“The label is regulated by the FDA, but what it means is very loose. For all practical purposes, the only major difference in the end product is the cost that went into producing it, which is often substantially higher, as are the profit margins.
I'd rather everyone be able to grow their own food and trade with neighbors, which is why I've been trying to start hggardens.com for over a year now.”
“Well yea, they are. But worse than that if you are on food stamps, good luck using them at the farmers market. Or WIC, which is even worse about that. Hell, my baby had WIC and we couldn't use it because the only store we could get to didn't sell any of the specially chosen brands. ”
“The label "organic" on a food item barely means anything. First of all, in order to keep it organic, the resources expended are substantially higher, the foods rake in a higher profit margin for the wealthy while screwing the citizens, and it isn't even that stringent a label.”
thinkofanamefast on Apr 25, 2013 at 11:03:21
“It's not "a" label...many orgs certify orgnanic food. The bigger retailers use the more dependable ones to insure they don't end up on Sixty Minutes.
I only prefer to buy organic because I believe there are less pesticides used....end of story.”
“Well sure, if you have the extra few hundred dollars a year. Some of us can't even afford to spend what we spend now to try to stay healthy, yet go the extra mile. Especially when the requirements for the labels aren't even remotely stringent and mean almost nothing, for those like me without the money to spend you are talking about the impossible.
The only way to improve accountability from corporations is to make the industries competitive, break up the big firms, rework our tax and regulation structure, and get people to care enough about politics to actually get things to change. These days, a lot of us don't have the money to do any of that, and it is sad it takes money. But you are yelling at the victims, not the aggressors.”
Maverickpower on Apr 24, 2013 at 17:29:03
“Bring back small local farmers ad rural agricultural infrastructure , grow your own damn food !”
eva07 on Apr 24, 2013 at 06:39:33
“You can grow some of your food art least and buy on farmers markets. If you go just before closing you can get it cheaper.”
“This article was labeled "this week's forgotten tragedy" on the main page. Maybe its because sites like Huffington Post burying it at the bottom of all the unimportant articles about minor gun regulations. Corporate greed kills many and injures many more, and it doesn't even register on pro-corporate sites like this.”
“Finally, Huff Po runs an article that talks about something other than guns. I was hoping North Korea didn't half to nuke ten major US cities just to finally get them to talk about something else. Thanks for actually covering this horrific, depressing, tragic news story, and with all the veracity once expected of this woebegotten journalistic graveyard.”
“You have to pay for taking away guns too. You think the enforcement costs of safetly removing 270 million people's guns would be trivial? Such a process would cost us between 2 and 8 Trillion (Yes, with a T) USD to properly execute. At the end of it, we would still have a gun death rate of about 1-3 per 100k, as they see in nations with outright gun bans, not to mention the increased rape, mugging, burglary rates. Not to mention the fact that suicide rates can be very high despite anti-gun policies, such as in Japan.
So the question is, partially effective, freedom crushing policies that crush the taxpayers or the national debt, or effective cheap policies like better healthcare access and screening, and making sure we have people out there looking for the red flags. The awareness campaigns have historically been incredibly effective. Unlike gun bans. Too bad the Huffington Post has gone from "decent articles" to "We are going to shove gun news down your throat 24/7/365 until America has no guns because fuck freedom and the constitution!!!" as of late.”
“Excellent, no arbitrary, pointless, ineffective, expensive, inefficient, oppressive laws! Hopefully once this bullshit passes we can focus on actually lowering the homicide rate through things like looking for the red flags that catch the one in a million that will do something horrible based on their blatantly obvious behavior, or, you know, ending the drug war and the 85% of gun deaths that come with it.”
“A major problem with this study is that 3d models look much worse without breasts than real women. A flat chested 3d model does *not* look like a flat chested real woman. I would rate women with small breasts substantially hotter than 3d models with small breasts even though 3d models with medium to large breasts would rate about the same as real women with medium to large breasts.
Hell, I'm a feminist and I like big boobs, what garbage. The study has far too few controls (testosterone, height, athleticism, age all alter what body type men find attractive), and its questions were almost obvious in their leading. Not to mention the studies biggest flaw: The authors discuss the results in terms of feminist theories about, essentially, the evils of men and sexuality in culture. Any study that discusses results implications in the same study as the actual data collection has a serious problem with inherent bias.
