January 07, 2006
Save the Tomatoes!!
Listen closely … When you pluck a tomato from the vine … you can hear it scream.
Are some of us simply going off the deep end ?
Sure. The human population has exploded over the past 50 years. We are multiplying like cockroaches.
Spreading out and occupying more and more land. Building taller buildings and inhabiting space many stories above the ground. Filling places, with condos, that were once beautiful to simply sit and look at. Busting at the seams.
Does something have to give?
Scientists are genetically altering crops to harvest more with less farmland.
Some people are fighting this.
It has been shown that humans benefit from eating red meat. (That's why they have the 'brain power' to alter crops.)
We have people (PETA) fighting the slaughter of animals for food.
Our bodies need the minerals and proteins found in seafood.
We have people fighting to stop fishing for food because fish feel pain.
If it has to do with nature (which everything does) we have people fighting to completely stop the consumption.
I do not believe that anyone is out to destroy everything.
Sure. We have people who don't consider the need for things to re-grow or to re-populate. These people need to be educated on such matters. These problems are not here in the U.S. and the concern needs to be directed elsewhere.
I've heard stories about kids who were asked 'Where does milk come from?' and their answer was 'The store.'
Being raised by parents with parents who were farmers, and marrying into a family of loggers, I simply don't understand where the groups such as PETA and the Tree Huggers get their ideas.
My family never slaughtered an animal unless it was used for food. My husbands family has always stood against practices such as clearcutting (unless it was to clear land for farming), and would never leave any stand of woods in a condition that was not beneficial to it's growth.
We need to make sure that neither side goes too far. That we can consume without destroying. I believe there are more people looking out for our natural resources than we ever hear about. It's not 'news'.
It's just to bad that the media does more to help create a divide than to bring people together.
Good luck with curbing irrational ideas about use of planetary resources. I had a conversation with a girl who after being argued to a standstill about the inevitability of a changing ecosphere given the growing human population, responded that people should just live in trees.
In a limited good world, there are winners and losers. Responsible stewardship of the planet by man can mitigate, but not entirely negate, the negative effects of civilization on plants and animals.
Posted by: good king ned at January 7, 2006 01:46 AMLive in the trees?
That sounds about right.
Posted by: dawn at January 7, 2006 02:35 AMLake Eerie is on the decline again. The Hudson River, after years of effort by groups and citizens, and the courts, to clean up, is becoming toxic and polluted again. Mono-culture of trees has and will continue to cause economic losses.
There are certain tree-hugger and enviro groups issues which should not be dismissed because of the groups raising the issues. If the issues are valid, they should be addressed regardless of who is raising the issues.
Many conservatives dismiss all environmental complaints on the basis of a prejudice toward environmental groups as a whole, and this attitude is reflected by this administration.
On a parallel note, where was OSHA when the mine tragedy occured, given the violations that had accrued. Ooops! No budget, sorry ya’ll had to die.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 7, 2006 03:00 AMDavid:
“On a parallel note, where was OSHA when the mine tragedy occured, given the violations that had accrued.”
Great reply to this article, and good point quoted above.
From a Science Daily article:
Nearly half of the 208 safety citations levied in 2005 against the Sago coal mine, where 12 men died this week, were “serious and substantial.”Federal inspectors found 20 dangerous roof-falls, 14 power wire insulation problems and three cases of inadequate ventilation plans, among the 96 major violations, The Christian Science Monitor reported Thursday.
Sago’s “serious and substantial” violations, which rose four-fold in 2005, form a pattern that worries safety experts, the newspaper said. During the last quarter of 2005, federal inspectors at Sago cited or ordered the company to fix 50 safety violations — 19 of them serious and substantial.
Inspectors also noted lesser violations such as electrical equipment maintenance, accumulations of coal dust, inadequate fresh air ventilation of the coal-face and too few methane monitors.
Also, off topic, but since it relates to both this story and the conversation we recently had about unions, I wanted to share this paragraph with you from a similar article I read today in The Christian Science Monitor:
Joe McGowan, a longtime Buckhannon, W.Va., resident who’s worked coal mines, oil and gas fields, and timber jobs in the past, says he spoke with his friend Junior Hamner, who died in the explosion, just two weeks ago about the dangers. “He said it’s nothing but a walking time bomb,” says Mr. McGowan, in a measured drawl. “He told me, ‘They’re going to kill us all.’ ”McGowan, like many former miners in these parts, is skeptical of the safety record of “scab,” or nonunion mines, where employees have less recourse to complain about oversights. The Sago Mine, he says, was notorious for its large buildups of methane, one reason the mine had changed hands frequently in the past and a previous mine at the site had been abandoned.
The high incidence of injuries and the large number of safety violations worried him too. “The companies don’t want to spend the money on safety.”
Like I said previously, when workers must deal with behemoth companies, Union Solidarity is the only way to go.
Posted by: Adrienne at January 7, 2006 03:50 AMDavid:
I’m all for safety rules, but I wouldn’t ever want to rely on OSHA to create or monitor true safety rules. OSHA has provided some good things, but also a lot of meaningless mumbo jumbo rules that are really there just for looks. If a company truly had to follow each and all OSHA rule, said company would likely go out of business, in which case all its workers would be unemployed…..but extremely safe from workplace accidents.
An example: OSHA is among the agencies that requires abatement of all asbestos related products. Here’s the rub: friable asbetos (meaning brittle and easily airborne, like pipe insulation) is very dangerous and easily inhaled. But NON-friable is not dangerous and isn’t inhaled. Non friable asbestos would be for instance encapsulated in floor tile or roof cement. Since its the inhalation of asbestos fibers that cause mesothelioma and other cancers, just imagine trying to inhale a floor tile or a glob of roofing cement. Even during removal, air monitoring devices document that there are not enough asbestos fibers in the air to create health issues.
Schools have been forced, by OSHA in part, to replace asbestos floor tiles, but the only time the floor tiles are even remotely dangerous is during removal. If left in place, they are perfectly harmless. Yet millions of dollars have been spent removing tile from schools.
