We will eat, drink, and marry. We continue to choose our foods for personal and learned reasons. The origin of all foods is energy from the sun growing plants. Some plants are eaten with or without cooking. Some are fed to other plants by composting or to animals to be eaten. The production of plants is the base of our food supply so we want it accessible. There must be a sufficient amount at an affordable price, maybe.
The availability of a food is certainly a requirement just to get it to our dining table. The price deserves some discussion. The day of the subsistence farmer who sold some of their surpluses is nearly gone. Now, we have big commercialization and mass production of single species crops for profit. The corporate model does produce food. The nutritional value of a scientifically nourished and laboratory bred edible plant has often led to a decline in its health value. The petroproducts fertilizers and pesticides have encouraged the farming industry to pursue increasing production without regard to healthfulness.
In modern markets, there is a declining health value and a declining market price for food harvested from the sun’s energy and earth’s nurturing. Of course, prices do not follow the health value. The gap between health value and market value is always increasing because of the pursuit of profit – ever increasing price while decreasing costs.
The question becomes, for those interested in the survival of their grandchildren and all humanity, is there a point where the price exceeds the nutritional value so much that cheap food produces actual starvation results. This may not be physical death in 21 days; it may be metabolic diseases that handicap the participation in life and shorter lifespans.
To postpone this tipping point, we need to consider applying some thought and difficult discipline to our current practices. The food-market production-machine needs to consider the long-term survival of its consumers, and the smart consumer needs to make purchasing choices for health rather than cost reasons. This is another example of where the capitalistic economic model is self-destructive. The pure capitalist would kill or maim future consumers to “improve” the annual financial balance sheet of their company. Their deliberate ignorance of the eventual outcome is the result of their denying science and refusing to wait for proper science. The profiteer labels current science and caution as “junk science.”
Profiteers claim that potential harm is unproven, therefore all threats should be ignored until proven real. They would ride a raft through a white water gorge without a life jacket because it looks like most people make out the other end.
Angela Logomasini suggests in her article* that we continue to use a pesticide that has not had its human benefit proven or human threat proven because it increases crop yields and reduces production costs. Scientific studies are in progress. She chooses to recommend the use of the chemical while the study proceeds. There are real people who will be consuming this unproven chemical while she and her competitive enterprise institute collect profits. There is another option that would benefit humanity.
The marketing of plant products protected with this chemical called “chlorpyrifos” are sold to consumers who look to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for protection of themselves. They have delegated that protection role to an agency of specialists who are charged with proving the safety of food sold for consumption. The EPA does not make rules to impede commerce. The EPA applies rules to protect the market and increase the value of commerce.
We need to discontinue the use of unproven agents until the science is in. This includes thousands of chemicals and biologicals that are available, including chlorpyrifos.
* Angela Logomasini, Ph.D., Contributor (Senior Fellow, Independent Women’s Forum & Competitive Enterprise Institute), “Bugged by Junk Science,” Huffington Post.Com, 2017/08/21,15:42EDT, accessed next day.
Some abstracted text:
1. Suggesting we eat chemicals and biologicals before they are proven safe.
“[R]isk benefit considerations, unfortunately, are not part of the equation for many politicians. In response to [EPA Cheif] Pruitt’s decision [to continue use of chlorpyrifos while under study], Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and six other Democratic Senators recently proposed the “Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017” (S. 1624). It would do legislatively what activists could not achieve administratively: ban chlorpyrifos before EPA can finish its scientific review.”
2. Politicians who disregard the financial values giving preference to health values are “puffing themselves up.”
“[Bills to prohibit the use of chemicals that are not proven safe] may gain political points for lawmakers who puff themselves up claiming to be guardians of public health. But it’s all just a charade. Their policies would harm public health by raising prices and thereby reducing consumption of many healthy fruits and veggies.” (Emphasis added.)
You DO take on the “Big Boys.” Very interesting and majorly GOOD point…where’s the science? Good writing and information. Interesting that we both find our focus to be on “food.” Yours about
health and mine about anarchy through feeding on streets. Close but, no cigar? “Carry on….”