Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Dechristo

The Future of Food

Recommended Posts

In most cases, the said product wouldn't exist without the profit motive providing the impetus for the research and development costs required for its development, and the resources that went into it would have been allocated to other ventures that offered a greater potential return.

 

In the case that a private company develops a lifesaving product, and the public wants to insure that everyone who needs the product gets it, then the public should fork over the money necessary to pay for it and send it to those who need it. Doctors do life-saving work, but no one argues that they should work for free. Insisting on that would be a wonderful way to dramatically reduce the number of people who are willing to work as doctors, though.

 

You could probably benefit society tremendously by resigning from your job and providing all of the skills that you are paid for on a volunteer basis to all of those who need them instead of selling them to your employer. Why not do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In most cases, the said product wouldn't exist without the profit motive providing the impetus for the research and development costs required for its development, and the resources that went into it would have been allocated to other ventures that offered a greater potential return.
And heck, its even possible to run a profitable company honestly! I'm not sure why these companies are surrounded with controversy, but they are.

 

 

In the case that a private company develops a lifesaving product, and the public wants to insure that everyone who needs the product gets it, then the public should fork over the money necessary to pay for it and send it to those who need it. Doctors do life-saving work, but no one argues that they should work for free. Insisting on that would be a wonderful way to dramatically reduce the number of people who are willing to work as doctors, though.

 

What if the public company wants too much and the public can't afford it? But of course...how much is your life worth? Shouldn't we be handing them our first born, and signing over the deed to the house? No one wants to bargain on the operating table with the doctor for how much you're going to pay for the life saving operation.

 

I guess I'm just not sold on the idea the corporations can be entirely self regulating. The recent news with the FDA and tainted peanut butter makes me even more skeptical. I need my Nanny State!

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4738421.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one wants to bargain on the operating table with the doctor for how much you're going to pay for the life saving operation.

 

 

Which is exactly what you'd get with nationalized health care. Oh the irony of inconsistent positions. :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe my "position" is inconsistent with your point of view, but not with my own. maybe you think you know what my point of view is, but if you have surmised anything then you must have a pretty simple, black or white view about things.

 

i never brought up nationalized health care...i was just talking about an ethical situation which relates to the guidance one might have to give to a corporation.

 

now excuse me, i have to go to home and dust my Lenin and Hillary posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Dude. You were arguing that fluoride in drinking water has adverse health consequences.

 

If so, prove it with a quote. I never argued any such thing. What I did argue was this: I don't have to worry about fluoridation, or any other water additives because I filter my water. H2O baby. Accept no substitute.

 

I realize that you have trouble with reading comprehension and remembering who argued what, so I'll cut you some slack here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring an argument forth that some corporate entity (Monsanto, et al, in this case) is doing harm and JayB immediately hunkers down in his bunker and fires away with his "anti profit motive" argument. The man is like a lab, or in this case a lab rat, with a single trick in his repetoire, which he repeats over and over again. When he finally figures out that no was is playing the same game, nor were they ever, he whines about arrogant hippies.

 

Excessive bawl drive, to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I walk outside, pick blueberries from the bush, rinse and add to whole wheat pancake mix. From branch to batter in under a minute. Now dats fresh.

 

um, blueberries are about 4 months away from ripe dumbass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Dude. You were arguing that fluoride in drinking water has adverse health consequences.

 

If so, prove it with a quote. I never argued any such thing. What I did argue was this: I don't have to worry about fluoridation, or any other water additives because I filter my water. H2O baby. Accept no substitute.

 

I realize that you have trouble with reading comprehension and remembering who argued what, so I'll cut you some slack here.

 

you can't filter out ions. you cn only filter out particulates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude. You were arguing that fluoride in drinking water has adverse health consequences.

If so, prove it with a quote. I never argued any such thing. What I did argue was this: I don't have to worry about fluoridation, or any other water additives because I filter my water. H2O baby. Accept no substitute.

 

I realize that you have trouble with reading comprehension and remembering who argued what, so I'll cut you some slack here.

you can't filter out ions. you cn only filter out particulates.

Cut him some slack, Dru.

 

Science is hard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JayB and PP, I suggest you research the topic better (see the film for a start). Afterwards, I doubt you'll be as dissmissive.

