"This"© The Guardian 2003 is a classic example of the food industry's manipulation of the "third world" aka "developing country's/economies".
It seems to me that one of the main reasons the peoples of the "third world" are so easily exploited, is the lack of education amongst the general population of these countries, be they African, Central/South American or Asian/Oriental in origin. The western nations that actually own the companies doing the "exploiting", are the prime example of "if the rich were just a little bit less greedy, then those at the bottom of the social scale would have a lot more".
The only reason that large companies donate to charities, is that it is often "tax deductable" and makes "good PR", enhancing their image as "caring, sharing" companies.
As far as I am concerned, that's just a load of marketing bollocks!
Greed is one of the worst "human afflictions" and one of the most difficult to do anything about - almost as if it's human nature, to be greedy. It doesn't matter how you dress the word up, greed, usury, extortion, etc etc. it's still greed. We, in the "west" seem to have forgotten what it is, to have "enough".
The greed, when transferred into "power" is what the most "avaricious" want more of, than anything else. They don't actually care who they are exploiting and harming - it's so "cold blooded".
I can't remember who actually said, "that those who actively seek power the most, are actually those least suited to have the power they seek!". But, it certainly "strikes a cord" with me.
As I read more about these matters, I am fully aware that it is difficult to change things for the better, but where I can, I'll certainly have a go!
Sunday, May 25, 2003
Anyway, back to the food.
The campaign group "sustain" are "here" and it seems to be quite an informative site.
Lets face it, even though I am just coming to the end of my "precis" of the first of the guardians food supplements, I am no raving "food evanglist or environmentalist", just an ordinary person who has read something that has made me think about what, exactly, I am putting in my mouth (no pun intended!). I also believe that it is the responsible approach, and hope to be able to put at least some of the suggestions from the links to practical use - it will not be easy, I have no illusions about that!
As far at my blog is concerned, if I have got one more person to think about this, then it's been worth the effort and I shall try to keep it up? we'll see eh?
and so to the next bit!
The campaign group "sustain" are "here" and it seems to be quite an informative site.
Lets face it, even though I am just coming to the end of my "precis" of the first of the guardians food supplements, I am no raving "food evanglist or environmentalist", just an ordinary person who has read something that has made me think about what, exactly, I am putting in my mouth (no pun intended!). I also believe that it is the responsible approach, and hope to be able to put at least some of the suggestions from the links to practical use - it will not be easy, I have no illusions about that!
As far at my blog is concerned, if I have got one more person to think about this, then it's been worth the effort and I shall try to keep it up? we'll see eh?
and so to the next bit!
If you have a look "here" © The Guardian 2003 then you will see the text from the back page of the first supplement of the three.
It has some very pertinent suggestions as to what YOU can do about this. Now it maybe, that you don't really care, of think that it doesn't affect you? Well, if you have read the linked articles you should have worked out that it does.
Lets face it, most of us shop at the supermarkets, and it's as plain as the nose on my face that the greatest responsibility lies with them.
Ha, I was just having a cigarette while I pondered what I should put next, when I recalled something I read about "tobacco products and additives" so I have kindly found "this" © ASH (presumably). It's a bit of a "mammoth read" and I don't claim to be able to follow it completely, but the salient bits stick out like a sore thumb, 600 different additives? it makes the mind boggle. Surely, if you are a smoker, then you should be able to buy a "tobacco product" that contains just that - Tobacco, and not god knows what shit that the tobacco companies decide would be appropriate to sell you more cigarettes etc. Another good example of how the "Bastard" fuck things up eh!
It has some very pertinent suggestions as to what YOU can do about this. Now it maybe, that you don't really care, of think that it doesn't affect you? Well, if you have read the linked articles you should have worked out that it does.
Lets face it, most of us shop at the supermarkets, and it's as plain as the nose on my face that the greatest responsibility lies with them.
Ha, I was just having a cigarette while I pondered what I should put next, when I recalled something I read about "tobacco products and additives" so I have kindly found "this" © ASH (presumably). It's a bit of a "mammoth read" and I don't claim to be able to follow it completely, but the salient bits stick out like a sore thumb, 600 different additives? it makes the mind boggle. Surely, if you are a smoker, then you should be able to buy a "tobacco product" that contains just that - Tobacco, and not god knows what shit that the tobacco companies decide would be appropriate to sell you more cigarettes etc. Another good example of how the "Bastard" fuck things up eh!
