Would a "fat tax" make fat attractive?
Diane L Benham
a survey where they asked what people thought of a fat tax. I'm
rather ambivalent on the issue since I don't buy much junk food, but
it made me wonder....if they DID have a fat tax, then only richer
people would buy lots of fat. Since it would then, theoretically,
be more difficult to get plump, would "fat" be desirable again? After
all, when food was scarce, a well-fed wife was a good thing...in many
countries, it still is, since it's a sign of wealth.
Diane .
Userb3
>Some magazine (I think it was "Self" or one like that) recently had
>a survey where they asked what people thought of a fat tax. I'm
>rather ambivalent on the issue since I don't buy much junk food, but
>it made me wonder....if they DID have a fat tax, then only richer
>people would buy lots of fat.
The big BUT here is that poorer people eat food higher in fat than
wealthy people do.
The Hmmm factor is that when we get down to this level, it's time to
give our whole concept of taxation a thorough re-examination.
userb3
She was a Jung girl who was easily Freudened.
dym...@ripco.com
Userb3 wrote:
>
> On 27 Jun 2000 16:22:46 GMT, Diane L Benham wrote:
>
> >Some magazine (I think it was "Self" or one like that) recently had
> >a survey where they asked what people thought of a fat tax. I'm
> >rather ambivalent on the issue since I don't buy much junk food, but
> >it made me wonder....if they DID have a fat tax, then only richer
> >people would buy lots of fat.
>
> The big BUT here is that poorer people eat food higher in fat than
> wealthy people do.
I think that's due to disparities in education. Poor people
don't have as much access to information about nutrition
and cooking, nor do they have the time to prepare more
healthful meals. Easy food = fatty food, and it's cheaper
for the convenience & fast food companies to substitute the
comfort of fat for genuine flavor. Once you give up on a
fatty, sugary diet, you notice the difference in flavor,
and you can't go back to that stuff. A lot of poor and
working-class people never get to that point, though.
--
Kerry
Jen6427
>a survey where they asked what people thought of a fat tax. I'm
>rather ambivalent on the issue since I don't buy much junk food, but
>it made me wonder....if they DID have a fat tax, then only richer
>be more difficult to get plump, would "fat" be desirable again? After
>all, when food was scarce, a well-fed wife was a good thing...in many
>countries, it still is, since it's a sign of wealth.
>
high end habit. I have no problem with taxes on either, put in a pool for
their health care, so I don't have to pay.
Jenny
Chunae Zoh
though:
1. What would be taxed under a Fat Tax? Just food items? Which food
items? Who determines what foods are liable for the Fat Tax? Are
finished foods taxable? What about ingredients? Would the taxing entity
tax a bag of potato chips? Or would they tax potatoes and the fat? Would
they tax a sofa under this tax?
2. Who would be liable for the tax? Consumers? Producers? Both?
Ultimately, the consumers would pay for it regardless of who incurs the
liability.
3. When someone imposes a tax like this, it's to account for some
negative externality that the consumption of the good causes. This is
the case in environmental economics. This is how the EPA figures out how
to fine people for polluting waterways, etc. In some cases like these,
permits are a more efficient way to make someone pay for the total real
cost. What about a "Fat Permit?" Everytime you wanted to buy something,
you would have to present your Fat Permit to be allowed to purchase it.
4. As with all taxes of this nature, it would be a much heavier burden
on the poor because the tax is a larger portion of their income. One can
say that only rich people will buy fat stuff then, but how much of
consuming fat products is an addiction? This is like the cigarette
tax(es). Regardless of how much you raise the tax, people will continue
to buy cigarettes because of addiction. Don't really know what the
consequences of this are, except the poor will get more poor.
I'd like to see this article. If anyone can point me in the right
direction, that would be great.
Chunae.
gdiv
<dym...@ripco.com> wrote in message news:3958E297...@ripco.com...
>
> I think that's due to disparities in education. Poor people
> don't have as much access to information about nutrition
> and cooking, nor do they have the time to prepare more
> healthful meals. Easy food = fatty food, and it's cheaper
> for the convenience & fast food companies to substitute the
> comfort of fat for genuine flavor. Once you give up on a
> fatty, sugary diet, you notice the difference in flavor,
> and you can't go back to that stuff. A lot of poor and
> working-class people never get to that point, though.
>
> --
>
> Kerry
Yes, I agree. My dad says it's because they don't
understand about calories.
the Wicked Witch
> What about a "Fat Permit?" Everytime you wanted to buy something,
> you would have to present your Fat Permit to be allowed to purchase it.
Oh, no way. That would be deplorable. Why should it be up to the
government to say that you can or cannot buy butter, for instance? It is
a misconception that fat is bad for people, first of all. Many very
nutritious foods happen to be high in fat, but can be part of a very
healthy diet (just not the whole diet!) TOO MUCH fat is bad, yes, but
mostly the obesity problem is due to TOO MUCH EVERYTHING. Too much fat,
too much sugar, too much processed, packaged food, too little fiber and
vegetables. What would a fat tax solve? If there was such a thing,
cheese would be taxed, but fat-free cookies would not. Which one is
better for you? What about nuts? Those are high in fat. Are they better
or worse for you than jelly beans, which have no fat?
I would really hate to have to present a permit to buy a bottle of olive
oil. Or a package of croissants. Or a candy bar. I think that would be
almost Orwellian. Why on earth would we want to give this kind of
control to the government? I'd prefer to make my own food decisions, for
better or worse.
--
~the Wicked Witch
Userb3
>> The big BUT here is that poorer people eat food higher in fat than
>> wealthy people do.
>
>I think that's due to disparities in education. Poor people
>don't have as much access to information about nutrition
>and cooking, nor do they have the time to prepare more
>healthful meals.
There's an argument to be made that the poor actually have MORE dietary
education than the middle class and up do. Every state Department of
Human services has a host of programs specifically designed to educate
welfare recipients about nutrition, food stamps and WIC aid come with
instruction (and many times home visits) by dieticians, and school
breakfast lunch programs are free or almost so for poor children.
But ultimately, no matter WHY poor people eat what they do, I don't
think taxes are the appropriate way to encourage people to eat in a
certain way. Surely in a country that so values individual liberty, we
can tolerate people eating fatty food if that's what they want to eat.
No need for more taxes.
just julia
: Some magazine (I think it was "Self" or one like that) recently had
: a survey where they asked what people thought of a fat tax. I'm
: rather ambivalent on the issue since I don't buy much junk food, but
: it made me wonder....if they DID have a fat tax, then only richer
: people would buy lots of fat. Since it would then, theoretically,
: be more difficult to get plump, would "fat" be desirable again? After
: all, when food was scarce, a well-fed wife was a good thing...in many
: countries, it still is, since it's a sign of wealth.
Well, there are a few problems. First, fat people do not all sit around
stuffing their faces with crap food. Second, how are you defining "fat"?
Also, people who are seriously obese often have problems with their
metabolism that makes them so fat, not the amount of food.
Most of all, what the fuck? Taxing people for something they do that
isn't harming anyone is obnoxious.
j
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devastating Dyke of the Fortnight
http://www.medianstrip.net/~julia/ddof.html
Ripley7173
Dove Studio, stop in and take a look!
http://users.lanminds.com/%7Ejandove/index.html
MakeupGrrl
>Some magazine (I think it was "Self" or one like that) recently had
>a survey where they asked what people thought of a fat tax. I'm
>rather ambivalent on the issue since I don't buy much junk food, but
>it made me wonder....if they DID have a fat tax, then only richer
>people would buy lots of fat. Since it would then, theoretically,
>be more difficult to get plump, would "fat" be desirable again? After
>all, when food was scarce, a well-fed wife was a good thing...in many
>countries, it still is, since it's a sign of wealth.
I've actually thought for a long time that we've got it completely
backwards in this country: a cheeseburger at BK's is 99 cents, while a
veggie burger at a wholefoods market costs $2.99. We wonder why
everyone is fat: combined with our sedentary lifestyle, the high cost
of healthy food has people eating a lot of crap.
Prime example: at my local supermarket, a bag of potato chips costs a
buck or so. A bag of baked vegetable chips? 5 dollars! I'm aware of
the law of supply and demand, but you can't tell people to eat healthy
and then sell junk food for really low prices.
MG
AW Thorn
>Prime example: at my local supermarket, a bag of potato chips costs a
>buck or so. A bag of baked vegetable chips? 5 dollars! I'm aware of
>the law of supply and demand, but you can't tell people to eat healthy
>and then sell junk food for really low prices.
>
>MG
Very true! Many of my closest friends from highschool are attending Ivy
League universities getting their Ph.Ds and what not (What can I say... I
went to a private highschool?... Large graduation rate) and the majority of
them are paying their own way. Sometimes it just isn't possible to go to
Wild Oaks and buy yourself a package of vegtable burgers for four dollars
when a couple of cheese burgers are just a few cents at McDonald's! Oh, and
fruit... Might as well buy a bar of candy for fifty cents than pay $2.99 per
pound for grapes or whatever.
A.W.
Userb3
>I've actually thought for a long time that we've got it completely
>backwards in this country: a cheeseburger at BK's is 99 cents, while a
>veggie burger at a wholefoods market costs $2.99. We wonder why
>everyone is fat: combined with our sedentary lifestyle, the high cost
>of healthy food has people eating a lot of crap.
>
>Prime example: at my local supermarket, a bag of potato chips costs a
>buck or so. A bag of baked vegetable chips? 5 dollars! I'm aware of
>the law of supply and demand, but you can't tell people to eat healthy
>and then sell junk food for really low prices.
But supply and demand DO set the price. If the *average* consumer
suddenly made it a point to buy low fat foods and eschew the fatty
stuff, you'd soon enough see 99 cent veggie burgers and $3.00
cheeseburgers, because competition and the economy of scale would
dictate those levels.
Of course, I wouldn't expect to see wholehearted efforts on the part of
the established organic and health food movements to bring this about.
They've gotten a solid hold on the market and don't want to lose it to
Safeway, Wal-Mart, Kroger, or whatever your local chain is. Like
bootleggers in dry counties, it is in their best interest to keep their
market a niche market.
userb3
-
Which candidate should you support?
See: http://www.thecrayfish.com/presmatch.htm, www.govote.com, http://issues2000.org/Quiz.htm, or any of the other candidate matchers on teh web.
The Truth Is Out There.
MDS
"Userb3" <use...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:hfreozlqrwnpbz....@news.alt.net...
>
> Of course, I wouldn't expect to see wholehearted efforts on the part of
> the established organic and health food movements to bring this about.
> They've gotten a solid hold on the market and don't want to lose it to
> Safeway, Wal-Mart, Kroger, or whatever your local chain is. Like
> bootleggers in dry counties, it is in their best interest to keep their
> market a niche market.
'Tis true. As much as I enjoy stopping at Fresh Fields (no Whole Foods
around
here yet, but same concept) - and as the nearest one is some distance away,
it's
not the place to do our regular grocery shopping by any means - the stuff
there is
certainly interesting enough but too expensive. It caters to the well-to-do
professionals in
that area and there is a certain air of...inaccessibility
(pretentiousness?). It certainly is no real competition to
Giant or Safeway as the shopping stop of choice for struggling families or
coupon-laden grandmas - and it doesn't seem to want to be.
One great place to shop for those Cincinnati-area folks: Jungle Jim's. (I
think this might be
sort of like "Trader Joe's" or whatever that place is, which I've heard of
but never been to.) It's got
an INCREDIBLE selection of fruits, vegetables, meats, international
goodies - absolutely
amazing - plus a large selection of beer and wine. Enveloped in the
"interesting" store
is a "regular" grocery store where one can get all of the standard brands
(which you
can't necessarily do at Fresh Fields). Great place. If anyone knows of
anything similar
in the Towson area, please let me know. :)
c-z...@alumni.uchicago.edu
wrote:
>Oh, no way. That would be deplorable. Why should it be up to the
>government to say that you can or cannot buy butter, for instance? It is
>a misconception that fat is bad for people, first of all. Many very
>nutritious foods happen to be high in fat, but can be part of a very
>healthy diet (just not the whole diet!) TOO MUCH fat is bad, yes, but
>mostly the obesity problem is due to TOO MUCH EVERYTHING. Too much fat,
>too much sugar, too much processed, packaged food, too little fiber and
>vegetables. What would a fat tax solve? If there was such a thing,
>cheese would be taxed, but fat-free cookies would not. Which one is
>better for you? What about nuts? Those are high in fat. Are they better
>or worse for you than jelly beans, which have no fat?
I think the Fat Permit is just as ludicrous as a Fat Tax. Whoever
posed this question didn't really think this through. Someone else
brought up the fact that eating fatty foods doesn't hurt or cost
anyone else anything. I just don't see the point. I think eating
habits of the US is a complete cultural thing, and to change eating
habits would require more than a tax.
I think I am thinking about this too much.
Chunae.
CoFarb
Please tell me it's not serious.
That said...
The overconsumption of high-fat crappy junk food is not an economic issue.
Yes, an armload of McD's meatburgers may be cheaper than a gourmet veggie
burger from Fresh Fields, but that's not the comparison to make.
Instead, we should compare the costs of burgers, fries and soda to healthy
items which can be obtained and prepared very inexpensively. Some of the
most inexpensive food items are also among the healthiest.
Beans, rice, dark green leafy veggies and any number of fruits (purchased in
season) are incredible bargains in terms of price and nutrition. Eggs and a
variety of dairy products are also relatively cheap compared to nutritional
nightmares of fried-pizza-toaster-bites,
extra-crispy-crunchy-batter-dipped-potato shreds, etc.
My kids learn to parrot the nutritional ABCs taught in school. They can
give all the right answers to questions about food groups and pyramids. But
most kids are not exposed to the preparation basic, nutritous, inexpensive,
readily available, TASTY meals.
