Digital Chef

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:13 am

The modern chef, the 3D printer and how your food is going to be made in the future. Octopus bread and a cheesy Shuttle? Yummy. Square milk? Meh.

http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/node/194

http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-elect ... nting-food

http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-elect ... f-in-a-box

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:51 pm

Food... is going to be so freaking cheap in the future...

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:16 pm

I'm still kinda confused about the whole food angle of 3D printers. It's pre-made food in a tube, it's already food before the 3D printer even gets near it.
From my perspective all they're doing is stacking pre-made loaves of bread, to make a bread wall. Ok, bread wall, Ok, look at this thing we did, yep. But is it an innovation in food? Will it help feed people? I have some trouble following the train of innovation from this point onwards so that i can one day be able to answer "yes" to those questions.
Maybe if they print food-stuffs AND THEN BAKE IT (ie: chemically change the materials into something better resembling food)? That might be innovative, coz it's like automation of actual food producing, it's doing something that humans would have had to do anyway - so it'd be actually helping produce food from something that wasn't yet food.

Are they doing that yet? i embarasingly admit i havn't read the linked articles (i've been pretty bored with this food-goo extruding stuff over the years, since it's not actually making "food" from non-food, it's not really doing anything but art, so it's not as exciting as some other things coming outof 3d printers).

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:43 am

Call me when they invent Replicators as seen on TNG.

3D Printed food paste shaped to look like real food? If I want to eat food from a tube I'll pick up one of those expensive cans of spray cheese.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:53 am

If this catches on, I blame you all!

The thing about these 3d printers is they don't care where or from what the nutrients come from

While only the very rich will be able to afford to eat real meat, fish and vegetables, Contractor predicts everyone else will eat customized, nutritionally-appropriate meals synthesized one layer at a time, from cartridges of powder and oil they buy at the corner grocery store.

With traditional food sources extremely rare, those powders could be anything containing the right organic molecules including insects.

Dutch technology company TNO Research has suggested that 3D printing could make it possible to turn food-like starting material, such as algae, insects and grass, into edible meals.

Pizza is an obvious candidate for 3D printing because it has distinct layers and only requires the print head to create one substance at a time.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:44 am

But think flip, all those 3D nutrients could be made from pure chemicals and compounds, and thus remain unadulterated by that pesky bacteria that causes food poisoning. And we could bypass all that hard work required to grow or raise our food. We could print the perfect marbled prime steak, without having to raise, feed and kill a cow. We're getting close to the idea of the food replicator in Star Trek.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:47 am

If I lose the ability to eat a nice, juicy ribeye, I'm gonna hate you all

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:56 am

But think flip, what if it was a PERFECT 3D printed juicy steak in every way in taste, texture and size? I wish I could even BUY a "Prime" cut of steak anymore. I'm lucky to find "Choice", but it's usually "Select" or worse I usually end up with from my local store, if that's even accurate of a grading system to begin with. Yuck!

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:25 am

Hehe, I looked at the pictures

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:41 pm

Yeah. But you know that the technology always improves with time. Next thing will be 3D printed human organs. Oh wait, they're trying that too.

http://www.sdentertainer.com/news/bioni ... princeton/

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:48 am

well, i guess we could eat around the embedded silver antenna, yeah ok.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:46 am

tunnelcat wrote:But think flip, all those 3D nutrients could be made from pure chemicals and compounds, and thus remain unadulterated by that pesky bacteria that causes food poisoning. And we could bypass all that hard work required to grow or raise our food. We could print the perfect marbled prime steak, without having to raise, feed and kill a cow. We're getting close to the idea of the food replicator in Star Trek.

My gut tells me it's a terrible idea, and my intellect tells me that you're pretending that microbiology doesn't exist.

Did any of you know that whole milk directly from the cow contains fauna which helps your system break it down? Store-bought milk does not, after the processes they put it through. *BAM* Health disorders linked to trouble digesting store-bought milk! This will not end well.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:19 am

My gut tells me it's a terrible idea, and my intellect tells me that you're pretending that microbiology doesn't exist. Did any of you know that whole milk directly from the cow contains fauna which helps your system break it down? Store-bought milk does not, after the processes they put it through. *BAM* Health disorders linked to trouble digesting store-bought milk! This will not end well.

Exactly my sentiments and funnily enough I use milk for the example too. They can get close to the same structures, but it's the underlying, finer points they don't understand and end up omitting.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:08 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:My gut tells me it's a terrible idea, and my intellect tells me that you're pretending that microbiology doesn't exist. Did any of you know that whole milk directly from the cow contains fauna which helps your system break it down? Store-bought milk does not, after the processes they put it through. *BAM* Health disorders linked to trouble digesting store-bought milk! This will not end well.

Don't you get when I'm joking? The whole idea of fake food is gross! What's next, Soylent Green? I was just yanking flip's chain because the idea of printed food seemed to crude him out immensely. Even sounds nasty to me actually.

