McDonalds will eliminate cage-confined chickens from its supply chain

[Stranger]

Neither perfect nor immediate, but definitely a big step in the right direction and an indication of where things are headed.

Link

In other news, SeaWorld's profits dropped 84% since Blackfish was released.  

Link

[Jade]

This is good and all, hate to be the downer, but they have promised to switch by the year 2025. It's more like a "Trust us, we will be doing the right thing in the future, nudgewink", good-faith gesture. I guess, it's a statement - I don't doubt that some of the larger chicken producers are a little frightened at the idea. But it's also good to remember, that "cage-free" does NOT equal cruelty-free, or even confinement free. In fact, "cage-free" hens are still mutilated - ie beaks and spurs trimmed off, to prevent them from injuring each other. Cage-free basically just means that they won't be kept in the tiny cages that most hens are kept in now - and apparently will be for ~10 more years.

[APeacefulWarrior]

Heh, I see Stranger is a fellow Redditor.

Also, Jade, McDonalds uses something in the area of two BILLION eggs a year globally. Supply chains like that can't be shifted quickly, and since they're reliant on outside sources, McDonald's doesn't change anything until their suppliers change things. They have to look for new sources, or else work with all their many, many contracted farms to change their facilities. For a global corporation of its size and scope, a decade-long timeline really isn't absurd at all.

Like, in a similar situation, LEGO recently announced that they're going to be trying to move off of petroleum-based plastics. But they also expect it to take at least a decade to research, develop, and put into production.

The larger the entity, the more slowly it changes. That's just how these things work.

[Kaaron]

http://inhabitat.com/mcdonalds-to-add-la...-its-menu/

[Diana]

Also, Jade, McDonalds uses something in the area of two BILLION eggs a year globally.  Supply chains like that can't be shifted quickly, and since they're reliant on outside sources, McDonald's doesn't change anything until their suppliers change things.  They have to look for new sources, or else work with all their many, many contracted farms to change their facilities.  For a global corporation of its size and scope, a decade-long timeline really isn't absurd at all.

Perhaps it isn't absurd from a business standpoint, but it is very sad for many reasons.

The profits from such a franchised transnational corporation must be astronomical. It simply isn't true that change should take that long. It would just cut into profits too much to transform the operations. 

Businesses look at supply and demand. The owners/board of the corporation and its franchises see that there is a demand for cage-free (and of course Jade is correct about the reality of cage-free) eggs for instance. In order to stay viable businesses must supply demand. This is a business that has perpetuated the worst misery on animals, plant life (leveling rain forest to graze cattle for one or two seasons then obliterating more), and impacted human health by providing sub-standard, addictive but cheap food to people. The AMA, big pharma, and health insurance companies must love fast food businesses such as McDonald's though.

[APeacefulWarrior]

I agree, there are many problems with the modern industrial food system... but look at what it replaced. Prior to the 20th Century, the diets of everyone but the wealthy were incredibly substandard by our reckoning - bland, minimally healthy, unbalanced, and usually with tainted ingredients. Either they covered up the rot with heavy and somewhat antibacterial spices, as in Indian food, or else just boiled it to tasteless mush to kill any germs, as in English food.

(Edit: As an aside, that's not to suggest they understood germ theory. This was the "million monkeys" principle in action. The food-preparation methods that stuck were those that got noted for killing fewer people, without knowledge of the method of action. See also the Kosher\Halal rules.)

Plus, they were limited to ONLY eating whatever foods were growing within ~20 miles of them. If that. And in most of the feudal systems, where land ownership was in the hands of a few, the peasantry might not even be able to do that. Their local Lord\Burgermeister\Daimyo\etc claimed to own every plant and animal in an entire province, and happily executed people for poaching or for failing to pay their food taxes.

And, of course, if a drought or lengthy freeze hit an area during the middle ages, the peasants were f*cked. Simple as that.

The combination of pasteurization, canning, modern transportation, and extended supply lines has brought safe, generally nutritious, and relatively tasty food to the entire planet, and with a variety that even a King couldn't have enjoyed 500 years ago. It's what's made "feeding the world" a practical possibility for the first time in history, and such systems in SOME form will basically be necessary to keep the population stable in the years to come.

