|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
thats because we have better medicines and antibiotics and other stuff people in 1910 or sooner didnt have.
People don't generally die today as we can treat the cause and fight it with our imrpoves immune systems, this has NOTHINg to do with the food being safer or not.
Just shut up for god's sake, if you need to be told preservatives are bad then you should read a LOT more.
As for what I stated earlier it still stands, you ignore me, I will ignore you. |
You have given me no evidence that food is less safe today, or that all preservatives are bad.
You are right that some preservatives are not suitable for some people, but I have seen no evidence that they are generally unsafe. If you would like to provide some, I would be interested to read it. perhaps you could suggest a book?
We are very lucky to live in an age where many varieties of cheap and abundant food are available to all. At least in the developed world. Unfortunately, food borne illness is still prevalent, but in no where near the numbers it was a century ago. Statistics associated with some illnesses have seen a resurgence in recent years. Campylobacter for instance. However, this can probably be marked down as better detection, rather than an over all rise in these illnesses.
In general, food is much safer and getting safer. I think all you need to do is read The Jungle to see what I mean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ... and a born again Pagan witch for 12 years. |
What is a born again Pagan witch, anyway? Isn't being "born again" a specifically Christian term? All I found on the internet is some band, and a website where an "ex-witch" wants to convert Pagans to Christianity. The witch in question was evidently a "High Priest." Strange how they're always High Priests. Where are the normal Priests? Doesn't being a High Priest require a heirarchy of normal Priests? It's like declaring yourself a CEO with no employees. Who are you giving orders to?
Anyway, any Pagans care to explain this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
re:cursive
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| What exactly is less safe about our food now than in the past? Endemic disease and death from food borne illness has been basically eliminated. How is food not safer? |
"The increased incidence of foodborne disease due to microbiological hazards is the result of a multiplicity of factors, all associated with our fast-changing world. Demographic profiles are being altered, with increasing proportions of people who are more susceptible to microorganisms in food. Changes in farm practices, more extensive food distribution systems and the increasing preference for meat and poultry in developing countries all have the potential to increase the incidence of foodborne illness. Extensive food distribution systems raise the potential for rapid, widespread distribution of contaminated food products. Changes in food production result in new types of food that may harbour less common pathogens. Intensive animal husbandry technologies, introduced to minimize production costs, have led to the emergence of new zoonotic diseases, which affect humans. Safe disposal of manure from large-scale animal and poultry production facilities is a growing food safety problem in much of the world, as manure frequently contains pathogens."
"In the USA, some 76 million cases of foodborne illness, resulting in 325 000 hospitalizations and 5000 deaths, are estimated to occur each year. There are only limited data on the economic consequences of food contamination and foodborne disease. In studies in the United States of America (USA) in 1995, it was estimated that the annual cost of the 3.3-12 million cases of foodborne illness caused by seven pathogens was US$ 6.5-35 billion. The medical costs and the value of the lives lost during just five foodborne outbreaks in England and Wales in 1996 were estimated at GB� 300-700 million. The cost of the estimated 11 500 daily cases of food poisoning in Australia was calculated at AU$ 2.6 billion annually."
-World Health Organisation
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/micro/general/en/index.html
"Use of antimicrobials in food animals can create an important source of antimicrobial resistant bacteria that can spread to humans through the food supply. Improved management of the use of antimicrobials in food animals, particularly reducing those critically important for human medicine, is an important step towards preserving the benefits of antimicrobials for people."
-World Health Organisation
http://www.who.int/foodborne_disease/resistance/cia/en/index.html
There are a number of more in depth reports on the WHO website.
Here's the food safety section of their website:
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/en/
I'm unsure whether there are any born again pagan witches working for them.
Last edited by re:cursive on Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I read those studies too. None of them state over what time period food born illnesses increased. I wouldn't deign to question the WHO, but these studies don't really disprove my original point that food in general is safer than in the past.
A possible factor is better recording and detection. Simply, we are better at finding out what people are suffering from. As the report you linked shows, we are eating much more inherently unsafe food such as meat and poultry, which could be attributable to the increase in campylobacter.
The emergence of new pathogen strains and anti biotic resistant old ones is certainly a huge concern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Recursive
Don't even bother man, you showed him actual infomration that refutes his posts and he simply finds (false) holes in it.
He does it with veirtually everything. He does not accept a contrary position to his own.
he reads them and discards them because they don't jive with what he read somewhere else.
I mean it's not like hes given any facts that shos the food to be safer in 1910 or before, but any actual facts we give are jut "wrong"
Don't even bother with him man, it ain't worth it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm desperately trying to find some stats that either prove or disprove my claim. I promise to post them even if they disprove me.