As for the important fauna in our food, you're right. But remember in the 1950's when scientists thought that they knew everything and that they could improve upon the burdensome task of feeding infants by creating a more nutritious formula so that women wouldn't have to breast feed anymore? They had no idea that mother's milk contained all the necessary ingredients and fauna to prime a newborn's developing immune system. What did we get? A whole generation of people with screwed up immune systems that never learned what was bad or good to react to in the environment when they grew up.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:27 pm

This will more than likely catch on too, unfortunately. A lot of people do not notice the difference in the quality of fast food now, but I remember when a Mickey D's hamburger was all beef. Even Chik Fila changed something in their recipe. I grew up eating that and they were great, but sometime around the early-mid nineties, everytime I ate one it made me nauseous. Welcome to America, home of the dollar. Even big bad commie Russia has banned genetically modified foods, and here we eat it wholesale.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:31 pm

I've noticed that too. Arby's used to have an actual real chunk of roast beef sitting on the spit, that they carved slices from to make your sandwich. Now, ewwwww! Mystery presto log meat extravaganza. I don't even eat fast food burgers at all. The chicken in most of these places is rubbery and gross. The formed chicken stuff is just the residual crap hosed off the bones and glued together with soy or food glue. I also miss those french fries fried in beef lard. Naw, I rarely eat at a fast food joint anymore, and it's usually just for some of the not-so-good-anymore french fries.

Even most processed foods one can buy at the store is gross and fake. Canned soups or canned meats rarely contains real meat, beef or chicken. Ever hear of HMMA? Even the name, high moisture meat analog sounds gross. Not something even remotely close I'd consider putting in my mouth in my universe. And GMO foods are scary. Safe my ass. The other shoe will drop some day.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:51 pm

Nothing like a huge dose of FUD from you guys to brighten my day.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:58 pm

I've noticed that too. Arby's used to have an actual real chunk of roast beef sitting on the spit, that they carved slices from to make your sandwich. Now, ewwwww! Mystery presto log meat extravaganza. I don't even eat fast food burgers at all. The chicken in most of these places is rubbery and gross. The formed chicken stuff is just the residual crap hosed off the bones and glued together with soy or food glue. I also miss those french fries fried in beef lard. Naw, I rarely eat at a fast food joint anymore, and it's usually just for some of the not-so-good-anymore french fries.

Even most processed foods one can buy at the store is gross and fake. Canned soups or canned meats rarely contains real meat, beef or chicken. Ever hear of HMMA? Even the name, high moisture meat analog sounds gross. Not something even remotely close I'd consider putting in my mouth in my universe. And GMO foods are scary. Safe my ass. The other shoe will drop some day.

Yup, and I think it goes miles that all other developed nations have banned them. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference TG, and that's exactly what they are counting on. What you don't know, won't hurt ya, but in this case it does

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:03 pm

We've got a nice Vietnamese restaurant here in Corvallis that's really good called Kimhoas. They owner is really choosey and picks out all his own meats and veggies from the local markets here and in Portland. His restaurant is very clean and so is the food. His wife makes these little fried red bean paste sesame balls that are to die for. It's a nice alternative to the American fast food crap. We also used to have a Lebanese place here that had the best shish kabobs around and good Mediterranean food, but the owner's mother and main cook passed away and the son couldn't keep it going. I just wish there was a steak place here that served a good prime steak. I could splurge once and awhile.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:23 pm

flip wrote:Yup, and I think it goes miles that all other developed nations have banned them. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference TG, and that's exactly what they are counting on. What you don't know, won't hurt ya, but in this case it does

So what you're saying is that since all other developed nations have socialized healthcare and much stricter firearm regulations, we should do both of those too?

I thoroughly understand what genetically modifying an organism entails (I'd wager probably in more depth than you yourself do), and what that knowledge tells me is that, in the majority of cases, the widespread public outcry over such foods is nothing more than ignorant hysteria.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:07 pm

The points you two are making, makes me wonder if people in all those developed nations are just more easily led by the nose, and are far more into the whole group think thing, than we are.

Guns are bad…yes sir.
Socialized medicine is the only answer…yes sir.
Genetically altered food is bad for you…yes sir.

I mean…do they have educated people or not.

Sorry, just thinking out loud…go back to talking about nasty food.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:50 pm

flip wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:... And GMO foods are scary. Safe my ass. The other shoe will drop some day.
Yup, and I think it goes miles that all other developed nations have banned them.

nah, i doubt it's a blanket ban.

Even in Australia, where our farming industry maintains a pure wonderful magically clean non-GMO and disease-free image*, the non-specific vegetable oil on our shelves can indeed contain GMO cotton oil. This is because cotton is considered primarily a non-food crop (the food-grade plant-oil that can be extracted from it is merely a byproduct), it gets through on that legal loophole. Weird huh?
*(and generally rightly so, the effort we spend on quarantine is quite something)

The laws that are enacted are because of the FUD that TG was referring to, sadly Green politics on these issues is saturated with it.
(i hope it's not controversial to say that).
It's mostly politics; fear mongering & pandering. Science doesn't run the law, populist politicians do.

