Re: Re: FDA plans to limit amount of salt allowed in processed foods for

[Guest guest]

I don’t know if “each individual” is responsible. Food companies market to children, teens, illiterate people, uneducated people, elderly people, or who whoever will buy.

Granted parents can control what their kids eat at home, but you can’t watch your kids when they’re at school or away from home. Uneducated, poor, or old people shouldn’t be exploited (at least in my opinion). And there are many intelligent and educated people like my husband, who doesn’t bother to read ingredients when he picks something up at the store. He doesn’t realize that the extra salt or trans-fat could theoretically play havoc with his BP and kill him. He just “trusts” that what he buys is Ok to eat.

On 4/22/10 11:56 AM, " Albers " <stephen@...> wrote:

I believe we all share the responsibility for the state of our food system. The consumer is king and if he demands better then the market place will provide it. Where the responsibility gets murky is with additives that are habit-forming like, sugar, salt and fat. Food companies , no doubt, exploit them even though they could not do so if the consumer refused to buy them. Public policy in demanding truth in advertising and limiting advertising of addictive substances as it does with tobacco plays a constructive roll. Each individual is responsible for what he consumes.

 

S.M. Albers

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10 06:09:00

[Guest guest]

If we want to avoid political discussions, we need to avoid political topics. Personal responsibility vs. the government's role in food safety is a topic we should probably avoid if we wish to avoid comparative political philosophies. While important food or nutrition information that is news to our relatively informed group may be scarce, if we wander into political philosophy we should expect different viewpoints to emerge. JRPS: I wrote then deleted 3 emails in the last 24 hrs, because you don't want to know how I feel about this (trust me). On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

I don’t know if “each individual” is responsible. Food companies market to children, teens, illiterate people, uneducated people, elderly people, or who whoever will buy.

Granted parents can control what their kids eat at home, but you can’t watch your kids when they’re at school or away from home. Uneducated, poor, or old people shouldn’t be exploited (at least in my opinion). And there are many intelligent and educated people like my husband, who doesn’t bother to read ingredients when he picks something up at the store. He doesn’t realize that the extra salt or trans-fat could theoretically play havoc with his BP and kill him. He just “trusts” that what he buys is Ok to eat.

On 4/22/10 11:56 AM, " Albers" <stephenalbers> wrote:

I believe we all share the responsibility for the state of our food system. The consumer is king and if he demands better then the market place will provide it. Where the responsibility gets murky is with additives that are habit-forming like, sugar, salt and fat. Food companies , no doubt, exploit them even though they could not do so if the consumer refused to buy them. Public policy in demanding truth in advertising and limiting advertising of addictive substances as it does with tobacco plays a constructive roll. Each individual is responsible for what he consumes.

S.M. Albers

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10 06:09:00

[Guest guest]

You already told me how you feel about this.

Nothing wrong with different viewpoints if expressed without rancor or unembellished with inflammatory rhetoric. (Of course these viewpoints should be connected with health or food.) The original poster used words like “retarded”, and stated her personal political philosophy as if it were fact, not opinion.

I have gotten a couple of off-list e-mails objecting to my posts about this film and what is happening to our food supply, one of which was yours. I get the impression that neither of you has seen the film. If so, no fair putting in your .02 unless you’ve seen it. And IMHO everyone who eats should see it.

Coincidentally, NPR ran a segment on the radio that to “keep young” leave your mind open to differing ideas. That can be done if we all remain civil.

On 4/22/10 1:49 PM, " john roberts " <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

If we want to avoid political discussions, we need to avoid political topics. Personal responsibility vs. the government's role in food safety is a topic we should probably avoid if we wish to avoid comparative political philosophies.

While important food or nutrition information that is news to our relatively informed group may be scarce, if we wander into political philosophy we should expect different viewpoints to emerge.

JR

PS: I wrote then deleted 3 emails in the last 24 hrs, because you don't want to know how I feel about this (trust me).

On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

I don’t know if “each individual” is responsible. Food companies market to children, teens, illiterate people, uneducated people, elderly people, or who whoever will buy.

