This is super common. My wife and I live in Sonoma County. She operates a floral design business where she only sources locally grown flowers. To our frustration many of her competitors also claim to use local flowers. However, my wife knows nearly all of the local flower growers personally and they tell her that these same competitors give them very little to no business. Instead they buy nearly all of their flowers from the SF flower market which in turn gets most of it's flowers from South America. It's amazing how many businesses have no problem flat out lying to their customers.
What shop? I'm also in the area and would prefer to know of a shop that I could assign a bit more trust to, since I'm getting married in the next year or so.
> “It’s really hard to find non-GMO produce,” Moran said.
Aside from the IP problems of patent-infringement-via-unintended-germination, I don't understand what's not to like about GMO. GMO seems like a great idea -- modern human medicine seems to include techniques that are similar to or just-short-of "GMO."
Are there any HNers who can articulate what they don't like about GMO?
I'm not an expert, but one criticism I've seen is that a lot of genetic modification is used to either get plants to produce pesticides or be immune to commonly used weed-killers, like Roundup. Some critics worry that lets farmers basically saturate their fields in herbicides to eliminate weeds, and that some of them are toxic to humans, other animals and plants near to the farm.
Another issue is that most genetic modification work is done by massive companies, which then patent their results. If they develop cheaper-to-grow crops, farmers may essentially have no choice but to license their IP to stay competitive. That gives those big companies a lot of clout over farmers and probably advantages giant farming operations, who can negotiate to buy GMO seeds cheaper than small farmers can.
Some people also worry that there will be "bugs" in the genetic code introduced into plants that will have unforeseen consequences. On some level, plant genetics always been a software problem, but now we're potentially deploying updates in the (literal) field much faster. If new corn seeds distributed en masse accidentally produce toxins, or are unusually conducive to harmful bacteria, or just don't grow properly in some areas, what does it mean for farmers and consumers?
I think it's a lot of the usual technology-upends-formerly-slow-moving-industry issues, but that's especially frightening for a lot of people when it comes to things we're putting in our bodies.
I wouldn't say "dislike" but "distrust" a little, for these reasons:
Modern industrial agriculture is both a triumph and a tragedy of optimization. It is now possible to buy a cheap, beautiful looking, round, red tomato any day of the year in most supermarkets near me - and they all taste like crap. At the same time it is getting more and more difficult to buy a good tomato when they are in seasonal around here. Many groceries store chains can't be bothered to move off their large distributors for a product like that for 3-4 weeks, and consumers have stopped being aware of the times when it really matters. I'm willing to say it is more triumph than tragedy, but the tragedy part is real, and it matters.
GMO as a tool allows for quicker iteration on optimizing various aspects of a crop - my distrust lies in the fact that I already think we have over-optimized some aspects at the expense of things that are important but more difficult to measure directly. So long as downward price pressure exists we are likely to continue this trend.
The other problem is hubris. GMOs tend to lead to more monoculture and more drift from naturally biologically stable systems around them. In this we are messing with complex systems we don't really understand that well, and I'm not sure it's worth the efficiency gains. At the very least, it's not clear...
> modern human medicine seems to include techniques that are similar to or just-short-of "GMO."
I think that is actually the root of the problem for some people, including me. I have seen what modern medicine does to people. "You cholesterol is too high, take this statin and your number will get better. Don't take it and you will have a heart attack". And then you have family members and friends take the drugs, and start having side effects.. random pain, random problems that stop them from being physically active. So then they go back to a doctor and get some new medicines, that maybe fixes the pain, but then adds a new side effect. And pretty soon they are bed ridden and taking 14 pills to stay alive. What a bunch of crap.
I am not anti-medicine, but I am anti-cutting-edge-for-margain-gain medicine. If you have AIDs, you probably should take some medicine. I vaccinate myself and my children. However I think that if you are active and eat well, I don't care what my cholesterol is. Maybe it is high, maybe it isn't. And if you aren't active or eating well - you need to fix that (not take medicine). If I start dying of cancer, I will throw every medicine I can find at it. But if I am good and healthy, I am going to leave well enough alone.
