AgTalk Home
AgTalk Home
Search Forums | Classifieds (78) | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

McDonalds
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forums List -> Market TalkMessage format
 
khall_12_34
Posted 1/8/2014 15:09 (#3586706 - in reply to #3586672)
Subject: Re: McDonalds


Formerly NE North Dakota, now NW MN
My point is that Mcdonald's move to to "sustainable beef" probably shouldn't be characterized as the free-market making the best allocation of resources. It's a market, yeah... but it's not one based on perfect information or anything close too it.

Inherent to all of these new "superior" food types (local, sustainable, green, NGMO, organic) is an assumption that the converse is inferior, usually from an health standpoint, but often times from an environmental sustainability standpoint as well. Many times, though, there is little evidence to support that hypothesis, and sometimes there's evidence to the contrary.

Unless I understand incorrectly, one base assumption the sustainability community makes is that corn production is basically raping the earth and pouring atrazine into baby bottles, while grasslands are pristine and grazing cattle on them hasno noticeable impact to the environment. Is that truly sustainable or even natural? Some Native Americans will tell you there is nothing sustainable about cattle, and that only buffalo are truly sustainable, as they graze differently, in a fashion much better for the grass. So if you want to split hairs on it, no beef in North America deserves the title "natural", since by the evils of colonization the species was forced upon this continent. I'm not actually arguing this, but I want to illustrate the point that these titles are almost meaningless.

I don't really disagree with you on growing NGMO stuff. I'm tempted to grow NGMO soybeans just because I could clean themselves, and I think I could actually make more money on them even w/o a premium. If you fetch a premium on top, wow, more power too ya. What I disagree with though, wholeheartedly is that these changes are being made by the free market, or that they are improving our food distribution system. Changes like these are being made by marketing or legal departments, with the scientists or agronomists or whoever's hands on only being consulted after the fact. It's not a net positive for the global food system.
Top of the page Bottom of the page


Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)