Food politics

Michael Odom said:

On Wed, 26 May 2004 08:28:50 -0400, Nancy Young

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I couldn't believe you really meant that, I thought I
*must* really have missed your point. It's so ridiculous
I don't know what to say in response. At the very least I
don't owe anyone profits on the stocks they choose. Not
even family members. Like, oh, my brother has Dominoes
stock, let me order one of their disgusting pizzas?
Sorry, bro, that's a no.

Quoted message said:

Nancy, I own a few shares of Seven Eleven, and I'm beggin
you to buy a Big Gulp. Please. Do it for me.

(laugh!) Hey, if it puts 1 1,000,000,000,000,000th of a cent
in your pocket, well, I'll try to find one and accomodate
you. You can pay off the house or whatever.

nancy

MrAoD said:

I've got a strange form of lactose intolerance, based on
available evidence.

Aged cheeses don't bother me in the least. I simply can't
digest milk or processed cheese like cream cheese or
American cheese (not that I care for the taste of the
latter).

Not odd at all. Hard cheeses have very little lactose.
Only someone with an extreme case would have trouble
digesting those. (Or someone who has misdiagnosed himself
and thinks he's lactose intolerent when the problem lies
elsewhere.) Soft cheeses like cream cheese and yogurt have
almost as much lactose as whole milk-- or more if the
cream (butterfat) has been removed leaving proportionally
more lactose.

--Lia

MrAoD said:

Nancy Young said:

MrAoD said:

and I finally worked up my courage to try the lactose-
intolerant relief

pills.

Quoted message said:

Woo-hah, corn chowder here I come.

Do they work well? I bought them once, they were rather
expensive and you had to take like eight of them or
something. Just curious.

I've got a strange form of lactose intolerance, based on
available evidence.

Aged cheeses don't bother me in the least. I simply can't
digest milk or processed cheese like cream cheese or
American cheese (not that I care for the taste of the
latter).

Nothing strange about that. Aged cheeses (which often start
with fermented milk) and fermented milk products (yoghurt,
kefir etc) contain very little or no lactose at all.

Julia Altshuler wrote: (snipped)

Quoted message said:

Soft cheeses like cream cheese and yogurt have almost as
much lactose as whole milk-- or more if the cream
(butterfat) has been removed leaving proportionally more
lactose.

--Lia

Acually, yogurt has very little lactose, which is why many
lactose intolerant folks can eat it. The live bacterial
cultures in yogurt produce lactase, which in turn breaks
down or "digests" the lactose.

~a

Jonski <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Another poster on this newsgroup won't use lard/fat for
cooking, as it doesn't match their food politics. Fair
enough, I say.

I was wondering though, what sort of things won't people
eat, for political (not religoius) reasons. I'm not
interested in kosha or halal but more the kind of thing
like not eating foie gras.

Anything "politically correct" - bean sprouts, anything made
of soy, anything "low-fat", etc.

Quoted message said:

Obviously, there's the vegetarian (lacto-ovo additional) /
vegan thing, but what else is out there?

Does not eating McD's count as food politics? For reason
or just for taste?

Is not eating (say) dog political, cultural or
something else?

Are vegetarians going to change the world? Meat is
murder, right?

Answers on the back of a postcard please...

Cheers Jon

PS No, I'm not trolling, I _am_ genuinely curious.

Jonski said:

Does not eating McD's count as food politics? For reason or
just for taste?

There's a west coast burger franchise called In 'n Out
Burgers that I will eat at before ANY other fast food place
(which I generally avoid anymore anyways). They are one of
the few outfits that pay their workers a decent starting
wage and, get this, benefits. What's more, they literally
"cut" their fries fresh during the day (undoubtedly through
a potato water gun thingie, but still-- it's not frozen
spuds.) and have a large crew on shifts. It helps that the
food tastes better than the other FF places, but knowing
they generally "do right" by their employees makes me seek
them out while avoiding others.

Political enough?