I admit that I love to experiment with exotic baby-sized out-of-season
veggies and cute, unfamiliar fruits from tropical islands. These are very
expensive and pretty rare in upstate NY.
But I've cooked on a tight budget, too. Homemade vegetable stock, turned
into spinach-lentil soup (with super-greens like canned mustard and collard
greens added) is incredibly cheap, packed with nutrition, and, to me, much
tastier than two-all-beef-patties...
I'll be fine as long as no one starts talking about a tofu-tax!
bon appetit!
donna
"AW Thorn" <soci...@messages.toNoSpam> wrote in message
news:jd865.383$Hk1....@nntp3.onemain.com...
>
> >Prime example: at my local supermarket, a bag of potato chips costs a
> >buck or so. A bag of baked vegetable chips? 5 dollars! I'm aware of
> >the law of supply and demand, but you can't tell people to eat healthy
> >and then sell junk food for really low prices.
> >
maidm
I ate Taco Bell just about every other day, not to mention lots and lots of
hamburger helper and happy hours. Why should we pay more tax to eat cheap
crappy food? Haven't we suffered enough by having to eat this cheap crappy
food?
I-Wei
P.S. The stored fat is really useful for those days when the money runs out
before the month does.
> From: rebb...@aol.com (RebBrooks)
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.fashion
> Date: 28 Jun 2000 05:46:59 GMT
> Subject: Re: Would a "fat tax" make fat attractive?
>
> I know myself.. now that I eat so differently, I spend alot more money on food
> than I ever have. I use to buy hamburger helper or kraft macaroni and cheese
> and chicken on sale... lots of cheap filling food. Now, I eat much less and
> better quality but pay much more.
> This fat tax sounds bizarre.. but I've heard people discussing it before. I
> don't think it would change a thing.
>
> RebeccaB.
dym...@ripco.com
Chunae Zoh wrote:
>
> A "Fat Tax?" Interesting to say the least. It does raise several issues
> though:
>
> 1. What would be taxed under a Fat Tax? Just food items? Which food
> items? Who determines what foods are liable for the Fat Tax? Are
> finished foods taxable? What about ingredients? Would the taxing entity
> tax a bag of potato chips? Or would they tax potatoes and the fat? Would
> they tax a sofa under this tax?
>
I have a hard time taking this seriously, but it's
interesting to ponder which foods would be counted
as "fat". I would assume that the potato chips
would be taxed because they're cooked in oil. This
makes me think, though, about foods that have a lot
of fat that you're actually *supposed* to eat,
like avocados and olive oil. Maybe they'll just
tax saturated fat - like a certain percentage for
each saturated fat gram.
--
Kerry
dym...@ripco.com
Userb3 wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:21:27 -0500, dym...@ripco.com wrote:
>
> >> The big BUT here is that poorer people eat food higher in fat than
> >> wealthy people do.
> >
> >I think that's due to disparities in education. Poor people
> >don't have as much access to information about nutrition
> >and cooking, nor do they have the time to prepare more
> >healthful meals.
>
> There's an argument to be made that the poor actually have MORE dietary
> education than the middle class and up do. Every state Department of
> Human services has a host of programs specifically designed to educate
> welfare recipients about nutrition, food stamps and WIC aid come with
> instruction (and many times home visits) by dieticians, and school
> breakfast lunch programs are free or almost so for poor children.
>
Yeah, but I wasn't thinking of people on welfare, I was
thinking more about lower-class people who work. I'm
sure there are programs, but that doesn't mean that people
use them or even pay attention. WIC exists to provide nutrition
for women with babies or very young children. Outside of class time,
school children will eat whatever their parents give them.
Besides, they're learning about food groups - not fat.
I grew up working-class - with an Italian mom, thank god!
But most of the people I grew up with only seemed to know about
a handful of foods: ground beef, pasta or noodles, hot
dogs, and cheese on everything. It's the ethnic cuisines
that tend to be more balanced and nutritious, and you just don't see
poorer people eating that stuff. Lower class people go
to the supermarket and are afraid of "fancy" food or
health food, which is more expensive anyway.
I saw the same thing when I lived in Nebraska for five years:
people would bring potluck "dishes" into work that usually
incorporated prepackaged foods. Then they'd ask each other,
"what's the recipe". I'm sorry, but if it involves Hamburger
Helper, Spam, Rice-A-Roni or Jello, it's not a "recipe", and that's
not cooking. These people *really* did not know how to cook
or how to eat, and they were often *really* unhealthy. They'd
drive their cars just to go to a store that was four blocks
away. The food in Nebraska was the absolute worst. We had
women working there who couldn't even take the stairs up or
down one floor. Social isolation of any kind leads to ignorance
about health.
--
Kerry
MakeupGrrl
<use...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>But supply and demand DO set the price. If the *average* consumer
>suddenly made it a point to buy low fat foods and eschew the fatty
>stuff, you'd soon enough see 99 cent veggie burgers and $3.00
>cheeseburgers, because competition and the economy of scale would
>dictate those levels.
Unfortunately, prices would have to come down *before* many people
would consider buying the healthier, more pricey prodcuts. It's a
Catch-22: people won't start buying until prices come down, but prices
won't come down until...
>Of course, I wouldn't expect to see wholehearted efforts on the part of
>the established organic and health food movements to bring this about.
>They've gotten a solid hold on the market and don't want to lose it to
>Safeway, Wal-Mart, Kroger, or whatever your local chain is. Like
>bootleggers in dry counties, it is in their best interest to keep their
>market a niche market.
Too true -- I'm lucky to live in an area where there are loads of
"earthy-crunchy" whole-foods types. There are several large
organic-wholefoods markets that indirectly compete with each other, so
the prices are fairly reasonable; the local supermarket has a
wholefoods section, but the prices are significantly higher since they
stock and move a smaller quantity. I do understand it's all about
business and the bottom line.
When I worked on a film up in Maine for two weeks, we were in the
middle of the mountains with around 6 stores. A mile down the road
there was a wholefoods store -- imagine my happy dance -- and I was
all too glad to pay stupidly high prices to get vegetarian food. It's
not like they had things I could easily get somewhere else.
We've just gotten to the point in this country where very few people
can grow their own food, and many don't even have or take the time to
cook real meals *raising hand sheepishly*. Thus, we're flooded with
processed, pre-packaged, no-refrigeration-required foods. I'm not an
organic-food-nut -- I eat Ben&Jerry's like anybody else -- but there
comes a point where things get ridiculous. Have you seen the
commercials for those heinous Lunchables? We're talking about MEAT
that doesn't have to be REFRIGERATED. Yum, yum! And people are
supposed to feed this junk to their children. Nice to avoid illness
brought about by meat left out too long, but at what long-term cost?
Pretty soon they're not even going to need to embalm us when we die,
we'll already be perfectly preserved.
I'm not into regulating what other people should eat (though I'll tell
you my opinion of it, hee hee). It would be nice, however, if it were
easier and cheaper to eat more healthily in this country.
MG
Kris in Philly
>>:>suddenly made it a point to buy low fat foods and eschew the fatty
>>:>stuff, you'd soon enough see 99 cent veggie burgers and $3.00
>>:>cheeseburgers, because competition and the economy of scale would
>>:>dictate those levels.
Yes but isn't it less expensive to raise cattle than to grow organic
foods? I really don't know but I remember reading somewhere that this
was sometimes the case hence the higher prices. Take pigs for example,
it's not very expensive to raise them for the meat market but I am
unsure what the process involves growing organic foods.
When I go to a place like FreshFields, I tend to think they up the
prices because there are a certain type of people that shop there,
most of them are upper class folks who think paying $8 for a tiny
bottle of mustard makes it better for some reason. Organic, all
natural and most everything else along that line is a big draw for
some no matter what the price. I can honestly say that I have been
buying food that way for a long, long time and it was never expensive.
It's just amusing to me for some reason when I see someone rave about
the $13 bottle of olive oil with a sprig of rosemary in it.
As for a "fat tax". I doubt anything like that would ever work. Too
many variables to consider and really when is enough enough. I would
be curious to know, if this were something that was planned that is,
what the tax would be used for. Meaning would it be used for
something, some cause?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kris in Philly
"The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit."
- W. Somerset Maugham
Charles L. Perrin
<fashio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Why on earth would we want to give this kind of control to
>the government?
Actually, the Government should subsidize fat... that way, Bill
Clinton would look anorexic. <grin/duck>
---
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for
the change to take effect. Reboot now? [OK]
Charles L. Perrin
wrote:
>I've actually thought for a long time that we've got it completely
>backwards in this country: a cheeseburger at BK's is 99 cents, while a
>veggie burger at a wholefoods market costs $2.99.
>Prime example: at my local supermarket, a bag of potato chips costs a
>buck or so. A bag of baked vegetable chips? 5 dollars! I'm aware of
>the law of supply and demand
In both cases, the price is largely consistent with costs of
production... although the cheeseburger has much higher production
volumes than the veggieburger. On the other hand, if you put the
cheeseburger into ritzy surroundings (like the Whole Foods Market in
Houston) it might cost $3.
Charles L. Perrin
Philly) wrote:
>As for a "fat tax". I doubt anything like that would ever work. Too
>many variables to consider and really when is enough enough. I would
>be curious to know, if this were something that was planned that is,
>what the tax would be used for. Meaning would it be used for
>something, some cause?
Well, the 3% telephone tax was instituted to pay for the
Spanish-American War. I think the Spanish-American War has been over
for a number of decades, but we still have the tax...
RebBrooks
>backwards in this country: a cheeseburger at BK's is 99 cents, while a
>everyone is fat: combined with our sedentary lifestyle, the high cost
>of healthy food has people eating a lot of crap.
Bingo! It's not that poor people are dumb as a stump, it's that good fresh
foods and vegetables are more expensive then say a pound of hamburger and a big
sack of taters.
Try buying herbs and seasonings for added flavor.. some fresh veggies and a
nice lean cut of meat and see which costs more in comparison.
Janene2000
poor consume a diet higher in fat than the middle and upper classes. The lack
of refrigeration or cooking equipment, for example, often causes people who can
least afford to spend most of their income for convenience foods to do just
that. Consequently, they tend to have a high fat/low nutrition diet. A fat
tax would be a regressive tax-- one that taxes the poor, as a group, more
heavily than the rich. Yet, such taxes (like on alcohol, tobacco and, in CA,
junk food) do not deter the poor from buying. The rich, on the other hand (and
in *general,*) enjoy proper nutrition now and would have a much easier time
adapting their buying habits to avoid the proposed tax. For this reason I
believe obesity would be even more closely associated with low income and
become less socially desireable than it is now. I do not personally agree with
his point of view, but believe that's how most people would respond.
RebBrooks
>I ate Taco Bell just about every other day, not to mention lots and lots of
>hamburger helper and happy hours. Why should we pay more tax to eat cheap
>crappy food? Haven't we suffered enough by having to eat this cheap crappy
>food?
>
>I-Wei
>P.S. The stored fat is really useful for those days when the money runs out
>before the month does.
>
LOL!! No doubt. I'm trying to repair the damage I've done to my poor body
if that's possible. I know my arteries have to be thanking me now.
RebeccaB
RebBrooks
>But most of the people I grew up with only seemed to know about
>a handful of foods: ground beef, pasta or noodles, hot
>dogs, and cheese on everything. It's the ethnic cuisines
>that tend to be more balanced and nutritious, and you just don't see
>poorer people eating that stuff. Lower class people go
>to the supermarket and are afraid of "fancy" food or
>health food, which is more expensive anyway.
I'm not so sure Ethnic people eat any better than us plain white folk. I've
heard lots of stories about being raised Italian by my Aunt (by marriage) who
was obese. She had a really hard time pushing away from a pizza or a big plate
of pasta. Her mother insisted everyone eat lots of seconds and thirds if you
could hold it and there was lots of fattening ingredients in her food. I use
to love visiting her house though.. it was great tasting stuff :)
At my house, growing up in a working class family, I ate very well. And at
school I had nutrition classes and most of the time my Mom had me on one kind
of diet or another. I knew what to eat not to get fat, I just didn't always
do it. That combined with a low metabolism and a sedentary lifestyle added up
over time.
Anyway.. I'm straying from my point, but from what I've seen .. the media,
school and families educate children and offer them the opportunity to eat
well, but kids don't always take advantage of those options. And, as you get
older and make your own food choices it is _easier_ and sometimes just
practical ( you need to save money) to opt for the cheap stuff you can buy in
bulk and wolf down quickly without thinking of the results. So I guess I feel
it's not really for lack of educating us.. we just chose not to spend our money
in the right places.
In our house we were never afraid of fancy food ..( I think simple food like
steam veggies and grilled fish is probably less fattening) although we never
bought health food, I was raised on a farm, so we always had fresh "organic"
veggies and very good choices of meat my father raised and butchered himself.
My Mom made sure to include all the food groups etc.. and counted calories
even back then. You didn't really think in terms of how much fat you were
consuming. I'm still not convinced that fat is _that_ bad if not eaten alot
today, but I avoid much of it as I can now just to be safe...
>I saw the same thing when I lived in Nebraska for five years:
>people would bring potluck "dishes" into work that usually
>incorporated prepackaged foods.
I see alot of this every day. It is much easier to fix a dish using campbells
mushroom soup instead of whipping up a sauce of your own to add flavor. Lots
of bad food choices are made when people want to save time and energy.
>These people *really* did not know how to cook
>or how to eat, and they were often *really* unhealthy.
Possibly they knew how, but chose not to do so for a number of reasons.
Sometimes families get in a rut and just automatically eat old favorites that
are cheap, high in flavor, and not nutritionally good for them.
> Social isolation of any kind leads to ignorance
>about health.