Thursday, May 22, 2003
Ok, so for those of you with concerns about what your kids are eating or pressuring you to buy, here's your "bit" © The Guardian 2003 with the main focus being on the "avertisers", who I consider are almost as guilty as the piss poor producers of such "nutritious, delicious" so called foods.
To make things worse, I spotted my own food for thought, when this morning I drove past the glaxosmithkline buildings on the A4 Great West road in west London. They have proudly paid a "sign writer" probably a lot of money so their brand names are on the building on the west bound carriageway, in lights! Some of the brands are mentally linked with foods, and you forget that they are actually produced by one of the world's "chemical stormtroopers". I won't bother to name the brands, but all you have to do is look at the label and you will probably find the tell tale "gsk" trademark/logo somewhere on it.
Also, how about this little nugget © The Observer 2003. Personally i'm printing it off to read, even as I type this post. There is also this© The Guardian 2003 on the same subject.
I often think that there's nothing like a nice piece of fish. But after reading The Observers' offering, I am seriously starting to wonder if there is anything that the "bastards" won't try and fuck up.
You know what they say, "eat shit, after all 100 billion fly's can't be wrong!"
To make things worse, I spotted my own food for thought, when this morning I drove past the glaxosmithkline buildings on the A4 Great West road in west London. They have proudly paid a "sign writer" probably a lot of money so their brand names are on the building on the west bound carriageway, in lights! Some of the brands are mentally linked with foods, and you forget that they are actually produced by one of the world's "chemical stormtroopers". I won't bother to name the brands, but all you have to do is look at the label and you will probably find the tell tale "gsk" trademark/logo somewhere on it.
Also, how about this little nugget © The Observer 2003. Personally i'm printing it off to read, even as I type this post. There is also this© The Guardian 2003 on the same subject.
I often think that there's nothing like a nice piece of fish. But after reading The Observers' offering, I am seriously starting to wonder if there is anything that the "bastards" won't try and fuck up.
You know what they say, "eat shit, after all 100 billion fly's can't be wrong!"
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
The Bite the dust © The Guardian 2003 article is where the relevance of the link in the previous post is bourne out.
This is because there seems to be no cohesive policy from either the EU or US about pesticides, herbicides or fungicides. In a lot of cases, it appears that if one country/continent bans a substance, for whatever reason, then the manufacturers just sell it somewhere else that doesn't have the same strict controls that we enjoy in the developed world.
The best example of this is "DDT". It's use has been banned here for at least 20 years (probably more), but is still used in parts of Africa.
Though I should also remind you of my comment about lacking cohesive policies. A fine example of this is the use of hormone growth implants in the US (and other places). I understand that there use is banned in Europe, hence the limited/non-existant market for US beef imports to the EU (notwithstanding that europe probably has enough of it's own beef already!)
But, read the article and then try to understand why I have titled this blog in such a way!
This is because there seems to be no cohesive policy from either the EU or US about pesticides, herbicides or fungicides. In a lot of cases, it appears that if one country/continent bans a substance, for whatever reason, then the manufacturers just sell it somewhere else that doesn't have the same strict controls that we enjoy in the developed world.
The best example of this is "DDT". It's use has been banned here for at least 20 years (probably more), but is still used in parts of Africa.
Though I should also remind you of my comment about lacking cohesive policies. A fine example of this is the use of hormone growth implants in the US (and other places). I understand that there use is banned in Europe, hence the limited/non-existant market for US beef imports to the EU (notwithstanding that europe probably has enough of it's own beef already!)
But, read the article and then try to understand why I have titled this blog in such a way!
Ok, so if anyone has actually read my blog so far, I thought i'd include this © The Guardian 2003 because while it may not seem immediately relevant, I will explain why in further posts.
