HomeRoast Digest


Topic: coffee news about the evil empire (29 msgs / 798 lines)
1) From: Vince Doss
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1774606.htm-- 
At some point between French and fire, it really doesn't matter much what
the "origin character" of the coffee was...
Tom Owens - Sweet Marias

2) From: Lynne
Thanks for the link. Just got an email about this. Hopefully, w/the 
publicity, it will be changed.
L.
On Oct 27, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Vince Doss wrote:
<Snip>

3) From: Aaron
Vince I couldn't help but notice an article on that link you sent us and 
it was saying something about Brazil using a DNA map to create a super bean.
The way the tree hugging freaks are wetting their beds now over 
"Frankenfoods" and genetically modified grains etc etc, I forcee that 
being a very bad venture for Brazil.  It's a shame too, because 
something that could be fundamentally very good for humanity will get 
twisted and poisoned with the politics of the day.
I wonder though, what exactly would the super bean be?  What could they 
do to it to make it the ultimate coffee?  Interesting aspects there.
Aaron

4) From: Scot Murphy
On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Aaron wrote:
<Snip>
OR...something experimental that turns out to be bad for humanity,  
allergenic or carcinogenic or something, could get into the wild and  
cross-pollinate with other plants. You don't have to be a "tree- 
hugging freak" to be concerned that the corporate profit motive might  =
override safety and common sense.
Scot "like that ever happens" Murphy
---
"And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for  
American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If  
you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or  =
an undocumented immigrant or an 'unlawful enemy combatant' — exactly  =
how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to  
prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to  
help you?"
	--Keith Olbermann, 10-18-06

5) From: Brian Kamnetz
On 10/27/06, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
Not that it has anything to do with corporate greed, but on the bright side,
I found a local beer store that stocks Fuller London Porter...!!!!
Brian "another Porter please" Kamnetz

6) From: Stephen Niezgoda
The porter is good, but I still say the ESB wins hands down.
On 10/27/06, Brian Kamnetz  wrote:
<Snip>

7) From: Scot Murphy
On Oct 27, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Brian Kamnetz wrote:
<Snip>
Terrific! I'm guessing you liked it, hey? Man, that is some fine  
refreshment. Another you might try, if you can find it, is  
MacTarnahan's Blackwatch Porter. It's not smoky and it's not as  
sweet, not quite as powerful as Fuller's, but lovely and with great  
body.
Mmm. Today's payday. And Fuller's sounds GOOD.
Scot "but not too much, tomorrow is work" Murphy
---
"And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for  
American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If  
you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or  =
an undocumented immigrant or an 'unlawful enemy combatant' — exactly  =
how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to  
prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to  
help you?"
	--Keith Olbermann, 10-18-06

8) From: Brian Kamnetz
On 10/27/06, Stephen Niezgoda  wrote:
<Snip>
This store does have both the Fuller ESB and Pale Ale. I'll have to give
them a whirl.
Brian "TGIF" (not the chain) Kamnetz

9) From: Brian Kamnetz
On 10/27/06, Scot Murphy  wrote:
<Snip>
Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out (after all, Scot, it was you who
mentioned the Fuller Porter).
Brian "MacTarnahan's Blackwatch Porter, you say?" Kamnetz

10) From: jim gundlach
--Apple-Mail-1--1002455789
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed
On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Aaron wrote:
<Snip>
Since it will be put together by the same economic interests who  
brought us Folgers, I predict that it will be a big bean that can be  
mechanically harvested and it will make Folgers taste good.  Loads of  
caffeine to insure repeat customers and a marketing program to get  
customers hooked young.
       Pecan Jim
--Apple-Mail-1--1002455789
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetO-8859-1
On Oct 27, 2006, =
at 12:19 PM, Aaron wrote:

I wonder though, what = exactly would the super bean be? 

