Given the growing world population, certain moral issues come up often with food. Genetic modification is one of the biggest and most well-known, but there's also another very important point of expanding horizons and breaking former taboos, be it through insects, utilizing whole animals, or frowning upon eating outside of one's terroir (to put it positively, focusing on eating locally). To what degree should the imperative of finding sustainable solutions override these and other issues when looking at what we eat as societies? How important should tradition or mores be when compared to the potential future of life as we know it? Your thoughts?
EDIT: To reword:
How much should we branch out in what we're eating given the expanding population and issues of sustainability, despite concerns people may have about foods which are developed scientifically or are currently unusual in many parts of the world?
Wait, hang on. Genetic modification isn't a matter of cultural taboo, it's a discussion of a new science and what its long term effects may or may not be.
Which is a completely separate topic from whether or not it's ok to eat a dog.
Which is a separate topic from a discussion of eating insects.
Then there's the sustainable food movement, which is itself a separate topic.
So there's like four topics here. What is this thread supposed to be about?
Wait, hang on. Genetic modification isn't a matter of cultural taboo, it's a discussion of a new science and what its long term effects may or may not be.
Which is a completely separate topic from whether or not it's ok to eat a dog.
Which is a separate topic from a discussion of eating insects.
Then there's the sustainable food movement, which is itself a separate topic.
So there's like four topics here. What is this thread supposed to be about?
I mean, in some respects, but on some level, don't a lot of these questions boil down to moral objections versus sustainability? I guess that's my biggest point, that it appears that the argument is morals versus preservation, in a sense.
I mean, in some respects, but on some level, don't a lot of these questions boil down to moral objections versus sustainability?
The GMO debate has nothing to do with stability and everything to do with whether or not GMOs are actually safe to eat or whether we're poisoning ourselves in the long term by eating unsafe food.
Whether or not it's ok to eat animals like dogs has nothing to do with sustainability.
The insects thing has some overlap to sustainability, as insects can be farmed with minimal carbon footprint or whatnot, but also has a lot to do with how many people would actually want to eat the damn things.
So no, morals vs. preservation doesn't actually enter into any of the above.
The GMO debate has nothing to do with stability and everything to do with whether or not GMOs are actually safe to eat or whether we're poisoning ourselves in the long term by eating unsafe food.
GMOs are made to solve a lot of problems. Some of them include sustainability at times. So that's a bit of a mix. But the moral "should we play god" aspect is there.
Whether or not it's ok to eat animals like dogs has nothing to do with sustainability.
The insects thing has some overlap to sustainability, as insects can be farmed with minimal carbon footprint or whatnot, but also has a lot to do with how many people would actually want to eat the damn things.
In both cases, there is, at least from a gastronomic perspective, a fear/aversion to eating those foods. I would definitely say it goes as far as a taboo in the case of dogs. In the case of dogs it's more of a moral issue, in the case of insects it's more of a cultural issue.
I guess to reword my original question:
How much should we branch out in what we're eating given the expanding population and issues of sustainability, despite concerns people may have about foods which are developed scientifically or are currently unusual in many parts of the world?
Would you say that this is a more important question than it was in the past? My eyes get all askew as soon as I see a chart or graph, but my present understanding is that the world food supply has increased considerably as of late. This does seem to touch on two issues - one, how to supply the food and two, how to do it in a more sustainable way (I'm assuming that by sustainable we mean environmentally friendly?) It doesn't seem like the former is much of a problem at all.
Would you say that this is a more important question than it was in the past? My eyes get all askew as soon as I see a chart or graph, but my present understanding is that the world food supply has increased considerably as of late. This does seem to touch on two issues - one, how to supply the food
Which bit of supply are you refering to here? Growing the food or getting it to the places that it is needed? If you are just refering to growing the food you are probably correct we are producing massive quantities of food in various places in the world. But not all of it is getting into the supply chain and that which is gettting in is certainly not getting in to the chain is not doing so in the most effective or efficient manner.
Just looking at it from a UK perspective the average UK family throws out ~£700 of food a year that could be better used anywhere else. Even before we get to the final consumer the big supermarkets over here have very stringent standards on how the produce looks, which especially in the case of vegetables results in vast quantities of produce being left to rot as it does not meet their standards.
and two, how to do it in a more sustainable way (I'm assuming that by sustainable we mean environmentally friendly?) It doesn't seem like the former is much of a problem at all.
Again looking at it from a UK perspective we have got very used to having cheap food available to us year round regardless of the season. At home this has resulted in smaller farmers that are more evironmentally sustainable being pushed to and in some cases beyond the limit. As they can't dictate a fair price for their product from the larger supermarkets and in a lot more damaging way we are importing food from places like Israel and the south of spain just because there is a longer growing season in those countrys so we can get lettuce/Strawberrys all year round. We really need to get a better connection back between us and our food source and accept that it is not sustainable to be importing food from all corners of the world.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Would you say that this is a more important question than it was in the past?
I mean, I'm not sure the ethics of industrialization and its effects on the environment have ever been irrelevant, I think we just care more, probably because we know more about the effects.
how to do it in a more sustainable way (I'm assuming that by sustainable we mean environmentally friendly?)
It can also mean more humane. For example, several industries, such as sugar, vanilla, and cocoa, have a major problem with forced labor, including child slavery. So I would say sustainable includes facets like forced labor, child labor, and also ensuring that the workforce of countries receive fair wages and labor laws.
How are we supposed to convince people to buy these food products with the majority of the population being completely ignorant to the science behind these foods?
You know, I never replied to this thread and I meant to.
ljoss brought up the question about what was meant by "sustainability." Sustainability is about finding methods of making human civilization sustainable in the long term. Much of it deals with ecological impact and environmental health, which is valuable. However, what might be missed is that sustainability also deals with human health, and that's something I'd like to talk about.
This is something I came across when researching the topic. It is a 2016 report by the Department of Labor regarding goods produced by child labor and forced labor, sorted by goods and by producing countries in the world. It is made as an effort to stop human trafficking.
I thought it was eye-opening, as we may recognize that our way of life isn't sustainable due to the environmental toll it has, but I feel it's also necessary to keep in mind, because I didn't realize this, just to what extent our current society runs on exploitative labor practices, and this is also a major part of sustainability.
I would have liked to have introduced this into our debate. Sadly, we are running out of time for this forum.
EDIT: To reword:
How much should we branch out in what we're eating given the expanding population and issues of sustainability, despite concerns people may have about foods which are developed scientifically or are currently unusual in many parts of the world?
Which is a completely separate topic from whether or not it's ok to eat a dog.
Which is a separate topic from a discussion of eating insects.
Then there's the sustainable food movement, which is itself a separate topic.
So there's like four topics here. What is this thread supposed to be about?
I mean, in some respects, but on some level, don't a lot of these questions boil down to moral objections versus sustainability? I guess that's my biggest point, that it appears that the argument is morals versus preservation, in a sense.
Whether or not it's ok to eat animals like dogs has nothing to do with sustainability.
The insects thing has some overlap to sustainability, as insects can be farmed with minimal carbon footprint or whatnot, but also has a lot to do with how many people would actually want to eat the damn things.
So no, morals vs. preservation doesn't actually enter into any of the above.
GMOs are made to solve a lot of problems. Some of them include sustainability at times. So that's a bit of a mix. But the moral "should we play god" aspect is there.
In both cases, there is, at least from a gastronomic perspective, a fear/aversion to eating those foods. I would definitely say it goes as far as a taboo in the case of dogs. In the case of dogs it's more of a moral issue, in the case of insects it's more of a cultural issue.
I guess to reword my original question:
How much should we branch out in what we're eating given the expanding population and issues of sustainability, despite concerns people may have about foods which are developed scientifically or are currently unusual in many parts of the world?
Which bit of supply are you refering to here? Growing the food or getting it to the places that it is needed? If you are just refering to growing the food you are probably correct we are producing massive quantities of food in various places in the world. But not all of it is getting into the supply chain and that which is gettting in is certainly not getting in to the chain is not doing so in the most effective or efficient manner.
Just looking at it from a UK perspective the average UK family throws out ~£700 of food a year that could be better used anywhere else. Even before we get to the final consumer the big supermarkets over here have very stringent standards on how the produce looks, which especially in the case of vegetables results in vast quantities of produce being left to rot as it does not meet their standards.
Again looking at it from a UK perspective we have got very used to having cheap food available to us year round regardless of the season. At home this has resulted in smaller farmers that are more evironmentally sustainable being pushed to and in some cases beyond the limit. As they can't dictate a fair price for their product from the larger supermarkets and in a lot more damaging way we are importing food from places like Israel and the south of spain just because there is a longer growing season in those countrys so we can get lettuce/Strawberrys all year round. We really need to get a better connection back between us and our food source and accept that it is not sustainable to be importing food from all corners of the world.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
It can also mean more humane. For example, several industries, such as sugar, vanilla, and cocoa, have a major problem with forced labor, including child slavery. So I would say sustainable includes facets like forced labor, child labor, and also ensuring that the workforce of countries receive fair wages and labor laws.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/17/over-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory-labels-on-foods-containing-dna/
How are we supposed to convince people to buy these food products with the majority of the population being completely ignorant to the science behind these foods?
ljoss brought up the question about what was meant by "sustainability." Sustainability is about finding methods of making human civilization sustainable in the long term. Much of it deals with ecological impact and environmental health, which is valuable. However, what might be missed is that sustainability also deals with human health, and that's something I'd like to talk about.
https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ilab/reports/child-labor/findings/TVPRA_Report2016.pdf
This is something I came across when researching the topic. It is a 2016 report by the Department of Labor regarding goods produced by child labor and forced labor, sorted by goods and by producing countries in the world. It is made as an effort to stop human trafficking.
I thought it was eye-opening, as we may recognize that our way of life isn't sustainable due to the environmental toll it has, but I feel it's also necessary to keep in mind, because I didn't realize this, just to what extent our current society runs on exploitative labor practices, and this is also a major part of sustainability.
I would have liked to have introduced this into our debate. Sadly, we are running out of time for this forum.