I have to respond to the original poster of this thread who
asked if not eating McD's was considered to be a "political"
statement.

I belong to the camp who feels that fast food was a good
idea long ago. Now, we know better.

Research has proven that fries and burgers are just plain
bad for us. So why continue to serve them? Why do people
continue to eat this staple on a daily basis?

Why do fast food restaurants that serve unhealthy food
continue to draw a profit?

It's because the profit-oriented fast food restaurants know
that there are people who are not capable of harvesting the
fruits of research. This "Kerry" crowd is truly the victim
of corporate America.

Cindy Fuller <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jonski said:

Another poster on this newsgroup won't use lard/fat for
cooking, as it doesn't match their food politics. Fair
enough, I say.

I was wondering though, what sort of things won't people
eat, for political (not religoius) reasons. I'm not
interested in kosha or halal but more the kind of thing
like not eating foie gras.

Not eating dog, horse, or foie gras is a cultural/animal
rights issue. Not eating at McDonald's or Burger King is a
nutritional/food quality issue, at least for me. Not
eating Domino's pizza is my food politics issue, because
the founder/head honcho holds views and funds causes
diametrically opposed to my views and causes. One can
argue that the franchisee in my neighborhood may be a good
Seattle liberal, but a portion of those profits still go
back into the head honcho's pockets.

Cindy

Not eating McDonald's or other fast food burgers can also
be an environmental statement. Beef raised in areas of
tropical rainforest cleared for cattle grazing often ends
up in those burgers.

Sandi

"Sean Berger" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
"]news:[email hidden]...
What's more,

Quoted message said:

they literally "cut" their fries fresh during the day
(undoubtedly through a potato water gun thingie, but still--
it's not frozen spuds.) and have a large crew on shifts.

I happen to be fortunate enough to live in a town with an
In-N-Out, and I've been through the drive-through a few
times. At this particular place, you can see what's going on
inside. They do actually cut the fries on-site, using
something that looks like a manual potato press, if that
makes any sense to anyone...

Cindy Fuller said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jonski said:

Another poster on this newsgroup won't use lard/fat for
cooking, as it doesn't match their food politics. Fair
enough, I say.

I was wondering though, what sort of things won't people
eat, for political (not religoius) reasons. I'm not
interested in kosha or halal but more the kind of thing
like not eating foie gras.

Not eating dog, horse, or foie gras is a cultural/animal
rights issue. Not eating at McDonald's or Burger King is a
nutritional/food quality issue, at least for me. Not eating
Domino's pizza is my food politics issue, because the
founder/head honcho holds views and funds causes
diametrically opposed to my views and causes. One can argue
that the franchisee in my neighborhood may be a good
Seattle liberal, but a portion of those profits still go
back into the head honcho's pockets.

I don't eat dog or horse because I haven't been in a good
restaurant the serves either one. If I were invited to lunch
at the Harvard Faculty Club I would probably try the horse
if they still offer it.

Foie Gras I don't eat often for financial reasons only. It
fits with my local farms thing because it comes from the
Hudson Valley.

Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

Ask not with whom the buck stops . . .

Jonski said:

On 25 May 2004 09:43:55 -0700, [email hidden] (Doug
Freyburger) wrote:

[A lot of good writing snipped]

Quoted message said:

I avoid dog because I was raised in a culture that keeps
dogs as pets, so eating a dog is icky to me. But I think
nothing of eating rabiit. I've known the occasional person
who's kept a rabbit as a pet but they are mostly wild
animals or food/fur animals. Realistically, I view my
refusal to eat dog as politically motivated if I expand
what "political" means widely enough.

I can see that some dietary changes through the years may be
considered politically motivated. In my youth, in
Massachussetts, whale was served in two restaurants I can
remember, and I ate it in both. That was probably 50 years
ago at least.

One of them, Yoken's That She Blows in Portsmouth NH is
still in business, but I'll bet it doesn't serve whale. The
other, DuBarry in Boston, closed a few years ago.