Just because things are natural, does not make them safe or good. A taste of Poison Hemlock will drive that point home. How many known carcinogens do you think exist IN NATURE? a lot. wow, a lot, a lotlotlot. And that's not to mention all of the natural carcinogens we don't yet know about. You can't be too safe, protect yourself by never eating natural plants!

But what if we did genetic alterations to poisonous Hemlock plants? Curious how anti-GMO people would feel about that, heh.

BTW i'm not sure how anyone can complain about not knowing/understanding what goes into their food, and then go and eat out, it's hypocritical. You know next to nothing about how that food is prepared. At least with pre-packaged foodstuffs you buy from a store they are required by federal laws to have accurate nutritional and ingredient labeling. You don't get that info at restaurants, the food in your local asian restaurants for example are very likely chock-full of industrially produced MSG (speaking of FUD) and they have no reason to tell you.
I suppose if it's non-GMO perfectly natural human snot they're hurking into our burgers, then we'll feel ok about it.
Something to think about.

not sure if anyone noticed my suggestion to eat 3D printed human ears earlier, hehe

flip · Post by **flip** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:24 am

Is it wrong to call someone an ignorant prick?

<---Smiley

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:26 am

never

flip · Post by **flip** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:27 am

Not you Roid

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:40 pm

Top Gun wrote:I thoroughly understand what genetically modifying an organism entails (I'd wager probably in more depth than you yourself do), and what that knowledge tells me is that, in the majority of cases, the widespread public outcry over such foods is nothing more than ignorant hysteria.

Maaaaaybe not. I used to be able to eat all types soy products and oils. But not since the GMO stuff started coming out. My system can't take it at all. Something is different and the body knows it and oh......does it try to get rid of it, fast. I now avoid all soy and soy oils like the plague. I don't know if it the residual Roundup in the product or the actual genetic modification of the plant, but I can't eat the stuff. It really needs to be studied long term, not thrown at us willy nilly like it's something OK that the scientists know better than us dumb schmucks and that it's "safe" to eat.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:58 pm

Maybe you’re just getting old…/me runs and hides.

Humans have been genetically modifying their food for hundreds of years.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:06 pm

What Spidey said, though maybe put a bit more delicately.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, especially without any evidence that the brands you're talking about started using different raw ingredients at some particular date. In any case, as Spidey said, in the majority of cases genetic modification is literally no different than selective breeding, which humans have been doing since we first started domesticating animals and crops.

flip · Post by **flip** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:23 pm

It's definitely done on a whole nuther level now. There are very real dangers of widespread experimenting with the food supply by altering it's very genome, as there is no way to guess what every outcome will be. I have no problem experimenting and developing new sciences, but not on such a wide and open scale. I think it also is a cause of concern when 2/3's of all developed nations sense dangers in releasing this into the wild, and yet we do not. There is no telling how many rogue proteins are being produced and the fact that 98% of all animals and only God knows how many plants have already gone extinct, I sure wouldn't want to be the one to accelerate the process. Some things are fine for the lab, but widespread testing is ignorant, dumb, and short-sighted. I can post many accounts already of health issues being reported. This guy here has an interesting take and probably has more knowledge of the subject than either of us.

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/20 ... s_of_GMOs/

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:50 pm

I admit, it's something to think about.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:07 pm

Spidey wrote:Maybe you’re just getting old…/me runs and hides.

Humans have been genetically modifying their food for hundreds of years.

Maybe. But why take the chance. This type of modification is different from past genetic experiments. They're directly inserting genes from species that would not normally mix or come together in nature. And man's meddling with any type of code, especially genetic, is sketchy at best. Just look at the quality and reliability of the software running your computer.

flip · Post by **flip** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:14 pm

That made me laugh!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:26 pm

Got a point, I just uninstalled another…yes another POS automatic backup program from my machine.

Paid good money for both of them too…

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:52 am

Questioning the "experts" reminded me of this little gem from the 1950's. They always said, "Trust us, DDT is so safe, we can spray it on children while they eat and play". GAG!

[youtube]uf6KkjBCoVU[/youtube]

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:21 pm

Safe for humans, maybe. Everything else, not so much.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:39 pm

It's a plot by Monsanto. They made those poisons to kill insects, now they're making our food. Scary yet?

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:14 pm

I'm... not sure I agree with where the article is taking that argument. You could also say that it's an American company, therefore Americans are bad and want to kill everyone. Monsanto has something of a reputation and it may be deserved, but only within reason - once something starts looking like a conspiracy theory, it gets hard for me to take seriously anymore.

Even after NSA... actually, especially after NSA. Things leak. If the US government doesn't have sufficient power to stop it, why would a private corporation?

Digital Chef

Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef

Re: Digital Chef