Home | About | Donate

Key Issue Ignored by Presidential Candidates: Food


#1

Key Issue Ignored by Presidential Candidates: Food

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

"Why don't candidates talk about food?"

That's a question asked by the Des Moines Register's editorial board this weekend, who also pointed out that the "first-in-the nation caucuses are held in one of the world's great agricultural centers."

It should be a major issue for presidential candidates, the Register says, because


#2

"Why don't candidates talk about food ?"

The Des Moines Register knows the answer to their rhetorical question.

Number One: University agriculture departments in Iowa are funded by the GMO cartel.

Number Two: Iowa is home to 30 to 40% of all the factory farmed hogs in the US. In addition to impacting the meat quality, factory farming pollutes land and water big time.

Number Three: During a June 2014 speech Hillary told the audience at a GMO cartel convention in San Diego that they "need to put a new spin on GMOs to make them appeal to young voters" that she needs to win in 2016. Part of that new spin will certainly be to ignore the issue as much as possible.


#3

IOWA- The Breadbasket of Bio-Fuels and Cattle Feed......and the Center of Corporate Farming.
These Large Scale Farms burn Petrol, herbicides, fungicides.....and pillage the vital top soil resources.
Not to mention draining the fossil aquifers of water.....Lets not forget the runoff of chemicals creating dead zones in humanity's Gulf.

Need to ban Corporate Farming....in the same realm of Fracking, off-shore drilling, Artic drilling,etc


#4

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#5

Because they aren't going hungry. It's solely about them.


#6

Under the heading, Two Birds with one Stone, barrel bomb ISS with high fructose corn syrup and Mountain Dew.


#8

Well, Duh! Why did the Des Moines Register wait until after the campaigns were over to ask the question?! Do not allow the Fourth Estate to finger the First Estate wannabes for not having done the Fourth Estates work for them! Professional tardy editors? Or, did they really think they could pull that snarky garbage on stupid voters?


#9

"Why don't candidates talk about food ?" Because their are to many different opinions on the subject. It would be foolish for a candidate who wants to get elected to tackle a subject that know body agrees on. Factory farming, GMO, insecticides, and many other things are extremely important, and need to be addressed in a vigor's manner. I am sure Bernie Sanders will do that after he is elected.


#10

Not to worry! Even in a much-improved, democratic socialist world, we can always do what we should not do, just as we can chose to be wrong, lazy, or ignorant.


#11

O'Malley answered at least one question on farming at the recent forum at Drake U. The question came from a woman who was just starting out as a farmer.


#12

You better tell the Des Moines Register.


#13

You are mistaking Bernie for Bloomberg.

While Bernie has not championed the social engineering you describe, Bloomberg was the undisputed social engineering champ when he was Mayor of NYC. When Hillary falters Bloomberg will enter the race and you will have ample opportunity to expand your critique.


#16

The Des Moines Register people probably took a break for snacks between Sanders and Clinton and missed O'Malley. Most lilkely a lot of TV viewers at home took a break as well. Only us few O"Malley supporters probably actually saw him on TV.


#19

Perhaps naming an ice cream flavor for Bernie is Ben Cohen's (of Ben & Jerrys) attempt to "stomp out this argument".

Wasn't Jerry Garcia the last person to have an ice cream flavor named for them ?


#20

It needs more than a ban. The entire way industrialized agriculture works, is structured, and financed needs to be redesigned and reengineered, and there's about as much chance of that happening as there is to have the armaments industry reworking their nukes and drones and missiles into high tech plowshares.

Huge industries, chemical for example, would have to give up on the ones they make that are profitable into things that are useful -- and they would have to want to or else they'd foot drag and concentrate on Save The Status Quo counterpropaganda.
.


#21

Smaller farms, food hubs, better distribution schemes. Get back to the future! We don't need an entire aisle dedicated to orange cheezie puffs.


#22

As I see it, we should not knowingly, voluntarily do what is wrong. The wrongness of an act is determined by its consequences (broadly speaking), for those states of affairs and principles we most value (for example, thinking sentient nonhumans like cows (along with human health and the health of the planet) intrinsically valuable, and wanting to avoid causing unnecessary suffering and harm, we should not eat them. "We" in turn denotes those of us who accept those presuppositions and principles. Those who do not, while potential interlocutors, have opted out of this particular moral conversation.


#24

Very nicely framed.....