= Since it will be put together by the same = economic interests who brought us Folgers, I predict that it will be a = big bean that can be mechanically harvested and it will make Folgers = taste good.  Loads of caffeine to insure repeat customers and a = marketing program to get customers hooked young.  
      Pecan = Jim = --Apple-Mail-1--1002455789--

11) From: Aaron
I always liked Watneys Red Barrel Ale but can't find it anywhere around 
here in florida... not even the specialty stores....
oh well,  ill stick with brewing my own I guess.
Aaron

12) From: Aaron
It was written:
and it will make Folgers taste good
=======
umm I said super bean, not fantasy bean :)
==========
Plenty of caffeine, yep you betya there,  getting customers hooked 
young, well, I see the point you are making but what's the difference 
between the kiddies getting their caffeine from a coffee or a can of 
jolt soda or extreme dew.  The coffee is probably much better for them 
because it isn't giving them half a pound of sugar with it too.  If they 
are going to get hooked, might as well be on something that's at least a 
little better for them.
Aaron

13) From: Sheila Quinn
What's wrong with nature's own coffee that they need to alter it to make 
it better? I think it's a bad idea.
I don't like the thought of "playing God" when it comes to food. Big 
corporations are constantly trying to "improve" our food by erasing 
calories, improving the taste, etc. In the end, it usually turns out 
that these new concoctions are very bad for our bodies. So no thanks!!!
Sheila
jim gundlach wrote:
<Snip>

14) From: Blake D. Ratliff
I agree with you on that Sheila.
Blake

15) From: Aaron
But if it wasn't for man 'playing god' as some like to call it, think of 
half the medical advancements and cures for diseases that would have not 
been here today.  Penicillin is just one to name an early one.  Perhaps 
the reason YOU are here today, is because of a vaccinne that kept you 
from dying, or your parents from dying of rubella, polio, TB or one of 
the many other diseases that 'playing god' has helped man find a cure 
for in the past.
Foods have been modified to be more productive, ie rice that produces 
more per acre than the non modified rice. Some tomato's have been 
'modified' to be more square, and less round, so they don't roll off the 
shelves in stores as easily and are damaged then and can't be sold, 
stuff like that. However it's easy to preach what others should do or 
not do with their food when you have a full stomach youself, as the 
problem doesn't affect you then.
Food plants are bred / modified to be more disease resistant, insect 
resistant, ensuring a better harvest.  Even the grass that most folks 
have in their lawns and take for granted have been 'hybrid' some way.
It's real easy to blame 'big corporate' and 'technology' for every evil 
one can think of, but hypocritical when you are using that very 
technology to spew it with.  Some folks might like to go back to living 
in the stone age, or living in a bus smoking pot, but  me personally, I 
like the technology and advancements that 'playing god' have brought us.
Can something bad happen, possibly, has it happened, no.  I don't recall 
any killer soy beans out there, although do remember a real bad C rated 
sci fi movie attack of the killer tomato's.
Im sure that even the coffee's we are drinking today.... yet don't seem 
to have any problems with,...... have been 'altered' to bring out the 
best in them.  If you selectively breed something to make something new 
with 'better qualities', you are altering it  A hybrid 'cutting' for 
example, can just as easily bring out the bad traits of the strain, as 
the good traits.  If it's better than the old one, you keep it, if it's 
worse, you try another mix.
The only difference between a laboratory and doing it the 'old 
fashioned' way is that a lab can see results in months, instead of years 
as we wait for generation after generation of plant to mature to see if 
we did it right or not.
I find it kind of ironic that some of the most obese societies of people 
on the planet, are the ones screaming the loudest about bringing  more 
food to the starving because it might be GM..
If one does not want GM food, fine, that's cool, buy organic, but how 
about giving the starving man the same choice.  Let him  decide if he 
wants to starve, or eat GM food, which although nothing has been proven  
and it has had more testing done to it than most any other so called 
'normal' food, might cause rats to grow on laboratory cancers..or wet 
sheets in certain circles.
Aaron