So to tie this back to food... I don't have a big desire to be a food beta tester. I am sure 75% of GMO is fine. Could some cause something horrible to your health in 20 years, like increased cancer risk? For sure. In fact we are seeing that a lot of the veggies we grow now through traditional breeding practices have reduced the vitamin content compared to the same veggie 20 years ago. But if I can pay a few pennies more for stuff that has a 100 year track record vs something that came out of a lab a month ago? Yes please, sign me up.
Let there be GMO. Let me be able to pay to not beta test food. I like beta testing software, I don't like beta testing food and drugs when I am otherwise healthy. It is insane that there is such resistance to putting a label on food telling me the GMO status. GMO status is just the start, I would love to know 100 more things about the food I eat. Fertilizers used? Harvesting technique? Etc. Let me have more info and make an informed choice about what I put in my body. It may be a bunch of busywork for no gain, but that is my choice.
It does sound like a "throw the baby out with the bath water" scenario.
In theory, GMOs could be more healthy than not GMO.
In practice, this has not happened. The objectives instead have been to increase crop yield. The side effects have been to make the plants more toxic in very subtle ways that are hard to track and take decades for people to show symptoms.
Maybe in a few more decades we'll see "good" GMOs.
It should also be noted that many of the problems with GMOs are shared by crops that have simply been selectively bred for a long time... which is most crops that we eat a lot of...
1900s science has a number of well publicized tragic tales relating to scientists promising something and missing side effects; or government/business entities misusing scientific products.
It thus behooves us to be have some concern and caution regarding the food supply.
I was at a demo farm once, where a set of 5-6 corn plots were laid out in farming practices from 1850 to 2000. While the 2000s plot had almost no weeds, very little pest damage, had tall and strong stalks, closer together, with high levels of nutrients, the 1850s plot had far more weeds and a large amount of pest damage. Now, what struck me the most was that the 1850s plot was integrated into the ecosystem in a way the 2000s plot wasn't. The modern view is "kill weeds, kill pests", because that increases yield. Much like we view software bugs and filing pointless paperwork. But I think that there's an ecosystem problem arising with the giant fields of corn that are hostile to other life. This is understood by the US Federal government: "Refuge" crops must be planted in the field to help keep native life around.
So I'm very ambiguous about this approach, recognizing the advantages of cheap food, but concerned about the second and third order effects on the flora and fauna of the farming regions.
GMOs are a form of proprietary lock-in backed by legal restrictions.
The underlying problem with almost all GMOs is that they are tied to a particular chemical combination, and the seed must be re-purchased every year (the harvested seed is sterile and/or you cannot (legally) re-seed).
Those chemical/GMO businesses then have a strangle-hold on the farmers. Farmers are enticed by low prices until a substantial percentage are 'hooked' and then the prices rise - just like Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish policy.
Here in the E.U./U.K. we've resisted GMOs but the pressure (mostly from global/U.S. seed/chemical producers) on the politicians to allow them is constant.
Until these global seed producers emerged (latter half of the 20th century in concert with the chemical manufacturers) farmers either kept back some of their own harvest for seed or bought at-will from other farmers without restriction. Such seed sells for a slight premium (due to quality and cleanliness - low numbers of alien species) over other seed.
Even if there's nothing wrong with GMO produce, consumers shouldn't be lied to. If they want something, pay extra for it, and are told they should get it, then they damn well better get it.
I tend to think GMOs are fine, but at the same time, I understand why one might be skeptical. Humans are pretty great at inventing toxic consumer products (e.g. plastics, lead pipes, asbestos) and even "health foods" that later turn out to be disastrously unhealthy (e.g. trans fats). Sometimes the lag between invention and the confirmation of deleterious effect is many decades.
