Cooking for Eggheads

Cooking for Eggheads by Patricia Gadsby, is an essay about the use of science to create new recipes with unique tastes. Gadsby writes about Molecular Gastronomy, which is the process of cooking changes the taste and molecular structure of food. This government-funded science lab is in a laboratory for the Chemistry of Molecular Interactions in France. The definition of gastronomy is noted as “the science of anything to do with human nourishment” (Gadsby, 300). Many foods are analyzed in this laboratory such as observing how the structure of meat alters when it is cooked to perfection. Workshops are also attended to carefully examine how spongy foods, such as mushrooms and eggplants, are chemically altered after being heated in the microwave. Today, molecular gastronomy is included in restaurant reviews as a form of labeling to inform (or warn) individuals of unusual ingredients added to certain dishes served.

            The experimenting of food has become a popular and diverse field over the past years and it leads to the central debate, should foods be genetically modified or experimented or left in a natural, organic form? One of the many reasons of genetically engineering foods is for taste improvement. Many individuals prefer eating an egg as an egg for breakfast, but for certain scientists and individuals, an egg is only enjoyed if it is a 64-degree egg that has been investigated by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Would you prefer using science to genetically alter the taste of your foods?

Poll: Should We Label GE Foods?

ABC News conducted a poll on the skepticism of genetically modified foods. This poll was conducted throughout the nation. The end result was quite predictable with America favoring the concept of having all genetically modified foods labeled. The reasoning for wanting GE foods labeled is to aware buyers of what is “safe” to eat. 52% of Americans believe genetically modified foods are unsafe, 13% are unsure, and the remaining third believe GE foods are safe to eat. Regardless on views whether or not genetically engineering of foods is safe or unsafe, 93% agree the FDA should require labeling on all GE foods that have been genetically altered via biotechnology.

            As I mentioned a few posts prior, big GE companies such as Monsanto are strongly against this labeling, which from a business viewpoint is predictable since the public will think twice before purchasing an item that reads it has been genetically modified. When asked in the poll, 57% of Americans voiced to be less likely to purchase foods that have been marked and labeled as genetically engineered.

            One interesting statistic from the poll was 62% of women believe GM foods are unsafe and 65% of women will be less likely to buy foods that have been GM labeled, while only 40% men believe GM foods are unsafe to eat and 49% of men will be less likely to buy food that has been labeled as genetically modified.

Limitation in this poll?

            This poll was conducted by ABCnews randomly, via phone among 1,024 adults in America from June 13^th-17^th, 2012 using the following definition of genetic engineering of foods “scientists can change the genes in some food crops and farm animals to make them grow faster or bigger and be more resistant to bugs, weeds and disease” while defining organic foods “without the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers or feed additives.” The above definitions are not accurate representations of either foods, which could have strongly mislead participants when asked their opinions. Although it is true Americans would feel much comfortable eating foods that have been labeled, the AMA (American Medical Association) has found no long-term, scientific justification for why genetically engineered foods should be labeled.

Do you think this poll is a good representation of views on genetic engineering of foods despite the lack of explicitly stating what GM foods are? Why do you think women feel strongly about GM labeling than men?

Resources:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1#.UJHK52k5x3I

The Influence of Public Perception on GMOs

“We need to strike a balance between using the potential of biotechnology to meet the requirements of hungry people while addressing concerns about interfering with nature”- Dr. Manmohan Singh (Prime Minister of India).

Over the past decade, the use and consumption of GE crops has significantly increased in North America as well as in Europe. In this week’s blog I will shed some light on other parts of the world and their view on genetic engineering of foods, specifically India. In an article from GMO Biosafety Research, the Indian Institute of Technology analyzes several factors that influence the public perception of GMOs in India.

Benefits vs Issues of Ethics

            Due to the advantages of using GE crops, such as drought/frost-resistance, less quantity of insecticides, and quick production rate, it is beneficial to use GM crops in India from a socioeconomic standpoint. Genetically engineering foods in countries such as India is valuable because of the increase in demand of food.

            However, because GM foods do not require labeling, religious groups in India do not favor the use of GMOs. Also, if GM crops are used, small farmers will see fewer buyers. Because of this drawback, public perception and vote towards GM crops will be low from religious individuals and small farmers. "Many religious groups argue that biotechnology is equivalent to ‘playing God’ and is fundamentally wrong. Mixing genes and changing the DNA code is tampering with nature and could lead to adverse repercussions. There are objections to incorporating animal genes in plants."

Technology

            Countries such as U.S and in Europe strongly support, rely, and encourage the use of technology. This differs in India, where technology is viewed only as a tool for the rich and not a necessity for the poor. However, agriculture is the primary occupation in India, especially in northern India, and crops that are produced sell at very cheap rates. Due to the long production time and cheap seller rate, big farmers will find GM crops advantageous, mainly the use of Bt cotton. China also views the genetic engineering of foods as a way to increase their food security.

Media

            The Indian media has negatively perceived GE crops or has given limited information about it to the public.  In 2003, 55% of the U.S. public reported to trust the media about biotechnology due to misinformation given by the media. If the public in India has more government regulators to explain benefits of GE foods, the media/internet may begin to reveal information regarding the pros of biotechnology, instead of simply the cons.

Do you think individuals in America and in other parts of the world will support the use of biotech foods depending on the media? Which source of information do you think would be the best way to connect with the public in the U.S. about the use of GMOs and would that source to reach the public be different in India?

Below is a graph portraying how the public accesses information. Figure A is India. Figure B is Europe. Figure C- red=India, blue=Europe

Resources:
http://bio.sophiapublisher.com/html-200-12-gmo
http://bio.sophiapublisher.com/files/upfiles/GMOv2no03big.png