I am definitely aware of the high costs of a vegan diet verses an unhealthy meat based diet. I have been cooking for over 40 years, for the family I grew up in, and my own family that I raised. More than half of those years I cooked a meat-based diet following the guidelines that the FDA provides along with their food pyramid. Since I could purchase the subsidized meat, milk, eggs and cheese along with less vegetables according to those guidelines in comparison to a Vegan diet, the costs were preposterously much less.
A unplanned diet consisting of McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken which is even more heavily subsidized the cost is even lower, and eating this substandard food is becoming a way of life for many people since not as many families cook any more or even have dinner together. We are all running around working hard to just provide the necessities these days and not a lot of people have the time to cook anymore.
Now who is paying for these subsidized products? We all are including Vegans who aren't even eating them. So, not only are we paying for our own foods that we eat but for the foods that I find repugnant now for others.
I have been shopping and cooking as a Vegan for eight years now. The cost of fresh produce is shamefully high, especially organic. Fresh produce is what makes the bulk of what we eat.
While dried beans and lentils are very affordable, nuts and seeds, flax oil and flax seed for our Omega 3's, yogurt to provide probiotics, a variety of colorful fruits and vegetables to provide the anti-oxidants, isoflavones and fiber that we need. Olive Oil replaces most of the vegetable oil which is too high in Omega 6. Then there are nuts and seeds, along with the higher costs of Hemp milk, soy milk and almond milk, veganaise etc. This may sound like a lot of changes but these changes are what make a diet Optimal. And that is what we are talking about is an optimal and healthy diet.
But hmmm... I haven't even gotten to the main topic and that is about the Whole Foods Rewards Workers Who Lose Weight topic.
I'll get back to you later ertarox, I love your passion and enthusiasm and how you present your views in such an unoffensive and friendly way.
This program is definitely a punishment and hardly an incentive. An obese person would have to put an enormous amount of effort to get the same reward as an already fit person. This only leads to defeatism, where an obstacle would seem insurmountable.
If it is true that Whole foods is paying for programs that will benefit overweight people by educating them on proper nutrition and exercise, then that is a wonderful way to reward someone, with good health! Offering a monetary reward based on the test I am certain would make an individual feel like he is in a contest with others that don't have to put as much effort as he would.
When you make a reward for someone it isn't made at the detriment to others. It's the same psychology as giving a child who behaved a reward like a new toy, but the bad child who doesn't behave gets nothing.
Of course the reward less child feels like he is being punished.
This is also blatent discrimination. I would like to see what the ACLU has to say about something like this.
I have just read all of the new posts and I have to quickly reply to one of the issues concerning the Whole Foods Rewards Workers who lose weight.
Since there have been many other things having to do with this subject such as nutrition, prices for junk foods verses healthy foods etc. I have veered off my main point and concern. That is the issue of discrimination, period.
I would be just as adverse to discrimination against the healthy and fit if the reverse came to pass, and that would be the program to give the obese the additional discount,for whatever reason. It doesn't matter what the reason is for discriminating against any group of people, it doesn't matter what the end result would be. Discrimination is discrimination.
I am certain that it would be of benefit for McDonald's to give a discount to their obese employees and not to their fit and lean ones to give more incentive to their employees to buy more of their hamburgers. I would be just as adamant as I am being now that the practice would be wrong of them to be discriminating against the healthy employees.
Regardless of the businesses intentions, like I said discrimination is discrimination regardless of the end goal.
Ertarox, you have addressed so many subjects that we share an interest in, and I admire anyone who is concerned with social issues, such as the raping of our forests and lands to provide acreage for livestock, and how it affects our environment, about human and animal rights etc. Since I would love to address these issues and discuss them with you it will take time for me to go over what you have written, and when I have some more time to post some replies to you concerning them.
And thank you also for your insight and thoughtfulness on important subjects like these.
Until then, have a nice weekend!
I hope this sets a precedent and that this is a step towards finally bringing Monsanto down. Go Vegan! Buy organic. Your money talks.
No posts published so far.
1.) You're using MONSANTO to defend.... Monsanto? Yes, judge, I believe the murderer... he says he did not kill the woman, so it must be true.
2.) You propose a catch 22 in saying we can't hate GMO and the terminator technology together. Um... no. Silly rabbit. GMO sucks ass at all levels. If Monsanto didn't own Congress and the Supreme court, it would likely not be as prevalent as in the EU. As it is now, the bought politicians routinely buy into the "American's aren't prepared to know" presentation from the companies. Yes. We can say that both GMO sucks ass and spreads to non-desired species (see NON-MONSANTO links above), and that Terminator technology sucks as well...
If your lover Monsanto can't control the spread of Roundup1 gene and has to create Roundup2... they likely will not be able to control terminator technology.
3.) Your argument would have at least some validity if you 1.) Would spit out Monsato's reproductive organ, and 2.) Would use sources other than Monsanto to defend... Monsanto.
It may be a small amount but for Monsanto it means that farmers could be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants. This could be a big deal and could also drive investors away.
Expert Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, reveals shocking facts about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Studies have produced thousands of sick, sterile and dead laboratory animals; thousands of people linking toxic and allergic type reactions to these foods and damage to virtually every system in the laboratory animals studied. Despite this alarming evidence 70% of the foods in our supermarkets have genetically modified organisms in them.
why is 70% food gm - actually it all is and it is still there because it doesn't do any harm. You just keep quoting stories about GM food but no real data that it is actually harmful to people - dont you think that i it was harmful someone anyone would have brought a lawsuit to stop it. Th e only lawsuits against Monsanto on this are against the USDA about their process of approval and a weird pre lawsuit by the organics trying to encourage their sales. You can't actually win a sue unless you have been injured and far from being injured or damaged organic growers own their very existence to GM crops. They use GM crops as an excuse for people to pay more for organic food -the organics should be paying companies like Monsanto advertising fees
Copyright ©2012 VegSource Interactive, Inc. Reproduction of material from any VegSource pages without written permission is strictly prohibited.
VEGSOURCE ® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Mostly Magic Productons, Inc.