• 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!

Our Food Is Killing Us

S

shanners

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
405
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Patty Lovera, Food & Water Watch & Paul Shapiro, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) & Colin O'Neil, Center for Food Safety join Thom to talk about the safety of our food. Approximately 48 million Americans get sick every year from food borne illnesses. How is this possible given all the technology and regulatory power at our disposal?

Our Food Is Killing Us | Thom Hartmann
 
Waiting for the punch line that makes this somehow about the Jews.
 
shanners said:
Patty Lovera, Food & Water Watch & Paul Shapiro, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) & Colin O'Neil, Center for Food Safety join Thom to talk about the safety of our food. Approximately 48 million Americans get sick every year from food borne illnesses. How is this possible given all the technology and regulatory power at our disposal?

Our Food Is Killing Us | Thom Hartmann
Click to expand...

Food-borne illnesses don't kill people, in the vast majority of cases. More people still die from malnutrition.

How it is possible is that bacteria are resilient. We're fighting against evolution, a tricky thing to defeat.
 
Probably the content of our food is killing us a great deal more than illnesses on our food. The inordinate amount of sugar, especially corn sugar, that Americans consume is terrible for our health.
 
shanners said:
Patty Lovera, Food & Water Watch & Paul Shapiro, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) & Colin O'Neil, Center for Food Safety join Thom to talk about the safety of our food. Approximately 48 million Americans get sick every year from food borne illnesses. How is this possible given all the technology and regulatory power at our disposal?

Our Food Is Killing Us | Thom Hartmann
Click to expand...

On the other hand the people who have access to all that horrible food are generally living longer than ever before, so how bad can it be?
 
Tsunami said:
Food-borne illnesses don't kill people, in the vast majority of cases.
Click to expand...

The figures are: 48 million Americans get sick each year from food borne illnesses; 128,000 have to be hospitalized as a result; and 3,000 die from the illness.

More people still die from malnutrition.
Click to expand...

In the US?

How it is possible is that bacteria are resilient. We're fighting against evolution, a tricky thing to defeat.
Click to expand...

Huh, did you watch the vid?
 
Paschendale said:
Probably the content of our food is killing us a great deal more than illnesses on our food. The inordinate amount of sugar, especially corn sugar, that Americans consume is terrible for our health.
Click to expand...

Coca-Cola and Pepsi are to blame for much of that.
 
Summerwind said:
On the other hand the people who have access to all that horrible food are generally living longer than ever before, so how bad can it be?
Click to expand...

48 million Americans get sick each year from food borne illnesses; 128,000 have to be hospitalized as a result; and 3,000 die from the illness, now that's pretty bad in my books.
 
shanners said:
48 million Americans get sick each year from food borne illnesses; 128,000 have to be hospitalized as a result; and 3,000 die from the illness, now that's pretty bad in my books.
Click to expand...

At this point I consider it a small price to pay for a 70+ year life span compared to the pre-modern food supply options of around 35+ years.
 
Food-born illness is nothing to sneeze at, but I'm more concerned about other ways our food is killing us. Namely the diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc that seem to accompany the deteriorating physiques associated with a food supply that's seemingly infused with junk like high fructose corn syrup.

Statewide population percentages of people medically designated as obese
130417-MOTW-obesity-map.gif


I don't think we're just seeing an epidemic of poor self-discipline, I imagine this slow motion catastrophic has systemic roots that have to, in some large part, be traced to our food supply and the policies shaping it.
 
shanners said:
48 million Americans get sick each year from food borne illnesses; 128,000 have to be hospitalized as a result; and 3,000 die from the illness, now that's pretty bad in my books.
Click to expand...

We should be leery of attempts to scare people about food safety, as it is often in the best interests of multi-national food conglomerates that regulatory burdens exist that small time operations struggle to bear.

3,000 deaths sounds awful, sure, but compared to what? Is it an increasing phenomenon? Technology is helping, I'm sure. Today I can use my phone, laptop, tablet, desktop computer, etc. and type into a search bar "what shouldn't I feed my baby" and can instantly produce consolidated information and lists of foods I'm not supposed to give my baby. Good thing I didn't give my 6-month old honey, turns out they can die of botulism, and technology has made it easier for information like that to be disseminated.

Even meat that is handled to the best standards we have can be dangerous if not property prepared. Should people not be allowed to buy and prepare their own meat dishes?

Let's be reasonable, and not fall victim to regulatory schemes that are only really ultimately intended to increase the market shares of the multi-nationals.
 
Summerwind said:
At this point I consider it a small price to pay for a 70+ year life span compared to the pre-modern food supply options of around 35+ years.
Click to expand...

Actually, the increase in life expectancy has nothing to do with diet. It's due to better sanitation and better healthcare.

When humans transitioned from hunter gatherers to agriculturists, life expectancy went down.
 
sangha said:
Actually, the increase in life expectancy has nothing to do with diet. It's due to better sanitation and better healthcare.

