Alarmist article on BMC with no listed evidence but possible interesting points

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The Guiness reply did mention something about a very small amount of the isinglass making it into the finished beer. but as I surmised i that thread,it's got to be a minute amount at best. it just got me how she stood on what we called in poly-sci "glittering genralities". And cleaners,etc that get rinsed out of the system & never actually touch the beer. Praying on the fears of men as Ramsey's the 2nd said once.
 
I saw this article from an outside source and I had all the same feelings. Good to know its not just me.

But I did get into a thing with the head brewer from victory once who said that most of their beers still follow reinheitsgebot. But they use DE, but he says it's ok because it's filtered out. I'm not sure that counts.
 
ivegot2legs said:
I saw this article from an outside source and I had all the same feelings. Good to know its not just me.

But I did get into a thing with the head brewer from victory once who said that most of their beers still follow reinheitsgebot. But they use DE, but he says it's ok because it's filtered out. I'm not sure that counts.
Click to expand...

DE is a filter media, not an ingredient. So I'd have to side with Victory on that one.

At any rate, my wife is a health nut and found this article. I called BS on everything but the GMO issue. Either way, this blog just posse me right off. Funny thing is that she made a mention that craft brewers are usually on the up and up. So what I find surprising is that I'm actually pissed about a blog that was basically calling out the macro guys that I typically rag on too. I think I took it as a dig on beer in general though. That...I am not cool with.
 
She really doesn't show much separation though. She basically says they only brew without all that stuff if its a German brewery or if the micro is independently owned.
 
All jokes aside, I read the article and it or under my skin. I think the self-righteous commentary from the readers got to me more. Reminds me why I'm glad HBT is filled with sane people and well monitored.

The GMO discussion drives me crazy. Regardless of how "organic" something is, if its grown near A GMO, then it's offspring becomes GMO as well. So guess what? Unless the wheat crop is incredibly well isolated, that super healthy $30 a loaf whole grain bread being fed to these people's kids is just about as GMO as the stuff that goes into bread.

On the bright side, there's very little barley grown in the East, so if folks are growing regular barley it's probably unmodified. +1 point for beer drinkers.
 
brewguyver said:
if its grown near A GMO, then it's offspring becomes GMO as well. So guess what? Unless the wheat crop is incredibly well isolated, that super healthy $30 a loaf whole grain bread being fed to these people's kids is just about as GMO as the stuff that goes into bread.
Click to expand...

Wheat is 99% self-pollinated. Incredible isolation is not typically necessary. Just sayin'.
 
Idk...I've seen videos of news reports talking about cross pollination of regular grains next to feilds of GMO's. I wonder sometimes if it's as big a deal as the sensationalists are making of it? sometimes I think it's more of a "it's not good trying to play God" sort of thing. Or some of the Human UFOnaughts claiming to be from some 1,000 years in our future coming back in time for genetic material to rebuild there future Earth. It's claimed that they "killed their mother". Their overly genetically modified world broke down completely. That could well be a point of contension if there's any truth to those claims. Amazing what you can find on youtube.
I had some links to videos of this nature,& some ones on the German Hanebu (sp?) where the videos dissapeared,& my saved links became scrambled. Damndest thing I ever saw. Makes you wonder just how much is really true with this new high tech stuff??
 
Meh, the only real issues with GMO is how the companies that hold the patents use their monopoly and how it encourages less diversity in the crop. Monsanto produces a single strain of wheat which it sells to farmers everywhere and then farmers plant only that strain. That lack of diversity results in a crop which is extremely susceptible to disease. Some virus pops up that eats that strain like candy, then the company has to go in and tweak the genome to make it immune again and pass the cost of development back to the farmers.

There are huge benefits to tweaking nature for our gain... but when you get to the point of restricting natures ability to adapt to genetic stresses we start getting into loosing battles with fast mutating organisms like bacteria/viruses/fungus...
 