I could see where this could be true, but most people aren't living in a
vacuum. There is lots of information in the media, school, and home about
nutrition and diets. I'm not sure what the answer is, at this point, to
persuading people to change the way they eat. But I think they have to want
the change themselves.
Sorry for the rant,
RebeccaB
Userb3
>I'll be fine as long as no one starts talking about a tofu-tax!
You're already paying a tofu-tax in the form of obscene markup for
"health food." Compare the cost of tofu to the cost of soybeans
($4.78/bushel FOB as of yesterday's close). While processing,
packaging, and distribution all add to the cost, you'd have a hard tim
justifying the price of tofu if it wasn't a specialty item in most
markets.
Userb3
>>>:>But supply and demand DO set the price. If the *average* consumer
>>>:>suddenly made it a point to buy low fat foods and eschew the fatty
>>>:>stuff, you'd soon enough see 99 cent veggie burgers and $3.00
>>>:>cheeseburgers, because competition and the economy of scale would
>>>:>dictate those levels.
>>>:
>
>Yes but isn't it less expensive to raise cattle than to grow organic
>foods? I really don't know but I remember reading somewhere that this
>was sometimes the case hence the higher prices. Take pigs for example,
>it's not very expensive to raise them for the meat market but I am
>unsure what the process involves growing organic foods.
Organic crops are very labor intensive. FAR more labor intensive than
traditional methods. They're also more susceptible to insect pressure,
disease, weather, and tend to have lower yields. So they demand a
higher price tag. Of course, if demand were to increase substantially,
the economy of scale would kick in and equalize prices a good bit.
One problem, though, is that many of the supposed benefits of organic
are purely theoretical, and have little or no supporting evidence. And
the organic farmer's best friend - genetically enhanced crops that
reduce the need for chemicals, increase hardiness, and/or improve
yields - has been targeted by anti-corporate and radical
environmentalists in a witch hunt against technology. So for the time
being, traditional methods remain our most economical alternative.
>When I go to a place like FreshFields, I tend to think they up the
>prices because there are a certain type of people that shop there,
I tend to agree.
userb3
dym...@ripco.com
MakeupGrrl wrote:
>
> On 27 Jun 2000 16:22:46 GMT, d...@sac.uky.edu (Diane L Benham) wrote:
>
> >Some magazine (I think it was "Self" or one like that) recently had
> >a survey where they asked what people thought of a fat tax. I'm
> >rather ambivalent on the issue since I don't buy much junk food, but
> >it made me wonder....if they DID have a fat tax, then only richer
> >people would buy lots of fat. Since it would then, theoretically,
> >be more difficult to get plump, would "fat" be desirable again? After
> >all, when food was scarce, a well-fed wife was a good thing...in many
> >countries, it still is, since it's a sign of wealth.
>
> I've actually thought for a long time that we've got it completely
> backwards in this country: a cheeseburger at BK's is 99 cents, while a
> veggie burger at a wholefoods market costs $2.99. We wonder why
> everyone is fat: combined with our sedentary lifestyle, the high cost
> of healthy food has people eating a lot of crap.
>
That's why those who believe in health food should commit
themselves to going out of their way to buy this stuff.
I worked as a cook in a health food deli some years ago.
I've noticed that the prices on a lot of things are becoming
more affordable - especially soy milk and tofu. It was only
a few years ago that you didn't see that vegetarian stuff
in a mainstream supermarket.
There's a convenience store next to the L station on my block,
and I often go there to pick up little things - veggies, juice,
yogurt, cat litter. Recently, they've started carrying soy
milk. I make a point of buying it there, because I hope
that they will continue to carry it. The last batch sold
out in less than a week, and now the new batch is selling
well, too, so hopefully, they'll keep carrying it.
--
Kerry
Mary
>
> One problem, though, is that many of the supposed benefits of organic
> are purely theoretical, and have little or no supporting evidence. And
> the organic farmer's best friend - genetically enhanced crops that
> reduce the need for chemicals, increase hardiness, and/or improve
> yields - has been targeted by anti-corporate and radical
> environmentalists in a witch hunt against technology. >>>
The benefits of organic produce and meat don't seem entirely
theoretical to me. Purely on an aesthetic level one benefit is that
organic food tastes better. I like pesticide/herbicide free produce and
I really like meat from beef cattle and chickens free of added hormones
and antibiotics. The taste difference is amazing!
I drink organic milk-- it tastes lots better than the milk from cows
with artificially-hyped milk production.
As for "genetically-enhanced crops" being the target of
anti-corporate types: keeping the market expanding for "Round-up" sales
does not seem to me to be an adequate excuse for wholesale embracing of
genetically- modified crops. There are too many questions yet to be
asked about the long term effects on the environment and people for GM
crops to be embraced by the public simply because a few
corporate-employed scientists say, "This will be great".
Yesterday, there was much cheering about the completion of
the mapping of the Human Genome. When one reads the fine print, the
Human Genome is not completely mapped and huge hunks of it are still a
complete mystery.
Yet, the commentators and many scientists told us that this will be
wonderful and proceeded to claim that certain diseases will be cured
once we figure out how to manipulate the genes which cause them.
One of the problems the scientists and the press overlooked is
that some of the diseases mentioned have yet to be firmly identified as
having any genetic causation or identifiable link with genetically
carried traits. It was a major leap to claim that through the HG Project
cures will be found for diseases for which no certain genetic trait has
been established. Thus, the claims being made for the Human Genome
project have already been filled with speculation passed off as truth.
I think the Human Genome project is fascinating. I think what
those scientists are doing is exciting and interesting. But, I wish
they'd quit making misleading annoucements about the extent of their
knowledge.
It's not anti-corporate types or wild-eyed radical
environmentalists who make scientists exaggerate their knowledge: it's
hubris.
cheers,
Mary
MakeupGrrl
<use...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>One problem, though, is that many of the supposed benefits of organic
>are purely theoretical, and have little or no supporting evidence. And
>the organic farmer's best friend - genetically enhanced crops that
>reduce the need for chemicals, increase hardiness, and/or improve
>yields - has been targeted by anti-corporate and radical
>environmentalists in a witch hunt against technology. So for the time
>being, traditional methods remain our most economical alternative.
The thing with organic is that it's not necessarily better for us to
eat, but it *is* vastly better for the earth to farm organically.
Organic farming entails a lot more than just not using certain
chemicals; it also involves crop rotation and planting soil-enriching
supporting crops to keep the soil from eroding.
MG
Userb3
>The thing with organic is that it's not necessarily better for us to
>eat, but it *is* vastly better for the earth to farm organically.
>Organic farming entails a lot more than just not using certain
>chemicals; it also involves crop rotation and planting soil-enriching
>supporting crops to keep the soil from eroding.
Unfortunately, the truth is MUCH more complicated than that. Organic
producers use much more organic matter than traditional farmers, and
their runoff causes it's own set of problems for streams and other
water sources (too much organic matter in the water, e.coli, etc.). All
techniques involve tradeoffs.
Crop rotation, cover crops, and anti-erosion techniques aren't unique
to organic farming. They're a part of traditional farming, as well, and
farmers have ALWAYS relied on these techniques to maintain their land
and enhance productivity. It's just not economically feasible to lose
all your topsoil to runoff or rely completely on chemical fertilizers
no matter what sort of pest control you use.
dym...@ripco.com
Userb3 wrote:
>
> One problem, though, is that many of the supposed benefits of organic
> are purely theoretical, and have little or no supporting evidence. And
> the organic farmer's best friend - genetically enhanced crops that
> reduce the need for chemicals, increase hardiness, and/or improve
> yields - has been targeted by anti-corporate and radical
> environmentalists in a witch hunt against technology. So for the time
> being, traditional methods remain our most economical alternative.
Organic farming *is* the "traditional method". It's the method
that was used for most of this country's history - until very
recently, actually.
--
Kerry
dym...@ripco.com
MakeupGrrl wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:36:56 -0500 (CDT), "Userb3"
> <use...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >One problem, though, is that many of the supposed benefits of organic
> >are purely theoretical, and have little or no supporting evidence. And
> >the organic farmer's best friend - genetically enhanced crops that
> >reduce the need for chemicals, increase hardiness, and/or improve
> >yields - has been targeted by anti-corporate and radical
> >environmentalists in a witch hunt against technology. So for the time
> >being, traditional methods remain our most economical alternative.
>
> The thing with organic is that it's not necessarily better for us to
> eat, but it *is* vastly better for the earth to farm organically.
> Organic farming entails a lot more than just not using certain
> chemicals; it also involves crop rotation and planting soil-enriching
> supporting crops to keep the soil from eroding.
No kidding. When I lived in Nebraska, I took applied ethics,
and we covered farming issues, being Nebraska and all. The
topsoil in Kansas is so depleted, that if it were spread
out evenly over the state, it would only be an inch thick.
--
Kerry
Userb3
>Userb3 wrote:
>>
>> One problem, though, is that many of the supposed benefits of organic
>> are purely theoretical, and have little or no supporting evidence. And
>> the organic farmer's best friend - genetically enhanced crops that
>> reduce the need for chemicals, increase hardiness, and/or improve
>> yields - has been targeted by anti-corporate and radical
>> environmentalists in a witch hunt against technology. >>>
>
> The benefits of organic produce and meat don't seem entirely
>theoretical to me. Purely on an aesthetic level one benefit is that
>organic food tastes better. I like pesticide/herbicide free produce and
>I really like meat from beef cattle and chickens free of added hormones
>and antibiotics. The taste difference is amazing!
>I drink organic milk-- it tastes lots better than the milk from cows
>with artificially-hyped milk production.
I have eaten both organic and traditionally produced meat and
vegetables, and personally, I think taste differences are subjective. I
suspect freshness and expectations have much more to do with any
perceived difference in taste than whether the producer sprayed for
worms 30 days before harvest.
That said, if you want to choose or prefer food for ideological
reasons, I'm all for it. Eat what you want, and it's fine by me. FWIW,
I go out of my way to eat locally produced food, and buy Israeli
products. Nothing wrong with supporting your ideology with your wallet.
> As for "genetically-enhanced crops" being the target of
>anti-corporate types: keeping the market expanding for "Round-up" sales
>does not seem to me to be an adequate excuse for wholesale embracing of
>genetically- modified crops.
Nor for me, either. However, reduced pesticide use, decreased fuel
costs, decreased erosion, weather and pest resistance, improved
produce, increased profitability for producers, etc. DO make for an
attractive argument.
On our farm, raising Roundup-Ready and Buctril resistant cotton have
allowed us to adopt no-till production on 50% of our cotton acres, cut
herbicide use by approx 30%, and fuel use by 25-40%.
>There are too many questions yet to be
>asked about the long term effects on the environment and people for GM
>crops to be embraced by the public simply because a few
>corporate-employed scientists say, "This will be great".
Fortunately for all of us, current biotechnology is governed by much
more that "a few corporate-employed scientists". International,
national, state, and local regulatory agencies review, monitor, and
regulate biotech research and products, University ag departments and
research stations conduct independent tests, commodity producer groups
review research, and corporate legal depts review research. The USDA,
FDA, OSHA, and the EPA, among others, see to it that public safety is
the first priority.
For more information of biotech regulations, safety, and research, see
http://nbiap.biochem.vt.edu/
Userb3
>Organic farming *is* the "traditional method". It's the method
>that was used for most of this country's history - until very
>recently, actually.
Well if you really want to push the issue, you could say that slash and
burn is the traditional method.
But the fact of the matter is that modern organic methods are not the
same methods your great, great, great grandfather used, and farmers
have ALWAYS used modern technology when it was to their advantage to do
so.
Userb3
>The scholars involved in the project have actually been very
>circumspect. It's the media, made up primarily of laypeople, and mostly
>of sensationalists, who misinterpret and blow out of proportion any
>stories that they find.
Which is a problem for any scientist who has data that the public might
find interesting. It seems that te media is unclear on the actual
heuristic process by which understanding and information are gained,
preferring to play every incremental step as "Now We Know It All."
Userb3
Charles L. Perrin
<use...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:51:46 -0400, CoFarb wrote:
>>I'll be fine as long as no one starts talking about a tofu-tax!
>You're already paying a tofu-tax in the form of obscene markup for
>"health food." Compare the cost of tofu to the cost of soybeans
>($4.78/bushel FOB as of yesterday's close). While processing,
>packaging, and distribution all add to the cost
You should hear my parents (retired on the farm) complain about the
price of cereal!
Lutachris
in a school system they greatly reduced the price of fresh fruit and the
students consumed more....so there was a suggestion that chips, sodas, etc. be
taxed to deter children from buying them...
MakeupGrrl
<use...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:51:12 GMT, MakeupGrrl wrote:
>
>>The thing with organic is that it's not necessarily better for us to
>>eat, but it *is* vastly better for the earth to farm organically.
>>Organic farming entails a lot more than just not using certain
>>chemicals; it also involves crop rotation and planting soil-enriching
>>supporting crops to keep the soil from eroding.
>
>Unfortunately, the truth is MUCH more complicated than that. Organic
>producers use much more organic matter than traditional farmers, and
>their runoff causes it's own set of problems for streams and other
>water sources (too much organic matter in the water, e.coli, etc.). All
>techniques involve tradeoffs.
I just have to laugh at the "too much organic matter" in the water --
as opposed to too much what? toxic matter? I know what you mean, but
is does strike a bit of an ironic chord, no?
>Crop rotation, cover crops, and anti-erosion techniques aren't unique
>to organic farming. They're a part of traditional farming, as well, and
>farmers have ALWAYS relied on these techniques to maintain their land
>and enhance productivity. It's just not economically feasible to lose
>all your topsoil to runoff or rely completely on chemical fertilizers
>no matter what sort of pest control you use.
