It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We're Winning the War on Food

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
New York, one of the most diverse cities on the planet, is cracking down on food that has not been approved by the government. Everything from cow's lungs to live bullfrogs, bought from unregulated sources and sold in small markets that cater to one ethnic minority or another, are the target of increased government scrutiny. Investigators are stepping up their efforts to ensure that nobody eats anything without the express written consent of the government.
 



wcbstv.com
In an attempt to stamp out the activity, Corby's agency has ramped up efforts, working with the Food and Drug Administration, to prevent this illicit food from reaching store shelves.

Instead of just hitting the retailers, Corby said, his inspectors are also targeting warehouses that receive imported products -- Russian, Asian and African -- from where the food is distributed.

So far, it appears his campaign has been effective. In the first nine months of the year, inspectors across the state seized 1.6 million pounds of food, destroying about 81 percent of it. Last year, the state seized only 976,076 pounds of food.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


(My emphasis above)

I appreciate the threat posed by improperly prepared food. People can get sick and even die from bit of undercooked chicken, or a bit of pork that came from a pig that wasn't butchered properly. I also appreciate the notion that in order for us to protect endangered species we have to outlaw the sale of their meat, skins, dangly bits, and what-not. What I don't appreciate is the fact that all of the sickness you read about in the news comes from government-approved, corporate sources. Taco Bell is making headlines this week. A little while ago it was FDA-approved killer spinach. Before that it was Jack-in-the-Box, and so on. When do we ever read about people getting sick from 'illicit' food? (That phrase, by itself, alarms me, seriously) I saw a video once of a man getting salmonella after eating his pet iguana. Serves him right. Do we need the government to half-ass it when the universe does a perfectly fine job of punishing stupidity?

How much of this is an effort to maintain control and exert authority, to generate revenue and breed dependence on the government, and how much of it is really designed to protect people? I can eat tainted food, as long as it comes from a place that generates a lot of tax revenues, a place that pays lobbyists to hang around Washington, right? This disturbs me, for a lot of different reasons. Again, I appreciate the need to regulate food to some extent, to insure a bunch of people don't die because some yahoo decided he could turn a better profit if he didn't refrigerate his goods, or if he thinks he can pass rat meat off as beef jerky. But at what point do we shift from helpful to self-destructive, when it comes to government control over our lives? I really think we reached that point a while ago, that point where the efforts of the government to save us from unscrupulous businessmen actually became an effort by the government to save us from ourselves.

I'm not a reactionary who just gets pissed off every time I read about the government doing something. I just don't take kindly to a government that manages, everytime, to turn well-meaning statutes into an oppressive hammer with which to prosecute people and restrict our options. Again, I appreciate the need to keep endangered species off the menu, but how can we manage to do that without shooting ourselves in the foot and ushering in a dystopian society where the government tells you what you can and can't eat (with encouragement from corporate goons who have a controlling interest in companies that sell substances only an insane person could call food). It's not okay to eat an iguana, but it is okay to eat a meat-like mad cow burger comprised of months-old grey flesh harvested from parts of the cow even a native American hunter wouldn't eat and mixed with worm casings, or a corn chip soaked in MSG and tinted bright orange with carcinogenic dies? This is what I'm talking about...

[edit on 4-12-2006 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
One thing is to be able to eat food safe but no even the food that is on the government approval can be called one hundred percent safe so lets call it for what it is, nothing more than manipulation by the big food industry to make sure that is no other food sources to compete against their monopoly.

When was the last time that anybody here ate a piece of beef or chicken that was raised in anybody home?

The last time I ate that kind of meat or poultry was when I visited my family in PR and the texture and flavor of it, was completely different from what I get in the markets FDA approved.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Have worked as a state level food inspector. Most of the severe incidents I saw were from unregulated food such as unpasteurized goat milk which was bought because "it is better than the stuff you get at the supermarkets". Have inspected milk plants and I can tell you that while its not perfect it is much better than these unregulated sources. I can say that our food source should be regulated.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
This is bad, i love unpasterized milk. but more than that I want my frogs legs and quayle eggs.