So I see this as a "baby steps" thing. As more people become aware of the problems with industrial farming, the more we'll be working to find ways to fix the problems, without wrecking the overall system. We'll also undoubtedly keep working to make such food less harmful over the course of a lifetime, such as the growing trend towards banning trans-fat use. And that's not to mention that we're making huge strides in lab-grown foods, which could largely replace animal farming if/when it becomes affordable enough.

Honestly, I suspect that by 2100 or so, these debates will be largely irrelevant as we'll just be growing our meat in labs anyway.

[Jade]

Firstly, I'm not sure if you realized that the McDonald's lab grown meat article was satire...

I agree, there are many problems with the modern industrial food system... but look at what it replaced. Prior to the 20th Century, the diets of everyone but the wealthy were incredibly substandard by our reckoning - bland, minimally healthy, unbalanced, and usually with tainted ingredients. Either they covered up the rot with heavy and somewhat antibacterial spices, as in Indian food, or else just boiled it to tasteless mush to kill any germs, as in English food.

And, of course, if a drought or lengthy freeze hit an area during the middle ages, the peasants were f*cked. Simple as that.

The combination of pasteurization, canning, modern transportation, and extended supply lines has brought safe, generally nutritious, and relatively tasty food to the entire planet, and with a variety that even a King couldn't have enjoyed 500 years ago. It's what's made "feeding the world" a practical possibility for the first time in history, and such systems in SOME form will basically be necessary to keep the population stable in the years to come.

To me, the modern industrial food system represents *lack* of real food, chemical concoctions masquerading as food that was once alive. Over processed, additives that make foods addictive; chemicals that are only added because of the chain reactions that occur from our tongue and nose to our brain.

Is your argument really that eating McDonald's is a healthier alternative to the diets of 100 years ago? Are you confusing quality with quantity? Because if we're going to have the quantity argument, if we stop using our prime farmland to grow corn to feed cows, that's how we feed the rest of the (human) world.

The best food I've ever eaten is food that I've grown on my own land and cooked in my own kitchen. I've been to other countries, and worked in several fine-dining restaurants. To me, the hedonistic "but we get so many different foods now!" argument is so off-base.... I mean, we're really talking about the comfort of living beings, are we not? But the system is good because it gives us tasty, exotic things?

I have a couple Ra quotes repeating in my head:

Ra: I am Ra. The technology your peoples possess at this time is capable of resolving each and every limitation which plagues your social memory complex at this present nexus of experience. However, the concerns of some of your beings with distortions towards what you would call powerful energy cause these solutions to be withheld until the solutions are so needed that those with the distortion can then become further distorted in the direction of power.

We may note at this point while you ponder the possibility/probability vortices that although you have many, many items which cause distress and thus offer seeking and service opportunities, there is always one container in that store of peace, love, light, and joy. This vortex may be very small, but to turn one’s back upon it is to forget the infinite possibilities of the present moment. Could your planet polarize towards harmony in one fine, strong moment of inspiration? Yes, my friends. It is not probable; but it is ever possible.

[APeacefulWarrior]

Firstly, I'm not sure if you realized that the McDonald's lab grown meat article was satire...

I wasn't even referring to that article specifically.  The prices on lab-grown meat are dropping rapidly.  The costs of growing a burger's worth of meat have already dropped 80% from the initial $300K price of the very first burger made from the stuff, just a few years ago.  I've seen estimates in the area of 20-30 years for commercial viability, at the rate research is going.

Assuming we live full lives, we will very likely live to see lab-grown meat become commonplace.

Is your argument really that eating McDonald's is a healthier alternative to the diets of 100 years ago? Are you confusing quality with quantity?  

Honestly, I'm not trying to be pretentious here, but I don't think you appreciate just how much it SUCKED to be a medieval peasant relying on nothing but locally-grown foods.  Or else you wouldn't be acting like what I said was absurd.  They lived their lives on the brink of starvation, pretty much constantly.  And like I said in the previous post, what they did have access to was very low quality, and highly reliant on the local weather cooperating because there were no alternative sources.

