Getting Real at Whole Foods

[Mott the Hoople]

The expression 'whole foods' is often a misnomer. What does it mean? You get a whole tomato instead of half of one?
Concentrate your energies on GM foods, not whole or organic or anything. GM foods must be stopped. They are casting millions into poverty and leading to a big brother time when Monsanto et al will dictate what foods you eat, how much you pay and how long you live.
America the free? Bollocks. America the slaves to Monsanto.
Fight the world control bastards. The fight is more important than buying mrs. Smith's home grown potatoes.

Oh that's just non-sense Lo!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Whole Foods is the name of a grocery store chain. But I do agree about the need to stop genetically modified foods.

Why? Give me a good rational reason to do so? The crusade against GM foods is mostly irrational. Please explain to me how modifying food via recombinant techniques is any more of a threat to our well being then selective breeding, hyrbridization and cloning have been? It's essentially the same principle except one is done at a microscopic level. Recombinant techniques have the potential to grow superior food products, in greater volume, on less land with less chemicals with greater diversity with out the reliance on monocultures. People who oppose GM foods carte blance are using the same flawed logic that those who oppose stem cell research use. As long as the appropriate controls are in place this can be a powerful and useful technology that can benefit all of humanity and should not be disregarded due to some irrational knee jerk reflex.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Conversely, with coupons we pay about $120 for a month worth of groceries. Not even kidding.

I tried playing the coupon game but I ended up buying mostly processed foods I ddin't want or need. I know for families who struggle financially it's a big help but I gladly spend a higher percentage of my income on food because it's important to me. I want to live well, I enjoy eating seasonally fresh foods in abundant variety. I do grow a victory garden but since I live in a condo in suburbia I'm kind of limited to what I can grow for myself. When I had a house in the country most of my grocery bill went for staples. I'd grow my own vegies, can quite a few of them and I would purchase a quarter of beef and have a hog butchered by a local Amish farmer (he converted a good portion of that hog into sausages....and they were to die for). I would then buy staples in bulk, mainly flour, sugar and olive oil. That saved a lot of money.

Now that I'm making more money and I'm living a more urban life style we go to the market every other day and buy fresh for the days meal. It's also nice living near an Amish community as there are a number a cheese and butcher shops they operate and an outdoors green market with home grown produce available. Yea...it costs more to do that but since we presently don't have kids, we can afford it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

If the company calls itself Whole Foods that is even more reason not to trust them!

We have a car sales company called 'Honest Motors'.... mmm - I'd trust neither.

You have the wrong idea about Whole Foods. They're not focused on organic, holistic or health foods. It's an upscale market for gourmet foods. For example, they don't sell just steaks. They sell dry aged black angus steaks. They don't just sell Salmon, they sell fresh Pacific Salmon caught that night and flown in that morning......which is a big deal when your land locked and 1,000 kilometers from the nearest ocean. So you have the wrong idea about Whole Foods, there not trying to market you some health food scam but rather a "whole food buying experience" where exotic, hard to find, imported, gourmet, very well prepared high end products and produce are available....and that's also why they are very expensive.

I cook as a hobby and I love shopping at Whole Foods but it is expensive. I've dropped over $100 USD there just for the items for a single meal for 4 people that consisted of a Greek salad with hearts of palms, fresh olives and goat cheese followed by goat shanks braised in red wine and beef broth with caramalized Vadalia onions and served on Yukon Gold garlic mashed potatoes that I added some French Brie, cream and unsalted butter and served with a delightful Australian Shiraz and for dessert Asian pears poached in Prosecco, sugar and a vanilla bean and served on top of a round of sponge cake and drizzled with a reduction of the poaching liquid and expresso then sprinkled with some shavings of bitter German Chocolate. Many of those items you're not going to find at Costco or Krogers. Hell, the Vanilla bean alone cost close to $10.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

eating genetically modified foods might turn you into a bitter expatriate.....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I strongly suggest you spend a little time looking at the consequences of the spread of G M foods. Look with an open mind, but try to understand that your present knowledge has almost certainly been fed to you by the GM lobby.
When you have spent some time studying come back with your thoughts.

And I would say that you're guilty of what you're accusing Annie of. This is like any other technology. There are risk and consequences if the details aren't sweated or if the technology is applied incorrectly but if you're willing to discount this entire technology based on the "opinions" of activist, then you are probably not nearly as well informed on this topic as you think you are.

