mfioretti: big food*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

55 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. They conclude that “If Americans reduced their mean beef consumption from the current ~460g per person per week to ~200g per person per week, the US beef industry could become environmentally sustainable by the narrow definition of this paper.” Easy. Just have one weekly burger instead of two.
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/...e-sustainable-cut-beef-eating-in-half
    Voting 0
  2. Ti sei mai chiesto quali tipologie e quante tipologie di traffico illegale sostieni con la tua alimentazione?
    In che modo riesci a non essere un peso per l’ecosistema e per gli altri tuoi simili, alimentandoti?

    Spero tu non abbia mai addentato una fettina di carne, perché esiste un vero e proprio sfruttamento dei lavoratori anche nell’industria dello smontaggio animale.
    Pensa, nel 2013 si parlò di operai pagati 3 euro l’ora, una paga quasi inferiore a quella percepita dagli operatori dei call center. Con la differenza che nei call center non c’è puzza di budella né ci si sporca di sangue.
    Spero tu non abbia mai digerito un chilo di carne, perché in quel momento hai privato ai tuoi simili ben 15 kg di cereali e 15000 litri di acqua potabile. Sempre riferendomi alla carne, spero non sia fra i tuoi consumi anche per motivi ambientali: secondo la Fao(Food and Agricolture Organization of the United Nation) l’allevamento determina una quantità di emissioni di gas serra (18%) più alta dei trasporti (13%). Altri studi invece stimano che considerando tutto il ciclo dell’allevamento l’impatto possa addirittura superare il 50% del totale.

    Mi auguro tu non abbia mai gustato una tartina coi gamberetti: mangiandola avresti sentito il retrogusto di schiavitù minorile, della tratta di umani costretti a lavorare sui barconi o di persone buttate in mare e ammazzate se osano ribellarsi. Gamberetti che finiscono poi dritti nei mangimi impiegati negli allevamenti di animali nei paesi ricchi.
    Hai mai mangiato animali allevati che a loro volta hanno mangiato questi mangimi?

    Avrai sicuramente evitato come eviteresti un vegano a cena l’acquisto di un qualsiasi tipo di alimento o bene di consumo proveniente da multinazionali che incatenano esseri umani e devastano l’ambiente. Giusto? Oppure no?

    Se rifletti bene, tu, ma anche gli altri che come te hanno in qualche modo provato soddisfazione nel credere veritiere le cose che hai scritto, in questa gara a chi è meno etico non hai alcuna vittoria contro quelli che tu definisci “adepti”.

    La verità è che è troppo facile vedere gli errori altrui dimenticandosi dei propri.
    Fino a poco prima dell’impennata che ha avuto l’alimentazione vegan eravate tutti impegnati a fare altro. Magicamente, adesso che esistono milioni di persone a cui importa seriamente qualcosa, vi sentite minacciati.
    Ed essendo molto più semplice criticare quell’ipotetico “poco” fanno gli altri anziché muoversi e dimostrare di saper fare di meglio, state li a criticare.
    Perché agire, anziché parlare, fa fatica.
    https://carmenluciano.com/2017/09/20/...in-risposta-allarticolo-di-the-vision
    Voting 0
  3. The implications of this study are important. Only 2% of Americans do not eat any animal products. (This number has not changed appreciably for 20 years). Further, the fact that five out of six vegetarians go back to eating meat suggests that an all-veggie diet is very hard for most people to maintain over the long haul. Hence, the authors of the report argue that animal protectionists would be better off concentrating their efforts to persuade “the many” to reduce their consumption of flesh than trying to convince “the few” to take the absolutist route and give up meat completely. Sounds right to me.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...egetarians-and-vegans-return-meat-why
    Voting 0
  4. The TPP is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive trade agreement between 12 countries — the United States, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru — that has been coined by anti-TPP activists as NAFTA on steroids. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) was a trade agreement signed in 1994 by the United States, Mexico and Canada that displaced over 2 million farmers and agricultural workers in Mexico. Family farmers in the United States and Canada also struggled and lost income while large-scale farmers and agricultural corporations thrived. The TPP is expected to have similar effects on a much larger scale.

    The government and mainstream media have reported that the TPP will benefit the agriculture sector. But what they are not saying is that the sector of the agriculture system that will benefit is the industrial system that harms people and the planet.

