politics and food - "everything i want to do is illegal"

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the "food" the vast majority of fast food outlets sell does more to damage the human body than nourish it - hence my claim that it is not really "food"



[/ QUOTE ]

what does this mean? Are you saying that I can survive on zero food for longer than I can survive on fast food? What are you saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure actually. I think if you ate nothing but Big Macs every day for every meal you might actually die quicker than by going on hungerstrike (see Supersize me) There aren't exactly a bunch of scientific studies to base a valid opinion on here - So you probably do die sooner by not eating than you do by eating fast food all day every day - who knows. It's a bit besides the point anyway.

I am saying that the food fast food companies sell does a lot to damage your body and provides little nourishment.

Whether you decide to call it "food" or not is down to you and I probably worded my post badly. Wouldn't be the first time.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the "food" the vast majority of fast food outlets sell does more to damage the human body than nourish it - hence my claim that it is not really "food"



[/ QUOTE ]

what does this mean? Are you saying that I can survive on zero food for longer than I can survive on fast food? What are you saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure actually. I think if you ate nothing but Big Macs every day for every meal you might actually die quicker than by going on hungerstrike

[/ QUOTE ]

PLONK.

[ QUOTE ]
(see Supersize me)

[/ QUOTE ]


See http://www.spurlockwatch.typepad.com/

[ QUOTE ]
The aim of public health advocates like Spurlock isn't to encourage people to make better choices. It's to take the bad choices away from everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

To suggest this is due to subsidies is incorrect. Maybe for a few goods. But the same problems exist, regardless of subsidies and the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil,
why aren't subsidies to blame? Why is it that corn grown in Iowa ends up in Ohio, and corn from Ohio ends up somewhere else? What about large farm subsidies which keep farms producing that ought to go under and artificially keep supplies high and prices low making it harder for non subsidized farmers to compete, (for the record subsidized farms generally ten to be large and in areas where farming is the bulk of the economy, which is the opposite of local organic food). Why is beef so damn cheap? It takes 10 lbs of feed to produce one lb of beef, not to mention a ton of extra water, time, breeding technology , hormones and vets. Yet i can get ground chuck for $1.99 per lb, and the cheapest bread i can get is ~0.79 per lb. Why isn't that gap wider when common sense (and basic math) say that it should be?

[ QUOTE ]
And make no mistake, industrial agriculture is the cheapest of all agriculture, and creates food that travels better

[/ QUOTE ]


Stop giving truckers a free ride down the highway and you will see the real costs of shipping tomatoes from florida and oranges from california.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that some of you will find this unbelievable, but I actually have been trying to take market anarchist theories seriously and read and think about them. In the past two months I have read more individualist anarchist and market anarchist writings than I ever have in my entire life - and what I have found is a mixed-bag.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im curious as to what, specifically, you've read.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
The trouble, pvn, is that there will be no more rainforest remaining, which is very bad for the world economy and future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

How?

I think because the rainforest is prettier than a deciduous forest and has more cool, exotic animals, it gets a lot of undue sentimental attachment and importance assigned to it.

Where private property in forests thrives, deforestation is not a problem. Where public domain over forests thrives, deforestation is a constant issue.

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]


PLONK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wikipedia - jargon term for adding a particular poster to one's kill file such that the poster's future postings are completely ignored. "Place On Killfile."

Woe is me - I have been ignored by a regular poster on an internet message forum. How will I sleep tonight???

FWIW the overriding memory I have of supersize me is the clip after about 20 days or so of the Doctor telling Morgan that he'll die if he keeps up with this ridiculous stunt.

whatever.

I just got this from the McD's website.

Big Mac™
Bun
Wheat Flour, Water, Sugar, Yeast, Rapeseed Oil,
Salt, Sesame Seeds, Emulsifier (E472e Mono- and
Diacetyltartaric Acid Esters of Mono- and
Diglycerides of Fatty Acids), Soya Flour,
Preservative (E282 Calcium Propionate), Flour
Treatment Agent (E300 Ascorbic Acid).



Beef
100% Pure Beef. No additives, fillers, binders,
preservatives or flavour enhancers. Just pure
forequarter and flank. A little salt and pepper is
added to season after cooking.
Big Mac Sauce
Water, Vegetable Oil, Gherkins, Sugar, Spirit
Vinegar, Modified Maize Starch, Free Range Egg
Yolk, Mustard Seed, E260 Acetic Acid, Salt, High
Fructose Corn Syrup, Mustard Flour (contains
Mustard), Stabiliser (E415 Xanthan Gum),
Preservative (E202 Potassium Sorbate), Onion
Concentrate (Onion Extracts (96%), E471 Monoand
Digylcerides of Fatty Acids, E472e Mono
Diacetyltartaric Acid Esters of Mono- and
Diglycerides of Fatty Acids. E322 Soya Lecithin,
E270 Lactic Acid), Garlic Powder, White Pepper,
Spice Extract, Flavouring (E414 Gum Arabic, Spice
Extractives, E471 Mono- and Diglycerides of
Fatty Acids).
Cheddar Cheese Slice (processed)
Vegetarian Cheddar Cheese (55%), Water, Butter,
Whey Powder, Milk Proteins, Natural Cheese
Flavouring, Emulsifying Salts (E331 Trisodium
Citrate, E450 Diphosphates, E452
Polyphosphates), Salt, Preservative (E200 Sorbic
Acid), Colour (E160a Natural Carotenes, E160c
Paprika Extract).
Lettuce
100% Iceberg Lettuce.
Onions
Onions



Sounds like a chemisty list - it's worth noting that some Enumbers like E300 are actually good for you (Ascorbic Acid is in fact Vitamin C) sadly the cooking process means that the nutritional value from this Vitamin C is lost to the body - it's there to help the flour in the bread, nothing more.

