It seems to be treated as 'higher quality' meat.

Isn't "angus" a scottish word? And, if so, wouldn't an angus cow's color be some form of tartan?

Okay, I'm probably not the best person to ask about consumer impressions of the ag industry. I'm pretty skeptical and tend to smell bullsh1t pretty easily. Maybe it is because I submitted myself to lab experimentation as a human guinea pig for the USDA in college. Maybe it is because I think most folks are full of horsesh1t anyway.

When I see the words "100% certified angus beef", I figure it means that folks in the beef industry aren't all that happy with their image in fast food as a commodity and want to find some manner of creating "brand equity". Once something is commoditized, it's just a matter of time before the cheapest Mexican beef crosses the border and is served up by the metric tonne. (I assume this is already the case). "certified angus" is probably just a way to complete with the slaughtering of California "drag bag" dairy cows after they've gone downer. Though I'm not certain there is a noticeable difference in quality.

Mad cow doesn't scare me. Fewer than 400 people have died of CJD and there is, at best, a tenuous link between that and mad cow. I'm more likely to die of e-coli or salmonila and that, I'm more likely to contract from my cutting board or fridge door than from properly cooked meat.

GMO is wonderful. Without GMO, half the world would have slaughtered one another in food wars decades ago. The neohippies that insist that all food should be "organic" need to live in the Third World for a while.

I have nothing good to say about American Agribusiness, so I will hold my tongue and move on to positive things. I am highly supportive of independent farmers and the organic movement. I support both (via my local farmers market and local food co-op) as much as I possibly can. However, given the strangehold that agribusiness has on food in this country, there are many roadblocks in the way for me to support those groups.

Couldn't disagree more. First of all, you can definitely make the case that it is our neoliberal policies, promoted heavily by US agribusiness and especially companies like Monsanto (on the cutting edge of GMO), that are to blame for food shortages and struggles in the third world. Furthermore, "conventional" farming practices are simply not sustainable. As we reach peak oil and begin our descent, the cost of producing food by these methods will become too expensive (it takes about 10 calories of fossil fuels to create 1 calorie of vegetable food, meat food requires exponentially more fuel). These methods also lead to desertification and significant loss of arable land. While we may be able produce more food right now using GMO, Chemical pesiticides and fertilizers etc., we are simply borrowing that food from the future. Furthermore, as any ecologist will tell you, increasing the food supply for a population will have the result of increasing that population. I think we can all agree that we don't need more people on the planet right now.

What we need is to develop sustainable agriculture. We also need to let individual countries be independent so that they may create food for their own populations instead of cash crops for export.

Desertification is happening on the planet, but it isn't happening here in the US precisely because of the application of scientific agricultural methods. If your real concern is for the environment, I seriously suggest that you advocate the proliferation of farming technology to the Third World where traditional slash and burn methods of farming are creating the desertification you, rightly, vilify.

Now that I've seen some opinions, the answer on Angus from a cattle producer:

To be qualified as angus beef an animal needs more than a 60% black hide. For a farmer to receive a premium grade and extra money from the packer, the animal must then grade choice or prime (the two highest rankings of the carcass and meat condition). Purebred Angus do come from Scotland and are known for exceptional intramuscular marbling, which is the little flecks of fat inside a steak that makes it so very juicy. This is a good thing for consumers and producers. The misleading part comes when Angus burgers are marketed. Since the meat is ground and mixed with trimmed fats anyway to reach 80 or 90% lean, marbling doesn't add anything to the quality of a burger. So consumers pay more for a burger that may be made of dairy cow and farmers don't see a extra bonus for their animal.

My recollection is that you remarked favorably on the quality of an angus burger, compared to a regular flame-broiled burger, one evening at the local burger palace. Just to refresh your memory. Although I suppose flavor is not necessarily indicative of quality.

I personally think they taste better, but I have to admit to being pretty depressed to find out that the label can be "generic". My grandfather raised cattle, and I know what good beef tastes like. The commercial angus burgers are tastier, but that's probably a result of the fat content and spices. I can buy well-marbled steaks that likely are from actual Angus breed cattle, and the flavor is different, especially if they are ground.

I guess that should have occured to me before, but I just put it down to flavorings.

There is a very good reason to make genetic mules (that don't reproduce). The cynic would say it is to keep folks buying seeds. The biologist would say it is to make sure that further refinements of crops can start with a clean slate. This "versioning" allows agribusiness to track progress, adjust formulas, and limit the impact on the environment. If, for instance, a pest resistant, high yield strain of corn were allowed to reproduce, it is quite likely it would outcompete other native plants. The goal is to create controllable food crops -- not to create invasive plants one can NOT control.

