COMMENTS: 37
Fast Food and Ag Industry Giants Pretend to Be Healthy
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
PepsiCo cares about you. The company's "Health and Wellness" website pictures a smiling family in tennis shoes and workout clothes enjoying a brisk walk. All are consuming Pepsi products. Dad is drinking a can of Pepsi. Grandma is toting a bag of Lay's potato chips. Aside from the questionable workout, we're left to wonder: When did Pepsi become an advocate for health?
Marsha Holmberg, a food editor at the Oregonianwho flew in from Portland, says too many Americans have become culinary illiterates, convinced by television commercials that processed food is nutritious. "Nobody thinks they have the time to cook," Holmberg says. "They think it's complicated. In reality, it takes as much time to make from a mix as it does to make from scratch. It's an illusion that food preparation takes time."
At the convention's bookstore, neat rows of dietitian guidebooks -- with covers of colorful fruit and vegetables, alongside the occasional whole grain cereal or wheat stalk -- lined the booths. The message was healthy food, which professionals agree is the backbone of a sound diet.
Yet not everyone was eating from the same menu.
Registered dietitian Regena Gerth was promoting Taco Bell's new "Fresco Style" line -- which substitutes cheese with "fresh Fiesta Salsa." "Patrons will continue to go to fast-food restaurants," she says, "so the least we can do is offer healthy options -- anything that can be incorporated into a diet." She failed to mention that gut-busting Tex-Mex food filled with meat and beans is still the drive-thru favorite.
At the Unilever stand, the company marketed its Hellmann's mayonnaise, demonstrating how to turn it into a meal in 10 minutes. Nearby, McDonald's fried up public relations (millions served) -- trying to recover from the heartburn wrought by Super Size Me, the 2004 documentary about the perils of eating at Mickey D's.
Asked if it was ironic that McDonald's was at the Food & Nutrition Conference & Expo, registered dietitian Julia Braun said not at all. "We're not trying to be a health restaurant, but we still want to offer healthy options," she said, admitting that this was an image campaign.
Frankenfood purveyor Monsanto, was also in attendance, the company's public relations team extolling the virtues of technical engineering on a massive scale. Would it not be safer and more environmentally sound for consumers to rely on local food sources, especially given the E.coli fallout from mass-produced foods such as spinach and beef? (Not to mention the pollution emitted by transporting produce across a continent?)
"The market can't be full of good, affordable foods without technical engineering," said Karen Marshall, Monsanto's senior director of public affairs. "Proponents of small organics overlook that we need big farms, as well. I also wouldn't say that smaller is safer, because large means accountability."
By and large, the Chicago-based American Dietetic Association (ADA) and a majority of its 67,000 members -- what the association refers to as "the nation's food and nutrition experts" -- have failed to embrace the local food movement, much less sound the alarm over our culture's unsustainable reliance on mass-produced food: the pollution caused by trucking corn, fruit and meat across multiple state lines, and shipping it across the world; the environmental destruction wrought by farmers pressured into a monoculture agriculture system; and the inherent health risk of eating a bunch of spinach from an unknown source.
The valuable local food lessons of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma seem not to have registered at the ADA -- or, at least, not enough to have supplanted its need to court corporate sponsors for its annual conference.
One of those sponsors, the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), recently released Alli, the first over-the-counter diet pill to gain approval from the Food & Drug Administration and promoted at the Food &; Nutrition Conference & Expo. GSK launched a "Meet Alli" tour last year in malls nationwide, where dietitians offered consultation and free Alli pills for six months to weight-conscious shoppers.
In its promotional material, the corporation features three different characters: Committed Connie who is white, Committed Carmen who is Latina and Committed Cassandra who is African American. At a media presentation in Philadelphia, a GSK spokesperson was careful to add that, when it comes to the African-American community, Alli's marketing focuses on "health" rather than "weight." She explained, they find size "a little more attractive." Yet, at the same presentation, the GSK spokesperson stressed that Alli only works if a person sticks to a low-calorie, healthy diet.
Why, then, was a diet pill promoted at the ADA's annual keynote event when the most important factor in maintaining a healthy lifestyle is to eat right (the ADA's website, after all, is http://www.eatright.org)? And how did "the nation's food and nutrition experts" stray from promoting the fruits, vegetables and whole grains featured on the covers of their books? Could it be related to the more than $10,000 that GSK contributed to ADA as a corporate sponsor within the last year? ADA's other corporate sponsors include Unilever, National Dairy Council, PepsiCo, Kellogg's, General Mills, Mars Inc. and Abbott Nutrition. According to ADA President Connie Diekman, "the ADA closely evaluates any potential collaboration or partnership to ensure it directly supports ADA's mission and strategic direction, protects ADA's name and safeguards the integrity and credibility of ADA and our members."
