I have been slimed..

Message boards : Politics : I have been slimed..
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 24 · 25 · 26 · 27

AuthorMessage
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1781395 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 22:39:12 UTC - in response to Message 1781366.  

But as per Martin's OP about ketchup, who eats 100g per day, not even my sister when she was young and she would have had it place of milk on her corn flakes.

But most people would eat 100gm of chocolate every day, except me, as I don't like most UK brands, and the others tend to be expensive.

I can agree, just about, with the 30gm of added sugar/day. But I don't like sugar substitutes. They would appear to tell the body "here's some energy", but there is none, so the body say's "give me more energy", So the person over eats.

Plus the governments say eat 5, or is 7 now, portions of fruit and veg a day, . Here in the UK a lot of food isn't marked to say what is a portion. But a lot, in fact most contain sugars. As I pointed out in my previous post, half the sugars in ketchup are from fruit and veg. So probably only 20gms of added sugar/100gm of ketchup.

And how much ketchup do you eat/day?
The 910gm bottle in my fidge is about 6 weeks old and still half full, and that's for two of us plus any youngest ate on two w/end visits. (about 50gm/person/week)

You use ketchup as a savoury.
Like many other sauces.
The problem is that we customers eat processed food that already contains a lot of sugar, salt as well, from the beginning and then putting some more sugar/salt on the plate.
But why can't regulary customers choose what food (meaning less sugar and salt) they want to buy anymore?
Simple answer. You have been slimed.
ID: 1781395 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17086
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1784119 - Posted: 1 May 2016, 23:17:53 UTC
Last modified: 1 May 2016, 23:26:02 UTC

All just my opinion and personal observation as ever, but the very careful wording for this article just completely stinks for what I see as some very deliberate poisoning of our farming and all of us be damned!



Banned pesticides 'not equally harmful' to bees [...]

... This study examined the three types banned by the EU in 2013. It shows that different types affect the brains of bumblebees in distinct ways.

Two (imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) were shown to be highly toxic to bumblebees when they were exposed to levels of the chemicals found in the countryside.

They affected their brains, impairing their memory and ability to forage for pollen. The toxic effects also included altering the make-up of the colony, changing the ratio of males to females and in some cases reducing the number of queens.

The third (clothiandin) - a close chemical relative that has not been tested before is shown not to be harmful to bees in the low doses given during field trials. The number of queens in the colonies actually increased.

'Long-term consequences'

Dr Chris Connolly, from the University of Dundee, said: "There has been growing concern over the risk to bee populations from neonicotinoid insecticides and their long-term consequences to essential ecosystem services and food security."

He said: "We can clearly see that the banned neonicotinoids are not the same, so they should be considered independently when considering risk and legislation.

"From our findings, we consider that it is premature to place a permanent ban on the use of clothianidine. That said, a moratorium on its use should continue until the knowledge gaps are filled on its wider impact on other species." ...





The official responses/comment in that article are most illumining.

My personal view and interpretation is that:

  • The pesticide producers blithely rubbish the results as somehow not possibly so;

  • The (supposed) National Farmers Union argue to poison the land regardless (in the same way as they promote the slaughter of badgers to scapegoat them for the ongoing bad/cruel/unhealthy farming practices);



And all in the name of that last 1% of greedy profit at all costs to everyone else. How very convenient this was never or never adequately studied by the pesticides manufacturers and sellers?... Or was it??...

How do we put a speedy stop to such madness?


(And why do we suffer such long histories of FUD and disinformation for continuing long term poisoning scandals?...)

All on our only one planet,
Martin


See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1784119 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17086
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1786165 - Posted: 9 May 2016, 15:43:21 UTC

At last openly in the news, the profits and coercion and costs of sliming the population with 'processed' foods:


What yoghurt tells us about the obesity fight

... understanding the challenge facing the nation on obesity, yoghurt is a good place to start. It's one of the most common items in our shopping basket. We spend more on it than we do on crisps and bacon.

In its normal state - natural full-fat - it's pretty good for you. It can boost your immune system, is good for your bones and is great at satisfying hunger.

The problem is that a great deal of the yoghurt we buy is not the natural stuff. Instead we seem to like the processed products, which are made by partly substituting yoghurt and adding a combination of other ingredients such as gelatine, sugar and flavourings. It tends to be cheaper to produce per calorie, but nowhere near as good for you.

[...]

Some 58% of advertising spend is on confectionery and convenience food, compared to only 3% on fruit, vegetables and pasta.

Less healthy foods are a three times cheaper source of calories than healthy foods, while promotions cause us to buy 20% more than we would otherwise.

Campaigners call this the "obesogenic" environment and say it is a major reason why we are not eating the right sort of food.

[...]

... Other steps, including a more substantial restriction on advertising, an end to promotions such as buy-one-get-one-free deals and clearer labelling, are now being targeted...



All only after our health service costs are as crippling as the people being treated have been crippled?...

Who has eaten all the profits on that one?...