MBF

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by arius
Have worked as a state level food inspector. Most of the severe incidents I saw were from unregulated food such as unpasteurized goat milk which was bought because "it is better than the stuff you get at the supermarkets". Have inspected milk plants and I can tell you that while its not perfect it is much better than these unregulated sources. I can say that our food source should be regulated.


We raised hogs years ago. We did a good job and had high quality hogs. Our hogs were of such high quality that people would come to us to buy hogs to have slaughtered for their personal use. The funny thing is that if the hogs had our name on the tags, they would be condemmed and thrown away. Any other name and they were ok even though they were they same hogs from the same pen. We finally just had the people to have the hogs slaughtered in their names to solve the problem. Just because an inspector checks the food, does not gurantee quality or safety of the food. Too many inspectors have the job expecting to get money under the table.


I don't intent to imply that arius is one of these people because I don't know him/her, I am just speaking from my own personal experience.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MBF

Originally posted by arius
Have worked as a state level food inspector. Most of the severe incidents I saw were from unregulated food such as unpasteurized goat milk which was bought because "it is better than the stuff you get at the supermarkets". Have inspected milk plants and I can tell you that while its not perfect it is much better than these unregulated sources. I can say that our food source should be regulated.


We raised hogs years ago. We did a good job and had high quality hogs. Our hogs were of such high quality that people would come to us to buy hogs to have slaughtered for their personal use. The funny thing is that if the hogs had our name on the tags, they would be condemmed and thrown away. Any other name and they were ok even though they were they same hogs from the same pen. We finally just had the people to have the hogs slaughtered in their names to solve the problem. Just because an inspector checks the food, does not gurantee quality or safety of the food. Too many inspectors have the job expecting to get money under the table.


I don't intent to imply that arius is one of these people because I don't know him/her, I am just speaking from my own personal experience.


I'll agree with you that inspectors should not take bribes. I was blatantly offered a bribe once and through insinuation many times. I was offended by this attempt to buy my favor. But unfortunately it does happen I am sure.

However, the question is not about the honesty, work ethic, or intelligence of inspectors, the question is about whether or not our food supply should be policed in an effort to protect public health. That answer is unquestionably... YES!

You shouldn't let your experience with unsavory inspectors to cloud your judgement on an issue that was decided many years ago when it was common for people to die of typhoid, cholera, tuberculosis, etc. The reason scores of people don't die of these diseases today is not because of antibiotics. Contrary to what many people think the reason is sound environmental and public health policy and those sometimes cranky, vastly underpaid, and for the most of the ones I have dealt with "strange" sanitarians/inspectors/environmental health specialists.


MBF

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by arius

I'll agree with you that inspectors should not take bribes. I was blatantly offered a bribe once and through insinuation many times. I was offended by this attempt to buy my favor. But unfortunately it does happen I am sure.

However, the question is not about the honesty, work ethic, or intelligence of inspectors, the question is about whether or not our food supply should be policed in an effort to protect public health. That answer is unquestionably... YES!

You shouldn't let your experience with unsavory inspectors to cloud your judgement on an issue that was decided many years ago when it was common for people to die of typhoid, cholera, tuberculosis, etc. The reason scores of people don't die of these diseases today is not because of antibiotics. Contrary to what many people think the reason is sound environmental and public health policy and those sometimes cranky, vastly underpaid, and for the most of the ones I have dealt with "strange" sanitarians/inspectors/environmental health specialists.