Granted parents can control what their kids eat at home, but you can’t watch your kids when they’re at school or away from home. Uneducated, poor, or old people shouldn’t be exploited (at least in my opinion). And there are many intelligent and educated people like my husband, who doesn’t bother to read ingredients when he picks something up at the store. He doesn’t realize that the extra salt or trans-fat could theoretically play havoc with his BP and kill him. He just “trusts” that what he buys is Ok to eat.

On 4/22/10 11:56 AM, " Albers " <stephen@...> wrote:

I believe we all share the responsibility for the state of our food system. The consumer is king and if he demands better then the market place will provide it. Where the responsibility gets murky is with additives that are habit-forming like, sugar, salt and fat. Food companies , no doubt, exploit them even though they could not do so if the consumer refused to buy them. Public policy in demanding truth in advertising and limiting advertising of addictive substances as it does with tobacco plays a constructive roll. Each individual is responsible for what he consumes.

S.M. Albers

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>

Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10 06:09:00

[Guest guest]

Not to start a dialog, I wrote you off list mainly about your "reining in wall street" comment. No I didn't see the film food nation? and have changed the channel when it or similar screed pops up on free tv. I haven't addressed it yet (I think) and don't plan to. I already hold the food industry in suitably low regard, but it is rational behavior for a profit motivated business. Note: I don't typically watch the evening news for similar reasons, too much scare tactic, not enough real news content. One need only look at a nation like China to appreciate the relative safety of our food supply and how much regulation we already have. That said it isn't perfect but we are way beyond the slaughter houses written about by Upton Sinclair in his classic novel, or out of control. .My sense is there is always plenty of real work to do, and little need to waste effort on stuff like fois gras (didn't Chicago outlaw that?) or sundry processed foods "we" consider unhealthy for other people to eat.I am personally irritated by the water pumped into modern chicken to make it weigh more at point of sale, and practices like feeding cattle the chicken droppings. I wish we had more grass fed beef available cheaply (it should be cheaper than gain fed, not more expensive), but grain fed tastes better and the consumer is driving that bus.JR PS: The only thing I ask from my government today, is to stop expanding and spending like topsy, and be smarter about what they do do, dee do do do.... Maybe a little less telling me what to do do do. I'm in the group due to be fined for not taking health insurance (don't get me started on that). On Apr 22, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

You already told me how you feel about this.

Nothing wrong with different viewpoints if expressed without rancor or unembellished with inflammatory rhetoric. (Of course these viewpoints should be connected with health or food.) The original poster used words like “retarded”, and stated her personal political philosophy as if it were fact, not opinion.

I have gotten a couple of off-list e-mails objecting to my posts about this film and what is happening to our food supply, one of which was yours. I get the impression that neither of you has seen the film. If so, no fair putting in your .02 unless you’ve seen it. And IMHO everyone who eats should see it.

Coincidentally, NPR ran a segment on the radio that to “keep young” leave your mind open to differing ideas. That can be done if we all remain civil.

On 4/22/10 1:49 PM, "john roberts" <robertsjohnhbellsouth (DOT) net> wrote:

If we want to avoid political discussions, we need to avoid political topics. Personal responsibility vs. the government's role in food safety is a topic we should probably avoid if we wish to avoid comparative political philosophies.

While important food or nutrition information that is news to our relatively informed group may be scarce, if we wander into political philosophy we should expect different viewpoints to emerge.

JR

PS: I wrote then deleted 3 emails in the last 24 hrs, because you don't want to know how I feel about this (trust me).

On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

I don’t know if “each individual” is responsible. Food companies market to children, teens, illiterate people, uneducated people, elderly people, or who whoever will buy.

Granted parents can control what their kids eat at home, but you can’t watch your kids when they’re at school or away from home. Uneducated, poor, or old people shouldn’t be exploited (at least in my opinion). And there are many intelligent and educated people like my husband, who doesn’t bother to read ingredients when he picks something up at the store. He doesn’t realize that the extra salt or trans-fat could theoretically play havoc with his BP and kill him. He just “trusts” that what he buys is Ok to eat.

