Do you eat food?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Blue Velvet, Dec 20, 2010.

  1. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #1
    Thought so.

    Republicans joined Democrats in imposing an increased regulatory burden upon the 'free market' by passing:

    But, but, but... freedom!

    Don't tell me this guy never gets anything done.

    Obama, Bush. Just the same?

    Well, no. Bon appétit.
     
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    Pouring a cop of joe and waiting for the strict constitutionalists to tell me why this is bad and not constitutional. :D
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Same here. Fivepoint in 5...4...3...2...1... :)

    But this is really good to see!
     
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
    Because as freedom loving Americans it is our god given right to eat tainted meat and die of e-coli poisoning. Anything else makes us a communist nanny state.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Yes, plus after enough people die, the free market will correct the problem automatically. :) I wonder how many people it would take? ;)
     
  6. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #6
    Strengthening the FDA? This is going to piss off the libertarians, not just the constitutionalists.

    I'll feel better about my pistachios. :D One of my weaknesses. :eek:
     
  7. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #7
    Another solution in search of a problem.

    Just like the government's efforts to regulate the internet (which is by far the freest, best, and most affordable type of information source we have), they also want to regulate our food supply... even though we have the safest best food supply system in the world.

    The end result will be higher food prices - and consequently a huge burden on the poorest Americans just trying to pay their bills. Well done Democrats and Neo-Cons. This will cost billions of dollars and not make us remotely safer. You're thousands of times more likely to die in a car crash than from getting poisoned from food in the U.S.... and in the past 10 years, according to the CDC, we've been making the food channels safer already:

    [​IMG]

    Small farmers, especially organic/local farmers, will get hurt the most presenting them with limitless red tape and bureaucratic mess that they can't afford to deal with.


    Congrats indeed.
     
  8. Blue Velvet thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #8
    According to whom?
     
  9. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #9
    How have we been making food channels safer?

    Limitless red tape? Aren't you being a bit overdramatic?
     
  10. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10

    Except the bill exempts small farms. Nice try.
     
  11. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #11
    More to the point, companies, which are the real American constituency because they are people and have the resources to fund lavish and unlimited campaign contributions, have been endowed by their creators with the inalienable right to sell you tainted food because the shortcuts they take on safety make them and their shareholders more money, which is the only fundamental right some people still recognize, and the wrongful death lawsuits, even if proven, will cost them less than the safer practices.

    In turn, they must, under the rules of the free market, suffer the economic consequences of loss of a customer when they kill you. If they kill enough people, they might be driven out of business by lawsuits, with common investors receiving nothing and the executives responsible having to suffer the consequences of accepting their contractually required multimillion-dollar golden parachutes and hitting the streets, unemployed. Unless, of course, the companies are saved by that tort reform we keep bandying about, but then, of course you can still vote with your wallet by vowing never again to knowingly buy from a company that poisoned your loved ones to death owing to shoddy business practices. That'll show them.

    That's freedom, and it's just wrong to do it any other way.
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    Wow- the responses have been predictable so far, haven't they? ;)
     
  13. Apple OC macrumors 68040

    Apple OC

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Location:
    Hogtown
    #13
    they are just trying to boost everyone's immunity :cool:
     
  14. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #14
    Sacrifice a few for the greater good.
     
  15. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #15
    Nice post, Gelfin. Sounds about right! :cool:
     
  16. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #16
    Shutting down those slime balls is a very good thing. Too many food producers got a free ride during the last 30 years.

    Although it's too late now, it would be great to see the Ag Bill pull money from the big, bloated national producers and redirect it to nimble, local producers. One of the biggest tragedies of Ag subsidies is that they're almost all geared towards commodity producers, the major source of American obesity.
     
  17. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #17
    Right.

    Mom always said "Everyone eats a peck of dirt before they die.", usually when I found said dirt in my salad.

    But look what isolating children from early introduction to peanuts has caused!!.

    You people are too young to remember "measles parties". When one kid in a group got sick, they all got sick at the same time, and were stronger as a result.
     
  18. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #18
    So we should allow pesticides and salmonella in our food? The cancers from the pesticides will weed out the weak links and help with our social security funds. Salmonella will weed out the weak and provide immunity for the survivors. And let's throw in a little Mad Cow disease to the mix.
     
  19. Disc Golfer macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #19
    Overpopulation leads to factory mass production of our food leads to the government trying to control yet another facet of individual lives. This wouldn't be a problem if people based their nutritional sources off local and sustainable agricultural practices as opposed to putting highest priority on the lowest price for everything. Laziness and greed combined with the nonsensical desire for the human animal to breed out of control.
     
  20. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #20
    lol, fivepoint you are too much. I love how paranoid conservatives get when you do something that is clearly good.
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    Umm...so we should let food continue to not be safe? ;)
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    Not true, salmonella in eggs sickened more than 22,000 people and killed nine, from just two farms in Iowa. Additionally, according to a recent CDC report, 3,000 die each year from food-borne illnesses. Sickness rates may be as high as 1-in-6, also according to the CDC.

    Actually, for the individual the Internet is actually very costly as a source of information compared to a library card because the Internet requires at least some minimum investment in technology and an ISP.
    Also, the US government does currently regulate our food supply in response to the rampant abuses of large-scale companies. The reason our food supply is so safe is because of regulation and inspections which were failing to keep pace with the modern food industry.
    As for safety compared to other countries, of the modern world, we have some of the highest incidents of food-borne deaths according to the CDC and WHO.

    It's hard to estimate what the costs will be.

    Probably true, the USDA remains in charge of meat and is exempt from this legislation.

    This isn't correct, the Tester-Hagan Amendment creates exemptions for farmers that sell more than half of their produce directly to consumers or restaurants, as well as an exemption for the HACCP requirements.
     
  23. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #23

    Really. How dare the government tell food producers that they can't sell me food with salmonella or e-coli?

    By the way, the government already controls our food supply through corporate welfare that dwarfs most other areas of spending on our national budget.
     
  24. Disc Golfer macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #24
    My food's plenty safe. ;)
    Why would you support a farm producing contaminated food regardless of what the government says?
     
  25. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    I was joking about overpopulation. If we let the unsafe food kill off tons of people, there goes the overpopulation problem, then food will be safe again, etc. It was a joke, that's all. ;)
     

Share This Page