You would think this to be the case, but in the last half-century or
so most commercial farmers have had to survive year to year, and that
means thinking about the short-term -- in other words, all available
land is needed to plant the highest-yielding, highest-selling crop.
Things like thinking about the soil in ten years fall by the wayside,
because if the family doesn't eat this year there won't be a farm in
ten years anyway.
It's precisely this of-the-moment sort of thinking that is at the root
of most man-made environmental problems. Organic farming simply
ensures those old-fashioned methods of farming, which preserve the
soil and surrounding lands as much as possible.
All man-made operations are going to have some sort of undesireable
effect upon the earth (ie. waste) -- it's a matter of how hard it is
for the earth to cope with that effect.
MG
Michele317
>>backwards in this country: a cheeseburger at BK's is 99 cents, while a
>>veggie burger at a wholefoods market costs $2.99. We wonder why
>>everyone is fat: combined with our sedentary lifestyle, the high cost
>>of healthy food has people eating a lot of crap.
>
>foods and vegetables are more expensive then say a pound of hamburger and
>a big
>sack of taters.
>Try buying herbs and seasonings for added flavor.. some fresh veggies and
>a
>nice lean cut of meat and see which costs more in comparison.
>I know myself.. now that I eat so differently, I spend alot more money on
>food
>than I ever have. I use to buy hamburger helper or kraft macaroni and cheese
>and chicken on sale... lots of cheap filling food. Now, I eat much less
>and
>better quality but pay much more.
i wonder if there's also this attitude: 'even though we're poor, at least my
kids can eat at mcdonalds like everyone else does.. i may have to deny them
most of what they see advertised but i can afford to give them a big mac'.
also, there are lots of poor people living in fairly horrific apartments where
they wouldn't leave food around due to vermin infestation. third, it may make
sense to those of us not living hand-to-mouth to 'invest' in all the staples so
we can make lots of cheaper meals later on, but if you've got to make 10 bucks
last til the end of the week, you're not gonna spend it on one chicken (even
though it could be turned into several meals and a ton of soup).
RebBrooks
>kids can eat at mcdonalds like everyone else does.. i may have to deny them
>most of what they see advertised but i can afford to give them a big mac'.
Good point. Eating out can be a status measure. People who can't normally
afford to eat in nice restaurants can at least afford to treat their kids to
one of those yummy spicey chicken sandwiches at Burger King.. and if they are
on sale, all the better.
>also, there are lots of poor people living in fairly horrific apartments
>where
>they wouldn't leave food around due to vermin infestation.
A depressing thought , but a possibility. In low-income homes you will see
more bug and rat infestation than that of higher-income possibly because
extermination isn't cheap. If I had a bug problem I wouldn't stockpile
perishables.
> it may make
>sense to those of us not living hand-to-mouth to 'invest' in all the staples
>so
>we can make lots of cheaper meals later on, but if you've got to make 10
>bucks
>last til the end of the week, you're not gonna spend it on one chicken
I agree that this has alot to do with poor choices in diet and nutrition. When
you have to choose between new shoes and great quality food as opposed to
filling, the shoes usually win out. I've seen this while working with larger
families living in low-income homes. One must budget closely.. and in many
cases they choose foods that are filling yet flavorful. Cooking with fat and
eating a high-fat diet is one way to stimulate the taste-buds very
inexpensively.
Here in the South, people tend to fry everything to death. I thought it was a
regional thing until I started watching the cooking network and realized that
many French cooks use fat and lots of it. So this practice of adding flavor
with fat isn't new, I think in the USA we have our own flare for being
sedentary..and there ya go.. a nation with a significant number of overweight
people.
RebeccaB.
Userb3
>>Unfortunately, the truth is MUCH more complicated than that. Organic
>>producers use much more organic matter than traditional farmers, and
>>their runoff causes it's own set of problems for streams and other
>>water sources (too much organic matter in the water, e.coli, etc.). All
>>techniques involve tradeoffs.
>
>I just have to laugh at the "too much organic matter" in the water --
>as opposed to too much what? toxic matter? I know what you mean, but
>is does strike a bit of an ironic chord, no?
While the terminology may seem odd, it's only because in the public's
mind organic=pure/good/natural, but an overabundence of organic
nutrients can kill a stream just as quickly as an overabundence of
synthetic chemicals.
>>Crop rotation, cover crops, and anti-erosion techniques aren't unique
>>to organic farming. They're a part of traditional farming, as well, and
>>farmers have ALWAYS relied on these techniques to maintain their land
>>and enhance productivity. It's just not economically feasible to lose
>>all your topsoil to runoff or rely completely on chemical fertilizers
>>no matter what sort of pest control you use.
>
>You would think this to be the case, but in the last half-century or
>so most commercial farmers have had to survive year to year, and that
>means thinking about the short-term -- in other words, all available
>land is needed to plant the highest-yielding, highest-selling crop.
>Things like thinking about the soil in ten years fall by the wayside,
>because if the family doesn't eat this year there won't be a farm in
>ten years anyway.
Your generalization isn't true (and is frankly insulting to those of us
who do farm and work in agriculture). I'll invite you to visit our
farm, or to visit any farm, and make a genuine effort to understand
what they're doing. Short term thinking doesn't work on the farm. Visit
your University Extension Service office or library and ask to see
copies of farm magazines, newsletters, and research agendas. You'll
find that farmers are VERY interested in the environment, and are doing
something about it.
Besides, short term thinking isn't economical when you have to finance
long term. Assume you want to farm 1000 acres of cotton (a small/mid
sized cotton operation) - your land costs$2000/acre, your cotton picker
will run $250,000, you'll need two or three tractors at $50-125,000
each, a planter at $25,000, a module maker at $20,000, a couple of
cultivators and hooded sprayers at $5,000-30,000 each, etc. And that's
before you've bought a single seed, jug of pesticide, hour of labor,
gallon of diesel, or paid a penny in taxes. Your family farm is going
to put you a million dollars in debt on equipment, 2 million on land,
and you'll need anywhere from $150-$1000/acre (varies by region) in
operating expenses to actually farm it once you're set up.
Suffice it to say you don't get financing on that kind of investment
unless you've got long term plans.
>All man-made operations are going to have some sort of undesireable
>effect upon the earth (ie. waste) -- it's a matter of how hard it is
>for the earth to cope with that effect.
That isn't limited to man-made operations. Take 1000 acres of what was
cypress swamp, prairie, or lowland woods, clear it, plant one species
(cotton, corn, soybeans. rice, whatever), and you're having a huge
impact no matter what sort of pesticides and fertilizer you use. Spread
chicken manure (a popular organic fertilizer) across acres and acres of
land, and what do you suppose the earth has to do to cope with that?
Similarly, your house or apartment in town is occupying space that was
formerly wild, and everything you own, touch, or use required natural
resources to make and left some sort of residue behind. Life involves
tradeoffs.
userb3
val189
health matter, and not a sign of affluence or beauty.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mary
>
> Mary (jas...@javanet.com) wrote:
>
> : I think the Human Genome project is fascinating. I think what
> : those scientists are doing is exciting and interesting. But, I wish
> : they'd quit making misleading annoucements about the extent of their
> : knowledge.
>
> circumspect. It's the media, made up primarily of laypeople, and mostly
> of sensationalists, who misinterpret and blow out of proportion any
> that the HGP is far from over.
>
Melanie,
I would generally agree that science reporting is marginal,
at best, in most media outlets because of some bizarre impulse to report
all science news as "cure found for ____" or "Big Gigantic Discovery
about Mars". But, check out the special section the NYTimes devoted to
the HGP: the claims by various scientists, not all connected directly
with the HG project admittedly, could be judged extreme. Also, the very
fact that the announcement was made had less to do with the HG project
being completed(sic) than the competition between the two teams.
I think the competition for funding affects how scientists inform
the public and potential stockholders.
cheers,
Mary
Mary
> That said, if you want to choose or prefer food for ideological
> reasons, I'm all for it. Eat what you want, and it's fine by me. FWIW,
> I go out of my way to eat locally produced food, and buy Israeli
> products. Nothing wrong with supporting your ideology with your wallet.>>>
I don't have food ideologies: I do have a discriminating palate.
Organically grown produce is far more reliable for its quality during
the winter months in New England. There is little difference between
organic and locally grown crops grown by farmers using IPM during the
season.
And, I really do believe that the over-use of antibiotics in
animal feed contributes to the flourishing of antibiotic-resistant
organisms. I don't have the faintest idea what the long-term effect of
hormones in animal feed may have upon consumers of that meat: I just
know meat free of the stuff tastes better.
> Fortunately for all of us, current biotechnology is governed by much
> more that "a few corporate-employed scientists". International,
> national, state, and local regulatory agencies review, monitor, and
> regulate biotech research and products, University ag departments and
> research stations conduct independent tests, commodity producer groups
> review research, and corporate legal depts review research. The USDA,
> FDA, OSHA, and the EPA, among others, see to it that public safety is
> the first priority.
>
>
Then why do you imagine it is that much of Europe doesn't want to
import GM seeds or food products from the USA? Are they all just
ignorant or are they skeptical for a reason?
And, if GM products are so damn good for us why is labelling that
fact on foods manufactured with them so vigorously opposed?
cheers,
Mary
Melanie
down but they haven't. They've probably actually gone up.
Melanie
MakeupGrrl wrote:
>I've actually thought for a long time that we've got it completely
>backwards in this country: a cheeseburger at BK's is 99 cents, while a
>veggie burger at a wholefoods market costs $2.99. We wonder why
>everyone is fat: combined with our sedentary lifestyle, the high cost
>of healthy food has people eating a lot of crap.
>
>Prime example: at my local supermarket, a bag of potato chips costs a
>buck or so. A bag of baked vegetable chips? 5 dollars! I'm aware of
>the law of supply and demand, but you can't tell people to eat healthy
>and then sell junk food for really low prices.
>
Userb3
>> Fortunately for all of us, current biotechnology is governed by much
>> more that "a few corporate-employed scientists". International,
>> national, state, and local regulatory agencies review, monitor, and
>> regulate biotech research and products, University ag departments and
>> research stations conduct independent tests, commodity producer groups
>> review research, and corporate legal depts review research. The USDA,
>> FDA, OSHA, and the EPA, among others, see to it that public safety is
>> the first priority.
>>
>>
> Then why do you imagine it is that much of Europe doesn't want to
>import GM seeds or food products from the USA? Are they all just
>ignorant or are they skeptical for a reason?
If you're going to use the "50 Million Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong"
argument, then we'll have to assume that Big Macs are better food than
organic vegetables, because consumers overwhelmingly prefer Big Macs.
Similarly, Britney Spears is clearly much more important than Hillary
Clinton.
But the fact of the matter is that objections to genetically enhanced
plants and products has much more to do with politics and nationalism
than it does science. It would also be fair to say that europeans don't
trust their governmental regulatory agencies or corporations as much as
we do in the US (at least according to my European trading partners).
The crux of the matter is that whatever popular skepticism exists
(farmers in the 40s thought tractor fumes would kill their crops, and
the weight would permanently compact the soil), there is no evidence to
support the claims of anti-GMO activists, whereas there is an enormous
body of research on GMOs conducted by independent labs, regulatory
agencies, public universities, and biotech companies that show our
current technology to be entirely safe.
> And, if GM products are so damn good for us why is labelling that
>fact on foods manufactured with them so vigorously opposed?
Because of the public hysteria that's been whipped up on the subject.
Plain and simple.
If anyone is interested in making an INFORMED decision about GMO, and
whether current ag technology represents a threat to the environment
might want to visit the following sites (noting that the first three
references are university sites):
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept99/Shelton.monarch.bpf.html
http://agebb.missouri.edu/mgt/gmoqa/index.htm
http://nbiap.biochem.vt.edu/
http://www.nfpa-food.org/
http://www.betterfoods.org/
Or read the following articles:
> FOR RELEASE: Sept. 10, 1999
> Contact: Blaine P. Friedlander Jr.
> Office: (607) 255-3290
> E-Mail: bp...@cornell.edu
>
> ITHACA, N.Y. -- Two prominent entomologists, one from Cornell University,
> warn that three recent studies on the effects of genetically engineered
> crops have distorted the debate about engineered crops and that this could
> have "profound consequences" for science and public policy.
>
> The article, "False reports and the ears of men," in the latest issue of
> Nature Biotechnology, is authored by Anthony M. Shelton, professor of
> entomology at Cornell's New York State College of Agriculture and Life
> Sciences, and Richard T. Roush of the University of Adelaide, Australia.
> They urge that the public should not be swayed "by laboratory reports
> that,
> when looked at with a critical eye, may not have any reality in the field
> or
> even in the laboratory."
>
> The first of the three studies they comment on was led by John E. Losey,
> Cornell assistant professor of entomology. This study of the effect of
> Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn on the monarch butterfly "can only be
> considered a preliminary laboratory study," they write.
>
> In the May 20 issue of Nature, Losey and his colleagues reported that
> pollen
> from commercial corn, genetically engineered to produce a bacterial toxin
> to
> protect it against European corn borers, kills monarch butterfly larvae in
> laboratory tests. While Shelton and Roush note that this result was
> expected
> under such laboratory test conditions, they question whether this test was
> realistic.
>
> "If I went to a movie and bought a hundred pounds of salted popcorn,
> because
> I like salted popcorn, and then I ate those the salted popcorn all at
> once,
> I'd probably die. Eating that much salted popcorn simply is not a
> real-world
> situation, but if I died it may be reported that salted popcorn was
> lethal,"
> Shelton said in an interview. "The same thing holds true for monarch
> butterflies and pollen. Scientists have a duty to be incredibly
> responsible
> for developing realistic studies. Scientists need to make assessments that
> are pertinent to the real world."