Hunger and Environmental Nutrition (HEN), a group of dietitians who are concerned about public health within the ADA that has more than 900 members, focuses on nutritious foods and clean water in the context of a secure and sustainable environment. One evening during the conference, HEN held a "Food and Film Feastival" in Philadelphia's historic Reading Terminal Market where it served locally grown, seasonal foods, as well as micro-brewed beer, while showing guests films about food and the struggles today's farmers face to stay in business.
Helen Costello, the past chair of HEN, said she felt stuck between a rock and a hard place in the debate over local and organic foods. "This is an issue of food safety, when 22 million pounds of beef are recalled as a symptom of a consolidated food industry. One affected animal ruins the whole lot. But it's complicated because our culture wants cheap food.
"More ADA members would like more local food," she said, "but the organization takes a conservative view overall, adopting the mindset that organics can't feed the world."
HEN chair and executive director of the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota, Mary Jo Forbord said that convincing the ADA to promote local food systems over corporate agribusiness is more of a marathon than a sprint. Forbord, a fifth-generation Minnesota farmer, said that currently, "There's no public discourse. Consumers and citizens ought to write the Farm Bill, because we all pay for the system we have in place. It determines what we will eat, how our landscapes will be used, and who will reap the benefits. Agricultural policy needs to line up with food policy, with goal of health in the broad sense -- for people, communities and ecosystems."
For the time being, though, HEN will take baby steps like holding local-food festivals in lieu of launching an all-out, food-throwing mutiny against the ADA. Eventually, HEN hopes, ag-biotech, big pharma and fast-food representatives dressed in dietitians' clothing will have no place at the table.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jparsons on Dec 14, 2007 7:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
answers, but surely somebody covering the event
ought to have made them front up?
ADA has been a lost cause for a long time.
It's just so disappointing when you know you
can't trust any of the established "reputable"
groups to be representing the good of the people
instead of the corporate sponsors. Those who
do represent the good of the people are naturally
considered to be freaky lefty activists who
hate America.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Dec 16, 2007 6:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite the new rapid urban pace, preparing locally procured organic food for home cooked meals was not that time consuming. This was pointed out by one of those quoted in the article. It is also a fact that US Family farms, during the sudden burst of post-war economic growth, were among society's premier beneficiaries of the boom. An unprecedented average of 40% of the food dollar spent accrued to family farms in the 1950s. With the rise of agribusiness a decade later this proportion would steadily decline. Urbanization and commercial growth didn't create a "need" for fast food. Agribusiness purposely created this so called need as Schlosser's book so effectively argues.
Beginning with the advent of huge factory farms, run mostly with large amounts of hired labor and the concentration and mass slaughter of non-free range livestock, the creation of fast food outlets and the marketing of their products created a concentrated, steady industrial customer for large quantities of meat, pork and poultry. This became highly profitable. From beginning to end, this increasingly vertically integrated agro-industry incorporated all aspects of food production. This process squeezed the family farmer who became subjugated by the big food producers and their corporate allies supplying various expensive inputs from anti-biotics to fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified seeds. When Ranchers sued Iowa beef under the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, which was to prevent consolidation of the beef industry by separating packing from ranching, it became clear just how much verticle control of the entire process the big food processors achieved. Such control enabled them to place downward pressure on ranchers' cattle prices through oligopsony pocketing the difference as huge profits. Today, family farmers and ranchers barely recieve an average of ten percent of the food dollar and many get even less.
It is clear that the real problem is corporate capitalism. Agriculture and food processing in the US shows more glaringly the problems of our system than do other sectors. Perhaps it is the nostalgic romanticization of the family farm that makes this most comprehensible to the US public. Perhaps also it is the true agrarian as opposed to urban roots of western capitalism that clarifies the agricultural issue. The real issue is the search for profitability regardless of its effect on the sustainability of society and the urgency of human needs. Addressing this pressing question is the first step toward a viable solution.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Food Problem in America often highlights exactly what is wrong with corporate capitalism
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» Family farms fought like hell to stay around but lost the battle. It's not a question of willingness
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Family farms fought like hell to stay around but lost the battle. It's not a question of willing
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Family farms fought like hell to stay around but lost the battle. It's not a question of willing
Posted by: yellow
» RE: where did having to wash "shitty" eggs come from? In the UK eggs are not washed
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Family farms fought like hell to stay around but lost the battle. It's not a question of willing
Posted by: 3rdI
» RE: The Food Problem in America often highlights exactly what is wrong with corporate capitalism
Posted by: TheLimit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeanne on Dec 16, 2007 6:08 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 17, 2007 1:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 17, 2007 5:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: pollyanna999
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» How much buffet has corrupted your pathetic head? Plenty compared to weed I'd say.
