Tom, I wish I could be so elegant in writing about genetics as you are about monosodium glutamate! I'm sorry for your allergy, but I don't see the logical connection between food additives (adulteration, if you wish to call it that) and GM foods. They both happen to involve the same product, and there are probably rogue suppliers of both, but there's no similarity otherwise. (Incidentally, I understand that most allergies, and also some distressing conditions such as asthma, are probably caused by auto-immune responses, in turn originally caused by not enough exposure to a wide enough variety of foods and environmental conditions in childhood.) Keith
At 09:06 18/09/02 -0700, you wrote: >Keith quoted from Johnjoe McFadden, > >> ANDi, the first GM monkey, is a step towards that solution. The same >> technology that inserted a jellyfish gene into his chromosome will be used >> to correct defective human genes. We must see ANDi, not as a danger, but >as >> our only hope for the future. > >And we must see all "hopes for the future" from the perspective of previous >gee-whiz sentimentalities that retrospectively we now can see right through. >Or should see through, if we could see. In 1948, a symposium was held in a >Chicago hotel to present the latest findings on a wonder substance to >leaders of the food industry. That wonder substance was monosodium >glutamate. > >The other day I spent about 15 minutes reading labels in the Safeway. Most >of the savory prepared foods sold contain MSG, although it is not always >labeled as monosodium glutamate. It is also listed as hydrolyzed vegetable >protein, autolyzed yeast, yeast extract or sometimes "flavor". Flavor? How's >that for informative labelling? > >A lot of people are sensitive to MSG, including me. Many people go through >years or decades of physical and emotional torment before they discover that >their chronic symptoms are the result of an MSG sensitivity. But MSG is >crucial to the food industry. It makes food taste good, no doubt about it. > >When I first suspected I was sensitive, I cut out the MSG and my symptoms >cleared up. Then I naively went about replacing the MSG laced foods that I >had enjoyed with what I thought were "non-MSG" substitutes. Eventually, the >symptoms returned. Recently I had another look at the literature and a >second look at the labels. The organic chicken boullion cubes I had bought >to replace the MSG-rich boullion I previously cooked with contained, as >their leading ingredient, "yeast extract", a substance that itself contains >10-20% MSG. > >Yesterday, when I went grocery shopping and spent less than $8 on around >four kilos of groceries -- all fresh fruits and vegetables. If everyone >shopped like that everyday the food industry would go broke. That's why MSG >remains "Generally Regarded As Safe" -- GRAS. GRAS, my ass! MSG is generally >regarded as indispensible to the profits of agribusiness corporations. It >makes packaged, prepared food taste better than it otherwise could. Period. >That's important. If it didn't taste so good, you wouldn't buy it. End of >sales. End of profits. End of business. End of story. > >Oh and if you liked tobacco industry science, you'll love glutamate industry >science. It's soooo reassuring (unless, of course, you've actually had and >recognized the symptoms, modified your diet and felt the miracle cure). This >is not rocket science, it's not even food science for crissake -- it's >common sense. If something makes you fell ill, you should be able to stop >eating it without taking a course in cryptoanalysis. "Flavor"?! Can you >believe it? Why aren't distilleries allowed to label vodka as containing 40% >"sociability"? > > >A thought occurred to me yesterday. Very high on the agenda of GM must be >development of a technique to induce plant and animal cells to spontaneously >produce large quantities of free glutamates. Yes, kiddies, BETTER TASTING >FOOD THROUGH SCIENCE! It will make some people sick and they'll have few >non-bettertasting foods to turn to but, hey, that's the price we should to >be willing to pay for progress. Besides, the pharmaceutical industry will >come up with a bio-engineered pill to combat the symptoms. An industry to >make you sick and another one to make you well again. If that's not >efficiency, I don't know what is. > >Unlike ANDi, we humans don't need any more jellyfish genes in our >chromosomes. We've got too many as it is if we continue to let these >profit-driven, science-thumping, industry-funded, msgee-willikers sharks >monkey with our food. > >It's fun to lean back and day dream about scenarios of the future that are >feasible on the assumption of scientist-saints. Just try working as a >scientist-saint for a few years, though, and see what that does to your >income and standing in the profession. The same is true of writers, graphic >artists, musicians, architects, engineers -- most people with specialized >training and skill are employed commercially. We wouldn't think of >attributing some sort of transcedent social altruism to advertising >copywriters as a profession. Why should we do so for molecular biologists? >Or, more to the point, why should we believe advertising copywriters when, >in their stints as content providers, they attribute transcendent social >altruism to molecular biologists? > >It is said that Sir Francis Bacon contracted pneumonia and died shortly >after conducting an experiment in which he stuffed snow into the carcasses >of chickens to see if freezing would preserve them. Three hundred years >later, Clarence Birdseye pioneered the retail sale of frozen foods. >Refrigeration is a wonderful thing. Today the world depends on a vast "cold >chain" to give us this day our daily bread. Until recently that cold chain >relied extensively on Chloroflourocarbons. Then we discovered that we were >poking a hole in the ozone layer. Even without CFCs, the cold chain burns >fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gasses, which contribute to global >warming. (I'll finesse the fine points of modern chicken processing -- >anyone who's curious can look up "fecal soup"). > >The wages of empiricism: the Bacon-chicken story tells us that we ignore >context at our peril and that it is not always immediately apparent what the >context is. Sir Francis may have imagined he was performing one experiment, >when in actual fact he was performing at least three. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