>
> In the second study discussed in the article, researchers at Kansas State
> University reported in Science that they had discovered corn borer
> resistance to Bt toxins. Shelton and Roush question the methodology used
> in
> the study, "including that the authors did not demonstrate that resistance
> was actually to the same Bt toxin as in the plant or that the insects
> could
> survive on the Bt plant." Even so, they write, "this questionable
> laboratory
> study has generated considerable debate over whether the present
> resistance
> management policy should be overturned."
>
> In another recent issue of Nature, a University of Arizona study showed
> that
> the pink bollworm's resistance to Bt-cotton was recessive in inheritance,
> but the paper questioned whether resistant bollworms developed more slowly
> than susceptible bollworms. This could possibly knock out random mating
> and
> dilute the insect's resistance in the field. "We hope that the take-home
> message won't be converted to another premature claim that Bt crops are
> doomed," Shelton and Roush say in their commentary.
>
> Since the release of the monarch butterfly study, write Shelton and Roush,
> companies that make the genetically engineered agricultural seed have been
> confronted by freezes on the approval process for Bt transgenic corn by
> the
> European Commission and by "possible trade restrictions by Japan." In the
> United States, there have been calls for a moratorium on the further
> planting of Bt-corn.
>
> In discussing the Cornell monarch butterfly report, Shelton and Roush
> voice
> their surprise that a "previous and more relevant and realistic study has
> been largely overlooked." While the Cornell laboratory study showed high
> mortality among monarch larvae that ingested genetically engineered
> pollen,
> an Iowa State University study by Laura Hansen and John Obrycki showed low
> mortality even when Monarch larvae were fed milkweed that had the highest
> levels of Bt pollen that would be encountered in the field. Shelton and
> Roush note that it is unlikely that these high Bt pollen levels would be
> encountered by the insects in the field, and they say that "few
> entomologists or weed scientists familiar with the butterflies or corn
> production give credence to the Nature article."
>
> Crops are genetically engineered with Bt to control pests without the use
> of
> broad spectrum insecticides, which may cause environmental and human
> health
> problems. For example, the European corn borer is the most notorious pest
> that corn farmers face and causes an estimated $1.2 billion in crop losses
> annually. To combat this pest, an estimated 24 to 28 million acres of
> Bt-corn were planted in the United States in 1999.
>
> Related World Wide Web sites: The following sites provide additional
> information on this news release. Some might not be part of the Cornell
> University community, and Cornell has no control over their content or
> availability.
>
> -- Cornell News Service release on the Losey study:
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html -- The
> Hansen/Obrycki study:
> http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/D81.html
>
> -30-
> OPINION: REPORTING ON BIOTECHNOLOGY COULD USE WARNING
> LABEL
> September 8, 1999
> Knight-Ridder Tribune
> Bridge News
> WASHINGTON -- Michael Fumento of the Hudson Institute writes in this
> opinion piece that on a recent visit to France, he saw a magazine cover
> depicting a tomato with a burning fuse and "La Cuisine du Diable" spelled
> out in big bold letters below. It wasn't about a recipe for devil's-food
> cake with tomatoes, but about food developed through biotechnology.
> A more influential magazine contains an article that could be called "La
> Cuisine du Diable Lite."
> September's issue of Consumer Reports presents a more honest look at
> biotechnology than the French magazine. Considering the magazine's growing
> tendency to find corporate-produced horrors behind every bush, that's,
> according to Fumento, an achievement.
> Indeed, the article stated, "There is no evidence that genetically
> engineered foods on the market are not safe to eat," adding that genetic
> engineering could lead to consumer benefits like lower cholesterol and
> increased resistance to cancer.
> But like Darth Vader, Consumer Reports embraces the dark side. It repeats
> false claims about biotech foods, says biotech development doesn't have
> nearly enough safeguards and recommends mandatory labeling of foods
> containing genetically engineered ingredients.
> You can be sure that Consumer Reports (published by the nonprofit
> Consumers Union) wasn't about to weaken its case by explaining that there
> is no inherent difference between bioengineered food and nonbioengineered
> food.
> Virtually nothing we eat is truly "natural." Few things we consume are as
> nature made them. From cattle to corn, apples to artichokes, today's food
> is the result of cross-breeding experiments dating to the dawn of history.
> Many of the plant varieties we consume didn't exist even a century ago.
> With biotechnology, you isolate a specific gene or genes with the desired
> features and splice them into the organism you want to improve.
> It's faster, surer and safer than the old technique of crossbreeding.
> Henry Miller, a former official with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
> and senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, notes that the few
> harmful plants developed before gene-splicing would have been much less
> likely to occur under biotechnology.
> Can biotechnology guarantee food that is utterly, absolutely, 101 percent
> safe? No. There is no technology that can. Miller informed me that biotech
> food regulations are always at least as tough as those for other foods and
> often needlessly tougher.
> Miller says that since biotech is merely an extension of the sort of food
> development that's always been going on, there's no justification for
> additional scrutiny.
> That's also the FDA's view. But the heavily politicized Environmental
> Protection Agency takes a different tack, discriminating against biotech
> food and burdening it with worthless tests.
> Steve Taylor, a food scientist at the University of Nebraska, chairs an
> international panel of scientists given the job of coming up with
> standards for biotech food safety evaluation. "The testing done by major
> U.S. biotech companies meets or exceeds those standards," Taylor says.
> Government regulators aren't the big problem for companies investing
> billions of dollars in these foods. Rather, they suffer under a constant
> barrage of false claims from environmental activists, organic farmers and
> media crusaders.
> They are besieged by European governments that perceive (correctly) that
> their heavily subsidized farmers will need even more subsidies to compete
> with cheaper American biotech crops.
> If companies actually committed the sins they're accused of, the resulting
> media attention and lawsuits could destroy them. The Sierra Club has
> already sent chilling notices to individual researchers warning they will
> personally be held legally liable for problems.
> So the food is safe. Why label it then? Simple, says Consumer Reports:
> "Consumers have a fundamental right to know what they eat." That sounds
> nice but doesn't mean much.
> Consumer Reports and other biotech labeling advocates note many European
> governments mandate biotech food labeling. Yet few mandate nutrition
> labels on food the way the United States does. It is the United States,
> not Europe, that provides consumers with the most important information
> about their food.
> Why don't we require labels informing us where the individual ingredients
> were grown, slaughtered or synthesized? Why not tell us the specific
> variety of blueberry in that muffin, or grapes in that juice? Because it's
> not important.
> Since biotech food differs from other food only in the way it was
> developed, there's no purpose to labeling it. No nonpolitical purpose, at
> least.
> But activists and their media allies will continue to fight for such
> labels, in hopes that a biotech label will scare consumers away.
> Furthermore, because labeling requires food testing at every stage of
> transport from picking to processing, it increases the cost of those foods
> by as much as 30 percent.
> What the public really needs is a label on all the scientifically
> inaccurate articles and press releases on biotech food. Perhaps something
> like: "The following piece contains 5 percent half-truths, 10 percent
> obfuscation and 85 percent rubbish."
Hillary Israeli
Melanie L Chang <mlc...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
*I like to keep clippings of weird media things that are paleo-related. My
*favorite one is a photo that was on the front page of the Philly Inquirer
*when DinoFest came to town. It's a mounted skeleton with a big headline
*by it that says "DinoFest is coming." Unfortunately, it's a skeleton of a
*rhino. I know. I, and maybe three or four other people, were annoyed by
*that. But you would think that with all the dinosaur pictures floating
*around out there they could at least find a picture of an actual dinosaur
*skeleton rather than one of an extant mammal.
*
*Someday I want to teach a course on popular science writing, examining
*the questions of why scientists can't write worth a damn, and how there
*is almost a culture of not being able to write in science, and how we
Melanie -
have you met Dr. Peter Dodson yet? You would probably get a huge kick out
of him.
-h.
--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net in...@hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)
CoFarb
"Melanie L Chang" <mlc...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:8jg55m$ilo$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
<snipped>
>
> I don't trust anything I read about science in the mainstream media. They
> always, always get it wrong
It's not just science, Melanie. It's really everything. That's why I like
to quote Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy:
"Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for that
rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge."
I've done a lot of technical, medical and statistical writing over the
years, so my sensitivities to accuracy in these fields is on the picky-picky
side. (Yes, "picky-picky" is the scientific term<G>) I'm always looking at
tables and charts in the paper, subconsciously doing the math in my head and
discovering that things don't add up.
Largely, journalists are not science-oriented.
Technical/scientific/statistical errors that jump off the page when you are
reading the paper are probably completely overlooked by most readers.
I think C. P. Snow referred to this dichotomy as "Two Worlds"--basically
science people and non-science people. Even though he was both a writer and
a scientist, Snow felt that the two worlds exist with very little
understanding of each other.
That probably explains why people who are "bilingual" (writing &
science/math/computers) are in such high demand in the modern world.
donna
Mary
> >fact on foods manufactured with them so vigorously opposed?>>>
> Because of the public hysteria that's been whipped up on the subject.
> Plain and simple.>>>
to have more faith in government regulatory bodies and universities and
scientists and corporations than history suggests is prudent.
And, when the public(or me) indicates skepticism, you seem to believe
that calling doubters(and me) hysterics
and refusing to label GM products is convincing evidence of how benign
GM crops are.
At the very end of the 20th century, try imagining that people like
me have noticed that scientists; governments and regulatory bodies; big
corporations; universities, and,yes, farmers,too, sometimes rely more on
wishful thinking and a desire to please the paymaster than objectivity
when evaluating the benefits of science and technology.
People like me are skeptical of science, scientists, governments
and government bureaucrats and corporations for many reasons, many
involving the most shameful events in our century.
Refusing the public information rarely increases the public's trust.
Nor are scientists or governments particularly convincing when they
blame the media for the public's reluctance to go along with a program.
Say what you will, neither the media nor the public designed
Hanaford Nuclear Reservation or the Tuskegee experiments: two fine
examples of the joy science and government,working together, have given
the American people. Anyone with knowledge of the first half of this
century can come up with more ugly examples of science, government and
industry failing people.
cheers,
Mary
Userb3
>> And, if GM products are so damn good for us why is labelling that
>> >fact on foods manufactured with them so vigorously opposed?>>>
>
>> Because of the public hysteria that's been whipped up on the subject.
>> Plain and simple.>>>
>
> You seem to want two things: you want the public(or me)
>to have more faith in government regulatory bodies and universities and
>scientists and corporations than history suggests is prudent.
I'd word that differently. I want you to trust the same regulatory
agencies, independent scientists, universities, and corporations that
monitor your groceries, your clothes, your car, your house, your
streets, your airplanes, your drugs, your etc. to be as responsible
with biotech as they are with every other area they monitor, regulate,
or are otherwise involved in.
> And, when the public(or me) indicates skepticism, you seem to believe
>that calling doubters(and me) hysterics
>and refusing to label GM products is convincing evidence of how benign
>GM crops are.
I've said nothing if the kind. I believe the regulations enforced,
research conducted, and products monitored by regulatory agencies,
independent labs, universities, and corporations are convincing
evidence that current GM technology is safe and adequately regulated.
See:
http://agebb.missouri.edu/mgt/gmoqa/index.htm
http://nbiap.biochem.vt.edu/
http://www.nfpa-food.org/
http://www.betterfoods.org/
> People like me are skeptical of science, scientists, governments
>and government bureaucrats and corporations for many reasons, many
>involving the most shameful events in our century.
Perhaps people like you should also note the vast technological
breakthroughs (we're using one now) that have been brought about by
corporations, governments, scientists, and even bureaucrats that we've
realized in the past century. Life expectancy has increased, medical
technology is light years ahead of where it was, quality of life is
vastly improved, .... to the point that it would be difficult, if not
impossible to find anything that hasn't improved because of the same
people you eschew as untrustworthy.
> Refusing the public information rarely increases the public's trust.
I don't want the public to be denied information - hell, I want the
public to educate themselves!
See:
http://agebb.missouri.edu/mgt/gmoqa/index.htm
http://nbiap.biochem.vt.edu/
http://www.nfpa-food.org/
http://www.betterfoods.org/
> Say what you will, neither the media nor the public designed
>Hanaford Nuclear Reservation or the Tuskegee experiments: two fine
>examples of the joy science and government,working together, have given
>the American people. Anyone with knowledge of the first half of this
>century can come up with more ugly examples of science, government and
>industry failing people.
Are you proposing a return to Agrarian society, complete with TB,
Typhoid, Influenza, Smallpox, and Syphilis (among others) epidemics?
Perhaps you'd like to farm 40 acres with a mule and live in a one room
shack with only a wood stove for heat. Perhaps you'd like to give up
safe and convenient contraceptives, a reasonable expectation of
retirement, or public education. Which of the things that government,
science, and industry brought you in the past 100 years will you give
up first?
Charles L. Perrin
<use...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I've said nothing if the kind. I believe the regulations enforced,
>research conducted, and products monitored by regulatory agencies,
>independent labs, universities, and corporations are convincing
>evidence that current GM technology is safe and adequately regulated.
If you have ever looked, it seems nobody is really in charge of GM
products (food, not automobiles). There are three federal agencies who
seem to have a part of it.
After all, at one time, all the researchers thought thalidomide was
safe.
CoFarb
thalidomide to pregnant women in the US. The ghastly effects of thalidomide
were centered in Great Britain. And the few cases of thalidomide babies in
the US were due to women acquiring the drug outside the US.
I would, however, prefer to err on the side of caution if possible. And I
also believe that the informed consumer is the best consumer.
Long-ranging effects are impossible to gauge. For example, I believe there
is already a question about one of the genetically altered cottons. (Sorry
if I am not accurate here, but the gist is the same regardless.) It seems
that one of the winged critters (butterflies?) that thrives on the pollen of
unaltered cotton cannot make use of the pollen from the altered plants.