There are two reasons I've seen for objecting to GMO, one unreasonable and one reasonable.
The unreasonable objection, which is probably the most common, is based on the belief that there is something inherently dangerous about GMO.
The reasonable objection is based on the belief that there is nothing wrong with GMO itself since it is just another tool and so whether it is good or bad in a particular instance depends on the user rather than the tool, but many (most?) of the current users do not have the inclination and/or wisdom to only use it for good.
Many of the interests of food producers (I'm including everyone in the chain before the food actually reaches the eater) are not aligned with the interests of food eaters. For instance a producer of a vegetable might prioritize uniformity of size and shape and predictable growing rates over taste and nutrition, because the former directly affect how effectively he can automate production. As an eater, I care a lot more about nutrition and taste than I care about having all of my vegetables be the same size and shape.
We've seen what happens when food manufacturer interests get too far out of alignment with what is healthy and nutritious--just look at all the health issues we have in the US that are reasonably attributable to our poor national eating habits.
> GMO seems like a great idea -- modern human medicine seems to include techniques that are similar to or just-short-of "GMO."
Medicine is highly regulated. You can't just make a new medicine and start selling it. Not so with food.
For a worst case scenario from an eater point of view, suppose you've got organism X and organism Y. These are very different, and cannot be crossbred. Suppose that Y produces something that has health benefits, but that some people are allergic to. X does not produce this substance.
A person allergic to that substance has a simple strategy for staying safe: do not eat Y.
With GMO, in theory some X manufacturer could modify X to include the genes from Y that produce that substance. For most people this would be a benefit--they are now getting that healthy substance from Y when they consume X.
For our person allergic to that substance, this sucks.
Now our allergic eater has to worry about both X and Y. And since GMO foods do not have to be labeled currently, he cannot simply avoid GMO X. He now has to avoid all foods with X. (And if our allergic eater is particularly unlucky, the maker of GMO X does not announce they are doing this, and so the allergic eater first finds out about it the hard way).
Manufacturers like to tout health benefits. For our poor allergic eater, those genes from Y for that substance he is allergic to might end up being put in all kinds of foods.
My opinion is that we should go ahead with GMO, but not blindly. As a first step, it needs to be labeled, and longer term we need to develop some regulations to make sure it is used safely and wisely.
Its just like "I don't swim because of sharks"... You are going to get a list of fears that are perfectly understandable, yet irrational due to lack of evidence. Its a shame because of the huge potential GMO's have to positively impact so many of our current global problems. (malnutrition, water shortages, carbon footprints, etc)
A great bit of journalism here, hopefully it reaches a lot of eyes.
I think that the fines levied on restaurants that are knowingly deceiving their customers should be much higher. The articles states $300 is the fine for first-time offenders, this is hardly much of a deterrence considering the premiums placed on 'locally sourced' dishes.
If you want to get a good feel of how much proper locally grown food is, pop in to a butchers. It costs £15/$21 for a single t-bone, but man is it worth it. I think we are too used to eating sub-standard meats/fish as we want to consume it more often.
>It costs £15/$21 for a single t-bone, but man is it worth it.
I've had plenty of local meat, and I'm in a rural setting known for its farming. I'm skeptical.
I'd love to see this actually tested, because I think this is an alternate view of the article; the "hipster" crowd is so keen on getting locally sourced food because it just tastes oh-so-much better (and they're more than happy to tell you). Half the time they're not even eating locally sourced food.
The global food supply chain is pretty amazing. Why do we assume that Joe Schmoe farmer down the road is automatically "better" at food production? Outside of the fact that some produce can lose nutrition in transport, I'd bet 90% of people couldn't tell the difference between garden fresh or grown-in-China...or that if they identified a difference they'd necessarily choose the former as a preference. Taste (in the literal sense) is a funny thing.
