Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
"Moosh:}" wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:30:07 +0100, "Jim Webster" posted: "Moosh:}" wrote in message .. . 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. And where did you get this story from? put Richard Burroughs and fda into google and you discover millions of websites which all seem to pass the same story among themselves. The guy has apparently been canonised and god alone knows what the truth really is It was really a rhetorical question, Jim, but you confirmed my suspicions I just did it for my own interest, I couldn't find him other than through the hagiographies :-)) Jim Webster |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:51:04 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote: On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:38 +0200, Torsten Brinch posted: On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:20:24 GMT, "Moosh:}" wrote: On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:36 +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. .. if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they .. are not the cheapest on the planet. But in what currency? US dollars is hardly informative. I was thinking of World Bank data for international price comparisons. They do it in PPP terms, with 100 indicating [item] in [country in question] is priced equal to the price in USA, and less than 100, that it is cheaper. See: http://rrojasdatabank.net/wdi2000/tab5_6.pdf .. Affordability is what we want to compare, when you think of it. No, look above. We are talking about how the price of food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere on the planet. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:51:04 GMT, "Moosh:}" wrote: On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:38 +0200, Torsten Brinch posted: On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:20:24 GMT, "Moosh:}" wrote: On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:36 +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. .. if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they .. are not the cheapest on the planet. But in what currency? US dollars is hardly informative. I was thinking of World Bank data for international price comparisons. They do it in PPP terms, with 100 indicating [item] in [country in question] is priced equal to the price in USA, and less than 100, that it is cheaper. See: http://rrojasdatabank.net/wdi2000/tab5_6.pdf .. Affordability is what we want to compare, when you think of it. No, look above. We are talking about how the price of food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere on the planet. I didn't say it was the lowest priced I said it was the cheapest. Cheap to me mean what it costs me in terms of what I have to spend. The price of a good radio receiver is about the same as it was in 1940 but it is far cheaper today than it was then. Gordon |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
Torsten Brinch wrote:
No, look above. We are talking about how the price of food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere on the planet. No, you are talking about that. The original person who brought this up is talking about something else. Based on your domain, I assume you are not a native English speaker, so you might not know that cheap/cheaper/cheapest can be used in absolute or comparative terms. You two are just not talking about the same thing. -- Marcio Watanabe |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:02:37 GMT, Marcio Watanabe
wrote: Torsten Brinch wrote: No, look above. We are talking about how the price of food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere on the planet. No, you are talking about that. The original person who brought this up is talking about something else. Based on your domain, I assume you are not a native English speaker, so you might not know that cheap/cheaper/cheapest can be used in absolute or comparative terms. Based on your domain :-). Thanks. You two are just not talking about the same thing. The original person who brought this up wrote (with reference to USA): "I will agree with you about the cheese in the supermarket. But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go to a specitly store if you are in a city. We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Aged cheese and beef are expensive and not avilble in every grocery store." I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in this context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the relation between the price of food in USA and the price of food in other countries on the planet. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:02:37 GMT, Marcio Watanabe wrote: Torsten Brinch wrote: No, look above. We are talking about how the price of food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere on the planet. No, you are talking about that. The original person who brought this up is talking about something else. Based on your domain, I assume you are not a native English speaker, so you might not know that cheap/cheaper/cheapest can be used in absolute or comparative terms. Based on your domain :-). Thanks. You two are just not talking about the same thing. The original person who brought this up wrote (with reference to USA): "I will agree with you about the cheese in the supermarket. But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go to a specitly store if you are in a city. We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Aged cheese and beef are expensive and not avilble in every grocery store." I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in this context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the relation between the price of food in USA and the price of food in other countries on the planet. To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform commodities of them. Unless you are in a city where there are shops that cater to people that know better and are willing to pay for it the supermarkets have a sameness in food that is sold with advertising and buying preferential shelf space in the store. The cost is the choice in