Getting Real at Whole Foods

[Mott the Hoople]

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

Sure, but I bet their canned pineapples, right? I understand the economics of couponing. Particularly if your raising a family and every dime counts. At the present I can afford to pay more for a fresh pineapple and prefer to do so cause, well it taste better then canned does.

 

[apple0154]

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.

If I knew where you lived I'd be over for dinner.

 

[Annie]

Sure, but I bet their canned pineapples, right? I understand the economics of couponing. Particularly if your raising a family and every dime counts. At the present I can afford to pay more for a fresh pineapple and prefer to do so cause, well it taste better then canned does.

I just picked up two fresh pineapples last week with coupons. $1 each. Granted that was a super coupon to get me to walk in the door, but I'm very disciplined with my shopping and do not impulse buy.

 

[christiefan915]

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

Happy belated Father's Day, Lowie!

Hope you got a fantastic new tie from the grands and will have to wear it out to lunch for the next dozen years.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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 sell a steak that is identified with quality primarily through the effects of fast-food advertising than anything real.

They don't just sell Salmon, they sell fresh Pacific Salmon caught that night and flown in that morning......

Incredibly wasteful. Anyone who does such a thing should be executed for being a traitor to humanity.

 

[Lowaicue]

Happy belated Father's Day, Lowie!

Hope you got a fantastic new tie from the grands and will have to wear it out to lunch for the next dozen years.

I appreciate the sentiment but if any relative of mine ever gave me a tie for Father's day or any other day, I would hang them with it. 1. I seldom wear a tie these days and 2. I choose and buy my own ties. A tie is, or can be, the only item of clothing that makes an immediate statement. I would not trust that to anyone else.
Is that what one receives in America? The only thing worse would be the green sweater knitted by a half blind aunt out of wool from old clothes because she thinks the war is still on. The sleeves were different lengths and the neck was too tight to go over ones head!

 

[Lowaicue]

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.

1.It has not yet been adequately addressed because research continues and most of the world has refused to participate in the revolution.
2. A straw man? Certainly not. GM foods not only encourage monoculture they demand it on pain of legal action. In the end it all comes down to number 3.
3. No, certainly not a straw man. The main thrust of all the arguments and debate about GM foods.
Monsanto uses the law to force farmers to comply with their rules and few farmers can afford to fight them.
Monsanto actually PATENT life forms. Would you mind if I patented Americans? This is obscene.
There is so much damning evidence against Monsanto, from being one of the major manufacturers of Agent Orange (not a cosmetic Annie), to using Bush to 'insist' that France comply with the american acceptance, to the increase in price of seed stock to Indian farmers by four fold, that discussion here is almost pointless.
Let me say that as long as people approach the subject from the direction of food safety and not the exploitation of farmers then the Monsantos of America will delight in their profits and total control over what Mr. and Mrs. World put in their bowls.
Monsanto have never run a charity. They are not in existence to feed the world. The world can feed itself if big business would only butt out.
Monsanto et al equals dire poverty on Indian and African farms. No matter how much you tub thump about increased yields and the safety of mixing the genes of different species that fact will remain. Your FDAs and ABCs and whatever your particular government agencies are called, are of absolutely no significance to the rest of the world. None.

You and I often agree, Mott, but on this I am afraid that we will always differ. A lot of rivers will run dry before Europe keels over to be screwed by US-backed Monsanto et al.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

1.It has not yet been adequately addressed because research continues and most of the world has refused to participate in the revolution.
2. A straw man? Certainly not. GM foods not only encourage monoculture they demand it on pain of legal action. In the end it all comes down to number 3.
3. No, certainly not a straw man. The main thrust of all the arguments and debate about GM foods.
Monsanto uses the law to force farmers to comply with their rules and few farmers can afford to fight them.
Monsanto actually PATENT life forms. Would you mind if I patented Americans? This is obscene.
There is so much damning evidence against Monsanto, from being one of the major manufacturers of Agent Orange (not a cosmetic Annie), to using Bush to 'insist' that France comply with the american acceptance, to the increase in price of seed stock to Indian farmers by four fold, that discussion here is almost pointless.
Let me say that as long as people approach the subject from the direction of food safety and not the exploitation of farmers then the Monsantos of America will delight in their profits and total control over what Mr. and Mrs. World put in their bowls.
Monsanto have never run a charity. They are not in existence to feed the world. The world can feed itself if big business would only butt out.
Monsanto et al equals dire poverty on Indian and African farms. No matter how much you tub thump about increased yields and the safety of mixing the genes of different species that fact will remain. Your FDAs and ABCs and whatever your particular government agencies are called, are of absolutely no significance to the rest of the world. None.