Wow :(

That's a terrible piece. I won't even finish reading it. I'm sorry I even clicked on it
 
Blauhung said:
Meh, the only real issues with GMO is how the companies that hold the patents use their monopoly and how it encourages less diversity in the crop. Monsanto produces a single strain of wheat which it sells to farmers everywhere and then farmers plant only that strain. That lack of diversity results in a crop which is extremely susceptible to disease. Some virus pops up that eats that strain like candy, then the company has to go in and tweak the genome to make it immune again and pass the cost of development back to the farmers.

There are huge benefits to tweaking nature for our gain... but when you get to the point of restricting natures ability to adapt to genetic stresses we start getting into loosing battles with fast mutating organisms like bacteria/viruses/fungus...
Click to expand...

You know not of what you speak. Are you sure you're not actually FoodBabe?
 
terrapinj said:
there is No approved GMO wheat sold in the US
Click to expand...

Idk about the wheat,but the corn is. I've seen pro & con news reports from out in the plains states during that big drought last year. *I had to laugh when I used the spell checker on a word,& the bloody thing tried to correct your user name! :D
 
Wheat and corn are vastly different in their reproductive biology. As a result, corn cultivars are F1 hybrids, while wheat varieties are inbred. Hybridity offers intellectual property protection, which makes corn a worthwhile investment for the private sector. In contrast, wheat breeding is primarily done in the public sector.

Most field corn (as opposed to sweet corn) grown in the US is GMO. The non-GMO corn that is still grown is primarily refugia - used to keep the insects from evolving resistance (at least that's the theory behind it).

As said above, there is no GMO wheat approved for the US market.
 
Interesting points. I remember the concerns the farmers were beginning to have about insects developing resistences with the GMO's. It's kind of surprising that they may not have taken that into account. Insects & the like are more adaptive than we are with regard to how many generations it takes to develope resistances.
 
Shakybones said:
You know not of what you speak. Are you sure you're not actually FoodBabe?
Click to expand...

hehe, used wheat as an example, but a poor one as there isn't any currently approved for use.

I wanted to make sure I had everything straight as I hate feeling ignorant on subjects. I wandered through a bit of research to become hopefully better informed. My current understanding of how GMO farming works is a grower enters into an agreement with the patent holder to purchase seed for a given growing season. In order to prevent insect/disease resistance, the agreement prevents the grower from saving and re-using seeds for subsequent seasons. The patent holder then has to play the game internally of identifying any environmental risks and engineering the next strain to be able to meet the yield they specify, and the grower must continually purchase new seed stock each season. Sound about right?

My issue comes from the method they are doing this. In general, they are doing the work to prevent ever mutating organisms from wiping out the crop for a given year, but in a way that is engineered to force the grower to to continually have to re-purchase seed. It seems to me that a similar yet more sustainable method of maintaining a front against mutating crop destroying organisms is to engineer diversity into your crop so that if some new bug is no longer susceptible to some engineered countermeasure, only a portion of the crop gets taken out and then no longer enters into the next seasons lineup. Throw in other sustainable farming activities like crop rotation and planting more than one type of crop per season and you end up in a much better situation long term. I feel that the restrictions on seed saving tend to reflect more on the profit motive than they do as a way to combat resistance. I do admit that there are very large costs associated with developing these kinds of products, but I feel those costs when passed down to the farmer/consumer are held artificially high as any competition is prevented through patent monopoly.

I have absolutely no qualms on eating GMO products as again, I feel that the advancements the technology can provide in increasing food yield and nutrition are wonderful. I personally am very excited to see how the rapidly declining costs of gene mapping and continuously increasing speed/size of genetic databases plays out in the future making this technology more approachable on a smaller scale. I just hope that patent law can see some change as it is currently weighted far more towards walling off and punishing innovation as opposed to protecting investment.
 
Blauhung said:
I wanted to make sure I had everything straight as I hate feeling ignorant on subjects.
Click to expand...

Much better. Sorry, I was a bit harsh before.