cheeses is limited to some that are aged a very short time and meat that is too lean for my tastes. Everything has been vertically integrated. There are 3 major produce wholesalers in the state and they can pretty well dictate what the grocery stores get. Over the last 15 years we have gone from 1 chain grocery store and 5 locally owned ones to 1 locally owned one and 3 chain stores. Two of them big chains. That have what they stock and tough if you want something else. The gains are the cost of food is about 7% of disposable income and I can get it 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I have to go to extra trouble to get good meat and cheese but that is preferable to spending 15% of my DI on food. I have to drive 60 miles to the city ever month or two for something anyway. To see a doctor or shop for shoes. The shoe stores have done the same thing by stocking the things that sell and nether my nor my wife's foot is fall in that size range. It is better than when I farmed and had to drive 30 miles to go to the picture show or find a decent restaurant and 60 miles to a heavy hardware store. In the US most customers buy from the lowest price source and will drive a 30 miles to get there. It makes an environment that builds business like Wal-Mart that have good prices but no grantee that they will stock the same thing tomorrow that they have today. If you really want to eat cheap making your diet of beans, rice, lard cheap canned meat or really low priced cuts of meat on sale can get the price of food under 50 cents a day per person and have a diet that is better than most of the population eats. Gordon |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
"Walter Epp" wrote "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 Only if we are ignorant of how they are operating. milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though No, we have corporations that form a gang and railroad things through. Ann Veneman, current U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, formerly worked for a Monsanto subsidiary. Tommy Thompson, former Monsanto lobbying partner, became Secretary of Health & Human Services, which oversees FDA. Donald Rumsfeld worked for a Monsanto subsidiary and is now Defense Secretary. Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto lawyer before becoming a judge on the Supreme Court. Carol Tucker Foreman, former Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed as US representative on the Biotechnology Consultative Forum. Lidia Watrud, former researcher at Monsanto, moved into the EPA. I already posted details on Michael Taylor and Margaret Miller (who worked for Monsanto) and Suzanne Sechen (who did Monsanto-funded work), and then worked at FDA on regulation of Monsanto's products. These are ones that have come to light. How many others are there? Monsanto has thus demonstrated impressive mastery of the technology of genetically modifying the US government by inserting genotypes of people selected for faithfulness to its goals, which then express the desired phenotypes of government regulations and public relations pronouncements. Indeed, Monsanto has evidently achieved a higher degree of advancement in perfecting the technology of governmental than agricultural modification, as the performance of the governmental insertion products has been perfect, while the performance of the modified agricultural products has been spotty. The larger number of governmental than agricultural insertion products suggests a possible explanation: they've had more practice to refine the technique. Hitler and Geobles would be proud of the why the people that have taken over the greens have used their methods to sway public opinion to support "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini, father of fascism snip Walter's bull shit Thank you for adding to the credibility of my post by confirming there is no evidence to contradict any of the facts presented. -- delete N0SPAAM to reply by email |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
"Moosh:}" wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:16:43 -0700, Walter Epp posted: "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. And you have evidence of any fraud or other wrongdoing? Fraud is not needed when your own people are writing the rules. Do you know what conflict of interest is? 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. And where did you get this story from? You commented elsewhere on http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm but now your question indicates you didn't bother to actually read it. See also http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904b/monsantofda.html -- delete N0SPAAM to reply by email |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:09:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: Torsten Brinch wrote: Gordon Couger: "I will agree with you about the cheese in the supermarket. But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go to a specitly store if you are in a city. We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Aged cheese and beef are expensive and not avilble in every grocery store." I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in this context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the relation between the price of food in USA and the price of food in other countries on the planet. To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform commodities of them. Unless you are in a city where there are shops that cater to people that know better and are willing to pay for it the supermarkets have a sameness in food that is sold with advertising and buying preferential shelf space in the store. The cost is the choice in cheeses is limited to some that are aged a very short time and meat that is too lean for my tastes. Everything has been vertically integrated. There are 3 major produce wholesalers in the state and they can pretty well dictate what the grocery stores get. Over the last 15 years we have gone from 1 chain grocery store and 5 locally owned ones to 1 locally owned one and 3 chain stores. Two of them big chains. That have what they stock and tough if you want something else. The gains are the cost of food is about 7% of disposable income snip OK, since you keep returning to this statistic, food cost as percentage of disposable income, I must assume that is the basis for you saying, that USA has the cheapest food on the planet. Firstly, to use this statistic measure to indicate that food is 'cheap' is _misuse of statistics_. If anything, that measure can be used - with some caution - as an indicator of affluence. Secondly, the number you present [food costs ~7% of disposable income] is itself not correct. E.g. for the year 2000, total disposable income in USA was 7,120 billion US$, and total food expenditure was 825 billion US$. That is: ~12% of total disposable income. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
