On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:09:25 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet

Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy
a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA.

Price of Big Mac in US$, as at April 24 2003
-------------------------------------------
Uruguay 1.05
China 1.20
Belarus 1.21
Philippines 1.24
Ukraine 1.31
Russia 1.32
Malaysia 1.33
Sri Lanka 1.34
Egypt 1.35
Thailand 1.38
Macau 1.39
Argentina 1.43
Hong Kong 1.47
Brazil 1.48
Honduras 1.51
Poland 1.62
Georgia 1.65
Bulgaria 1.68
Macedonia 1.70
Pakistan 1.71
Yugoslavia 1.77
Indonesia 1.84
South Africa 1.84
Australia 1.85
Singapore 1.86
Chile 1.95
Czech Rep 1.95
Jamaica 1.99
Taiwan 2.01
Guatemala 2.03
Lithuania 2.06
Estonia 2.07
Colombia 2.13
Croatia 2.17
Kuwait 2.17
Hungary 2.18
Mexico 2.18
Japan 2.19
New Zealand 2.21
Canada 2.21
Bahrain 2.25
Slovakia 2.26
Peru 2.29
Aruba 2.29
Venezuela 2.32
Turkey 2.34
Oman 2.34
Morocco 2.34
Saudia Arabia 2.40
UAE 2.45
Qatar 2.47
Dominican Republic 2.61
South Korea 2.71
USA 2.71
Lebanon 2.85
Costa Rica 2.89
Britain 3.14
Surinam 3.18
Sweden 3.60
Denmark 4.10
Switzerland 4.59
Norway 5.51
Iceland 5.79



And when you express it in minutes needed to be worked?

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:09:25 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet

Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy
a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA.

Price of Big Mac in US$, as at April 24 2003
-------------------------------------------
snip

Whoa - pull up for a minute there sunshine.
Who said a Mig MAc qualifies as 'food'?

I could imagine the Big Mac of 2012 - prepared entirely from
laboratory-grown cultures.

"Evil *******" wrote in message
news
I could imagine the Big Mac of 2012 - prepared entirely from
laboratory-grown cultures.

Which could of course be produced "organically"
like tofu.

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling most
of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of their
milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of
parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though until
they can no longer agree and break up and make a new gang. Every issue
stands on its own.

Since we have reguatutory agencies with a long history and proven expertise
we trust them more than people in Europe seem to trust theirs.

Only if we are ignorant of how they are operating.
Michael Taylor worked for Monsanto, then went to work for the FDA where he
wrote the rules for labels regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered product
saying there's no difference, then he went back to work for Monsanto.

When Richard Burroughs at the FDA held up approval due to scientifically
inadequate research and challenged company studies that dropped sick cows
from test trials and manipulated data in other ways to make health and
safety problems disappear, he was fired.

Margaret Miller worked on rBGH safety studies at Monsanto, then got hired
as an FDA deputy director, coincidentally around the time Burroughs was
fired, where she approved the studies she had done while at Monsanto.
Her assistant at the FDA and primary rBGH reviewer coincidentally happened
to be Suzanne Sechen, who had previously worked on Monsanto-funded studies.

A USA TODAY analysis of 159 FDA advisory committee meetings found:
At 92% of meetings, at least one member had a financial conflict of interest.
At 55% of meetings, half or more of the FDA advisers had conflicts of interest.
At the 57 meetings when broader issues were discussed, 92% of members had
conflicts of interest. At the 102 meetings dealing with the fate of a specific
drug, 33% of the experts had a financial conflict.

The faked studies of Lynx,
Please inform yourself. What was faked in this affair was the charge
that there was a scandal.
What actually happened was a perfectly normal blind test of a
laboratory suspected of doing faulty analysis.
The sample from a captive lynx was just intended as a control.
But that doesn't stop those with a political agenda from spreading
talk about "planted evidence", or their readers from falling for it.

and the forest
fires from the lack of proper forest management are detracting from the
environmentalist credibility with the large majority of people in the US.

It's the logging industry and their servants at the USDA whose credibility
is suffering as the scientific facts come to light.

"Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate,
and fuels accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent
human activity. "
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final report to Congress

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
"Walter Epp" wrote i
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
I understand that the US public were reasonably accepting of the
technology until, the European "Frankenfoods" scare campaign came to
town.

The US public is still accepting them with no real problem.

The US public is largely unaware that they are consuming them.
That's not acceptance, it's ignorance.

In the greenest
part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some

That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money
spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics.
The best genetically modified democracy money can buy.

That law was not anti-gm, it only required that the consumer be allowed
to know what they're getting so there could be a free market.
Freedom is by definition the ability to make choices.
If there's no labeling, there's no choice, if there's no choice, there's
no freedom. To call this a free market is a fraud - it's a rigged market.

Their opposition to labelling shows that genetic engineering proponents
don't believe their own propaganda. If GE was really a good thing, the
industry would be proud to have their products labelled.

problem with green terrorists but we have been having that for a long
time

Attempting to plant an association between advocates of consumer rights
and "terrorists" is a transparent smear.

People that burn buildings and destroy property are not advocates.

That's precisely my point. The people who put this initiative on the ballot
were not burning buildings or destroying property.

They take
these threats very serious here when we have been getting death threats on
professors for 10 years from these advocates.

Once again, attempting to manufacture a link is propaganda.
--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet

Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy
a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA.

We spend less of our disposable income on food than any nation in the world.