On 4/22/10 11:56 AM, " Albers" <stephenalbers> wrote:

I believe we all share the responsibility for the state of our food system. The consumer is king and if he demands better then the market place will provide it. Where the responsibility gets murky is with additives that are habit-forming like, sugar, salt and fat. Food companies , no doubt, exploit them even though they could not do so if the consumer refused to buy them. Public policy in demanding truth in advertising and limiting advertising of addictive substances as it does with tobacco plays a constructive roll. Each individual is responsible for what he consumes.

S.M. Albers

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>

Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10 06:09:00

[Guest guest]

: I appreciate your reply. You give a sane, rational argument and I even agree with much of it.

But what is this comment from Rod: : the “loony left”? Must you stoop to name-calling?

Perhaps was right and we can’t have a civil discourse after all.

On 4/22/10 3:13 PM, " john roberts " <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

Not to start a dialog, I wrote you off list mainly about your " reining in wall street " comment.

No I didn't see the film food nation? and have changed the channel when it or similar screed pops up on free tv. I haven't addressed it yet (I think) and don't plan to. I already hold the food industry in suitably low regard, but it is rational behavior for a profit motivated business. Note: I don't typically watch the evening news for similar reasons, too much scare tactic, not enough real news content.

One need only look at a nation like China to appreciate the relative safety of our food supply and how much regulation we already have. That said it isn't perfect but we are way beyond the slaughter houses written about by Upton Sinclair in his classic novel, or out of control. .

My sense is there is always plenty of real work to do, and little need to waste effort on stuff like fois gras (didn't Chicago outlaw that?) or sundry processed foods " we " consider unhealthy for other people to eat.

I am personally irritated by the water pumped into modern chicken to make it weigh more at point of sale, and practices like feeding cattle the chicken droppings. I wish we had more grass fed beef available cheaply (it should be cheaper than gain fed, not more expensive), but grain fed tastes better and the consumer is driving that bus.

JR

PS: The only thing I ask from my government today, is to stop expanding and spending like topsy, and be smarter about what they do do, dee do do do.... Maybe a little less telling me what to do do do. I'm in the group due to be fined for not taking health insurance (don't get me started on that).

On Apr 22, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

You already told me how you feel about this.

Nothing wrong with different viewpoints if expressed without rancor or unembellished with inflammatory rhetoric. (Of course these viewpoints should be connected with health or food.) The original poster used words like “retarded”, and stated her personal political philosophy as if it were fact, not opinion.

I have gotten a couple of off-list e-mails objecting to my posts about this film and what is happening to our food supply, one of which was yours. I get the impression that neither of you has seen the film. If so, no fair putting in your .02 unless you’ve seen it. And IMHO everyone who eats should see it.

Coincidentally, NPR ran a segment on the radio that to “keep young” leave your mind open to differing ideas. That can be done if we all remain civil.

On 4/22/10 1:49 PM, " john roberts " <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

If we want to avoid political discussions, we need to avoid political topics. Personal responsibility vs. the government's role in food safety is a topic we should probably avoid if we wish to avoid comparative political philosophies.

While important food or nutrition information that is news to our relatively informed group may be scarce, if we wander into political philosophy we should expect different viewpoints to emerge.

JR

PS: I wrote then deleted 3 emails in the last 24 hrs, because you don't want to know how I feel about this (trust me).

On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

I don’t know if “each individual” is responsible. Food companies market to children, teens, illiterate people, uneducated people, elderly people, or who whoever will buy.

Granted parents can control what their kids eat at home, but you can’t watch your kids when they’re at school or away from home. Uneducated, poor, or old people shouldn’t be exploited (at least in my opinion). And there are many intelligent and educated people like my husband, who doesn’t bother to read ingredients when he picks something up at the store. He doesn’t realize that the extra salt or trans-fat could theoretically play havoc with his BP and kill him. He just “trusts” that what he buys is Ok to eat.