You don't actually want to see a return to the times where a drought meant widespread death, right? The large-scale food distribution systems are what make that a non-issue for most of the technologically-developed world. And they can only be in place if a large number of people are using them, or else their cost of maintenance would make them impossible to maintain.

So, yes.  The fact that most people outside of the most impoverished areas can now eat their fill every day, and have plenty of alternative sources for food in times of hardship, is a massive improvement over how things used to be. Chemical-laden food that's shelf-stable for years is better at keeping people alive than minimal food that's spoiled within a week.   That doesn't mean the situation today is perfect. Just that it's better than in centuries past, when looking at the population as a whole.

The best food I've ever eaten is food that I've grown on my own land and cooked in my own kitchen.

Local farming is not a realistic alternative for huge numbers of people around the world.  The global population is too big, and especially in metropolitan areas, there just is NOT enough land\rooftops\whatever to actually allow individuals to feed themselves full-time on a large scale.  And since the population is only projected to get bigger for the next 100ish years, that situation is only going to get more extreme.

Basically, it's great if you have the luxury of growing your own food.  Enjoy it if you can.  Billions of people in the century to come won't have that option.  

To me, the hedonistic "but we get so many different foods now!" argument is so off-base.... I mean, we're really talking about the comfort of living beings, are we not? But the system is good because it gives us tasty, exotic things?

Why are you acting like I'm defending the worst aspects of industrial farming?  I acknowledged there were problems in the first first line of that post.  I'm specifically talking about the ways these systems can be made BETTER so that the harm done can be minimized.  Focusing on one offhand line about the variety as though it was my main point makes me feel like you ignored everything else I said.

Ra: I am Ra. The technology your peoples possess at this time is capable of resolving each and every limitation which plagues your social memory complex at this present nexus of experience. However, the concerns of some of your beings with distortions towards what you would call powerful energy cause these solutions to be withheld until the solutions are so needed that those with the distortion can then become further distorted in the direction of power.

But that's exactly what I'm saying.  Our technology is making these things possible, whereas they weren't a hundred years ago. Ra's just saying we could be doing this stuff more quickly, if not for those in power wanting to slow down the adoption of disruptive technologies. But a regression back to pre-20th Century methods wouldn't work in the modern world, not without a massive die-off and a near-total abandonment of modern city life.  Unless the Zombie Apocalypse happens, we're gonna need large-scale global systems in place to keep everyone well-fed.

Either way, read that article about the lab-grown meat.  It's a lot closer than you think, and it's going to be a true game-changer that renders a lot of these arguments obsolete. If someone can buy a lab-burger for the same price as "real" meat, and with similar taste, that's gonna mean a whole lot of animals not being killed. Once the tech has time to spread and become commonplace, it could easily replace the current industrial-farming system by being both easier AND more humane.

And doesn't that pretty much solve the cruelty problem?

[Jade]

Firstly, I'm not sure if you realized that the McDonald's lab grown meat article was satire...

I wasn't even referring to that article specifically.  The prices on lab-grown meat are dropping rapidly.  The costs of growing a burger's worth of meat have already dropped 80% from the initial $300K price of the very first burger made from the stuff, just a few years ago.  I've seen estimates in the area of 20-30 years for commercial viability, at the rate research is going.

Assuming we live full lives, we will very likely live to see lab-grown meat become commonplace.

Okay, I guess it's important to envision a future with meat available for consumption. I have no desire to consume animal tissue anymore so I guess I'm not on this bandwagon.

Is your argument really that eating McDonald's is a healthier alternative to the diets of 100 years ago? Are you confusing quality with quantity?  

Honestly, I'm not trying to be pretentious here, but I don't think you appreciate just how much it SUCKED to be a medieval peasant relying on nothing but locally-grown foods.  Or else you wouldn't be acting like what I said was absurd.  They lived their lives on the brink of starvation, pretty much constantly.  And like I said in the previous post, what they did have access to was very low quality, and highly reliant on the local weather cooperating because there were no alternative sources.