OSHA has great intent, but is a bureaucracy that has gone overboard. I’m all for safety, as I said, but I don’t know that I’d look for an even handed approach to safety from OSHA.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 7, 2006 04:31 AMjoebagodonuts,
Hmmm…on the one hand we have companies that manufature dangerous products, strip mine and ruin the land in order to produce it, and won’t take responsibility when the poop hits the fan.
Then we have an agancy that tries too hard to fix the problem…
Oh, well…it IS a free market system…You win…
Posted by: Marysdude at January 7, 2006 08:46 AMIt’s just to bad that the media does more to help create a divide than to bring people together.
The ever-present, always evil “media” is at it again.
Let’s see…deadliest week in Iraq in months, disappointing job numbers, and oh yeah, the biggest Washington scandal in years and the red column is talking about tomatoes.
Sounds about right.
Posted by: Burt at January 7, 2006 08:53 AMHeh… At least they did not mention Clinton this time.
Posted by: Aldous at January 7, 2006 09:24 AMO’Reilly/Hannity ploy! Huge amounts of corruption about to be uncovered, treason and torture emminating from the White House, serious threats of civil war in Iraq… so what does the Fox News mentality do? Run stories on…
a. save our children from molesters and porn merchants (aka ‘liberals’)
b. war on Christmas (waged by ‘liberals’)
c. speculations of Democratic opposition to anything Bush (whether founded or not)
Sheesh! no… I should say ‘Sheep’ since that’s what these cheerleaders are.
Posted by: Rick at January 7, 2006 10:16 AMHuman beings are omnivores, though some do select to be herbivores. I’ve never read any studies that claimed large quantites of red meat were good for you. Infact meat in large quantities of most kinds are not a healthy option. Look at the obsesity rates in the US.
Nutrition is an aspect of that. The more a food is processed the less nutrition it typically ends up containing. The other night on the Learning Channel they had a show “Obesity: The Deadly Epidemic” that talked about not only the heredity but the fact that man was designed to be more of a hunter/gatherer.
So, while I am not very concerned over screaming tomatoes (unless we see a real Attack of the Killer Tomatoe), I am concerned about our nutrition, the chemicals in the food we eat and how much nutrition has been eliminated from a food product in processing. I’m also very concerned about our nation continuting to raise the next generation in obesity. I’m concerned how parents do not only provide most times a healthy dinner but that they do not seem to have a clue as to how unhealthy the majority of school lunches are. Thankfully in some areas this is being addressed. Junk food is being removed and healthy options are being substituted. It’s going to take more than that, replacing too many hershey bars eaten with too many granola bars isn’t going to make a huge difference but at least it’s a start.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 7, 2006 10:56 AMMost employers care about the safty of their employees. They do for for one of two reasons.
Either thay want to attract and keep good employees. Or the are just complying with regulations.
A safe work enviroment is more productive and profitible than an unsafe one. Most employers know this. The ones that haven’t figured it out yet ussually can’t keep good employees because they know that they can always find something better. An do.
OSHA regulation offten counterdict themselves. I have a press that by OSHA regulations requires two hand buttons and a foot pedal. The hand buttons have to be setup so that both have to be pushed at the same time in order for the press to opperate. But I’m not allowed to hook the foot pedal up to them. So the foot pedal can trip the press by itself. OSHA claims that it’s unsafe to hook all three togeather.
That environmental groups are often extreme is unsurprising. The problem with such groups is three fold. The media loves extremes. It does not matter whether they are liberal or conservative, as long as there is conflict, they are all over it. The media influences what citizens think is important, therefore groups get conditioned to think that being extreme gets attention which translates to hopefully favorable action.
The second problem with such groups is that they continue existing once they have met their original goals. As such they must come up with new and more extreme goals to keep the money and support coming.
Thirdly, most people are lazy. People with extreme views are just much more motivated than the rest of us to actively join interest groups. It becomes a vicious cycle; as extremists take over well interest groups, the large majority of relative moderates has less groups they would ideologically be willing to join.
This is not limited to environmental groups. All groups that get large enough and have goals that can be concretely finished will have to keep coming up with new goals and become more and more extreme.
Posted by: Erika at January 7, 2006 11:41 AMMarysdude:
Having dealt with OSHA, I don’t find them to be “an agancy that tries too hard to fix the problem…” I find them to be a bureaucracy full of paper pushers who dont necessarily care about safety, but rather about whether you crossed the t’s and dotted the i’s on the paperwork.
The concept of workplace safety is important, as is the realization that we can’t take every bit of inherent danger out of some jobs. Mining for example has dangers—we can minimize them, but not eliminate them. UPS has a higher number of back injuries than an insurance brokerage would, due to the nature of the jobs.
I’m with you on the concept, but I don’t see OSHA doing a great job with the reality.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 7, 2006 11:47 AMRon:
“The ones that haven’t figured it out yet ussually can’t keep good employees because they know that they can always find something better. An do.”
In West Virginia coal mines they can always get people to work, no matter how dangerous it is — because there isn’t much else that pays a decent wage.
Enforcement of mine safety seen slipping under Bush
Adrienne:
The article you linked to had the following information:
“For coal mining, 2005 and 2002 were record low years for fatalities.Only 22 people were killed last year in coal mining deaths - down from 47 in 1995. The number of workers killed in all mines hit consecutive record lows of 56 and 55 in 2003 and 2004, respectively, but increased slightly to 57 in 2005.
“Within the last five years the number of fatalities have been cut in half,” said National Mining Association spokeswoman Carol Raulston. “From our perspective that’s where we ought to be focused. It is what is happening to the absolute number of injuries - and the rate of injuries - that has gone down. Mining is no longer the most dangerous industry in the United States.”
I’m not clear on how less enforcement has produced safer conditions, but I’m all for safer conditions. Aren’t you?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 7, 2006 12:30 PMNow comes the mighty Sicilian Eagle who has been busy in Rome and Sicily these last two weeks,enjoying the CHRISTMAS season and eating REAL tomatoes(not those yucky meally things that pretend to be tomatoes in American supermarkets,and he wants to wish Burt,David,JBOD and yes,even Adrianne a Happy New Year!
On tomatoes and virtually all food stuffs for that matter,the Eagle thinks the FDA is the real culprit as it protects vested American interest by mega conglomerates.