Now I love to encounter a whale when I am sailing on the
New England coast, and I certainly couldn't think of
eating them.

Most of what I eat now (except pasta) comes from local
farmers. That can be partly political. Good grass-fed lamb
can be had from New Zealand for a lot less money. Tho only
other red meat I eat is bison, also grass fed in NY State.
Well, ducks could be counted as red meat.

I have stopped eating swordfish, although I relish it
when it is done properly. The pressure of overfishing
worries me, but it also gets me out of sorts if I do
order it and it isn't treated with respect in the
kitchen, Not worth the ire.

I could probably think of other things I ate in the past
but don't now, and the motives in each case may be
somewhat mixed.

Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

Ask not with whom the buck stops . . .

"Tony Walton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Insects, annelids, whatever.

I'll broaden my statement to "The idea of eating
insects, annelids, arachnids, helminths and similar
creatures (but not molluscs, crustaceans or echinoderms)
makes me shudder".

lodges.safari.co.zalodges.safari.co.zaOpen ↗ seems not to be reachable at
the moment, in

fact.

Nah. It's just that South Africa's a long way away.
Bandwidth...

So, I guess big-bummed ants wouldn't do it for you, then:

Sparing you the battle with the bandwidth:

Big-bummed ants on your plates

May 28 2004 at 07:00AM

Bogota - A British firm specialising in exotic food will
sell half a ton of big-bottomed, toasted Colombian ants -
best harvested in cemeteries - to Europe, Australia and
the United States, after they became the rage in Britain.

"Edible Limited" has inserted its lastest gourmet item,
"Giant Toasted Ants," in its catalogue next to such
scrumptious entries as chocolate covered crickets and
scorpion potatoes.

Todd Dalton, the 29-year-old British entrepreneur behind
the ambitious culinary company, said he has just signed
a three-year contract with a Colombian firm to export
500kg of the large Colombian ants, known as "culonas"
(big bottom).

The idea of expanding the market for these ants, which
thrive in cemeteries, came to Dalton, he said, after
seeing how well they sold in Britain last year. He said
his countrymen found them "exciting and unusual".

Dalton is busy visiting ant harvesting centres in
Colombia's northern Santander department to familiarise
himself with the meticulous process of collecting and
preparing the ants for human consumption.

The price of Giant Toasted Ants, he said, will hover
around $20 (about
R)130 for 25g of the protein-packed insects - in Colombia,
the same amount goes for $3 (about R20).

Hernando Medina, who manages Plaza Colombiana, the
Colombian firm that supplies the ants to Edible
Limited, told reporters he was ecstatic about the
potential sales abroad.

He told reporters he was also exploring a cosmetic use for
the big-bottom ants, possibly some sort of anti-wrinkle
cream. - Sapa-AFP

Jonski had something important to tell us on Tue, 25 May 2004 15:50:57
+1200:

Quoted message said:

Another poster on this newsgroup won't use lard/fat for
cooking, as it doesn't match their food politics. Fair
enough, I say.

I was wondering though, what sort of things won't people
eat, for political (not religoius) reasons. I'm not
interested in kosha or halal but more the kind of thing
like not eating foie gras.

Hmmm... interesting question. There are some foods I won't
eat because I don't like them (like nuts and organ meats),
and some (like any of the factory-prepared soups/'instant'
meals) that I won't eat because I don't like them AND
because I'm allergic to MSG and I'm on a low-salt diet so
they taste foul to me... Incidentally almost all fast food
comes into one or both of these categories.

There are also foods that I won't eat because the idea of
them squicks me for ethical reasons. Here I'm thinking of
veal, battery chickens/eggs, lobster, shrimps and other
seefood (you know, the sort you see in the tanks/on ice and
they're still live and just sitting there waiting for you to
take them home and murder them) and feedlot beef. I am
revolted at the thought of my food suffering and being
inhumanely treated just so that it can be convenient for me
to eat it. Not that I'll refuse a meal just because I don't
know it's source, but given the choice I will buy free-range
food and food that I at least believe has been humanely
treated. I would never eat an endangered species under any
circumstances unless it was a case of eat it or starve to
death on the spot... and I choose not to eat anything that
might have been a family pet! But I don't go so far as to be
a vegetarian - I like my meat and eggs and dairy products as
much as the next person. But I like to at least think that
the animals are not being maltreated on my behalf.
--
~Karen AKA Kajikit Lover of shiny things...