Now, while i,m not an obsessive environmentalist, (difficult seeing that I drive a truck for a living) I would be more than happy too see our governments underpin the cost (as it would probably be a "loss leader") of processing waste into fuel. And maybe use it to heat public buildings (that's if the UK has any public buildings left and that they haven't all been sold off to property companies based in Bermuda - see private eye issue number 1080 dated 16th May 2003 for their special report about the scandal of the sale of inland revenue and customs & excise buildings) or hospitals etc.
In otherwords, use the "calorific value" for heating, and don't try and feed it too us!
There is also the knock on of reducing greenhouse gases produced by the additional aircraft required to freight the products mentioned in the link article - though it's not conclusive that greenhouse gases actually exist, is it President Bush!, just ask residents of Los Angeles about levels of pollution
Now, while i,m not an obsessive environmentalist, (difficult seeing that I drive a truck for a living) I would be more than happy too see our governments underpin the cost (as it would probably be a "loss leader") of processing waste into fuel. And maybe use it to heat public buildings (that's if the UK has any public buildings left and that they haven't all been sold off to property companies based in Bermuda - see private eye issue number 1080 dated 16th May 2003 for their special report about the scandal of the sale of inland revenue and customs & excise buildings) or hospitals etc.
In otherwords, use the "calorific value" for heating, and don't try and feed it too us!
There is also the knock on of reducing greenhouse gases produced by the additional aircraft required to freight the products mentioned in the link article - though it's not conclusive that greenhouse gases actually exist, is it President Bush!, just ask residents of Los Angeles about levels of pollution
Monday, May 19, 2003
Well, if you've read the linked article for "the sausage factory", then that gives you an idea why I find it necessary to use expletives like "fucking angry" in my posts. I will not apologise for this, it's about the only way I can convey my strength of feeling in respect of this.
So, when you have had time to mull this over, why don't you try having a look at this © The Guardian 2003. Some of the issues mentioned in the link are also to be found in Dr Atkins diet books. Particulaly the stuff about vitamins and sugar. It's quite strange to see sugar being linked to cancer (though the links to type 2 diabetes are really new), but the comments made by the Atkins book, certainly seem to "ring true". Why hasn't any of this type of information had "proper" exposure in the press? or has any study been carried out into the possible health risks of excessive consumption of sugar? Well, I don't have the background in research to find out, but it wouldn't suprise me to find that "Big Sugar?" has used it's vested interests to stiffle any critiscm (though I'm sometimes suprised at my cynical views!).
So, when you have had time to mull this over, why don't you try having a look at this © The Guardian 2003. Some of the issues mentioned in the link are also to be found in Dr Atkins diet books. Particulaly the stuff about vitamins and sugar. It's quite strange to see sugar being linked to cancer (though the links to type 2 diabetes are really new), but the comments made by the Atkins book, certainly seem to "ring true". Why hasn't any of this type of information had "proper" exposure in the press? or has any study been carried out into the possible health risks of excessive consumption of sugar? Well, I don't have the background in research to find out, but it wouldn't suprise me to find that "Big Sugar?" has used it's vested interests to stiffle any critiscm (though I'm sometimes suprised at my cynical views!).
The Sausage Factory © The Guardian 2003 is a good place to start. It points out about the use of sausage in the British national diet, but as some of you may recall from your school history "we Brits" are a national of historical mongrels. In fact, it could (argueably) be said that the only nation on the planet with a more diverse make up, would be the Americans. But to continue the "sausage theme" of this post, most of the suppliers of the British genetic make up are also "sausage eaters", even though this is often considered a childish anti German remark, especially used during times of conflict.
But it's true to say, that us, the Germans, French, Spanish, Americans, amongst others, are sausage eaters. It's also true to say that "British Sausages" are made to EU regulations.
So, as mentioned in the article, the sausage was originally produced to enable butchers to use and sell the poorer quality cuts of meat. But as the link article points out, these days the manufacturers and their lobbyist's have pushed the phrases"poorer quality cuts of meat" and "offcuts" about as far as is possible.
This is all done in the name of "Profit". That seems bad enough, but then check out the other so called "ingredients" of the "School Sausage" 50% "meat", of which 30% is pork fat with a bit of jowl, and 20% mechanically recovered chicken meat, 17% water, 30% rusk and soya, soya concentrate, hyrolysed protein, modified flour, dried onion, sugar, dextrose, phosphates, preservative E221 sodium sulphite, flavour enhancer, spices, garlic flavouring, antioxidant E300 (ascorbic acid), colouring E128 (red 2G). Casings: made from collagen from cow hide © The Guardian 2003.
