5 Responses

  1. Katie
    Katie at | | Reply

    I had two immediate thoughts after reading this article: one, is that we often find the natural world to be infinitely more complicated than we can imagine, model and replicate. An example that comes to mind is the recent research being done on the human micro-biome and some early findings that babies born via c-section might be missing out on important bacteria picked up in the birth canal leading to later development of food allergies, digestive troubles, etc for the child. So, we humans, in the name of “progress” thought, “hey, no biggie, small incision and we’ll have this baby out in 30 seconds, no pushing needed! Let’s do away with those messy 3am births… how does 10am on Tues. work for you?” Oops! Perhaps arriving in this world via your mother’s birth canal (as we all have done since we came down out of the trees) actually serves some sort of purpose. That is to say, I find it hard to believe that making meat in a test tube won’t have some unintended consequences.

    The second is that, to me, going the route of test tube burgers and laboratory eggs signifies that we have given up. We’ve come to the collective conclusion that we simply CANNOT create a healthy, holistic system of food production that provides high-quality meat, poultry, fish and dairy produced in harmony with the land and water and with respect for the animals and people involved in that supply chain. Are we really that easily defeated? Does that seem like a satisfactory answer to most people?

  2. Karlie
    Karlie at | | Reply

    Food 2.0 (food tech) should not be about test tube burgers and this kind of nonsense. Tech is valuable for how it can help connect farmers to eaters locally, how it can improve crop management and how it can reduce energy, water and chemical inputs. But we already have way more than enough fake food the our bodies don’t know what to do with. For an early model of this fake food trying to model nature, just look at baby formula – not even close to breast milk. Such a waste of valuable time, money and resources pursuing this fake food. Have we not learned anything from GMOs?

  3. Kathy
    Kathy at | | Reply

    It should be wildly profitable for the food companies & the medical industry.

  4. James
    James at | | Reply

    How interesting to hear two food stories this week at pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum… Food 2.0 vs Inspiring good health through cultural food traditions http://oldwayspt.org Very different people producing our food depending on which way we lean.

  5. Marilyn
    Marilyn at | | Reply

    The capitalistic drive for profits combined with the hubris of scientists. Nature gives us complex foods to eat. High fructose corn syrup has led to one third of Americans being obese. Food 2.0, if adopted, would be an even larger disaster for our health.

Leave a Reply