Also you can find debate about a lot of the additives used all of the place, a lot of additives in food can even be listed as "flavourings" to hide whats really there.

I have to commend McDonalds on actually giving good info on their website and actually telling the few consumers woh can be bothered to go look what is in their food.

I've highlighted one thing "High Fructose Corn Syrup" - that [censored] is nearly everything these days. I suggest a little google searching so you can dig up more info about it and find out what it does to you - there are ~13 teaspoons of that [censored] in a 330ml can of carbonated drink - god knows how much in a "large" Coke or Sprite or w/e your favourite poison is at a Fast food joint - not to even mention Aspartame...

If you go through the ingredients list of a Big Mac - it supplies you with protein fat and carbohydrate - there is negligible vitamin content (by the time you get to eat it what little vit C is in the lettuce has bled out as they chop the lettuce and don't tear it - a bunch of chemical preservatives and emulsifiers which are only there to enhance the profitability and cosmetic appearance and shelf life of the food which all things being equal I'd rather not eat thanks.

The best bit is the meat patty and that is almost certainly from antibiotic pumped mass fed cattle (cattle feed actually contains dead cattle! - which can't be good - see the whole BSE thing we had here in the UK some time back)

imo intensive farming techniques - mass production - chemical additives of which more than a few are posionous - and supermarkets selling blemish free bland intensively farmed produce is destroying the food we eat .

Fast food is just the biggest culprit of all and thats why I hate it with a passion.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the "food" the vast majority of fast food outlets sell does more to damage the human body than nourish it - hence my claim that it is not really "food"



[/ QUOTE ]

what does this mean? Are you saying that I can survive on zero food for longer than I can survive on fast food? What are you saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure actually. I think if you ate nothing but Big Macs every day for every meal you might actually die quicker than by going on hungerstrike (see Supersize me) There aren't exactly a bunch of scientific studies to base a valid opinion on here - So you probably do die sooner by not eating than you do by eating fast food all day every day - who knows. It's a bit besides the point anyway.

I am saying that the food fast food companies sell does a lot to damage your body and provides little nourishment.

Whether you decide to call it "food" or not is down to you and I probably worded my post badly. Wouldn't be the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were very healthy you could probably live for 8 weeks or so on nothing, probably live over 6 months, maybe over 12 if you ate 3 or 4 MacDs a day.

Mack

[clowntable]

1)
[ QUOTE ]
Create laws which shield corporations from being held accountable for say, killing all the salmon in a river, and watch the salmon die.

[/ QUOTE ]
I tend to belive that it is of cpitalist interest to keep the salmons alive if they make you money. If they don't the company would probably quit the salmon market before extinction (it is however possible that it might be of strategic interest to sell untill they die even at a loss of profit because cost of market exit would be higher than the loss)
2) It was alleged that the marked doesn't "work correctly" i.e. crazy folks not buting enough non supermarket food. I tend to belive that is because the difference in price is greater than the difference in the benefit of the product and thus the market works quite well.
3) The money that the super market consumers save can be invested in other things that eventually help the environment.

p.s.:
[ QUOTE ]
I think the world's population would be a reasonable match with the world's ecosystems at - and I'm just guessing here - perhaps about one-tenth of the world's current population. The natural world evolved for a mix where humans were far less dominant over natural species and where humans had far less power to curtail or destroy wild species and natural environments.


[/ QUOTE ]
One could argue that this is due to "ethics" getting in the way of pure economics. I.e. have a social Sparta where the "useless" get killed (and maybe parts of their body could be reused).
If one would want to argue that is another question.

[latefordinner]

good article in the NY Times today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/ma...mp;oref=slogin

[clowntable]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree totally. The world would be a paradise with under 2 billion people (I think 1-2 billion is optimal), and most of the world's environmental and political problems would be solved.

I'm sure that won't happen though - the destruction of most of the world's natural areas will be complete in my lifetime. There's no way to stop it short of military intervention and mass murder, given the hundreds of millions of subsistence farmers living on forest boundaries, unchecked breeding in the world's poorest areas, and the rise of industrialization in the second world. Regardless of what the West does, these people are guaranteed to destroy what's left. The point of no return was passed 10 or maybe 20 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
In return all this destruction has brough great progress to mankind. I'm pretty sure that before the Earth goes down in flames we will be able to colonize other planets.
Either that or I'm a scifi geek.