I've never understood what "farm-to-table" means. Doesn't all food come from a farm? Is it supposed to mean "farm owned by a stereotypical farmer, not by a corporation?" If so, that's pretty vague and subjective.
If done accurately it means that the food is produced using the most unsustainable and inefficient ways possible so that only the most privileged can partake. Other than that its just marketing that is targeting people that either want to think of themselves as upper class or have been falsely led to believe that this type of food production is actually eco-friendly and more healthy. (Also see "Organic" food)
Farm to table generally (or ideally) means the restaurant deals directly with smaller local farms for seasonal produce (rather than buying everything from a distributor).
It means traceability in the supply chain. E.g. all meat in Europe has to be traceable to the farm as a consequence of the BSE outbreak / horse meat scandal. [1]
Big cases in the US were the Peanut Corp of America [2], Jack in the Box E Coli [3] and the most recent Chipolte [4] and more [4].
Supply chains are protecting themselves through tractability and this is being turned into an opportunity.
It doesn't mean that the food is wholesome, just that if you get poisoned, the origin of that poison can be determined.
As other people said, it generally is supposed to mean the food came from a nearby farm that the restaurant can identify.
In these cases, though, restaurants weren't just saying "farm-to-table"--they were making specific claims about what farms were supplying the food that just weren't true. In some cases, they weren't even correctly identifying the species involved, like saying cheap fish was something more expensive or even that pork was veal.
In my area, I see some chefs at the weekly farmer's market buying meat, fish, and produce directly from local farmers. To me, that is 'farm to table'. Anything else is questionable, but could be.
I believe buying from wholesale distributors would be the opposite of farm to table.
All these things get gamed. If you don't know something about your supplier, its probably getting gamed.
My Sister sells chocolate. She gets it from Winan's from Ohio. Knows the supplier folk; visits the place they make all the stuff. Knows their supplier. They get chocolate in liquid form from their plantation in Nicaragua. Folks there grow it, process it and ship the liquor to Ohio. So verified fair trade.
Also, its healthier. Imported beans (like everybody else) have to be fumigated upon import. Agricultural product. But the liquor is a finished product; no fumigation! SO that makes some people happier.
Anway she only knows all this (and trusts it) because she knows the Winans personally, and visits the plant regularly.
Totally expected. Our current food model, and the American conditioned mindset, is bigger is better, cheaper is better, and when selling food you must maximize profits, while reducing costs - no exceptions. Americans need to be brought down a peg or two (myself included!) that size and cost does not equality quality, cleanliness, or health.
I thought the whole point of the "local" movement is that cheaper is not better and bigger is not better, as people are willing to pay more for less food because it is supposedly "local".
If we are really serious about local food then we need a much more significant set of changes. I have integrated some ideas into this site: http://tinyvillages.org
You can tell what's probably NOT 'farm to table' by the pricing of dishes. Many restaurants would not be in business selling food at the prices they do if were actually farm to table direct from local farmers who uses the growing/raising practices the restaurants claim. If you buy meat or veggies of this quality, you already know - it costs a LOT.
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
I think many hackers (myself included) find this interesting.
[+] [-] jcoffland|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbenson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smacktoward|10 years ago|reply
It has been ever thus. This is where regulation comes from.
[+] [-] wyldfire|10 years ago|reply
Aside from the IP problems of patent-infringement-via-unintended-germination, I don't understand what's not to like about GMO. GMO seems like a great idea -- modern human medicine seems to include techniques that are similar to or just-short-of "GMO."
Are there any HNers who can articulate what they don't like about GMO?
[+] [-] smelendez|10 years ago|reply
Another issue is that most genetic modification work is done by massive companies, which then patent their results. If they develop cheaper-to-grow crops, farmers may essentially have no choice but to license their IP to stay competitive. That gives those big companies a lot of clout over farmers and probably advantages giant farming operations, who can negotiate to buy GMO seeds cheaper than small farmers can.