You and I often agree, Mott, but on this I am afraid that we will always differ. A lot of rivers will run dry before Europe keels over to be screwed by US-backed Monsanto et al.

Again, your arguments don't hold water.

#1.You're offering an opinion on safety standards while ignoring the fact that, in the USA for example, they must undergo tremendous scrutiny, evaluation and testing by a number of Federal regulatory agencies before they can be introduced into the market or the environment.

#2. You're still confusing the symptom with the problem. GM Foods is not the problem. MONOCULTURES are. What difference does it make if recombenant technologies encourage the practice of monocultures, when the other technologies do the exact same thing but are not being irrationally targeted. It's a hypocritical double standard based on emotion and not fact.

#3. Monstanto and other agribusinesses invest large sums of money to develop and create these products. It is no different then other technologies used in the past to create or enhance new strains of crops. Are you telling me after doing all the hard work to develop these products and their investment of large sums of money that they do not have the right to protect their intellectual property? Again, that's a hypocritical double standard. Why do you single out Monsanto and other agribusiness and accept them from equal protection under the law? That's not rational.

If you don't like what I'm saying it's because it's based on my many years of experience of working in a highly regulated industry. If you're going to discredit a technology that has the potential of this technology it has to be done based on fact and not some irrational conspiracy theory. Otherwise you end up neither discrediting the technology or protecting human health and the environment you only end up discrediting your self. Stick to the facts Lo.

 

[Lowaicue]

Again, your arguments don't hold water.

#1.You're offering an opinion on safety standards while ignoring the fact that, in the USA for example, they must undergo tremendous scrutiny, evaluation and testing by a number of Federal regulatory agencies before they can be introduced into the market or the environment.

#2. You're still confusing the symptom with the problem. GM Foods is not the problem. MONOCULTURES are. What difference does it make if recombenant technologies encourage the practice of monocultures, when the other technologies do the exact same thing but are not being irrationally targeted. It's a hypocritical double standard based on emotion and not fact.

#3. Monstanto and other agribusinesses invest large sums of money to develop and create these products. It is no different then other technologies used in the past to create or enhance new strains of crops. Are you telling me after doing all the hard work to develop these products and their investment of large sums of money that they do not have the right to protect their intellectual property? Again, that's a hypocritical double standard. Why do you single out Monsanto and other agribusiness and accept them from equal protection under the law? That's not rational.

If you don't like what I'm saying it's because it's based on my many years of experience of working in a highly regulated industry. If you're going to discredit a technology that has the potential of this technology it has to be done based on fact and not some irrational conspiracy theory. Otherwise you end up neither discrediting the technology or protecting human health and the environment you only end up discrediting your self. Stick to the facts Lo.

The USA is the only major country to voluntarily adopt GM crops and foodstuffs. Europe does not accept it. So as far as we are concerned it is way up in the air. What America does, with the greatest respect, has nothing to do with decisions made in the rest of the world. American rules/laws/guidelines do not apply to the rest of the world. You only have to look at Haliburton, for example, to see how American companies ride rough shod over American law. The argument is not really about America nor is it about safety. It is about one industry, I explained why I used the name Monsanto at the very beginning (its about typing).
If you are in that industry you will know that the decisions that affect the rest of the world and, indeed, of the more mundane investors return have naff all to do with the very clever people who do the lab work and the field testing. You will also have seen the film footage showing your own American farmers being 'co-erced' by the agents of Monsanto... or perhaps the films have not been shown in the US.
You will also be aware of the devastation caused to traditional medicine and to the flora and fauna, not because of natural or democratic monoculture, but because of the insistence of Monsanto et al that farmers comply with their rules.
Your point about licensing is indefensible. Someone here said they were descended from native Americans. Do you think they would accept the patenting of life forms?
Sure they invest heavily. Is it for you they invest? For me? For America? For the starving poor? If you think the answer to any of those is yes you really ought to discard your petrie dish and talk to real people.
The hypocrites are those that pay lip service to this industry. What did we call it at uni? Cognitive dissonance?
I do not wish to live in a world where the basic right to eat and drink is controlled by a profiteering, toxin producing, possibly taxation avoiding private company.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The USA is the only major country to voluntarily adopt GM crops and foodstuffs. Europe does not accept it. So as far as we are concerned it is way up in the air. What America does, with the greatest respect, has nothing to do with decisions made in the rest of the world. American rules/laws/guidelines do not apply to the rest of the world. You only have to look at Haliburton, for example, to see how American companies ride rough shod over American law. The argument is not really about America nor is it about safety. It is about one industry, I explained why I used the name Monsanto at the very beginning (its about typing).
If you are in that industry you will know that the decisions that affect the rest of the world and, indeed, of the more mundane investors return have naff all to do with the very clever people who do the lab work and the field testing. You will also have seen the film footage showing your own American farmers being 'co-erced' by the agents of Monsanto... or perhaps the films have not been shown in the US.
You will also be aware of the devastation caused to traditional medicine and to the flora and fauna, not because of natural or democratic monoculture, but because of the insistence of Monsanto et al that farmers comply with their rules.
Your point about licensing is indefensible. Someone here said they were descended from native Americans. Do you think they would accept the patenting of life forms?
Sure they invest heavily. Is it for you they invest? For me? For America? For the starving poor? If you think the answer to any of those is yes you really ought to discard your petrie dish and talk to real people.
The hypocrites are those that pay lip service to this industry. What did we call it at uni? Cognitive dissonance?
I do not wish to live in a world where the basic right to eat and drink is controlled by a profiteering, toxin producing, possibly taxation avoiding private company.

