I'm not sure if you just have a problem with organic food, or if this is just another reiteration of the tired old "if you're not trying to solve world hunger..." argument that gets used to criticize business ideas, but none of your points are really relevant to a company whose goal is to conveniently supply food to some of the richest cities in the world.
I think folks underestimate how much agricultural science and technology there is that doesn't fall under the very narrow categories of genetic engineering and chemical pesticides.
Modern society is built on top of the massive productivity improvements in agriculture that occurred before those were introduced, and there is plenty of room to innovate without using those methods.
GMO crops are limited[1] in Europe, yet they continue to be a leader in agricultural innovation.
They are 'effectively' banned in Europe though. As you can see from this infographic[1] approval of a GMO requires a political vote in the European Commission. This takes place after a very expensive risk assessment, and you can't get that money back. It's a tough business case to spend a ton of money on the risk assessment and then be at the whim of politicians who are publicly against the technology and know they win votes by being against it. My company makes GMO plants and until the situation changes there's no way we'd considered trying to get approval.
I conjecture they setup this system because an outright ban, which would be unscientific, would violate international trade treaties, instead they just use this process.
There quite a number specifically approved, which is inconsistent with an "effective" ban.
My company makes GMO plants and until the situation changes there's no way we'd considered trying to get approval.
Demonstrably -- that is, from the list of products that are approved -- that's not true of the major players in the industry (e.g., Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta) and even some smaller players.
Your company not having the resources to compete in a given market doesn't mean that that market has banned GMOs.
Those 2013 articles are outdated, Monsanto had a number of permitted approved this year. They either never withdrew their pending applications as those articles stated they intended to, or they got new applications approved in less than two years start to finish.
Of course there are other aspects to agricultural science and technology. However, there is nothing in this company that indicates they are advancing technology in any sense.
This is not to say they are not providing a worthwhile service. Even my local farmer's market provides a worthwhile service to me, but I don't call it a "tech market" just because some of the vendors have an online presence.
I see where you're coming from, but I think there are still a lot of possibilities for innovation here.
We waste 50% of food, with a big portion of that waste happening at the retail level. Food distribution services like Good Eggs have a pretty good shot at eliminating that waste.
Just to give an idea of the potential, attacking only food waste, without any other improvments to our food system, would comfortably allow earth to have a population of 10 billion.
The world produces ~three times as much food as we need to feed the world. Sure, we can push efficiency up further, but there is no real need for more calories and current practices create huge short and long term problems.
Not that fuel ethanol is drinkable, but you can get similar amounts of energy with other processes. Anyway, just the US ethanol production is over 2 gallons of per person on the planet. We are talking ~23,000 calories per person on the planet produced in a horribly inefficient process which is then burned.
You have to know that organic vs. Monsanto is a hot button to push, so throwing that into your initial comment is a sure way to derail the conversation into arguments.
If you really just want to talk about the "tech" label, then you should just stick to that point.
It's a hot topic, yes, but an important one. We are in an age where policy is decided by a scientifically illiterate public, with potentially devastating consequences for people outside the developed world. That needs to be confronted head on, not shied away from.
One of the problems is this idea that opposition to GMOs and growth in demand for organic food is fueled by scientific illiteracy.
There an oft-repeated lament of "I can't believe people think GMOs are unsafe!", but why not instead start by asking why purchases of organic food increase alongside increased education level?
start by asking why purchases of organic food increase alongside increased education level?
Is that true even if you control for income levels? Because it's not really a major mystery why the poor uneducated classes don't buy the (typically) more expensive organic food.
(Yes, I know there are wealthy uneducated people, and poor but educated people, but wealth and education are known to be correlated)
Comments
I'm not sure if you just have a problem with organic food, or if this is just another reiteration of the tired old "if you're not trying to solve world hunger..." argument that gets used to criticize business ideas, but none of your points are really relevant to a company whose goal is to conveniently supply food to some of the richest cities in the world.
Organic food is fine. But it is, fundamentally, an anti-technology approach to growing food. You should be free to eat it if you want.
The point is simply that firms that reject technology should not be described as "tech" companies simply because they use the Internet in some way.
I'm not suggesting in any way that companies should not exist if they don't solve planet-scale problems.
I think folks underestimate how much agricultural science and technology there is that doesn't fall under the very narrow categories of genetic engineering and chemical pesticides.
Modern society is built on top of the massive productivity improvements in agriculture that occurred before those were introduced, and there is plenty of room to innovate without using those methods.