Your understanding is much better now. However, I must point out that no one puts a gun to a grower's head and forces them to enter a contract with Monsanto et al. Many people complain about not being able to save seed, but corn growers haven't been able to save seed since the 1930's (at least not seed that would be worthwhile to grow). Growers pay the premium and sign the contract because the increased yields and reduced inputs (pesticides, etc.) make it worthwhile.

I guess you could make a better seed-saving argument for soybeans. However, soybean growers are free to save seed all they want...just not Monsanto's seed. If the stinking hippies got their way and there were laws passed against Monsanto's (for example) current business practices as you defined them in your post, then the profit motive would be gone and innovation would cease or at the very least be left up to a woefully underfunded public sector (not arguing for more funding - the IRS takes plenty of my paycheck already, thanks!).

I don't see how patents prevent competition (on the grand scale...I realize that is their purpose on the micro level). What specific changes to patent law would you like to see?
 
unionrdr said:
insects developing resistences with the GMO's. It's kind of surprising that they may not have taken that into account.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that they didn't take that into account. Resistance, whether from naturally occurring alleles or from transgenic sources, has always been a Red Queen's race. Durable sources of resistance to insects and pathogens are few and far between. The durability of any new source of resistance can only be known by broadly deploying it in many locations over many years. In most cases, the pest or pathogen population will evolve a mechanism to overcome it, sooner or later.

The idea of refugia, which I mentioned before is to slow that evolution by providing for a portion of the population to not be under selection (the driving force of evolution).
 
Shakybones said:
I don't see how patents prevent competition (on the grand scale...I realize that is their purpose on the micro level). What specific changes to patent law would you like to see?
Click to expand...

But the "micro level" limits on competition you mention have serious consequences for cost (no "knock offs" means no price competition) and innovation (depending on the scope of the patent, only the holder may be permitted to tweak the design) at the "micro" level, and that's true in any area of life touched by patents. Wouldn't those consequences be cumulatively visible on the "grand scale"?

Obviously the idea is that these costs will be more than offset by the incentive to innovate provided by patent protections. But they are still costs.
 
And yet somehow DuPont, Syngenta, and Dow all manage to continue to compete with Monsanto in the corn seed business.
 
Shakybones said:
Much better. Sorry, I was a bit harsh before.

Your understanding is much better now. However, I must point out that no one puts a gun to a grower's head and forces them to enter a contract with Monsanto et al. Many people complain about not being able to save seed, but corn growers haven't been able to save seed since the 1930's (at least not seed that would be worthwhile to grow). Growers pay the premium and sign the contract because the increased yields and reduced inputs (pesticides, etc.) make it worthwhile.

I guess you could make a better seed-saving argument for soybeans. However, soybean growers are free to save seed all they want...just not Monsanto's seed. If the stinking hippies got their way and there were laws passed against Monsanto's (for example) current business practices as you defined them in your post, then the profit motive would be gone and innovation would cease or at the very least be left up to a woefully underfunded public sector (not arguing for more funding - the IRS takes plenty of my paycheck already, thanks!).

I don't see how patents prevent competition (on the grand scale...I realize that is their purpose on the micro level). What specific changes to patent law would you like to see?
Click to expand...

Well my industry (semiconductors) and most tech industries suffer from patents tend to be used more as a cudgel to be wielded against others who happen to have a similar idea to some overly generalized concept that happened to be grated a patent. They restrict innovation by creating many cases where it is more profitable to hold a vague patent on something and sue when anything looks to infringe as opposed to actually creating something useful. This issue then extended into computer programing where again generalized patents hold back innovation. This is where genetic patents is going as well with companies buying up rights to gene sequences extracted from organisms which they then claim as "modified" and preventing use of said sequence in other applications without royalties being paid. I see some light on this side of things with the recent SCOTUS ruling on the Myriad patents, but I still think we're far from ideal.

