PDA

View Full Version : Beer...that fights cancer



Soyala_Amaya
09-05-2011, 05:51 PM
Technically it's a yeast strain designed to brew beer, but still...it's awesome!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016162238.htm

I want to brew something that can aid the world instead of just be delicious!

wildoates
09-05-2011, 06:10 PM
Nice! I need to get me some o'them yeasties and brew me some beer. :)

Chevette Girl
09-05-2011, 06:20 PM
Amusing... most people run screaming in the opposite direction as soon as you suggest genetically modified ANYTHING...

wildoates
09-05-2011, 06:24 PM
I'm not one of those people. :)

AToE
09-05-2011, 06:50 PM
I'm actually in favour of GMO when it doesn't get out of control and destroy the ecosystem or posion us who eat the stuff. I've done pretty extensive research on the subject and in all honesty, pandora's box is long since opened and it can't be closed now.

The alternative to GMO when it comes to crops is usually pesticides - so I'll take my chances with the new biology messing with my health because I KNOW the pesticides will, and as far as damage to the environment goes, GMO can do a lot, but it doesn't seem to compare to spraying poison on the feilds. If I lived in a poor country I'd do whatever it took to make my crops grow, and a choice between poison and GMO is a pretty clear choice!

Also pretty much every single thing we eat that doesn't specifically say non-GMO on it is almost guaranteed to be GMO, that's how extensive GMO is today.

Wow, apparently I'm very opinionated about this! Sorry for the rant! ;D

When it applies to yeast I literally couldn't care less about GMO unless something really truely messed up results from it!

wildoates
09-05-2011, 06:59 PM
Humans have been modifying plants and animals to our benefit for thousands of years, it's different now with the speed we can do it. And yeah, Pandora's box has long since been opened whether we like it or not.

I'm tickled with science competitions like this, though. I love seeing undergrads do actual science. When I was in college, extracting DNA from cells was something labs across campus were doing--now we do it in our high school biology classes with some alcohol, detergent, and sand. It's ridiculously easy, but it was like magic not that long ago.

Soyala_Amaya
09-05-2011, 06:59 PM
Hmm...I can either have regular crops that require pesticides, huge amounts of fertilizer and resources to grow, and take up lots of land. OR I can get behind scientists and genetic modification, and have the same stalk of wheat produce 3 times as much product, on half the resources, and eventually can even do stuff like this article. Imagine having your childhood shots in some apple slices with peanut butter. Or broccoli that has a retrograde virus that attacks bacteria that has specifically gone antibacterial resistant. Food that saves lives in third world countries because it doesn't need the same amount of water, or is actually designed to flourish in drought conditions.

BEER THAT FIGHTS CANCER AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE!

AToE, I am so with you on the rant.

AToE
09-05-2011, 07:05 PM
One thing I will say is that GMO is indeed very dangerous, because we're making giant leaps with these organisms and we simply aren't really sure what we're doing yet. We could create wheat that causes autism, we could create canola that gets out of hand and out competes everything else in the ecosystem. We could create flowers that kill all the bees.

But it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. GMO is highly dangerous, but we're gonna do it anyways and it seems to be better than pesticides/herbicides.

Good to know I'm not alone on this one!

TheAlchemist
09-05-2011, 08:01 PM
They did get the Gold for this:
http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=11780
I'd like to see a more current up-date...with how I can find these yeasties...

TheAlchemist
09-05-2011, 08:07 PM
The alternative to GMO when it comes to crops is usually pesticides - so I'll take my chances with the new biology messing with my health because I KNOW the pesticides will, and as far as damage to the environment goes, GMO can do a lot, but it doesn't seem to compare to spraying poison on the feilds. If I lived in a poor country I'd do whatever it took to make my crops grow, and a choice between poison and GMO is a pretty clear choice!



Hmmm...I don't believe these are our only 2 choices. In Biodinamic farming planting a very biodiverse farm can work better than either of the above choices.

