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?
I think it would be another layer of cost passed on to the consumer, one that I would not support.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Spare me GMO's please, and let's go for REAL truth in labeling!
by cjhunsinger 3 years ago
In a recent interview, Tim Berners-Lee stated during the Web We Want festival, said, “I want a web where I’m not spied on, where there’s no censorship.” He warned that corporations and the governments want control of the Internet. Mr. Lee is one of the Founders of the internet and it was he...
by Andrew Spacey 5 years ago
In this 21st century have the privileged got too greedy?If as humans all we need is food&water, shelter, love, work and belief shouldn't we be cutting down on our material luxuries?Is corporate greed to blame for the current recession and financial anxiety?Are tax havens for the rich...
by rhamson 4 years ago
A one percenter from Seattle named Nick Hanauer published a piece in Politico Friday warning his "fellow zillionaires" that a revolution à la France 1789 is coming to the United States if America's wealthiest don't take drastic steps to reduce inequality. Read more:...
by Xenonlit 5 years ago
The Republicans will not get away with this "Better off than four years ago" business. They already said that they will do anything to bring down the government and the first Black president. Apparently, they were prepared to destroy our nation in the process.For the most recent ...
by Great Diadem 7 years ago
Who have an idea of how to bring peace to our once peaceful world and heal it from wars, religoius fanaticism, racism and all isms that take humans to negative extrmes?
by phion 2 months ago
As my wife and I struggle to put enough money away to buy a home and plan for having a child, I'm left wondering why others don't have to be responsible for their own lives. I was at Sam's Club the other day, and was in line behind two full shopping carts full of racks of ribs, tenderloins, pork...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|