How much food control would you support?

1. 87

   Wasteless Projectposted 10 years ago

   How much food control would you support?
   
   What do you think about the idea, if every food brand would be obligated to have an internet site with real pictures or live-webcam feed of their animal shelters and food processing units?

   replyreport
2. 76

   JimTxMillerposted 10 years ago

   I think it would be another layer of cost passed on to the consumer, one that I would not support.

   replyreport
3. 72

   someonewhoknowsposted 10 years ago

   I take it that this is a KOSHER question?
   Sorry,I couldn't resist saying that.It,just fits your question like a hand in glove.
   
   I'm sure they would if, they could make some money off the Idea by charging a subscription fee for the service.
   
   Then again I suppose some wouldn't like us seeing how they run their operation.
   
   I'm all for ethical farm practices.Maybe this bird can fly and then again maybe not. Chickens should be free range to allow them to eat insects when they are very young at least and you would think some farmers would welcome them into their fields in order to help them control insect infestations at some point in the growing process.That would mean less pesticides and would save them money at the same time.Farmers could even make a little money off the deal by charging a fee to anyone wanting to avail themselves of an insect infestation the farmer would gladly be rid of.
   Either way It would be a win win all around.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Wasteless Projectposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for sharing:) But this is not a kosher question, just simply a consumer-transparency one;)

      replyreport
   2. 72

      someonewhoknowsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/cms/ … ;updated=1

      replyreport
4. 94

   Sue Adamsposted 10 years ago

   I would support food control that makes Intensive Stock Farming illegal.
   
   What Is Intensive Stock Farming?
   Intensive Stock Farming is when animals are reared without the use of land. It produces the meat sold in supermarkets and restaurants.
   
   Why Ban Intensive Stock Farming?
   Animals are fed genetically modified (GM) corn while they are meant to eat grass.
   What is GM?
   Genetically modified crops have a man-made gene that withstands the poisons of pesticides (sprayed by planes) that kill all living things: weeds, snails, "pests", insects, worms etc. So everything around the GM corn is dead by poisoning. The GM crop is covered in the stuff but because it is cheaper and easier than allowing livestock to graze openly, it is fed to Intensive Stock Farming animals.
   
   To combat the many diseases caused by GM poisoned food, the animals are regularly injected with antibiotics. They are kept in small metal enclosures, not wide enough to even turn around in. They hardly walk a step in their lives, except when pushed into a truck towards the abattoir.  It's not so much that I feel sorry, I'm just wondering where they get their muscle tissue from, as the best steaks and hamburgers come from lean muscle tissue from a freshly slaughtered fit animal.
   
   Intensive Stock Farming animals are not fit. To make up for this, they are injected with steroids to make their meat bigger. Humans who eat such meat are becoming sick, bigger and fatter too. When the body is not getting real, adequate nutrition it craves and craves for more food.
   
   Intensive Stock Farming is the main cause of most modern diseases, food addiction and obesity. That is why I would support legislation against Intensive Stock Farming.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Mitch Alanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      While I would not necessarily support a ban on GMO products I would support the need to denote which item are and are not. I do believe that this could be done, at least in part, without the need of more Washington bureaucracy.

      replyreport
   2. 87

      Wasteless Projectposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think GMO doesn't exactly work the way you have described (sorry, I am a biologist;), but the essence is true - intensive stock farmed animals are neither fit nor healthy to consume and GMO crops pose incredible dangers to our ecosystems.

      replyreport
5. 79

   Mitch Alanposted 10 years ago

   If this were a federal regulation, then I would definitely oppose it. The federal government should not be in the food business, or any other business for that matter. The Federal government should be limited by the enumerated powers granted it by the Constitution and the further restricted by the 10th Amendment. The federal government has exploded way beyond it's Constitutional boundaries, much to the detriment of citizens liberty.
   If a voluntary system was set up by an entrepreneur who offered a service to businesses who wanted to be "certified" as meeting certain criteria that could be accessed by the public if they chose to do so, then that would work well. A private organization could offer a "look and see" site that food companies could volunteer to participate in. If the public was interested and it made a difference to their choice of brands, then those businesses who participated would reap the benefits. It would be a free market answer.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Wasteless Projectposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Mitch, that is an awesome approach you are suggesting! Now I should re-publish this question how many of you would change their choice of brand because of such type of 'look and see' possibility... Thanks for sharing your ideas

      replyreport
6. 85

   DzyMsLizzyposted 10 years ago

   It is a double-edged sword.  While on the one hand, too much government interference in the business of doing business and individual lives is stifling and counter-productive, it is also abundantly clear that today's greedy corporations are NOT willing to self-regulate, putting their often obscene profits far above concern for the health and well-being of their customers.
   
   You should have a look at this report I saw yesterday (5-17-13) from Bill Moyers:
   http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/17/moyers … our-blood/
   
   It is really scary stuff--we ARE being slowly poisoned, and this sort of thing is responsible for the upsurge in all sorts of ailments and diseases. 
   So, in the absence of self-control by corporations, yes I would support either a total ban on GMO foods, or VERY  strict and specific labeling laws.
   This means, no more getting away with vague and generic-sounding ingredients lists such as, "all natural flavors," or "spices," or "natural and artificial flavors," but that each and every item must be specifically listed as to what it is AND source!
   
   Given that putting such information on labels would probably cause a balk by corporations wanting to protect trade secret recipes, then I would say that a total ban on GMO foods would be the better option....where our food comes from is getting scary. 
   For example, artificial flavors of vanilla, raspberry and strawberry come from a truly disgusting source, and here is the Snopes verification:
   http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/castoreum.asp
   
   Spare me GMO's please, and let's go for REAL truth in labeling!

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Wasteless Projectposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Lizzy, very insightful answer! I also don't see a single argument against strict labeling laws. Doesn't cost extra and it should be a consumer's right to know!

      replyreport