Most of us would probably be hesitant to wipe out an entire species because
we know that there are far-reaching consequences.
donna
"Charles L. Perrin" <c.l.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ff0rlsopkaeo5ga7u...@4ax.com...
Mary
> Perhaps people like you should also note the vast technological
> breakthroughs (we're using one now) that have been brought about by
> corporations, governments, scientists, and even bureaucrats that we've
> realized in the past century. Life expectancy has increased, medical
> technology is light years ahead of where it was, quality of life is
> vastly improved, .... to the point that it would be difficult, if not
> impossible to find anything that hasn't improved because of the same
> people you eschew as untrustworthy.
>
Which of the things that government,
> science, and industry brought you in the past 100 years will you give
> up first?
>
>
Easy. I'm perfectly willing to give up chemical weapons; germ
warfare; Zyklon B gas; nuclear weapons and Fascism: all the gifts of
science, governments and corporations working together.
I am not a Luddite nor am I averse to the benefits of science and
technology. I even audit college courses in Astronomy and Biology
periodically to keep up with what's new. Purely for fun since hard
science isn't my territory but I like to think about these things. By
golly, I even have checked out some of the sites you recommend!
History however _is_ my territory and a thorough grounding in
it leads me to be highly skeptical of the notion that "progress" in
science and technology is invariably for the good. Things can go
terribly wrong or have quite unanticipated consequences.
All that nuclear waste, for example, whether generated by
weapons production or energy production or medical technology has to
dealt with: exactly how shall we manage to keep it stored for centuries?
Knowing as we do now that smoked tobacco smoked is deadly, how do
we figure out what to do for all the farmers who depend upon growing it
for their livelihood?
There are technologies which have so vastly increased the catch
of fisherman that the seas are being stripped. How do we maintain a
balance between the needs of fisherman for income and people for food
and yet allow the fisheries regenerate so that an ancient food source is
preserved?
Given the job science, government and corporations have done
addressing those three issues, I can be comfortable in asking whether
GM crops and foods may yet have unanticipated negative consequences to
the environment or to people.
cheers,
Mary
Userb3
>On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:41:46 -0500 (CDT), "Userb3"
><use...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>I've said nothing if the kind. I believe the regulations enforced,
>>research conducted, and products monitored by regulatory agencies,
>>independent labs, universities, and corporations are convincing
>>evidence that current GM technology is safe and adequately regulated.
>
>If you have ever looked, it seems nobody is really in charge of GM
>products (food, not automobiles).
Actually, I have looked. And as a farm manager and commodity trader I
can assure you that there is NOTHING we do on the farm that isn't
regulated. For more information, see:
http://agebb.missouri.edu/mgt/gmoqa/index.htm
http://nbiap.biochem.vt.edu/
>After all, at one time, all the researchers thought thalidomide was
>safe.
My teenage daughter's best friend ran off to meet a 40 year old man she
met on the internet. Does that make you a pervert?
Charles L. Perrin
>Userb3 wrote:
>> Which of the things that government, science, and industry
>> brought you in the past 100 years will you give up first?
>Easy. I'm perfectly willing to give up chemical weapons; germ
>warfare
Germ warfare dated back to the Romans. Just dump a few well-dead cows
in the river upstream of your enemy.
>Zyklon B gas
Ummm, it was a really good house fumigant (what it was originally
marketed for).
>nuclear weapons
If we could keep radiopharmaceuticals.
>Fascism all the gifts of science, governments and corporations
>working together.
I'm not sure I'd blame science on Fascism.
>All that nuclear waste, for example, whether generated by
>weapons production or energy production or medical technology has to
>dealt with: exactly how shall we manage to keep it stored for centuries?
It's like AA: one day at a time.
My suspicion is that vitrification followed by deep burial will work.
But everybody says "not in my backyard!"
>Knowing as we do now that smoked tobacco smoked is deadly, how do
>we figure out what to do for all the farmers who depend upon growing it
>for their livelihood?
We'd probably be better off paying them to grow something else.
>Given the job science, government and corporations have done
>addressing those three issues, I can be comfortable in asking whether
>GM crops and foods may yet have unanticipated negative consequences to
>the environment or to people.
Of those three, the one to fear the most is Government. Corporations
don't declare war, corporations don't have the right of eminent domain
(except when the government lets them have it, which is very few
cases), corporations cannot declare themselves exculpable. Govermment
has all of those powers.
Userb3
> And I
>also believe that the informed consumer is the best consumer.
As do I, which is why the following bothers me:
>Long-ranging effects are impossible to gauge.
No harder than long range effects of taking the medications you take,
using the paint that's on your walls, than the emissions of your car,
or of the chemicals your town uses to treat your water.
>For example, I believe there
>is already a question about one of the genetically altered cottons. (Sorry
>if I am not accurate here, but the gist is the same regardless.) It seems
>that one of the winged critters (butterflies?) that thrives on the pollen of
>unaltered cotton cannot make use of the pollen from the altered plants.
>
>Most of us would probably be hesitant to wipe out an entire species because
>we know that there are far-reaching consequences.
Fortunately, that isn't likely. The supposed ill effects of BT corn and
cotton on the monarch butterfly have been vastly blown out of
proportion. The lone study showing ill effects exposed monarchs to
enormous doses of BT and found that, to no one's surprise, they died.
However, BT is a natural poison, already widely in use (primarily by
organic farmers), with known effects. Also, the levels fed to
butterflies in the study in question VASTLY exceeded any exposure
butterflies would encounter in the real world. Finally, the research
failed to pass muster for peer reviewed journals due to poor controls.
The author went to a non-peer-reviewed journal for publication, and the
article's publication drew widespread protests from within the
scientific community and that publication's board of directors.
You can read the following commentary from Clemson University:
--
Userb3
> Given the job science, government and corporations have done
>addressing those three issues, I can be comfortable in asking whether
>GM crops and foods may yet have unanticipated negative consequences to
>the environment or to people.
But are you comfortable accepting the answer if it differs from your
original bias?
Please see:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept99/Shelton.monarch.bpf.html
http://agebb.missouri.edu/mgt/gmoqa/index.htm
http://nbiap.biochem.vt.edu/
http://www.nfpa-food.org/
http://www.betterfoods.org/
CoFarb
"Userb3" <use...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>Long-ranging effects are impossible to gauge.
>No harder than long range effects of taking the medications you take,
using the paint that's on your walls, than the emissions of your car,
or of the chemicals your town uses to treat your water.
Whoa! I *am* concerned about the long range effects of the medications I
take and the emissions of everyones' cars and the chemicals most towns use
to treat water...and most assuredly worried about the wholesale spraying of
herbicides and pesticides, fertilizer runoff, etc.
Most of the vegetable seeds I plant are hybrids, not heirlooms. Although
this does not concern me very much, I am glad that the information is
provided to me before I choose a variety. Then it is *my* choice.
Is there some reason that consumers should not be privy to such information
before they purchase and consume a product?
donna
Mary
>
> On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 11:56:49 -0400, Mary <jas...@javanet.com> wrote:
>
> >Userb3 wrote:
>
> >> Which of the things that government, science, and industry
> >> brought you in the past 100 years will you give up first?
>
> >Easy. I'm perfectly willing to give up chemical weapons; germ
> >warfare
>
>
> I'm not sure I'd blame science on Fascism.>>
Nor would I entirely. But the reality is that scientists have to
take their share of blame for enjoying the power which comes from the
myth that scientific knowledge or the search for scientific knowledge is
value-free and can be relied on to provide _objective_ truth.
>
> >All that nuclear waste, for example, whether generated by
> >weapons production or energy production or medical technology has to
> >dealt with: exactly how shall we manage to keep it stored for centuries?>
> But everybody says "not in my backyard!">>>
I think it's closer to the truth to say that everybody says:
"We don't trust you to do the job right."
> >Knowing as we do now that smoked tobacco smoked is deadly, how do
> >we figure out what to do for all the farmers who depend upon growing it> for their livelihood?>>>
> We'd probably be better off paying them to grow something else.>
Well, so do I but I think that will cost more than non-farmers can
imagine.
> >Given the job science, government and corporations have done
> >addressing those three issues, I can be comfortable in asking whether
> >GM crops and foods may yet have unanticipated negative consequences to
> >the environment or to people.
>
> Of those three, the one to fear the most is Government. Corporations
> don't declare war, corporations don't have the right of eminent domain
> (except when the government lets them have it, which is very few
> cases), corporations cannot declare themselves exculpable. Govermment
> has all of those powers.>>>
As to eminent domain and corporate power, I refer you to the
construction of any major sports areas in the nation.
As Dwight Eisenhower noted there is something called the
military-industrial complex--that unholy alliance of the
military(government)and industry. And, given the weirdness of our
campaign finance laws, corporations can virtually own governments.
Check out Dubbyah's or Gore's contributor lists. There's a reason
people have to identify their occupation or place of employment.
cheers,
Mary
Mary
CoFarb wrote:
> >Long-ranging effects are impossible to gauge.>>>
>
> No harder than long range effects of taking the medications you take,
> using the paint that's on your walls, than the emissions of your car,
> or of the chemicals your town uses to treat your water.>>>
The flaw here is that long-range effects _are_ difficult to
anticipate. Two examples:
1) In terms of medications, quite often the honest answer from a
doctor is: "We don't know what impact taking X for Y years will do."
I can name three highly publicized medications developed in the last
decade for Multiple Sclerosis. These drugs work on slowing the
progression MS and must be taken for a lifetime. _Nobody_ can gauge the
long-term consequences of taking these drugs for fifty or sixty years
which is the prospect for a 22 year old with MS.
Do you believe that the people who put lead in paint to make
paint more durable _anticipated_ the incidence of lead poisoning in
children resulting from exposure to lead-based paints?
It seems to me that you have choices here.
You can believe that paint and drug manufacturers are profit obssessed
to the point of inhumanity and know the long-term consequences and don't
reveal them. Or you can accept the idea that long-term consequences are
not easy to anticipate.
cheers,
Mary
Charles L. Perrin
>The flaw here is that long-range effects _are_ difficult to
>anticipate. Two examples:
In some cases, I'd say "impossible."
>1) In terms of medications, quite often the honest answer from a
>doctor is: "We don't know what impact taking X for Y years will do."
I know with me and my polypharmaceutical cabinet, they have me in the
lab at least annually looking for untoward things.
It took over 40 years of sustained study to find the correlations
between high cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease.
The caveats on some antiepileptic drugs are interesting: they say that
they've noted a blip in the death rate of patients taking the drug.
However, they aren't at all sure whether it's the medication or the
underlying disease.
>Do you believe that the people who put lead in paint to make
>paint more durable _anticipated_ the incidence of lead poisoning in
>children resulting from exposure to lead-based paints?
I think on this one they had a lot more knowledge as to the toxicity
of lead. Ethyl Corporation lost a number of people in their plants
until they developed knowledge about exactly how toxic (very!) their
product was in concentration.
Userb3
>Userb3 wrote:
>
> CoFarb wrote:
>> >Long-ranging effects are impossible to gauge.>>>
>>
>> No harder than long range effects of taking the medications you take,
>> using the paint that's on your walls, than the emissions of your car,
>> or of the chemicals your town uses to treat your water.>>>
>
> The flaw here is that long-range effects _are_ difficult to
>anticipate. Two examples:
My point: Every day we rely on the best information available to
produce and consume products. Where appropriate (drugs, food,
automobiles, etc) we build elaborate regulatory structures to try to
anticipate future problems and head them off.
But it is impossible to avoid risk entirely. So it makes sense to use
normal precaution, support regulators, and educate yourself.
It doesn't make sense to avoid technology altogether in the fear that
something MIGHT happen, despite our best research. For every example of
regulations and testing that failed, there are thousands of products
that were tested safe and are safe. There are also examples of foods
and technology once thought to be life threatening that we now regard
as benign.
Many thought humans would die if they crossed land at more than 20
miles per hour. Many feared that rail roads would kill with their noise
and vibration. Potatoes and tomatoes were once thought to be poisonous.
So while I'm all for reasonable precaution, fears based solely on
distrust of government, corporations, and/or scientists are paranoia,
and not what should guide public policy.
userb3
Charles L. Perrin
<use...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Potatoes and tomatoes were once thought to be poisonous.
In the case of tomatoes, it was supposedly because it leached lead
from the pewterware they used at the time.
Now, they can't seem to say enough good things about tomatoes. In
fact, there's a Web site dedicated to one of the beneficial chemicals
they've found in tomatoes:
BTW: The "O" is a tomato!
Jsdfgh M. Gpoijh Jr.
<<Have you seen the commercials for those heinous Lunchables? We're talking
about MEAT that doesn't have to be REFRIGERATED. Yum, yum! And people are
supposed to feed this junk to their children.[?] >>
On a side note, as my oldest boy is now in Pre-K, we have to pack his li'l
lunchbox every day. (Memo: Current lunchboxes SUCK. They are the single
greatest backward step pop culture has taken in the last 20 years.Well, maybe
not THE greatest, but you get the idea.)
So, we have to figure out what he will eat. I remembered he had a bite of a
sandwich I made for lunch and liked it so damned much he ate half the damned
thing. So I made him a little "kid-sized" version. Packed it up and off he
went.
Anyway, my dear wife asked me what I had fixed, since the teacher commented on
the zeal with which the boy had wolfed down the aforesaid sandwich. I told her.
"Greaaaaat. Every other kid in his class is eating 'Lunchables' and ours is
only eating prosciutto, artichokes and aioli on sourdough."
I thought I was bringing up the Hardy boys, but now it seems more like Frasier
& Niles.
-Joe "Free minds require free markets" in SoFla
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death so I don't
have to hear it."
Jsdfgh M. Gpoijh Jr.
