Sitka Gear
Who's pushing the anti food stuff?
Community
Contributors to this thread:
HA/KS 23-May-15
HA/KS 23-May-15
HA/KS 23-May-15
Stumpkiller 23-May-15
gflight 23-May-15
HA/KS 23-May-15
Owl 23-May-15
HA/KS 23-May-15
HA/KS 24-May-15
HA/KS 24-May-15
HA/KS 24-May-15
Owl 24-May-15
HA/KS 24-May-15
From: HA/KS
23-May-15

HA/KS's Link
Woman helping ABC softball stephanopoulos’ shenanigans worked for hilary AND Rodale Press - the organic food people:

White House records show that Riley’s duties included serving as a press contact for then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

Prior to joining ABC News, Riley worked as a senior director of brand communications for Rodale, Inc.

The company and its charitable foundation have donated $20,000 to $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, records show. The Rodale family contributed at least $5,000 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns from 2005 to 2008.

From: HA/KS
23-May-15
1. The organic food/anti GMO and environmental movements are pro big government and against free enterprise and choice. They HATE the economic independence of traditional American agriculture. Look at the history.

2. There are many farm programs. Some are good and some are bad, and many are very bad. Most real farmers wish the majority would just go away.

3. If farming is such a gravy train, go buy a farm and let the government make you rich.

4. My dad died two years ago today. He shed blood, sweat, and tears all of his life just so his family (and you) could eat. Today is NOT the day to insult a group of people you do not understand or appreciate!!!

5. Hackbow, I am leaving your post on the thread just so all can appreciate your ignorance and bitterness. Do you choose who can sit in your living room?

From: HA/KS
23-May-15
Spike, I realize that just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. Consider the source and the motivation of the people pushing the fear mongering of our food supply. The science does not support them, only the emotions of irrational people.

Nothing good comes from the evil intent of these people.

From: Stumpkiller
23-May-15
Consider the source and the motivation of those that say GMO's are safe. Who do you suppose they work for?

From: gflight
23-May-15
"Hackbow, I am leaving your post on the thread just so all can appreciate your ignorance and bitterness."

So nice of you not to censor his opinion and also use your father's memory as a debating tool on a thread you started about the subject.

Sad stuff right there.

From: HA/KS
23-May-15
Spike, buy a farm and grow your own non GMo, no chemicals food, free range, no petrochemicals food. While you are at it, be sure to mine your own metals, grow your own wood, chip some flint.

From: Owl
23-May-15
"1. The organic food/anti GMO and environmental movements are pro big government and against free enterprise and choice. They HATE the economic independence of traditional American agriculture. Look at the history."

- One of many benefits the organic food movement has is the de-centralization of food sourcing. It is in its nature anti-government. Think it through HA.

- Further, the organic food movement (by localizing) will benefit the small farmer immensely. I don't know one organic grower who even likes the government, much less wants to empower it.

From: HA/KS
23-May-15
Owl, there is truth in what you say. One side effect of long-term changes in agriculture has been the loss of small family farms. We have gone from paying 50% of our income for food to paying just over 10% If Americans are willing to again pay 50% of their income for food, we can have millions of small family farms again.

However, the "organic" movement still comes from a leftist agenda. The "organic" farmers rely on a customer base that has more income than sense. So does our overreaching government.

The same could be said for people who donate to the humane society. They love animals and think they are helping animals without realizing that they are supporting an organization with a radical leftist agenda.

Many people want to preserve the environment, but donate to organizations with an extremely leftist agenda without realizing it.

It goes on and on. Good-hearted people unwittingly supporting the leftist agenda.

From: HA/KS
24-May-15
Hackbow, I apologize for mis-characterizing you. Your remark just struck me as the exact same sentiment as "you didn't build that."

From: HA/KS
24-May-15

HA/KS's Link
A good discussion about changes in agriculture in response to the current food opinion climate. From this link:

Grass-fed beef contains less fat than marbled grain-fed meat and tastes different from what many people are used to.

It’s also more expensive: Oeding has his ground beef marked at $7 a pound, and a KC strip is $16 a pound.

and

But, he added, many activists use their concern for animal welfare as a screen when they are actually against meat altogether.

From: HA/KS
24-May-15

HA/KS's Link
Is organic food better? The guy in charge refused to say.

From the link:

Q: Lots of consumers buy food with the organic label because they think the food is healthier and safer than conventional. Are they correct?

A: Again, I am not going to be able to respond to that. It's just not . . . we are a regulatory program that regulates the organic label, to ensure that anything that has that label meets the requirements.

From: Owl
24-May-15
Same guy said we could "trust" organic food from China. We can't trust any food from China, much less a sub-category. Just goes to show the federal government has no business in defining agriculture (or charging farmers exorbitant fees for using the word "organic".)

From: HA/KS
24-May-15

HA/KS's Link
I have discussed on here before the difficulty with agriculture. Food has long been a boom and bust commodity. One outcome of federal farm programs has been a more stable food supply and price. That comes at a price.

It could be argued that providing conditions that lead to a stable food supply could come under "promote the general welfare." Like so many other "good intentioned" efforts, the original ag program has grown into a socialist monster (maybe the original intent - which is the real subject of my original posting).

It takes time and resources to produce food. Historically, when supply was high and prices were low, farmers cut way back on production. Many also went broke and moved to town to get a job. Then prices would jump way up and farmers would "plant fence row to fence row." However, it took time to produce the next crop. There is only one harvest time for each crop per year in traditional agriculture and if there is no planting there is no harvest.

When prices were low, farmers could not afford to plant exacerbating the severity of the coming food shortage. Add to this the uncertainties of weather, disease, etc.

The federal government continues to make it more difficult to produce food in America. Historically, famines have three sources: weather, war, and government policies.

  • Sitka Gear