    The United States is highly reliant on industrial agriculture, which means those 12 countries going into the agreement will be pitting their small-scale farmers against our large-scale farming practices. This will force small-scale farmers out of business and off their lands strengthening the industrial agricultural machine. The industrial food system drives climate change; we cannot break our reliance on industrial food without first breaking our reliance on unjust free trade agreements. So it is not the organic, regenerative, biodiverse farmer who provides your CSA or morning coffee who will benefit.
    http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2016/aug/25-0
    Voting 0
  5. You probably don’t cook with it at home, but the odds are good that you’re eating carrageenan. Made from seaweed, carrageenan is used as a thickener, stabilizer, and emulsifying agent to keep the ingredients in many soft, creamy, and liquid products from separating. (Think: nondairy milks, salad dressing, ice cream, cottage cheese, sour cream, chocolate milk, etc.). Food manufacturers also say it helps increase shelf-life.

    Now, after years of debate about the health risks associated with the additive, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will soon decide whether to continue allowing carrageenan in organic food. In fact, it will be a hot topic when the agency’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meets in St. Louis later this month.

    Not surprisingly, the companies that make and use carrageenan say it’s safe. But many food safety advocates say the science on carrageenan’s potential to cause gastrointestinal inflammation and other adverse heath effects raises serious concerns.
    http://civileats.com/2016/11/08/carrageenan-is-everywhere-is-it-safe
    Voting 0
  6. Agriculture policy since then has followed these recommendations, slowly dismantling support programs that had made midsize family farms viable, including effective supply management through price floors, a crop reserve, and conservation incentives. Instead, Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz famously directed farmers to plant “fencerow to fencerow,” flooding the market with grain and driving down prices. If farmers couldn’t survive the price drops, Butz encouraged them to “get big or get out.” And so they did: the number of farms dropped from nearly 4.8 million in 1954 to 2.1 million by 1990.

    The policies enacted in the 1950s and ’60s came to a head in the ’80s, when the weakened farm support system combined with inflation, a bad export market, and collapsed land and commodity prices in what became known as “the farm crisis.”

    Over a quarter of a million farms were lost in the 1980s, the land was sold to larger operations, families were forced to move, and lifelong farmers were pushed into new jobs (or lack thereof). At least a million people were displaced from their homes and livelihoods in just 10 years—in many cases from land their families had farmed for generations. As the farmers left, so did the Main Streets and manufacturing businesses that had relied on them. Whole towns died off in the course of a decade.

    Throughout the crisis, rural America felt abandoned. Communities were going through catastrophic loss and the rest of the country didn’t seem to care. Many foreclosures were purposefully accelerated by the government lending agency that held their loans, and some were done illegally and without normal due process procedures—at the behest of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials.

    President Reagan made deep cuts in price supports and rural development programs, and joked that he had found a solution to the farm crisis

    For its part, today’s mostly urban-based food movement has been examining what passes for agriculture and rural policy in the Presidential platforms and putting forth a platform of its own. The movement has changed the national conversation about food, but it “barely exists as a political force in Washington,” as Michael Pollan recently observed, and it’s not a strong cultural force in rural America, where corporate agriculture groups have painted good food advocates as “out-of-touch city elites.”

    Feeding into the stereotype is the food movement’s relative silence on the larger implications of farm policy that rural America lives with everyday—from the festering rage that threatens to destabilize the country to the extraordinary economic inefficiencies of today’s system. Remember those dismantled supply management programs? A University of Tennessee/National Farmers Union study found that if just one of those—a farmer-owned crop reserve—had still been in place from 1998 to 2010, rather than the subsidy system cobbled together to patch the holes it left behind, taxpayers would have saved almost $96 billion, while giving farmers higher and more stable prices and keeping food prices more stable for consumers. But neither candidates nor most advocates are talking about anything of the kind.