You don't actually want to see a return to the times where a drought meant widespread death, right?  The large-scale food distribution systems are what make that a non-issue for most of the technologically-developed world.  And they can only be in place if a large number of people are using them, or else their cost of maintenance would make them impossible to maintain.

So, yes.  The fact that most people outside of the most impoverished areas can now eat their fill every day, and have plenty of alternative sources for food in times of hardship, is a massive improvement over how things used to be.  Chemical-laden food that's shelf-stable for years is better at keeping people alive than minimal food that's spoiled within a week.   That doesn't mean the situation today is perfect.  Just that it's better than in centuries past, when looking at the population as a whole.

There are still poor people starving. A huge percentage of the population is still hungry. How have we solved the problems of the poor? So, some of the poor in developed countries have mock food to eat. I guess this can be seen as a step up.

The best food I've ever eaten is food that I've grown on my own land and cooked in my own kitchen.

Local farming is not a realistic alternative for huge numbers of people around the world.  The global population is too big, and especially in metropolitan areas, there just is NOT enough land\rooftops\whatever to actually allow individuals to feed themselves full-time on a large scale.  And since the population is only projected to get bigger for the next 100ish years, that situation is only going to get more extreme.

Basically, it's great if you have the luxury of growing your own food.  Enjoy it if you can.  Billions of people in the century to come won't have that option.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the technologies that have arisen in recent years re: growth of food in small spaces, ie hydroponics. We can set up the infrastructure to grow food anywhere. Instead, we demolish rainforests so that we can graze cattle for hamburgers.

To me, the hedonistic "but we get so many different foods now!" argument is so off-base.... I mean, we're really talking about the comfort of living beings, are we not? But the system is good because it gives us tasty, exotic things?

Why are you acting like I'm defending the worst aspects of industrial farming?  I acknowledged there were problems in the first first line of that post.  I'm specifically talking about the ways these systems can be made BETTER so that the harm done can be minimized.  Focusing on one offhand line about the variety as though it was my main point makes me feel like you ignored everything else I said.

The thread is about McDonald's.

Ra: I am Ra. The technology your peoples possess at this time is capable of resolving each and every limitation which plagues your social memory complex at this present nexus of experience. However, the concerns of some of your beings with distortions towards what you would call powerful energy cause these solutions to be withheld until the solutions are so needed that those with the distortion can then become further distorted in the direction of power.

But that's exactly what I'm saying.  Our technology is making these things possible, whereas they weren't a hundred years ago.  Ra's just saying we could be doing this stuff more quickly, if not for those in power wanting to slow down the adoption of disruptive technologies.  But a regression back to pre-20th Century methods wouldn't work in the modern world, not without a massive die-off and a near-total abandonment of modern city life.  Unless the Zombie Apocalypse happens, we're gonna need large-scale global systems in place to keep everyone well-fed.

Either way, read that article about the lab-grown meat.  It's a lot closer than you think, and it's going to be a true game-changer that renders a lot of these arguments obsolete.  If someone can buy a lab-burger for the same price as "real" meat, and with similar taste, that's gonna mean a whole lot of animals not being killed.  Once the tech has time to spread and become commonplace, it could easily replace the current industrial-farming system by being both easier AND more humane.

And doesn't that pretty much solve the cruelty problem?  

Yes, Ra said the technology was available 30 years ago, why are we applauding corporations for promising it to us another 10 years for now? And the original post was not about Legos or Tesla batteries, but shifting from one incredibly inhumane way of raising livestock to a very slightly less inhumane way of raising livestock. Chickens. We kill and eat so many billions a year, and we don't count the eggs, or the males who are killed at birth.

And again, the article about lab-grown meat that was posted here was satire. It was posted on April 1st. Sure, lab-grown meat can potentially solve the "cruelty problem ", but not because it will be easier or more humane, but because it will be cheaper.

[APeacefulWarrior]

Okay, I guess it's important to envision a future with meat available for consumption. I have no desire to consume animal tissue anymore so I guess I'm not on this bandwagon.