Why do you believe this film is not just propaganda?

 

...because of the "on camera" testimonies of farmers in both the U.S. and Canada, as well as the verified statements of fact concerning persons that are employed both (alternately) in the government agencies that regulate the industry and on the boards of the industry they regulate, resulting in little to no regulation, streamlined commercialization, and greater incentive to fatten wallets instead of wasting the time (and money) necessary for adequate scrutiny.

 

But, it's primarily the testimony of the individual family farmers and their stories of persecution, abuse, and ruin at the hands of Monsanto that is the hallmark of credibility, for me. They are the same people as those I am descendant from and who I know to be the salt of the earth. They had nothing to gain from their involvement in this film beyond further harassment and hardship. They are the kind of people that do what they know to be "right" in spite of the costs, which is what Monsanto used to suck them dry. They are beyond reproach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who are responsible for the massive gov't farm subsidy programs which are completely unnecessary in modern society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I walk outside, pick blueberries from the bush, rinse and add to whole wheat pancake mix. From branch to batter in under a minute. Now dats fresh.

 

um, blueberries are about 4 months away from ripe dumbass

 

Not early blueberries, dumbass. Mine are just about ready to pop. There's more than one kind, amigo. Biodiversity is a big, big word.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Dude. You were arguing that fluoride in drinking water has adverse health consequences.

 

If so, prove it with a quote. I never argued any such thing. What I did argue was this: I don't have to worry about fluoridation, or any other water additives because I filter my water. H2O baby. Accept no substitute.

 

I realize that you have trouble with reading comprehension and remembering who argued what, so I'll cut you some slack here.

 

you can't filter out ions. you cn only filter out particulates.

 

Boy, when you're a dumbass, you go for broke. Since Mr. Phil is halfway lodged up your ass, I suppose that includes him, or half of him, scientifically speaking, as well:

 

"Ion exchange resins exist in the form of cation exchange resins and anion exchange resins. The BRITA water filter cartridge is filled with cation exchangers. These replace positively charged ions such as calcium, magnesium, lead, copper or aluminium with positively charged hydrogen ions. Anion exchange resins replace negatively charged ions from tap water (e.g. nitrate, sulphate and phosphate) with negatively charged chloride or hydroxide ions. These are primarily used as nitrate filters."

 

Just bunt and grab a base while you still can.

 

 

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I walk outside, pick blueberries from the bush, rinse and add to whole wheat pancake mix. From branch to batter in under a minute. Now dats fresh.

 

um, blueberries are about 4 months away from ripe dumbass

 

Not early blueberries, dumbass. Mine are just about ready to pop. There's more than one kind, amigo. Biodiversity is a big, big word.

 

Even the huckleberries are a month away in the PNW. The only thing that's popping is your credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Dude. You were arguing that fluoride in drinking water has adverse health consequences.

 

If so, prove it with a quote. I never argued any such thing. What I did argue was this: I don't have to worry about fluoridation, or any other water additives because I filter my water. H2O baby. Accept no substitute.

 

I realize that you have trouble with reading comprehension and remembering who argued what, so I'll cut you some slack here.

 

you can't filter out ions. you cn only filter out particulates.

 

Boy, when you're a dumbass, you go for broke. Since Mr. Phil is halfway lodged up your ass, I suppose that includes him, or half of him, scientifically speaking, as well:

 

"Ion exchange resins exist in the form of cation exchange resins and anion exchange resins. The BRITA water filter cartridge is filled with cation exchangers. These replace positively charged ions such as calcium, magnesium, lead, copper or aluminium with positively charged hydrogen ions. Anion exchange resins replace negatively charged ions from tap water (e.g. nitrate, sulphate and phosphate) with negatively charged chloride or hydroxide ions. These are primarily used as nitrate filters."

 

Just bunt and grab a base while you still can.

 

 

Um.... you will notice that it doesn't mention flouride ion, that's because fluoride can't be replaced by hydroxide or chloride due to its reactvity. Sorry dude you're sucking back the Fl- with every glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try at a save. Fluoride ions or no, you're still two strikes down today.

 

My bets are that, sometime today, you issue a third dumbass statement for our viewing audience.

