"GM rice passes unexpected benefits to weeds" is true. This does not imply that this is occurring on any particular scale at any particular location, it just states that it happens. Which it does. When GM rice cross-breeds with a wild variety, the offspring has a benefit.
To this point, the weeds were not GM'd directly with the transgenic gene, they were cross-bred with GM rice crop. So, it is reasonable to suspect this is likely to happen in the wild. I wonder how difficult it is to collect a reasonably meaningful survey of wild crops to detect this occurrence, and if anyone has attempted it.
As I have read it (in the paper itself), the authors cross-bred the rice & weedy rice, then split up the following generation of plants into those that expressed or did not express the modified gene. So the comparison was amongst hybrids. Still, it may be that this division has an inherent bias as to the presence or absence of other beneficial genes from the food crop, so it is interesting to question what the mechanism behind the reported benefits were.
The take-home point, however, is still that the hybrids containing the modified gene possessed an advantage over hybrids not containing that gene.
Likewise, assuming that anything GM is going to be more dangerous is rather shortsighted.
Perhaps, as stated, sure. In the same breath, though, I'd also call not devoting just a little more of our finite resources toward scrutiny of the effects of rapid GM (i.e. transgenic methods over cross-breeding) similarly short-sighted.
That must be some kinky pr0n you're watching...
(Hint for the slow
I tried bear meat stew, and thought it was quite delicious. Both anecdotes, neither fully answers my question.
The poisonous parts tend to be the leaves, not the fruit.
My understanding is that there are plenty of poisonous fruits / berries, many in the same family as human-cultivated varieties that we now eat. But I don't really know the distribution. Also, not all poisonous leaves taste bad or bitter (e.g. hemlock), but I do believe those are the exception to the rule.
Humans, and primates generally, don't often graze on random leaves.
Well, I don't know about gorillas, but humans have plenty of leaves in our diet and they had to have gotten there somehow--lots of trial and error, I'm guessing. Why can't the same be applied toward creepy crawlies? (Again, I'm guessing it did, given the prevalnce of bugs in some cuisines.) So I don't see "there are some poisonous ones" as being a unique feature. Maybe there are more poisonous / unsanitary bugs overall so that made it not worth the effort? Maybe there are more look-alikes that made it harder to catalog (though if you've ever tried to use a mushroom key that factor doesn't seem to have dissuaded us either).
From your wikipedia link: The first reliable evidence of mushroom consumption dates to several hundred years BC in China. The Chinese value mushrooms for MEDICINAL PROPERTIES
Also from the link (the following two sentences in fact): "Ancient Romans and Greeks, particularly the upper classes, used mushrooms for culinary purposes. Food tasters were employed by Roman Emperors to ensure that mushrooms were safe to eat." There's nothing modern about eating mushrooms, we can just learn a lot more about the toxins with modern techniques.
Mushrooms are neither sweet, nor salty, nor slightly sour. Those are hallmarks of "food".
I just don't know why that necessarily means it's an acquired taste. Why is umami, whether in its own right or in combination, not equivalently "naturally attractive" as any other taste sensation? Glutemate is found in meats and veggies too. Conversely, plenty of things may not be perceived as pleasant upon first try; a hypothesis I've read regarding this is that kids have higher sensitivity to different tastes so many common foods for adults are overwhelming and therefore somewhat aversive (e.g., here but that's just a random link I found on this topic). I just don't see where you're basing some of your statements from.
Umami (glutamate) is debated as to whether it's a basic taste
I thought it was pretty accepted at this point that it was a basic taste in its own right. Wikipedia points to several references claiming so at least. Maybe it doesn't elicit a specific perceptual response on its own (I don't know), is that what you mean?
Lastly, non-mushroom fungus we eat includes blue-cheese cultures and cuitlacoche
On the other hand, one could make the case for the antimicrobial effects of additives outside the body. F.i.: adding a lot of pepper to a dish helps kill off a plethora of bacteria before you eat the dish, but it will also kill friendly gut bacteria after having been ingested. Considering that the distribution of different bacteria strains in the food is very probably skewed towards unfriendly bacteria and the distribution of gut bacteria towards friendly bacteria, the net effect of the killing would be positive.
Good argument for eating fermented foods. Harmless or possibly beneficial bacteria do the job of keeping other pathogens and toxin-producers at bay, skewing the distribution heavily in our favor. I have a jar of homemade kimchi in my fridge right now, and another continuing to ferment in my pantry.
True, though a question that rises is: how much training material does it need and how good is it at linking (back-propagating) feelings of (dis)comfort to the input signals?
Definitely a good question. Part of me believes / wants to believe that I've become a little more sensitive to these sources of sensory interpretation. Another part of me thinks I'm bullshitting myself.
I stopped drinking it altogether (except as an additive) due to the effect it has on insulin levels
Interesting. I'll have to look into this more. But, oddly, I just started testing myself due to some developing symptoms over the last few months, and I actually think I'm just now starting to develop lactose intolerance...ugh
my inability to drink it in quantities smaller than 500ml at a time
Sipping on slightly-warmed milk, savoring the fatty flavor, makes this easier IMHO
I'm sure Kikko-man would agree with you
Show me, shoyu
Ok, one last thing you might be interested by. This conversation directly prompted me to do two things to this dish I cooked just a couple nights ago. 1. Deglaze the pan: I do sometimes do this, but often don't bother. 2. Add sugar to the degalze. Because it was just calling for it. I was going to add rice-wine vinegar, but then figured it was really just the sweetness I was after.
Well it used to be Western cultures were less squeamish about eating all parts of the animal as well.
We aren't really. In fact we're probably eat more parts of the animal than any other society in history.
That we eat it doesn't mean we're not squeamish about it. Go ahead and ask the guests at your next cookout how they like the pig-brain-stuffed hot dogs you're serving and see the reactions you get. I still know far too many people who insist on not seeing any part of a cut of meat that makes it look like it came from an animal.
Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin
