Kirk McLoren wrote:
(cpm wrote)
-SNIP
No. Food outside the corporate stranglehold isn't cheaper, it's
more expensive, it's also higher quality, better tasting and
considerably healthier.
---
65 cents for Fuji apples and FRESH beats the heck out of corporate
distribution in
Kirk McLoren wrote:
If you want cheaper food you have to break the stranglehold the
corporations have on distribution.
I'm sorry, but this level of rhetoric is just getting to be too much for me.
Cheaper food? You want CHEAPER food?
The base food in the US is already so cheap, that folks
Chris Burck wrote:
artificially low prices and control of distribution are two sides of
the same coin. from seed to shelf, the same entities are running the
game. i didn't hear anyone suggesting farmer's markets are corporate
controlled.
No.
What was suggested was that 'corporations' have
artificially low prices and control of distribution are two sides of
the same coin. from seed to shelf, the same entities are running the
game. i didn't hear anyone suggesting farmer's markets are corporate
controlled.
On 2/27/08, Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kirk McLoren wrote:
Hello John
As many of us know, the earth's ability to supply resources for 6
billion people has reached it's limit. Now it's which end use these
resources are assigned. Food or fuel? More of one means less of the
other. We are in decline.
Then many of us know wrong. It's not true, and it
farmer markets are cheaper or more expensivd, depending on the item
and time of year. csa packets are actually quite competitive. of
course, farmer markets are distribution, and outside of the corporate
network. kirk's point was that there aren't enough of them (at least
that's how i read it),
Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Chris Burck wrote:
artificially low prices and control of distribution are two sides of
the same coin. from seed to shelf, the same entities are running the
game. i didn't hear anyone suggesting farmer's markets are corporate
controlled.
No.
What
As many of us know, the earth's ability to supply resources for 6
billion people has reached it's limit. Now it's which end use these
resources are assigned. Food or fuel? More of one means less of the
other. We are in decline.
Keith Addison wrote:
Brownfield: Ag News of America
You forgot the third option which is what most of land's productive
output is used for nowadays -- industrial feedstocks. If we cut back
on that, we'd have alot more for both food and fuel.
Z
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:54 PM, John Mullan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As many of us know, the
Far from it. The problem is distribution not production. The Fed gvt pays
farmers not to plant so that the market isnt glutted. There is an enormous
acreage in these programs.
If you want cheaper food you have to break the stranglehold the corporations
have on distribution. You have to go
Brownfield: Ag News of America
Consumers can and will pay more for food
Monday, February 25, 2008, 3:12 PM
by Peter Shinn
For the past 11 years, the American Farm Bureau Federation has
celebrated the fact that Americans generally pay around 10% of their
total income for food, the lowest
11 matches
Mail list logo