Also, the study was only including white men in London, a place with highly specific and fascinating cultural norms which do not apply globally or even regionally. Its implications are null and the study says nothing without substantially better controls, being done in more environments and cultures with a larger variety of races.”
Mar 8, 2013 at 16:45:58
“Of course what food makes a difference, but to say it is simply lifestyle choices is a load of crap. I live in a poor neighborhood without a car, the only food I can get is at a save a lot 2 mile round trip walking. The food is shit, unhealthy, and I feel weak and put on weight even despite doing my best to be healthy. Millions of Americans are obese because they don't have access to higher quality food that rich suburbanites do (as for the suburban population, eating junk food is entirely their idiotic choice).
Unless a lifestyle change includes winning the lotto, people in my position have no choice but to suffer. We can't grow our own in cheap, tiny apartments either. ”
Mar 6, 2013 at 14:46:35
“This article is sersiously misleading where not outright wrong. Food calories are a unit of measurement of energy potential, when you burn it, you get X kiloCalories of heat, which we call calories. One pound of fat burns to 3500 calories, period, so yes, they are the same.
As to how the body handles it, that is a vastly different story. Dieting causes the body to focus more on repair and less on growth, and it sets into motion a series of physiological pathways for reducing felt "energy" slowing you down, and essentially trying to make your body survive on the reduced diet. It will do absolutely nothing for your weight, but it will make you feel slow, weak, and reduce your ability to add muscle mass.
In other words, when you eat less than you should, your body forces you to use less energy, it does NOT take it from fat stores, unless you are literally dying of starvation.
If you do 3,500 calories of exercise, you will lose 1 pound of fat, and likely put on muscle, improve your metabolism, strengthen your cardiovascular system and immune system, among other things.
Don't diet, just exercise.”
hervoicewasgray on Mar 7, 2013 at 13:32:28
“That would all be well and good if the average American had a healthy relationship to food, but the reality is that most Americans consume way too much junk food and more calories than they need to fuel their bodies. A lifestyle change involving diet modifications is necessary to lose weight in most cases.”
“Huffington Post and readers, there is a solution, so long as we recognize the problem.
Prices (including the price of labor) are considered feedback signals for a market, based on the supply and demand for something, and they only are effective if competition can force entities to move towards equating supply and demand. Simple stuff.
However, since 1960 we have dropped from 6000 big companies to just 60 super-massive ones (in top 95% of GDP, standard measure of competition). Meaning hundreds of thousands of jobs cut in mergers and acquisitions, and hundreds of thousands lost in liquidations, artificially suppressing demand, and reducing the competitive force that would force wages to rise.
The only way to fix this is to break up big companies, and structure our taxes and regulations to favor small businesses and medium sized businesses over massive and especially over super-massive businesses.”
“The LAPD has slaughtered more randomly, more absurdly, and more insanely than Dorner has simply in the search for him. The LAPD will likely have killed several times more people than Dorner does by the time this search is over. They are on a killing spree and a power rush.”
boobrenda on Feb 12, 2013 at 12:45:03
“lapd is embarrassed and being made to look like fools”
UrascalU on Feb 12, 2013 at 12:18:23
“There are pictures on Imgur of large black guys with T-shirts that say "I Am Not Dorner. Don't Shoot Me!" and pickups with signs on the tailgate saying 'This Is Not Dorner's Pickup. Please Don't Shoot!"”
stillstandingkickingbutt on Feb 12, 2013 at 09:51:49
“Google it your right Even their own have killed one another”
“Not with student loans. I've lived in desperate poverty for the duration of my degree and pounded through it rapidly, but even making 65k a year, after taxes and student loan payments, I will be lucky to bring home 15k per year.”
“My source: Huffington Post articles. These statistics have been presented dozens of times over the past month and mostly come from government organizations, but have been repeatedly parroted through the huffington post, CNN, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, USA today, and the other news sources I rely on. That and some simply algebra gets everything I've presented.”