All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1786165 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17086
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1824378 - Posted: 15 Oct 2016, 1:05:46 UTC

Oh how badly we have been slimed by the need of profit by BIG agribusiness and contrived nature-be-damned farming:


Plant diversity could provide natural repellent for crop pests

A new study has unveiled why a field with a variety of plants seems to attract fewer plant-eating insects than farm land with just one type of crop...

... "Farm fields can create monocultures where pests may find the perfect nutrition to be healthy and reproduce," ... "Planting fields with higher plant nutrient variability could contribute to sustainable pest control."...

... [Present day Agribusiness practice is that] Many large farm fields are monocultures because plants are bred to be as identical as possible...




Whatever happened to the long established robust and profitable practice of following a 4 year crop rotation to maintain high yield? No big Agribusiness fertilizer+chemicals needed...


All a question of who it is that profits?...

And our environment and the consumers be damned...

All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1824378 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17086
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1824380 - Posted: 15 Oct 2016, 1:10:11 UTC
Last modified: 15 Oct 2016, 1:13:04 UTC

Meanwhile:


Study probes soda company sponsorship of health groups

The nation's two largest soda companies sponsored at least 96 national health organizations from 2011 to 2015, dampening the health groups' support of legislation to reduce soda consumption and impeding efforts to combat the obesity epidemic...

... The study also identifies 28 bills or proposed regulations, including soda taxes and restrictions on advertising, that were opposed by the soda companies or their lobbying groups. Siegel and Aaron said these efforts demonstrate the companies' "primary interest of improving profit, at the expense of public health."...

... estimated that soda consumption caused one-fifth of weight gain in the U.S. between 1977 and 2007.



How direct and hard hitting does the language need to get?

Has the entire world been Trumped?!



We have all been slimed for the profit of others...

All in our own world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1824380 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17858
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1824381 - Posted: 15 Oct 2016, 1:12:14 UTC - in response to Message 1824378.  

Farms these days are not agricultural, they are food factories, concentrating on one product.
ID: 1824381 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1824444 - Posted: 15 Oct 2016, 14:39:39 UTC - in response to Message 1824426.  

Farms these days are not agricultural, they are food factories, concentrating on one product.

Point?

I guess WK's point is that most food today is produced in a monoculture landscape.
Farmers today have to do this in order to survive in the business.
Which means that many farming products are now industrial products.
Which means that the quality of the food becomes lower.
Which means that "real" farmers cannot compete with "industrial" farmers that dictates the price of food.
I guess "real" farmers food would be far less expensive than it is today if it was not for the "industrial" farmers.
ID: 1824444 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1824622 - Posted: 16 Oct 2016, 5:34:35 UTC - in response to Message 1824574.  

Farms these days are not agricultural, they are food factories, concentrating on one product.

Point?

I guess WK's point is that most food today is produced in a monoculture landscape.
Farmers today have to do this in order to survive in the business.
Which means that many farming products are now industrial products.
Which means that the quality of the food becomes lower.
Which means that "real" farmers cannot compete with "industrial" farmers that dictates the price of food.
I guess "real" farmers food would be far less expensive than it is today if it was not for the "industrial" farmers.

'Real Farmers'?

Pre Industrial Age, Pre-Massive International food distribution, 7 Billion people to feed, farmers?


@ everyone, expanding Clyde's remarks:

LOL... That would mean, of course, close to 7 billion subsistence-level farmers... In other words, almost everyone would be farming, without much if any modern technology... Except, of course, the rulers...

Big Agribusiness is the reason today that places like the USA can get away with only 1 or 2% of the people involved in farming, leaving the other 98 or 99% free to specialize their labor in other areas.

Granted, modern farming leaves a LOT to be desired.

Pesticides and herbicides = BAD.

Lack of genetic diversity in individual crops = BAD.

Lack of crop rotation forcing heavy use of fertilizer = BAD.

Conditions in 'factory farms/ranches' vastly increasing likelihood of widespread food-borne illness/death = BAD.

GMO crops = high likelihood of being BAD.

Don't like it?

Then get used to looking at the hind end of a horse/mule when you are plowing.

Get used to bad back troubles for many of you when you are harvesting.

Get used to sore muscles and a lack of sleep for much of the year.

Friendly suggestion: get some tutoring in farming without modern technology from either a local Amish community or perhaps some friends in the migrant farm worker community. You will NEED it, unless, of course, you grew up doing it like some of us. Even then, a refresher course in it would likely be helpful.

Oh, and you better not wait too long to get your mule and your land. Not all land under cultivation today can be farmed WITHOUT using high-tech farming methods.

You will also want to get some good seedstock of heirloom varieties of vegetables.

Don't wanna do all this (and more)? Then qwitcherbitchin...
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1824622 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29527
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1824668 - Posted: 16 Oct 2016, 14:37:48 UTC - in response to Message 1824622.  

Don't wanna do all this (and more)? Then qwitcherbitchin...

You mean they can't wave their hands and say make it so?
ID: 1824668 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 24 · 25 · 26 · 27

Message boards : Politics : I have been slimed..


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.