New Study: 80% of Consumers Would Pay More for Non-GMO Foods
- Thread starter donnay
- Start date
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
Someone pulls a gun on me I shoot back. Don't expect me to get on my knees and take a bullet to the head. You don't want to be called a lunatic? Then don't try to shame people into eating stuff they don't want. You do not own their bodies, they do. This is one of the most basic principles of libertarianism: Self Ownership.
Natural Citizen
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,463
It wasn't their study. And the only person here who mentioned Moms Across America was the "new" guy. Now...zippy...are we so naive that we let any old dolt who wants to completely change the source to something that is easier to attack resteer the discussion? If we are, then, perhaps best to get out of the championship kitchen while the getting is good. Because I will hammer you.
You will not spin any post of mine into something that is completely irrelevant just so you can change the terms of controversy. I won't let you.
Natural Citizen
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,463
That isn't the correct way to look at it. I think it is better to look at who supports industry penned legislation that is introduced to congress by way of congressmen that are at the receiving end of said industry's lobby money. As well as who supports those elected and so called representatives of the people and the anti-freedom legislation.
And, so, when these industry penned bills are specifically penned to remove state rights and their ability to protect their people from the federal government and when they are penned in a way as to remove a consumer's means to ever know what they are purchasing and consuming, then, you'd better damned well believe that those who support that mercantilist model absolutley are interested in dictating to others what they are and are not allowed to eat. And there are many reasons for it.
More specifically, they are destroying the very model of the free market. If people don't have the means to make an informed choice, then, they can't actually take part in and impact a free market and they are forced to consume these products as a result of not being able to make an informed decision. As I said earlier, this kind of fascist fodder is doing nothing but protecting these industries from a free market. It is mercantilism. Period.
Now, sure, those who support that mercantilist model certainly do want the debate to become one of a moral premise whereas we start to argue over what you say here about "name one member of this forum who wants to dictate to others what they are and are not allowed to eat." And, of course, what that kind of question does is it keeps the more critical debate off the board and keeps the debate misguided and short of scope. I'm kind of tired of it, though. And, so, I'm going to start calling those minions out. And I'm going to use the same tone and energy that they like to dish out to others.
Last edited:
phonetic lee
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2015
- Messages
- 38
Natural Citizen
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,463
Oh no, sparky. I'm real. Bet on that.
Natural Citizen
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,463
It has also been a great way for Internet activists/supporters for the industry and mercantilist legislation to avoid the larger debate in settings such as this one. Which I referenced in my previous posting. They don't want to debate the critical aspects. They want to turn the argument into a moral paradigm so they can avoid those aspects of the debate. Which, ironically, is why we get memes about aliens wearing purple hats from those who want to keep a false paradigm alive when they are directed to research the more relevant aspect of the issue. Th GMO debate is geo-political now. And it'll stay that way.
Last edited:
So Government forcing individuals at gunpoint to test and label products is free-market and letting people choose whether or not to voluntarily test and label their products is fascism in your world.
I don't know what my minions
think but You got it ass backwards as far as I'm concerned.
euphemia
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 10,784
This wouldn't even be an issue if the government wasn't so heavily involved in food production. With the high-yield farming available in this country, there is no reason for us to pay as much for food as we do now.
Control the food supply and you control the people.
Control the food supply and you control the people.
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
/Thread winner!
Zippyjuan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 49,008
We have some of the cheapest food on the planet as a percent of income- not to mention the broadest selection of items to choose from.
http://theweek.com/articles/446652/why-americans-spend-less-income-food-than-other-country
And that percent of income going to food has been declining for decades.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...spent-more-of-their-money-on-food-than-you-do
http://theweek.com/articles/446652/why-americans-spend-less-income-food-than-other-country
Why Americans spend less of their income on food than any other country
In fact, the U.S. Agriculture Department expects prices to jump as much as 3.5 percent in 2014, an inconvenience some experts believe could snowball and potentially derail America's still-fragile economic recovery.
But Americans still spend less on groceries than any other country in the world.
That's right. According to data from the U.S. Agriculture Department, Americans shelled out 6.6 percent of their household income on food in 2012. The next lowest country is Singapore at 7.3 percent.
The highest? Pakistan, where consumers spend a whopping 47.7 percent of their earnings on food each year.
In Canada, food expenditures stand at 9.6 percent. Japan comes in at 13.8 percent, while Russians put 31.6 percent of their pay toward groceries.
So why does the U.S. pay so little? It's partly because American consumers are generally wealthier than those in many other countries, giving them more money overall to spend. But the big factor is food production.
U.S. agricultural productivity has generally risen over time:
Brought to you by USDA's Economic Research Service
Despite recent droughts, the United States has a booming agricultural industry. American farmers still produce a large amount of the grains, vegetables, and meats eaten here at home, and they do it efficiently and at a relatively low cost.
That keeps costs down for U.S. consumers.
America's capitalist culture also plays a role. Big grocers are competitive and are constantly cutting prices and offering deals to keep their customers and attract new ones.
And that percent of income going to food has been declining for decades.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...spent-more-of-their-money-on-food-than-you-do
dannno
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 65,717
We have some of the cheapest food on the planet as a percent of income- not to mention the broadest selection of items to choose from.
[/url]
Created4
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,470
Yep. And it all started during the Depression and the beginning of farm subsidies:
Stop robing the American taxpayer to keep food prices artificially low, and let people pay the actual value it takes to produce it, and the trend would start in the other direction.
Zippyjuan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 49,008
The main cause of diabetes is consumption of polyunsaturated fats.
(linoleic acid is one type of polyunsaturated fat)
Another important factor in getting diabetes is having high iron stores. If one knows that, it is easy to get rid of it through bloodletting.
Last edited:
Created4
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,470
Probably mainly hydrogenated polyunsaturated fats. But the replacement of refined carbs for saturated fats is also definitely a contributing factor.
Study: Government Guidelines on Low-fat Diet Were Not Supported by Science
euphemia
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 10,784
And no, I will not pay more for fresh, unmodified food. The government can stop farm subsidies, repeal the parts of the Food Safety Act that all but ban home gardening and hierloom seeds, and let people buy their foods from anyone they choose at their own risk.
Created4
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,470
If they do all that ^^^ (not going to happen), then you will definitely be paying more for your food, just like the rest of the world.
Similar threads