#26

Without covering the waste of big parties/conventions, etc... just the waste from homes/families is bad enough... Being a working mother... it is difficult when you make a meal and your young kids do not eat it. Then, the left overs, which you wish would work for another day, cause you get home so late... get left in the frig, 'cause husband says he doesn't eat left overs... even though money wise, we have to make things stretch... so a great soup he liked on Sunday, homemade, will not get eaten after that... I mean, I make about 75% of my food from scratch... I only eat fish and not other meat. My kids and husband do eat poultry.... but I use a lot of beans, yogurt etc, some cheese, then nuts, rice ... my husband has gotten a bit better about leftovers... but with out someone being in the home, most of the time, it gets difficult to form routines and organize so that waste is kept to a MINIMUM... I tried... however, NOW I AM HOME.... trying to start a business from home... it is very different... I am working with my sister who is very efficient and we are working on various routines to make "sustainable" homes... I kind of do not like that word any more.. but, oh well.. When I say someone has to be in the home " a lot" ... I do not mean it has to be the woman... Our lives are extremely devoted to being OUT OF THE HOME... working for someone else.. for a wage/salary... even if you do work for yourself ... the amount of money that is required in this economy, to "make it"... is phenomenally, ridiculous.... we pay health insurance, car insurance, flood insurance, homeowners, insurance, some pay crop insurance, life insurance, docs pay mal practice insurance, I mean, where does it all end? By the time we get done, then we're paying 5 times more for phones then we ever did in past.... per family, we pay for TV which people didn't do in the past... then, if you do have to go to the docs or hospital, you rack up bills which are not paid by that insurance..
We teach our kids that they are supposed to "establish their credit"....What a crock.... I heard yesterday that the average family now has about 14,000 dollars of CREDIT CARD DEBT.... that is ridiculous... my life and my identity are NOT determined by my credit... I did not even "believe" in credit cards when young... heck they were for rich people... my parents didn't have any... I got my first one at 35 and I was duped into it... my husband was the one who really fell hard... and ... when it comes to one's credit history, that is very much determined by who you end up marrying... your destiny is tied to that person as far as your money goes... if that person is not oriented toward understanding limits... or quality of life with "stuff'... then your sunk... again, my point about what we teach our kids... WHY ARE WE STILL TELLING THEM TO GO INTO DEBT..??? To me, a house is about the only thing that someone should get credit for... but ... we have been brain washed into believing that "oh, well, you have to get credit cards and be 'good" with them before we let you buy a house..... so....
BULLSH*T.... Well, I have my house... and with the playing around at the top of this money pyramid... when the next crash comes and people have no jobs and no money to pay for their houses... are we going to let the banks come and kick us out?... Really?... If because of those lying cheating thieves at the top, the economy goes belly up again, we would let them make millions and millions of us be homeless???? WHY THE HECK WOULD WE DO THAT... PEOPLE, THE WAY TO FIGHT BACK IS TO NOT PLAY THEIR GAME.... I REPEAT, DO NOT PLAY THEIR GAME...
many think they have to have homes that are "oh so perfect and beautiful... so, they put a bunch of fancy furniture in it... redo their bathroom over a bunch of times, cause, you know, it's out dated... and that goes for the kitchen too... we buy buy buy... on credit or cash, EITHER ONE CREATES DEMAND... so now, I come around to the other issues, tied to this....
MONEY IS THE RESULT OF CO2 PRODUCTION....
So, every time you buy something new... think about all that co2 you just added because now that demand creates another one of those products... instead, you could buy SECOND HAND... including clothes...people.. stop thinking you are royalty and you need 100 dollar shirts... or even 25 dollars shirts...
just stop.. .buying new... NOW, YOU SAY THAT WILL HELP BRING DOWN THE ECONOMY TOO... .sure, it will eventually... and THAT IS WHAT WE NEED... cause, the only thing that will stop co2 production, is the fall of civilization... don't believe me?... Even the IPCC report states that WE WILL REACH 4 DEGREES CELCIUS, BY 2100 UNLESS WE DO GEOENGINEERING..... GOT THAT... AND ... AND ... those IPCC REPORTS ARE CONSERVATIVE... FIND TIM GARRET'S 2009 PEER REVIEWED PAPER ... it states that CIVILIZATION IS A HEAT ENGINE...... the melting of the top layers of ice on the Siberian ice shelf is really serious. (Natalia Shakova)... Those top layers are a "SEAL" she states over the hundreds or more GIGATONS of methane trapped under that seal... she is saying that the seal is melting away... and she looks like she is going to cry. I mean it... she is a scientist and she is being .... real...
I know I covered a lot here.. .but, I can't help it... all of this is SO COMPLICATED AND INTERTWINED... but, yet so simple... all the tricks and techno fixes are not going to help us... and some are going to try to fix the climate problem by using geoengineering.... AN DFOR ALL YOU OUT THERE THAT WANT TO TELL ME... Oh, humans have already been geo engineering the climate so.. what's the diff... I really have already heard it.... go stuff it...


#27

You may think I want to dictate what people can do... well, YOU'RE RIGHT!!! I mean, why are we WAITING FOR PEOPLE TO DO WHAT'S NEEDED... most are still asleep... we are making no progress, NO PROGRESS... I can say that because why???? We are still raising co2 levels... STILL RAISING... and I doubt they will go down, because what ever little tiney bit we may, may reduce them.... mother earth is releasing her own now... her own co2 and methane... AND WE ARE LOOSING THE CARBON SINKS THAT USED TO HELP US.... so.... okay, I'll quit now... find all the holes in my rant... go ahead, make my day...