White House Chef Says Future Food To Be Made From Chemicals, Not Real Food Ingredients

[knucklehead bob]

Monday, July 30, 2012

(NaturalNews) Every two years, a consortium of Europe's most active minds converges at the Euroscience Open Forum to discuss the latest advancements in scientific research and innovation. But this year's meeting, which was held in Dublin, Ireland, featured a disturbing workshop held by White House executive pastry chef Bill Yosses, who explained and demonstrated to audience members how the food of the future will not actually contain real food, but rather various combinations of lab-created chemicals that mimic food.

 

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036626_cooking_chemicals_ingredients.html#ixzz228GxQDYf

 

Soylent Green anyone ? ! ?

[MORE COWBELL]

"SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!"

[free country 420]

yea it wont really be food because they destroyed the real food by geneticly modifing every darn thing

[CaveatLector]

GMO will be the only way to go in the future. If the world population continues to rise at its present rate there will not be enough real estate to plant the foods necessary to feed the world in 100 years. GMO plants are developed to increase a plant's resistance to disease and drought as well as to increase production.

 

We either need to get our population under control or accept that we need new and better ways to produce the food necessary to feed the planet. If you think free range chickens and non-hormone fed milk is expensive now wait until the earth's population grows exponentially in the next century. Do you realize that the world's population has DOUBLED in 50 years?

[AmishRnot4ganja]

I for one can't wait until genetically modified marijuana that produces 2 liter buds from a 24" plant hits the market.

[MightyMightyMezz]

GMO will be the only way to go in the future. If the world population continues to rise at its present rate there will not be enough real estate to plant the foods necessary to feed the world in 100 years. GMO plants are developed to increase a plant's resistance to disease and drought as well as to increase production.

 

We either need to get our population under control or accept that we need new and better ways to produce the food necessary to feed the planet. If you think free range chickens and non-hormone fed milk is expensive now wait until the earth's population grows exponentially in the next century. Do you realize that the world's population has DOUBLED in 50 years?

 

Local food production is the way to go. There are untold acres of grass-covered yards right here in our own country where people could grow their own high-quality, natural food, not to mention the millions of acres of land government pays farmers not to farm. It's our philosophy that requires changing, not the natural genetics of our food.

 

The number one source of calories in the USA is high-fructose corn syrup. That's disgusting and incredibly stupid. Let's destroy our health and our land with a monocrop that is so difficult to work with it takes Dr. Frankenstein to produce a variety that works, but only with tons of toxic pesticides.

Edited July 30, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Local food production is the way to go. There are untold acres of grass-covered yards right here in our own country where people could grow their own high-quality, natural food, not to mention the millions of acres of land government pays farmers not to farm. It's our philosophy that requires changing, not the natural genetics of our food.

 

The number one source of calories in the USA is high-fructose corn syrup. That's disgusting and incredibly stupid. Let's destroy our health and our land with a monocrop that is so difficult to work with it takes Dr. Frankenstein to produce a variety that works, but only with tons of toxic pesticides.

 

 

Right on, dude.

[imiubu]

Local food production is the way to go. There are untold acres of grass-covered yards right here in our own country where people could grow their own high-quality, natural food, not to mention the millions of acres of land government pays farmers not to farm. It's our philosophy that requires changing, not the natural genetics of our food.

 

The number one source of calories in the USA is high-fructose corn syrup. That's disgusting and incredibly stupid. Let's destroy our health and our land with a monocrop that is so difficult to work with it takes Dr. Frankenstein to produce a variety that works, but only with tons of toxic pesticides.

 

Well stated Mezz.

[imiubu]

GMO will be the only way to go in the future. If the world population continues to rise at its present rate there will not be enough real estate to plant the foods necessary to feed the world in 100 years. GMO plants are developed to increase a plant's resistance to disease and drought as well as to increase production.