I wish that there were more inspectors like you. I agree that our food supply does need to be policed to guarantee its safety, but there are an awful lot of crooked inspectors out there. I grew produce for a few years and got another lesson on how dirty some inspectors can be, like an entire simi load of watermelons that was delivered to Philadelphia that was claimed to be rotten. The funny thing is that I didn't find out about it till about two months later when I got my check and saw where I owed $1100 freight bill for the load. If those watermelons were rotten, I will eat the whole load. The same things happened with other produce that I grew too. I had a load of squash that went to Tampa I think it was that was claimed was rotten. A man went down to check and found out that not only was nothing wrong with them, but they were the best quality that they had in the store. If I was an inspector, I would not pass anything that I wouldn't eat myself and would not reject anything that was of good quality no matter what anybody tried to get me to do. I guess I have just had a lot of bad experiences with inspectors


Cug

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
One thing is to be able to eat food safe but no even the food that is on the government approval can be called one hundred percent safe so lets call it for what it is, nothing more than manipulation by the big food industry to make sure that is no other food sources to compete against their monopoly.


Here is something about that from Alton Brown's site (Host of Food network's Good eats)


Now look at the states listed above. 21 states affected by spinach grown not only in one state but in one region of one state. Had the spinach stayed near home odds are good this would have been caught sooner. But packaging and trucking just gave the 0157:H7 time to grow. (For some reason I’m reminded of Charlie Sheen in Apocalypse Now talking about “…every minute Charlie squats in the bush he gets stronger…”.) What’s my point? Had the big chain grocers and restaurant suppliers purchased locally grown produce, this wouldn’t have happened. But don’t blame them. Nope. Blame us. By demanding fresh spinach year round (or anything else for that matter) we create the monster. It’s like Dan Akroyd thinking of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man in Ghost Busters. Our own unnatural desires and our refusal to consume locally grown foods have brought us to this sorry state.

And to make matters worse, our ever-wise government has told us to eat no fresh spinach at all. They could have advised us to eat only locally grown spinach but Noooooooo. Let’s shoot every poor farmer in America that’s doing his or her job in the foot. And why? Because we can’t sort out what went there when and how and what it might have touched or been near. Here’s the news kids: when the system gets this big and out of whack, all the king’s horses and all the king’s men (and the USDA and the CDC, and the FDA) cannot keep us safe. I want you to think about that a minute. It’s not their fault. it simply cannot be done. It should not be done.

Source: www.altonbrown.com...


In other words it's not "them" doing it, it's "us".



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

WyrdeOne

I can eat tainted food, as long as it comes from a place that generates a lot of tax revenues, a place that pays lobbyists to hang around Washington, right?






Yep. That's it.

Cug's quotes above id the real problem - we -and our industries- have changed the rules of biology.

Now, diseases like e. coli get inside plants - they infect them. Unheard of even a decade ago.

It's a new world, biologically. Industrial agriculture creates these diseases, but the boyz are looking for controls that protect industry, not public health.

Won't work.

Sorry to pimp my own stuff - but here's what's happening, and why the boyz are tightening the screws:

The Perfect Microbial Storm


We're in for a rough ride - soon.





posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Here's another little factoid to make you think about our litigious society in relation to food inspections. While working for a state health department I was called by a citizen on a complaint against a large fast food chain. I will not mention names so as to protect myself from litigation in relation to this story. To put it short this fast food restaurant had an employee who had severe psoriasis. I'm not talking about just some but all over his body and hands he had dead skin peeling off continuously. I inspected the restaurant and found skin everywhere...in the change drawer, etc. The restaurant had wanted to fire the employee for obvious reasons because it affected their business as customers found skin in their food. I think the complaint came from the manager herself as they had determined that they could not fire the employee without facing litigation. There are laws which state very specifically what diseases an employee may be fired for...psoriasis is not one of them. Within the health department the case went all the way to the state capital where it was determined that the most we could require was to restrict the jobs where the man worked inside the restaurant. By allowing the man to do jobs such as cleaning, etc. in non-food preparation areas we could minimize the potential for contamination of food but couldn't in my opinion prevent it entirely. Granted it was sad that this man had severe psoriasis but there are some jobs that he should in my opinion be restricted from working in such as a restaurant. Enjoy your next hamburger and fries! Ha Ha!



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
It's funny, here in Thailand we seldom have cases of foodpoisoning. They have inspection systems, but you can't say the markets are the cleanest places - and they operate without refrigiation.

