Started By
Message
re: What permanent, everyday changes come out of this coronavirus event?
Posted on 3/20/20 at 11:01 pm to Bear88
Posted on 3/20/20 at 11:01 pm to Bear88
quote:
but what has Nestle done or are doing ?
Nestle is basically attempting to slowly privatize and monopolize the world's drinking water supply. That doesn't even begin to really explain the relationship between Nestle and water, but I think it's a pretty adequate summary of their shenanigans in that arena. They're the Comcast of the food and beverage industry.
Posted on 3/20/20 at 11:01 pm to Cobrasize
50 years old and still like it
Posted on 3/20/20 at 11:04 pm to Bear88
quote:
Curious here, but what has Nestle done or are doing ? Out of the loop I guess
Most people are unaware of big business corruption and government corruption that's involved in it. The mainstream media isn't going to tell you about the bad things their biggest advertisers are guilty of. Neither are the politicians they give lots of money to. And the corrupt elected politicians make and approve appointments in the Judicial branch and regulatory agencies.
Why Nestle is one of the most hated companies in the world
This post was edited on 3/20/20 at 11:21 pm
Posted on 3/20/20 at 11:07 pm to Robot Santa
quote:
Nestle is basically attempting to slowly privatize and monopolize the world's drinking water supply. That doesn't even begin to really explain the relationship between Nestle and water, but I think it's a pretty adequate summary of their shenanigans in that arena. They're the Comcast of the food and beverage industry.
They need to bring their arse down South. We’ve been fighting with Georgia forever. Nestle ain’t shite
This post was edited on 3/20/20 at 11:08 pm
Posted on 3/20/20 at 11:09 pm to TidalSurge1
Surge, don’t you dare say bad stuff about sweettarts and gobstoppers!!
Posted on 3/20/20 at 11:12 pm to Cobrasize
The damned CEOs of companies that behave criminally should be held responsible, prosecuted and put behind bars. Instead, they get government (taxpayer funded) support and bailouts whenever they need them.
This post was edited on 3/24/20 at 6:13 pm
Posted on 3/20/20 at 11:14 pm to TidalSurge1
Yup. Let’s not even get in on the folks who dumped stocks before this Corona shite
Posted on 3/20/20 at 11:27 pm to Cobrasize
quote:
Surge, don’t you dare say bad stuff about sweettarts and gobstoppers!!
There are almost always better alternative products and services you can buy instead of buying bad stuff from corrupt companies.
I grew up in the 60s & 70s -- hippies, anti-war and civil rights protests, etc. -- my generation did not trust or keep quiet about "the establishment" back then, and we probably never will.
Love & Peace, y'all!
This post was edited on 3/27/20 at 7:55 pm
Posted on 3/21/20 at 1:54 am to Cobrasize
As was mentioned before, the largest issue with Nestle is what they do with their water bottling operations. They go into poor communities, pay the applicable governments peanuts and then drain the water supply completely while calling such actions "sustainable":
LINK
In 2017--in the midst of that last horrible drought in California--Nestle took 30m gallons of water for which it paid $524. LINK /
Back in the early 2000's their CEO stated that the notion that humans have a basic right to water as being an "extreme" opinion:
LINK /
Unsurprisingly, he walked this back afterwards, saying that 25L a day of water is a human right.
Nestle's water division is just bad news all around.
quote:
Nestlé resource manager Larry Lawrence insists the company obtained the right to Strawberry Creek’s when it purchased Arrowhead, and says its science backs claims that it draws water “sustainably”.
“The argument that there should be some flowing stream bed [in upper Strawberry Creek] – we don’t necessarily believe that and that’s what we’re testing for,” Lawrence said.
LINK
In 2017--in the midst of that last horrible drought in California--Nestle took 30m gallons of water for which it paid $524. LINK /
Back in the early 2000's their CEO stated that the notion that humans have a basic right to water as being an "extreme" opinion:
quote:
“Water is, of course, the most important raw material we have today in the world. It’s a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally, I believe it’s better to give a foodstuff a value so that we’re all aware it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there.”
LINK /
Unsurprisingly, he walked this back afterwards, saying that 25L a day of water is a human right.
Nestle's water division is just bad news all around.
Posted on 3/21/20 at 9:03 am to TidalSurge1
You seem to think that because something is gmo that it contains glyphosate. That isn't true at all.
None of what you are saying has any scientific backing.
