On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:47 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:

"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?

Yes. And it is NOT fraud.

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.

Enough said. I didn't comment, other than to dismiss it.

See also http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904b/monsantofda.html

It seems to me that the American electorate is like the cow standing
on it's teat and bellowing with pain, too silly to lift its foot.

Hey, your regulator is elected by your democratic process.
Get off your collective asses and vote if it's not doing what you
want!

Corporations have one duty in life. Make more profit for the
investors. If you don't like what they do in order to obtain this,
then you need to kick your regulator in the butt an make him regulate.
If his rules are inadequate, then lobby your elected representative to
change the rules.

Of corse if the complaints against the corporations turn out to be
just spurious, greenie, scare tactics, then the loss of profits will
mean loss of employment amonst the electorate. The whole shebang is a
giant compromise between ultimate safety of doing nothing and doing as
much as you can with as little harm. Not an easy path, but one that is
usually fairly well followed IME.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

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."

If you wish to take it to ridiculous extremes by individualising it.

We were comparing nations, remember? Bill Gates, the Queen of England,
or the Sultan of Brunei are quite irrelevant to this discussion. They
are hardly averages of the different nations' workers.

Reply-To: "David P"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.50.162.195
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1060779051 34374196 212.50.162.195 (16 [65596])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Path: text-east!propagator-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!news.csl-gmbh.net!newsfeed.r-kom.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!212.50.162.195!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.med.nutrition:170002 nz.general:589416 sci.agricultu63355


"Mooshie peas" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

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."

If you wish to take it to ridiculous extremes by individualising it.

We were comparing nations, remember? Bill Gates, the Queen of
England,
or the Sultan of Brunei are quite irrelevant to this discussion.
They
are hardly averages of the different nations' workers.

One could look at the mode incomes. No doubt they would be around
somewhere. May be a better guide to relative affordability.
[I'll resume lurk now].

David

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:25:46 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

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."

If you wish to take it to ridiculous extremes by individualising it.

The whoopee guy compares the price of beer in the room with elsewhere,
using your suggested aggregate measure. I reckon one could nitpick if
now the room has the absolute rock bottom cheapest beer on the planet.
But, I understand his point that it must come pretty close to it, on
that measure, and also his pointed expressing of its non-applicability
to measure the affordability of beer to individual members of the
population the measure is aggregated across.

We were comparing nations, remember?

Yes, yes. Same thing, rooms, houses, neighborhoods, cities, regions,
nations, continents. Some area with a group of people in it, with
some aggregated income and some aggregated number of working minutes.
Within each area, prices can be expressed as price in
currency/aggregated wage in currency*aggregated working minutes,
and compared. Is that not what you are suggesting?

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:24:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:25:46 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

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."

If you wish to take it to ridiculous extremes by individualising it.

The whoopee guy compares the price of beer in the room with elsewhere,
using your suggested aggregate measure. I reckon one could nitpick if
now the room has the absolute rock bottom cheapest beer on the planet.
But, I understand his point that it must come pretty close to it, on
that measure, and also his pointed expressing of its non-applicability
to measure the affordability of beer to individual members of the
population the measure is aggregated across.

We were comparing nations, remember?

Yes, yes. Same thing, rooms, houses, neighborhoods, cities, regions,
nations, continents. Some area with a group of people in it, with
some aggregated income and some aggregated number of working minutes.

Except that we were comparing nations, and not "rooms, houses,
neighbourhoods.... The scale is surely the thing here.

Within each area, prices can be expressed as price in
currency/aggregated wage in currency*aggregated working minutes,
and compared. Is that not what you are suggesting?

Just working minutes of the average worker, or some suitable measure
such as mode or median. The currencies throughout the world are set on
arbitrary exchange rates decided by dictators, or to the whims of the
market, where the rate can fall through the roof if a president
sneezes. Minutes of workers time is just a much better measure of
affordablilty or cheapness in a nation. But if you have a different
take and want to argue till the cows come home, you'll need to find
another ball returner.