Maybe it's "the power of the press", but when I read things like that, it makes me VERY FUCKING ANGRY. Most of us Brits, will have eaten something similar in our time.
Who is the bigger criminal? The person who burgles you home? or maybe the person who owns the factory that makes product's like the one mentioned above i.e. Covertly tries to make you eat rubbish?
But it's true to say, that us, the Germans, French, Spanish, Americans, amongst others, are sausage eaters. It's also true to say that "British Sausages" are made to EU regulations.
So, as mentioned in the article, the sausage was originally produced to enable butchers to use and sell the poorer quality cuts of meat. But as the link article points out, these days the manufacturers and their lobbyist's have pushed the phrases"poorer quality cuts of meat" and "offcuts" about as far as is possible.
This is all done in the name of "Profit". That seems bad enough, but then check out the other so called "ingredients" of the "School Sausage" 50% "meat", of which 30% is pork fat with a bit of jowl, and 20% mechanically recovered chicken meat, 17% water, 30% rusk and soya, soya concentrate, hyrolysed protein, modified flour, dried onion, sugar, dextrose, phosphates, preservative E221 sodium sulphite, flavour enhancer, spices, garlic flavouring, antioxidant E300 (ascorbic acid), colouring E128 (red 2G). Casings: made from collagen from cow hide © The Guardian 2003.
Maybe it's "the power of the press", but when I read things like that, it makes me VERY FUCKING ANGRY. Most of us Brits, will have eaten something similar in our time.
Who is the bigger criminal? The person who burgles you home? or maybe the person who owns the factory that makes product's like the one mentioned above i.e. Covertly tries to make you eat rubbish?
Sunday, May 18, 2003
So, back to this "stuff" that I've been reading recently. The suppliments mentioned in the earlier post have/are being produced over 3 weekends.
So far, it's made for quite interesting reading. The first "sup" is about "the way we eat now". It's produced from a "Uk" point of view - obviously, it's produced by a UK broadsheet newspaper.
over the course of the next few days, I will highlight some of the points they have raised.
But to start with, what is my direct interest? Well, for the last 3 or so weeks, I have been following the Atkins diet. Somewhat losely, I might add.
This is because my partner, Clare, has for the last 12 months or so, been "doing" the Rosemary Connelly diet. She has had a reasonable amount of success and has managed to loose about 2 stones (about 28 pounds in the states and 13.5 kilo's in Europe). But, she has "plateau'd" and has hovered at + or - 1 pound a week for the last month. She hasn't been following the diet plan as strictly as she could have, but she isn't a diet addict, and if she "sin's", she is quite happy to forget it and carry on.
So, also recently, we have been "treated" to a series of tv programmes from the BBC called "diet trials", whereby they have followed 4 groups of people, who have, in turn, followed the 4 most popular diet schemes in the UK. The Rosemay Connelly diet plan, Weight Watchers, The Atkins diet and Slimfast.
Personally, apart my current efforts to "do" the Atkins diet, the only one that I had previously tried was Slimfast. And I agreed with the majority of those who had to try it on the TV series, it works if you can stick with it, but I haven't got a clue what they put in the various meal product's, and they tasted absolutely FUCKING foul.
The Atkins plan is quite different. It's low carbohydrate, high protein and can also be quite high fat. I get the impression that Dr Atkins didn't always agree with conventional dietary ideals that seem to have the view that " all calories are equal". The Atkins diet is quite involved, he recommends that you have various test's for blood sugar and cholesterol amongst others. I might have considered these if I was mega serious about weight loss, but it's a case of giving it a try and seeing what happens.
The idea of the diet appeals to me, because I figure that any diet where "proper" meat, virtually all cheese, cream, butter and seafood are OK, then it's alright by me.
Salad veg is unlimited, though non-salad veggies have to be worked out as most of them have an inherent carbohydrate content, that needs to be taken into account for the diet. He also points out that when reading the label on food packages, if they contain much in the way of sugars or just strange sounding ingredients that end in "OSE" then it's probably worth avoiding then - "OSE" materials are usually some form of sugar.