I would assume that the rationale for that is to make sure that they maintain version control, though I'd have to talk with someone in the industry.

What I do know though, is that you sure as hell don't want to introduce a highly resistant strain of an invasive species that can reproduce. I'm sure that folks who planted kudzu, bamboo, and other invasive species would love to have those decisions back. You want the plants for their yields. Controlling them is necessary to prevent unwanted externalities.

Only on GWJ I love this place.

It all comes down to whether you're altruistic, capitalistic, or a hippy (sorry, ecologistic just didn't fit).

Altruisticly, farm subsidies and correctly genetically modified plants could help feed the world population and generally reduce starvation and warfare based on short food supplies (also increasing the population. Why is it some people are against farm subsidies because "more food = more people" but aren't in favor of the Iraq war? Same result...).

Capitalisticly, farm subsidies are bad (but what capitalist wouldn't accept it anyway?) and GM food are great, because they are improvements to the efficiency of the farming process, and allow more competition, which leads to better improvements. Now, Psuedo capitalism, where the gov't steps in to regulate, is different, but those more intelligent than myself have covered both sides of that already.

Hippyisticly, GM food is bad, because it can remove nutrients, add chemicals, and cause kudzu-like corn which will one day cause the Midwest to become uninhabitable. Of course, we Americans look down on agri-labor so much now that you couldn't get enough people to farm without them anymore, but that's a cultural issue I guess...

We live in a capitalistic society, so if you're surprised by the fact that we use GM food and still don't feed the world without getting back some kind of profit... well, this may just not be your kind of place. Not that I disagree with you, but I've got a lot of rude awakenings for you.

It's tough, because you follow down the logical path either way, you end up with bad things. Either you DON'T feed hungry people, and watch as starvation and war tears up "third world" countries, or you DO feed everyone, and the population swells to the point where food and other resources are not enough, and then you have one giant war. Or, you feed everyone, and take away their rights to procreate as they see fit [/rights].

Or you take a middle path, and make lots of food, and feed some people, but not feed everyone who needs it, and get vilified by both sides on the issue. Not that this situation is that way, mind you, but if it was I'm sure we'd have a hard time telling the difference. Honestly I don't think our current leaders have the brains for such an endeavor.

I had a wonderful post typed up detailing how farm subsidies are bad and hurt economic growth in third world countries, and then I accidentally hit the 'Backspace' button after clicking outside the text box. Now that I lost a half hour of typing, I don't feel like rewriting it. Which means I'll give the short version:

Farm subsidies are bad and hurt economic growth in third world countries. We could stop farming altogether and stay just as fat as we are now, only with lower food prices.

Actually, you have it exactly backward. Though it is true that agribusiness is not in the business of losing money, a great deal of agricultural aid to impoverished areas like Africa is blocked because of hysteria regarding GMO. Lots of starving black people because upper middle class white folks feeling guilty about having so much get easily confused or misled.

The plain and simple fact is that food aid and agri aid (in the form of high yield, non-invasive crops) is a good thing and yet folks like Greenpeace seem to think that it is some sort of an evil eugenic plot.

I will agree with johnny mojo that farm subsidies are pretty damaging. As unpopular as this position may be to the anti- "benedict arnold company" class, the far better policy would be to encourage American farmers to use their advanced farming techniques in countries with lower land prices. There is already a great deal of success with this in Brazil, where American farmers are drastically reducing the damage native "traditional" farmers are doing to the rain forests. Continuing to subsidize American farmers simply puts downward price pressure on those native farmers in other countries and facilitates deforestation through sub-standard (ie: American) farming techniques. Build condos on the farmland here. It's called "relative scarcity" and is a concept covered in your Macro 101 class if you had it.

What the cryptosocialists don't seem to get is that agribusiness isn't in business to destroy their assets. Their land must remain productive otherwise they are unable to maintain profitability. You don't do this with the kind of pre-modern slash and burn you see in the Third World. The "sustainable" farming techniques that folks in the "organic" movement seem to advocate are simply incapable of supporting populations of any real magnitude. The ONLY solution is to increase yield in ways that reduce impact. For that, GMO, civil engineering, industrial capacity, and the efficiencies afforded through modern technology are essential.

Just out of curiousity, what is a 'cryptosocialist'?