This isn't about your personal eating choices or mine, especially since we're lucky enough to live in areas where we have enough food options available to make deliberate choices based on philosophy rather than necessity.  This is about the reality that by 2100, we're going to have something in the neighborhood of 11 billion mouths to feed.  

And if they don't get fed, then we have widespread instability, chaos, and probably bloody revolutions.  Or else a massive die-off.

There are still poor people starving. A huge percentage of the population is still hungry. How have we solved the problems of the poor? So, some of the poor in developed countries have mock food to eat. I guess this can be seen as a step up.

You call it "mock food."  They call it survival.  And as we continue to bring modern technology to more of the world's remaining undeveloped areas, we'll be able to continue feeding more of those people who are currently starving.  Or if you want a practical example, look at Ethiopia.  What used to be the literal poster child for widespread starvation thirty years ago is now being called the "Lion of Africa" and has one of the fastest-growing economies on the continent.  They're on track to be a middle-income country by 2020-2030.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the technologies that have arisen in recent years re: growth of food in small spaces, ie hydroponics. We can set up the infrastructure to grow food anywhere. Instead, we demolish rainforests so that we can graze cattle for hamburgers.

There's no hydroponics system anywhere that could allow a full family living in a small apartment to feed themselves sustainably. In many places, especially Asia, <500SqFt apartments are becoming increasingly common.  And as far as I know, even the most advanced proposal for a "vertical farming" system on the side of a high-rise -which is really cool tech- would at most supplement the building's food usage, not become its sole source.  And there's the issue of the huge costs involved in building and\or retrofitting such systems, as well as their ongoing maintenance.  Adding complicated machinery to the side of existing buildings demands a lot of time and energy and money, no matter how cheap the hydro systems themselves might become.
 
If you can find an article to shows me wrong about this, I'd be happy to take a look.  I'm all for the idea of more localized farming.  But I'm pretty certain no such systems exist, nor are there even any proposals on the drawing board for one that might accomplish actual self-sustainability for the billions of city-dwellers who need to stay fed.

And again, the article about lab-grown meat that was posted here was satire. It was posted on April 1st.

And again, I am posting actual articles to actual sources talking about this.  There's no reason for you to keep bringing up the satirical article.

Sure, lab-grown meat can potentially solve the "cruelty problem ", but not because it will be easier or more humane, but because it will be cheaper.

So what?  You say that as though it invalidates the lives being saved thanks to modern food technology, even if it isn't getting rolled out as fast as we might like.  You aren't actually implying you'd rather see people die than see corporations make money, right?  

I'll say yet again, there ARE many actual problems with the food systems as they exist today, but they're the best option on the table given the reality of the human population and the amount of land the average person will have to work with.  But we're slowly moving towards fixing those problems.  And with 'next gen' food-creation systems like lab-cultured meat (likely supplemented by the hydroponics systems you're talking about) it's honestly not implausible to think we'll be able to largely eliminate large-scale animal farming within a century or so, and without major social disruptions.

I really don't understand why you seem so dismissive of the idea.

[Jade]

I apologize, I missed the link you made about lab meat, I had only noticed the satirical one. That's my bad. My real issue however, is the cognitive dissonance in the arena of food production. Sure, we'll have 11 billion humans to feed, but right now we feed that many animals that we raise and kill towards slaughter every year. The fact of the matter is that it takes way more to feed a cow for a week than it does a human. If we stop raising cows and other livestock for food production, we can use the land that we use to grow cow/chicken/pig food to grow people food. And, you're completely dancing around the subject of animal cruelty that is happening right now, in the moment, in favor of an argument about how modern food production is better than food production of yore. You say better, I say different.

Yes, in my eyes you came in here to defend McDonald's. I understand everything you say about food production, I've read and listened and heard. I'm not being dismissive about lab-grown meat, but it is a pure strawman in the context of this thread. We are talking about animals that are in cages, right now, and how maybe they will be in slightly bigger cages in the future, and originally I was just saying that it wasn't a celebration party I felt like joining. The situation present in the OP is a long ways off from mass produced lab meat. Sure, I'm in favor of the idea, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the topic at hand.