16) From: Jeremy DeFranco
IMO, I don't think genetically modifying foods is all that bad. We really
shouldn't be too concerned about genetically modified foods causing damage
to our bodies. In fact, in many cases it can be beneficial for our bodies.
Take for example, milk taken from genetically modified cows that contains
polyunsaturated fat ("good" fats) instead of  saturated fat (the worst type
of fat for your blood vessels). Also, many eggs you will buy nowadays have
come from genetically modified hens that produce less saturated fats in
eggs, and Omega-3s in it's place. This is great! I just think "genetically
modified food" sounds bad, and (conspiracy theories aside) therefore gets a
bad wrap. But FWIW, it CAN alter taste in some situations, as in the disease
resistant strains of coffee beans, where it may produce inferior tasting
coffee. I AM looking forward to genetically modified decaffeinated coffee
beans that will be naturally decaffeinated without any need for
post-harvesting processing. Now that will be interesting to see if it tastes
better than CO2 or SWP decafs!

17) From: Derek Bradford
Aaron,
While your argument does have many merits, you are forgetting the
documented bad side of GM foods.  What about foods that don't produce
viable seeds, so farmers, the very people you claim GM foods can help
most, are forced to buy seeds every year instead of using their own
stock?
What about corn that sterilizes the male population, gets secretly
released into the wild in Mexico as a test, and is now contaminating
corn stocks throughout the region?
What about the invasiveness of GM varieties when it comes to people
not wanting GM crops?  Sure, you can plant GM and grow GM, but what
about the people who avoid GM crops, only to have their crops
cross-pollinated by the neighboring farm?
These are all very real concerns, and any debate over GM crops has to
include them.  It's only fair...
--Derek
On 10/28/06, Aaron  wrote:
<Snip>
-- http://www.novernae.comHome of the Wandering Sloth

18) From: Sheila Quinn
I don't equate man's innovations like cars, computers, and the light 
bulb with playing God. And I don't think our life-saving medicines are 
playing God either. You are right - without those, many people would 
die. But our bodies are meant to run on natural food, so messing around 
with that seems a bad idea to me. I'm sure I'm already eating 
genetically-altered foods, like tomatoes, as you mentioned. But I have 
to wonder just how good they really are for us. There is no guarantee 
that it isn't harmful in some unforeseen way. Could be that we see some 
ill effects in future generations.
So much of the food on our store shelves is unnatural nowadays - and we 
are sicker than ever as a society, needing more medicine and drugs than 
ever to combat the many health problems. So yes, it does matter what we 
put in our bodies - rich or poor. (Of course we want to feed the poor, 
but why not give them GOOD food?)
We can test things all we want, but a laboratory is not real life and 
thus, not without its many failures. Besides the crops mentioned by 
another list member, also look at the medicines that get recalled all 
the time - those were supposedly tested and claimed to be safe. Some 
people say that our milk, from cows given hormones to increase 
production, is doing bad things to our bodies. I don't know, but I 
wouldn't doubt it. In our rush to raise production of everything, we 
have to realize there are limits. Some innovations are good, some 
*might* not be so good.
Sheila
Aaron wrote:
<Snip>

19) From: Blake D. Ratliff
The bottom line is that GM foods are proprietary with patents for the 
benefit of making the inventors wealthy.  Them being wealthy is fine with me 
but it is not done to make cheap food and take care of the poor.  It simply 
creates more dependance on the rich.  The documeted health issues of GM 
foods abound.  Though we see benefits on the surface we do not understand 
the side effects until it is to late and many people suffer.  People used to 
think asbestos was a great thing.  I work in the food industry and I can 
tell you that Hydrogenated oils (transfats) are the cheapest way to go due 
to extended shelf life and improved thermal tolerance.  But transfats are 
detrimental to your health.  I could go on and on.  That is why I like FTO 
coffee, it is healthier and more money goes to the folks who are actually 
tending the crop.  The market ultimately decides what is bought either to 
betterment or detriment of the general public (like the blue jeans that make 
your butt cheeks look like they are behind your knees).  And the old school 
big food companies are having to change their ways as more people are 
educated on the adverse health effects from many practices of the modern day 
food industry.  It seems like every major brand is coming out with organic 
alternatives.  I think that organic will eventually go main stream.  However 
when that happens the high standards will slowly deteriorate as loop holes 
are found and the corruption of greed sets in.  Many people do not know this 
but when considering several consecutive years of harvest organic farmers 
actually average higher yields that are more consistent from year to year. 
I know farmers with degrees in agriculture who started out with modern 
techniques and competed very well but still switched to organic methods due 
to better results without having to pay a arm and a leg to seed companies 
for seeds that they should have already grown and carefully selected from 
last years crop.  Not to mention chemical pesticides and fertilizers under 
other patents.  Anyway, if you have read this far thanks for humoring me. 
It is off my chest.  I will get back to the coffee conversation.
Take care folks ... Blake