Three years ago,the duties on Italian tomatoes…the real one…were doubled.Why?Because my Italian friends refused to buy genetically altered beef from American producers,and got slapped with a double tarrif as a result.Pistachios?The best in Europe are in Sicily.Tarrif thanks to California growers…13%.Pasta….the same.
Enjoy eating Barilla pasta…you know…”Italy’s Best”…yep…made in Orlando Florida using American wheat…and shot full of needles vitamins too.
Actually,I can hear those tomatoes screaming too….
How long did it take you liberals to Blame Bush for a mining accident? I guess about as long as it did for you to blame him for everything else. It is really sad when one party is out of power.These idiots at PETA are about as sharp as a bowling ball. Too many college kids trying to look like they really care about the envirnonment before they get in there gas powered car and drive home drinking their coffee in their styrofoam cups!
Posted by: G at January 7, 2006 03:02 PMRICK,
Exactly, these are just B.S. deflectory issues. Maybe it’s not screaming tomatoes but republican hedgehogs hoping this latest huge spatter of “I’m not going to say it” blows cleanly over their trenches. AND IT WON’T.
Why no talk of Senator Frist’s phoney Aids fund? Which went to pay off republicans in congress or dare I say the name with excessive Capitol Hill tentacles “A-B-R-A-M-O-F-F”. HOW ABOUT TOM DELAY LEAVING ON WALL STREET JOURNAL’S BEHEST, NEAR EXCLUSIVELY WSJ, if that itself doesn’t give you a taste of who actually runs their party anyway. Yeah right, good old fashioned family values, HA!
Posted by: Novenge at January 7, 2006 03:44 PMG, Japanese hybrid cars hit record sales in the US last year. Most owned by lefties I suspect trying to do their share, and how is it these stupid Americans running GM managed to bellyup with such demand for hybrid vehicles sending all those profits to Japan? Ford too, about to bellyup on its pensions, they too failed to recognize the PETA and EPA supporting marketplace. Ironic isn’t it, how American leadership continues to find new and innovative ways to ideological themselves right out of competitive markets here in the U.S. to foreign corporations.
HP is losing share because they thought ripping their customers off on date expiring ink cartridges and jets designed to dry up when not used for a few weeks, was so American Smart. Right!!!!
IBM, gets it, they are moving overseas too! Stupid Americans. Remember those S. American countries bellying up under the weight of national debt accrued over decades to the point of crushing them? What does it say when America doubles its national debt in 8 years from 5 Trillion to 10 Trillion in one 8 year period under a Republican President? It says to me our leadership is as dumb as Brazil’s and Venzuela’s was in the 70’s and 80’s, and 90’s as far as managing the economy goes and laissez faire.
We bailed out Chrysler when they bellied up. Lesson learned. Now, GM and Ford are following suit. Making an honest profit against them smart Japanese is too hard, they will just file chapter 13 and let the tax payers feed them profits. Was that a Republican president that bailed out Chrysler, I forget.
They do know how to keep their lobbyists and special interests happy though while lining their pockets, well, with one exception named Abramoff. that is.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 7, 2006 03:49 PMSicilian Beagle,
Eat yer’ damn Genetically modified tomatoes, it’s a republican corporately approved food product. You guys run the FDA now so shaddup. Don’t come cryin’ to us, we warned ya’ but it’s your ball. Don’t you remember hating us liberals who wanted to slow down the outright approval of GM foods? We were the ones derided for nutrition labels on food, don’t you remember hating us liberals for it?
Posted by: Novenge at January 7, 2006 04:00 PMLet’s also not forget that Republicans don’t want Americans to know what country their foods were imported from. Given the Flu thing happening, that is another one that is going to come back and hit Republicans smack in their Abramoff gold filled teeth.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 7, 2006 04:16 PMHere’s some Abramoff screaming tomatoes..
Posted by: Novenge at January 7, 2006 05:27 PMHere’s some Abramoff screaming tomatoes..
Posted by: Novenge at January 7, 2006 05:29 PMI guess nobody can hear them scream (?)
Will that one work (fingers crossed)
Posted by: Novenge at January 7, 2006 05:36 PMAaaany-way it showed connections both to Bush and Israeli extremism, thunder stolen. Must be that danged NSA tuhmayter haters.
Posted by: Novenge at January 7, 2006 05:42 PMI’m not clear on how less enforcement has produced safer conditions, but I’m all for safer conditions. Aren’t you?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 7, 2006 12:30 PM
There wasn’t 15 different agencies barking out 15,000 contradicting regulations.
Posted by: Ron Brown at January 7, 2006 05:43 PMjoebagodonuts
In the 18 years I’ve been in business Iv’e only had OSHA come to my place once. This was because someone I fired called them and told them that my machines were unsafe. They came out and found that I was in compliance with regulations and left. I haven’t seen them for around 15 years.
I’ve found that workmans compensation carriers are the ones most likely to do safty inspections.
David
I own a Honda Civic hybrid.
Conservatives are not anti-environment. It is just that we don’t think the methods of the mainstream environmental movement are the best ways to clean it up.
If you want people to use less gas, let the price rise. That will work faster than anything else to cause conservation and encourage alternatives. But what happens when the price goes up? Everybody complains and asks the government to bring it down.
Hey Dawn,
Please write more coherently in the future. Most of what you had to say was good for others to hear, but the disjointed way that you started (and maintained) in your essay was off putting.
BTW, you came from a family of farmers and loggers…the problem that we are having in our wilderness and our land is not with the small mom and pop operations, but the greedy HUGE corporations that rape our land and our seas. I agree with you that there are extremes that we do not need to go to, but please accept the fact that we need to start encouraging population growth reductions, and that we need to stop wasting so much in our lands and seas. I was reading that for every pound of shrimp, we throw away 22 lbs. of viable sealife. isn’t that waste horrible?
I don’t care if fish can feel or not, I do not want so much waste.
Just my 2 cents,
toni
Toni
That’s so 70’s.
58% of all the wood used in the U.S. is produced on the south on plantations. Foresters take great care of the land and the trees. And these lands have not been wilderness for 200 years. Many are old farm fields and trees are replacing tabacco in the Carolinas and Virginia.