On 4/22/10 11:56 AM, " Albers " <stephen@...> wrote:

I believe we all share the responsibility for the state of our food system. The consumer is king and if he demands better then the market place will provide it. Where the responsibility gets murky is with additives that are habit-forming like, sugar, salt and fat. Food companies , no doubt, exploit them even though they could not do so if the consumer refused to buy them. Public policy in demanding truth in advertising and limiting advertising of addictive substances as it does with tobacco plays a constructive roll. Each individual is responsible for what he consumes.

S.M. Albers

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com/>

Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10 06:09:00

[Guest guest]

You can enforce against ad hominum, but why do we want to discuss politics? It is common when arguing about politics to get frustrated by debating questions that don't have factual answers. It can't be proved what will happen in the future, or even what people's motives are. Therefore most political arguments are based on emotional not rational appeals. This often deteriorates into name calling and invective. One popular saying about politics is that name calling is proof you have already lost the argument, while realistically it means you have lost patience and are not going to negotiate any common ground with people you insult. It's tough enough trying to parse out a few truths from the noise surrounding nutrition in the popular press. JRPS: thank you for your efforts as mod... be careful what you wish for,.On Apr 22, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

: I appreciate your reply. You give a sane, rational argument and I even agree with much of it.

But what is this comment from Rod: : the “loony left”? Must you stoop to name-calling?

Perhaps was right and we can’t have a civil discourse after all.

On 4/22/10 3:13 PM, "john roberts" <robertsjohnhbellsouth (DOT) net> wrote:

Not to start a dialog, I wrote you off list mainly about your "reining in wall street" comment.

No I didn't see the film food nation? and have changed the channel when it or similar screed pops up on free tv. I haven't addressed it yet (I think) and don't plan to. I already hold the food industry in suitably low regard, but it is rational behavior for a profit motivated business. Note: I don't typically watch the evening news for similar reasons, too much scare tactic, not enough real news content.

One need only look at a nation like China to appreciate the relative safety of our food supply and how much regulation we already have. That said it isn't perfect but we are way beyond the slaughter houses written about by Upton Sinclair in his classic novel, or out of control. .

My sense is there is always plenty of real work to do, and little need to waste effort on stuff like fois gras (didn't Chicago outlaw that?) or sundry processed foods "we" consider unhealthy for other people to eat.

I am personally irritated by the water pumped into modern chicken to make it weigh more at point of sale, and practices like feeding cattle the chicken droppings. I wish we had more grass fed beef available cheaply (it should be cheaper than gain fed, not more expensive), but grain fed tastes better and the consumer is driving that bus.

JR

PS: The only thing I ask from my government today, is to stop expanding and spending like topsy, and be smarter about what they do do, dee do do do.... Maybe a little less telling me what to do do do. I'm in the group due to be fined for not taking health insurance (don't get me started on that).

On Apr 22, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

You already told me how you feel about this.

Nothing wrong with different viewpoints if expressed without rancor or unembellished with inflammatory rhetoric. (Of course these viewpoints should be connected with health or food.) The original poster used words like “retarded”, and stated her personal political philosophy as if it were fact, not opinion.

I have gotten a couple of off-list e-mails objecting to my posts about this film and what is happening to our food supply, one of which was yours. I get the impression that neither of you has seen the film. If so, no fair putting in your .02 unless you’ve seen it. And IMHO everyone who eats should see it.

Coincidentally, NPR ran a segment on the radio that to “keep young” leave your mind open to differing ideas. That can be done if we all remain civil.

On 4/22/10 1:49 PM, "john roberts" <robertsjohnhbellsouth (DOT) net> wrote:

If we want to avoid political discussions, we need to avoid political topics. Personal responsibility vs. the government's role in food safety is a topic we should probably avoid if we wish to avoid comparative political philosophies.

While important food or nutrition information that is news to our relatively informed group may be scarce, if we wander into political philosophy we should expect different viewpoints to emerge.