 

I'm sure it wouldn't be a first triple header for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice try at a save. Fluoride ions or no, you're still two strikes down today.

 

My bets are that, sometime today, you issue a third dumbass statement for our viewing audience.

 

I'm sure it wouldn't be a first triple header for you.

 

You mean like you saying you aren't drinking fluoride, when you are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About that golden rice, some cursory research shows some problems:

 

The Council for Biotech Information has an advertisement on Canadian's TV, suggesting that, "Golden rice could help prevent blindness and infection in millions of children". Recent scientific evidence shows that this is not the case. Greenpeace is filing a complaint with Advertising Standards Canada demanding that this misleading ad be withdrawn from the airways. Biotech industries are trying to lead consumers into believing that this food source is a safe and beneficial one.

 

GE rice provides so little vitamin A that it would take 10 pounds (dry weight) of rice per day, to meet the recommended requirements. A two year old would need to eat 7 pounds a day. "It is shameful that the biotech industry is using starving children to promote a duboius product," said Michael Khoo of Greenpeace. "This isn't about solving childhood blindness, it's about solving biotech's public relations problem." Even the Swiss scientist who developed the 'golden rice', Dr. Ingo Potrykus, has admitted that there is not a single published study showing that the human body can convert the beta-carotene in GE rice to vitamin A.

 

Childhood blindness resulting in vitamin A deficiency could be cheaply distributed in a supplement, which would be more effective than golden rice. But better yet, why not implementing diversity crop farming practices that are naturally rich in vitamin A. They need to grow more fruits and vegetables with vitamin A content. The under class can not afford a healthy diet and can't afford to buy more expensive and untested seeds from the West. They need to give back more land to the people to increase self reliance, locally and internationally. This is the way to help the Third World nations fight against poverty and hunger.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JayB:

I'd like to see you address one of the more specific and troublesome issues in this argument, which up to this point has been referred to only obliquely. This is the fact that, in selling modified, non-reproducing seed stock to farmers, corporations create (or seek to create) a cycle of economic dependence, tied to their products, that may be very difficult for the farmer/community/state/nation to escape, even if in the future they find themselves worse off and regret their decision . Surely you realize that a decision like which seeds to buy, whether to invest in a fertilizer-dependent system, etc. is not such a simple economic transaction as deciding which soft shell to buy at REI. I don't believe Monsanto has a lifetime refund policy. A farmer, or farming community, or nation, could be struggling to feed itself, be unsure what is the most prudent option for the future, cast its lot with Monsanto, and in the process lose a big portion of their autonomy and self-determination, something that Monsanto will be very eager to possess for the indefinite future. The bigger the corporation, the grander the business strategy when it comes to exerting whatever leverage they can over as many people as they can, plus over the governments, organizations, and individuals that make policy.

This is why tobacco companies have tweaked the amount of nicotine in their cigarettes. This, I suspect, is behind the long term strategy of Merck in coming out with the chicken pox vaccine. Yes, on the short term the vaccine saves lives. However, when this vaccine first began to be marketed, even a non-researcher like myself could see that use of this vaccine could worsen the public health in the long term in two ways: by increasing the vulnerability of adults to chicken pox, and by increasing the frequency of herpes zoster (shingles) in older adults. This second outcome has in fact come to pass. What do you suppose Merck's solution is? Give the vaccine to more people more often. Merck can grandstand as a humanitarian protector of the public health, promoting the vaccine as even more useful than previously imagined-- when, in actual fact, the vaccine has contributed to the public health problem it now professes to solve.

Your posts don't explore corporate behavior any more deeply than to imply that, like the farmer, they're just simple folks trying to make a living; some of your posts in their tone suggest you may even believe that corporations like Monsanto are morally superior to the average farmer because they use their power and wealth to save people from starvation. I beg to differ. I know how much drug companies are willing to invest just to shift my prescribing practices a fraction of an inch. I have not one seed ;) of doubt that, in the boardrooms of Merck, there were meetings during which the long term implications of the chicken pox vaccine were discussed; the anticipated worsening of shingles was anticipated; it was recognized that the corporation could reap further profits from this adverse event, by marketing the vaccine to the elderly as well as children; that the corporation's long term financial projections considered this probability. One last thing I wish to point out here is that thanks to the vaccine, everyone not just the vaccine recipient, is at greater risk for shingles in adulthood, and most are also probably at greater risk for adult chicken pox.