So far, it's made for quite interesting reading. The first "sup" is about "the way we eat now". It's produced from a "Uk" point of view - obviously, it's produced by a UK broadsheet newspaper.
over the course of the next few days, I will highlight some of the points they have raised.
But to start with, what is my direct interest? Well, for the last 3 or so weeks, I have been following the Atkins diet. Somewhat losely, I might add.
This is because my partner, Clare, has for the last 12 months or so, been "doing" the Rosemary Connelly diet. She has had a reasonable amount of success and has managed to loose about 2 stones (about 28 pounds in the states and 13.5 kilo's in Europe). But, she has "plateau'd" and has hovered at + or - 1 pound a week for the last month. She hasn't been following the diet plan as strictly as she could have, but she isn't a diet addict, and if she "sin's", she is quite happy to forget it and carry on.
So, also recently, we have been "treated" to a series of tv programmes from the BBC called "diet trials", whereby they have followed 4 groups of people, who have, in turn, followed the 4 most popular diet schemes in the UK. The Rosemay Connelly diet plan, Weight Watchers, The Atkins diet and Slimfast.
Personally, apart my current efforts to "do" the Atkins diet, the only one that I had previously tried was Slimfast. And I agreed with the majority of those who had to try it on the TV series, it works if you can stick with it, but I haven't got a clue what they put in the various meal product's, and they tasted absolutely FUCKING foul.
The Atkins plan is quite different. It's low carbohydrate, high protein and can also be quite high fat. I get the impression that Dr Atkins didn't always agree with conventional dietary ideals that seem to have the view that " all calories are equal". The Atkins diet is quite involved, he recommends that you have various test's for blood sugar and cholesterol amongst others. I might have considered these if I was mega serious about weight loss, but it's a case of giving it a try and seeing what happens.
The idea of the diet appeals to me, because I figure that any diet where "proper" meat, virtually all cheese, cream, butter and seafood are OK, then it's alright by me.
Salad veg is unlimited, though non-salad veggies have to be worked out as most of them have an inherent carbohydrate content, that needs to be taken into account for the diet. He also points out that when reading the label on food packages, if they contain much in the way of sugars or just strange sounding ingredients that end in "OSE" then it's probably worth avoiding then - "OSE" materials are usually some form of sugar.
Over the last two weekends, I have been reading a suppliment that has been published in "The Guardian" about the food industry. This has encouraged me to produce this blog, and though I have mercilessly linked the various articles from The Guardian (and hopefully haven't missed attributing anything of theirs with copyright notification), I feel that it is necessary to disseminate this type of knowledge as far and as wide as possible.
I can't honestly say that I know a huge amount about the food industry (even though I work in the "transport" side of it). Well, apart from the fact that I like to eat some of the products of this very industry.
I am a pretty "middle of the road" sort of person, but at 37 years old, I have become aware that my personal views are becoming more "left wing" the older I get. Why this should be, I'm not entirely sure, but I suppose the older you get the more "inequalities", unfairness and general lack of consideration for others you see around you.
That may sound really pompous, but it's just observation of the world around me.
I can't honestly say that I know a huge amount about the food industry (even though I work in the "transport" side of it). Well, apart from the fact that I like to eat some of the products of this very industry.
I am a pretty "middle of the road" sort of person, but at 37 years old, I have become aware that my personal views are becoming more "left wing" the older I get. Why this should be, I'm not entirely sure, but I suppose the older you get the more "inequalities", unfairness and general lack of consideration for others you see around you.
That may sound really pompous, but it's just observation of the world around me.
So why did I feel it necessary to put the little disclaimer as the first post, well, the main direction of this blog is critical.
Critical of those who in the name of profit, are changing the way the global food industry is being managed.
I am convinced that if they could, they would re-process and re-package Shit, then pay an advertising agency lots of money to market it as some new and wonderful environmentally friendly, nutritious food!.
Critical of those who in the name of profit, are changing the way the global food industry is being managed.
I am convinced that if they could, they would re-process and re-package Shit, then pay an advertising agency lots of money to market it as some new and wonderful environmentally friendly, nutritious food!.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)