JR

PS: I wrote then deleted 3 emails in the last 24 hrs, because you don't want to know how I feel about this (trust me).

On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

I don’t know if “each individual” is responsible. Food companies market to children, teens, illiterate people, uneducated people, elderly people, or who whoever will buy.

Granted parents can control what their kids eat at home, but you can’t watch your kids when they’re at school or away from home. Uneducated, poor, or old people shouldn’t be exploited (at least in my opinion). And there are many intelligent and educated people like my husband, who doesn’t bother to read ingredients when he picks something up at the store. He doesn’t realize that the extra salt or trans-fat could theoretically play havoc with his BP and kill him. He just “trusts” that what he buys is Ok to eat.

On 4/22/10 11:56 AM, " Albers" <stephenalbers> wrote:

I believe we all share the responsibility for the state of our food system. The consumer is king and if he demands better then the market place will provide it. Where the responsibility gets murky is with additives that are habit-forming like, sugar, salt and fat. Food companies , no doubt, exploit them even though they could not do so if the consumer refused to buy them. Public policy in demanding truth in advertising and limiting advertising of addictive substances as it does with tobacco plays a constructive roll. Each individual is responsible for what he consumes.

S.M. Albers

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com/>

Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10 06:09:00

[Guest guest]

The documentary is called “Food, Inc.” and it’s about how our food is grown, and livestock raised to produce more in less time. This includes much of the food that we CRONIES eat such as fish and poultry (I recall the study that people who eat fish and poultry live longer). As I mentioned the other day, I recently purchased fresh scallops that were obviously injected with salt water, not only salty, but inedible! I would call that deceptive marketing at the very least.

Although I am not a conservative (obviously), I regularly watch Fox. I say this because if you don’t or won’t watch the movie, how can you know enough to comment? Even though we in this group know a lot about food and health, this movie is an eye- opener.

BTW, the movie places its’ emphasis on personal responsibility and buying wisely so I don’t understand why anyone, would object for political reasons.

On 4/22/10 3:13 PM, " john roberts " <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

Not to start a dialog, I wrote you off list mainly about your " reining in wall street " comment.

No I didn't see the film food nation? and have changed the channel when it or similar screed pops up on free tv. I haven't addressed it yet (I think) and don't plan to. I already hold the food industry in suitably low regard, but it is rational behavior for a profit motivated business. Note: I don't typically watch the evening news for similar reasons, too much scare tactic, not enough real news content.

One need only look at a nation like China to appreciate the relative safety of our food supply and how much regulation we already have. That said it isn't perfect but we are way beyond the slaughter houses written about by Upton Sinclair in his classic novel, or out of control. .

My sense is there is always plenty of real work to do, and little need to waste effort on stuff like fois gras (didn't Chicago outlaw that?) or sundry processed foods " we " consider unhealthy for other people to eat.

I am personally irritated by the water pumped into modern chicken to make it weigh more at point of sale, and practices like feeding cattle the chicken droppings. I wish we had more grass fed beef available cheaply (it should be cheaper than gain fed, not more expensive), but grain fed tastes better and the consumer is driving that bus.

JR

PS: The only thing I ask from my government today, is to stop expanding and spending like topsy, and be smarter about what they do do, dee do do do.... Maybe a little less telling me what to do do do. I'm in the group due to be fined for not taking health insurance (don't get me started on that).

On Apr 22, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

You already told me how you feel about this.

Nothing wrong with different viewpoints if expressed without rancor or unembellished with inflammatory rhetoric. (Of course these viewpoints should be connected with health or food.) The original poster used words like “retarded”, and stated her personal political philosophy as if it were fact, not opinion.

I have gotten a couple of off-list e-mails objecting to my posts about this film and what is happening to our food supply, one of which was yours. I get the impression that neither of you has seen the film. If so, no fair putting in your .02 unless you’ve seen it. And IMHO everyone who eats should see it.

Coincidentally, NPR ran a segment on the radio that to “keep young” leave your mind open to differing ideas. That can be done if we all remain civil.

