Post Punk Kitchen Forum

Ive been speaking with a Monsanto employee about these new soybean oils, apparently they actually get to use some of them in their cafeterias before they are commercialized. She mentioned them having tater tots fried in Vistive Gold oil (which can help reduce hydrogenated oil in the food system)

That first article is about what I've heard too. They attribute about 83% of soy produced going to animal feed.

(I went back to school MS in Nutrition) - we read a book "Taking Sides" (Nestle and Dixon). It gives a pro and con to an issue. After reading both I was always in a quandry trying to figure out what position I would take. I am normally not so wishy washy and have strong opinions.
One topic was GM foods. Read it and maybe you'll be as torn as me. I can't find a synopsis to provide.
However, part of what was presented what food fortification. We "fortify" foods to make them healthier. Like cereal with folic acid. You need folic acid to avoid neural tube defects to a fetus in the first trimester. Well, if you don't know you're pregnant - you don't know you need it. Adding this has radically reduced that birth defect. So now, there is some "genetic modification" like adding calcium into carrots. Bad? Do you mess with mother nature?
I'm not sure there's a scientific answer yet. I do agree people should be able to decide for themselves and have GMO products labelled appropriately.

from the book Taking Sides:
Issue 11. Does the World Need Genetically Modified Foods?YES: Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko, from “Scary Food,” Policy Review (June/July 2006)NO: Ed Hamer and Mark Anslow, from “10 Reasons Genetically Modified Foods Cannot [Feed the World],” The Ecologist (March 2008)Henry Miller and Gregory Conko defend biotechnology used in genetically modifying (GM) crops and foods and believe they bring many advantages and help ensure a safe food supply. Ed Hamer and Mark Anslow argue that GM foods cost farmers and governments more money than they are worth, that they are ruining the environment, and point to the health risks associated with GM foods.

Those numbers do seem a lot more plausible. If you look at the number of livestock in the US (more than 9 billion in 2001) compared to the number of people the idea that half the soy grown in the country is for (immediate domestic) human consumption really doesn't add up.