Skip to main content

You may want to think about eating that......

The New York Times op-ed writer on food in his latest column:

"Here is a video detailing the U.S.D.A.’s new nutrition labels for meat and poultry.  It’s a nice thing to know how many calories, for instance, are in our meat; it would be much nicer to know how many chemicals or antibiotics are in there as well. If information about a product would deter any significant number of people from buying it, then the U.S.D.A. probably isn’t going to put in on the package. Bad for health, good for business. But in a much more progressive and productive move, the U.S.D.A. is spending $4 million to equip farmers markets with wireless equipment necessary to accept SNAP (formerly food stamps). The U.S.D.A. deputy secretary, Kathleen Merrigan, hopes the grants will be able to outfit 4,000 additional farmers markets. Good for health, good for business."

****

"Though BP claims the Gulf of Mexico is home to healthy fish, eyeless shrimp and deformed fish are routinely caught. Consequently, Alabama has closed the Gulf to shrimping (while BP is opening three new drilling rigs in the Gulf). Read Abrahm Lustgarten’s Times op-ed from a few weeks ago about how BP will continue to put “profits ahead of prudence” until the potential consequences become severe enough; not just fines, exorbitant as they are, but criminal prosecutions or banning oil leases. He’s right: for the most powerful corporations, billions of dollars worth of fines can conceivably be considered the cost of doing business, and it’s a cost they can afford. The consequences need to be ones that they cannot bear."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more