<<One problem, though, is that many of the supposed benefits of organic are
purely theoretical, and have little or no supporting evidence. And the organic
farmer's best friend - genetically enhanced crops that
reduce the need for chemicals, increase hardiness, and/or improve yields - has
been targeted by anti-corporate and radical
environmentalists in a witch hunt against technology. So for the time being,
traditional methods remain our most economical alternative.>>
I agree with you on the matter of agro-Luddites. However, organic stuff
(including assorted meats, dairy & eggs, etc.) do--generally, anyway--taste a
HELL of a lot better. Not that this has much to do with anything but there ya
go.
Jsdfgh M. Gpoijh Jr.
<<Which of the things that government,
science, and industry brought you in the past 100 years will you give up
first?>>
Whoa. This is a snap.
Government: Progressive taxation. The "Federal plantation." 3/4 of the Federal
statutes and 2/3 of the Federal Register. Socialism/Fascism/Communism.
Bureaucracy.
Science: Macrovision, SCMS, Cheap artificial fibers.
Industry: Slow, top-heavy, lumbering automobiles. Electric cook-tops.
Yes, I am back.
Charles L. Perrin
Jr.) wrote:
>Science: Macrovision, SCMS, Cheap artificial fibers.
If you're going to pick out a technology to pick on, try CED or DIVX.
Of course, in both cases, that's somewhat like beating a dead horse.
<grin/duck>
Mary
>
>
>
> I agree with you on the matter of agro-Luddites. However, organic stuff
> (including assorted meats, dairy & eggs, etc.) do--generally, anyway--taste a
> HELL of a lot better. Not that this has much to do with anything but there ya go.>>>
Please note: once again, Joe and I agree.
cheers,
Mary
Jsdfgh M. Gpoijh Jr.
<<Please note: once again, Joe and I agree.>>
Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!! <g>
Jsdfgh M. Gpoijh Jr.
the appropriate digit thereto.
Macrovision is the singularly most annoying one. Annoying but not impossible to
overcome. Oh, and DVD regional coding is right up there.
An A/V geek,
super...@nintendo.com
CoFarb
"dkra" <dk...@redeye.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dkra-10070...@ali-ca14-57.ix.netcom.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> In article <8jakcm$4pj$2...@news.uky.edu>, d...@sac.uky.edu (Diane L Benham)
wrote:
>
> > Some magazine (I think it was "Self" or one like that) recently had
> > a survey where they asked what people thought of a fat tax. I'm
> > rather ambivalent on the issue since I don't buy much junk food, but
> > it made me wonder....if they DID have a fat tax, then only richer
> > people would buy lots of fat. Since it would then, theoretically,
> > be more difficult to get plump, would "fat" be desirable again? After
> > all, when food was scarce, a well-fed wife was a good thing...in many
> > countries, it still is, since it's a sign of wealth.
> >
> > Diane .
>
> A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle
>
>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/07/09
/SC74632.DTL
>
> commented on the USA's current "obesity crisis." Modern technology has
> made being fat "cheaper" than being lean; rich foods are readily available
> and people must *pay* to attend gyms or health clubs.
>
> It seems that the "tax" is, for the time being, on the leaner folk.
>
> -- dkra
And lame excuses for the "obesity crisis" must be free! Honestly, how many
people do we personally know who are overweight due to the fact that they
cannot afford to purchase decent food?
As for that gym/health club silliness: walking is free.
Our local paper reported on the "crisis" with a big editorial titled, "We're
lazy and we eat too much."
donna
Linda
>commented on the USA's current "obesity crisis." Modern technology has
>made being fat "cheaper" than being lean; rich foods are readily available
>and people must *pay* to attend gyms or health clubs.
>
While rich, fattening foods are relatively cheap, I disagree about the
exercise. Exercise doesn't need to happen in a gym or health club, and need
not cost a penny. A good long walk, calesthenics on the bedroom floor, weights
concocted of milk jugs and a broom handle, are all free.
Linda
RebBrooks
sedentary over time and with technology.
I've not joined a gym, and walk/exercise at home, but I know changing one's
lifestyle is not easy once you establish life habits. I only raise issue when
people place moral judgements on overweight people because their "weakness"
shows. In many cases it's a vicious cycle one gets into or lower metabolism..
sometimes a combo, and not a state of constant gluttony that leads to obesity.
RebeccaB.
Scary Mary
cook and eat at home anymore! I know plenty of people who eat
out or pick up fast food seven nights a week. Hell, my husband
and I have been guilty of this from time to time. We both look
and feel better when we make the majority of our dinners at home.
McDonald's tastes damn good but it is definitely the MOST
unhealthy food you can put in your body, bar none. It is our
dependence on fast, convenient food like this that is making us
all FAT. Just a typical breakfast "meal" from McDonald's - say a
biscuit sandwich, hash browns, and coffee - has just about an
entire day's recommended allowance of fat for the average adult,
and almost all the calories. Add a Big Mac for lunch or dinner
to that, and you're sunk. I can't remember the actual numbers,
but I think you only need to consume 250 more calories a day
than you're expending and you'll end up gaining a pound a week.
Scary.
Mary, still losing on WW and horrified at her previous eating
habits
"My karma ran over my dogma."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Robert Matthews
<maryNO...@fgm.com.invalid> wrote:
> I think the reason we're obese, as a nation, is because we don't
> cook and eat at home anymore! I know plenty of people who eat
> out or pick up fast food seven nights a week. Hell, my husband
> and I have been guilty of this from time to time. We both look
> and feel better when we make the majority of our dinners at home.
You can eat just as badly at home as you can when you get a lot of
take-out. It sure doesn't take much time or effort to whip up a big pot of
fettuccine all'Alfredo, unfortunately. But mostly you're right; it's easy
to buy the absolute worst food without even thinking about it if you're
tired and hungry and picking up something from the drive-through.
> McDonald's tastes damn good but it is definitely the MOST
> unhealthy food you can put in your body, bar none. It is our
> dependence on fast, convenient food like this that is making us
> all FAT. Just a typical breakfast "meal" from McDonald's - say a
> biscuit sandwich, hash browns, and coffee - has just about an
> entire day's recommended allowance of fat for the average adult,
> and almost all the calories. Add a Big Mac for lunch or dinner
> to that, and you're sunk. I can't remember the actual numbers,
> but I think you only need to consume 250 more calories a day
> than you're expending and you'll end up gaining a pound a week.
> Scary.
Actually, Burger King is worse than McDonald's. There was a piece
about it in a recent issue of Men's Health but I just went looking and I
can't find the damned thing, so this is approximating. The single worst
thing on the McDonald's menu is the Big Xtra, which has about 640 calories
(bad enough), but the Double Whopper with Cheese has something like
1000-1100. If you add a large non-diet soft drink and fries, you've got a
meal containing over 1800 calories, which is about what a woman should eat
in *one day*, with enough saturated fat for a couple of days at least.
Yeek. (Actually, that McDonald's breakfast you listed above isn't quite so
bad as you think; if you have a Western bagel sandwich, hash browns, and
coffee with sugar and cream, you're eating around 1000 calories, which is
way too much for a breakfast but not really in the neighbourhood of a
whole day's calories for a woman. Still way too much sat fat, though.)
If you take in 500 calories more than you expend every day, you'll
gain a pound a week, since there are about 3500 calories in a pound of
fat. And it's *really easy* to take in an extra 500 calories, too; a
frosted doughnut between breakfast and lunch and a chocolate bar as a
midday snack will give you more than that.
Robert Matthews
Scary Mary
King is quite bad also. I was using McDonald's as an example
because they came to my mind first. Almost all fast food places
are terrible when it comes to calories and fat. The best is
probably Wendy's, but how many people go to Wendy's and order
the plain baked potato and a salad? ;-) Even I have a hard time
with that one!
Teslan
This is a very good point. Every minute, or second, that you engage
in exercise will add up thruout the day, and will burn up calories
in a cumulative fashion.
Also I would like to add that it is a mistake to think of activity
as just exercise, because all activity burns calories, its just that
the amount of energy expenditure varies according to the activity.
Standing burns more calories than sitting, moving the whole body in
gesture burns more calories than just moving a small part of the body,
emotional excitement burns more calories than placidity. People tend
to think that overweight people eat more, or have lower metabolisms,
than thin ones, but it is usually not the case, it is simply that
overweight people tend to actually burn up less calories in activities
of various types as they all add up thruout the days of their lives.
Durk Pierson once came out with an interesting suggestion for burning
more calories...in winter time, keep the thermostat a couple of degrees
lower, but do not dress to compensate for this. The body, in adapting
to the slightly lower temperature, creates a twenty four hour a day
increase in the number of calories it burns to keep itself warm, yet
the discomfort level is so slight that one will quickly get used to it.
This makes a very significant difference.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Moosie
in the US. I have it, and even with medication I have to walk an hour a
day (about 4mph) plus have about an 1,800 daily calorie to keep my
weight from going up.
Moosie
In article <20000710171229...@ng-ct1.aol.com>,
fig...@aol.comnospam (Linda) wrote:
> dkra writes:
> >commented on the USA's current "obesity crisis." Modern technology
has
> >made being fat "cheaper" than being lean; rich foods are readily
available
> >and people must *pay* to attend gyms or health clubs.
> >
>
> While rich, fattening foods are relatively cheap, I disagree about the
> exercise. Exercise doesn't need to happen in a gym or health club,
and need
> not cost a penny. A good long walk, calesthenics on the bedroom
floor, weights
> concocted of milk jugs and a broom handle, are all free.
> Linda
>
--
Always the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question
e.e. cummings
Jen6427
>people do we personally know who are overweight due to the fact that they
>cannot afford to purchase decent food?
>
vegetables. We eat like this two or three times a week. It's very quick and
easy, much cheaper than fast food. Really, lack of money for people in US is
no excuse to eat poorly. I used to work at a grocery in somewhat depressed
urban area years when in college. People would really upset me, they'd come up
with their groceries, food stamps and a little cash. The groceries would
amount to more than what they had to pay with and I got pretty good at doing
math in my head. I'd politely suggest putting the chips and cigarettes or beer
back so then they'd have enough, almost invariably people would want to keep
those things and instead put something like bread, orange juice, or toothpaste
back.
Jenny
wes
Scary Mary <maryNO...@fgm.com.invalid> wrote:
> Robert, thank you for the more accurate numbers. Yes, Burger
> King is quite bad also. I was using McDonald's as an example
> because they came to my mind first. Almost all fast food places
> are terrible when it comes to calories and fat. The best is
> probably Wendy's, but how many people go to Wendy's and order
> the plain baked potato and a salad? ;-) Even I have a hard time
> with that one!
>
Corporate Greed and Obesity:
Fast food is made not to satsify your hunger pangs (that's why they
have "supersize").
But it's not just fast food... every multi-national food company
(Kraft, General Foods, etc...) puposely takes the "guts" of their food
products... so you have to eat (and buy) more to feel satified.
It's a brilliant strategy (that is, if you are a stockholder in one of
these companies).
Diet soda is another scam - how many thin people do you see drinking
diet soda? It's no coincidence aspartame makes you hungry.
Low fat, reduced fat foods are a joke- they were created not to help
you lose weight- they were created to make you buy more.
The French Paradox
We have all heard about the so-called "French Paradox" - where everyone
wonders why the French eat such rich foods and have virtually no
obesity.
It's because France has strict food production guidelines.. and the
food is more wholesome, has little additives and it's better prepared.
They eat whole foods in France- and therefore they don't don't have to
eat a lot to satisfy their hunger.
America is the mecca of empty calories. We eat more because the food
here is such unfulfilling garbage. And it's not just fast food...
it's the stuff you buy in the supermarket.
Robert Matthews
<maryNO...@fgm.com.invalid> wrote:
> Robert, thank you for the more accurate numbers. Yes, Burger
> King is quite bad also. I was using McDonald's as an example
> because they came to my mind first. Almost all fast food places
> are terrible when it comes to calories and fat. The best is
> probably Wendy's, but how many people go to Wendy's and order
> the plain baked potato and a salad? ;-) Even I have a hard time
> with that one!
At Wendy's I usually just have a Greek pita, which is about 450
calories, although if I'm really hungry I'll also have a baked potato.
Plain? Don't *think* so; life is too short to eat butterless toast,
dressingless salad, and sourcreamless baked potatoes. Practically every
fast-food place has something edible and reasonably low-fat.
But then, I'm a vegetarian, which actually makes it a lot easier to
reduce your fat and calorie intake when you're eating out, because there's
so much you can't eat. I know, you could have fettuccine and Caesar salad
and all kinds of other high-fat foods. But the mere fact of being a
vegetarian does most of the willpower for you, because there's so much
that you just can't or won't eat. (And I became a vegetarian for health
reasons--reducing my saturated-fat intake, mostly. I could eat meat if I
wanted to. I just don't generally want to, although a coupla weeks ago I
decided that I felt like having pizza, with meat on it, so I did. First
time I ate meat in eight months.)
Robert Matthews
RebBrooks
>vegetables. We eat like this two or three times a week. It's very quick and
>easy, much cheaper than fast food. Really, lack of money for people in US is
>no excuse to eat poorly. I used to work at a grocery in somewhat depressed
>urban area years when in college. People would really upset me, they'd come
>up
>with their groceries, food stamps and a little cash. The groceries would
>amount to more than what they had to pay with and I got pretty good at doing
>math in my head. I'd politely suggest putting the chips and cigarettes or
>beer
>back so then they'd have enough, almost invariably people would want to keep
>those things and instead put something like bread, orange juice, or
>toothpaste
>back.