That you don't get sick from it has to do with the origine of the foodstuff. It's near 100% local produces, which means within 10-20 miles. You can be sure as well the chicken as the pork was alive and well in the morning when you buy them.

Another thing - that shows they do have inspections - is every now and then a batch of Chinese fruits will be confiscated because residues of pesticides, the real bad ones that has been banned for years or not to be used for food, are found in amounts that could be immediate threatning to a child. Most of it get through is my guess.

Which is why I never eats big shiny apples from China.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
It's funny, here in Thailand we seldom have cases of foodpoisoning.



This makes perfect sense to me because people who live close to the land - and their food sources - actually see the raw food they eat, and know better than to eat stuff that's off, blemished or contaminated.

Food processing plants throw everything in the same pot - so one or two bad items contaminate the whole batch. But it gets by the 'regulators' - and gets distributed all over.





posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Origianally posted by soficrow
Food processing plants throw everything in the same pot - so one or two bad items contaminate the whole batch. But it gets by the 'regulators' - and gets distributed all over.

Your remark gets me on to an illustrative story here from Thailand, which I'm afraid is not uncommen.

First of all, despite an interesting thread, let me say I find the title misleading, we're not "winning the war on food", we're getting it regulated, put in systems where slips can be covered up, promoting a system of false security.

The story I like to tell is about the rice growers in the Tak bassin of NW Thailand. They can still grow their rice, but are not allowed to sell it because it's contaminated with cadmium, a fact that wasn't established before people started getting sick. From eating their own rice.

The pollution was tracked to the mining activities in the upper part of the bassin. Zinck mining has been going on for decades in the hills were the waterway originates, so the contamination of it must have been there for just as long. More intensive and profitable mining methods are likely the culprits raising the levels.

The farmers were compensated but hardly in a way that would allow them to replace the rice they lost with equal stocks bought from market. They can still grow their rice or other crop, just not for food purposes, but for industrial use only. For biofuels for instance.

And there goes another 'sacred' inhibition, to keep the soil clean as the base for foodstocks. Now you can pollute and still wrench profit out of it by growing fuelcrops. A future hit in cashcrops.

The moral of the story is, in a country where things are regulated more by 'favours' (or the lack of 'em) than by controls, that though bodies are in place to prevent this poisoned rice from reaching the market, it show up anyhow. Typically in batches depleted to less health threatning levels. If still above the allowed level, they deplete it a little more.

It gets eaten anyway. No laws or regulations can prevent that when the market WANTS it.

No regulation is better than the trust it is worthy. And there's only YOU to decide on that.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Welcome to this lifetimes episode of, "Super Nanny!"

You see, you are a cash cow and the nanny in charge is called big business. (BB for short.)

Nanny BB pays her dues and bribes to BG, (big government) and in turn gets to tell you what you can eat and how much is good for you. As long as BG gets its money it doesn't really care what nanny BB is doing to you.

Nanny BB will create drugs that harm you, food that poisons you and cars that won't protect you in an accident. As long as they pay BG its cut of the profits your screwed.

Many people are learning to deny ignorance though, and cutting the nanny loose by educating themselves.

Education is your only defense against those who care nothing for your safety, but care dearly about your money.

Since your here on ATS you have taken the first step in defending yourself.

So have I.

I look forward to learning together my friend.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   


First of all, despite an interesting thread, let me say I find the title misleading, we're not "winning the war on food", we're getting it regulated, put in systems where slips can be covered up, promoting a system of false security.


I chose the title for what I think was a very good reason. I'm sorry you felt it was misleading, but I intended it to be more ironic than factual.

While I believe there is a place for regulation and government oversight, there's a serious logical disconnnect when millions fo people are digging in dumpsters for food, going hungry night after night because they can't afford food that continues to rise in price (outpacing inflation) year after year, and here we are destroying millions of pounds of food that is probably just as healthy as the crap we have to pay for on a daily basis.

