munson@squirt.DEC (08/13/85)
For those of you who think that sugar is not a 'staple' I propose the following
field trip: Toodle down to your nearest food store and read some labels.
* Head for the cereals aisle, and check the ingredients of any 4 cereals
(include 1 kiddie cereal).
* Read the labels on some cans of soup (house brands and Campbell's).
* Look at the back of a peanut butter jar (especially Skippy, jiff, or
Peter Pan).
* Peruse the contents of tomato or spaghetti sauce.
* Scan the frozen foods section.
* Contemplate the soft drinks aisle.
* Notice the 'flavorings' used in processing meats (lunchmeats, sausage, etc.)
* Examine 'health' foods like granola or yoghurt.
Mind you, this doesn't address things like baked goods (pastries and whatnot),
candy, or 'fast food'. Nor will I do more than mention corn sweetners (how
many ears of corn does it take to make a teaspoon of 'corn sweetner'??).
Shall we continue our discussion of exploitation now?
As always,
Joanne E. Munsoncsanders@ucbvax.ARPA (Craig S. Anderson) (08/13/85)
In article <3583@decwrl.UUCP> munson@squirt.DEC writes: > >For those of you who think that sugar is not a 'staple' I propose the following >field trip: Toodle down to your nearest food store and read some labels. Agreed, sugar is a staple, but... >Shall we continue our discussion of exploitation now? It is interesting that you bring up sugar as a vehicle for Third-World exloitation. A great deal of sugar is grown right here in the U.S. Hawaii has huge plantations of sugar cane, and sugar beets are also a big crop on the mainland. Because of domestic price supports, most nations would love to sell all the sugar they can on our markets. For example, when Castro started to get a little to friendly with Moscow, the U.S. imposed a trade embargo, which included sugar. This dealt a huge blow to the Cuban economy, since world prices for sugar are never more that a quarter of the U.S. price. One of the reasons why Castro wants better relations is so the sugar trade may resume. I doubt that imports take a great share of the American market, since American sugar farmers probably wouldn't stand for it. > > As always, > Joanne E. Munson -Craig Anderson csanders@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU > > As always, > Joanne E. Munson
lkk@teddy.UUCP (08/13/85)
In article <3583@decwrl.UUCP> munson@squirt.DEC writes: > >For those of you who think that sugar is not a 'staple' I propose the following >field trip: Toodle down to your nearest food store and read some labels. > > * Head for the cereals aisle, and check the ingredients of any 4 cereals > (include 1 kiddie cereal). > * Read the labels on some cans of soup (house brands and Campbell's). > * Look at the back of a peanut butter jar (especially Skippy, jiff, or > Peter Pan). > * Peruse the contents of tomato or spaghetti sauce. > * Scan the frozen foods section. > * Contemplate the soft drinks aisle. > * Notice the 'flavorings' used in processing meats (lunchmeats, sausage, etc.) > * Examine 'health' foods like granola or yoghurt. > >Mind you, this doesn't address things like baked goods (pastries and whatnot), >candy, or 'fast food'. Nor will I do more than mention corn sweetners (how >many ears of corn does it take to make a teaspoon of 'corn sweetner'??). > >Shall we continue our discussion of exploitation now? > > As always, > Joanne E. Munson Sure, let's continue. All you have demonstrated is the incredible amount of sugar Americans consume. You still can't live on it, which means it is not a staple. Check out the figures on the average calorie intake of American compared to the rest of the world. Or the rate of obesity. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/14/85)
>/* Written 10:37 am Aug 13, 1985 by teddy!lkk in inmet:net.politics */ >In article <3583@decwrl.UUCP> munson@squirt.DEC writes: >> >>For those of you who think that sugar is not a 'staple' I propose the following >>field trip: Toodle down to your nearest food store and read some labels. >> >> * Head for the cereals aisle, and check the ingredients of any 4 cereals >> (include 1 kiddie cereal). >> * Read the labels on some cans of soup (house brands and Campbell's). >> * Look at the back of a peanut butter jar (especially Skippy, jiff, or >> Peter Pan). >> * Peruse the contents of tomato or spaghetti sauce. >> * Scan the frozen foods section. >> * Contemplate the soft drinks aisle. >> * Notice the 'flavorings' used in processing meats (lunchmeats, sausage, etc.) >> * Examine 'health' foods like granola or yoghurt. >> >>Mind you, this