Guinlilly
09-05-2011, 08:29 PM
One thing I will say is that GMO is indeed very dangerous, because we're making giant leaps with these organisms and we simply aren't really sure what we're doing yet. We could create wheat that causes autism, we could create canola that gets out of hand and out competes everything else in the ecosystem. We could create flowers that kill all the bees.

But it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. GMO is highly dangerous, but we're gonna do it anyways and it seems to be better than pesticides/herbicides.

Good to know I'm not alone on this one!

The one thing you have a litstle wrong here is thinking that GMO = nonuse of pesticide/herbicide. GMO corn & wheat was created to be resistant to Roundup usage, because the Roundup would have killed it along with the pests. I'm not a fan at the rate at which we adopt GMO crops, we still don't know their long term effects on animals, on people, and on the earth.

AToE
09-06-2011, 01:19 AM
Hmmm...I don't believe these are our only 2 choices. In Biodinamic farming planting a very biodiverse farm can work better than either of the above choices.


The one thing you have a litstle wrong here is thinking that GMO = nonuse of pesticide/herbicide. GMO corn & wheat was created to be resistant to Roundup usage, because the Roundup would have killed it along with the pests. I'm not a fan at the rate at which we adopt GMO crops, we still don't know their long term effects on animals, on people, and on the earth.

Oh no, don't get me wrong that those are our only options, but those are our only options that are in widespread use and likely to see widespread use any time soon. The vast majority of people farming are looking to get yeild, at all reasonable (their own definition of reasonable) costs (and I grew up on a farm so I can say that!) And Guinlilly I totally agree that GMO doesn't mean no pesticides - just that GMO is often an alternative and could be more of one in the future (developing crops that don't need pesticides/herbicides is a major focus of modern GMO).

Like I said above, GMO is dangerous as all hell, don't mistake me on that. But it is leading towards less poisons being used, and when it's the difference between life and death, extreme poverty and getting by, people are 99.9999999% of the time going to chose GMO or poisons or both. GMO has saved easily hundreds of thousands of human lives, whether it ends up killing even more of us in the long term is another question.

This isn't something I say lightly, I called it "pandora's box" for a good reason. But it's also something I've done a LOT of research on (initially for an essay and then it just turned into endless digging for personal curiosity).

GMO is here to stay, the vast majority of our food is already GMO and this planet is already heading towards a major humanbeing die-off, and everything I've learned has lead me to believe GMO is the least bad of all the horribly wrong roads we're going to go down (note that I say "going to" not "could") anyways. Trust me, I was initially very anti-GMO!

EDIT: and I know in the leftwing treehugger crowd (which is my crowd! So those terms are NOT meant insultingly!) this isn't a common opinion. I don't like having to have this opinion, we should just be a more responsible species... but we're not. And we're not going to be any time soon is the safe bet. Trying to get rid of GMO or even slow down it's use is a lost cause, has been for 30 years, it's time to focuss that energy into other areas that we're doing even more damage in is my point. We can fight a thousand losing battles at once, or pick them one at a time and start winning them.

Guinlilly
09-06-2011, 09:11 AM
EDIT: and I know in the leftwing treehugger crowd (which is my crowd! So those terms are NOT meant insultingly!) this isn't a common opinion. I don't like having to have this opinion, we should just be a more responsible species... but we're not. And we're not going to be any time soon is the safe bet. Trying to get rid of GMO or even slow down it's use is a lost cause, has been for 30 years, it's time to focuss that energy into other areas that we're doing even more damage in is my point. We can fight a thousand losing battles at once, or pick them one at a time and start winning them.

I'll say 'here, here' to this. It really is a losing battle, especially for those who do not wish or can not grow their own food. I choose to grow certain things on my own and use heirloom seeds when available because GMO isn't the only 'bad' thing happening to our food supply. Personally, I think we should be more worried about the narrowing of our food supplies especially when it comes to fruit and veggies to only one or two certain types of each fruit/veg. We see what that did to Ireland with the potato famine and I really think we need to go back to a wider variety of each vegetable. Besides, the flavor of a heirloom tomato like a Cherokee Purple is out of this world!

TheAlchemist
09-06-2011, 11:31 AM
Let's hear it for community supported agriculture.