    With our national character and that kind of money at stake, perhaps it’s time to take another look at what’s been happening in rural America and the very real policy decisions that led to its decline. Agriculture policy is bigger than food; it has consequences for the health and stability of the nation. And failing to address the policy solutions that could make real changes in the lives of many desperate rural Americans will likely continue to make them feel ignored and forgotten enough to seek answers in a demagogue.
    http://civileats.com/2016/10/27/want-...derstand-trumps-rise-head-to-the-farm
    Voting 0
  7. A third of all food produced is wasted. 842 million people are starving. We have lost 75% of our biodiversity. In the US there are 8 times more antibiotics sold for industrial farming than to hospitals. Cancers and other health issues are booming. There are less and less nutrients in food. Climate change threatens the future of our planet. There are 400 dead zones in the ocean, with no marine life left. Food packagings contribute to that 7th continent made of waste, in the middle of the ocean. 370 000 farmers commit suicide every year using pesticides. … So one must ask the question: isn’t the food system broken?
    http://magazine.ouishare.net/2015/11/...communities-the-third-food-revolution
    Voting 0
  8. Despite the potential of our land, Greece now imports the majority of its food and on average we are the second most obese people in the EU. These abnormalities are largely attributable to the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy, which has supported the growth and development of a very narrow range of large-scale monocultures, almost entirely for export purposes. The failures of the CAP have had a profound effect not only on our food culture and agricultural skills, but also on the landscape of the country. In just three decades, Greece has lost most of its local agricultural varieties and almost all of its dry land, low-input agriculture was pushed out of the market. In Crete, a large number of two-thousand-year-old olive trees were turned into firewood, within a very short period of time.
    http://www.arc2020.eu/2015/06/focus-on-greece-with-pavlos-georgiadis
    Voting 0
  9. la Commissione Europea glissa su tutte le possibili perdite economiche che potrebbero esserci con il Ttip, e per di più sostiene che esso non provocherebbe “deroghe sugli standard agroalimentari europei”. In verità, nei testi di posizionamento ‪Ttip dell’Ue il riferimento unico per la qualità degli alimenti è il Codex Alimentarius. Peccato che i criteri usati dal Codex siano più bassi rispetto alle soglie indicate dall’Ue, ad esempio per i residui di pesticidi nei piatti (come la Ractopamina) di cui si è discusso in un summit del Consiglio europeo nell’Ottobre 2012 in Lussemburgo. Ma l’esplicito riferimento al Codex fa sì che ogni variazione più restrittiva possa essere considerata ‘distorsiva del mercato‘ e per questo sanzionata.

    Un punto specifico merita l’Isds, l’Arbitrato internazionale sugli investimenti. Secondo molti, tremila accordi già lo prevedono e anche l’Italia lo ha previsto nei suoi accordi bilaterali sugli investimenti. L’Italia ha concluso 91 accordi bilaterali sugli investimenti, la stragrande maggioranza dei quali con Paesi in via di sviluppo. Quindi l’inserimento dell’Isds nel Ttip è un cambio sostanziale anche per il nostro Paese. L’unico accordo effettivamente cogente oggi è l’Energy Charter Treaty (Ect) sull’energia, dove l’Italia si è appena beccata una denuncia per la legge di ridimensionamento degli incentivi sul fotovoltaico, nel silenzio pneumatico del governo. Ma l’Isds incide sul diritto di regolamentare di uno Stato? In parte sì. Un arbitrato sia privato (come è attualmente) sia pubblico (come proposto dalla Commissione Ue) rende legalmente vincolante il concetto di soft law.

    Mentre le corti giuridiche convenzionali si rifanno alla legislazione vigente, con l’Isds valgono i termini contrattuali dell’accordo stipulato, dove sono inserite clausole che non necessariamente si ritrovano nelle leggi nazionali e su cui una corte giuridica convenzionale non può intervenire. In questo l’ambiguità del concetto di ‘investimento’ e di ‘esproprio indiretto’ permette ai giudici arbitrali di inserire come norme da sanzionare elementi collegati alle politiche dei Paesi.

    Allora: ‘protezionismo’ o ‘liberismo’? La risposta sta nel mezzo, si chiama ‘politica economica‘: grande spauracchio dei liberisti d’ogni dove. Gli Usa, campioni del liberismo, hanno usato tutti gli strumenti che avevano (anche il ‘Buy American’, che permette un sostegno all’economia locale tramite gli appalti pubblici, nel mirino del Ttip) per uscire dalla crisi economica. Politiche attive come nei Paesi emergenti, che dosano mercato e politiche economiche per orientare e programmare il proprio sviluppo.

    Questo non sta facendo l’Europa, che accompagna alle misure di austerity politiche di sostegno all’esportazione e di apertura dei mercati che sempre di più ci legheranno alle scelte dei consumatori di altri Paesi e all’andamento altalenante dei tassi di cambio.
    http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/...otivi-documentati-per-opporsi/1811607
    Voting 0
  10. Modern trade agreements have less to do with trade than with sovereignty. The primary focus of modern trade agreements is the elimination of existing national and subnational laws that regulate commerce.

    The decision about whether a country can force the livestock industry to reveal where their animals were reared and slaughtered is behind us. Currently under consideration by the WTO is whether a country can force businesses that sell a lethal product to make the packaging of that product unattractive.
    http://www.alternet.org/messing-our-f...re-evidence-obamas-disinformation-tpp
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 6 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: big food

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle