

Here is a link to the biggest review of the evidence;

http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/category/report/

Human Health Effects
GE crops and foods derived from them are tested in three ways: animal testing, compositional analysis, and allergenicity testing and prediction. Although the design and analysis of many animal-feeding studies were not optimal, the many available animal experimental studies taken together provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating foods derived from GE crops. Data on the nutrient and chemical composition of a GE plant compared to a similar non-GE variety of the crop sometimes show statistically significant differences in nutrient and chemical composition, but the differences have been considered to fall within the range of naturally occurring variation found in currently available non-GE crops. Many people are concerned that GE food consumption may lead to higher incidence of specific health problems including cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal tract illnesses, kidney disease, and disorders such as autism spectrum and allergies. In the absence of long-term, case-controlled studies to examine some hypotheses, the committee examined epidemiological datasets over time from the United States and Canada, where GE food has been consumed since the late 1990s, and similar datasets from the United Kingdom and western Europe, where GE food is not widely consumed. No pattern of differences was found among countries in specific health problems after the introduction of GE foods in the 1990s.

gozunda

jh79 wrote: »

Have done a bit of research on it an the idea that GM is harmful isn't evidence based.
Could you be more specific on your concerns ? What research has shown it to be harmful?
Why would the more targeted approach of GM its lower number of genetic changes be more harmful than cross breeding which introduces more genetic material into the mix?
Regarding the link you provided, I'd be extremely wary of any book that cites the Seralini paper.

So it's not evidenced based eh? You did read the bit posted about the L-tryptophan or did you just completely miss that and the issues regarding herbicide use?

Btw I didnt detail any 'concerns'.(sic) I detailed that the the GMO stories as listed in Tars post above are contentious. But you still don't seem to know that. Hence I told you to do a bit of research and even pointed you a website as an EXAMPLE of some current contentions about gmo. There's plenty more on the web - if you bother to take a look.

Certainly if wish to know how could GM technology may be harmful or otherwise - work away.

jh79

gozunda wrote: »

So it's not evidenced based eh? You did read the bit posted about the L-tryptophan or did you just completely miss that and the issues regarding herbicide use?

Btw I didnt detail any 'concerns'.(sic) I detailed that the whole gmo industry is contentious and it clearly is. But you still don't seem to know that. Hence I told you to do a bit of research and even pointed you a website as an EXAMPLE. Seriousley did you read any of what was written?

I would suggest it if you actually wish to educate yourself on how could GM technology may be harmful or otherwise - a bit of proper reasearch might be helpful. And as Tar detailed it's always a good idea to use some discretion when doing so.

So enlighten me, what are the issues with GM in terms of adverse effects, where is the evidence that they could cause harm? I'm only familiar with 2 papers both of which have since been retracted. Could you provided a link to your L-tryptophan claim?

Here is Science Based Medicine review of the Academies review;

"when used properly, GMOs are good for farmers and good for the environment. GM foods are safe for animals and humans."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/national-academy-of-sciences-report-on-gmos/

gozunda

jh79 wrote: »

So enlighten me, what are the issues with GM in terms of adverse effects, where is the evidence that they could cause harm? I'm only familiar with 2 papers both of which have since been retracted. Could you provided a link to your L-tryptophan claim?
Here is Science Based Medicine review of the Academies review;
"when used properly, GMOs are good for farmers and good for the environment. GM foods are safe for animals and humans."
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/national-academy-of-sciences-report-on-gmos/

Look if you want to go down the rabbit hole that is GMO. Please feel free.

The paper in the first post posted by davidtaylor details the issue of L-tryptophan. If you wish to know more about then look it up for yourself.

The point I clearly made that the the stories as listed above ARE contentious. And that's not my belief. It's the current state of play. Knock yourself out.

jh79

gozunda wrote: »

Look if you want to go down the rabbit hole that is GMO. Please feel free.

The paper in the first post details the issue of L-tryptophan. If you wish to know more about then look it up for yourself.

The point I clearly made that the the stories as listed above ARE contentious. And that's not my belief. It's the current state of play. Knock yourself out.

Fair enough, they are contentious they just shouldn't be. GM is around a long time and no adverse effects have been observed. That is where the current research stands. the 2 retracted papers were retracted for good reason.