When humans transitioned from hunter gatherers to agriculturists, life expectancy went down.
Click to expand...

Sort of true...

Hunter gatherer societies have longer lifespans IF they survive the first couple years of live.

Agricultural societies have greater child survival rates.. but lower overall lifespans

Its the tradeoff... more of your children survive.. but they will not live as long.
 
Food safety is a big issue.. kind of the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. I think its going to bite us in the butt in many ways... much like the environmental issues did decades ago.

Lets just think of the prevalence of food allergies. FOOD ALLERGIES? How can a human be allergic to FOOD. I mean lets think of that? You mean after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution... we ended up with people allergic to MILK? Allergic to NUTS? Allergic to WHEAT????

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something is up with our food supply if humans are developing allergies to things that keep us alive!.


I was discussing this with a patient (big local farmer)... I pointed out that I knew where my shoes came from.. where the components of my car where made, where the clothing I was wearing came from.... but the food that went into my childs mouth in the morning? I have no idea whether that food came from an American farmer, held to pesticide and other regulations.. or it came from a country that has no regulation on what can be sprayed etc.

Does that make sense? If we had a food issue.. how would we even know what foods to avoid, and from where?
 
jaeger19 said:
Sort of true...

Hunter gatherer societies have longer lifespans IF they survive the first couple years of live.

Agricultural societies have greater child survival rates.. but lower overall lifespans

Its the tradeoff... more of your children survive.. but they will not live as long.
Click to expand...

I am sure that is true today, but I don't know if that was true back when we switched from hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists. I don't see any reason why that would affect infant mortality. After all, both groups were equally lacking in medical technology.
 
 
jaeger19 said:
Food safety is a big issue.. kind of the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. I think its going to bite us in the butt in many ways... much like the environmental issues did decades ago.

Lets just think of the prevalence of food allergies. FOOD ALLERGIES? How can a human be allergic to FOOD. I mean lets think of that? You mean after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution... we ended up with people allergic to MILK? Allergic to NUTS? Allergic to WHEAT????

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something is up with our food supply if humans are developing allergies to things that keep us alive!.


I was discussing this with a patient (big local farmer)... I pointed out that I knew where my shoes came from.. where the components of my car where made, where the clothing I was wearing came from.... but the food that went into my childs mouth in the morning? I have no idea whether that food came from an American farmer, held to pesticide and other regulations.. or it came from a country that has no regulation on what can be sprayed etc.

Does that make sense? If we had a food issue.. how would we even know what foods to avoid, and from where?
Click to expand...

While I suspect that chemicals have something to do with the phenomena of allergies, I also think our limited diet also plays a role. We used to eat a wider variety of fruits and vegetables. Ironically, the ability to purchase fruits and vegetables year round has made it unnecessary to vary our diet with the seasons. Also, because many farmers saved seed, there was a wider genetic diversity within any particular crop. Now, all the farmers are growing the same variety of bell pepper, eggplant, orange, potato, etc....
 
Neomalthusian said:
We should be leery of attempts to scare people about food safety, as it is often in the best interests of multi-national food conglomerates that regulatory burdens exist that small time operations struggle to bear.

3,000 deaths sounds awful, sure, but compared to what? Is it an increasing phenomenon? Technology is helping, I'm sure. Today I can use my phone, laptop, tablet, desktop computer, etc. and type into a search bar "what shouldn't I feed my baby" and can instantly produce consolidated information and lists of foods I'm not supposed to give my baby. Good thing I didn't give my 6-month old honey, turns out they can die of botulism, and technology has made it easier for information like that to be disseminated.

Even meat that is handled to the best standards we have can be dangerous if not property prepared. Should people not be allowed to buy and prepare their own meat dishes?

Let's be reasonable, and not fall victim to regulatory schemes that are only really ultimately intended to increase the market shares of the multi-nationals.
Click to expand...

As described in the video, those deaths could have been prevented by the use of proper hygiene. But the mega food producers always put profit before health and safety.
 
eohrnberger said:
Kinda why I stick to beer and coffee. :)
Click to expand...

Careful with that coffee. Caffeine depletes the body of calcium, which is why old people end up with broken bones and needing hip replacements.
 
shanners said:
Careful with that coffee. Caffeine depletes the body of calcium, which is why old people end up with broken bones and needing hip replacements.
Click to expand...

Daily multivitamin. Lots of cheese. :)
 
sangha said:
I am sure that is true today, but I don't know if that was true back when we switched from hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists. I don't see any reason why that would affect infant mortality. After all, both groups were equally lacking in medical technology.
Click to expand...

Actually it was very true when we switched from hunter gatherers to more agricultural based.

When you are a hunter gatherer.. you are more susceptible to the natural environment. Your population can more easily reach the carrying capacity of the natural world around you, so when that's reached, there is not enough food for everyone, and adults with their storage capacity can more easily survive the lean times. The infants are therefore more susceptible to waxes and wanes in food availability. Thus a higher infant mortality.