 

[Annie]

And I would say that you're guilty of what you're accusing Annie of. This is like any other technology. There are risk and consequences if the details aren't sweated or if the technology is applied incorrectly but if you're willing to discount this entire technology based on the "opinions" of activist, then you are probably not nearly as well informed on this topic as you think you are.

Indeed. I at least added the caveat that there might be problems uncovered down the line, but if starvation were prevented in the present, at least there'd be a future to discover solutions for the problem.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

A company calling itself Whole Foods is suggesting that all the food on its shelves is 'whole'. What does that mean? Doas it mean they monitor their suppliers for correct animal husbandry and lack of laboratory modification? Does it mean that no chemicals are used?
Or does it mean they have recognised that people will, often in ignorance, pay more money for an 'organic' label. Where can you buy an unmodified cob of corn in America? Or an unmodified tomato? Where can you buy a steak guaranteed free of added hormones or fed on natural feed and allowed to roam free?
It may be that 'whole Foods' is what it says on the tin, but I bet they wouldnt allow you to inspect all their food suppliers with a film crew in tow!

That's not what they are suggesting at all. Rather it implies a whole food shopping or buying experience of exceptional quality and in that respect, they deliver.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Like others have said, I opt for the most natural foods I can, but I will take modifications over starvation. Think of the pre-genetic days, like 19th C Europe or 20th C. Africa. Some problems are a combination of bad practices and mother nature. Some are just diseases doing what they do, but if there's an alternative to no wheat, most people would give it a thumbs up.

Actually Annie humans have been genetically modifying foods for millenia now.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Indeed. I at least added the caveat that there might be problems uncovered down the line, but if starvation were prevented in the present, at least there'd be a future to discover solutions for the problem.

Like any technology their are problems associated with it. One must be aware of those problems, mindful of the risks involved and have the appropriate controls in place. To oppose this technology across the board applies the same false dualism that opponents of stem cell research apply. No technology is all good or all bad.

I find many of the arguments against GM foods don't hold water. Humans have been genetically modifying foods to increase yields, improve quality and disease resistance for many of thousands of years. They may not have understood the underlying principles of genetics involved but humans have been doing this for a very long time. Recombinant methods are just a more precise method of changing an allele frequency to develop a more desired characteristic in that organism.

 

[Annie]

Like any technology their are problems associated with it. One must be aware of those problems, mindful of the risks involved and have the appropriate controls in place. To oppose this technology across the board applies the same false dualism that opponents of stem cell research apply. No technology is all good or all bad.

I find many of the arguments against GM foods don't hold water. Humans have been genetically modifying foods to increase yields, improve quality and disease resistance for many of thousands of years. They may not have understood the underlying principles of genetics involved but humans have been doing this for a very long time. Recombinant methods are just a more precise method of changing an allele frequency to develop a more desired characteristic in that organism.

Unintended consequences rear their heads in even the best laid plans. That was my point. The idea of 'letting nature take its course' is not always the best response. Time, place, and repercussions.

 

[Lowaicue]

Unintended consequences rear their heads in even the best laid plans. That was my point. The idea of 'letting nature take its course' is not always the best response. Time, place, and repercussions.

There are three main aspects of concern. Most discussion, as we have seen, tends to focus on the first. Ask yourself why.

They are:
1. The health and safety question.
2. The local and global biodiversity question.
3. The corporate control question.

1. The first cannot, at this stage, be adequately argued by either side. This argument is encouraged by those at No. 3, because once the question has been answered to the satisfaction of the simple minds of all of us, then 2 and 3 will disappear from public debate.

2. Local and global biodiversity highlights the potential dangers of destroying life forms - good and bad, Annie. This is a long term problem and the possible results could threaten the existence of all living things. Sanitised fields leading to a reduced number of crop varieties. While evidence regarding the health and safety of GM foods is quite varied, evidence of the change in biodiversity is all around us, from the growing lack of wild plants to the decimation of some bird species.

3. Here's a quotation for you: "Monsanto's controversial past combines some of the most toxic products ever sold with misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. They now race to genetically engineer the world's food supply, which profoundly threatens our health, environment and economy .....(film review) ... Monsanto has become the world's poster child for malignent corporate influence in government and technology."

