Tesco Horse Meat Scandal

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by why?

Diet For a Small Planet was actually written sometime in the 70's at the latest.



This is the type of stuff they point out. At best it is undocumented pseudo science. I've never seen any of these claims proven with actual scientific studies. To me it is about as worthwhile as believing global warming is actually a problem and not something made up completely and falsified as much as possible.

In post #11 on this thread, re "Diet for a Small Planet", you wrote "I don't know what that book says". Your claim quoted above (from post #20 on this thread) is pretty much antithetical to the quote from post #11. You became well versed enough re this book to refute it's content within a few hours?

I'm not quite as cynical as you are about the information re global warming, but I'm possibly more cynical re whether the U.S. should focus research resources toward it. A study from outside the U.S. (can't remember who did the research) indicated that the U.S. is currently responsible for 16% of the climate of the world. We could sink many billions of dollars (maybe even a trillion over time) into improving 'our part of the pie', but 84% of the pie would still be out of our control, and I don't trust so called commitments most other nations might claim to make in that arena...and I don't have much more faith in any claimed commitment coming from our government. Over time private sector innovation might bring about (or even force) the change that environmentalists want and that is what it is. The owners of that capital would face the risk and benefit from the potential reward.

I read both "Diet for a Small Planet" and "Diet for a New America" in the 90s, and I may have merged some of the contents in my memory. After reading both, I remember thinking two things:

1. Shaking my head re what happens in the meat and poultry industries overall (content, practices, etc.) Regulators can't be everywhere. After reading these books, I asked one of my relatives some questions. He was one of the founders of a law firm that represents large agribusiness concerns. His evasiveness and lack of candor would have made his clients happy, but I knew him well enough (he's no longer living) to read between the lines.

2. I was amazed at the incredible amount of water used, especially overall in the meat industry.

If you know anyone who has lived in a rural part of Iowa (but no longer has a vested interest in the area) ask how he or she feels about what goes on in the meat industry. You might get an earful.

P.S. others = see post #20 for the list (from DeathBeard) in the middle of Why?'s quote of DeathBeard. This list didn't post through in my quote from Why?'s post.

[why?]

Originally Posted by DeathBeard

Science ethical? Please research Dr. Burzynski, hear about his battle with the science establishment

nope, never said science was ethical. in fact scientists are some of the most rigid ideologues in existence. One of our biggest problems atm is science without ethics, and people who are masquerading as ethical with darker flat out evil ulterior motives.

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

In post #11 on this thread, re "Diet for a Small Planet", you wrote "I don't know what that book says". Your claim quoted above (from post #20 on this thread) is pretty much antithetical to the quote from post #11. You became well versed enough re this book to refute it's content within a few hours?

I'm not quite as cynical as you are about the information re global warming, but I'm possibly more cynical re whether the U.S. should focus research resources toward it. A study from outside the U.S. (can't remember who did the research) indicated that the U.S. is currently responsible for 16% of the climate of the world. We could sink many billions of dollars (maybe even a trillion over time) into improving 'our part of the pie', but 84% of the pie would still be out of our control, and I don't trust so called commitments most other nations might claim to make in that arena...and I don't have much more faith in any claimed commitment coming from our government. Over time private sector innovation might bring about (or even force) the change that environmentalists want and that is what it is. The owners of that capital would face the risk and benefit from the potential reward.

I read both "Diet for a Small Planet" and "Diet for a New America" in the 90s, and I may have merged some of the contents in my memory. After reading both, I remember thinking two things:

1. Shaking my head re what happens in the meat and poultry industries overall (content, practices, etc.) Regulators can't be everywhere. After reading these books, I asked one of my relatives some questions. He was one of the founders of a law firm that represents large agribusiness concerns. His evasiveness and lack of candor would have made his clients happy, but I knew him well enough (he's no longer living) to read between the lines.

2. I was amazed at the incredible amount of water used, especially overall in the meat industry.

If you know anyone who has lived in a rural part of Iowa (but no longer has a vested interest in the area) ask how he or she feels about what goes on in the meat industry. You might get an earful.

P.S. others = see post #20 for the list (from DeathBeard) in the middle of Why?'s quote of DeathBeard. This list didn't post through in my quote from Why?'s post.

i still have no idea what the book says. That does not mean I do not know what people who attack the meat industry claim. The same type of thing is used to attack GM foods.

Being anti global warming is not cynical, it is honest. First off, using NOAA bouys, the earth has not warmed the past few years. Secondly, that gigantic Cambridge e-mail scandal that caught so called scientists bragging about falsifying data. Thirdly, in the US, and other countries, heat sensors are put in obviously foolish places that are designed to make it look like higher temperatures are normal, ie the middle of parking lots, within a foot of an a/c vent for a large building. Junkscience.com is a great source for defeating global warming zealots, ie eco terrorists.

Most importantly though, climatologists can't get the 5 day weather forecast correct, why should anyone think they have any idea what will happen any time beyond that? The fact is they might know 1% of how the earth's climate works, and that is probably overestimating things.

I'm not saying the meat industries, or anyone anywhere at any time not named Jesus Christ is perfect.

I am saying there are cases where people not knowing the reality of what is going on, and trusting those who do, is not necessarily a bad thing. I wouldn't trust a 'government' regulator, watcher, etc further than I could throw him, or more accurately, further than the bullet i shot him with carried him.

I would trust someone who makes their living on having consumers want to choose to buy what they sell not to start killing off said consumers.

Sometimes quack ideas are just quack ideas, or even worse, wrongful ideas put out to manipulate people into giving their own personal power away for nothing. That is the basis of the environmental movement, and from where i stand the basis of the anti meat industry, and the anti GMO movement at this point.

Scaring people into acting a certain way has never produced anything worthwhile.