With agriculture.. the human modifies the land to provide more food than the land would normally produce in a "natural state" (i.e. artificially increasing its carrying capacity).. the domestication of milk producing
animals also gives a source of easily used protein for infants. And more stability since you are able to stay in place much longer without having to move on to "find the herd".. etc. A much less nomadic lifestyle than a hunter gatherer. This helps with your infant mortality rate. In addition.. the labor intensity creates a cultural need for more children to help with the farm.

The flip side of the agriculturalist is that the labor intensity required leads to a lower adult lifespan, as does the usual decreased diversity of your food supply.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually it was very true when we switched from hunter gatherers to more agricultural based.

When you are a hunter gatherer.. you are more susceptible to the natural environment. Your population can more easily reach the carrying capacity of the natural world around you, so when that's reached, there is not enough food for everyone, and adults with their storage capacity can more easily survive the lean times. The infants are therefore more susceptible to waxes and wanes in food availability. Thus a higher infant mortality.

With agriculture.. the human modifies the land to provide more food than the land would normally produce in a "natural state" (i.e. artificially increasing its carrying capacity).. the domestication of milk producing
animals also gives a source of easily used protein for infants. And more stability since you are able to stay in place much longer without having to move on to "find the herd".. etc. A much less nomadic lifestyle than a hunter gatherer. This helps with your infant mortality rate. In addition.. the labor intensity creates a cultural need for more children to help with the farm.

The flip side of the agriculturalist is that the labor intensity required leads to a lower adult lifespan, as does the usual decreased diversity of your food supply.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced. As far as being "susceptible to the environment" both groups were. Aside from agriculture, both groups had similar technology. And hunter gatherers tend to not reach the carrying capacity of the land. They migrate and so they don't tax the land the way agriculture does, which btw accounts for a lot of the famine that occurred back then. They also domesticated animals and besides, the mothers' milk is not only adequate but superior to animal milk. As far as stability goes, HG's have an advantage over agriculturists - if the land isn't producing, they move. Farmers are tied to their land.

The main cause of infant mortality back then was disease and neither group had an advantage on that score.

The main advantage of agriculture is that it can produce a storable surplus in the form of grain. While that certainly helped the agriculturists weather famine, the lack of it shouldn't hinder HG's who are free to migrate.
 
sangha said:
While I suspect that chemicals have something to do with the phenomena of allergies, I also think our limited diet also plays a role. We used to eat a wider variety of fruits and vegetables. Ironically, the ability to purchase fruits and vegetables year round has made it unnecessary to vary our diet with the seasons. Also, because many farmers saved seed, there was a wider genetic diversity within any particular crop. Now, all the farmers are growing the same variety of bell pepper, eggplant, orange, potato, etc....
Click to expand...

Well, that brings up a whole host of issues. We probably eat a wider variety of fruits and vegetables than before. Globalization and improved storage allow us to eat a wider variety of foodstuffs.

The problem is likely the chemicals and processes that we used to farm intensively and to store and process food. And the GMO's allow more of this with things like roundup ready crops that can be sprayed without hurting the desirable plant.

You have a point about the growing of same varieties.. and that's largely an issue with the monopolies that the seed companies are getting. Monsanto in particular. Farmers can't legally hold back seed and in some cases they have been sued by Monsanto when their fields have been corrupted by Monsanto products getting into their field.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well, that brings up a whole host of issues. We probably eat a wider variety of fruits and vegetables than before. Globalization and improved storage allow us to eat a wider variety of foodstuffs.
Click to expand...

From what I've read (sorry, I don't have any links handy) we don't. While we *do* have access to a wider variety of produce, the fact that most of it is available year round results in our eating a narrower variety. People who like berries can now eat them year round. In the fall and winter, they're no longer limited to apples and other fruits that are in season where they live so instead of adjusting their diet with the seasons, they eat the same things year round.

IOW, the fact that we are able to eat a wider variety of produce doesn't mean that we actually do so.

The problem is likely the chemicals and processes that we used to farm intensively and to store and process food. And the GMO's allow more of this with things like roundup ready crops that can be sprayed without hurting the desirable plant.

You have a point about the growing of same varieties.. and that's largely an issue with the monopolies that the seed companies are getting. Monsanto in particular. Farmers can't legally hold back seed and in some cases they have been sued by Monsanto when their fields have been corrupted by Monsanto products getting into their field.
Click to expand...

Yes, the chemicals probably do play a role, but it's not just the lack of different cultivars for specific crops (ex almost all french fries are made with Kennebec potatoes) but also that within a specific cultivar, there is a lack of genetic diversity. Back in the day, a farmer would save the seeds from his healthiest and most productive plants. Over the course of years, this would result in a sub-type that was genetically tailored for the specific conditions found on that farm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom