• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More nutritious food part of government plan

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/business/22food.html?ref=health

Article said:
AS tens of thousands of people recently strolled among booths of the nation’s largest organic and natural foods show here, munching on fair-trade chocolate and sipping organic wine, a few dozen pioneers of the industry sneaked off to an out-of-the-way conference room.

Although unit sales of organic food have leveled off and even declined lately, versus a year earlier, the mood among those crowded into the conference room was upbeat as they awaited a private screening of a documentary called “Food Inc.” — a withering critique of agribusiness and industrially produced food.

They also gathered to relish their changing political fortunes, courtesy of the Obama administration.

“This has never been just about business,” said Gary Hirshberg, chief executive of Stonyfield Farm, the maker of organic yogurt. “We are here to change the world. We dreamt for decades of having this moment.”

After being largely ignored for years by Washington, advocates of organic and locally grown food have found a receptive ear in the White House, which has vowed to encourage a more nutritious and sustainable food supply.

Due to the growing obesity epidemic, and the demand for fresh, local foods, the White House is considering a plan to award farmers that engage in sustainable and diversified agriculture as part of the farming subsidy. Argicultural as a whole will still be subsidized and consumers will make the choices, but the idea is to reward farmers that are not damaging the environment and who engage in more local business ties.
 
Last edited:
How does me buying my brisketts, pork shoulders, ribs, etc, locally and organic and making my BBQ sauce from all locally available organics help with the obesity problem?


The idea that if you buy local and organic will somehow change the obesity problem is rather silly.
 
How does me buying my brisketts, pork shoulders, ribs, etc, locally and organic and making my BBQ sauce from all locally available organics help with the obesity problem?


The idea that if you buy local and organic will somehow change the obesity problem is rather silly.

It is more than that... it includes moving away from processed, packaged foods that have additives which are widely suspected of contributing to health problems.
 
It is more than that... it includes moving away from processed, packaged foods that have additives which are widely suspected of contributing to health problems.




Yes. This I FULLY agree with. However the way you phrased it left me wondering. as a non organic tomato has the same calories as an organic one.


However thinking that only eating organics is going to help you lose weight is incorrect. It's about input vs. output.
 
It sounds like a good idea if your goal is population control, although starvation is a particular nasty way to die. Without modern farming techniques, the US could not begin feed its own citizens let alone export a lot of food products.

Maybe this is one of President Teleprompter's ways of dealing with Africa.
 
Yes. This I FULLY agree with. However the way you phrased it left me wondering. as a non organic tomato has the same calories as an organic one.


However thinking that only eating organics is going to help you lose weight is incorrect. It's about input vs. output.

The word organic is mentioned in the article, but I tend to focus more on the other content: local, unprocessed, fresh. Local is better because it requires less energy to transport the food; unprocessed and fresh means less additives that are damaging to health, and more nutritious content.

To correct your statement: you can eat only organics and lose weight, but you don't have to eat just organics.
 
It sounds like a good idea if your goal is population control, although starvation is a particular nasty way to die. Without modern farming techniques, the US could not begin feed its own citizens let alone export a lot of food products.

Maybe this is one of President Teleprompter's ways of dealing with Africa.

The article nor anyone else has mentioned replacing modern farming.
 
It is more than that... it includes moving away from processed, packaged foods that have additives which are widely suspected of contributing to health problems.

IMO that's exactly why Americans are getting so fat (with some exceptions of course). But gov't cannot change that.

There will still be people with no interest in cooking at the end of the day, and it's easier to nuke a pre-made meal.

There will still be people unwilling or unable to make breakfast for thier kids, so they let 'em bulk up with high sugar cereals (plus too many parents these days would rather be cool than be parents).

There will always be people who would prefer a sloppy, greasy lunch at the drive through than making a sandwich in the morning and packing a lunch (which BTW is cheaper, but that doesn't seem to matter).

These people aren't going to buy organic. They're not going to buy anything to make a meal from wholesome ingredients (organic or not). They're going to teach their kids how to microwave pre-made Kraft Mac n' Cheese rather than give 'em an apple.
 
The word organic is mentioned in the article, but I tend to focus more on the other content: local, unprocessed, fresh. Local is better because it requires less energy to transport the food; unprocessed and fresh means less additives that are damaging to health, and more nutritious content.

To correct your statement: you can eat only organics and lose weight, but you don't have to eat just organics.




Again, incorrect. I can eat non-processed foods, of the non organic variety and have the same results.


Organic is irrelevant to your argument.



A blt with local bacon. lettuce and tomato will have the same calories whether organic or not.
 
Again, incorrect. I can eat non-processed foods, of the non organic variety and have the same results.


Organic is irrelevant to your argument.



A blt with local bacon. lettuce and tomato will have the same calories whether organic or not.

That's true. And IIRC (too lazy to look it up at the moment) "organic" refers to the methods used to grow. It does not refer to nutrition contents.

(ps. I'm a organic gardener, and it's MUCH more expensive to garden that way. There are sometimes a great need for chemicals)
 
IMO that's exactly why Americans are getting so fat (with some exceptions of course). But gov't cannot change that.

There will still be people with no interest in cooking at the end of the day, and it's easier to nuke a pre-made meal.

There will still be people unwilling or unable to make breakfast for thier kids, so they let 'em bulk up with hgh sugar cereals (plus too many parents these days would rather be cool than be parents).

