4 ms·
McDonald's had a huge impact on how beef is produced in America. If they start demanding higher quality ingredients I can't help but think it'll raise the minim
by smtddr 11y ago
McDonald's had a huge impact on how beef is produced in America. If they start demanding higher quality ingredients I can't help but think it'll raise the minimum quality of food for the whole nation in general.
EDIT: I've removed my comments expressing my antiGMO beliefs because it's already turning into a whole thread-debate-topic on its own. All I really wanted to say here is that McD's has a huge influence on America's method of producing food. If they demand higher quality, it'll raise the mininum quality for the whole nation. I specifically think of things like beef & corn. That is all. Think whatever you will of GMOs, that debate seems just as volatile as debating Crossfit's health benefits. I hope that at least we can all agree that McD's was/is making near minimal quality of food and them raising the bar will raise the bar for all of USA.
- Igglyboo 11y agoCan I ask you why you are anti-GMO? It seems like a lot of people on the internet hate Monsanto and just lump GMOs in with them. If we didn't have GMOs we would have far more starving people than we currently do on this planet.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mrfusion 11y agoI actually agree with you partly, but why rule out all GMO? It's an extremely broad category with some good things and some bad things. Why not evaluate it more on a case by case basis?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- logfromblammo 11y agoThere is good GMO and there is bad GMO. Altering the organism to improve its nutritional profile, such as by growing rice with vitamin A, that's good. I'm totally behind golden rice. Altering the organism to resist herbicides or express pesticides that have potential toxicity to humans is a matter for some concern. The alteration itself may not even present a threat directly, but may enable an agricultural practice that causes harm. For instance, herbicide resistant crops may absorb the herbicide, the safety of which was determined based primarily on inhalation and skin contact, and become the vector for an unforeseen risk from ingestion. Some people have made some provocative unproven claims that the symptoms of gluten sensitivity are actually adequately explained by glyphosate poisoning, mainly from crops that have been chemically dessicated prior to harvest. Obviously, glyphosate-resistant crops would not be dessicated pre-harvest with glyphosate, but they would have been sprayed with it during the growing season. I can't say for certain whether that particular chemical would be retained or degraded in any given plant. But I know that a tiny, tiny amount is present in much of what I eat. Is it dangerous? I don't know. I don't even know how I would prove it if it was. I always have the option to eat different foods, or differently cultivated foods (i.e. organic), if I so choose. But the primary reason I'm mostly against GMO is the brutish nonsense surrounding patented seeds. The slow accumulation of possibly barely-toxic chemicals in my gut is less of a concern to me than the lawyer that orders a person to pay a license fee on each kernel of corn that he or she intends to plant. That guy is manipulating the entire market for food, changing the whole business model for farming, and that scares the insoluble fiber out of me. The primary threat isn't in the genes; it's in the laws.
- mrfusion 11y agoNice write-up. I might reference it for future debates.
- nness 11y agoI'd wager that abandoning GMO sources would have little impact on their appeal, since there would be no noticeable quality difference. Any marketing collateral around "We've one healthy GMO-free" could be done without the GMO part just as effectively if they switched to low-sugar ingredients.