Bye bye vanilla ice cream?

[VGThuy]

That post reminds me of my Astrophysics professor always getting a random dig at chemists. He always made digs like don't ask a chemist if you want to have a discussion of a "why" things are happening, they're just happy if put a blue liquid into a yellow liquid and it turns into a green liquid and think that's good enough. I really never knew what prompted it except I found the idea of hard science professors getting into these sorts of squabbles entertaining.

 

[Vagabond]

wtheck is going on in this thread??

We've been overdosing on vanilla and, in our intoxicated state, agitating for social change. Why do you ask?

Details here:

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/17926/how-much-vanilla-will-kill-a-person
https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-206/vanilla
http://ispub.com/IJFP/4/1/3199
https://www.poison.org/articles/2009-dec/kitchen-surprises-and-cautions

 

[quartz]

The rest of you can have all the vanilla - waaay too sweet and the smell of it in perfumes makes me gag. Not a fan of caramel either but butterscotch is okay sometimes.
I'll stay on TeamChocolate - gotta bag of extra dark Lindt truffles sitting right here on my desk that my kiddos gave me but my cats didn't give me anything for mother's day so I might just be betting them on umm, something. Is this an actual thing? Betting cats?
My parents never paid for me to party for 4 years - they made me buy my own drugs - how come other kids got all the good parents?? wuzrobbed!!

 

[ballettmaus]

. Maybe the next step is to say "Don't worry about climate change and what causes it - we'll adapt! We'll figure out where to grow our coffee, cacoa and vanilla! We'll enjoy the warmer weather!"

According to this February article, Pruitt is already there.

“We know humans have most flourished during times of what, warming trends,” Pruitt said Tuesday during an interview on KSNV, an NBC affiliate in Las Vegas. “So I think there’s assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing. Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018? That’s fairly arrogant for us to think that we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sarily-is-a-bad-thing/?utm_term=.288b5db02982


I have to admit, I wondered if vanilla can't be grown elsewhere, too. Although, I didn't think it could just be grown in greenhouses, I wondered if there aren't similar climate and soil conditions elsewhere. The earth is so big and used to be one continent, so I thought that it might be a possibility. I really don't want to imagine a world without vanilla or even worse (for me) cacoa/chocolate

 

[BittyBug]

I was wondering if Spun Silver's post is part of a new right-wing response to climate change. First they tried to deny that climate change was occurring. When it got to the point that they couldn't completely deny it was happening, they switched to saying it wasn't caused by human activity. Maybe the next step is to say "Don't worry about climate change and what causes it - we'll adapt! We'll figure out where to grow our coffee, cacoa and vanilla! We'll enjoy the warmer weather!" Combine that line of thinking with the standard-issue right-wing attacks on higher education and you get Spun Silver's post.

This is exactly where the climate change deniers are at these days. Because that way they don't have to effect any behavioral changes and can just keep on keeping on with their old ways. Yup, don't bother me with all this science nonsense.

And I seriously hope there is global warming in hell so that Pruitt can be extra roasty toasty when he finds himself there. Just keep kicking the can down the road because you won't be here in 2100, and f*ck your kids and grandkids. All so your oil buddies can make a few extra $$$$.

 

[rfisher]

I have to admit, I wondered if vanilla can't be grown elsewhere, too. Although, I didn't think it could just be grown in greenhouses, I wondered if there aren't similar climate and soil conditions elsewhere. The earth is so big and used to be one continent, so I thought that it might be a possibility. I really don't want to imagine a world without vanilla or even worse (for me) cacoa/chocolate

If it could, it already would be grown elsewhere. The fact that Pangaea existed has nothing to do with specific requirements for plant evolution and growth. It's a combination of temperature, moisture, sunlight, humidity, wind, soil composition and pollinators even on a microclimate scale. A small variance can make the difference in sustainability. Even your backyard garden will vary based on microclimates

 

[snoopy]

Well peeps did already create imitation vanilla but it doesn't taste as rich. Just like fake meat, I'm sure there will be lots of lab grown replacements, that will be close but no cigar.

 

[BittyBug]

Just like fake meat, I'm sure there will be lots of lab grown replacements, that will be close but no cigar.

Again, please don't confuse meat substitutes that use tofu or tempeh or other ingredients with lab-grown meat. By most accounts, the taste of lab-grown meat is indistinguishable from meat taken from a slaughtered animal.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...n-meat-wins-taste-testers-approval-2017-03-15

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/ric...tes-invested-in-this-clean-meat-start-up.html

 

[snoopy]

Again, please don't confuse meat substitutes that use tofu or tempeh or other ingredients with lab-grown meat. By most accounts, the taste of lab-grown meat is indistinguishable from meat taken from a slaughtered animal.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...n-meat-wins-taste-testers-approval-2017-03-15

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/ric...tes-invested-in-this-clean-meat-start-up.html

Okay they tested a deep fried chicken tender - whose flavor is largely masked by all the greasy carby goodness. I'm still dubious.

 

[BittyBug]

Okay they tested a deep fried chicken tender - whose flavor is largely masked by all the greasy carby goodness. I'm still dubious.

That is one example. If you are interested, you can google further. There are more tests out there.

And considering how many people live on chicken tenders and fast food, if lab meat can match up with other fast food, that's a good start.