NNTP-Posting-Host: 36.red-80-32-35.pooles.rima-tde.net (80.32.35.36)
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1060451264 31670432 80.32.35.36 (16 [177688]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: text-east!propagator-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!newsfeed.tiscali.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!36.red-80-32-35.pooles.rima-tde.NET!not-for-mail Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.med.nutrition:169784 nz.general:588121 sci.agricultu63311 The carbon unit using the name Torsten Brinch in gave utterance as follows: On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:09:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Torsten Brinch wrote: Gordon Couger: "I will agree with you about the cheese in the supermarket. But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go to a specitly store if you are in a city. We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Aged cheese and beef are expensive and not avilble in every grocery store." I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in this context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the relation between the price of food in USA and the price of food in other countries on the planet. To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform commodities of them. Unless you are in a city where there are shops that cater to people that know better and are willing to pay for it the supermarkets have a sameness in food that is sold with advertising and buying preferential shelf space in the store. The cost is the choice in cheeses is limited to some that are aged a very short time and meat that is too lean for my tastes. Everything has been vertically integrated. There are 3 major produce wholesalers in the state and they can pretty well dictate what the grocery stores get. Over the last 15 years we have gone from 1 chain grocery store and 5 locally owned ones to 1 locally owned one and 3 chain stores. Two of them big chains. That have what they stock and tough if you want something else. The gains are the cost of food is about 7% of disposable income snip OK, since you keep returning to this statistic, food cost as percentage of disposable income, I must assume that is the basis for you saying, that USA has the cheapest food on the planet. Firstly, to use this statistic measure to indicate that food is 'cheap' is _misuse of statistics_. If anything, that measure can be used - with some caution - as an indicator of affluence. If people is affluent, food is cheap for them. Secondly, the number you present [food costs ~7% of disposable income] is itself not correct. E.g. for the year 2000, total disposable income in USA was 7,120 billion US$, and total food expenditure was 825 billion US$. That is: ~12% of total disposable income. I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings' income is less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars is spent in food. -- Saludos cordiales Javi Conjunction of an irregular verb: I am firm. You are obstinate. He is a pig-headed fool. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:53:11 +0200, "Javi"
wrote: The carbon unit using the name Torsten Brinch in gave utterance as follows: On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:09:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Torsten Brinch wrote: Gordon Couger: "I will agree with you about the cheese in the supermarket. But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go to a specitly store if you are in a city. We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet. Aged cheese and beef are expensive and not avilble in every grocery store." I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in this context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the relation between the price of food in USA and the price of food in other countries on the planet. To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform commodities of them. Unless you are in a city where there are shops that cater to people that know better and are willing to pay for it the supermarkets have a sameness in food that is sold with advertising and buying preferential shelf space in the store. The cost is the choice in cheeses is limited to some that are aged a very short time and meat that is too lean for my tastes. Everything has been vertically integrated. There are 3 major produce wholesalers in the state and they can pretty well dictate what the grocery stores get. Over the last 15 years we have gone from 1 chain grocery store and 5 locally owned ones to 1 locally owned one and 3 chain stores. Two of them big chains. That have what they stock and tough if you want something else. The gains are the cost of food is about 7% of disposable income snip OK, since you keep returning to this statistic, food cost as percentage of disposable income, I must assume that is the basis for you saying, that USA has the cheapest food on the planet. Firstly, to use this statistic measure to indicate that food is 'cheap' is _misuse of statistics_. If anything, that measure can be used - with some caution - as an indicator of affluence. If people is affluent, food is cheap for them. Secondly, the number you present [food costs ~7% of disposable income] is itself not correct. E.g. for the year 2000, total disposable income in USA was 7,120 billion US$, and total food expenditure was 825 billion US$. That is: ~12% of total disposable income. I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings' income is less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars is spent in food. But, the question is: from the observation that country A spends a smaller proportion of its total disposable income on food than country B -- do we conclude that, of these two countries, country A has the cheapest food? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
The carbon unit using the name Torsten Brinch in
gave utterance as follows: On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:53:11 +0200, "Javi" wrote: I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings' income is less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars is spent in food. But, the question is: from the observation that country A spends a smaller proportion of its total disposable income on food than country B -- do we conclude that, of these two countries, country A has the cheapest food? I'd say that food in country A is cheaper than in country B *for its inhabitants*. If we only compare A and B, or if in A the food is cheaper *for its inhabitanrs* than in every country compared, I'd say that, *for its inhabitants*, country A have the cheapest food. Of course, as I understand it, it's essential that the words "for its inhabitants" be added explicit or implicitly. Anyway, I had no problem in understanding the original post, as I added "for its inhabitants", because I think that affluence, when speaking about people, not about countries, is a relative term: the rich man in one country is the poor man in another. I admit that if we only read what was written in the original post and not add "for its inhabitants", you are right. -- Saludos cordiales Javi Conjunction of an irregular verb: I am firm. You are obstinate. He is a pig-headed fool. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 11:03:07 +0200, "Javi"
wrote: The carbon unit using the name Torsten Brinch in gave utterance as follows: On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:53:11 +0200, "Javi" wrote: I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings' income is less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars is spent in food. But, the question is: from the observation that country A spends a smaller proportion of its total disposable income on food than country B -- do we conclude that, of these two countries, country A has the cheapest food? I'd say that food in country A is cheaper than in country B *for its inhabitants*. If we only compare A and B, or if in A the food is cheaper *for its inhabitanrs* than in every country compared, I'd say that, *for its inhabitants*, country A have the cheapest food. Of course, as I understand it, it's essential that the words "for its inhabitants" be added explicit or implicitly. Anyway, I had no problem in understanding the original post, as I added "for its inhabitants", because I think that affluence, when speaking about people, not about countries, is a relative term: the rich man in one country is the poor man in another. But, if we accept that, we'd have to say that food becomes cheaper in country A *for its inhabitants* on, e.g., a policy to privatize public health care and education, balanced by a reduction of taxes. We would have to say that food becomes cheaper for the inhabitants, even if this tax reduction were progressively to benefit only the most affluent of them -- or indeed, if there were no significant tax reduction at all, and the vacant tax revenue were instead channeled into building palaces for the ruler of country A, or to buy weapons to attack country B. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:07:10 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted: On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:51:04 GMT, "Moosh:}" wrote: On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:38 +0200, Torsten Brinch posted: On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:20:24 GMT, "Moosh:}" wrote: On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:36 +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. .. if you look at prices in USA of, say, bread and cereals, or meat, they .. are not the cheapest on the planet. But in what currency? US dollars is hardly informative. I was thinking of World Bank data for international price comparisons. They do it in PPP terms, with 100 indicating [item] in [country in question] is priced equal to the price in USA, and less than 100, that it is cheaper. See: http://rrojasdatabank.net/wdi2000/tab5_6.pdf .. Affordability is what we want to compare, when you think of it. No, look above. We are talking about how the price of food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere on the planet. Well, Gordon's original comment, in response to which you provided the price list in US$, was "We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet" To me, cheapest means most affordable. Comparing prices using arbitrary exchange rates is far less relevant than comparing them as minutes of average workers' wages. YMMV. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
GMO biz vs consumers
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:38:42 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote: Well, Gordon's original comment, in response to which you provided the price list in US$, was "We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet" To me, cheapest means most affordable. Comparing prices using arbitrary exchange rates is far less relevant than comparing them as minutes of average workers' wages. YMMV. Bill Gates goes into a bar where nine unemployed workers are nursing their beers. "Whoopee!" shouts one of them. "This room now has the cheapest beer on the planet." |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Robomower Sale at robomower.biz ! | Lawns | |||
RESEARCH CONFIRMS CONSUMERS ARE USING FOOD LABELS TO MAKE HEALTHY CHOICES | sci.agriculture | |||
New Internet name for your business. .biz .sh0p .med | Plant Biology | |||
Is Monsanto Poisoning Consumers with Pesticide Residues | Gardening | |||
GM Potato = Malnutrition (Was: GMO biz vs consumers) | sci.agriculture |