20) From: Blake D. Ratliff
I am sure glad God created coffee.  Man has also created some tasty ways to 
prepare it.  Perhaps if we assume that God created us in His image then we 
would be creative as He is.  And we as humans certainly are wired to create! 
I believe that our creative natures combined with less than pure motives 
often create results that are tainted.  Sometimes even with decent motives 
we just plain screw up.  Compare and contrast for a moment on what you think 
the motive of Sweet Marias is compared to Starbucks.  The wholesome results 
we enjoy speaks for itself.
Blake

21) From: Lynne
Blake -
You said it all, much better than I could have. I did quite a bit of 
research last semester for a paper - and I was shocked at what I 
learned.
GM foods do not feed the poor. In fact, they do the opposite - big 
companies, for instance, have made it impossible for farmers to grow 
their own seed. Instead, they have to buy the GM seeds every year, 
something that poor farmers across the world can't afford. The money is 
going to the mega-companies, all the while the poor get poorer. Some 
farmers, in fact, have committed suicide because of the impossible 
situation that have resulted.
Yes, this is all a result of corruption and greed - at the core is 
taking power away from the poorest of the poor. It's all very ugly, 
IMO.
Lynne
On Oct 27, 2006, at 11:05 PM, Blake D. Ratliff wrote:
<Snip>

22) From: Scot Murphy
On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Aaron wrote:
<Snip>http://www.ratebeer.com/Beer/watneys-red-barrel/4163/Commercial Description:
Watney's Red Barrel was a notorious British keg bitter of the 60's  
and early 70's. It was so bad that it prompted several journalists to  =
form CAMRA to protest against it. A pale lager with the name Watney's  =
Red Barrel was being brewed by Sleeman up to at least 1997.
If anyone has rated Watney's Red Barrel in the past 30 years it would  =
be the Sleeman lager rather than the British keg beer.
Scot "bleedin' Watney's Red Barrel" Murphy
---
"And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for  
American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If  
you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or  =
an undocumented immigrant or an 'unlawful enemy combatant' — exactly  =
how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to  
prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to  
help you?"
	--Keith Olbermann, 10-18-06

23) From: Larry English
Well, Aaron, you are correct as far as you go - but one statement raises an
issue ...
  "Food plants are bred / modified to be more disease resistant, insect
resistant, ensuring a better harvest."
  And therein lies the rub - the modifications produce more crops but may
well create problems for human consumption of those crops.  Rushing these
products to market without a significant amount of testing and analysis
could give us some pretty nasty long-term issues.  Think in terms of
antibiotics that are widely used but create the opportunity for bacteria to
evolve into non-treatable forms.  It is becoming easier to make genetic
modifications to accomplish a very wide range of effects, but we do not
usually understand the total effect of the changes, but rather test for
expected effects only.
  Caution is - should be - the watchword.
Larry
On 10/27/06, Aaron  wrote:
<Snip>