 

My awareness of this and similar marketing strategies on the part of drug companies makes me see them as no different from Philip Morris (excuse me, Altria). I see Monsanto displaying a similar business strategy. I do not believe that making farmers better off on the long term is part of Monsanto's global strategy. If the farmer's lot can be improved without

Monsanto sacrificing profit, all the better; but if greater profits can be projected by making the farmer better off for one season, worse off on the long term, and economically tied to the corporation indefinitely-- which option is Monsanto likely to choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice try at a save. Fluoride ions or no, you're still two strikes down today.

 

My bets are that, sometime today, you issue a third dumbass statement for our viewing audience.

 

I'm sure it wouldn't be a first triple header for you.

 

You mean like you saying you aren't drinking fluoride, when you are?

 

I never said that. I said I'm not worried about it. And BTW, there are water household water filters available that will remove fluoride for about $30.

 

Strike three. So there. Neener.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About that golden rice, some cursory research shows some problems:

 

The Council for Biotech Information has an advertisement on Canadian's TV, suggesting that, "Golden rice could help prevent blindness and infection in millions of children". Recent scientific evidence shows that this is not the case. Greenpeace is filing a complaint with Advertising Standards Canada demanding that this misleading ad be withdrawn from the airways. Biotech industries are trying to lead consumers into believing that this food source is a safe and beneficial one.

 

GE rice provides so little vitamin A that it would take 10 pounds (dry weight) of rice per day, to meet the recommended requirements. A two year old would need to eat 7 pounds a day. "It is shameful that the biotech industry is using starving children to promote a duboius product," said Michael Khoo of Greenpeace. "This isn't about solving childhood blindness, it's about solving biotech's public relations problem." Even the Swiss scientist who developed the 'golden rice', Dr. Ingo Potrykus, has admitted that there is not a single published study showing that the human body can convert the beta-carotene in GE rice to vitamin A.

 

Childhood blindness resulting in vitamin A deficiency could be cheaply distributed in a supplement, which would be more effective than golden rice. But better yet, why not implementing diversity crop farming practices that are naturally rich in vitamin A. They need to grow more fruits and vegetables with vitamin A content. The under class can not afford a healthy diet and can't afford to buy more expensive and untested seeds from the West. They need to give back more land to the people to increase self reliance, locally and internationally. This is the way to help the Third World nations fight against poverty and hunger.

 

 

 

Yes, Greenpeace is where I'd go for an objective assessment of this one.

 

-the carotene-yield figures are way out of date and strains have been produced in which the yields are roughly twenty-fold higher than those referenced in your quip.

 

-There are also no published studies showing that the human body can't convert the beta-carotene in golden rice to Vitamin-A either. The argument here is essentially that we should assume that beta carotene from golden rice has mystical properties that render the body unable to absorb or convert it to vitamin A in the same way that it does from all other plant sources.

 

-The notion that the strains would have to contribute 100% of the adult RDA to be beneficial is especially idiotic. If you are suffering from an extreme deficiency of any particular nutrient, even a moderate augmentation of whatever it is that you are missing in your diet is likely to be extremely beneficial and alleviate the most severe symptoms.

 

What makes more sense and is more likely to succeed? Trying to convince hundreds of millions of people to fundamentally alter their diet and agricultural practices and the consumer preferences in markets in which they sell them - or to give them seeds that let them grow the same staple crops that they already grow and rely on that contain an essential nutrient that they need to help stave off blindness, infection, and death?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And BTW, there are water household water filters available that will remove fluoride for about $30.

 

There are tinfoil hats available that will protect your thoughts from government mind control satellites for as little as $0.25...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, seeing as I have first hand access at the college life diet, I though I'd throw some visual experiences I've had on here:

 

1) Spam in milk for breakfast

2) Dorritos in milk for breakfast

3) Tuna fish in milk for breakfast

4) Ketchup on ruffles, for breakfast

5) Melted ice-cream on Cherrios, for breakfast (this one actually looked pretty good)

 

Wait, thats all breakfast foods..... anyway, not very futuristic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×