Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Sandy and I watched Food Inc. on the CBC.  Did anyone else see it?  How did make you feel?

 

I am not sure how I feel about it, they made some interesting points.

The movie makes the large agri business firms look bad....that is who they are targeting.

 

They claim modern technology and large scale has some negative consequences - ecoli, overweight kids....

 

Here is the movie trailer,

 

Views: 449

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Overweight kids - yup, part of modern agbiz technology includes strapping some poor, skinny kid into a chair and, against their will,  ramming an endless stream of Big Macs and Baconators down their throat with the sole and inevitable consequence of causing childhood obesity. On their own, these poor, overweight kids would never do anything to contribute to their own extra poundage.

 

Thus, they are completely absolved of personal responsibility for their agbiz industry-induced, unhealthy physical state.

 

Therefore, it is clear that personal eating choices have nothing to do with society's obesity epidemic.

 

Well at least that's what Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan types would have you believe . . .

 

"The average consumer does not feel very powerful . . .the exact opposite", says the driver of the mini van while the mother and child? (@1:23) sit there and chow back on fast food. Were they powerless to choose a healthier kind of meal?

 

It is self-contradictions and lies like this, interspersed with half truths and misrepresented facts, that destroys any credibility that the producers of Food Inc. so desperately try to achieve. The trouble is, this type of media strikes a chord with the ill-informed consumer of today.

 

What really trips my trigger on this issue is that the consumer totally fails to acknowledge or understand their part in driving agricultural practices to what it has become today. The consumers that support the big stores offering the lowest prices are 99% at fault for driving modern into an "economy of scale" type of production.

 

They want cheap food - well, they get cheap food, but the way it is mass produced is part of the hidden cost.

 

 

Interesting points John,

 

If anyone wants to watch it online...it is on the CBC.ca site.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2010/foodinc/

 

Happy New Year,

 

Sandy

 

 

Good points John but I also believe people need to be reminded of the evolution of agri-business through the political process.

 

One person that stands out is Dr. Earl Butz, Sec. of Agriculture under Pres. Nixon and Ford.

 

His mantra which is refective of his persona:  "Get big or get out".

 

Agri-business took a firm root under his tenure, corn production exploded and the use of high fructose corn syrup became a cheap and effective additive to the exploding "fast food" businesses.

 

And he was also noted for the quote: (Time magazine November 11, 1974) 


"Food is a weapon. It is now one of the principal tools in our negotiating kit".  (this from the U.S.A. Sec. of Agriculture!!!!)

 

So it just begs the question...... If food is a weapon... who are the intended targets? ... and to what end?

 

John Schwartzentruber said:

Overweight kids - yup, part of modern agbiz technology includes strapping some poor, skinny kid into a chair and, against their will,  ramming an endless stream of Big Macs and Baconators down their throat with the sole and inevitable consequence of causing childhood obesity. On their own, these poor, overweight kids would never do anything to contribute to their own extra poundage.

 

Thus, they are completely absolved of personal responsibility for their agbiz industry-induced, unhealthy physical state.

 

Therefore, it is clear that personal eating choices have nothing to do with society's obesity epidemic.

 

Well at least that's what Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan types would have you believe . . .

 

"The average consumer does not feel very powerful . . .the exact opposite", says the driver of the mini van while the mother and child? (@1:23) sit there and chow back on fast food. Were they powerless to choose a healthier kind of meal?

 

It is self-contradictions and lies like this, interspersed with half truths and misrepresented facts, that destroys any credibility that the producers of Food Inc. so desperately try to achieve. The trouble is, this type of media strikes a chord with the ill-informed consumer of today.

 

What really trips my trigger on this issue is that the consumer totally fails to acknowledge or understand their part in driving agricultural practices to what it has become today. The consumers that support the big stores offering the lowest prices are 99% at fault for driving modern into an "economy of scale" type of production.

 

They want cheap food - well, they get cheap food, but the way it is mass produced is part of the hidden cost.