We have lots of work to do to preserve and improve the environment. We can best do it if we recognize the realities of BOTH our successes and failures. The huge corporations are often the best stewards of the environment.
Population is fizzling out, at least in developed countries.
It is true that population is the bottom line problem in many cases. But we are stuck with the populations we have and the world population will increase to about 10 million before it begins to decline. The only way we can take care of the people already born or “in the pipe line” is through technology and biotechnology. This is something else we will need the huge corporations to help with.
David R Remer
What about Heinz catsup or ketchup. Imported from many countries. Last I heard the Kerry/Heinz combination was a far cry from being a republican. In fact they are so far left they left the country to get rich on slave labor for their red sauce.
The huge corporations are often the best stewards of the environment.
Only as long as their “stewardship” maximizes profits.
Once regulations are relaxed on the types of chemicals they can dump and where, they do so. Maybe not in their own backyard (that would hurt profits), but it’s a given. EPA regulations aren’t put in place pro-actively; they’re always a response to an environmental disaster.
Posted by: American Pundit at January 8, 2006 01:30 AMWe DO live in trees. They’re called houses. Well, they’re trees but just sort of …. different. We build them out, ya know?! Tree. Take them … do a little of this to them, a little of that. Add stucco, whatever. Screw it. We DO live in trees, ya morons.
Posted by: Sabra at January 8, 2006 01:41 AMjoebagodonuts,
>>I’m with you on the concept, but I don’t see OSHA doing a great job with the reality.
OSHA is just another buraucracy. The managers are power pyramid builders just like in any business, but my point was that they may get in the way, they may be a lot of trouble, and they certainly are not perfect, but, like doctors they manage to ‘first, do no harm’. You can not say that about most of the businesses they investigate.
ADM for instance. That company created a monster, then even though there was plenty of evidence of the hazards, went ahead and spread it around the world. Reminds you of the tobacco companies doesn’t it?
If companies can go to other nations and make dangerous products they will, and do. I think that when OSHA proves in court that a corporation has deliberately harmed people for profit, the board of directors should be placed before a firing squad, en masse…that way perhaps the world would suffer less harm.
Posted by: Marysdude at January 8, 2006 01:59 AMSabra:
It was those little alterations she was opposed to. The context of the discussion was that certain animals were inevitably going to become viable in maore limited areas, if at all, because there hunting and mating habits required a large area and they were solitary. With increaseing development destroying there habitats, there chance of continuing to be viable was slim.
The Florida panther is one example. Normally solitary, they hunt is a relatively vast area and only gather for reproductive purposes. Time can’t be turned back to reduce the land in Florida already in use and dedicated to agricultural, commercial and residential uses. Not unless we are able to significantly depopulate Florida.
Natural evolutionary forces will result in other creatures more suited to the changed ecosystems will migrate and increase their population to fill the areas vacated by the diminishing species. An example is that many species of songbirds which prefer less densely vegetated areas have made tremendous inroads is areas partially cleared for use as residential areas.
Ultimately, since some species are going to diminish unless we depopulate parts of America (and the world), it is sensible and responsible to apply our conservation resources primarilly to species who have greater chances of succeeding.
Preserving animals whose ecosystems are inevitably failing is like proping up a failing regime. This effort can’t be sustained indefinitely, and the resources that could be used to benefit more viable species is diminished.
Posted by: good king ned at January 8, 2006 02:53 AMNovvange,David et al.
The FDA reacted to tree huggers and nutritionist on these labeling requirements(trans fat,allergin) which went into effect Jan 1.
As a resuly,America’s milk industry and ice cream industry is getting killed.
Next time you buy an ice cream,there will be a nutrition panel on it!
Small producers are getting killed….absolutely killed,and this started ubder the Clinton Administration.
Yes,big business needs to be whipped too…what they do regarding whet we eat is shameful.
Tasteless fruits and vegtables.Farm growm salmon that sucks,really sucks.Every rule bent for the big guy.
In Europe,lemons cost 10 cents each.And that’s based on the EURO.Here ther are quadruple.All food stuffs…and let’s not forget Italy’s farms are 71% organic….can’t get their stuff in.
Meanwhile,Wal Mart flood the markets with Chinese goods,including frozen fish.
One of my suppliers here in Sicily now is wholesaling Italian souvenior items made in China.Multiply this story 10,000 times and you know why Sicily’s unemployment rate is 22%
Our pasta is killing us…same with butter,flour,and meat.All contain geneticially altered strains.
I break my back fighting the government but it’s a systemic problem,not a partisian one.Beuracrats,,entrenched bueracats,protected by civil service make laws to justify their existence.
Heinz ketchup?????That is available at every military base px in the world.Non geniticially altered meat,however,is not.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 8, 2006 07:01 AMMarysdude:
Not sure about your examples of ADM or the tobacco companies. OSHA is charged with safety issues, not what products a company or industry makes. While OSHA might determine the safety of how tobacco is picked or cured, or whether the process of making the tobacco products had inherent unsafe factors, they would not be involved in determining the ultimate safety of the product.
That is simply not their role. It does not sound as if you are very familiar with OSHA. Have you ever dealt with OSHA in the workplace? I have, and have found it to be bureaucracy at its finest.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 8, 2006 08:52 AMWhen I was hanging sheetrock in residential houses in about 89’ OSHA came to our job’s a few times and said we had to start wearing hardhats on the job. We kept saying ok, and left it at that. After 3 or 4 visits, we didn’t have hardhats, and they stoped comming to our job’s. So much for that. Also a government represenative started stoping by to tell us that we had to get insurance for anyone steping onto out jobsite property and getting injured. We did the same thing, and they did the same thing. Two powerful outfits doing much about nothing.
Posted by: rick at January 8, 2006 11:38 AMjoebagodonuts,
>>Not sure about your examples of ADM or the tobacco companies. OSHA is charged with safety issues, not what products a company or industry makes.
Just used as examples of corporate shinanigans, to show oversite is needed. OSHA is indeed a bureaucracy, as are all government agencies, that is what the word describes, but just because it is a bureaucracy doesn’t mean it is bad or unecessary. Having slow moving, demanding bunglers as oversite is still better than no oversite at all, hence my referal to tobacco companies and ADM, etc.
