7 ms·

What does one mean by, "accept American beef stuffed with hormones"? Would individual buyers not get the option to make choices? Would labeling be prohibited?

wazoox 7y ago
"Personal choice" is incredibly overrated (in the US, at last). Actually, most of the time (as the "nudge theory" shows), individual choice is mostly socially constructed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Having a choice and using the choice are different. Nudge theory is heavily critiqued and rightfully so - we know Choice Architecture is a thing, but humans are still free agents. Just because you don't like the choices people make doesn't mean you can then constrain their ability to make choice.
  - ambicapter 7y ago
    > we know Choice Architecture is a thing, but humans are still free agents Saying "yeah sure, but no", is just a cheap dismissal of GP's point.
lm28469 7y ago
Just like you have the "choice" between cheap veggies (sparkled with monsanto's health elixir that may or may not be damaging to you and the environment) vs local/bio veggies which cost a bit more, sure. Once you flood a market with cheap alternatives it becomes a race to the bottom and it's a losing battle for the customer. Plus it's not like you'll walk into a fast food / street restaurant and have the choice between cheap imported beef vs local beef either. As far as I can tell it was the classic "Accept our deal or face consequences" type of US foreign policies. I can't be the only one thinking that importing meat from the other side of the world for a purely economical reason is insanity, especially when the local meat market is perfectly fine and of better quality. Reminds me of all the meat scandals we had in the last decade in France, all of it coming from foreign countries, all of it due to companies trying to increase their margin at all cost: horse meat sold as beef, sick/old animals sold as healthy, minced meat made primarily skin, cartilage and other by-products, yummy...
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  > a race to the bottom and it's a losing battle for the customer How dare those customers get to have access to cheap food! They should only be able to buy organic, local approved veggies from their local overpriced grocery store! France didn't want to import US Beef (fair), the US threatened to not import French cheese in retaliation (seemingly also rather fair).
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >How dare those customers get to have access to cheap food! How dare customers want to have access to healthy AND cheap food. They don't get to chose both! And what's with the wages "race to the bottom" ensuring everybody will only be able to get cheap food - if at all? >France didn't want to import US Beef (fair), the US threatened to not import French cheese in retaliation (seemingly also rather fair). Yes, fair as well. So? (Although one is a crappy, unhealthy beef grown in abhorrent conditions, the other is high quality cheese).
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      One is a cheap high protein food wildly available produced by well paid workers, the other is a very expensive geographically protected cheese product. You may not like US beef, and you don't have to eat it, and you're probably well off enough that you get to make that choice. Protecting a domestic cheese production probably doesn't increase food availability for the poor - nor is that domestic cheese production some health food.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        Sorry, I don't want crappy "food for the poor" and healthy "food for the rich". I find this dystopian, and a false dichotomy. And those advocating are usually those "well enough" that don't have to suffer the "food for the poor" themselves. >Protecting a domestic cheese production probably doesn't increase food availability for the poor - nor is that domestic cheese production some health food. As part of the typical French diet, as is its use in France (and Europe), it's much healthier than the kind of crap passed for food to the poor in the US, or the fads peddled year after year as some "miracle food" to richer consumers (quinoa, chia, kale, and such).
obese_by_nature 7y ago
The hormones used are safe. They aren't even bioavailable in most cases.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  they would be useless if they weren't bioavailable
  - obese_by_nature 7y ago
    They aren't bioavailable to humans.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    That's why insulin is given in pill form, right? The hormones we are talking about here are proteins. They are injected into cows, because they are destroyed by digestion.
coldtea 7y ago
Labelling is made misleading, omits crucial information, uses tricks like small print, and is legally allowed to lie six ways from Sunday...
benj111 7y ago
The UK has recently introduced a 'sugar tax' on soft drinks. Try buying a soft drink without artificial sweeteners in. Then there's the 'may contain nuts' problem, if a manufacturer can't definitively say that a product doesn't contain hormones they'll just cover themselves by not guaranteeing it. So no it wouldn't really be the choice of individual buyers.