Now, you can deny that or you can ignore that, but anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that to be blindly led by the metaphorical nose, into a potentially dangerous situation is foolish at best and anti American at worst.
In the end its up to you.

 

[Lowaicue]

That's not what they are suggesting at all. Rather it implies a whole food shopping or buying experience of exceptional quality and in that respect, they deliver.

I assumed, incorrectly, that it was a con. I'm afraid my natural cynicism took control. We are daily bombarded by invitations to purchase 'organic' or 'natural' or 'whole' foods at enormously inflated prices but when you look at the fine print these 'marketing' terms allow so many loopholes as to make them pointless. I did not imagine, for one moment, that a company would actually call itself Whole Foods, unless it was a small local concern.

 

[Annie]

There are three main aspects of concern. Most discussion, as we have seen, tends to focus on the first. Ask yourself why.

They are:
1. The health and safety question.
2. The local and global biodiversity question.
3. The corporate control question.

1. The first cannot, at this stage, be adequately argued by either side. This argument is encouraged by those at No. 3, because once the question has been answered to the satisfaction of the simple minds of all of us, then 2 and 3 will disappear from public debate.

2. Local and global biodiversity highlights the potential dangers of destroying life forms - good and bad, Annie. This is a long term problem and the possible results could threaten the existence of all living things. Sanitised fields leading to a reduced number of crop varieties. While evidence regarding the health and safety of GM foods is quite varied, evidence of the change in biodiversity is all around us, from the growing lack of wild plants to the decimation of some bird species.

3. Here's a quotation for you: "Monsanto's controversial past combines some of the most toxic products ever sold with misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. They now race to genetically engineer the world's food supply, which profoundly threatens our health, environment and economy .....(film review) ... Monsanto has become the world's poster child for malignent corporate influence in government and technology."

Now, you can deny that or you can ignore that, but anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that to be blindly led by the metaphorical nose, into a potentially dangerous situation is foolish at best and anti American at worst.
In the end its up to you.

and YOU can ignore all the posts regarding the place, the issues I was addressing, and the insanity of your position to do nothing in the face of starvation.

 

[Lowaicue]

and YOU can ignore all the posts regarding the place, the issues I was addressing, and the insanity of your position to do nothing in the face of starvation.

I did not set out to insult you, but to try to help you understand the potential dangers of blindly following those whose leadership skills are in grave doubt. If you knew the first thing about me you would know that your assertion ia almost farcical in its naivety. I wonder if you have ever seen starvation and actually considered its several causes.
You argument is rather too simplistic. You really need to research these subjects so that their is less likelihood of you appearing ignorant of what much of the world knows and understands.
Read about the causes of poverty and the part played by mega corporations. Read about food supply and how it works or does not.
I respectfully suggest that until you are better informed you find other reasons to mount your soap box.
Sleep well.

 

[Lowaicue]

Actually Annie humans have been genetically modifying foods for millenia now.

If you will allow me to say so, that is quite misleading.
I do not have time to address it fully cos my kids are taking me to lunch for Fathers Day. Happy fathers day to you. TTFN

 

[Damocles]

I tried playing the coupon game but I ended up buying mostly processed foods I ddin't want or need. I know for families who struggle financially it's a big help but I gladly spend a higher percentage of my income on food because it's important to me. I want to live well, I enjoy eating seasonally fresh foods in abundant variety. I do grow a victory garden but since I live in a condo in suburbia I'm kind of limited to what I can grow for myself. When I had a house in the country most of my grocery bill went for staples. I'd grow my own vegies, can quite a few of them and I would purchase a quarter of beef and have a hog butchered by a local Amish farmer (he converted a good portion of that hog into sausages....and they were to die for). I would then buy staples in bulk, mainly flour, sugar and olive oil. That saved a lot of money.

Now that I'm making more money and I'm living a more urban life style we go to the market every other day and buy fresh for the days meal. It's also nice living near an Amish community as there are a number a cheese and butcher shops they operate and an outdoors green market with home grown produce available. Yea...it costs more to do that but since we presently don't have kids, we can afford it.

There are coupons for good food as well as the bad stuff. We even use coupons for items like pineapple.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There are three main aspects of concern. Most discussion, as we have seen, tends to focus on the first. Ask yourself why.