Some people also worry that there will be "bugs" in the genetic code introduced into plants that will have unforeseen consequences. On some level, plant genetics always been a software problem, but now we're potentially deploying updates in the (literal) field much faster. If new corn seeds distributed en masse accidentally produce toxins, or are unusually conducive to harmful bacteria, or just don't grow properly in some areas, what does it mean for farmers and consumers?
I think it's a lot of the usual technology-upends-formerly-slow-moving-industry issues, but that's especially frightening for a lot of people when it comes to things we're putting in our bodies.
[+] [-] ska|10 years ago|reply
Modern industrial agriculture is both a triumph and a tragedy of optimization. It is now possible to buy a cheap, beautiful looking, round, red tomato any day of the year in most supermarkets near me - and they all taste like crap. At the same time it is getting more and more difficult to buy a good tomato when they are in seasonal around here. Many groceries store chains can't be bothered to move off their large distributors for a product like that for 3-4 weeks, and consumers have stopped being aware of the times when it really matters. I'm willing to say it is more triumph than tragedy, but the tragedy part is real, and it matters.
GMO as a tool allows for quicker iteration on optimizing various aspects of a crop - my distrust lies in the fact that I already think we have over-optimized some aspects at the expense of things that are important but more difficult to measure directly. So long as downward price pressure exists we are likely to continue this trend.
The other problem is hubris. GMOs tend to lead to more monoculture and more drift from naturally biologically stable systems around them. In this we are messing with complex systems we don't really understand that well, and I'm not sure it's worth the efficiency gains. At the very least, it's not clear...
[+] [-] brianwawok|10 years ago|reply
I think that is actually the root of the problem for some people, including me. I have seen what modern medicine does to people. "You cholesterol is too high, take this statin and your number will get better. Don't take it and you will have a heart attack". And then you have family members and friends take the drugs, and start having side effects.. random pain, random problems that stop them from being physically active. So then they go back to a doctor and get some new medicines, that maybe fixes the pain, but then adds a new side effect. And pretty soon they are bed ridden and taking 14 pills to stay alive. What a bunch of crap.
I am not anti-medicine, but I am anti-cutting-edge-for-margain-gain medicine. If you have AIDs, you probably should take some medicine. I vaccinate myself and my children. However I think that if you are active and eat well, I don't care what my cholesterol is. Maybe it is high, maybe it isn't. And if you aren't active or eating well - you need to fix that (not take medicine). If I start dying of cancer, I will throw every medicine I can find at it. But if I am good and healthy, I am going to leave well enough alone.
So to tie this back to food... I don't have a big desire to be a food beta tester. I am sure 75% of GMO is fine. Could some cause something horrible to your health in 20 years, like increased cancer risk? For sure. In fact we are seeing that a lot of the veggies we grow now through traditional breeding practices have reduced the vitamin content compared to the same veggie 20 years ago. But if I can pay a few pennies more for stuff that has a 100 year track record vs something that came out of a lab a month ago? Yes please, sign me up.
Let there be GMO. Let me be able to pay to not beta test food. I like beta testing software, I don't like beta testing food and drugs when I am otherwise healthy. It is insane that there is such resistance to putting a label on food telling me the GMO status. GMO status is just the start, I would love to know 100 more things about the food I eat. Fertilizers used? Harvesting technique? Etc. Let me have more info and make an informed choice about what I put in my body. It may be a bunch of busywork for no gain, but that is my choice.
[+] [-] ChrisDutrow|10 years ago|reply
In theory, GMOs could be more healthy than not GMO.
In practice, this has not happened. The objectives instead have been to increase crop yield. The side effects have been to make the plants more toxic in very subtle ways that are hard to track and take decades for people to show symptoms.
Maybe in a few more decades we'll see "good" GMOs.
It should also be noted that many of the problems with GMOs are shared by crops that have simply been selectively bred for a long time... which is most crops that we eat a lot of...