"
Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques."
This is from a scientific America
article on "organic" farming.
When the Soil Association, a major organic accreditation body in the UK, asked consumers why they buy organic food, 95% of them said their top reason was to avoid pesticides. They, like many people, believe that organic farming involves little to no pesticide use. I hate to burst the bubble, but that's simply not true. Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent critters from destroying their crops. Confused?
So was I, when I first learned this from a guy I was dating. His family owns a farm in rural Ohio. He was grumbling about how everyone praised the local organic farms for being so environmentally-conscientious, even though they sprayed their crops with pesticides all the time while his family farm got no credit for being pesticide-free (they're not organic because they use a non-organic herbicide once a year). I didn't believe him at first, so I looked into it: turns out that there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards. And, shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the government. Why the government isn't keeping watch on organic pesticide and fungicide use is a damn good question, especially considering that many organic pesticides that are also used by conventional farmers are used more intensively than synthetic ones due to their lower levels of effectiveness. According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 1. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.
None of what you are saying has any scientific backing.
"
Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques."
This is from a scientific America
article on "organic" farming.
When the Soil Association, a major organic accreditation body in the UK, asked consumers why they buy organic food, 95% of them said their top reason was to avoid pesticides. They, like many people, believe that organic farming involves little to no pesticide use. I hate to burst the bubble, but that's simply not true. Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent critters from destroying their crops. Confused?
So was I, when I first learned this from a guy I was dating. His family owns a farm in rural Ohio. He was grumbling about how everyone praised the local organic farms for being so environmentally-conscientious, even though they sprayed their crops with pesticides all the time while his family farm got no credit for being pesticide-free (they're not organic because they use a non-organic herbicide once a year). I didn't believe him at first, so I looked into it: turns out that there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards. And, shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the government. Why the government isn't keeping watch on organic pesticide and fungicide use is a damn good question, especially considering that many organic pesticides that are also used by conventional farmers are used more intensively than synthetic ones due to their lower levels of effectiveness. According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 1. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.
Posted on 3/21/20 at 9:43 am to Capstone2017
quote:
You seem to think that because something is gmo that it contains glyphosate. That isn't true at all."
I do not think that, nor did I say or imply that.
quote:
None of what you are saying has any scientific backing.
That is an extremely false statement.
I'm not trying to be rude to you, but to be honest, your comprehension and objective critical thinking (without confirmation bias) regarding not only my post, but also your own, are pretty bad.
I posted specifically about Monsanto practices regarding genetically modifying food crops to be immune to their glyphosate herbicide. Did you even notice that the suspiscious reports you posted (with no links) provide nothing that actually refutes or invalidates concerns about glyphosate being a serious human health and environmental hazard? Instead, you seem be jumping to those unsubstantiated conclusions.
The report also did not even mention any of the ingredients in synthetic fungicides (not herbicides), but it implied that copper and sulfer "organic" fungicide alternatives may be more harmful than the unspecified synthetics simply because more was applied per acre in 1971.
The report also vaguely questions why unidentified government agencies are supposedly not tracking amounts of "organic" pesticides applied to crops, but it mentioned nothing at all about what the U.S. government does to support Monsanto's essentially criminal production and business practices. Monsanto is notoriously corrupt (at best) and also very adept at getting reports, similar to the one you posted, written and published.
If you want to buy, eat and feed your loved ones foods loaded with glyphosate, perhaps because they're lower priced, you can. It's still legal to grow and sell them in the U.S. -- because Monsanto buys the U.S. government's support.
This post was edited on 3/27/20 at 7:57 pm
Posted on 3/21/20 at 6:58 pm to TidalSurge1
It's from the two different sources the first is genetic literacy project, and the second is scientific American. Other companies beside Monsanto make GMOs and you have an appeal to nature fallacy, where because something is natural it is good. Whatever sources I provide that say most GM's are generally safe for the person/environment you will say are paid for by Monsanto. So I'm done enjoy your wrong beliefs there's no use trying to explain science to someone like you.
LINK
LINK /
LINK
LINK /
Posted on 3/22/20 at 11:58 am to Capstone2017
Again, you appear to be struggling with reading comprehension and critical thinking, along with basic punctuation and sentence structure.