They are:
1. The health and safety question.
2. The local and global biodiversity question.
3. The corporate control question.

1. The first cannot, at this stage, be adequately argued by either side. This argument is encouraged by those at No. 3, because once the question has been answered to the satisfaction of the simple minds of all of us, then 2 and 3 will disappear from public debate.

2. Local and global biodiversity highlights the potential dangers of destroying life forms - good and bad, Annie. This is a long term problem and the possible results could threaten the existence of all living things. Sanitised fields leading to a reduced number of crop varieties. While evidence regarding the health and safety of GM foods is quite varied, evidence of the change in biodiversity is all around us, from the growing lack of wild plants to the decimation of some bird species.

3. Here's a quotation for you: "Monsanto's controversial past combines some of the most toxic products ever sold with misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. They now race to genetically engineer the world's food supply, which profoundly threatens our health, environment and economy .....(film review) ... Monsanto has become the world's poster child for malignent corporate influence in government and technology."

Now, you can deny that or you can ignore that, but anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that to be blindly led by the metaphorical nose, into a potentially dangerous situation is foolish at best and anti American at worst.
In the end its up to you.

Most of your arguments don't hold water.

#1. Health and Safety. How can you state that the health and safety aspect of GM foods cannot be adequately addressed? By what standard do you speak? All technologies have an implicit risk. Are automobiles constructed to the absolute best safety standards known and acceptable to all? No they are not, they would be to expensive to manufacture and most people could not afford them. They are built to an acceptable level of risk. You're comment is not reasonable as you do not define by what standard you define an adequate or acceptable level of risk or safety.

#2. That's a strawman argument because GM foods are not the problem here. Monocultures are. GM Foods my contribute to agricultures reliance on monocultures and you can make a valid argument that this practice, in the long run, is not cost affective or sustainable, but conversely recombinant technology can also be used to increase biodiversity and lessen the impact on agricultural monocultures. It's a matter of how you apply the technology and not the technology it self. In that respect, recombinant technology is no different then past practices of cross breeding, cloning and hybridization.

#3. Not only is that a strawman, like argument #2, but it also shows that your are uninformed about the current regulatory framework that regulates the introduction of new agricultural products and chemicals into the market place. In the first place the issue of corporate control is no different then the proprietary control that large agribusiness and chemical companies have on products like chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and modified food strains that have been genetically engineered by age old techniques other than recombinant technology. Corporations invest large sums of money to develop these products and have a legitimate concern to protect their intellectual property. So in that respect recombinant technology is no different then other agricultural technologies that have been developed and invented. Secondly, before such products can be introduced into the market they have a host of regulatory requirements that they must comply with before those products can be put on the open market for use. They must pass the regulatory requirements established by the USDA, FDA and EPA. All three agencies have comprehensive and voluminous safety testing requirements, for new agricultural products, that must be met before then can be sold on the open market. This refutes nearly your entire third argument.

Recombinant DNA technology applied towards food production is no different then any other technology that has significant benefits. Along with those benefits it also carry's certain risks and potential harm that must be evaluated, recognized, understood and controlled to adequate and acceptable levels to protect human health and the environment. If these standards can be developed, implemented and met by those who develop GM food products, then their potential benefits can be hugely rewarding for humanity. You cannot discount this out of hand.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I assumed, incorrectly, that it was a con. I'm afraid my natural cynicism took control. We are daily bombarded by invitations to purchase 'organic' or 'natural' or 'whole' foods at enormously inflated prices but when you look at the fine print these 'marketing' terms allow so many loopholes as to make them pointless. I did not imagine, for one moment, that a company would actually call itself Whole Foods, unless it was a small local concern.

Well Whole Foods certainly sells "Organic" or "Natural" foods but not exclusively by any means. That's just part of the shopping experience they offer customers. They are really more of an upscale market for gourmets and foodies.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

If you will allow me to say so, that is quite misleading.
I do not have time to address it fully cos my kids are taking me to lunch for Fathers Day. Happy fathers day to you. TTFN

No it's not misleading at all to someone who has actually ever studied genetics or biological evolution. Past techniques may not have directly manipulated DNA at a microscopic level to affect desired changes in specific allele frequencies within organism but past practices have done just exactly that at a macroscopic level. By any definition, it is still genetic manipulation.