Well I agree with you as to what the USA does but that doesn't mean that your position is a rational one. I'm neither an advocate for GM Food technology nor an opponent. I'm basing my thoughts on facts and reason and the European position is one based on public perception and not facts (not that the USA doesn't do that either) or reality. I deal with the same sort of irrational behavior in the hazardous waste industry. People like you take very strong positions with little, if any, knowledge to any factual standards nor does ranting about "that which you know little about" change anything. Recombinant DNA technology is a technology that has great potential for humanity as long as it is properly understood, managed and regulated. This false dualism that any technology is all good or all bad is irrational and that is what I am pointing out to you.

 

[Lowaicue]

Well I agree with you as to what the USA does but that doesn't mean that your position is a rational one. I'm neither an advocate for GM Food technology nor an opponent. I'm basing my thoughts on facts and reason and the European position is one based on public perception and not facts (not that the USA doesn't do that either) or reality. I deal with the same sort of irrational behavior in the hazardous waste industry. People like you take very strong positions with little, if any, knowledge to any factual standards nor does ranting about "that which you know little about" change anything. Recombinant DNA technology is a technology that has great potential for humanity as long as it is properly understood, managed and regulated. This false dualism that any technology is all good or all bad is irrational and that is what I am pointing out to you.

Final comment. All this may be summed up in your penultimate sentence. No private enterprise must be permitted to control the basic rights of man. Food (not food brands), drink (not drink brands) are not up for grabs. The GM industry is a 'private' industry in which the shareholders and the corporation are the prime concern. Wheat, rice, barley and whatever might as well be socks or cans of beans. If private industry controls basic foodstuffs then poverty and starvation (Annie please note) will surely follow.
Monsanto are NOT in this business to feed the world. They are in this business to feed themselves.

 

[Annie]

Well I agree with you as to what the USA does but that doesn't mean that your position is a rational one. I'm neither an advocate for GM Food technology nor an opponent. I'm basing my thoughts on facts and reason and the European position is one based on public perception and not facts (not that the USA doesn't do that either) or reality. I deal with the same sort of irrational behavior in the hazardous waste industry. People like you take very strong positions with little, if any, knowledge to any factual standards nor does ranting about "that which you know little about" change anything. Recombinant DNA technology is a technology that has great potential for humanity as long as it is properly understood, managed and regulated. This false dualism that any technology is all good or all bad is irrational and that is what I am pointing out to you.

Thanks for a sane response to the argument. It's what I was saying from the get go; technology can and does address areas that have helped mankind, often for profit. (Note the acknowledgment of such, Lowaicue). There are also numerous examples of unintended consequences from the applications of technology, again a repetitious acknowledgment.

What my point from the beginning has been, when it comes to a staple, in this case wheat, being seriously threatened by a disease, in this case wheat rust, technology offers the best course available to buy time for perhaps hundreds of millions.

 

[Damocles]

Sure, but I bet their canned pineapples, right? I understand the economics of couponing. Particularly if your raising a family and every dime counts. At the present I can afford to pay more for a fresh pineapple and prefer to do so cause, well it taste better then canned does.

Nope. Not canned.