wazoox 7y ago

"Personal choice" is incredibly overrated (in the US, at last). Actually, most of the time (as the "nudge theory" shows), individual choice is mostly socially constructed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory

vorpalhex 7y ago
Having a choice and using the choice are different. Nudge theory is heavily critiqued and rightfully so - we know Choice Architecture is a thing, but humans are still free agents. Just because you don't like the choices people make doesn't mean you can then constrain their ability to make choice.
- ambicapter 7y ago
  > we know Choice Architecture is a thing, but humans are still free agents Saying "yeah sure, but no", is just a cheap dismissal of GP's point.

lm28469 7y ago

Just like you have the "choice" between cheap veggies (sparkled with monsanto's health elixir that may or may not be damaging to you and the environment) vs local/bio veggies which cost a bit more, sure. Once you flood a market with cheap alternatives it becomes a race to the bottom and it's a losing battle for the customer. Plus it's not like you'll walk into a fast food / street restaurant and have the choice between cheap imported beef vs local beef either. As far as I can tell it was the classic "Accept our deal or face consequences" type of US foreign policies. I can't be the only one thinking that importing meat from the other side of the world for a purely economical reason is insanity, especially when the local meat market is perfectly fine and of better quality. Reminds me of all the meat scandals we had in the last decade in France, all of it coming from foreign countries, all of it due to companies trying to increase their margin at all cost: horse meat sold as beef, sick/old animals sold as healthy, minced meat made primarily skin, cartilage and other by-products, yummy...

vorpalhex 7y ago
> a race to the bottom and it's a losing battle for the customer How dare those customers get to have access to cheap food! They should only be able to buy organic, local approved veggies from their local overpriced grocery store! France didn't want to import US Beef (fair), the US threatened to not import French cheese in retaliation (seemingly also rather fair).
- coldtea 7y ago
  >How dare those customers get to have access to cheap food! How dare customers want to have access to healthy AND cheap food. They don't get to chose both! And what's with the wages "race to the bottom" ensuring everybody will only be able to get cheap food - if at all? >France didn't want to import US Beef (fair), the US threatened to not import French cheese in retaliation (seemingly also rather fair). Yes, fair as well. So? (Although one is a crappy, unhealthy beef grown in abhorrent conditions, the other is high quality cheese).
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    One is a cheap high protein food wildly available produced by well paid workers, the other is a very expensive geographically protected cheese product. You may not like US beef, and you don't have to eat it, and you're probably well off enough that you get to make that choice. Protecting a domestic cheese production probably doesn't increase food availability for the poor - nor is that domestic cheese production some health food.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      Sorry, I don't want crappy "food for the poor" and healthy "food for the rich". I find this dystopian, and a false dichotomy. And those advocating are usually those "well enough" that don't have to suffer the "food for the poor" themselves. >Protecting a domestic cheese production probably doesn't increase food availability for the poor - nor is that domestic cheese production some health food. As part of the typical French diet, as is its use in France (and Europe), it's much healthier than the kind of crap passed for food to the poor in the US, or the fads peddled year after year as some "miracle food" to richer consumers (quinoa, chia, kale, and such).

obese_by_nature 7y ago

The hormones used are safe. They aren't even bioavailable in most cases.

kiliantics 7y ago
they would be useless if they weren't bioavailable
- obese_by_nature 7y ago
  They aren't bioavailable to humans.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  That's why insulin is given in pill form, right? The hormones we are talking about here are proteins. They are injected into cows, because they are destroyed by digestion.

coldtea 7y ago

Labelling is made misleading, omits crucial information, uses tricks like small print, and is legally allowed to lie six ways from Sunday...

benj111 7y ago

The UK has recently introduced a 'sugar tax' on soft drinks. Try buying a soft drink without artificial sweeteners in. Then there's the 'may contain nuts' problem, if a manufacturer can't definitively say that a product doesn't contain hormones they'll just cover themselves by not guaranteeing it. So no it wouldn't really be the choice of individual buyers.