If you go to the grocery stores, or the convenience stores, in my country, you'll find aisle after gleaming isle, stocked to bursting with all manner of brightly-packaged, heavily-advertised, FDA-approved POISONS. I'm looking, right now, at a bag of chips that contains at least seven different forms of salt. The producers, advertisers, and merchants justify their harmful products by telling the government that people have the right to choose what to eat and drink. The people overwhelmingly agree with that contention.

As we speak, I'm drinking a beverage that's bright neon-green, variously contributes to sterility, diabetes, and dehydration, while containing enough caffeine to stop a monkey's heart.

It's perfectly legal, and nobody cares how much I consume. But the state tells me I can't eat cow's lungs, or bullfrogs, or turtles from an unapproved source, because they might be dangerous to my health?



As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with people selling potentially dangerous goods unless they market them under false pretenses (snake-oil salesmen or plague-rat kebabs sold as lamb).

I can go to a sushi bar and order blowfish sashimi - I'm taking a serious but well-understood risk by doing so. The reason I can do that is because the government has taken a cut. I can buy a pack of smokes and puff till I drop, but only if the government has taken a cut. I can go to the liquor store down the street and get enough alcohol to kill myself dozens of times over, as long as the government has taken its cut.

I don't think it's about keeping people safe. Maybe it was once, but it's not looking that way now. Now, I think, it's about protecting profits and insuring that nothing gets done without the state taking a cut and reinforcing our dependence on them for our most basic of necessities.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

I don't think it's about keeping people safe. Maybe it was once, but it's not looking that way now. Now, I think, it's about protecting profits and insuring that nothing gets done without the state taking a cut and reinforcing our dependence on them for our most basic of necessities.




Yes.




posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

I don't think it's about keeping people safe. Maybe it was once, but it's not looking that way now. Now, I think, it's about protecting profits and insuring that nothing gets done without the state taking a cut and reinforcing our dependence on them for our most basic of necessities.




Yes.


That's right! But you can hardly blame governments to do so. If anybody is to blame it must be those who voted them into office... and often they will tell you, they were fooled.

Governments are established to take care of legal matters regarding the country and its inhabitants as a whole and to regulate its connections with other countries.

What's good for the king, is good for the country, their ruling mostly goes, which seldom is proven true. No human is truely unselfish, the very least of all politicians. So they regulate 1) matters of interests to those who helped them get where they are, 2) matters of their own private interests, often identical to those under 1). Finally they regulate 3) matters they got elected on - if they can assure reelection.

They do it by legal means, to which war, under certain conditions still belongs. Not telling truth or twisting details to make spin are considered legal. You can even claim lies to be true, if they're treated as legal fictions. In other words you can legally bend the rules in as many ways as logic can be twisted and reason rediculed.

What I'm getting at is the term "legal" is not the same as lawful.

But the universe and nature operates by laws (of which we far know them all), where human activity is regulated by rules and agreements of legality.

And what is legal, even killing... comes down to how 'good' - screwed, I would say - the lawyer.

>'legal rules' are the tricks avaliable (if the trick you want is not there, you just legislate it)

>'laws' are given, can never be legislated (that's why they call "laws" 'acts')

Biochemistry is governed by laws and can't possibly ever be regulated by any legislation.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon

That's right! But you can hardly blame governments to do so. If anybody is to blame it must be those who voted them into office... and often they will tell you, they were fooled.


if anyone is to blame, it is the NWO and their centuries long war on man. people don't vote for much more than a name(party) and a face(politician) and gut instinct(how the face makes them 'feel').
they WERE fooled. the power/influence market is sown up tighter than a black hole.


Biochemistry is governed by laws and can't possibly ever be regulated by any legislation.

and yet, it is illegal to buy some drugs that your body makes naturally. and farmers in some places are not allowed to save seeds or NOT buy monsanto/GMO products.

they ARE legislating biochemistry.

big brother is hopped up on growth hormone and TOTAL domination, and no laws of nature will stop him.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join