>
>Jenny
We've been through this, and we differ in opinions. I know it costs more to
eat well.. maybe not if you live off rice, but veggies aren't cheap, neither is
fruit. Anyway.. most welfare recipients aren't beerdrinkers and huge
cigarette consumers... at least last time I checked at work,...they are
largely made up of single mothers with lots of kids to feed. I saw the
occasional nitwit white trash who would try buying beer with food stamps when I
worked in a convenience store way back when, but it's not the usual way food
stamps are spent.
Lets try not to promote such stereotypes.. they are inaccurate.
RebeccaB.
Charles L. Perrin
<maryNO...@fgm.com.invalid> wrote:
>I think the reason we're obese, as a nation, is because we don't
>cook and eat at home anymore!
It's probably because the most vigorous thing we do is bang our
keyboards when some IDIOT posts a message.
>McDonald's tastes damn good
Speak for yourself. I'd whine if I had to eat a Happy Meal.
RebBrooks
but continued to pack on pounds and ate very good home cooking that was quite
healthful. Goes to show, you can't judge a person by their size.... many
don't binge and live a slothful life.
RebeccaB.
MakeupGrrl
<snip?
>America is the mecca of empty calories. We eat more because the food
>here is such unfulfilling garbage. And it's not just fast food...
>it's the stuff you buy in the supermarket.
My god, I actually agree with Wes. Lookit that flying pig!
;-)
MG
Jen6427
>> King is quite bad also. I was using McDonald's as an example
>> because they came to my mind first. Almost all fast food places
>> are terrible when it comes to calories and fat. The best is
>> probably Wendy's, but how many people go to Wendy's and order
>> the plain baked potato and a salad? ;-) Even I have a hard time
>> with that one!
>>
>
>
>
>Fast food is made not to satsify your hunger pangs (that's why they
>have "supersize").
>
>But it's not just fast food... every multi-national food company
>(Kraft, General Foods, etc...) puposely takes the "guts" of their food
>products... so you have to eat (and buy) more to feel satified.
I've read and agree that part of the problem is that people have lost
perspective on what a portion is. 10 years ago "supersize" did not exist.
We'd buy what is now the small and that would be plenty. Portions at most
restaurants could probably be a reasonable dinner for three days, but people
feel cheated if they don't get to stuff themselves. My qi gong/ tai chi
teacher recommends always leave the table a little bit hungry, otherwise the
body loses energy, no need to gorge on food.
Jenny
Jen6427
>eat well.. maybe not if you live off rice, but veggies aren't cheap, neither
>is
>fruit.
It does not cost more to eat well. I can buy a pound of spinach for the price
of a bag of chips, a bag of oranges for price of gallon of high end ice cream.
Could fill at least a few shelves on the fridge for price of dinner for two at
mid priced restaurant or even supersize meals at fast food joints. Water,
unlike soda, comes out of the tap for free. I do believe some obese people
have slower metabolism etc., but many people in U. S. definitely have a life
style problem.
Jenny
RebBrooks
>price
>of a bag of chips, a bag of oranges for price of gallon of high end ice
>cream.
One cannot live off oranges and spinach.
Price a good steak or nice cuts of meat..along with veggies and fruits. The
cost of making a good nutritional meal is a bit more than that of buying a
cheap burger and fries. I've had to live off fast food in the past because I
couldn't afford to buy a whole cart of groceries to make a proper meal. (half
would go to waste before I could eat it anyway.. so waste is an issue as well)
Why do you think poor people buy potato and poor cuts of meat (with high fat
content) in bulk? Because they have to feed lots of people for less money.
They also think of fixing food that taste good and fills them up.. usually
cheaper cuts of meat with more fat...gravy, potatoes.. lots of flavor, less
nutrition.
I won't even go into changing to my diet of organic foods... try eating out of
a health food stores and compare that to a cheap Tony's pizza.
Yes you can eat a pound of spinach for cheap.. as well as oranges and rice...
or hmmm pasta.. or you can go hungry and drink water, but I thought we were
talking about nutritional meals of good quality vs. high fat/high bulk cheap
foods that most overweight people buy.
I don't deny that fat people overeat and could make better choices, but I know
for myself I have changed my eating and it has been substantially more
expensive to eat better quality/low fat/natural foods.
I agree it takes a change of lifestyle, but it doesn't hurt to reprioritize
your life and allow more money for better quality foods.
Some have the money, some don't. For those who don't.. maybe eating half of a
cheeseburger instead, drinking water.. eating spinach is the answer.. I don't
know.
RebeccaB.
RebBrooks
>perspective on what a portion is. 10 years ago "supersize" did not exist.
>We'd buy what is now the small and that would be plenty. Portions at most
>restaurants could probably be a reasonable dinner for three days, but people
>feel cheated if they don't get to stuff themselves. My qi gong/ tai chi
>teacher recommends always leave the table a little bit hungry, otherwise the
>body loses energy, no need to gorge on food.
>
>Jenny
>
I think this is true of family style restaurants..and ethnic alike. When I eat
Chinese I usually take a large take out box home and eat on it for 2 days.
In better restaurants the portions are much more reasonable. I'm not sure if
they think poorer people expect more quantity for the buck or what... but the
portions are large.. and for what it's worth, I see slimmer folks wolfing down
massive quantities of Chinese ... I have no idea where they store it.
RebeccaB.
Jen6427
>cost of making a good nutritional meal is a bit more than that of buying a
>cheap burger and fries. I've had to live off fast food in the past because I
>couldn't afford to buy a whole cart of groceries to make a proper meal.
a lot of macaroni and cheese, fruit and vegetables and popcorn, both because of
money and all day work and school, didn't have energy to make much more than
that just for myself. I'm not sure that was much better than fast food though.
For family with children, I still think it is very possible to fix a good meal
for price of junk food or fast food. Of course would be a lot more expensive
if every meal has to include a big slab of meat, but how about spaghetti just
add a little meat to the sauce, pretty cheap and easy. Vigo red or black beans
and rice, a just add water package that's a staple at our house when I don't
feel like doing much cooking. Miscellaneous casseroles. Cut up chicken and
eggplant or other vegetables. I guess fish is somewhat expensive too, but
better for you than steak. We might eat a whole mid-sized cut of beef or pork
once or twice a week. I don't have children yet either and I realize kids tend
to crave packaged foods, I also think people really do their children a
disservice by allowing them to eat junk, both because of obesity and missing
out on anti-cancer and health benefits of eating lots of fruits and vegetables.
>I couldn't afford to buy a whole cart of groceries to make a proper meal.
>(half
>would go to waste before I could eat it anyway.. so waste is an issue as
>well)
attitude to shopping could help with waste too. Stop 5 minutes at the market
with a little list and buy what you need for a day or two.
>Why do you think poor people buy potato and poor cuts of meat (with high fat
>content) in bulk? Because they have to feed lots of people for less money.
>They also think of fixing food that taste good and fills them up.. usually
>cheaper cuts of meat with more fat...gravy, potatoes.. lots of flavor, less
>nutrition.
and frozen pizza, because it tastes good and not much work. Once change that
habit, it's really not all that difficult to shop and cook something and I
think people should do that especially if they have children. Also as far as
expense, my opinion is, "natural" or "organic foods are sort of a racket. I'm
not sure the produce or grain is that much different than at the local grocery,
they just charge a lot more.
Jenny
Jenny
MakeupGrrl
>For people who live in towns and cities, I think a little more European
>attitude to shopping could help with waste too. Stop 5 minutes at the market
>with a little list and buy what you need for a day or two.
This is something that radically changed my attitude towards grocery
shopping. Growing up in a more suburban town, it was grocery shopping
once a week or every two weeks. Buying fresh bread for lunch that
day, or fresh vegetables and fruit for the next day or two, is easier
to do here in the city -- in the burbs it's too much of a hassle to
keep going to the supermarket.
Unfortunately, it ends up costing more making more trips to the store.
However, it's worth it, in that the food I eat is fresh, without a lot
of preservatives and crap added to keep it fresh for a week. Of
course, I still buy frozen stuff, but in general the less processed
the food the better off one is.
Back when I was severely eating disordered, I bought everything
fat-free, reduced-fat -- ever read the ingredient lists on those
things?? All I cared about was the reduced fat, yet it was being
replaced with sugar and chemicals, which ends up being a lot worse
than just the fat. I never touch that stuff anymore -- I'll take the
real, honest-to-goodness chocolate, thanks -- though I stubbornly
cling to diet Pepsi. Not for the calorie thing, but I LOVE the taste
of NutraSweet. Regular soda tastes disgusting to me.
It's interesting to see Europeans shopping at my local market. Their
baskets are filled with fresh veggies, fruits, and dried beans. Then
there's your typical American shopper, with boxes full of processed
pre-prepared food. The difference is pretty obvious.
MG
CoFarb
mung beans to lentils to kidney beans to those ucky lima beans...vast
numbers of tasty, nutritious ways to prepare them. Combined with
rice...that's what millions and millions of people in Asia and Africa eat
every day at every meal.
Moreover, I've found very un-chic canned greens at our grocery store--a
small, low-volume, non-yuppified place. There are mustard greens, collards,
spinach, swiss chard and others. I think they are labeled organic; there
are no additives except for a tad of salt. They are clean and green; some
are already chopped. All I do before adding them to soups is rinse
thoroughly. A 16 oz. can is well under a dollar (US) and packs tons of
nutrition and zero fat; it lasts forever on the shelf. I think it tastes
better than the more costly--but still reasonable--frozen dark greens.
For a pretty complete soup, I prepare veggie stock from leftover vegetable
bits that I keep in the freezer until I have enough to make a batch of
stock. The strained stock, plus the lentils or beans, plus maybe chopped
onion (always cheap) and a couple cans of canned mustard greens or collards
or spinach...sometimes I toss in a can or two of tomatoes...some lemon juice
to perk it up...that's a fairly complete food.
I try to buy fruit and veggies fresh in season. Sometimes it's just not
available near me. Then we'll keep on hand some juices like o.j. and cider
and grapefruit juice.
But it's true that if your diet also includes decent cuts of meat or, for
the truly pricey around here, nice fresh fish, the expense of a meal will
skyrocket.
And it's vital to familiarize oneself with the seasonal items and have an
idea before shopping. Not much different skill-wise than knowing you'll
need new shoes and purse if you are buying a very special outfit, unlike any
you've had before.
Making me hungry now!
donna
"RebBrooks" <rebb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000712190237...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >It does not cost more to eat well. I can buy a pound of spinach for the
> >price
> >of a bag of chips, a bag of oranges for price of gallon of high end ice
> >cream.
>
> One cannot live off oranges and spinach.
> Price a good steak or nice cuts of meat..along with veggies and fruits.
The
> cost of making a good nutritional meal is a bit more than that of buying a
> cheap burger and fries. I've had to live off fast food in the past
because I
> couldn't afford to buy a whole cart of groceries to make a proper meal.
(half
> would go to waste before I could eat it anyway.. so waste is an issue as
well)
> Why do you think poor people buy potato and poor cuts of meat (with high
fat
> content) in bulk? Because they have to feed lots of people for less
money.
> They also think of fixing food that taste good and fills them up.. usually
> cheaper cuts of meat with more fat...gravy, potatoes.. lots of flavor,
less
> nutrition.
Robert Matthews
(Jen6427) wrote:
> I've read and agree that part of the problem is that people have lost
> perspective on what a portion is. 10 years ago "supersize" did not exist.
> We'd buy what is now the small and that would be plenty. Portions at most
> restaurants could probably be a reasonable dinner for three days, but people
> feel cheated if they don't get to stuff themselves.
Portion sizes really are out of control, and I think that North
Americans, not necessarily through any fault of their own, have really
lost sight of what an appropriate portion is.
Remember back, years ago, when Allure was a really good magazine?
They had a startling article about portion size in which they went out and
bought a bunch of standard-sized food and then compared it to actual
normal portions, and the results were astounding. Normal baked potato,
three to four ounces; restaurant baked potatoes, anywhere from eight to
(!) thirty-two ounces. Regular bagel, diameter of a chocolate-chip cookie;
coffee-shop bagels, size of a dessert plate. Cookies, don't even think
about it. And three to four ounces is a serving of meat; there are
restaurants in which you can actually buy a seventy-two-ounce steak--four
and a half pounds of meat for *one* person, a week's worth at one sitting.
Coca-Cola used to be served in six-ounce bottles. Now a twenty-ounce
bottle is a standard serving, and you can buy one-litre bottles here in
Canada, and if that's a serving (isn't that called a Big Slam by Pepsi in
the U.S.?) it's six times what a serving used to be. And those kids'
frozen things called Mr. Freeze? They used to be 25 millilitres, or about
an ounce; now you can buy huge, enormous ones that are 250 mL, which means
that a single serving is ten times what it used to be.
Sorry, but it's one of my favourite rants. One of the reasons for
obseity in North America is that there's so much food we don't know what
to do with it all--an unprecedented situation in the history of humankind,
by the way--so we convince ourselves that we have to clean our plates,
just like we were taught, and then we make the plates enormous.
Robert Matthews
Diane L Benham
If you try to switch equivalents, though, it does tend to cost more.
I went to the grocery this morning to get a loaf of bread. The lowest-
priced "wheat" bread (read: "enriched flour") was 89 cents. The
least-expensive whole-wheat bread was $1.69. For people on a budget,
that sort of thing adds up. A lot of "low-fat" foods tend to be more
expensive than the equivalent full-fat foods as well.
Diane
Jen6427 (jen...@aol.com) wrote:
: It does not cost more to eat well. I can buy a pound of spinach for the price
: of a bag of chips, a bag of oranges for price of gallon of high end ice cream.
: Could fill at least a few shelves on the fridge for price of dinner for two at
MakeupGrrl
Matthews) wrote:
> Remember back, years ago, when Allure was a really good magazine?
*sigh*
You had to remind us how how cruddy it is now! ;-)
I miss old Allure...
MG