US Food Policy: If you could change one thing...

give all the current subsidies to organic farmers / outlaw GMOs, (even russia's doing it)

Yes great idea, and in the process you will effectively put small farmers out of business, increase poverty, and add to world hunger!! Great idea!!!!!!

Do you really believe that bull????? Monsanto doesn't feed the world as they claim. Don't be a sheeple, do some research as to what they do with what they grow.............it doesn't go to end world hunger.

I am NOT a sheeple. I am an individual who has lived in the ag world all my life. It pays the bills and feeds my family. We are small operation, yes, and putting more regulations on farmers just adds to the pain. It is not feasible to feed the entire world on "organic" crops. The cost is super high and the yield is low. I have done the research thank you. Have you, or are you just believing what you are told by the media?

More honest labeling with ingredients. The only objectiion to the "it's just personal responsiblity" arguments I have is that not everyone has the resources to be knowledgeable about health, afford better brands, or resources to engage in being "more informed." I'm talking about the working class who have to buy TV dinners or other cheap foods to get by. They have no choice in what they buy as food because the only food they can buy are the cheap brands. Yet those brands contain terrrible ingredients, bad nutrition, etc. Sure, it's food, but we end up with a society where the poor are malnurished, and the middle class or wealthy have access and resources to healthier and more sustainable sources of food. If that sits well with you, then ok. But to me, I feel like there needs to be a little bit more regulation regarding ingredients other than just the labeling--perhaps banning certain chemicals, additives, perservatives, and GMO's we don't know are completely safe. (Keep in mind, just because they haven't been confirmed to NOT be safe, some also haven't been confirmed TO BE safe).

But I don't know, this could bring about unintended consequences as well. It's an interesting discussion.

"Brands" have nothing to do with nutrition. And as a member of the class of working poor, I find it hilarious to make the claim that Americans can not access nutrition information. That is laughable. it's also silly to claim that poor people "have to buy TV dinners." TV dinners are actually too expensive if you have a food budget of $80/week for a family of four, like I do.

I appreciate your kind empathy, but it's simply not true.

give all the current subsidies to organic farmers / outlaw GMOs, (even russia's doing it)

Yes great idea, and in the process you will effectively put small farmers out of business, increase poverty, and add to world hunger!! Great idea!!!!!!

Do you really believe that bull????? Monsanto doesn't feed the world as they claim. Don't be a sheeple, do some research as to what they do with what they grow.............it doesn't go to end world hunger.

I am NOT a sheeple. I am an individual who has lived in the ag world all my life. It pays the bills and feeds my family. We are small operation, yes, and putting more regulations on farmers just adds to the pain. It is not feasible to feed the entire world on "organic" crops. The cost is super high and the yield is low. I have done the research thank you. Have you, or are you just believing what you are told by the media?

There's a world of real, workable possibilities in the huge gulf between GMO/Subsidized garbage and totally organic.

Require all restaurants to post nutritional information on their menus.

Yup, accurate ones too.

So much this. Regardless of chain or not. They know what they're putting in it shouldn't be that hard. And let's be honest, if they had to start reporting calorie counts and sodium content a lot of places would stop the abuse of butter and salt in their recipes.

Most restaurants don't use butter in their recipes...............they use cheap seed oils such as canola, corn, soy, etc.

There is nothing wrong with butter in the least.

I was referring to quantities used. There is such thing as too much butter.

Restaurants don't use real butter and very few chain restaurants actually do cooking. Most of the crap they serve is either frozen or canned. The only butter might be on the potato they bring to you and maybe a bit for your bread at the table.

As someone who has spent decades in the restaurant business, I can quite honestly say that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Not that you had much credibility before, but at least now I know for a fact that you just completely make up any lies you can to try and push your own misguided agenda.

My sister works in the restaurant industry as a general manager and has worked at a variety of different types of restaurants and she has told our family what that food is really like in the chain restaurants.

They use seed oils to cook with and most of that food is NOT fresh cooked, but rather warmed up from its frozen state. She has said about the only things that are actually cooked are steaks, burgers and some chicken. Its not cooked from scratch in the kitchens of those restaurants.

I do know what I am talking about.

More honest labeling with ingredients. The only objectiion to the "it's just personal responsiblity" arguments I have is that not everyone has the resources to be knowledgeable about health, afford better brands, or resources to engage in being "more informed." I'm talking about the working class who have to buy TV dinners or other cheap foods to get by. They have no choice in what they buy as food because the only food they can buy are the cheap brands. Yet those brands contain terrrible ingredients, bad nutrition, etc. Sure, it's food, but we end up with a society where the poor are malnurished, and the middle class or wealthy have access and resources to healthier and more sustainable sources of food. If that sits well with you, then ok. But to me, I feel like there needs to be a little bit more regulation regarding ingredients other than just the labeling--perhaps banning certain chemicals, additives, perservatives, and GMO's we don't know are completely safe. (Keep in mind, just because they haven't been confirmed to NOT be safe, some also haven't been confirmed TO BE safe).

But I don't know, this could bring about unintended consequences as well. It's an interesting discussion.

"Brands" have nothing to do with nutrition. And as a member of the class of working poor, I find it hilarious to make the claim that Americans can not access nutrition information. That is laughable. it's also silly to claim that poor people "have to buy TV dinners." TV dinners are actually too expensive if you have a food budget of $80/week for a family of four, like I do.

I appreciate your kind empathy, but it's simply not true.

Ok, I apologize. I am not a member of the working class, so I can't claim to understand that reality. And yes, "brands" and types of products have a lot to do with nutrition. Amy's company, for example, has whole organic food ingredients, prodivding you with more adequate nutrition. Other companies with similar products are cheaper, but they contain chemicals and other non-foods that haven't been proven to be safe (nor unsafe, like I said before). What I'm saying that we should go beyond honest labeling.

As far as TV dinners, I accept that was a completely incorrect and probably ignorant statement. Again, I don't know that reality, so I can't claim to know. But I do know that buying whole foods it's typically more expensive than buying processed foods. I know many who would love to buy organic whole foods, but it is not within there means. Sometimes it isn't even in mine, depending on the month. So I suppose I was making a generalized blanketed uneducated statement, and for that I apologize.

When I mentioned resources, I didn't mean the access to nutrition information, I meant the access to information/research regarding ingredients and nutriton label reading. Sometimes it requires interenet usage, which many actually do not have. Everyone thinks that "Oh, America, we all have the SAME opportunities and the SAME access to information..." No...those of us with internet access, despite our backgrounds, are actually more privileged than those who don't.

Again I'm not trying to pretend like I understand your situation. I'm also not trying to be any type of "savior." I just think banning certain things that have not been proven to be safe or healthy for the body is probable, and that "personal responsibility" doesn't apply to everyone.

I could be wrong, though, as I said. I could be completely off.

give all the current subsidies to organic farmers / outlaw GMOs, (even russia's doing it)

That's silly and Russia just rounded up stray dogs in sochi and killed them, should we do that as well?

I think that if we rounded up stray dogs in Sochi, Russia might get upset. Just sayin.

100% menu labeling. All nutritional info for all items.

give all the current subsidies to organic farmers / outlaw GMOs, (even russia's doing it)

That's silly and Russia just rounded up stray dogs in sochi and killed them, should we do that as well?

To me 'Because Russia did it' is never a valid answer.

Less nannystatism, more personal responsibility

Could you give specifics?

Less nannystatism, more personal responsibility

THIS!

Unless people start taking responsibility for themselves nothing will truly be accomplished.