 

 

John you will find that the food is more extensive in poor suburbs and more fastfood franchisers than the white collar areas of a city. Ads are in the kids faces, from the day they sit in front of the TV.  Low income people have no choice, but to buy these foods, a person living on the dole or minum wage, are living on credit as it is.  It is alright to sit in an ivory castle and throw rocks. You have limited resources, pack the kids up and go to the farmers market an hour down the road the will cost you a hundres bucks all up, or go to Walmart and MacDonalds cost you 50.
Let me tell you a little story about Wollworth coming to town, with in a year they got the local council to close the local market though bylaws. Two butcher shops and three independanthree grocery stores closed who bought of local farmer, milk, fruit and vegitables and meat. My father's was one of the butcher shops. 
John Schwartzentruber said:

Overweight kids - yup, part of modern agbiz technology includes strapping some poor, skinny kid into a chair and, against their will,  ramming an endless stream of Big Macs and Baconators down their throat with the sole and inevitable consequence of causing childhood obesity. On their own, these poor, overweight kids would never do anything to contribute to their own extra poundage.

 

Thus, they are completely absolved of personal responsibility for their agbiz industry-induced, unhealthy physical state.

 

Therefore, it is clear that personal eating choices have nothing to do with society's obesity epidemic.

 

Well at least that's what Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan types would have you believe . . .

 

"The average consumer does not feel very powerful . . .the exact opposite", says the driver of the mini van while the mother and child? (@1:23) sit there and chow back on fast food. Were they powerless to choose a healthier kind of meal?

 

It is self-contradictions and lies like this, interspersed with half truths and misrepresented facts, that destroys any credibility that the producers of Food Inc. so desperately try to achieve. The trouble is, this type of media strikes a chord with the ill-informed consumer of today.

 

What really trips my trigger on this issue is that the consumer totally fails to acknowledge or understand their part in driving agricultural practices to what it has become today. The consumers that support the big stores offering the lowest prices are 99% at fault for driving modern into an "economy of scale" type of production.

 

They want cheap food - well, they get cheap food, but the way it is mass produced is part of the hidden cost.

 

 

Sorry, I'm kinda slow on the uptake here.

 

So, please make something clear for me - How many dollars does it cost to pay for a meal for a family of four at McDonald's? How many dollars does it cost to buy a package of hamburger buns, a head of lettuce and 2 lbs. of ground beef?

 

Numbers, please.

 

Torronto prices as of today 11 Jan2005
Mince beef 12.79 per kg converted to 4 Ilbs $25.59

head of lettuce $4.99

hambers buns 1.00 by 4 $4.00

Total $31.08 tax not included

 

$5 for a big mack x 4 $20 and no washing up or cooking.

 


John Schwartzentruber said:

Sorry, I'm kinda slow on the uptake here.

 

So, please make something clear for me - How many dollars does it cost to pay for a meal for a family of four at McDonald's? How many dollars does it cost to buy a package of hamburger buns, a head of lettuce and 2 lbs. of ground beef?

 

Numbers, please.

 

If I am not mistaken, you priced enough ground beef and lettuce to make at least 16 Big Macs, if not Quarter pounders. Maybe the real problem is that some fast food/fat food shoppers cannot do math and comparative shopping and don't like cleanup...

Here is what happens when someone declines to take responsibility for her/his own personal condition -

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V168xofxgu0

 

 

Where are you buying your ground beef from?  MacDonalds big mac does not have extra lean ground veal meat, and only has (2) patties, which does not add up to 1 lb of meat.  You can buy a head of lettuce for $2 and make at least 10 hamburgers with it also (thats a lot of lettuce).  People just like to make excuses for not having to put the effort into making your own dinner. It is a lot cheaper to eat at home, really cheap if you shop for your ingredients.   People just like everything to be convenient, and shop usually at a big box store also.  You forgot about the cost of driving to the restaurant (ie fuel, mileage on vehicle etc.)
Prices are from the net from Torronto, the conversion is from Kg to pounds. As for the prices they may vary depending on the competition. I went to Hearst today one suppermarket in the town. Head of lettus $3, 4bls of Beef mince $24.05, hamburgar buns pack of 6 $6.00. Total $31.05. Distance travel 30km. Yes you may get more, I have no quarms that eating at home you may get more for your dollar. But when you are unemployed, living on the pension, or a single mother with five kids to five fathers, a old pensioner in a flat depress as shit and a Mac ad comes on. As Andy says people want convience, and if your are given the illution, that is cheap at fast food place.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

