Walmart makes women, poor people and country bumpkins fat

[The_Dude 1,142]

Vegans are just ex-vegetarians who decided vegetarianism wasn't radical enough.

I think vegans are the ones who elevate vegetarian menu, to an entire lifestyle. Nothing like trying to find synthetic leather shoes, or deoderant that has never, been made from, tested on, or used with animals.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Mountain lions prefer the taste of vegan joggers.

[rsn 135]

Walmart rules, so does Aldi. Why pay more for organic food? It all tastes the same, really.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Walmart rules, so does Aldi. Why pay more for organic food? It all tastes the same, really.

Are you a smoker? Because your taste buds must be tainted.

[rsn 135]

Are you a smoker? Because your taste buds must be tainted.

I'm not a smoker. I'm also not willing to pay a premium for food that tastes the same as non-organic food. Organic food is a scam, in my opinion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not a smoker. I'm also not willing to pay a premium for food that tastes the same as non-organic food. Organic food is a scam, in my opinion.

It depends on the food and how much it's been processed, but I can tell you that organic cabbage and carrots taste much better than their non-organic counterparts and they're not that much difference in price.

The problem is that we aren't really paying the true cost of sustainable agriculture right now and as long as consumers continue to demand really cheap food, we'll continue to pay for the consequences, from our health to the environment.

[^_^ 5,021]

It depends on the food and how much it's been processed, but I can tell you that organic cabbage and carrots taste much better than their non-organic counterparts and they're not that much difference in price.

The problem is that we aren't really paying the true cost of sustainable agriculture right now and as long as consumers continue to demand really cheap food, we'll continue to pay for the consequences, from our health to the environment.

If it was up to you, prices would go up and the poor would starve to death.

[HeatDeath 430]

If it's a choice between the poor being overweight diabetics and the poor being rail-thin starvation victims, I think I can safely say that everyone involved would prefer the first option.

[^_^ 5,021]

If it's a choice between the poor being overweight diabetics and the poor being rail-thin starvation victims, I think I can safely say that everyone involved would prefer the first option.

Everyone except for the radical environmentalists who want to reduce the human population and dress up their evil (yes, evil) goal in the guise of sustainable and locally sourced agriculture and an opposition to the transportation and refrigeration of food.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If it's a choice between the poor being overweight diabetics and the poor being rail-thin starvation victims, I think I can safely say that everyone involved would prefer the first option.

Actually, there's a significant cost to having so many overweight Americans that we all pay for. The health care costs for the consequences of obesity are astronomical.

[^_^ 5,021]

Actually, there's a significant cost to having so many overweight Americans that we all pay for.

We don't measure human life in cost, Steven.

[The_Dude 1,142]

If it was up to you, prices would go up and the poor would starve to death.

I think a modest proposal could help here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Everyone except for the radical environmentalists who want to reduce the human population and dress up their evil (yes, evil) goal in the guise of sustainable and locally sourced agriculture and an opposition to the transportation and refrigeration of food.

Sustainable agriculture doesn't require a reduction in human population, just a change of habits in the what we consume.

[^_^ 5,021]

Sustainable agriculture doesn't require a reduction in human population, just a change of habits in the what we consume.

It doessn't require a reduction in human population; the reduction will be a consequence of it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It doessn't require a reduction in human population; the reduction will be a consequence of it.

That's the conventional argument, but research into the future of agriculture shows that large-scale crops are ultimately detrimental to our existence, particularly as volatile weather patterns from the changing climate can devastate these crops. If we are going to survive over the next century, we're going to have to move more towards, local, sustainable agriculture.