maandag 12 augustus 2013

Where does our foods come from ?

Hundreds of brands that we find on supermarket shelves give the impression that our money goes to as many different companies. But that's not the case: a large majority of these brands are owned by a handful of companies. The following chart provides an overview of where our money actually goes.
Honestly i'm doing an overview to share this article once again because i didn't know either. The more you share this the better people will become aware of the giant powers from the industry. Your health depends on it or better, your good feeling instead instant happy feelings fooling each other.

So my advice is that some great direct selling company's have great healthy raw and organic products which aren't controlled by the government (unless they examine nature every 24 hours like in newzealand) but totally conform the legal norms to produce these products. One of these companies i find out is , FREZZOR (life experience CEO aboard ). The best advertisment is mouth to mouth and real results . Change your life , one step at a time. TODAY.

1 - These companies are so big that they have a dangerous political power
The food industry conducts lobbying activities at all levels: international, national and local. In addition, large amounts are invested by these companies in the referendum campaigns of several political candidates from all parties.  It is bad for all the interest of companies comes before that of the population, especially when it comes to important areas such as public health. The record of the labeling of products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a good example to date, it is impossible to know if GMOs have a dangerous effect on health or not. Despite this, a majority of products on supermarket shelves already contain GMOs. The U.S. state of Oregon attempted in 2002 to introduce legislation to require companies to disclose which of their products contain GMOs. We do not mean to ban GMOs, or even reduce their use, but only to inform consumers of their presence in the products purchased, and giving them a choice to buy or not. A huge lobby representing the food giants was then formed, with each company contributing to strokes tens of thousands of dollars (PepsiCo has invested $ 127,000, Procter & Gamble, $ 80,000). Finally, the bill is not passed . It's mostly not in the advantage of the public health and more and more diseases will get into our lifestyle , we didn't need to . This could be prevented when capitalism wasn't such important. Something like = "That's all folks" 

2 - Health Impacts
This makes sense: our health is largely by the food we eat, it is from them that eventually build up our body. To the extent that a vast majority of foods we buy are provided by a very small number of companies, each of them has a huge part to play on our health, which is partly in their hands. Contrary to what they can say well through various advertisements, our health is not part of their genuine concern, quite the contrary.

3 - Impacts on the Economy
 A small producer simply does not have the budget to compete with them. Moreover, people are used to mark the big companies, and have the reflex to immediately buy these brands (who also receive support massive advertising), which makes the competition much more difficult with them. And if a producer was able to finally break into the market with a product that interests people, it is highly likely to be quickly acquired by a multinational and its brand will become another of the hundreds that 'they already have. All this prevents healthy competition in the market. Economically, the limited number of companies in the food market puts us in an oligopoly. An oligopoly often leads to a cartel , ie a small group of companies fixed prices at a higher amount than the market, to increase their profits at the expense of consumers. This practice is generally illegal and falls under the collusion, but that does not prevent companies from entering prostitution

4 - Environmental Impacts
Companies that control the food industry have, in general, not an environmental issue rosy. In 2001, Kraft decided to invest heavily in the business of lobbying the Bush administration to campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. In China, PepsiCo and Nestle were convicted for pollution of waterways . Unilever, meanwhile, 7.4 tons of illegally dumped waste contaminated with mercury at the entrance to the forest Pambar Shola in India, right next to a city with high population density. Unilever was forced to close this plant mercury for this reason. It's also no surprise that Procter & Gamble has lobbied to weaken the European environmental bills in the place of chemicals. Because of pressure from P & G, the final legislation passed in 2003 by the European Parliament protects only very few citizens and the environment of toxic substances in household products. This "militant" anti-environmentalist shown by these companies has one goal: to ensure that production is the cheapest possible in the short term. Damage in the longer term to the overall population of our planet, including that of animals, has no weight, but he look good.

But the most significant impact that these companies have on the environment may be connected to the massive use of palm oil in their food. Indeed, the devastating impacts (large-scale deforestation, relocation of local communities leading to violent situations , extinction of animal species, emission of greenhouse gases) industry of palm oil have been revealed in recent years , but palm oil is still used extensively in a variety of processed products, mainly because of its cheapness and the fact that it represents an alternative ( equally unhealthy ) to trans fats.

5 - Human Impacts
The reputation of several multinationals about the working conditions they impose abroad is well established. Over the years, companies operating in various fields have been in the spotlight, the center of several scandals. The fact that the food industry also behaves in this way will therefore probably not surprising. Despite this, the severity of the actions of some of these companies may surprise many. Hard not to feel helpless in the face of multinationals have budgets too immense, a great political influence and who can consistently afford the best lawyers to fight any further. But the exorbitant revenues of these companies, which maintain these practices, does not grow on trees ... they come from our pockets! It is we who give them when every week we buy hundreds of products that we offer at the supermarket. Food is a huge market: each of us must eat to stay alive, and at rehearsal! Our visits to the supermarket are regular and represent the sum, much of our budgets. It would be wrong to believe that the impact that each of us has on this industry is minimal. Do the exercise, and calculate how much money you spend on groceries per year. Better yet, try out at your next visit, what percentage of the products you buy are sold by a few multinationals: you can calculate approximately how much money you give them. The result may be surprisingly high. So even if we cut one of his contribution, the impact will be several thousand dollars!
Two obstacles arise, however: 

- It is difficult to avoid products sold by the handful of companies. They are everywhere, and sometimes it may seem that no alternative is offered: if you do not buy the product from Nestle, then you buy one Kraft or Pepsico. But there are alternatives, just search for them. They sometimes require extra effort, especially the effort to do a little research on the origin of the products we choose to buy (and the company that manufactures them). This effort is seen at the individual level, however, rewarded by the consciousness of being a good choice, and collectively with money invested elsewhere in this oligopolistic system.

- The brands owned by these companies are part of our lives long, they are everywhere. We're used to, sometimes attached. Advertising encourages us to constantly buy them. Very often, it is very difficult to imagine the ban all of our lives, suddenly and completely change our habits in a jiffy, it just is not realistic.

But these obstacles should not stop us! First, it may be convenient to print out our great graphic and drag it to the store to make the diagnosis of our habits, but also to look at the products that belong not to these companies: one becomes aware possible alternatives. Then you can try the products available to us as an alternative, perhaps more than we will appeal, and our habits will be more easily changed. It can also be profitable to try to change our habits one by one: over time, our impact will grow more and more, and we will not also destabilized. This approach is at least more realistic than a sudden boycott and inflexible, even if it is ideally desirable.
Inform us!

et us not be manipulated by advertising, for it is through ignorance that these companies manage to have such a great power. In fact, if all were aware of their actions, their profits are falling steadily: very few people willing to endorse their actions. A wealth of information and articles are available on the internet, just waiting to be searched. For those interested in this topic, we also recommend the excellent documentary Food Inc.. that paints a broad picture of the food industry in the United States (the American situation is very similar to ours).

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten

ETA sluit de ontstekingsschakelaar in de cox-2- en lox-paden af ​​

Noel Turner's levensverhaal = Ik speelde in de vroege jaren 70 van de vorige eeuw een belangrijke rol in de ontwikkeling van de greenl...