Slashdot Mirror

I hate to tell you this, but "add a gene" isn't the simple solution. The simple solution, which also covers BSE-infected meat, salmonella outbreaks, and any other food safety issue, involves implementing a tracking system from farm to table. It's not difficult, and should have been done years ago. In fact, Canadian produce farmers already have nearly 100% tracking of their goods, while the US is at 5%. It's good for consumers, and it's good for producers.

This will come as no surprise to the members of the Institute of Food Technologists. All of the big-scale industrial foods have a TON of science at their core - flavor, color, texture, nutrition, marketability, shelf-life, etc., etc. ad delectum. Spaghetti sauce turned out at 10,000 jars an hour uses all kinds of special processes and ingredients (i.e. chemicals) to achieve the desired outcome. Now, this same science is finding its way into the retail market, for meals prepared at the rate of only 100/hour in a kitchen.

Better living through chemistry. Long live the food technologists!

Disclaimer: I'm a Professional Member of IFT, although I'm not employed or paid by them.

I had to Google NEN to determine that it stands for New England Nuclear. Sorry, no can do. The only isotopes I use are permanent fixtures of my irradiator, just over 50,000 Curies of cesium-137, behind three feet of steel and lead. *Warm* steel and lead.

I didn't see 28 Days, but I can certainly understand the sentiment. Irradiated food is not only safe, wholesome and nutritious, it is ofter safer, healthier and more nutritious than non-irradiated food, since the spoilage organisms and any human pathogens have been eliminated. This is especially important for commodities that have a history of foodborne illness outbreaks, or in an environment where multiple foods may pose an increased risk of harboring pathogens.

This isn't just me spouting the party line because I drank the Kool-Aid. There's more than 60 years of research by industry, academia and government on the safety and nutritional adequacy of irradiated food, and it's culminated in as solid an endorsement as anything could receive.

I'm presenting a talk on the subject at the Institute of Food Technologists's annual meeting in Orlando this July. Any Slashdotters who are registered for the meeting may want to swing by.

Plasma treatment of food is also deeply, deeply cool. There are some exceptionally fascinating aspects to this technology, not just for food, but for lots and *lots* of applications. You'll be hearing more about it in two or three years. As it happens, I'm writing a book chapter on non-thermal plasma treatment of food. It's open in another window, and I should be working on it instead of procrastinating on Slashdot.

I like my job. It's fun being a scientist.

I had to Google NEN to determine that it stands for New England Nuclear. Sorry, no can do. The only isotopes I use are permanent fixtures of my irradiator, just over 50,000 Curies of cesium-137, behind three feet of steel and lead. *Warm* steel and lead.

I didn't see 28 Days, but I can certainly understand the sentiment. Irradiated food is not only safe, wholesome and nutritious, it is ofter safer, healthier and more nutritious than non-irradiated food, since the spoilage organisms and any human pathogens have been eliminated. This is especially important for commodities that have a history of foodborne illness outbreaks, or in an environment where multiple foods may pose an increased risk of harboring pathogens.

This isn't just me spouting the party line because I drank the Kool-Aid. There's more than 60 years of research by industry, academia and government on the safety and nutritional adequacy of irradiated food, and it's culminated in as solid an endorsement as anything could receive.

I'm presenting a talk on the subject at the Institute of Food Technologists's annual meeting in Orlando this July. Any Slashdotters who are registered for the meeting may want to swing by.

Plasma treatment of food is also deeply, deeply cool. There are some exceptionally fascinating aspects to this technology, not just for food, but for lots and *lots* of applications. You'll be hearing more about it in two or three years. As it happens, I'm writing a book chapter on non-thermal plasma treatment of food. It's open in another window, and I should be working on it instead of procrastinating on Slashdot.

I like my job. It's fun being a scientist.

This so-called news from Rolland is nothing new.

In fact, I have a BS and MS in Food Science from Cornell.

http://www.foodsci.cornell.edu/

Nor am I the only one. There are over 40 Food Science programs in the US. This is a non-story.

http://www.ift.org/cms/?pid=1000624

i can't count how often something i've tried in the kitchen that chemically and scientifically should have worked fine, but in the end came out curdled, or tasteless, or fallen.

Don't blame science for your shortcomings in the kitchen. Watching Good Eats will eventually give you a better idea of what went wrong. If you really want to learn to cook, read a book on Cordon Bleu techniques

By far the best part of Good Eats is the entertainment value - AB has a background in film, and it shows. If you really want to learn about food science, come to Cornell. Also check out the IFT.

I think this is awesome. From http://www.ift.org/extra/scam.shtml:

This has become a huge industry. According to some published reports, this has become the third largest industry in Nigeria. During the last thirteen years, there are estimates that the scam has taken in $5,000,000,000 in total, and hundreds of millions of dollars every year. These estimates may be underreported, as many victims may not wish to admit that they have been defrauded.

If taking money from gullible people can net you that much, well... More power to them!