doesn't address things like baked goods (pastries and whatnot), >>candy, or 'fast food'. Nor will I do more than mention corn sweetners (how >>many ears of corn does it take to make a teaspoon of 'corn sweetner'??). >> >>Shall we continue our discussion of exploitation now? >> >> As always, >> Joanne E. Munson > > >Sure, let's continue. All you have demonstrated is the incredible amount of >sugar Americans consume. You still can't live on it, which means it >is not a staple. Check out the figures on the average calorie intake of >American compared to the rest of the world. Or the rate of obesity. > > > >-- > >Sport Death, >Larry Kolodney >(USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk >(INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa >/* End of text from inmet:net.politics */ > Grr... Dictionary war! Here's my opening shot: (Webster's New World) 1. the chief commodity, or any of the most important commodities, made, grown, or sold in a particular place, region, country, etc. 2. a chief item, part, material, or element in anything. 3. raw material 4. any chief item of trade, regularly stocked and in constant demand (flour, sugar, and salt are *staples*) 5. the fiber of cotton, wool, flax, etc., with reference to length and fineness 6 [Now rare] a principal market, trading center, etc. --*adj*. 1. regularly found on the market or in stock as a result of a constant demand 2. produced, consumed or exported regularly and in quantity 3. most important; leading; principal [*staple* industries] --vt -pled, -plling to sort (wool, cotton, etc.) according to the nature of its staple. (end of definition from Webster's) I'll leave out the alternative definition of the sort of staple that comes out of a stapler. There's not much doubt that sugar is a staple, especially as it's given as an EXAMPLE of a staple by the dictionary. I suspect the confusion arose because of the oft-used "staple of their diet" (staple being used here as "chief item"). Once again folks, if you don't check in a dictionary before correcting someone's diction, you're asking for it (and making the rude assumption that you know the language better than the other person does). As for the "exploitation", discussion itself, I'd like to inject just one idea for people to consider: if another country gives us luxury items like (say) silk scarves in exchange for our wheat, and use up their land making silkworm-growing areas, silk-processing plants and so forth, and they do this because it is the most economical way of getting food (let us say that it would be more expensive for them to make wheat than it is for them to make the corresponding-in-value amount of silk) then we are exploiting them, and they are exploiting us, but both of us are better off for it (we're better off because we'd rather buy the silk than make it ourselves, and we'd rather have the silk than the wheat we exchanged for it).
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/14/85)
> > For those of you who think that sugar is not a 'staple' I propose the following > field trip: Toodle down to your nearest food store and read some labels. > > * Head for the cereals aisle, and check the ingredients of any 4 cereals > (include 1 kiddie cereal). > * Read the labels on some cans of soup (house brands and Campbell's). > * Look at the back of a peanut butter jar (especially Skippy, jiff, or > Peter Pan). > * Peruse the contents of tomato or spaghetti sauce. > * Scan the frozen foods section. > * Contemplate the soft drinks aisle. > * Notice the 'flavorings' used in processing meats (lunchmeats, sausage, etc.) > * Examine 'health' foods like granola or yoghurt. > > Mind you, this doesn't address things like baked goods (pastries and whatnot), > candy, or 'fast food'. Nor will I do more than mention corn sweetners (how > many ears of corn does it take to make a teaspoon of 'corn sweetner'??). > > Shall we continue our discussion of exploitation now? > > As always, > Joanne E. Munson Sugar is considered a nicety not a necessity. During WW2 when there was a shortage of sugar, people learned to live without it. Many studies show that there is an unnecessary amount of sugar added to our food. Some cereals for example have 15 teaspoons of sugar added, while others have none added. Sugar is shown to have absolutely no food value and is not necessary for normal bodily functions. Sugar obtained from eating some vegetables and fruits is all that is necessary. I still claim that sugar is not a staple in any country. Shall we continue our discussion of exploitation now?