Posted by: tomnanto
» RE: How much buffet has corrupted your pathetic head? Plenty compared to weed I'd say.
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: zizizzi
» Somebody's got to connect the dots and wake your pathetic minds up.
Posted by: tomnanto
» Great point, max. Don't listen to the detractors.
Posted by: tomnanto
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Dec 17, 2007 5:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Larger means "more accountability"?
Posted by: TheLimit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eddie torres on Dec 17, 2007 1:15 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WOMAN AT CARL'S JR.: "You didn't gimmie no fries. I got an empty box."
CARL'S JR. COMPUTER: "Would you like another Extra Big-Ass Fries?"
WOMAN AT CARL'S JR.: "I said I didn't get any."
CARL'S JR. COMPUTER: "Thank you. Your account has been charged. Your balance is zero."
WOMAN AT CARL'S JR.: "What?"
CARL'S JR. COMPUTER: "Please come back when you can afford to make a purchase."
WOMAN AT CARL'S JR.: "Oh, no, no, no!"
CARL'S JR. COMPUTER: "I'm sorry you're having trouble."
WOMAN AT CARL'S JR.: "Come on! My kids are starvin'."
CARL'S JR. COMPUTER: "I'm sorry you're having trouble... Please come back when you can afford to make a purchase. Your kids are starving. Carl's Jr. believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother. Your children will be placed in the custody of Carl's Jr...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oh yeah... it's from Mike Judge's 'Idiocracy'
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tomnanto on Dec 17, 2007 8:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: splaceman on Dec 17, 2007 10:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
San Francisco is poised to be at the center of a movement with global implications. Experts such as Alice Waters and Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, are anchoring the task force planning the four-day celebration, which will embody the values of the Slow Food movement and illustrate how food and agriculture form a complex global tapestry of cultural, political, and environmental issues. In addition to education through taste, the event will offer a wide range of activities for all ages, including talks, forums, workshops, and films that will teach people the importance of preserving traditional foods and production techniques—and alert them to the broader implications of their eating choices.
http://www.slowfoodnation.org/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheLimit on Dec 18, 2007 5:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two lies everyone seems to believe, in one short paragraph:
"The market can't be full of good, affordable foods without technical engineering," said Karen Marshall, Monsanto's senior director of public affairs. "Proponents of small organics overlook that we need big farms, as well. I also wouldn't say that smaller is safer, because large means accountability."
People have wholly bought into the idea that without monoculture and factory farming, the world would starve. When Monsanto pushes this idea, we should all ask ourselves who benefits from monoculture and factory farming. Monsanto comes right up on the short list, and that should be enough to set off all our BS alarms.
We can use some big farms, sure, but there is a difference between a big farm, which is a living entity which not only produces a product but also manages and protects the land. This does not describe the hundreds of square miles of oil fertilized monoculture meant when Monsanto says 'big farm'.
Monoculture and factory farming destroy land at a rate that should alarm not only everybody who eats food, but everyone who believes the environment should be protected. There are ways to raise food which are not destructive; Monsanto's way is not it.
And large is accountable?
This is so demonstrably untrue it's hard to believe anyone would say it in front of witnesses, but despite the chronic ecoli problems, mad cow, salmonella and other problems in our food chain, people still don't seem to get it.
Maybe if you pointed out to them that if they cause some small problem for someone - serve them bad potato salad at a picnic, say - they will quite possibly find themselves held totally accountable, but that the larger the entity is, the less accountable it becomes. At the top of this curve, you have the government, who is very clearly NOT accountable to anyone for anything.
How about:
"Helen Costello, the past chair of HEN, said she felt stuck between a rock and a hard place in the debate over local and organic foods. "This is an issue of food safety, when 22 million pounds of beef are recalled as a symptom of a consolidated food industry. One affected animal ruins the whole lot. But it's complicated because our culture wants cheap food.
Well, JQP can afford to pay only so much for his food, that's true. But again, it's not JQP who is driving this runaway train, as the article makes pretty clear. The real issue is very simple: Big Ag not only wants to make giga bucks, and even tera bucks from the food it produces, it wants a total monopoly on it, from the seed (or zygote) to the packaging.
And 22 million pounds of recalled beef? For shame, Helen - back to double speak here - that's a Big Ag problem all the way.
And then:
"More ADA members would like more local food," she said, "but the organization takes a conservative view overall, adopting the mindset that organics can't feed the world."
But why not? If we dismantle Big Ag's monopoly, and put food production back in the hands of the people, we can feed a larger population and do it more efficiently. If you doubt this, look at China.
But the average American has given up on the romantic notion that he can eat clean food from sustainably operated family farms. BigAg's PR has convinced him that without Monsanto's finagling he's on the point of starvation.
We need to convince him that there is a better way.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jparsons on Dec 14, 2007 7:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
answers, but surely somebody covering the event
ought to have made them front up?
ADA has been a lost cause for a long time.
It's just so disappointing when you know you
can't trust any of the established "reputable"
groups to be representing the good of the people
instead of the corporate sponsors. Those who
do represent the good of the people are naturally
considered to be freaky lefty activists who
hate America.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Dec 16, 2007 6:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite the new rapid urban pace, preparing locally procured organic food for home cooked meals was not that time consuming. This was pointed out by one of those quoted in the article. It is also a fact that US Family farms, during the sudden burst of post-war economic growth, were among society's premier beneficiaries of the boom. An unprecedented average of 40% of the food dollar spent accrued to family farms in the 1950s. With the rise of agribusiness a decade later this proportion would steadily decline. Urbanization and commercial growth didn't create a "need" for fast food. Agribusiness purposely created this so called need as Schlosser's book so effectively argues.
Beginning with the advent of huge factory farms, run mostly with large amounts of hired labor and the concentration and mass slaughter of non-free range livestock, the creation of fast food outlets and the marketing of their products created a concentrated, steady industrial customer for large quantities of meat, pork and poultry. This became highly profitable. From beginning to end, this increasingly vertically integrated agro-industry incorporated all aspects of food production. This process squeezed the family farmer who became subjugated by the big food producers and their corporate allies supplying various expensive inputs from anti-biotics to fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified seeds. When Ranchers sued Iowa beef under the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, which was to prevent consolidation of the beef industry by separating packing from ranching, it became clear just how much verticle control of the entire process the big food processors achieved. Such control enabled them to place downward pressure on ranchers' cattle prices through oligopsony pocketing the difference as huge profits. Today, family farmers and ranchers barely recieve an average of ten percent of the food dollar and many get even less.
It is clear that the real problem is corporate capitalism. Agriculture and food processing in the US shows more glaringly the problems of our system than do other sectors. Perhaps it is the nostalgic romanticization of the family farm that makes this most comprehensible to the US public. Perhaps also it is the true agrarian as opposed to urban roots of western capitalism that clarifies the agricultural issue. The real issue is the search for profitability regardless of its effect on the sustainability of society and the urgency of human needs. Addressing this pressing question is the first step toward a viable solution.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Food Problem in America often highlights exactly what is wrong with corporate capitalism
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» Family farms fought like hell to stay around but lost the battle. It's not a question of willingness
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Family farms fought like hell to stay around but lost the battle. It's not a question of willing
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Family farms fought like hell to stay around but lost the battle. It's not a question of willing
Posted by: yellow
» RE: where did having to wash "shitty" eggs come from? In the UK eggs are not washed
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Family farms fought like hell to stay around but lost the battle. It's not a question of willing
Posted by: 3rdI
» RE: The Food Problem in America often highlights exactly what is wrong with corporate capitalism
Posted by: TheLimit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeanne on Dec 16, 2007 6:08 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 17, 2007 1:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 17, 2007 5:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: pollyanna999
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» How much buffet has corrupted your pathetic head? Plenty compared to weed I'd say.
Posted by: tomnanto
» RE: How much buffet has corrupted your pathetic head? Plenty compared to weed I'd say.
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: First, let's SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY "WAR ON DRUGS".
Posted by: zizizzi
» Somebody's got to connect the dots and wake your pathetic minds up.
Posted by: tomnanto
» Great point, max. Don't listen to the detractors.
Posted by: tomnanto
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Dec 17, 2007 5:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Larger means "more accountability"?