On 4/22/10 1:49 PM, " john roberts " <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

If we want to avoid political discussions, we need to avoid political topics. Personal responsibility vs. the government's role in food safety is a topic we should probably avoid if we wish to avoid comparative political philosophies.

While important food or nutrition information that is news to our relatively informed group may be scarce, if we wander into political philosophy we should expect different viewpoints to emerge.

JR

PS: I wrote then deleted 3 emails in the last 24 hrs, because you don't want to know how I feel about this (trust me).

On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

I don’t know if “each individual” is responsible. Food companies market to children, teens, illiterate people, uneducated people, elderly people, or who whoever will buy.

Granted parents can control what their kids eat at home, but you can’t watch your kids when they’re at school or away from home. Uneducated, poor, or old people shouldn’t be exploited (at least in my opinion). And there are many intelligent and educated people like my husband, who doesn’t bother to read ingredients when he picks something up at the store. He doesn’t realize that the extra salt or trans-fat could theoretically play havoc with his BP and kill him. He just “trusts” that what he buys is Ok to eat.

On 4/22/10 11:56 AM, " Albers " <stephen@...> wrote:

I believe we all share the responsibility for the state of our food system. The consumer is king and if he demands better then the market place will provide it. Where the responsibility gets murky is with additives that are habit-forming like, sugar, salt and fat. Food companies , no doubt, exploit them even though they could not do so if the consumer refused to buy them. Public policy in demanding truth in advertising and limiting advertising of addictive substances as it does with tobacco plays a constructive roll. Each individual is responsible for what he consumes.

S.M. Albers

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com/>

Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10 06:09:00

[Guest guest]

Rod: My post which you are referring to below (from which the date was omitted) was from 4/22 – 6 days ago. If I wanted to “continue” this discussion, certainly I would have in the intervening 6 days. So you are mistaken. I do not. I did continue it with you off list and even admitted that it may have been a mistake to inject politics into our group (even though related to health). So it is puzzling to me why you would start this up again (this is rhetorical -please do not respond).

I do not agree with many of your remarks below which are your own (conservative) slant. Or the order in which you state things happened. But that aside, insults or name calling are not acceptable here. And although discussing politics (as related to food/health) may be murky, that rule IS crystal clear.

Every viewpoint (even your “loony left” post ), was posted on the board, conservative and liberal, not just mine; everyone had their say. You did, did, I did, etc. A second, insulting post by the original poster (ordinarily banned here) was even allowed through. So drop it Rod. You’ve had more than your fair share of political discourse/insults on this subject.

Unfortunately there is a gray line between food regulation and politics. In the future Diane and I (the moderators here) WILL draw a line. Our first duty is to keep the board sane and civil.

I am not perfect. I had assumed we could calmly discuss health issues that involve politics calmly. Apparently not.

On 4/28/10 4:16 PM, " perspect1111 " <perspect1111@...> wrote:

Hi Francesca:

Since you seem to want to continue this discussion (as below), let me review the posts which led up to my " Loony Left " remark.

The first post in this series (28894) was by you about an article regarding the FDA plan to try to regulate salt. No problem. Useful information. Thank you.

This was followed by a post (28904) by 'fasjroew...' which said that the idea was retarded because it was unlikely to do much to reduce salt intake as people who liked salt would continue to add it to their foods. That post also included the phrase " ..... ever increasing cost of government intrusion .... " .

You, apparently, went ballistic at this rather simple explanation why it might be better not to regulate salt (I do not have an opinion as to whether it should be regulated or not). In your next post (28905) you said all of the following:

1. " I welcome government intrusion. "

2. " Rein in Wall Street " .

3. " Corporations interested in profits only "

4. " I'll take higher taxes "

5. " Your personal political opinions are inappropriate here. "

6. " We like to deal in facts here, not opinions. "

Point 1. above was political but a perfectly appropriate response to the post it was replying to, IMO.

But point 2. was overtly political.

Point 3. was also overtly political.

Point 4. was also political, but not more so than post 28904.