[Kaaron]

I didn't realize it was satire. I knew they were working on it and just posted whatever I found on google without even reading it.
Sorry for the lack of commitment to finding a more serious source.

Having said that, I'd just like to say that "if it needs to be consumed to spread it's seed, it's fair game" is a guideline I find works for me

[APeacefulWarrior]

OK, but then we're just back to the simple fact that McDonald's is so huge that it would be impossible for them to change their contracted farming conditions over night. I'm not "defending" them to point this out. That they're looking to move away from cruel methods at all is better than the alternative, and this also indicates they may have a willingness to address similar problems in other areas of their business such as their beef production. They also have an initiative going on in Europe to develop more humane and sustainable farming methods. That it will take them years to accomplish this at all is simply a reflection of how huge they are, and the immense number of farms they employ.

McDonald's exists. They're a part of modern life, and they're not going away. So given that, I'd prefer a McDonald's that is at least aware of the cruelty issues and trying to address them, as opposed to ignoring them entirely. Not to mention that, given McDonald's clout in the industry, other smaller companies will follow where they lead if they succeed in these efforts.

From my point of view, you're making the perfect the enemy of the good. These are all steps forward. Why naysay them when there is no better achievable option on the table?

[indolering]

.
Hats off to the Bolivian people who rejected an evil corporation engaged in assault by poisoning the people.

Fast Food Rejection: McDonald’s Shuts Down All Restaurants in Bolivia

In some parts of the world, good food is food prepared with care, attention, and a plenty of time. This sort of food philosophy, where meals are made with fresh ingredients and patience, doesn’t lend itself well to fast food where cheap ingredients are premade so they can be warmed and slapped together in record-time. This sort of food dichotomy is exactly why McDonald’s couldn’t thrive in Bolivia—the first Latin America country to essentially kick the fast-food-giant out by keeping them in the red.




Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/how-bolivia-triumphed-over-mcdonalds/#ixzz3lVPKpxmo 
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

[APeacefulWarrior]

Franchises expanding into new nations fail all the time due to cultural conflicts. The article even says that the reason it happened was that "fast food" was a foreign concept to Bolivia, and McDonalds didn't have many outlets there. That's not really relevant to the United States or other nations where convenience food is an accepted concept, or where time\money constraints make it one of the only viable options for millions of workers.

If someone wanted to get rid of McDonalds in America through free-market actions, they would have to create an alternative which was healthier and/or more ethical, but STILL as cheap and as fast as McDonalds and other similar establishments.

Otherwise, the millions of people who are living on half-hour lunch breaks or continually eating breakfast during their morning commute are still going to use fast food. Especially the poor and lower-middle class who are working two or three jobs and literally do not have time for any more complicated food preparation. Time itself has a much different value in America and other technologically-focused countries than in more laid-back or less-developed countries.

Basically, an established economic player is rarely\never going to go bankrupt from lack of business unless there's another player in existence which can replace it in the lives of the customers. Since McD's was never really rooted in Bolivia it was easy to remove, but that simply wouldn't be the case in places where it's become an establishment.

Or do you have a plan to boost minimum wages and cut working hours for millions, so that lower-class folks have time/money to cook for themselves?

[indolering]

Sure, there are important cultural factors which influence dietary decisions.  But that's irrelevant to people who begin to realize the implications of eating food which is obviously inferior and deleterious to health.  Ultimately, this is a personal decision for every human being, and to think that simply because one belongs to a culture which indulges in something negative that it's difficult to change.  McDonalds will never leave the USSA because we are steeped in this type of idiocy and brainwashed from birth to view food as fuel regardless of other factors.  Even for a nation like Bolivia to force out Big Macs is an amazing achievement and I applaud the Bolivians for their insistence to refuse McPoison.  They are a good example for other Latin American nations to do the same and quit supporting evil corporations.

