The U.N. Reports are political and CI's are private. You tell me which of these acronyms smells fishy? As in dead oily fishy. Hmmm. I love Cargill's efforts to feed the world, but let's be honest... It's about money more than ecology or feedng the world. The Chinese put lead paint in toys and Cargill puts toxins in rivers. In the end it all balances out. Cargill's name proves oil by products go through car's and gill's. :-) Okay, bad joke.
posted by tonytec on Nov. 30, 08 at 3:39 AM |
if Cargill wasn't trying to be transparent, it would have embraced grass root efforts instead of trying to hide behind a corrupted bureaucracy.
posted by larrymease on Nov. 30, 08 at 6:53 AM |
if Cargill wanted to be transparent, it would have embraced grass root efforts instead of trying to hide behind a corrupted bureaucracy.
posted by larrymease on Nov. 30, 08 at 6:57 AM |
Geez...does there have to be a debate about EVERYTHING? I mean, I know everyone thinks they're smart enough to be in charge if ONLY the world would do thing their way. But, come on, companies are run by people much smarter than you and I and have to live with their decisions too. If we didn't want it, we wouldn't by 'it', whatever the widget is.
posted by dvaudio on Nov. 30, 08 at 9:31 AM |
The World Health Organization (WHO) states there is convincing evidence that palmitic oil consumption contributes to an increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. One of the primary cholesterol-elevating fatty acids is palmitic acid, which increases the risk of coronary heart disease. The Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion Council disputes these findings. Like a lot of these issues, each group can produce "studies" that contradict the other side. The good(?) news is that palm oil appears to be healthier than trans fats.
posted by worldcitizen on Nov. 30, 08 at 9:36 AM |
the grassroots effort was politically motivated rather than scientifically. Would you trust PETA to provide an unbiased report on the safety of feedlots. I would hope not. Too often grassroots efforts are controlled by activists who are no more objective than "corrupt" government officials. And where is there any evidence that the government is not regulating the industry to their standards? Just because Europe and the US does it doesn't make it right. They are the ones who invaded Iraq aren't they?
posted by biwabik517 on Nov. 30, 08 at 12:04 PM |
Page 1 of 1
Thanks for contributing!
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
StarTribune.com welcomes and encourages readers to comment and engage in substantive, mutually respectful exchanges over news topics. Commenters must follow our Terms of Use.
Keep it civil and stay on topic.
No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
Comments with web links are not permitted.
Comments that violate the above will be removed. Repeat violators may lose their commenting privileges on StarTribune.com.
Palm oil: The latest green debate
1 - 6 of 6 comments Sort:
The U.N. Reports are political and CI's are private. You tell me which of these acronyms smells fishy? As in dead oily fishy. Hmmm. I love Cargill's efforts to feed the world, but let's be honest... It's about money more than ecology or feedng the world. The Chinese put lead paint in toys and Cargill puts toxins in rivers. In the end it all balances out. Cargill's name proves oil by products go through car's and gill's. :-) Okay, bad joke.
if Cargill wasn't trying to be transparent, it would have embraced grass root efforts instead of trying to hide behind a corrupted bureaucracy.
if Cargill wanted to be transparent, it would have embraced grass root efforts instead of trying to hide behind a corrupted bureaucracy.
Geez...does there have to be a debate about EVERYTHING? I mean, I know everyone thinks they're smart enough to be in charge if ONLY the world would do thing their way. But, come on, companies are run by people much smarter than you and I and have to live with their decisions too. If we didn't want it, we wouldn't by 'it', whatever the widget is.
The World Health Organization (WHO) states there is convincing evidence that palmitic oil consumption contributes to an increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. One of the primary cholesterol-elevating fatty acids is palmitic acid, which increases the risk of coronary heart disease. The Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion Council disputes these findings. Like a lot of these issues, each group can produce "studies" that contradict the other side. The good(?) news is that palm oil appears to be healthier than trans fats.
the grassroots effort was politically motivated rather than scientifically. Would you trust PETA to provide an unbiased report on the safety of feedlots. I would hope not. Too often grassroots efforts are controlled by activists who are no more objective than "corrupt" government officials. And where is there any evidence that the government is not regulating the industry to their standards? Just because Europe and the US does it doesn't make it right. They are the ones who invaded Iraq aren't they?
Comment on this story |