Chevette Girl
09-07-2011, 10:28 AM
I'll say 'here, here' to this. It really is a losing battle, especially for those who do not wish or can not grow their own food.

Having studied in the environmental field, I'll tell you, it all boils down to money. Doesn't matter how many trees you hug (I do hug trees, by the way), if you can't get the big corporations who control the money to toss some towards being environmentally responsible, it's never going to happen. It's so depressing to be taught all these wonderful methods for cleaning up soil contamination messes, only to find that the majority of cleanups are "dig and dump", which means instead of treating the problem, they make it into someone else's problem (generally a landfill) because people want it done NOW instead of waiting a year for the hydrocarbon-eating bacteria to digest the oil spill...

Guinlilly
09-07-2011, 11:01 AM
Having studied in the environmental field, I'll tell you, it all boils down to money. Doesn't matter how many trees you hug (I do hug trees, by the way), if you can't get the big corporations who control the money to toss some towards being environmentally responsible, it's never going to happen. It's so depressing to be taught all these wonderful methods for cleaning up soil contamination messes, only to find that the majority of cleanups are "dig and dump", which means instead of treating the problem, they make it into someone else's problem (generally a landfill) because people want it done NOW instead of waiting a year for the hydrocarbon-eating bacteria to digest the oil spill...

:( I know, it's really sad. I have a friend studying Agri-Biotechnology and she basically says the same thing.

TheAlchemist
09-07-2011, 01:10 PM
:( I know, it's really sad. I have a friend studying Agri-Biotechnology and she basically says the same thing.

This is why I love getting my food from a small biodynamic organic farm where I can go to the farm and LOOK at what they're doing and how they're treating their animals etc.

Guinlilly
09-07-2011, 01:46 PM
This is why I love getting my food from a small biodynamic organic farm where I can go to the farm and LOOK at what they're doing and how they're treating their animals etc.

For the most part we try to do the same thing. We have a flock of hens for our own eggs and raised roosters for one year for meat. We have a bison farm near us where he raises them on grass and butchers them himself that we will be frequenting more often than before. We didn't do a CSA share this year because well, time got away from us to be honest, and before we knew it spring & summer were over. We do have our own garden, small (very small) vineyard, and berry patch that we raise and use for eating and mead. I mostly prefer to eat locally, that way you know where it came from and most importantly that it is in season, making it the best for you.

Chevette Girl
11-21-2011, 01:22 AM
Ok, I know this thread (http://www.gotmead.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11889)is more related to this article my husband sent me (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/headache-free-wine-.html), but I didn't want to flog something that's been dormant for 4 years...

So apparently this yeast ML01 is now available. It performs a regular fermentation as well as a malolactic fermentation all with one organism instead of adding another after fermentation. Technically, it's genetically modified but they at least combined traits that were already possible in yeasts. Interesting info about some of the processes that happen during aging, as well as why lots of people react to wines.

"In one of life’s cruel ironies, van Vuuren the wine lover is among the 30 per cent of the population who suffer headaches, the result of an allergic reaction to the bioamines like histamine in many younger reds and some whites. “Ah, the headaches,” he says. “It’s a big problem.” He’s invested seven years of research and eight years of testing to create a genetically modified yeast that simplifies wine production and eliminates the allergen. At present, most reds and chardonnay whites undergo a secondary fermentation during which a bacteria is added to stabilize the wine and reduce its harsh acidity. An unfortunate by-product is the bioamines van Vuurren can’t tolerate. Until now, sufferers settled for certain whites or splurged on well-aged reds where the allergens have degraded. “That’s why I drink old wines, but it’s so expensive,” he says. “Still, I love my wine and I endure a headache now and then for a good bottle.”

His new malolactic yeast—ML01—converts tart malic acid to softer lactic acid without need of secondary fermentation or the creation of allergens. Technically, the new yeast is a GMO—genetically modified organism—though it doesn’t introduce material not otherwise present in fermentation. It is approved by Canadian and U.S. regulators. Winemakers, a conservative lot, are overcoming initial qualms now that it is becoming commercially available, van Vuuren says."