Point 5. above *sounds* to me like a Freudian slip. The " YOUR " - addressed to fasjroew - (my capitalization) sounds to me like you believe that political opinions that do not agree with Francesca's are inappropriate. But " mine " (Francesca's or those Francesca agrees with) are OK.

Point 6. is comical. You had just dumped a ton of your own personal political opinion on us earlier in the same post, then you say personal opinions are inappropriate.

But you weren't even able to stop there. You then posted another left wing political rant (28912), where you said:

1. " Workers treated inhumanely "

2. " All in the name of profits "

3. " Small farmers forced out "

4. " Big corporations "

5. " Fast=food giants "

All of these are, quite obviously to any reasonable observer, overtly political statements. And you made them shortly after you had stated that: " .... political opinions are inappropriate here " .

ly I found this ridiculous. And that is why I made my " Loony Left " remark. That post was a mild attempt to alert you to the fact that your knowledge of how the economy functions is severely limited, especially in respect to how it is western civilization economies - largely free markets - have functioned to generate the highest living standards the world has ever known.

---------------

The above said, I realize that is YOUR site. And that you have worked long and hard over many years to maintain it as a top rate provider of serious health information. And, since it is your site, you are entitled to set whatever rules you want. If it is your intention that your political opinions - or those you agree with - may be freely expressed but those you do not agree with may not be, then perhaps that should be stated at the outset in the rules. I would prefer no political input at this site. But I am beginning to wonder if you realize just how far to the left of centre the views you have expressed here are located. Indeed, that you continue to express them even after you have clearly stated that political posts are not appropriate, seems to suggest that you do not believe the views you are expressing are even political.

So, Francesca, tell us what the rules are with regard to political views, and whether you consider yourself also to be bound by them. Then we will all know where we stand. But I have to say that if I see further political rants like those of yours noted above, then you should not be surpised to find me explaining why the view makes no sense, by providing the opposite side of the argument, as I did for one small aspect of the matter at hand in all but the final paragraph of my " Loony Left " post(28917, I think).

Thank you.

Rodney.

> >>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> I believe we all share the responsibility for the state of our food

> >>>>> system. The consumer is king and if he demands better then the market

> >>>>> place will provide it. Where the responsibility gets murky is with

> >>>>> additives that are habit-forming like, sugar, salt and fat. Food

> >>>>> companies , no doubt, exploit them even though they could not do so if the

> >>>>> consumer refused to buy them. Public policy in demanding truth in

> >>>>> advertising and limiting advertising of addictive substances as it does

> >>>>> with tobacco plays a constructive roll. Each individual is responsible

> >>>>> for what he consumes.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> S.M. Albers

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.

> >>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com>

> >>>>> <http://www.avg.com/>

> >>>>> Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10

> >>>>> 06:09:00

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that she "doesn't" actually want to continue this discussion. I know I don't want to read more about politics here. (written before Fran's response}We are all probably a little guilty of thinking different political viewpoints arise between otherwise intelligent people because they just haven't been exposed to the same information we have. The reality is intelligent, thoughtful people can draw different conclusions from the same observable data. The topic of how government affects our food supply is probably fair game to discuss here. We just need to be respectful of each other's opinions, and try to stick to facts. it is much harder to argue about facts. ====Here is a tidbit (fact) from today's news. The crop-biotech industry has watched approval times for new seeds almost double under the current administration, slowing new seed releases and giving farmers less alternatives to industry giant Monsanto. The reasons for this delay are several, but they are asking for a 46% larger budget. =====Another tidbit from the news is yet another all too familiar article suggesting that being a little (10 pounds) overweight does not correlate with earlier death. They actually reported a benefit for those in their 70's (note: correlation does not prove causation). Blasphemy... They must not know what we know.. despite all their data showing otherwise. :-) I find it hard to argue with their claim that extra weight is helpful in preserving bone mass. JR On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:16 PM, perspect1111 wrote:

Hi Francesca:

Since you seem to want to continue this discussion (as below), let me review the posts which led up to my "Loony Left" remark.