 

We either need to get our population under control or accept that we need new and better ways to produce the food necessary to feed the planet. If you think free range chickens and non-hormone fed milk is expensive now wait until the earth's population grows exponentially in the next century. Do you realize that the world's population has DOUBLED in 50 years?

 

Do you even realize how negative your posts are?

[HEMP4LIFE]

hopefully the chem-food dosent produce the same results as the chem-weed has

people chewing on faces and dogs

[MightyMightyMezz]

Can you imagine mass produced 3D printer "phood" made with food-like substances? That's the kind of thing that puts me in that sardonic mood I am looking for.

[CaveatLector]

Do you even realize how negative your posts are?

Yes, I suppose I could dismiss the population crisis as something that will not have a major impact on the earth in one more century.

Edited July 31, 2012 by CaveatLector

[CaveatLector]

Local food production is the way to go. There are untold acres of grass-covered yards right here in our own country where people could grow their own high-quality, natural food, not to mention the millions of acres of land government pays farmers not to farm. It's our philosophy that requires changing, not the natural genetics of our food.

 

The number one source of calories in the USA is high-fructose corn syrup. That's disgusting and incredibly stupid. Let's destroy our health and our land with a monocrop that is so difficult to work with it takes Dr. Frankenstein to produce a variety that works, but only with tons of toxic pesticides.

 

I agree. However, I don't see the world changing its philosophy without first being forced. Furthermore, if the world's population only grows at the same rate that it did in the last 50 years then we will have 16 billion people in this world in 50 years--twice as many as today. With that population you cannot just assume that we can grow twice as much food. Why? Because our infrastruture will have to double as well. That means twice the sewage treatment plants. Twice the power grid. Twice the Piggly Wigglys. Real estate will be eaten up exponentially. And yes, some farmers are paid not to grow, but let's face it, it isn't because the WORLD doesn't need the food. So having those farmers grow and distributing their crop would put how much of a dent in the world's hunger problem?

 

Our country is definitely on a sugar high. That does need to stop. But we also need some sort of population controls.

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

Yes, I suppose I could dismiss the population crisis as something that will have a major impact on the earth in one more century.

 

I think over-population is a myth. Seems to me we could easily sustain way more people while improving conditions by simply utilizing our intelligence. We allow Cannabis to be made illegal for crying out loud.

[CaveatLector]

I think over-population is a myth. Seems to me we could easily sustain way more people while improving conditions by simply utilizing our intelligence. We allow Cannabis to be made illegal for crying out loud.

So you think the earth's capacity is infinite? Not just that it can hold an infinite number of people but has the resources as well?

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

 

I agree. However, I don't see the world changing its philosophy without first being forced. Furthermore, if the world's population only grows at the same rate that it did in the last 50 years then we will have 16 billion people in this world in 50 years--twice as many as today. With that population you cannot just assume that we can grow twice as much food. Why? Because our infrastruture will have to double as well. That means twice the sewage treatment plants. Twice the power grid. Twice the Piggly Wigglys. Real estate will be eaten up exponentially. And yes, some farmers are paid not to grow, but let's face it, it isn't because the WORLD doesn't need the food. So having those farmers grow and distributing their crop would put how much of a dent in the world's hunger problem?

 

Our country is definitely on a sugar high. That does need to stop. But we also need some sort of population controls.

 

Well move to China if you want population control. You know who else likes to harp on it? GHW Bush. That's whose side you are on, the side of a fascist creep or should I say some creepy fascists.

 

You don't seem to get it. No more Piggly fukcing Wigglies. That's garbage. It's all about individuals and groups locally producing and distributing natural food. Local power production with concentrated solar power. Living with wisdom and intelligence - give it a chance.

Edited July 31, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz

[AmishRnot4ganja]

I think over-population is a myth. Seems to me we could easily sustain way more people while improving conditions by simply utilizing our intelligence. We allow Cannabis to be made illegal for crying out loud.