GMO crops are limited[1] in Europe, yet they continue to be a leader in agricultural innovation.
[1] edited, see dragonwriter's correction
No, they aren't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modi...
They are 'effectively' banned in Europe though. As you can see from this infographic[1] approval of a GMO requires a political vote in the European Commission. This takes place after a very expensive risk assessment, and you can't get that money back. It's a tough business case to spend a ton of money on the risk assessment and then be at the whim of politicians who are publicly against the technology and know they win votes by being against it. My company makes GMO plants and until the situation changes there's no way we'd considered trying to get approval.
I conjecture they setup this system because an outright ban, which would be unscientific, would violate international trade treaties, instead they just use this process.
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/docs/decision_making_process....
There quite a number specifically approved, which is inconsistent with an "effective" ban.
Demonstrably -- that is, from the list of products that are approved -- that's not true of the major players in the industry (e.g., Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta) and even some smaller players.
Your company not having the resources to compete in a given market doesn't mean that that market has banned GMOs.
Even Monsanto is giving up: http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/18/monsanto-re-thinks-its-gm...
http://www.gmeducation.org/government-and-corporations/p2134...
Those 2013 articles are outdated, Monsanto had a number of permitted approved this year. They either never withdrew their pending applications as those articles stated they intended to, or they got new applications approved in less than two years start to finish.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4843_en.htm
These aren't approvals to grow the crops in the EU, which is the core issue, they are approvals to import products grown elsewhere.
Of course there are other aspects to agricultural science and technology. However, there is nothing in this company that indicates they are advancing technology in any sense.
This is not to say they are not providing a worthwhile service. Even my local farmer's market provides a worthwhile service to me, but I don't call it a "tech market" just because some of the vendors have an online presence.
I see where you're coming from, but I think there are still a lot of possibilities for innovation here.
We waste 50% of food, with a big portion of that waste happening at the retail level. Food distribution services like Good Eggs have a pretty good shot at eliminating that waste.
Just to give an idea of the potential, attacking only food waste, without any other improvments to our food system, would comfortably allow earth to have a population of 10 billion.
Right, but that still doesn't mean there is innovative technology involved. Can I call a tailor a technology company because they have a website?
The world produces ~three times as much food as we need to feed the world. Sure, we can push efficiency up further, but there is no real need for more calories and current practices create huge short and long term problems.
Not that fuel ethanol is drinkable, but you can get similar amounts of energy with other processes. Anyway, just the US ethanol production is over 2 gallons of per person on the planet. We are talking ~23,000 calories per person on the planet produced in a horribly inefficient process which is then burned.
Ethanol is eminently drinkable, in fact I enjoyed some with tonic water and lime just the other night.
You have to know that organic vs. Monsanto is a hot button to push, so throwing that into your initial comment is a sure way to derail the conversation into arguments.
If you really just want to talk about the "tech" label, then you should just stick to that point.
It's a hot topic, yes, but an important one. We are in an age where policy is decided by a scientifically illiterate public, with potentially devastating consequences for people outside the developed world. That needs to be confronted head on, not shied away from.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/18/pew-vaccine...
Not being willing to talk about these issues is what allows fearmongers to win the day.
One of the problems is this idea that opposition to GMOs and growth in demand for organic food is fueled by scientific illiteracy.
There an oft-repeated lament of "I can't believe people think GMOs are unsafe!", but why not instead start by asking why purchases of organic food increase alongside increased education level?
Having gone to college is not evidence that your opinion is any more important than anyone else's.
What matters is: what does the data say about GMO safety? Are your views informed by the consensus of scientific studies?
If not, then the position is still scientifically illiterate, even if the individual has a Masters degree.
Resisting vaccinations is also quite common among educated, affluent people.
http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/March-2014/Why-Is-Vaccin...
The issue is precisely that we have an "educated" public (based on credentials) that is also scientifically illiterate.
Very interesting point about vaccinations.
I went looking for more numbers and found this: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/young-adults...
It's quite counterintuitive to me that, according to these numbers, education level doesn't seem to affect views om vaccination at all.
start by asking why purchases of organic food increase alongside increased education level?
Is that true even if you control for income levels? Because it's not really a major mystery why the poor uneducated classes don't buy the (typically) more expensive organic food.
(Yes, I know there are wealthy uneducated people, and poor but educated people, but wealth and education are known to be correlated)