"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:jn6vivg3thkh91l398du3ai996olkolkr1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet

Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy
a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA.

We spend less of our disposable income on food than any nation in the world.

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:jn6vivg3thkh91l398du3ai996olkolkr1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet

Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy
a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA.

We spend less of our disposable income on food than any
nation in the world.

That may be true or not, quite independently from the question
whether or not you have the cheapest food.

We don't live on Big Macs.

That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest
on the planet.

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:03:33 -0700, Walter Epp
NOSPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> posted:

"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
In the greenest
part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some

That result was bought with over $6 per vote of out of state money
spent on a blitz of deception and scare tactics.

For instance? Show too where it is wrong please.

http://www.voteyeson27.com/Counterpoints1.pdf
This does not mention the possibility that labeling could increase jobs,
reduce costs of selling overseas, and make Oregon more competitive.
As Consumers Union points out in its letter supporting labeling, "Europe,
Japan, South Korea, China, Australia and New Zealand all have mandatory
labeling requirements, and a labeling law in Oregon would put the state in
a good position to sell products in those markets."

The best genetically modified democracy money can buy.

That's nearly as good as "Frankenfoods".

That law was not anti-gm, it only required that the consumer be allowed
to know what they're getting so there could be a free market.

Garbage. So that your lying scare campaigns could take effect.

Freedom is by definition the ability to make choices.

Only if you know and understand the facts.

Without labelling the consumer is denied knowing the facts.

You lot have gone out of your way to spread lies.

Show me which statement I have made that's a lie and why.

If there's no labeling, there's no choice, if there's no choice, there's
no freedom. To call this a free market is a fraud - it's a rigged market.

Then tell the truth. If there are scary lies promulgated, there can be
no informed choice, whatever information is given on a label.

And when biotech companies are censoring troubling information
there can be no informed choice.

Their opposition to labelling shows that genetic engineering proponents
don't believe their own propaganda.

Their opposition to labelling is due to gross ignorance of the general
public

Lack of labelling keeps the public in the dark.

When Richard Burroughs at the FDA held up approval due to scientifically
inadequate research and challenged company studies that dropped sick cows
from test trials and manipulated data in other ways to make health and
safety problems disappear, he was fired.

And where did you get this story from?

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:25f1jv46uq96357kkum4mfals0o0k8jlfa@4ax.com...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:jn6vivg3thkh91l398du3ai996olkolkr1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet

Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy
a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA.

We spend less of our disposable income on food than any
nation in the world.

That may be true or not, quite independently from the question
whether or not you have the cheapest food.

We don't live on Big Macs.

That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest
on the planet.

The only way to evaluate cost is what a hour of my time will buy. The way
countries juggle their currencies there is no other way to compare them.

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:25f1jv46uq96357kkum4mfals0o0k8jlfa@4ax.com...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:jn6vivg3thkh91l398du3ai996olkolkr1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet

Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy
a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA.

We spend less of our disposable income on food than any
nation in the world.

That may be true or not, quite independently from the question
whether or not you have the cheapest food.

We don't live on Big Macs.

That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest
on the planet.

The only way to evaluate cost is what a hour of my time will buy.

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:36 +0200, Torsten Brinch
iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> posted:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:29:29 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:jn6vivg3thkh91l398du3ai996olkolkr1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

Myth: USA has the cheapest food on the planet

Fact: In 50 out of 63 countries worldwide, you can buy
a Big Mac hamburger cheaper than in USA.

We spend less of our disposable income on food than any
nation in the world.

That may be true or not, quite independently from the question
whether or not you have the cheapest food.

We don't live on Big Macs.

That's true. However, if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they too are not the cheapest
on the planet.

But in what currency? US dollars is hardly informative.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:30:07 +0100, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> posted:


"Moosh:}" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
news:mmr3jv0fu4jl3abt6sk99354cg4cllgq11@4ax.com...

When Richard Burroughs at the FDA held up approval due to
scientifically
inadequate research and challenged company studies that dropped sick
cows
from test trials and manipulated data in other ways to make health and
safety problems disappear, he was fired.

And where did you get this story from?

put Richard Burroughs and fda into google and you discover millions of
websites which all seem to pass the same story among themselves. The guy
has
apparently been canonised and god alone knows what the truth really is

It was really a rhetorical question, Jim, but you confirmed my
suspicions

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:38 +0200, Torsten Brinch
iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> posted:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:20:24 GMT, "Moosh:}"
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:36 +0200, Torsten Brinch
iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> posted:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.

..> if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they <..> are not the cheapest
on the planet.

But in what currency? US dollars is hardly informative.

I was thinking of World Bank data for international
price comparisons. They do it in PPP terms, with
100 indicating [item] in [country in question] is
priced equal to the price in USA, and less than 100,
that it is cheaper. See:
http://rrojasdatabank.net/wdi2000/tab5_6.pdf
..
Affordability is what we want to compare, when you
think of it.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:02:37 GMT, Marcio Watanabe <marcio@nospam.com
wrote:

Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:

No, look above. We are talking about how the price of
food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere
on the planet.

No, you are talking about that. The original person who brought this
up is talking about something else. Based on your domain, I assume
you are not a native English speaker, so you might not know that
cheap/cheaper/cheapest can be used in absolute or comparative terms.

Based on your domain . Thanks.

You two are just not talking about the same thing.

The original person who brought this up wrote (with reference to USA):
"I will agree with you about the cheese in the supermarket. But you
can get good cheese you have to order it or go to a specitly store if
you are in a city. We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on
the planet. Aged cheese and beef are expensive and not avilble in
every grocery store."