24) From: Scot Murphy
On Oct 27, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Aaron wrote:
<Snip>
Aaron, you make some good points, but I believe that some of the work  =
being done today isn't as responsible or careful as hybrid-creating  
of yesteryear. Back then, one grafted and cross-bred and developed  
worthwhile traits; now we are going directly into the genes and  
mixing in things that were never able to be mixed in before, such as  
mouse genes and whatnot. There's no history of the behavior of mouse  
genes in tomatoes. We have no idea what mutations they may cause.  
There is too much unpredictability.
As far as cross-pollination goes, there are most definitely bad  
effects. A new strain of GE corn is developed for maximum ethanol  
production and is inedible for humans, and those who developed it  
promised it would not escape into "the wild." But it did, and it has  
been cross-pollinating with corn intended for human consumption. Now,  =
as far as I know (and I could be wrong), previous strains of corn  
used for ethanol have not been inedible by humans, so this marks a  
new benchmark in genetic engineering. (Although I know some varieties  =
of corn are inedible to humans, such as feed corn for cows.) But  
this, as far as I know, is beyond a harder hull or starchier  
endosperm. I admit to being uninformed as to why this is inedible to  
humans, but it is simply something the human system can't digest, and  =
now it's spreading its pollen to corn meant for us.
Of course, there are a great many examples of plants unleashed in an  
unfamiliar environment and, due to lack of natural inhibitors,  
succeeding to the point of choking out native species. Kudzu is one,  
Spanish moss another. They were introduced into alien ecosystems to  
solve problems in the short term and became long-term problems. What  
we are doing, though, with GE crops, is creating entirely new  
varieties whose new habits are unknown and releasing them (or  
accidentally allowing them) into the wild. It's not like developing a  =
high-protein rice or a triticale that withstands drought. It's  
producing a plant that has different potentials, some unknown, and  
trusting it not to genetically modify existing crops with unknown,  
potentially detrimental, effects.
We have reasons to be afraid of "Frankenfoods," though hysteria is  
not called for either. What is needed is reason and investigation as  
well as responsible research and approach.
Scot "dueling reasonabilities" Murphy
---
"And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for  
American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If  
you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or  =
an undocumented immigrant or an 'unlawful enemy combatant' — exactly  =
how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to  
prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to  
help you?"
	--Keith Olbermann, 10-18-06

25) From: Aaron
Thank you for the info scott, I guess that explains why I can't find it 
anymore.  I didn't think it was that bad, but then again, compared to 
american beers, anything british is probably better.
Aaron in search of another barrel.

26) From: Tom Bellhouse
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
I remember a short descriptive phrase from my botany classe (an eon ago) =
that summarizes a big part of the GM problem:  "Planted and escaped."  =
You'd be amazed at the number of "wild" plants that were introduced as =
ornamental or agricultural plants.  
Tom in GA

27) From: Scot Murphy
On Oct 28, 2006, at 9:31 AM, Tom Bellhouse wrote:
<Snip>
Not when we saw the battle in Illinois over purple loosestrife. Like  
water hyacinth in Florida, it was brought in as an ornamental (IIRC).  
It "escaped" and started taking over roadways, fields, and anywhere  
else it could. It's been beaten back, but you can still see it in the  
summer. It was like the Martian red weed: it was EVERYWHERE.
Scot "not unlike actual Martians" Murphy

28) From: Barbara C. Greenspon
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Though this certainly should go off list, I am grateful for the 
discussion.  What a good group of people.  In my mind, there is a 
difference between using science for the betterment of society and 
having money made off of it (medicine, which is getting out of hand, 
too), and using science for making money, to the detriment of society.  
We have done very well for eons without GM foods.  Medicines have 
(mostly) helped our standard of living, removing pain and death, etc., 
being the goal.
Barbara
Lynne wrote:
<Snip>

29) From: Larry English
I find myself on both sides of this discussion, I'm afraid.  Definite
dangers lurk in the world of genetically modified crops and foods,
particularly when, as Barbara says, "science is used for making money, to
the detriment of society."  But I'm in total disagreement to the next
sentence: "We have done very well for eons without GM foods."  Famines
triggered by extreme weather conditions or by insect or disease infestations
have plagued humankind as long as agriculture has existed, and genetic
modifications have been able to address some of these - but not without
introducing new risks.  So caution and integrity should be the watchwords,
IMHO, rather than just saying "no."
The big problem, though, is that it can take decades to determine safety in
any new food crop, primarily with regard to cancer but also to severe
allergenic reactions, both factors being themselves genetically influenced
and thus difficult to test without putting human subjects at risk.
So - it's a tough one, no easy answers, let's just be careful and honest,
and let's not judge success in this area by profits but by improved
availability of nutritious, safe, and affordable food.
Larry


HomeRoast Digest