Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i dont see the slippery slope argument you ran out as being particularly germaine, ng.
you don't see the the various massive corporate farming subsidy programs the united states has had in place for decades now an official policy directed toward a particular set of dietary choices? you dont see in already existing legal standards that define categories and stipulate what types of nutritional values are to be emphasized what you are afraid will follow from laws like this one? for example, in both the us and england right now there is tremendous pressure being brought to bear on regulatory agencies to redefine the category "organic" so that the growth in demand for such products can be streamed into the already existing mass production-based food system...what is that but a lobying effort undertaken by large-scale firms to change the legal framework within which they operate?
the laws that you are afraid of are already fully in place: the policies that you are afraid of have been shaping mass market dietary choices for many years...so i really do not understand why you would react as you do to this law, as if with it the legal framework behind a particular sequence of food choices was suddenly getting started.
|
I would hardely put the misguided food pyramid or the desire to expand the 'organic' labeling on the same plane as BANNING some foods.
One can be avoided by an educated consumer, the other just tells you what you can and can't do.
I don't know about you, but when I walk into a groccery store all I see are dietary choices, from the low yield sad looking organic crops, to the beefy DNA modified steak tomato, from tastey corn fed beef to wild fish (you can get wild meats here too but not at the supermarket). This
awful capitalistic system has produced an abundance of food that is the envy of the world. Perhaps its too much of a good thing, but it beats the days of racid meats and food grown in human shit, available only in season (the foods of course not the shit).