Now Playing: You Tube: Store Wars ... Laugh it up Fuzz Balls?
Topic: Food & Shopping
No point in writing more about this. It speaks for itself and an excellent five minute break any time.
|
|
|
Aberdeen Daily World Chinook Observer Montesano Vidette Pacific County Press Willapa Harbor Herald KXRO 1320 AM |
No point in writing more about this. It speaks for itself and an excellent five minute break any time.
Not for the reason described below though. Something else. Not margaritas but raspberry lemonade. But that's another story for another time.
Read entire article at Yahoo! News
Fri Jun 15, 4:12 PM ET
ANTIOCH, Calif. - Kim Mayorga was confused when her 2-year-old started making funny faces and pushing away the apple juice he had ordered at Applebee's. The explanation came when she opened the lid of the sippy cup and was hit by the smell of tequila and Triple Sec.
The restaurant staff accidentally gave Julian Mayorga a margarita Monday. He grew drowsy and started vomiting a few hours later and was rushed to the hospital.
"I wasn't going to make a big deal about it," the mother told the Contra Costa Times on Thursday, "but then he got sick."
The apple juice and margarita mix were stored in identical plastic bottles, and the manager mistakenly grabbed the margarita container to pour the boy's drink, said Randy Tei, vice president for Apple Bay East Inc., which owns the franchise restaurant and nine other Applebee's in the San Francisco Bay area.
Excerpts from The BBC News
Mars bars get veggie status back
Mars has abandoned plans to use animal products in its chocolate, and has apologised to "upset" vegetarians.
The move affected Masterfoods' chocolate and ice cream barsThe firm had said it would change the whey used in some of its products from a vegetarian source to one with traces of the animal enzyme, rennet.
The Vegetarian Society organised a campaign against the move, asking members to voice their concerns to parent company Masterfoods.
Mars said it became "very clear, very quickly" that it had made a mistake.Read the entire article at The BBC News
A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?
Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods — dairy, meat, fish and produce — line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.
As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.” Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly — and get fat.
This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?
For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system — indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.
That’s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.
End of excerpt. To read entire article click here
Wal-Mart of course can sell what it wants whereever it wants.
But ought not make big claims to be interested in the nutritional health of its customers and then change its mind.
[excerpt]
Last fall, Peter Ricker got an order from Wal-Mart Stores for organic apples that was the biggest he'd ever seen.
"I'm talking trailer truckloads," says the 34-year-old, eighth-generation apple farmer in Maine.Ricker had heard of the giant retailer's push into organics, and he thought the order could be the beginning of a surge in demand. But that wasn't the case. While most retailers place orders with Ricker Hill Orchards once a week, Wal-Mart never came back.
He's hardly alone. A number of organic farmers across the country say that Wal-Mart has backed off of aggressive plans to offer more organic foods. After placing large orders for organic apples and juices last year, the retailer is cutting back or stopping orders altogether. Wade Groetsch, president at the Florida juice producer Blue Lake Citrus Products, says he stopped shipping his organic orange-tangerine blend to Wal-Mart after a few months."The sales there just weren't enough to justify our costs of packing and shipping," he says.
A year ago last March Wal-Mart grabbed headlines by announcing its organic push. Stephen Quinn, a top marketing executive, told investors at a Bear Stearns conference that the company would double the number of organic food items in its stores to 400 and offer them "at the Wal-Mart price." But now Karen Burk, a spokeswoman for the company, says that the majority of Wal-Mart stores are offering between 100 and 200 organic food items. She says the company does not have a target, at least not a public one, of stocking 400 organic items in the average store.
BROOKLIN, Canada - An investigation has revealed that the U.S. supplier of sushi to more than 6,000 restaurants is associated with a Japanese company that sells millions of tins of whale meat.Despite a global ban on killing whales, Japan’s Kyokuyo, a multinational seafood conglomerate, sells between 10 and 20 million cans of whale meat a year, according to an Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) report released Tuesday. 
“Kyokuyo is breaking international laws,” said Alan Thornton, president of EIA, an environmental group based in the United States and Britain.
“Since the 1930s, Kyokuyo has been profiting from the deaths of an estimated 130,000 great whales,” Thornton told IPS.
There has been a global ban on whaling since 1986. However, the Japanese claim the 1,000 or more whales they hunt each year in the Antarctic Ocean are for scientific research. Whale meat is found in leading Japanese supermarkets, and Kyokuyo is perhaps the leading distributor, he says.
“To be clear, whale meat is not being sold in the U.S.,” said Kitty Block, director of Treaty Law, Oceans, and Wildlife Protection at the Humane Society International (HSI).
“What we want is to make sure no U.S. company is involved in any way with killing whales,” Block said in an interview.
Newer | Latest | Older
What does it mean to be Christian in America?
Arthur's blog on religion & Spirituality
I'm glad you asked that question.