We don't live on Big Macs.

Gordon

"Walter Epp" wrote in message
...
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling
most
of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of
their
milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of
parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though
until
they can no longer agree and break up and make a new gang. Every issue
stands on its own.

Since we have reguatutory agencies with a long history and proven
expertise
we trust them more than people in Europe seem to trust theirs.

snip Walter's bull shit

"Moosh:]" wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:03:33 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
In the greenest
part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some

That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money
spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics.

For instance? Show too where it is wrong please.

http://www.voteyeson27.com/Counterpoints1.pdf
This does not mention the possibility that labeling could increase jobs,
reduce costs of selling overseas, and make Oregon more competitive.
As Consumers Union points out in its letter supporting labeling, "Europe,
Japan, South Korea, China, Australia and New Zealand all have mandatory
labeling requirements, and a labeling law in Oregon would put the state in
a good position to sell products in those markets."

The best genetically modified democracy money can buy.

That's nearly as good as "Frankenfoods".

That law was not anti-gm, it only required that the consumer be allowed
to know what they're getting so there could be a free market.

Garbage. So that your lying scare campaigns could take effect.

Freedom is by definition the ability to make choices.

Only if you know and understand the facts.

Without labelling the consumer is denied knowing the facts.

You lot have gone out of your way to spread lies.

Show me which statement I have made that's a lie and why.

If there's no labeling, there's no choice, if there's no choice, there's
no freedom. To call this a free market is a fraud - it's a rigged market.

Then tell the truth. If there are scary lies promulgated, there can be
no informed choice, whatever information is given on a label.

And when biotech companies are censoring troubling information
there can be no informed choice.

Their opposition to labelling shows that genetic engineering proponents
don't believe their own propaganda.

Their opposition to labelling is due to gross ignorance of the general
public

Lack of labelling keeps the public in the dark.
--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet

Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy
a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA.

We spend less of our disposable income on food than any
nation in the world.

That may be true or not, quite independently from the question
whether or not you have the cheapest food.

We don't live on Big Macs.

That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest
on the planet.

"Walter Epp" wrote in message
http://www.voteyeson27.com/Counterpoints1.pdf
This does not mention the possibility that labeling could increase jobs,

if you increase jobs, the extra people employed need paying, which increases
costs.


reduce costs of selling overseas,


by taking on more paid employees

and make Oregon more competitive.


Yep, we Europeans will not by stuff from Oregon because it is too cheap, but
if you jack the price up we are going to fall over ourselves to buy it

As Consumers Union points out in its letter supporting labeling, "Europe,
Japan, South Korea, China, Australia and New Zealand all have mandatory
labeling requirements, and a labeling law in Oregon would put the state in
a good position to sell products in those markets."

No problem, all you have to do is put on the label 'may contain gm' and no
one will take any notice of it anyway
Jim Webster

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest
on the planet.


as world grain prices are dependent on what the USA is willing to let grains
go for, if the US wants US bread to be the cheapest on the planet they can
probably arrange it purely by cutting down their exports

Jim Webster

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:35:18 +1200, Evil *******
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:09:25 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet

Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy
a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA.

Price of Big Mac in US$, as at April 24 2003
-------------------------------------------
snip

Whoa - pull up for a minute there sunshine.
Who said a Mig MAc qualifies as 'food'?

I could imagine the Big Mac of 2012 - prepared entirely from
laboratory-grown cultures.

:-)

You'll love this Flash movie:
http://www.matazone.co.uk/mr_snaffle...fast_food.html

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest
on the planet.


as world grain prices are dependent on what the USA is willing to let
grains
go for, if the US wants US bread to be the cheapest on the planet they can
probably arrange it purely by cutting down their exports

Very little of the wheat enters movement hands so it has little say in how
much we export except to countries they lend money to so they can buy wheat.

The only way the government has of acquiring wheat is thought the Commodity
Credit Corporation in taking wheat in for collateral for loans and the
producer not redeeming the wheat at the end of the loan period or buying it
on the open market. When storage costs are 2 cents a month and interest is 1
percent a month the recent market makes it much more profitable to sell the
wheat at harvest and take the payment between market price and target price
and if you want to hold wheat buy a futures contract or an option that
doesn't cost storage or interest. The futures contract does have margin
calls if the price goes against you.

Gordon

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet

Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy
a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA.

We spend less of our disposable income on food than any
nation in the world.

That may be true or not, quite independently from the question
whether or not you have the cheapest food.

We don't live on Big Macs.

That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest
on the planet.

The only way to evaluate cost is what a hour of my time will buy. The way
countries juggle their currencies there is no other way to compare them.

Gordon

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest
on the planet.


as world grain prices are dependent on what the USA is willing to let
grains
go for, if the US wants US bread to be the cheapest on the planet they can
probably arrange it purely by cutting down their exports

Very little of the wheat enters movement hands so it has little say in how
much we export except to countries they lend money to so they can buy wheat.

The only way the government has of acquiring wheat is thought the Commodity
Credit Corporation in taking wheat in for collateral for loans and the
producer not redeeming the wheat at the end of the loan period or buying it
on the open market. When storage costs are 2 cents a month and interest is 1
percent a month the recent market makes it much more profitable to sell the
wheat at harvest and take the payment between market price and target price
and if you want to hold wheat buy a futures contract or an option that
doesn't cost storage or interest. The futures contract does have margin
calls if the price goes against you.

Gordon