Posted by: TheLimit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eddie torres on Dec 17, 2007 1:15 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WOMAN AT CARL'S JR.: "You didn't gimmie no fries. I got an empty box."
CARL'S JR. COMPUTER: "Would you like another Extra Big-Ass Fries?"
WOMAN AT CARL'S JR.: "I said I didn't get any."
CARL'S JR. COMPUTER: "Thank you. Your account has been charged. Your balance is zero."
WOMAN AT CARL'S JR.: "What?"
CARL'S JR. COMPUTER: "Please come back when you can afford to make a purchase."
WOMAN AT CARL'S JR.: "Oh, no, no, no!"
CARL'S JR. COMPUTER: "I'm sorry you're having trouble."
WOMAN AT CARL'S JR.: "Come on! My kids are starvin'."
CARL'S JR. COMPUTER: "I'm sorry you're having trouble... Please come back when you can afford to make a purchase. Your kids are starving. Carl's Jr. believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother. Your children will be placed in the custody of Carl's Jr...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oh yeah... it's from Mike Judge's 'Idiocracy'
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tomnanto on Dec 17, 2007 8:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: splaceman on Dec 17, 2007 10:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
San Francisco is poised to be at the center of a movement with global implications. Experts such as Alice Waters and Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, are anchoring the task force planning the four-day celebration, which will embody the values of the Slow Food movement and illustrate how food and agriculture form a complex global tapestry of cultural, political, and environmental issues. In addition to education through taste, the event will offer a wide range of activities for all ages, including talks, forums, workshops, and films that will teach people the importance of preserving traditional foods and production techniques—and alert them to the broader implications of their eating choices.
http://www.slowfoodnation.org/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheLimit on Dec 18, 2007 5:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two lies everyone seems to believe, in one short paragraph:
"The market can't be full of good, affordable foods without technical engineering," said Karen Marshall, Monsanto's senior director of public affairs. "Proponents of small organics overlook that we need big farms, as well. I also wouldn't say that smaller is safer, because large means accountability."
People have wholly bought into the idea that without monoculture and factory farming, the world would starve. When Monsanto pushes this idea, we should all ask ourselves who benefits from monoculture and factory farming. Monsanto comes right up on the short list, and that should be enough to set off all our BS alarms.
We can use some big farms, sure, but there is a difference between a big farm, which is a living entity which not only produces a product but also manages and protects the land. This does not describe the hundreds of square miles of oil fertilized monoculture meant when Monsanto says 'big farm'.
Monoculture and factory farming destroy land at a rate that should alarm not only everybody who eats food, but everyone who believes the environment should be protected. There are ways to raise food which are not destructive; Monsanto's way is not it.
And large is accountable?
This is so demonstrably untrue it's hard to believe anyone would say it in front of witnesses, but despite the chronic ecoli problems, mad cow, salmonella and other problems in our food chain, people still don't seem to get it.
Maybe if you pointed out to them that if they cause some small problem for someone - serve them bad potato salad at a picnic, say - they will quite possibly find themselves held totally accountable, but that the larger the entity is, the less accountable it becomes. At the top of this curve, you have the government, who is very clearly NOT accountable to anyone for anything.
How about:
"Helen Costello, the past chair of HEN, said she felt stuck between a rock and a hard place in the debate over local and organic foods. "This is an issue of food safety, when 22 million pounds of beef are recalled as a symptom of a consolidated food industry. One affected animal ruins the whole lot. But it's complicated because our culture wants cheap food.
Well, JQP can afford to pay only so much for his food, that's true. But again, it's not JQP who is driving this runaway train, as the article makes pretty clear. The real issue is very simple: Big Ag not only wants to make giga bucks, and even tera bucks from the food it produces, it wants a total monopoly on it, from the seed (or zygote) to the packaging.
And 22 million pounds of recalled beef? For shame, Helen - back to double speak here - that's a Big Ag problem all the way.
And then:
"More ADA members would like more local food," she said, "but the organization takes a conservative view overall, adopting the mindset that organics can't feed the world."
But why not? If we dismantle Big Ag's monopoly, and put food production back in the hands of the people, we can feed a larger population and do it more efficiently. If you doubt this, look at China.
But the average American has given up on the romantic notion that he can eat clean food from sustainably operated family farms. BigAg's PR has convinced him that without Monsanto's finagling he's on the point of starvation.
We need to convince him that there is a better way.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