There will always be people who would prefer a sloppy, greasy lunch at the drive through than making a sandwich in the morning and packing a lunch (which BTW is cheaper, but that doesn't seem to matter).

These people aren't going to buy organic. They're not going to anything to make a meal from wholesome ingredients (organic or not). They're going to teach their kids how to microwave pre-made Kraft Mac n' Cheese rather than give 'em an apple.




You can have just as sloppy and greasy with organic ingredients as any fast food place.

Case and point:

pulledpork1.jpg



This is my world famous pulled pork sammich.


Made with:

Organic locally produced Portugese style roll
Organic locally procured pork shoulder from a local farm
Organic locally produced American cheese
Organic Locally produced Cabbage (slaw)
Organic ingredients home produced BBQ sauce. There may be a couple spices not local... but that's a secret.


You ain't losing weight on my sammiches..... ;)
 
Last edited:
I looooooove pulled pork. That reminds me. I have to put an non-organic corned beef in the crockpot so it can simmer all day.
 
The article nor anyone else has mentioned replacing modern farming.
You obviously don't understand the terms of that debate. :roll:
 
I looooooove pulled pork. That reminds me. I have to put an non-organic corned beef in the crockpot so it can simmer all day.




My pulled pork is legend. :mrgreen:


Oh but wait, Organic Corned beef will help you lose weight! :mrgreen::2razz:



You can get great deals on Brisket, (corned beef) right now....
 
Oh I forgot.


I also use Organic lump hardwood charcoal from maine (wicked Charcoal) and local harvested hardwood for smoke......



;)
 
Again, incorrect. I can eat non-processed foods, of the non organic variety and have the same results.


Organic is irrelevant to your argument.



A blt with local bacon. lettuce and tomato will have the same calories whether organic or not.

I wasn't actually disagreeing with you, but just correcting something I noticed in your sentence.

Revernd_Hellh0und said:
However thinking that only eating organics is going to help you lose weight is incorrect.

We both agreed that it's the type of food you eat, and not whether or not it's organic, is the key to losing weight. The way your sentence was phrased could mean that you can't just eat organics and lose weight, but actually you can, if you eat the right type of organic food.

That's all I meant :)
 
How does me buying my brisketts, pork shoulders, ribs, etc, locally and organic and making my BBQ sauce from all locally available organics help with the obesity problem?


The idea that if you buy local and organic will somehow change the obesity problem is rather silly.

well, they'll cost more so you may eat less.

it also encourages you to think about your food more, which I find encourages health.
 
IMO that's exactly why Americans are getting so fat (with some exceptions of course). But gov't cannot change that.

There will still be people with no interest in cooking at the end of the day, and it's easier to nuke a pre-made meal.

There will still be people unwilling or unable to make breakfast for thier kids, so they let 'em bulk up with high sugar cereals (plus too many parents these days would rather be cool than be parents).

There will always be people who would prefer a sloppy, greasy lunch at the drive through than making a sandwich in the morning and packing a lunch (which BTW is cheaper, but that doesn't seem to matter).

These people aren't going to buy organic. They're not going to buy anything to make a meal from wholesome ingredients (organic or not). They're going to teach their kids how to microwave pre-made Kraft Mac n' Cheese rather than give 'em an apple.

The government initiative is not being undertaken to help those who don't want to change, but to help those who do, as well as those who already support local, fresh goods. I agree with you, there will always be people who don't want to change and want to eat like crap. That's their choice and no one is telling them otherwise.

But you never know... maybe by increasing the public profile of the fresh, local food markets (whether or not they are "organic"), it will catch on with some people who didn't know that much about them in the first place. Big ideals often start small.
 
well, they'll cost more so you may eat less.

Maybe in a robust ecomony, that might be on the table (but I still reject the notion that gov't needs to push stuff on people). But in today's economy, $.89 mac and cheese looks pretty good to many people.

it also encourages you to think about your food more, which I find encourages health.

First, that should be done at home, and second it's being done in the schools ad nauseum.
 
This is making me hungry. Think I will go have a pizza with double pepperoni and extra cheese. :2wave:
 
I think society's view of food needs to be radically reformed and I think local and organic food is a part of that.

I couldn't agree with you anymore.

However, let me add that the price of fuel, *ahem* fueled the thinking on this as well. Why get your broccoli from a source 2000 miles away, when you can get it local?
 
Another government "plan". :doh

Great, just what we don't need. We're taught at an early age about nutrition and excersise, at least most of us were.

It's up to the individual to decide whether or not to live a healthy lifestyle, and no amount of government "plans" are going to change that.
 
I couldn't agree with you anymore.

However, let me add that the price of fuel, *ahem* fueled the thinking on this as well. Why get your broccoli from a source 2000 miles away, when you can get it local?

It's cheaper, and provides diversity. Citrus fruits don't grow everywhere, nor do avocadoes and the like. If you can import a fruit for cheaper than it is to grow locally, then it won't be grown locally. This ideology goes for all products. Every country can specialize in a few things and import the rest of its needs from all other countries, instead of having to create all things domestically. Having to create all things domestically means a lesser supply, which means higher price.

But this basic idea has arisen in an era prior to environmental problems, and prior to the rising cost of fuel. Once fuel surcharges affect price to such an extent that it's comparable to produce it domestically, local markets will flourish once more... though global products, like avocadoes, will become more scarce.

In any case, I think a mixed system is still the best bet. Grow locally and buy locally for all of the common items, and continue importing for specialty items.
 
Back
Top Bottom