[+] [-] pnathan|10 years ago|reply
It thus behooves us to be have some concern and caution regarding the food supply.
I was at a demo farm once, where a set of 5-6 corn plots were laid out in farming practices from 1850 to 2000. While the 2000s plot had almost no weeds, very little pest damage, had tall and strong stalks, closer together, with high levels of nutrients, the 1850s plot had far more weeds and a large amount of pest damage. Now, what struck me the most was that the 1850s plot was integrated into the ecosystem in a way the 2000s plot wasn't. The modern view is "kill weeds, kill pests", because that increases yield. Much like we view software bugs and filing pointless paperwork. But I think that there's an ecosystem problem arising with the giant fields of corn that are hostile to other life. This is understood by the US Federal government: "Refuge" crops must be planted in the field to help keep native life around.
So I'm very ambiguous about this approach, recognizing the advantages of cheap food, but concerned about the second and third order effects on the flora and fauna of the farming regions.
[+] [-] iam-TJ|10 years ago|reply
GMOs are a form of proprietary lock-in backed by legal restrictions.
The underlying problem with almost all GMOs is that they are tied to a particular chemical combination, and the seed must be re-purchased every year (the harvested seed is sterile and/or you cannot (legally) re-seed).
Those chemical/GMO businesses then have a strangle-hold on the farmers. Farmers are enticed by low prices until a substantial percentage are 'hooked' and then the prices rise - just like Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish policy.
Here in the E.U./U.K. we've resisted GMOs but the pressure (mostly from global/U.S. seed/chemical producers) on the politicians to allow them is constant.
Until these global seed producers emerged (latter half of the 20th century in concert with the chemical manufacturers) farmers either kept back some of their own harvest for seed or bought at-will from other farmers without restriction. Such seed sells for a slight premium (due to quality and cleanliness - low numbers of alien species) over other seed.
[+] [-] jere|10 years ago|reply
I tend to think GMOs are fine, but at the same time, I understand why one might be skeptical. Humans are pretty great at inventing toxic consumer products (e.g. plastics, lead pipes, asbestos) and even "health foods" that later turn out to be disastrously unhealthy (e.g. trans fats). Sometimes the lag between invention and the confirmation of deleterious effect is many decades.
[+] [-] 5ilv3r|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nommm-nommm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|10 years ago|reply
The unreasonable objection, which is probably the most common, is based on the belief that there is something inherently dangerous about GMO.
The reasonable objection is based on the belief that there is nothing wrong with GMO itself since it is just another tool and so whether it is good or bad in a particular instance depends on the user rather than the tool, but many (most?) of the current users do not have the inclination and/or wisdom to only use it for good.
Many of the interests of food producers (I'm including everyone in the chain before the food actually reaches the eater) are not aligned with the interests of food eaters. For instance a producer of a vegetable might prioritize uniformity of size and shape and predictable growing rates over taste and nutrition, because the former directly affect how effectively he can automate production. As an eater, I care a lot more about nutrition and taste than I care about having all of my vegetables be the same size and shape.
We've seen what happens when food manufacturer interests get too far out of alignment with what is healthy and nutritious--just look at all the health issues we have in the US that are reasonably attributable to our poor national eating habits.
> GMO seems like a great idea -- modern human medicine seems to include techniques that are similar to or just-short-of "GMO."
Medicine is highly regulated. You can't just make a new medicine and start selling it. Not so with food.
For a worst case scenario from an eater point of view, suppose you've got organism X and organism Y. These are very different, and cannot be crossbred. Suppose that Y produces something that has health benefits, but that some people are allergic to. X does not produce this substance.
A person allergic to that substance has a simple strategy for staying safe: do not eat Y.
With GMO, in theory some X manufacturer could modify X to include the genes from Y that produce that substance. For most people this would be a benefit--they are now getting that healthy substance from Y when they consume X.
For our person allergic to that substance, this sucks.