I looked up the tryptophan thing, a complete clusterf*ck but not evidence against GM food. The source of the impurity is still unknown and even if it was from the GM bacteria they could of removed the impurity if they wanted to.

https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/trypto.html

seamus

If you start off on the premise that GMO is "inherently" dangerous, then you're going to look for conclusions which support that premise.

Functionally it comes from the misunderstanding that GMOs constitute an entirely novel food containing chemicals never before encountered by the digestive system. Which is not the case.

In this specific case, there seems to be an argument over the amount of testing which may have taken placed, and a misunderstanding about what the FDA does. The vast majority of food consumed in the US is not FDA-approved, nor does it have to be. Thus, a company not getting FDA approval and going ahead and selling their product anyway, is pretty much par for the course. The only difference is that this company bothered to do it.

I expect if someone sent a batch of potatoes to the FDA for approval, there'd be considerable questions about the presence of solanine and starch in it.

Tar.Aldarion

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Where are those quotes from, TA?

http://www.vegangmo.com/

gozunda

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

...
Their raison d'etre seems to be just be against anything with GMO, and while there can be some problems with GMO (particularly legal quandaries) I view it as a good thing in general. For reference to reasons a vegan might be pro-gmo in particular that I have read:

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

http://www.vegangmo.com/

Animal Testing: Insisting on unfounded safety testing leads to more animals being harmed in order to perform this testing. For example, the Seralini rat study, which was widely criticized for failing to meet animal-welfare standards and has since been retracted for poor methodology, allowed rats to die of their tumors rather than by euthanasia, well past the point at which their quality of life took a nosedive. This study is an extreme case, but when the safety of GMOs is not in question by the scientific community, animals suffer needlessly when anti-GMO activists push for safety testing solely on ideological grounds.

Animal Alternatives: GE technology can help create alternatives to animal products. For example, insulin used to be obtained from slaughtered animals; now it is manufactured by genetically modified bacteria. It could also be possible to use GE technology to replace animal foods. The flavor and texture of cheese has been difficult to replicate using non-animal ingredients, and the lack of acceptable vegan cheese analogues could be a barrier for many potential vegans.

Nutrition: GE technology can lower the bar for implementing vegan diets by biofortifying plant foods with nutrients those diets might lack, such as vitamin B12 and DHA. For example, scientists have been enabling canola plants to produce DHA. People who are vegan need DHA, and synthetic DHA can help save the lives of fish, who are often used as a source of omega-3 fatty acids. People are animals too, and there are many in dire need of help. GE technology could help bring essential nutrients to starving populations.

Health: Genetic engineering has a huge role in modern medicine and disease prevention for all animals. Better vaccines with less to no animal products and novel delivery methods like vaccines in foods are all possible with genetic engineering. Also controlling vectors for disease by genetically modified mosquitos can benefit all animals who may be at risk.

Environment: Creating plants that use fewer pesticides and fertilizers will help us strive toward a sustainable agriculture that’s less detrimental to all life on this planet. Fewer insects would be killed, less runoff will poison fish, and no- or low-till agriculture will save the lives of ground-dwelling animals.

Big Business: As long as policy and regulations are shaped by unfounded fears, only the larger corporations will have the means to overcome them. Let’s level the playing field and allow for smaller independent researchers to utilize these tools. A more rational approach should be adopted by the people and their representatives.

Scientific Advancement: Scientific innovation in one area contributes to the complete body of scientific knowledge. Because biology is universal discoveries in plants can have ramifications for animals. Example: Leukaemia treatment through plant disease research.

Ethics: It’s just the right thing to do, which is why we’re vegan in the first place. A consistent and effective application of our own standards of morality requires a fastidiousness to the truth.

As to these burgers in particular, along with Beyond Burgers, they are doing a huge amount to reduce meat consumption in the US, Canada etc. and if people use these as a stepping stone to eat a more whole, plant based diet they have quite a good role to play.

Imo much of that quote has more play more towards wishful thinking than some current issues raised - for example under the title 'environment' as in the case of herbicide use for GMO crops

https://www.betternutrition.com/ask-the-nutritionist/glyphosate-in-foods

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/how-gmos-cut-the-use-of-pesticides-and-perhaps-boosted-them-again

Whether you agree with gmo foods it or otherwise - It would concern me that some of the vegan pro gmo ideas quoted above may be being pushed mainly as justification for the promotion of veganism - especially considering that the production of gmo burger substitutes and artifical cheese substitutes are as far from a vegan goal of whole food plant based diet as is possible to get.