Honestly, does the WHO have any motivation to publish good news? Wouldn't its reason for existing cease to ...err exist, if all it did was show that the world's fundamentals were getting better?
Apparently 2 million die from food borne illness every year. What was that as a percentage of the world's pop a decade, 50 years and a century ago? That would basically end the debate for me. A nice graph showing an upward or downward trend would make my day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
re:cursive
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's kind of beside the point what time frame we are talking about though isn't it?
It would seem to me that there are severe public health problems that have arisen out of the industrial food industry of the last 50 or so years. It doesn't really matter whether food is safer than it was 100 years ago. It matters that it is unnecessarily unsafe now and that this can be connected to practices adopted by the factory system. Their greed and the consumers unrealistic demands for cheap, unseasonal meat and produce have severe consequences for everyone.
It says a lot when companies won't participate in interviews or allow people to enter their factories to see what is going on. I think it is one industry in dire need of reform. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| re:cursive wrote: |
It's kind of beside the point what time frame we are talking about though isn't it?
It would seem to me that there are severe public health problems that have arisen out of the industrial food industry of the last 50 or so years. It doesn't really matter whether food is safer than it was 100 years ago. It matters that it is unnecessarily unsafe now and that this can be connected to practices adopted by the factory system. Their greed and the consumers unrealistic demands for cheap, unseasonal meat and produce have severe consequences for everyone.
It says a lot when companies won't participate in interviews or allow people to enter their factories to see what is going on. I think it is one industry in dire need of reform. |
Industrialized food goes back a lot further than the 1960s. All that matters (to me, at least) is that food continues to improve. If you can show that food is getting worse, I will buy your claims. I don't think it is. There aren't any actual stats in the studies you posted, only assertions.
Dropping subsidies would go a long way in the "reform" you are asking for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Senior wrote:
| Quote: |
Industrialized food goes back a lot further than the 1960s. All that matters (to me, at least) is that food continues to improve. If you can show that food is getting worse, I will buy your claims. I don't think it is. There aren't any actual stats in the studies you posted, only assertions.
|
What do you think all those numbers were? And what do you mean by food continuing to improve? It might be available off-season and in high quantities, but that doesn't mean that the quality is any better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pangaea wrote: |
Senior wrote:
| Quote: |
Industrialized food goes back a lot further than the 1960s. All that matters (to me, at least) is that food continues to improve. If you can show that food is getting worse, I will buy your claims. I don't think it is. There aren't any actual stats in the studies you posted, only assertions.
|
What do you think all those numbers were? And what do you mean by food continuing to improve? It might be available off-season and in high quantities, but that doesn't mean that the quality is any better. |
I mean that more people are getting sick and/or dieing from food borne illnesses. That is what I mean by food improving. We seem to be taking it for granted that food is getting worse. But is it?
The report sets out exactly how many people (they think) are getting sick and dieing this year, but how many got sick last year, and the year before that, and so on. If the number is dropping, then what is the issue?
I'm just trying to get the stats straight. I will shut up if the stats prove me wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
re:cursive
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looking at the statistics here, sourced from the Korea Food and Drug Administration, it appears that there has been an increase in food borne outbreaks and cases in Korea.
There were 55 outbreaks and 1,584 cases in 1995, and 259 outbreaks and 10,833 cases in 2006. Both the graphs show an upward trend over the 10 year period. That's a big increase in excess of the population growth over the same timeframe.
http://synapse.koreamed.org/Synapse/Data/PDFData/0119JKMA/jkma-50-573.pdf
Last edited by re:cursive on Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| re:cursive wrote: |
Looking at the statistics here, sourced from the Korea Food and Drug Administration, it appears that there has been an increase in food borne outbreaks and cases in Korea.
There were 55 outbreaks and 1584 cases in 1995 and 259 outbreaks and 10,833 cases in 2005. Both the graphs show an upward trend over the 10 year period. That's a big increase in excess of the population growth over the same timeframe.
http://synapse.koreamed.org/Synapse/Data/PDFData/0119JKMA/jkma-50-573.pdf |
Interesting. However, 1995-2006 wasn't my original contention. Seoulio started screaming and shaking his fist over the contention that food is safer now than a century ago. I don't dispute that the numbers fluctuate over the short term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
re:cursive
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I doubt anyone is going to find accurate data on the quality of food a century ago. There was nowhere near the level of analysis as there has been in recent years. I suspect those statistics do not exist.
There has been at least one study that found a decline in key nutrients in vegetables since WWII due to the focus of modern culture on increased yields.
I'll see if I can locate the information and post it in a bit.
Last edited by re:cursive on Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nor does he show a single stat where food was not good in 1910, he just bashes the stats that we use to show that its not good now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
re:cursive
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