Made as of 4 June 2004 - 83 cards, 45 SB pages (plus 3 small
giftbooks), 56 decos & more!

Visit my webpage: kajikitscorner.comkajikitscorner.comOpen ↗ Allergyfree
Eating Recipe Swap:
groups.yahoo.comAllergyfree EatingOpen ↗ Ample
Aussies Mailing List:
groups.yahoo.comampleaussiesOpen ↗

On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:46:11 -0700, [email hidden] (Gabe Medina)

Quoted message said:

I have to respond to the original poster of this thread who
asked if not eating McD's was considered to be a
"political" statement.

I belong to the camp who feels that fast food was a good
idea long ago. Now, we know better.

Remembering another poster commenting on the unAmerican
French, and your comment, I must say I admire the French for
their slow food ethic instead of fast food.

Quoted message said:

Research has proven that fries and burgers are just plain
bad for us.

Mmm, not really. It has shown that too much is bad for us.

Quoted message said:

So why continue to serve them? Why do people continue to
eat this staple on a daily basis?

Familiarity, routine. Because they don't like surprises in
their food. Because salt, fat and sugar taste nice.

Quoted message said:

Why do fast food restaurants that serve unhealthy food
continue to draw a profit?

Marketing? A similar reason that tobacco companies do as
well?

Quoted message said:

It's because the profit-oriented fast food restaurants know
that there are people who are not capable of harvesting the
fruits of research. This "Kerry" crowd is truly the victim
of corporate America.

There are more uneducated people in the world than educated.
They may just not know better.

Of course, many people have an unhealthy relationships with
food. They may have eating disorders or just have never
learned to make food a "normal" part of life.

Personally, I don't understand how diets like Jenny Craig,
which supply full, calorie-controlled meals as part of the
programme, will help a person with bad food habits. On a
Jenny Craig diet, they still won't learn how to prepare
healthy food and incorporate it into normal life. I guess
it's a Teach A Man To Fish problem.

Cheers Jon

Melissa Houle said:

If I had a PETA member invade my home and scream at me
about the virtues of vegetarianism, I would not be
thinking "What a wonderful person who cares so much about
animals!" I'd be thinking "Get out of my living room, you
shrieking freak!" SOme of PETA'S aims are admirable, but I
agree with Ralph Nader on certain points too, and I

Those PETA folks can sure be loony sometimes. There's a well
known seafood restaurant in Atlantic City (near where I
live) called Knife & Fork. This restaurant has been in
business for something like 50 years. A year or two ago,
PETA organized a protest in front of the Knife & Fork
because of its supposed abuse of shrimp. I kid you not!

A local PETA chapter announced this protest to the media.
Reporters from two or three local news organizations showed
up on the Monday afternoon to cover the protest. The protest
was intended to raise the issue to the restuarant's lunch
customers. The trouble is that the Knife & Fork is closed on
Monday afternoons. Other than the reporters and a few
restaurant employees, no one was there to witness this
protest. The story got a big laugh in the local media and
further damaged PETA's credibility.

Miernik said:

Jonski said:

I was wondering though, what sort of things won't people
eat, for political (not religoius) reasons. I'm not
interested in kosha or halal but more the kind of thing
like not eating foie gras.

Quoted message said:

I am not going to eat any food which recipe is kept by the
manufacturer in secret.