Again, with the rate at which cost of gene sequencing is coming down and the ability of computers to pour though massive databases of phenotype/gene sequence data increasing, humanity will have ever growing access to information on what codes for what. Current patent law allows for companies to build up portfolios of sequences which can then be held hostage. Current patent terms for genetics may have been applicable when sequencing a genome took 100s of million of dollars and several years per genome. You had to know that any investment of time and money could be protected while you search for a way to bring an idea to market. I'll let the graph below show how its going currently.
cost_per_genome.jpg

http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/

As for seed saving, basically right now the industry has no reason to change it's agreement terms. The market will pay it and they are not doing anything currently illegal. I just feel that the motive behind their practices is more short term profit oriented and not in the best interest for the agriculture industry long term.
 
I am absolutely against the patenting of naturally-occurring genetic sequences. SCOTUS has ruled against such for humans, and will likely do so for other organisms as well. The patent office is overwhelmed and has issued a large number of bogus patents as a result. Unfortunately, the onus is now on the "victim" to challenge bad patents.

RoundUp Ready, for instance, are not frivolous patents, in my opinion.

Sequencing costs have dropped precipitously. The cost of phenotyping has not, however. That is where the real cost of making the association of a genetic sequence with a particular marketable outcome lies. That is why the profitability of these companies must be protected.

We may be a bit :off: here. Sorry about that.
 
ktblunden said:
The majority of her claims are entirely unsubstantiated and she doesn't list her sources. Someone in the other thread received a response from Guinness that essentially said she completely lied about them using corn syrup, GMO or otherwise. Her horror at the use of isinglass (OMG, fish swim bladders!) may be justified from a vegan who objects to the use of animal products in the manufacture of beer, but since none of it actually ends up in the finished product, no one else should care. Not to mention, it's entirely organic.
Click to expand...

I am drinking a Guinness now and I must say that without fish bladders in it I would not drink another one. After reading the article I am now convinced it would not be drinkable without it. :rockin:
 
What the hell are you guys talking about?!! I thought we were talking smack on some bimbo that has no clue what the hell goes into making our beloved nectar of the gods!! :-D
 
tyzippers said:
What the hell are you guys talking about?!! I thought we were talking smack on some bimbo that has no clue what the hell goes into making our beloved nectar of the gods!! :-D
Click to expand...

Although I detest your avatar, I quite agree :mug:
 
I love hijacking threads.

I am of the opinion that the costs of phenotypeing is a function of the cost of computing and genotyping both of which are declining. Rapid and inexpensive sequencing yields large databases for faster more efficient computers to sort through.


And yeah, she be straight tripin' yo
 
No. Phenotyping requires a great deal of labor and skill. All our challenges are not computational. To verify a potentially useful allele (much less identify one out of the hundreds of thousands across all loci), requires many seasons of testing in replicated field trials at many locations.

Even the computational challenge is not elementary, as interactions of an allele with other alleles at that locus (dominance), with other alleles at other loci (epistasis), and with their environment (GxE), complicate such analyses to the point that only the alleles of strongest and most obvious effect are usually identified. To really resolve these issues requires repeated and replicated experiments in enormous populations (10s of thousands of individual genotypes). Believe me, it's very expensive. Sequencing and computing are fractions of a penny, by comparison.

For resistance, you can do all that testing and then discover that the wonderful resistance allele you found only lasts a few years before the little buggers evolve to overcome it.
 
Shakybones said:
No. Phenotyping requires a great deal of labor and skill. All our challenges are not computational. To verify a potentially useful allele (much less identify one out of the hundreds of thousands across all loci), requires many seasons of testing in replicated field trials at many locations.

Even the computational challenge is not elementary, as interactions of an allele with other alleles at that locus (dominance), with other alleles at other loci (epistasis), and with their environment (GxE), complicate such analyses to the point that only the alleles of strongest and most obvious effect are usually identified. To really resolve these issues requires repeated and replicated experiments in enormous populations (10s of thousands of individual genotypes). Believe me, it's very expensive. Sequencing and computing are fractions of a penny, by comparison.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?!! Wha??
 
Not sure how much you should pay attention to a woman who calls herself a babe, but I digress. I can find a whole lot of whole lot better looking women just walking down the center of Helsinki.