 

[Japanfan]

@MacMadame isn’t talking about Tofurkey or Not Dogs, she’s talking about clean meat, which is lab grown meat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat

Brings to mind the self-reproducing chicken parts in Margaret Atwood's 'Oryx and Crake' trilogy.

It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Even migrating to one or two plant based meals a week would make a big difference.

I do that already, have for a long time. And if I eat meat, it's only once a day.

 

[MacMadame]

Fake meat isn't meat and won't get meat lovers to stop eating meat.

It isn't today. Do you think we'll never get better at making it? I think we will as we've gotten better at making lots of things.

@MacMadame isn’t talking about Tofurkey or Not Dogs, she’s talking about clean meat, which is lab grown meat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat

Definitely something like that. Or maybe something we haven't even thought of yet.

 

[genevieve]

This is exactly where the climate change deniers are at these days. Because that way they don't have to effect any behavioral changes and can just keep on keeping on with their old ways.

Unfortunately, it's not only climate change deniers who don't want to change behaviors. A lot of people who know there is climate change caused my humans have a hard time giving up, or even reducing, things that contribute to climate change. I'm including myself in this, as I looooove me some AC.

When it comes to foods becoming more scarce or disappearing, are people willing to adapt their diet to foods that are sustainable, while endangered foods are still available? I think diet shift is a better option than cultivating fake meats or whatever, because growing meat in a lab just continues the notion that we should just have what we want because we want it and we've got the money and technology to have it. Using a lot of energy and resources to create a synthetic version of something we've destroyed is not going to support behavior change.

 

[Japanfan]

Using a lot of energy and resources to create a synthetic version of something we've destroyed is not going to support behavior change.

The food industry arguably creates behavior change itself, but not in a good way. For example, there is sugar in so many food products, and a lot of people are addicted or sort of addicted to sugar. I don't know if it an actual physical addiction, but did hear once that sugar and alcohol share biochemical properties (too lazy to look that up at the moment).

Sustainability is the opposite of capitalism, which is predicated upon exploitation and profit. Sure, more and more people are into organic foods or 'slow foods' and at least paying lip service to the principle of sustainability.

If there is a buck to be made from synthetic meats, I'm sure that someone will produce those meats and people will eat it.

Personally I hate fast foods and wish that all fast food outlets would just disappear from the planet. But, people still eat a whole lot of fast foods. So, we are back to chicken parts replicating themselves.

 

[rfisher]

Unfortunately, it's not only climate change deniers who don't want to change behaviors. A lot of people who know there is climate change caused my humans have a hard time giving up, or even reducing, things that contribute to climate change. I'm including myself in this, as I looooove me some AC.

When it comes to foods becoming more scarce or disappearing, are people willing to adapt their diet to foods that are sustainable, while endangered foods are still available? I think diet shift is a better option than cultivating fake meats or whatever, because growing meat in a lab just continues the notion that we should just have what we want because we want it and we've got the money and technology to have it. Using a lot of energy and resources to create a synthetic version of something we've destroyed is not going to support behavior change.

Oooooo...dietary shifts are fascinating in archaeology. I looked at those a lot for my dissertation. And, the answer is people don't shift until they have to. There are definite associations with dietary changes and climate, but the changes lag behind the climate shifts. Humans are relatively short lived creatures and even with history to give us a longer view, we stay with what we've always done until a lot of people die. Then we shift. There's a really interesting study done on the Norse who attempted to settle Greenland during the 9th century (they tried to farm but the Little Ice Age made that a failure) compared to the indigenous population. The researchers looked at the presence/absence of ring seals in the archaeological middens. The crux of the matter was the Norse refused to change their world view and died. The Indigenous population survived. Of course they were later killed off when new settlers arrived with their disease load, but that's another story.

 

[MacMadame]

When it comes to foods becoming more scarce or disappearing, are people willing to adapt their diet to foods that are sustainable, while endangered foods are still available?

Given how popular the anti-scientific "no GMOs!" movement is, I'd say not only are they not willing to change their diets but many are fighting changes that will help make food production more sustainable.

For example, there is sugar in so many food products, and a lot of people are addicted or sort of addicted to sugar. I don't know if it an actual physical addiction, but did hear once that sugar and alcohol share biochemical properties (too lazy to look that up at the moment).

There are similarities but it doesn't really qualify as being physically addictive.

 

[Sylvia]

I finally got around to opening this thread...

another link:

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/03/economist-explains-4

Belated thanks for posting the link to this informative article.

Exacerbating the pressure, food giants such as Unilever, Mondelez International and Nestlé also increased their use of synthetic vanillin, which can be produced from reliable sources such as wood pulp and petroleum.

It was not until public tastes started shifting towards all things natural that farmers’ fortunes revived. From around 2011 some manufacturers began focusing once more on natural vanilla (while also changing their recipes to achieve the synthetic tastes with which consumers had grown familiar). In 2015 Nestlé announced plans to use only natural ingredients in five years, and others like Hershey’s followed suit. Demand has therefore surged, and with it prices—in part because vanilla vines take years to mature, and natural supplies are insufficient. Extreme weather, weak crop-security, and exporters who hoard inventory and speculate on further rises have also kept prices high.

Some good news for the future:

The situation should improve by next year, as the larger crop that was planted in response to increased demand comes to market.