I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in this
context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the relation
between the price of food in USA and the price of food in other
countries on the planet.

To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform

"Walter Epp" <NOSPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> wrote
"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling
most
of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of

Only if we are ignorant of how they are operating.

milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of
parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though

Hitler and Geobles would be proud of the why the people that have taken over
the greens have used their methods to sway public opinion to support

snip Walter's bull shit
Thank you for adding to the credibility of my post by confirming

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:16:43 -0700, Walter Epp
NOSPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> posted:

"Gordon Couger" <gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling most
of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of their
milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of
parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though until
they can no longer agree and break up and make a new gang. Every issue
stands on its own.

Since we have reguatutory agencies with a long history and proven expertise
we trust them more than people in Europe seem to trust theirs.

Only if we are ignorant of how they are operating.
Michael Taylor worked for Monsanto, then went to work for the FDA where he
wrote the rules for labels regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered product
saying there's no difference, then he went back to work for Monsanto.

And you have evidence of any fraud or other wrongdoing?

When Richard Burroughs at the FDA held up approval due to scientifically
inadequate research and challenged company studies that dropped sick cows
from test trials and manipulated data in other ways to make health and
safety problems disappear, he was fired.

And where did you get this story from?

Torsten Brinch wrote:
Gordon Couger: "I will agree with you about the cheese in the supermarket.
But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go to a specitly store
if you are in a city. We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on
the planet. Aged cheese and beef are expensive and not avilble in
every grocery store."

I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in this
context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the relation
between the price of food in USA and the price of food in other
countries on the planet.

To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform
commodities of them. Unless you are in a city where there are shops that
cater to people that know better and are willing to pay for it the
supermarkets have a sameness in food that is sold with advertising and
buying preferential shelf space in the store.

The cost is the choice in cheeses is limited to some that are aged a very
short time and meat that is too lean for my tastes. Everything has been
vertically integrated. There are 3 major produce wholesalers in the state
and they can pretty well dictate what the grocery stores get. Over the last
15 years we have gone from 1 chain grocery store and 5 locally owned ones to
1 locally owned one and 3 chain stores. Two of them big chains. That have
what they stock and tough if you want something else.

The gains are the cost of food is about 7% of disposable income <snip

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:09:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote:
Gordon Couger: "I will agree with you about the cheese in the
supermarket. But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go
to a specitly store if you are in a city. We do pay a price for
having the cheapest food on the planet. Aged cheese and beef are
expensive and not avilble in every grocery store."

I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in
this context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the
relation between the price of food in USA and the price of food
in other countries on the planet.

To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform
commodities of them. Unless you are in a city where there are shops
that cater to people that know better and are willing to pay for it
the supermarkets have a sameness in food that is sold with
advertising and buying preferential shelf space in the store.

The cost is the choice in cheeses is limited to some that are aged a
very short time and meat that is too lean for my tastes. Everything
has been vertically integrated. There are 3 major produce
wholesalers in the state and they can pretty well dictate what the
grocery stores get. Over the last 15 years we have gone from 1 chain
grocery store and 5 locally owned ones to 1 locally owned one and 3
chain stores. Two of them big chains. That have what they stock and
tough if you want something else.

The gains are the cost of food is about 7% of disposable income
snip

OK, since you keep returning to this statistic, food cost as
percentage of disposable income, I must assume that is the basis
for you saying, that USA has the cheapest food on the planet.

Firstly, to use this statistic measure to indicate that food is
'cheap' is _misuse of statistics_. If anything, that measure
can be used - with some caution - as an indicator of affluence.

Secondly, the number you present [food costs ~7% of disposable income]
is itself not correct. E.g. for the year 2000, total disposable income
in USA was 7,120 billion US$, and total food expenditure was 825
billion US$. That is: ~12% of total disposable income.

The carbon unit using the name Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> in
news:4549jv0kb74h4fne9hao10n2nvnafl0vuj@4ax.com gave utterance as follows:

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:09:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote:
Gordon Couger: "I will agree with you about the cheese in the
supermarket. But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go
to a specitly store if you are in a city. We do pay a price for
having the cheapest food on the planet. Aged cheese and beef are
expensive and not avilble in every grocery store."

I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in
this context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the
relation between the price of food in USA and the price of food
in other countries on the planet.

To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform
commodities of them. Unless you are in a city where there are shops
that cater to people that know better and are willing to pay for it
the supermarkets have a sameness in food that is sold with
advertising and buying preferential shelf space in the store.

The cost is the choice in cheeses is limited to some that are aged a
very short time and meat that is too lean for my tastes. Everything
has been vertically integrated. There are 3 major produce
wholesalers in the state and they can pretty well dictate what the
grocery stores get. Over the last 15 years we have gone from 1 chain
grocery store and 5 locally owned ones to 1 locally owned one and 3
chain stores. Two of them big chains. That have what they stock and
tough if you want something else.

The gains are the cost of food is about 7% of disposable income
snip

OK, since you keep returning to this statistic, food cost as
percentage of disposable income, I must assume that is the basis
for you saying, that USA has the cheapest food on the planet.

Firstly, to use this statistic measure to indicate that food is
'cheap' is _misuse of statistics_. If anything, that measure
can be used - with some caution - as an indicator of affluence.

If people is affluent, food is cheap for them.

Secondly, the number you present [food costs ~7% of disposable income]
is itself not correct. E.g. for the year 2000, total disposable income
in USA was 7,120 billion US$, and total food expenditure was 825
billion US$. That is: ~12% of total disposable income.

I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings' income is
less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars is spent in food.