I never said or implied that I believe most GMO fruits, veggies, nuts and grains themselves are unhealthy. You're just assuming I believe that. I agree that most genetic modifications of food plants, assuming they're done to improve plant health and/or produce quality, don't appear to be harmful to health or the ecosystem. However, my statements about Monsanto's corrupt, U.S. government supported GMO practices are not a "fallacy" or "wrong belief". They're factual.
I posted facts (not fallacy) about only one type of genetic modification that's done by Monsanto and said their Roundup systemic vegetation killer's active ingredient glyphosate is a carcenogenic health hazard and environmental hazard. Glyphosate kills natural vegetation (by disrupting photosynthesis) that hasn't been genetically modified to tolerate it. Monsanto is the company that genetically modifies crop plants in that manner and holds patents on the seeds for those plants.
That's done so farmers planting Monsanto's seeds can spray the fields, orchards and vineyards with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide without killing the crop. It's the predominant farming practice (nearly a monopoly) in the U.S. "Systemic" means that the pesticide spreads throughout plants' tissues. So, the foods from crop plants sprayed with it do contain it. They're legally grown and sold in the U.S. They have no warning labels on them, nor do food products that contain that produce as ingredients, nor do prepared food menus. So, American sheeple, as well as domesticated and wild animals, eat a lot of glyphosate-contaminated produce.
Again, my statements about Monsanto's corrupt, U.S. government supported GMO practices are not a "fallacy" or "wrong belief". They're factual.
I never said or implied that I believe most GMO fruits, veggies, nuts and grains themselves are unhealthy. You're just assuming I believe that. I agree that most genetic modifications of food plants, assuming they're done to improve plant health and/or produce quality, don't appear to be harmful to health or the ecosystem. However, my statements about Monsanto's corrupt, U.S. government supported GMO practices are not a "fallacy" or "wrong belief". They're factual.
I posted facts (not fallacy) about only one type of genetic modification that's done by Monsanto and said their Roundup systemic vegetation killer's active ingredient glyphosate is a carcenogenic health hazard and environmental hazard. Glyphosate kills natural vegetation (by disrupting photosynthesis) that hasn't been genetically modified to tolerate it. Monsanto is the company that genetically modifies crop plants in that manner and holds patents on the seeds for those plants.
That's done so farmers planting Monsanto's seeds can spray the fields, orchards and vineyards with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide without killing the crop. It's the predominant farming practice (nearly a monopoly) in the U.S. "Systemic" means that the pesticide spreads throughout plants' tissues. So, the foods from crop plants sprayed with it do contain it. They're legally grown and sold in the U.S. They have no warning labels on them, nor do food products that contain that produce as ingredients, nor do prepared food menus. So, American sheeple, as well as domesticated and wild animals, eat a lot of glyphosate-contaminated produce.
Again, my statements about Monsanto's corrupt, U.S. government supported GMO practices are not a "fallacy" or "wrong belief". They're factual.
This post was edited on 3/25/20 at 8:56 am
Posted on 3/23/20 at 2:35 pm to paperwasp
It would be great if young people's ideas of an "Influencer" would shift from someone with a bikini body and insatiable demand to be noticed to people with something valuable to say and who see them as more than "Likes".
Posted on 3/23/20 at 8:06 pm to LovetheLord
It would also be great if more influencers and defacto role models would demonstrate and teach young people about good core values and life lessons that they've learned.
This post was edited on 3/24/20 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 3/23/20 at 8:19 pm to TidalSurge1
It would also be great if young people, and people in general, weren't influenced by "influencers."
My wife and daughter were trying to get me to watch this talking head on YouTube the other day and my response was that even if I substantively agreed with what someone had to say, I derive no pleasure from listening to his self-righteous moralizing about what others should do or not do.
My wife and daughter were trying to get me to watch this talking head on YouTube the other day and my response was that even if I substantively agreed with what someone had to say, I derive no pleasure from listening to his self-righteous moralizing about what others should do or not do.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 10:30 am to Snout Spout
quote:
I derive no pleasure from listening to his self-righteous moralizing about what others should do or not do.
You do know this pretty much eliminates the national news broadcast as we know it.
Posted on 3/24/20 at 3:36 pm to Cobrasize
There is a very large Nestle Purina plant in Hartwell, Georgia.
Posted on 3/27/20 at 1:07 am to Snout Spout
Aren't you doing the same thing? Self-righteous moralizing about people who follow what trends influencers are doing? Influencers are no different than celebrities just a different format.
Latest Alabama News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News