A case of sometimes absolute wish to justify over reason perhaps ...

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/youtube-vegan-cured-cancer-blogger-liz-mari-died-a8220141.html?amp

BoneIdol

gozunda wrote: »

It's not just Ireland where real meat burgers are normally served well done. I've travelled and have not come across meat burgers with alternative cooking options tbh. They might exist but the issue is that the mincing itself carries risk which is overcome by cooking properly.

You haven't travelled far. Burgers should be medium rare. There's a reason you don't like them.

gozunda

BoneIdol wrote: »

You haven't travelled far. Burgers should be medium rare. There's a reason you don't like them.

Not to get into a discussion on anyone 'likes' their burgers at home - that refers to food safety advice in the US and the UK where restaurants and fast food businesses that all burgers are thoroughly cooked with a a safe minimum internal temperature of 160 °F or 70 C

See https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2011/09/09/food-safety-hamburgers-and-tailgating

https://www.thecaterer.com/articles/497150/new-regulations-on-cooking-burgers-come-into-force

davidjtaylor

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Twhile there can be some problems with GMO (particularly legal quandaries) I view it as a good thing in general.

Fair enough, TA. Personally, I'd prefer not to eat GM products, not just because they're unnecessary but also, all GM developers have shareholders' interests at heart as a legal obligation. Yes, this is the case with all commercial operations, but look at tobacco.

So if we're to have GMOs on sale, let them be clearly labelled so everyone can make their own choice.

A further note: most meat eaters consume GM products and have done for some time. All animal feed in this country, with the exception of organic feed, contains GMOs.

Mooooo

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Fair enough, TA. Personally, I'd prefer not to eat GM products, not just because they're unnecessary but also, all GM developers have shareholders' interests at heart as a legal obligation. Yes, this is the case with all commercial operations, but look at tobacco.

So if we're to have GMOs on sale, let them be clearly labelled so everyone can make their own choice.

A further note: most meat eaters consume GM products and have done for some time. All animal feed in this country, with the exception of organic feed, contains GMOs.

Not all animal feed. Domestic wheat, barley grains, etc isn't, all forage crops grown arent ie grass and maize. The gm feed in concentrate feed would be soy bean and maize dependant on country of origin. As a proportion fed to cattle cow's it is lower than most.

davidjtaylor

Mooooo wrote: »

Not all animal feed. Domestic wheat, barley grains, etc isn't, all forage crops grown arent ie grass and maize.

Yeah, I should have specified processed feed, but the point was fairly obvious.

gozunda

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Yeah, I should have specified processed feed, but the point was fairly obvious.

I think the point is that all the major food chains - vegan and otherwise are heavily dominated by GMO crops - with the exception of extensive livestock rearing as detailed by Moooo

davidjtaylor

“Conventional breeding just takes too long, and this problem is urgent”

So says an advocate of GM technology. :rolleyes:

In June the group of Chinese scientists led by Longping was widely reported to have successfully grown and harvested salt-resistant rice varieties in the deserts of Dubai, developed by crossbreeding different varieties of rice.

Source

TeacherAni

Totally agree.

davidjtaylor

We're not gluten intolerant - we're glyphosate intolerant

“Celiac disease, and, more generally, gluten intolerance, is a growing problem worldwide, but especially in North America and Europe, where an estimated 5% of the population now suffers from it,” researchers wrote in a meta-analysis of nearly 300 studies.

jh79

davidjtaylor wrote: »

We're not gluten intolerant - we're glyphosate intolerant

The author is a known anti-GMO activist you has tried, unsucessfully, to link glycophisphate to numerous illnessess.

Here are some flaws of this research;

https://www.biotech-now.org/food-and-agriculture/2014/04/gluten-free-does-glyphosate-cause-celiac-disease-actually-no

And here is some general background on the bad science trying to invent an issue with Round Up;

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/

Slaphead07

davidjtaylor wrote: »

We're not gluten intolerant - we're glyphosate intolerant

As someone who was diagnosed coeliac a few years ago I know a bit about this (now)... Coeliac disease is not new, like a lot of diseases in the past people simply died. Children were malnourished and died, older people simply faded away. The body cant absorb vitamins, iron, folic acid etc... there's host of complications from that. Ataxia, peripheral nephropathy etc.
I have no doubt that modern practices don't help and this separate notion of "gluten intolerance" is highly suspicious - it arose at the very same time food companies realised how much was to be made from gluten free products.