Now our allergic eater has to worry about both X and Y. And since GMO foods do not have to be labeled currently, he cannot simply avoid GMO X. He now has to avoid all foods with X. (And if our allergic eater is particularly unlucky, the maker of GMO X does not announce they are doing this, and so the allergic eater first finds out about it the hard way).
Manufacturers like to tout health benefits. For our poor allergic eater, those genes from Y for that substance he is allergic to might end up being put in all kinds of foods.
My opinion is that we should go ahead with GMO, but not blindly. As a first step, it needs to be labeled, and longer term we need to develop some regulations to make sure it is used safely and wisely.
[+] [-] splawn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] prodmerc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alva|10 years ago|reply
If you want to get a good feel of how much proper locally grown food is, pop in to a butchers. It costs £15/$21 for a single t-bone, but man is it worth it. I think we are too used to eating sub-standard meats/fish as we want to consume it more often.
[+] [-] forgetsusername|10 years ago|reply
I've had plenty of local meat, and I'm in a rural setting known for its farming. I'm skeptical.
I'd love to see this actually tested, because I think this is an alternate view of the article; the "hipster" crowd is so keen on getting locally sourced food because it just tastes oh-so-much better (and they're more than happy to tell you). Half the time they're not even eating locally sourced food.
The global food supply chain is pretty amazing. Why do we assume that Joe Schmoe farmer down the road is automatically "better" at food production? Outside of the fact that some produce can lose nutrition in transport, I'd bet 90% of people couldn't tell the difference between garden fresh or grown-in-China...or that if they identified a difference they'd necessarily choose the former as a preference. Taste (in the literal sense) is a funny thing.
[+] [-] uremog|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beachstartup|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] umanwizard|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] splawn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmanfrin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wavefunction|10 years ago|reply
Rather than "Sysco" or one of its smaller competitors in the food distribution business.
[+] [-] SixSigma|10 years ago|reply
Big cases in the US were the Peanut Corp of America [2], Jack in the Box E Coli [3] and the most recent Chipolte [4] and more [4].
Supply chains are protecting themselves through tractability and this is being turned into an opportunity.
It doesn't mean that the food is wholesome, just that if you get poisoned, the origin of that poison can be determined.
[1] http://www.foodnavigator.com/Policy/EU-traceability-requirem...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_Corporation_of_America
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Jack_in_the_Box_E._coli_o...
[4] http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/12/the-10-biggest-u-s-foo...
[+] [-] smelendez|10 years ago|reply
In these cases, though, restaurants weren't just saying "farm-to-table"--they were making specific claims about what farms were supplying the food that just weren't true. In some cases, they weren't even correctly identifying the species involved, like saying cheap fish was something more expensive or even that pork was veal.
[+] [-] jly|10 years ago|reply
I believe buying from wholesale distributors would be the opposite of farm to table.
[+] [-] chris11|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hayksaakian|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sremani|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fomite|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CPLX|10 years ago|reply
Farm --> Table
and
Farm --> A Bunch of Other Places --> Table
[+] [-] PedroBatista|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianwawok|10 years ago|reply
Being illegal and being able to do something about it? No always the same.
Sure if your swap killed a bunch of people, you would get caught. Who is going to instantly die form eating a GMO though?
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|10 years ago|reply
My Sister sells chocolate. She gets it from Winan's from Ohio. Knows the supplier folk; visits the place they make all the stuff. Knows their supplier. They get chocolate in liquid form from their plantation in Nicaragua. Folks there grow it, process it and ship the liquor to Ohio. So verified fair trade.
Also, its healthier. Imported beans (like everybody else) have to be fumigated upon import. Agricultural product. But the liquor is a finished product; no fumigation! SO that makes some people happier.
Anway she only knows all this (and trusts it) because she knows the Winans personally, and visits the plant regularly.
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] massysett|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilaksh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jly|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mwnz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _da_|10 years ago|reply
From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:
I think many hackers (myself included) find this interesting.