Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Food, Inc. Movie


bleys

Recommended Posts

Has anyone seen this?

Very eye opening, amazing the things we are not aware of, whether our ignorance comes from these large corporations doing everything they can to keep us in the dark or our arrogance to ignore this information..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

better has nothing to do with it. the taste should be the same.

the chances of E Coli are significantly reduced. To advert the support of the few large companies who have systems in place who's byproduct is the spread of E Coli would be the goal... and would be better, actually.

if both meat tastes the same but the support goes to a healthier future, why the resistance?

this not only affects the future of our health, but drives up oil prices (75 gallons a day per farm?) to feed the cows corn instead of the nature grasses their body needs to reduce E Coli in their system...

not sure why we would resist change, even to humor folks... resisting change is the American way I assume..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

better has nothing to do with it. the taste should be the same.

the chances of E Coli are significantly reduced. To advert the support of the few large companies who have systems in place who's byproduct is the spread of E Coli would be the goal... and would be better, actually. WRONG

if both meat tastes the same but the support goes to a healthier future, why the resistance? WRONG

this not only affects the future of our health, but drives up oil prices (75 gallons a day per farm?) to feed the cows corn instead of the nature grasses their body needs to reduce E Coli in their system... WRONG

not sure why we would resist change, even to humor folks... resisting change is the American way I assume..WRONG

Organic Farm Facts:

Tomatoes

* 122sq m of land is needed to produce a tonne of organic vine tomatoes. The figure for conventionally-grown loose tomatoes is 19sq m.

* Energy needed to grow organic tomatoes is 1.9 times that of conventional methods.

* Organic tomatoes grown in heated greenhouses in Britain generate one hundred times the amount of CO2 per kilogram produced by tomatoes in unheated greenhouses in southern Spain.

Milk

* Requires 80 per cent more land to produce per unit than conventional milk.

* Produces nearly 20 per cent more carbon dioxide and almost double the amount of other by-products that can lead to acidification of soil and pollution of water courses.

Chickens

* Organic birds require 25 per cent more energy to rear and grow than conventional methods.

* The amount of CO2 generated per bird is 6.7kg for organic compared to 4.6kg for conventional battery or barn hens.

* Eutrophication, the potential for nutrient-rich by-products to pollute water courses, is measured at 86 for organic compared to 49 for conventional.

* The depletion of natural resources is measured at 99 for organic birds compared to 29 for battery or barn hens.

Also, watch Penn & Teller Bullshit episode Organic Foods. You can find it streaming online easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, this thread should die.. lol

20% of organic food comes from China..

organic pesticides are actually more harmful since they do not use synthetic pesticides, which have been engineered to be less harmful.

a cup or pot of coffee has a much greater chance of causing cancer than a years worth of synthetic pesticide residue...

all things I didn't know..

but putting these hippies on here is laughable.. they are only there for effect, no other real purpose..

saw the 1st 10 minutes, trying to find the rest..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, this thread should die.. lol

20% of organic food comes from China..

organic pesticides are actually more harmful since they do not use synthetic pesticides, which have been engineered to be less harmful.

a cup or pot of coffee has a much greater chance of causing cancer than a years worth of synthetic pesticide residue...

all things I didn't know..

but putting these hippies on here is laughable.. they are only there for effect, no other real purpose..

saw the 1st 10 minutes, trying to find the rest..

Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Organic Farm Facts:

Tomatoes

* 122sq m of land is needed to produce a tonne of organic vine tomatoes. The figure for conventionally-grown loose tomatoes is 19sq m.

* Energy needed to grow organic tomatoes is 1.9 times that of conventional methods.

* Organic tomatoes grown in heated greenhouses in Britain generate one hundred times the amount of CO2 per kilogram produced by tomatoes in unheated greenhouses in southern Spain.

Milk

* Requires 80 per cent more land to produce per unit than conventional milk.

* Produces nearly 20 per cent more carbon dioxide and almost double the amount of other by-products that can lead to acidification of soil and pollution of water courses.

Chickens

* Organic birds require 25 per cent more energy to rear and grow than conventional methods.

* The amount of CO2 generated per bird is 6.7kg for organic compared to 4.6kg for conventional battery or barn hens.

* Eutrophication, the potential for nutrient-rich by-products to pollute water courses, is measured at 86 for organic compared to 49 for conventional.

* The depletion of natural resources is measured at 99 for organic birds compared to 29 for battery or barn hens.

Also, watch Penn & Teller Bullpoo episode Organic Foods. You can find it streaming online easily.

A government commissioned study in the UK. That didn't take into account water use, animal warefare & soil condition- bio diversity. Huge bullet points when it comes to organic farming.

There is more to organic farming then just cost benefit, No Sh*t your not going to be able to feed the world on organic farming the yields are just not there.

& I love Penn & Tellers Bullsh*t but for there organic food episode they used the Hudson Institute for there "Facts". The Hudson institute is pretty much funded by big agriculture & Chemical Mfgs: Cargill, ConAgra Foods, Exxon Mobil, McDonald's, Monsanto, National Agricultural Chemical Association.

& the whole thing with the hippy taste off, C'mon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grass Fed beef taste very different from grain fed. No doubt. In fact, some people find it strange.

How can anyone really dismiss the value of eating natural/organic foods??? Seriously.

Like PC said, no poo, the yields arent there...thats what started the whole thing. The part about the chickens is enough to make you think....

My wife has some family that own some chicken houses...they dont eat chicken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...