One good point, though: reinheitsgebot.

If my doctor/prison warden/swmbo/etc told me that for the rest of my life I am only allowed to drink beer that is "gebraut nach dem deutschen Reinheitsgebot", I wouldn't shed a tear. I could live happily ever after on Bavarian beer.

I am only making cider and wine, but thinking of possibly trying beer again if I get the money for a keg setup (I refuse to bottle). If I do try beer, mine will also be reinheitsgebot, no exceptions.
 
Heaven forbid I should distract you from your very important thread about how the marginally pretty girl knows nothing about beer. By all means, please do carry on with your enlightening discussion.
 
Foodbabe.... it's like to read tips on how to win the NYC marathon on homersimpson.com
 
Shakybones said:
And yet somehow DuPont, Syngenta, and Dow all manage to continue to compete with Monsanto in the corn seed business.
Click to expand...

If your point is that the U.S. patent system hasn't brought the free market system crashing to its knees, I agree! But it does not follow that patents have no negative impact on competition. After all, a patent grants the holder a "monopoly" in a particular area, where there will be no direct competition on price and the holder has the threat of litigation to deter competitors from introducing overly similar (even if superior) products. And the point of monopolies is, of course, to limit competition and drive up prices to the benefit of the producer.

Even though each patent covers only a small area of production (allowing for ongoing competition in the "corn seed business", for instance) it would be counter-intuitive for millions of localized cases of reduced competition to collectively have a positive or zero effect on competition within an entire industry or economy. Again, I'm not opposed to the patent system, as you describe there are plenty of areas where you'd expect much less innovation without the incentives it provides. But we're all paying a cost for this system through higher prices and potentially less incremental innovation.
 
fosaisu said:
But it does not follow that patents have no negative impact on competition.
Click to expand...

I already acknowledged this my previous post. This micro-level monopoly does not negatively impact competition on the macro level. It only pushes other companies to innovate.

For instance, when Monsanto patented RoundUp Ready (glyphosate resistance) it didn't drive their competitors out of the market. Bayer developed and patented Liberty Link (glufosinate resistance). As a result, growers now had more choices and were able to rotate chemicals to reduce the likelihood of weeds developing resistance to RoundUp. If the patent hadn't been there, Bayer might have just released their own glyphosate resistant varieties and never developed the alternative product.
 
Shakybones said:
I already acknowledged this my previous post. This micro-level monopoly does not negatively impact competition on the macro level. It only pushes other companies to innovate.

For instance, when Monsanto patented RoundUp Ready (glyphosate resistance) it didn't drive their competitors out of the market. Bayer developed and patented Liberty Link (glufosinate resistance). As a result, growers now had more choices and were able to rotate chemicals to reduce the likelihood of weeds developing resistance to RoundUp. If the patent hadn't been there, Bayer might have just released their own glyphosate resistant varieties and never developed the alternative product.
Click to expand...

yup, in this case the patent system is working as intended. The patent owned by Monsanto was specific and related to the introduction of a specific gene at a specific location resulting in the proper resistance in the plant. I can't claim I know enough about the patents, but where I hope this isn't taken is preventing that genes use in other situations. Wikipedia tells me that gene was isolated from a strain of Agrobacterium. I would assume the gene is naturally occurring, but the article is unclear on if the bacteria originally possessed the gene or if it was merely the vector for splicing it in. So we have a gene isolated from a natural source, which I feel shouldn't be patentable (the method of isolation can be though).

Now the question becomes, how general is the patent that Monsanto holds? Can another company isolate the gene and place it in a similar strain of soybean but at a different location in the genome that might express the resistance in a more or less effective manner? Or does Monsanto own rights to all combinations of soybean with this gene regardless of location of insertion? Again I'm not familiar enough with specifics of genetic patent law currently, but my hope is that the concept of combining naturally occurring gene A with naturally occurring genome B isn't novel enough to earn a patent, but the specific of finding where in the genome to place the gene to achieve the desired expression is.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top