“We live in a country of 312 million people. about 1 million die per year. Guns are at the bottom of the list of causes, such a minute fraction that they hardly register a statistical blip. There are so few gun deaths compared to other causes that it is difficult to even study the subject of gun violence because there is so little data.
If you put the pictures of those who died from eating McDonalds on a page over the same time period, it would be 1500 times longer. If you did the same thing with car deaths, with would be 60x longer. If you did the same thing with cancer deaths it would be 1400x longer.
I am so tired of seeing this absurdly slanted, anti-scientific huff post articles dedicated to getting their readers to hate guns at all costs, changing their publishing style, changing everything they do to try to make readers hate guns. Using every single article as a commentary on guns, no matter how unrelated the article is. I wouldn't be surprised if the fashion articles started going "and here we have this celebrity showing some nip, which isn't as harmful as evil guns that kill everything because they are evil" too.
Seriously, calm down huffington post.”
coachsig01 on Feb 2, 2013 at 14:30:06
“You cite many "statistics".....what exactly was your source?”
coachsig01 on Feb 2, 2013 at 13:30:31
“You are citing a lot of "statistics". Please be kind enough to share your source.”
“I find it amazing that Huff Po misses the mark on so much of gun control and doesnt' really bother to mention it. First they act as though pro-gun people in the populace are all identical copies of the worst of what the NRA has to offer, and then, when presented with evidence that the vast majority of gun owners and gun supporters support reasonable regulations on gun licenses and background checks (just not bans) they write the article in the most neutral tone possible, which is quite different than the "one guy shot himself therefore GUNS BAD BAN THEM ALL" attitude they have presented lately.
Granted I'm glad about it, I just find the insanity hilarious.”
“More than 80% of debt is domestically owned. We owe our citizens mostly. The debt that is owned by foreign individuals is owned for the same reason people here own it, it is stable, secure, and has decent returns. Foreign governments, on the other hand, represent about 5-9% of our debt. These governments didn't purchase the debt for those reasons though, they have no choice. These governments, such as China, peg their currency to the US. You see, trade imbalances are normally equalized by currency markets, as an imbalance of currency will offset the imbalance in trade rapidly. This can be solved by "pegging" where the nation who wants to peg buys up all the excess USD on the market, to keep the markets even and sustain a trade imbalance. However, they can't afford this, and must not only go into deb themselves to do it, but must invest all of those USD in US debt in order to make enough off of it to survive. If they stop doing this, their manufacturing sectors crash and burn, they can not afford to stop, they can't afford to try to pull our strings with our debt, and they sure as hell can't afford to ask for more.
Foreign aid is 1% of the federal budget. We spend more on subsidizing fossil fuel corporate executive bonus packages than we do on foreign aid.”
“4. Our debt is currently super cheap and there is insanely high demand for it, because it is stable, and many nations have currency pegs to the US which involve them buying up large amounts of US dollars, and instead of just keeping large stacks of cash on hand they invest it in US debt so that they get a return.
5. From 2001 to 2007 tax evasion was 15% of total expected revenues. If tax evasion had been just 2%, which is reasonable in nations with good enforcement (the GOP strangled the IRS for years and took away most of its enforcement powers), then the government would have turned a surplus of at least 350 billion per year every year during that time, rising even as high as 500 billion one year. Unfortunately, the impotent IRS, as well as Bush's atrocious policy, obliterated that and we built up a massive debt that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Especially considering virtually 97% of tax evaders are millionaires and billionaires.”
“Hasn't since the advent of the fed, just like a dollar bill doesn't have a dollars worth of cotton in it. That isn't a bad thing, mind you, currency of fixed size based on the amount of precious metal can't grow and shrink with the size of the economy, causing massive deflation and inflation at completely inappropriate times, hurting everyone in the economy.”
“... So last week I read an article in this section about "12 trends that need to die from 2012" that were reasonable trends that were mostly a matter of personal style and largely timeless, and this week I read an article in this section about how the most objectively obnoxious, visually irate, intrinsically irritating trends out there are "here to stay"?? At least the leather pants are fine, but color blocking? Seriously? I hope nobody sincerely comes here for fashion advice.”