Quoted message said:

It is a political reason: I care about the freedom to
share recipes, to make changes in them, to make others
improve the process. If the manufacturer is keeping the
recipe in secret he prevents creativity of other people.
He makes more people working only like machines
reproducing his dish. Humans deserve to be given freedom
of creativity. He prevents his workers sharing knowledge
with his friends, as he probably had them sign an NDA. So
he is forcing them to be less friendly. And finally he
stops scientific progress of mankind.

That's silly. You mean that no one can create a new version
of friend chicken because KFC keeps its fried chicken
recipe a secret? No one can make a better hamburger because
McDonalds keeps its recipes a secret? No one can make a
better pizza because Domino's keeps its recipes secret? No
one can cook a better steak because the Outback Steakhouse
guards its cooking technique like gold in Fort Knox? I
don't think so.

Sean Berger said:

There's a west coast burger franchise called In 'n Out
Burgers that I will eat at before ANY other fast food
place (which I generally avoid anymore anyways). They are
one of the few outfits that pay their workers a decent
starting wage and, get this, benefits. What's more, they
literally "cut" their fries fresh during the day
(undoubtedly through a potato water gun thingie, but still--
it's not frozen spuds.) and have a large crew on shifts.
It helps that the food tastes better than the other FF
places, but knowing they generally "do right" by their
employees makes me seek them out while avoiding others.

Hah! Whenever I visit Las Vegas, I make a point to eat lunch
at least once at the In & Out that's near the Excalibur
where I usually stay. I was just there about two weeks ago.
The burgers @ In & Out are fantastic, but I think they cut
their fries way too thin. A friend and I walked over there
around 8:00 one night and the place was packed and they had
at least ten people preparing food. What a great business
model; burgers, fries, soft drinks, nothing else. I am glad
there's no In & Out burgers in NJ where I live; otherwise I
would eat there way too much, even with their micro-thin
french fries.

Gabe Medina said:

I have to respond to the original poster of this thread
who asked if not eating McD's was considered to be a
"political" statement.

Quoted message said:

I belong to the camp who feels that fast food was a good
idea long ago. Now, we know better.

Quoted message said:

Research has proven that fries and burgers are just plain
bad for us.

What research is that? Any research I have seen shows that
an ocassional hamburger and french fries is no big deal. The
problem arrises when such fare becomes the mainstay of
anyone's diet.

Quoted message said:

So why continue to serve them? Why do people continue to
eat this staple on a daily basis?

For the same reason people have always eaten fast food; its
cheap, fast, and convenient.

Quoted message said:

Why do fast food restaurants that serve unhealthy food
continue to draw a profit?

Because the meet a market demand. Simple economics.

Quoted message said:

It's because the profit-oriented fast food restaurants
know that there are people who are not capable of
harvesting the fruits of research. This "Kerry" crowd is
truly the victim of corporate America.

Absolute nonsense. It doesn't exactly take someone with a
Ph.D. in nutritional science to realize that a diet high in
carbs and fats is a bad idea. You obviously don't realize
it, but every national fast food chain now offers several
perfectly healthy items on its menu. For example, Wendy's
and McDonalds both offer a line of different salads which
are very healthy if eaten without the high fat dressing.
They also offer grilled chicken sandwhiches and yogurt.
Anyone on a diet can find something to eat at most fast food
places these days so painting fast food restaurants as some
evil agency simply flies in the face of reality.

Julia Altshuler said:

"Whatever one might think of Tom Monaghan's selection of
social causes, and no matter how one views the question of
direct versus indirect underwriting of them via pizza
monies, it's all moot now. These days none of the revenues
that flow into Domino's reach this controversial man, so
no portion of what a customer pays for a medium pepperoni-and-
cheese funds the causes he supports."

I don't disagree, but as I said, I did find another reason
to boycott Domino's Pizza. Their pizza tastes lousy compared
to many locally owned pizzarias in my area.

limey said:

Bush's baked beans. I'm going to kidnap that dog and he
*will* be telling.

Wonderful! See if you can that dog to disclose the recipe
for Bush's home style baked beans. They're great stuff,
although I like the original Bush's baked beans a lot too.