Sorry for my lack of clarity…
Posted by: Marysdude at January 8, 2006 11:43 AMResponsable Goverment Policies.
Is this to much to ask for?
Its great if you are responsable
with the enviroment you so greatly
depend on for your familys standard
of liveing. Sadley this is not the
case when big buisness steps in
to provide big profit for stock
holders. Morals and the planet
become just another casulty
of the need to feed the greed.
By calling those who express
concern Tree huggers and People
who are concerned about animals
nuts we simply are compounding
any real debate on how to find
balance. Watch the tape of dogs
being skinned alive so the fur
can be died renamed and sold to
uninformed consumers. Then tell
me you feel Peda is a crazy cult.
The planet does have limeted
resorces. We are the gaurdians
of these resorces. Responsability
is the key word. There are those
on both sides of the issues who
take it to extreams but that
does not mean it is not a
valid issue. Needing
Responsable goverment policies.
OSHA has no jurisdiction over mine safety. That’s the domain of MSHA- the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The fact that Sago mine is nonunion is significant. There’s no one to make the company maintain safety standards. MSHA, OSHA or any other gov’t agency won’t do it, and it has nothing to do with budget cuts. I work in industrial construction so I’m familiar with dangerous work environments. I joined the union because I got tired of being ordered to risk my life to save the company a few bucks or work until everyone on the crew was so exhausted we were a danger to ourselves and everyone around us. I’m very conservative (I consider the Bushes leftists) and pro business. My experience in the real world has shown me that people who run large companies are usually pretty callous toward their employees, however. They consider them expendable. As I’ve been told when complaining about job safety, “If you don’t like it, leave. There’s a line of people waiting to take your place.”
Posted by: steve at January 8, 2006 12:43 PMSicilian Bagle,
Why? Because people know what’s in the ice cream, right? That’s what you are getting at? We need food allergen (especially fructose count)information on the packages it saves lives actually. Some people are on specific diets for more than just vanity purposes. I’m all for it but the problem is what gets approved without the dems on top of it actually goes by weaker standards of food quality because republicans are corporate whores to a much much greater extent (Although not that Clinton wasn’t but he did have a much better FDA than the ramshackled mess we have now under Bush where anything passes if escorted by political donations to the RNC).
Gee why am I mad you guys are out in 2006 anyway. The republican revolution is over and it will be a long time before your blind tunnelvision posteriors will be allowed to drive this car again—you aren’t trusted to do so without your makebelieve terror/WMD hunts.
(I wish I had an emoticon of a smiley face to put at the end of that)
Posted by: Novenge at January 8, 2006 02:59 PMJack,
“The huge corporations are often the best stewards of the environment.”
But only to the extent that they will do only what is in their best interests.
“What is good for GM is good for America”, is only true to a point.
BTW, it was great to finally meet you on your recent trip. It is amazing how much we agree on.
Novenge,
“We need food allergen (especially fructose count)information on the packages it saves lives actually. Some people are on specific diets for more than just vanity purposes.”
And those folks know pretty much what they are allowed to eat. That food is usually found in the specialty area.
Face it this legislation smacks of lawyering. The average American knows if they buy a quality product they get quality ingredients. Those that have lactose intolerances know they shouldn’t be eating ice cream anyway, regardless of what the package says.
Rocky, it’s more than just lactose intolerance. A friend of mine has pretty bad allergies to a variety of things, including soy products. More and more items are being made with soy these days, including ice creams. And some times the “speciality products” are even worse on it than the regular products, since soy has become popular in health food circles. Regardless of where he shops, he needs information on the ingredients in what he’s eating. As many others do. Not to mention the fact that knowing what is in the food you’re eating is just plain smart. I just grabbed a thing of ice cream out of my freezer… Turkey Hill Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup, if anyone cares. This is the ingredients list: Milk, cream, sugar, peanut butter swirl (peanut butter, SOYBEAN OIL, sugar, salt), corn syrup, whey, cocoa processed with alkali, nonfat milk, mono and di-glycerides, guar gum, corrageenan. This simple snack food would cause a bad allergic reaction in my friend. And would you really expect to find soy in ice cream if there wasn’t a label to check? I wouldn’t have, before I met him and started paying attention to exactly what was in the foods I eat after hearing about some of the problems he has had with finding soy in the most unexpected places.
Posted by: Jarandhel at January 8, 2006 04:31 PMJarandhel,
Perhaps I am just one of the lucky ones that have no intolerances, except maybe for stupidity, and that is another subject entirely.
The food industry has decided that it is cheaper to feed us chemicals and fillers, than it is to put out a wholesome product.
We are, however, a fast food culture, and it is ridiculous to think that we should have to put a product label on a Big Mac. We allready know it is bad for us. While I feel for your friend, he shouldn’t be eating processed food anyway.
Also, I am really appalled at our anal retentive attitude about antiseptics. I mean I wash my hands regularly, but we are working our way toward having no immune systems.
I grew up in a house that was clean, but my mother didn’t worry about cleaning every, single, surface, in the house with bleach. As a result I rarely get sick.
Rocky,
Not really, there are minimal sugar diabetic diets and even those who are so allergic to peanuts it could actually put their bodies in shock. The food labels need to be there, if you had a kid who had such allegies I’ll bet you would too.
This is just stuff that I don’t mind, if hammers came with a label that said “caution hard” I might see it as gratuitous but this isn’t. Even people who are into fitness such as bodybuilders want that info so they can keep count on proteins and carbohydrates.It doesn’t harm any companies, nor a brunt to capitalism (as the right is making the stink) they were going to wrap/package the food items anyway before sending them to market, right? Okay then settled.
I just wish it would list what percentage of ingredients are genetically modified, that would certainly prove interesting. Or perhaps what countries the vegetables or fruits were grown in. Dos buying that product support our American farmers?
Posted by: Novenge at January 8, 2006 06:04 PMRocky,
“Average American…If they buy a quality product they get quality ingredients”, without foodlabels you could neither prove or disprove that ‘theory’, key word there being “theory”. How would you know whether any of that was true without some form of foodlabelling? Sounds like a faith-based initiative.
Posted by: Novenge at January 8, 2006 06:17 PMNovenge,
“Not really, there are minimal sugar diabetic diets and even those who are so allergic to peanuts it could actually put their bodies in shock. The food labels need to be there, if you had a kid who had such allegies I’ll bet you would too.”
If I had a child with those allergies or if I had those allergies myself I wouldn’t be eating or serving my family processed foods.
It’s really simple. If you eat a wholesome diet that doesn’t include processed foods, your body doesn’t require suplements.
If America didn’t have such an unhealthy addiction to fast serve, processed foods, the manufacturers would get the message.
You want to eat ice cream, make it yourself. This isn’t rocket science.
Posted by: Rocky at January 8, 2006 06:28 PMNovenge,
In other words, “Step away from the Chalupa”.
Posted by: Rocky at January 8, 2006 06:50 PMThanks, Rocky. We probably should not make too big a deal of this agreement things. Some people don’t believe it is possible for people on different sides of debates to agree and the idea might frighten them.
Re labels
There is nothing wrong with having labels and having those labels be very complete. At some point, however, it can get ridiculous. All food is made out of chemical compounds. If you labeled all the ingredients of an ordinary organically grown apple, nobody would want to eat it.
Allergies are tough. Ingredients like egg whites, peanuts and even seaweed are in many ordinary products. If you are allergic to any of those, you got trouble.
Jack,
“All food is made out of chemical compounds. If you labeled all the ingredients of an ordinary organically grown apple, nobody would want to eat it.”
Somehow I don’t think that you will find soya, lactose, or peanuts in those ingredients.
We have become too dependent on the quick and easy and then bitch when we have a reaction.
Real food will also help when it comes to staying on that New Years diet as well.
Jack:
Actually, it doesn’t look that bad. Apples are primarily water and sugars. I don’t see any way to link you to the exact info directly, but if you go to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/index.html
and type in apple, then select “Apples, raw, with skin” (or without, your preference), and then select “one medium” or “one large” or whatever your preference is, you can get a quite detailed breakdown of exactly what is in it. Not to mention the fact that if people knew more about what was in organic, healthy, natural foods they would be in a far better position to judge the ingredients lists of processed foods.
Rocky:
The food industry has decided that it is cheaper to feed us chemicals and fillers, than it is to put out a wholesome product. We are, however, a fast food culture, and it is ridiculous to think that we should have to put a product label on a Big Mac. We allready know it is bad for us. While I feel for your friend, he shouldn’t be eating processed food anyway.
I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification. Your argument, as I understand it, is essentially that we don’t need to know what is in processed food because we already know that the chemicals and fillers used in it are bad for us and we shouldn’t eat it anyway. But is that the only way to make processed foods? Are there no organic processed foods that do not make use of such fillers? I’m pretty sure there are, since pasta is by definition a processed food and I know of some good organic pastas. And I also think that forcing companies to put this kind of label on their product so that people can actually compare the ingredients in the organic and non-organic processed foods is a major tool towards getting the processed food industry as a whole to move away from stuffing people with fillers rather than nutrients.
Posted by: Jarandhel at January 8, 2006 10:33 PMJarandhel,
“And I also think that forcing companies to put this kind of label on their product so that people can actually compare the ingredients in the organic and non-organic processed foods is a major tool towards getting the processed food industry as a whole to move away from stuffing people with fillers rather than nutrients.”
Most processed food has only chemically added nutrients anyway, a major tool towards getting away from processed food is not to buy it.
If there was a label on the side of an organic tomato what do you think it would read?
We are all capable of making foods like pasta, to use your example. The dough is simple.
Everything that we buy in a box to feed our families was, at one time, made by our mothers and grandmothers, and processed food is expensive by comparison.
Look, I’m not against labels on food, I just don’t think that labels are a panacea for eating healthy.
Find a green grocer that you can trust, a local bakery you want to support, a butcher, etc. It supports the local economy and it is a lot healthier.
You don’t “have” to eat processed foods out of a box
Most whole foods have names with less than four syllables, anything more than that is probably a chemical and you don’t want to eat it anyway.
Rocky said,
“without foodlabels you could neither prove or “disprove that ‘theory’, key word there being “theoryâ€. How would you know whether any of that was true without some form of foodlabelling? Sounds like a faith-based initiative.”
I hate to change the subject, but does the “Theory of Evolution” fall in the same catagory with a “faith based initiative”? Just curious.
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at January 8, 2006 11:29 PMJarandhel,
“I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification. Your argument, as I understand it, is essentially that we don’t need to know what is in processed food because we already know that the chemicals and fillers used in it are bad for us and we shouldn’t eat it anyway.”
Let me make it even simpler for you.
What we are discussing here is food that we, you and I and Novenge’s friend, CHOOSE to put in our bodies. No one is forcing us to eat it.
Take a risk, eat vegetables that you cooked yourself. Bake your own bread. Your time is yours to do with as you wish. Label or not, you choose to eat processed food because it is convenient.
The whole foods market I frequent has a setup where I can even grind my own peanut butter if I wish.
Tonight, I made beef stroganoff and steamed asparagus from scratch, and it was infinitely better than anything that you will get from a box.
It really dosen’t get much simpler than that.
Posted by: Rocky at January 8, 2006 11:40 PMPerplexed,
It’s not a wonder you are perplexed.
I never wrote that.
Rocky:
Most processed food has only chemically added nutrients anyway, a major tool towards getting away from processed food is not to buy it.
Again, you’re oversimplifying. The goal is to get away from harmful additives, not to get away from processed food. The one does not necessarily imply the other. All foods are processed, unless we’re literally eating things raw from the vine. Cooking is a form of processing. The mechanical process to make dough for pasta is a form of processing. Bread is a food that would not exist if not for processing.
If there was a label on the side of an organic tomato what do you think it would read?
The tomato, much like the apple, would be mostly water and sugars. 123 grams total, 116 grams of that water, 1.5 grams fiber, 1.54 grams Glucose (dextrose), 1.69 grams Fructose, 1.08 grams protein… if you want the exact details, I recommend you use the USDA National Nutrient Database search engine that I linked in my reply to Jack.
We are all capable of making foods like pasta, to use your example. The dough is simple.
Yes, we are. That’s not the point. The point is that organic versions of these processed foods already exist, and one of the key ways to know the difference is to look at the ingredients.
Everything that we buy in a box to feed our families was, at one time, made by our mothers and grandmothers, and processed food is expensive by comparison.
Perhaps, but not everyone has the time to cook the kind of meals you propose. I myself don’t, at this point, and often find myself having to grab food at taco bell or wendies or I’d simply not eat during the day.
Look, I’m not against labels on food, I just don’t think that labels are a panacea for eating healthy.
No, but they would make it a lot easier for people to try to eat healthy without forcing them to only eat “whole foods” they prepare themselves.
Find a green grocer that you can trust, a local bakery you want to support, a butcher, etc. It supports the local economy and it is a lot healthier. You don’t “have†to eat processed foods out of a box.
Perhaps you don’t, but not everyone may have that luxury. My boyfriend, as one example, is among those who could burn water if he tried to cook. Whole foods don’t provide many options for those who are not skillful cooks, most do not really lend themselves to simply being microwaved as processed foods do. Subsequently, they are also less convenient for children to make themselves, or for people on the go. And I would be very surprised if your entire diet was made up of unprocessed foods, even if you are a whole foods proponent. Do you have a jar of organic peanut butter from wholefoods sitting on a shelf in your kitchen, by any chance? That’s certainly a processed food.
Most whole foods have names with less than four syllables, anything more than that is probably a chemical and you don’t want to eat it anyway.
Actually, that’s a fallacy. Even the simple apple and tomato referenced previously in this thread have many ingredients whose names stretch to four syllables. Isoleucine, zeaxanthin, Phenylalanine, Methionine, Phytosterols, Tocopherol, Pantothenic acid, Riboflavin, Magnesium…
Posted by: Jarandhel at January 8, 2006 11:44 PMLisa-
Sorry, I don’t have the time tonight to read all the responses to your column. So let me simply respond to your original article, and apologize if I’m treading worn territory.
A lot of the main stream of vegetarian folks simply have a problem with the way the animals are treated rather than a problem with eating meat entirely. There are, of course, extremes, but most vegetarians and vegans that I know (quite a few, myself included) are the way we are because of the thoughtless exploitation of living creatures for financial gain. I will not go into details on the inhumane practices of animal farms, but let it suffice to say that animals are treated as cash-crops, to their own detriment and ours.
How is it our detriment? A few examples for now, there are plenty to be found. The use of BGH on cows to stimulate milk production has had several effects. One, the government now subsidizes farmers to _not_ produce milk. We overproduce milk, and farmers use this chemical (which finds its way into your own system, by the way) anyway. If you don’t think that BGH affects humans, then ask the EU why the use of BGH is banned in Europe.
A second example, which you yourself referenced is that of using Genetically Modified (GM) plants. Again, the problem here is that there has been insufficient research to conclude that consumption of GM products is safe. I have seen research that shows specifically that Monsanto’s “Round-up Ready” GM soybeans cause a highly statistically significant result of _death_ in mice. (I’ll see if I can look up the link for this) Research reports on GM foods like this ought to make us begin questioning. We must question our systems which (seemingly) blindly approve prescription drugs with terrible effects, GM foods that cause death in small animals (nevermind humans), etc.
American corporations now seem to have more control over the release of their own products than is healthy and we must begin to question things which are labelled ‘safe’ for consumption in America, but banned elsewhere. Which drug or new GM food will be the next Vioxx?
Posted by: aparker at January 8, 2006 11:51 PMRocky:
Let me make it even simpler for you.What we are discussing here is food that we, you and I and Novenge’s friend, CHOOSE to put in our bodies. No one is forcing us to eat it.
True. But how can we make a choice if we don’t really know what we are choosing? Disclosure is all that is being asked for, is that really such a hardship on the companies making the food?
Take a risk, eat vegetables that you cooked yourself. Bake your own bread. Your time is yours to do with as you wish. Label or not, you choose to eat processed food because it is convenient.
Sadly, not everyone has that amount of time to do with as they wish. And yes, processed food IS convienient. You say that as if convieniance is synonymous with laziness, rather than acknowledging that many people simply don’t have the time to prepare food in an inconvenient manner.
The whole foods market I frequent has a setup where I can even grind my own peanut butter if I wish.
That’s interesting, I’ve never seen that at my local wholefoods, though they do offer organic brands of peanut butter.
Tonight, I made beef stroganoff and steamed asparagus from scratch, and it was infinitely better than anything that you will get from a box.It really dosen’t get much simpler than that.
It probably was. However, it probably also took you much longer than buying the processed version of beef stroganoff would have. Not to mention required much more skill as a cook to turn out edible.
You keep stressing that there are alternatives, and no one is questioning that. The question is, even in light of these alternatives, why shouldn’t the makers of processed foods be required to put labels on their products? What is so horrifying about the prospect of a list of ingredients?
Posted by: Jarandhel at January 8, 2006 11:54 PMRocky:
By the way, next time you are in wholefoods, check out the breads and their ingredients lists. You’ll be surprised at how many are made with soy. I’ve had the pleasure of shopping there and at other organic markets with my friend before.
Posted by: Jarandhel at January 8, 2006 11:59 PMJarandhel,
“The question is, even in light of these alternatives, why shouldn’t the makers of processed foods be required to put labels on their products? What is so horrifying about the prospect of a list of ingredients?”
What I said was a label isn’t a panacea.
I am not arguing the possible benefits of a list of ingredients, I am only saying, my list is generally a recipe. Coming from a guy it may sound strange, but I prefer to cook my own food, that way I know exactly what is in it.
“By the way, next time you are in wholefoods, check out the breads and their ingredients lists. You’ll be surprised at how many are made with soy.”
I don’t do soy for the most part because I think that soy milk, for instance, is disgusting.
When you eat things that are convenient, you rob yourself of the joy of accomplishment of cooking your own food. Yes I am a good cook, just ask my wife and friends, but something is missing from a life that subsists on convenience.
Sometimes you have to stop and smell the eggplant.