Trump dumps tariff on Brazil’s beef

United States President Donald Trump has ended his 40 per cent tariff on beef from Brazil. Still a tariff of 26.4 per cent remains. He also eased tariffs on Brazil’s coffee, tea, cocoa, nuts and some fruits and juices. His tariff changes come after continued rising grocery prices that have defied his election promises to reduce food prices on day one of his presidency. Brazil sold US $1.5 billion worth of beef to the U.S. over the first eight months of this year. Trump imposed the 40 per cent additional tariff against former president Jair Bolsonaro who is now serving a 27-year sentence in prison. He was thrown out by a coup. On another front in the Trump offensive against record-high beef prices, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater said the Department of Justice is launching antitrust enforcement on the beef industry, feed, fertilizer, seed, fuel and farm equipment.

Producer egg prices increase

Egg producers are getting 9.9 cents more per dozen because the national agency has reduced levies. The decrease is due to a number of changes in levies for different purposes. It has just received approval from the National Products Council. The national agency is also increasing production because the cost of imports from the United States has risen, costing the agency about $200 million so far this year. The imports were necessary to meet Canadian demand, which the agency is obligated to fill. The production increases are balanced by a temporary increase last year when U.S. egg prices soared after millions of birds were euthanized to prevent the spread of highly-pathogenic avian influenza. The national agency has also lowered the price of eggs dedicated for industrial processing by 25 cents per dozen to $1.21. The result of the changes is an Ontario egg levy of 44.55 cents per dozen.

Ontario Celebrates Agricultural Excellence with 2025 Excellence in Agriculture Awards

The Government of Ontario is proud to recognize 12 winners and 7 honourable mentions of the 2025 Excellence in Agriculture Awards. Presented across 10 categories, these awards celebrate the outstanding contributions of individuals and organizations that are strengthening Ontario’s $51 billion agri-food sector. “I’m proud to recognize the winners and honourable mentions of the 2025 Excellence in Agriculture Awards for their hard work and commitment to building a stronger, more competitive agri-food sector,” said Trevor Jones, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness. “Their contributions drive the success of our sector and pave the way for the next generation, ensuring Ontario agriculture continues to thrive.” The 2025 Minister’s Award recipient is Growing Chefs! Ontario, located in Middlesex County. Growing Chefs! Ontario is a registered charity that is advancing food literacy by connecting chefs, growers, educators and community members through hands-on food education projects

Nutrien selects U.S. port to build new potash export terminal

Nutrien’s decision to build a potash export terminal in the U.S. instead of one closer to home in B.C. isn’t surprising, a University of Saskatchewan professor says. The Saskatchewan-based potash giant announced last week that it plans to build a new terminal at the Port of Longview, WA to handle expected growth in international demand for its fertilizer products. Canada's onerous regulations are likely why Nutrien chose to build the terminal in the U.S., said Stuart Smyth, a professor with the U of S Agricultural and Resource Economics department. “To put a billion-dollar investment in place is going to require rail capacity improvements, and by the sounds of what Nutrient is saying, things are easier to get done in the United States than they are in Canada,” Smyth said last week in an interview with CBC's The 306 guest host Theresa Kliem. Smyth said the new terminal is part of Nutrien’s plan to expand into India, China and other international markets. Saskatchewan-based Nutrien

UI Extension surveying Eastern Idaho farmers to improve succession planning workshops

University of Idaho Extension is recruiting Eastern Idaho farmers to take an online survey that will guide the format, content, frequency and locations of future succession planning workshops. UI Extension has hosted these workshops for several years to help farmers begin what is often a difficult discussion with family about how to best pass their assets to the next generation. The survey, which will remain open through the end of the year, includes 15 questions seeking feedback to make succession planning as relevant as possible for participants. It also asks producers to share hurdles that have slowed or stopped their own planning efforts. The average age of an Idaho farmer is 56.6 years old, according to the 2022 Census of Agriculture — a reminder that many producers are nearing a point where they need to make key decisions about the future of their operations. “The goal of the ranch succession workshops is not for them to walk out with a finalized plan but to know how to start

© 2025   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service