 

Overpopulation a myth? We are rapidly approaching the magic number of people above which the earth can not sustain. The question now is: Do we try to modify nature to allow earth to sustain more people or do we work with nature by controlling the amount of people allowed to inhabit the planet? There is no question that we are approaching the limit, but getting people to cooperate in controlling population growth is a challenge that I really doubt will be met with much success. I guess we can consider ourselves lucky to have lived in a world where the earth was able to sustain its population.

 

On the flip side however, I read a interesting piece of information a while ago. Someone had calculated that all 6 billion people of the world could live in the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as that of New York City.

[imiubu]

Yes, I suppose I could dismiss the population crisis as something that will not have a major impact on the earth in one more century.

 

Your smugness amuses me.

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

 

Overpopulation a myth? We are rapidly approaching the magic number of people above which the earth can not sustain. The question now is: Do we try to modify nature to allow earth to sustain more people or do we work with nature by controlling the amount of people allowed to inhabit the planet? There is no question that we are approaching the limit, but getting people to cooperate in controlling population growth is a challenge that I really doubt will be met with much success. I guess we can consider ourselves lucky to have lived in a world where the earth was able to sustain its population.

 

On the flip side however, I read a interesting piece of information a while ago. Someone had calculated that all 6 billion people of the world could live in the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as that of New York City.

 

Why are we approaching the limit? There is tons of space. We can grow better and higher quality food. I'm pretty sure if we are smart we can get a handle on desalination so we can have more water. Why can't we fix our power problem? We are just going to be pushed around by Big Oil forever? Where is that Bruce Hornsby song?

Edited July 31, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz

[CaveatLector]

Well move to China if you want population control. You know who else likes to harp on it? GHW Bush. That's whose side you are on, the side of a fascist creep or should I say some creepy fascists.

 

You don't seem to get it. No more Piggly fukcing Wigglies. That's garbage. It's all about individuals and groups locally producing and distributing natural food. Local power production with concentrated solar power. Living with wisdom and intelligence - give it a chance.

I also drink coffee. A famous fascist drank coffee--Mussolini! His famous quote when he invaded Greece--"I'll be drinking coffee at the Acropolis in 2 hours."

I guess that makes me a fascist too!

[CaveatLector]

So what you are saying is that an infinite number of people can inhabit the earth. Overpopulation is a myth. 8 billion today, 16 in 50 years and 32 billion in 100 years. No problem though, our great great grandkids will just have to learn how to stand for long periods.

[MightyMightyMezz]

I also drink coffee. A famous fascist drank coffee--Mussolini! His famous quote when he invaded Greece--"I'll be drinking coffee at the Acropolis in 2 hours."

I guess that makes me a fascist too!

 

No, I mean you actually seem to be philosophically aligned with fascists. You believe population control and you like companies like Monsanto just like Bush and those kind of people.

[MightyMightyMezz]

So what you are saying is that an infinite number of people can inhabit the earth. Overpopulation is a myth. 8 billion today, 16 in 50 years and 32 billion in 100 years. No problem though, our great great grandkids will just have to learn how to stand for long periods.

 

Yeah, obviously that is what I meant - an infinite number. Why am I even talking to this person?

[CaveatLector]

No, I mean you actually seem to be philosophically aligned with fascists. You believe population control and you like companies like Monsanto just like Bush and those kind of people.

You're a real clown. Did I say I like Monsanto? Did I say I like genetically modifed food? You're beyond a clown.

 

And yes, I do believe in sensible and voluntary population control. Why? Because it affects me right now? NO! Because it affects people in 100-200 years. I have the ability to think long term and I have compassion for people.

Edited July 31, 2012 by CaveatLector

[CaveatLector]

Yeah, obviously that is what I meant - an infinite number. Why am I even talking to this person?

What you said was overpopulation is a myth. So what is overpopulation then? You get to define that? At what point should people be concerned about population? Maybe when we have 100 billion? Or is that not enough? At what point can we safely think about population control without be called a fascist????

 

I bet people who talk about overpopulation are conspiring against something....

Edited July 31, 2012 by CaveatLector