Jarandhel,
“Even the simple apple and tomato referenced previously in this thread have many ingredients whose names stretch to four syllables. Isoleucine, zeaxanthin, Phenylalanine, Methionine, Phytosterols, Tocopherol, Pantothenic acid, Riboflavin, Magnesium…”
Sorry to keep doing this but I just have to add that those compounds are their natural state in their proper proportions. They are not injected into a “food” to make it taste like an apple, they are the apple.
Oh and BTW they were there, in that apple, in those proportions, before someone made up those chemical names.
sicilianeagle (and Rocky),
The FDA reacted to tree huggers and nutritionist on these labeling requirements(trans fat,allergin) which went into effect Jan 1.
As a resuly,America’s milk industry and ice cream industry is getting killed.The discussion thus far has concentrated on listing ingredients to help those with allergins. While important, I think the new requirements to list trans fat is even more important because it affects everyone, whether allergic or not. I can’t see why anyone would be against this requirement, and if an industry is getting killed because of it then they’ll have to learn to adapt.
It’s been known for over a decade that trans fat is a bigger contributer to heart disease than the saturated fat it is often replacing, but because it was cheap and did not have to be explicitly listed on labels no effort was made to use alternatives. When I first learned of the dangers of trans fat eight years ago I tried desperately to find food in the grocery store that did not contain it—it was a challenging task, and not always possible. In fact, trans fat was more prevalent in the so-called “health foods”, because using it allowed these foods to be made with less saturated fat.
Now that the labels are required, I can go into the grocery store and pick up many of those foods I had to rule out because of their trans fat content. Not surprisingly, many of them now have 0 trans fat. The food industry has known for years that the label was going to be required; the smart manufacturers have adapted. Those that haven’t deserve to die (at least more than we do)—it’s a free market, right?
Posted by: Charles Wager at January 9, 2006 05:04 AMHow about this for extreme: The belief in the planet’s ability to regulate itself, including us? Our world is growing up not out. Well, that’s no surprise. But why? Medical improvements for one. Isn’t it amazing and wonderful to hear of a medical breakthrough that will save lives? How about altering DNA of fetuses prior to their birth in attempt to have the “perfect” child? Here’s my beef: Chasing after those things in nature that are vital to our world’s ecosystem such as viruses. The whole ecosystem is about balance. Unfortunately, humans have decided to put ourselves at the top of that chain where, quite frankly, we have no right to be. Of course, it’s terrible to hear of deaths related to influenza, for example. And, no, I wouldn’t want to lose any of my children to it either. BUT, it’s a method of population control. A natural method. I can see this common thread in those groups who swear to protect the earth and its resources. They seek to protect the resources from human consumption where human consumption has overstepped its boundaries. Just some “real” food for thought.
Posted by: Karen at January 9, 2006 11:26 AMRocky,
You are obviously a self-righteous yutz, my conscience just can’t let you have the final word on this stuff. The chances of you knowing what the hell you are talking about is just too slim. Your arguements are unreallistic, pretentious and skirting an issue with no gravity to your points.
When did I bring up suplements? Ice cream, Chalupas? WTF are you talking about? Prepare a whole some meal, well what if you have a kid who has an allegic reaction to some food and you WANT TO KNOW WHAT ARE IN THE INGREDIENTS YOU ARE ADDING—Nevermind Rocky this topic goes way over your head.
Posted by: Novenge at January 9, 2006 12:41 PMNovenge,
“You are obviously a self-righteous yutz”
Thank you, now what exactly is your point?
Posted by: Rocky at January 9, 2006 01:00 PM
It sounds like you’re convinced that the world is on the brink of epidemic scale, over-population. Over population is a myth the left is perpetuating to justify a sizeable portion of it’s agenda. The primary one being abortion. The abortion agenda is about freedom from accountability. It epitomizes secular thinking while being consistent with elitist philosophers from the dark ages to modern communism. It’s the message that: A. morality is based on superstition. B. The individual is negateable for the good of society as a whole. And C. Humans are organisms no better than another organic life-form.
Liberals’ perpetual struggle is that of stifling the human conscience. They believe it is the result of societal conditioning and is one of the primary reasons Hitler despised the Jews. Whether divinely instituted of genetically evolved, the conscience is what makes society civil. It’s the redeeming value of humanity. Liberals want to find a way to reason around it. This is why they have to say abortion is about women’s rights and not about over-population. If it were about the individual woman they’d recognize that most recipients of the abortion procedure are afflicted with on going irreconcilable inner-turmoil.
BTW, currently there is about 5 acres of land to person on earth. There are also countries who’s population is decreasing.
John,
“BTW, currently there is about 5 acres of land to person on earth.”
And the population is growing rapidly.
Oh, and how much of those 5 acres are arable?
Posted by: Rocky at January 9, 2006 02:22 PM“How about this for extreme: The belief in the planet’s ability to regulate itself, including us?”
Karen,
If you truly believe this, then doesn’t it make sense that the planet could adapt to humans and our activities?
Dear God republicans, yes democrats are going to put nutritional information on apples now??? (sarcasm) yeah that’s the agenda (?). Nobody is going to put nutritional information on either Big Macs or apples—I guess we don’t call you extremists for nothing. Is there genuinely something wrong with your brains where you either misinterpret information badly or lose sight of reallism on what is going on and/or remotely possible? Maybe you just have to extrapelate beyond sanity to make your assumed contentions look plausible. It’s something of that order.
Posted by: Novenge at January 9, 2006 07:15 PMNovenge,
Am I wrong or did someone piss in your wheaties this morning?
Posted by: Rocky at January 9, 2006 10:45 PMTHC,
You have proven my point. “If you truly belive this, then doesn’t it make sense that the planet could adapt to humans and our activites?” Please show me proof of how the planet has adapted to humans and our activites? Do you not believe that we are damaging the earth and forcing it into a state of repair? The earth will snub us out if it so desires because it is designed to maintain a balance. Now, now, don’t run away with that last comment. I’m not saying events like “The Day After Tomorrow” are on the horizon. I believe the planet is not balanced and our over consumption of its resources is tipping the scales. (Hold on to your hats, folks, a debate about the causes of the changes in the earth’s climates and weather is about to take place.)
Posted by: Karen at January 10, 2006 08:59 AM