[APeacefulWarrior]

Sure, there are important cultural factors which influence dietary decisions.  But that's irrelevant to people who begin to realize the implications of eating food which is obviously inferior and deleterious to health.  Ultimately, this is a personal decision for every human being, and to think that simply because one belongs to a culture which indulges in something negative that it's difficult to change.  McDonalds will never leave the USSA because we are steeped in this type of idiocy and brainwashed from birth to view food as fuel regardless of other factors.

... AND the economic factors I mentioned, and you ignored, that makes fast food effectively a necessity for millions of lower-income workers. Then, calling people "brainwashed" is simply dismissive and deliberately ignoring the very REAL economic situation that far too many people are in right now. If someone is working multiple jobs in a day, or subsisting on the joke we call minimum wage, they almost never have viable alternatives which they could actually partake in. This goes double for those in inner cities who may not even have much choice in eating besides which convenience food outlet they choose.

Past a certain point of poverty, calories-per-dollar/minute IS a primary concern, because that's what they need for day-to-day survival regardless of the long term impact. And that has nothing to do with "brainwashing," nor do you help by implying they're all stupid. It's just the reality of poverty in America among people living from paycheck to paycheck without good alternatives.

You're basically wishing out loud that America's entire culture AND economy would magically change to fit your values. That's hardly practical.

[indolering]

I'm not suggesting that the USSA is capable of dislodging McPoison.  Nor do I agree that fast food is a 'necessity' for poor people with two jobs.  And i do suggest that the majority of Americans are brainwashed into believing that McDonalds serves real food.  It's processed poisons they serve and if you believe it's food, then you're brainwashed, pure and simple.  It doesn't mean you're stupid, it means you're ignorant of the truth due to the constant lies promoted by mainstream media.

But I'm not here to argue with anyone about this topic - I simply applaud the Bolivians who collectively have eliminated a major source of negativity in their country.

[Jade]

I guess I'm just hoping that more people have a lifestyle change and that McDonald's becomes obsolete, not that they are a mainstay in our culture out of necessity. I'm poor, I'm effectively very poor and live at poverty levels for two people. But I eat healthy, organic, whole foods for every meal of the day, because my diet is a priority to me. I make other sacrifices to obtain that diet. McDonald's is NOT healthy, is NOT real food, and is one of the factors making people disgustingly sick and obese - over 2/3rds of people are obese! You know why? Because we eat food that has no nutritional value, so we have to eat more, and more, and more, and more to feel satisfied. Putting chickens in bigger cages affects none of this.

Also, the poorest people in the US are NOT eating at McDonald's, they are eating on food stamps. They can't even afford to eat fast food. Sure, everyone can splurge on the dollar menu once in a while, and I don't deny the value of comfort food, but accepting McDonald's (without a HUGE overhaul in their modus operandi) as part of the paradigm is not the future earth I envision.

[Minyatur]

I guess I'm just hoping that more people have a lifestyle change and that McDonald's becomes obsolete, not that they are a mainstay in our culture out of necessity. I'm poor, I'm effectively very poor and live at poverty levels for two people. But I eat healthy, organic, whole foods for every meal of the day, because my diet is a priority to me. I make other sacrifices to obtain that diet. McDonald's is NOT healthy, is NOT real food, and is one of the factors making people disgustingly sick and obese - over 2/3rds of people are obese! You know why? Because we eat food that has no nutritional value, so we have to eat more, and more, and more, and more to feel satisfied. Putting chickens in bigger cages affects none of this.

Also, the poorest people in the US are NOT eating at McDonald's, they are eating on food stamps. They can't even afford to eat fast food. Sure, everyone can splurge on the dollar menu once and a while, and I don't deny the value of comfort food, but accepting McDonald's (without a HUGE overhaul in their modus operandi) as part of the paradigm is not the future earth I envision.

They're tools, what you do with them is your choice. Anything with chemicals can be loved and anything with chemicals can be used with a positive purpose.

A friend of mine (inactive forum member) kept telling me for months straight that I was STS with my body and did not pour any good intent into it because of my "negative" habits. Two days ago he finally admitted that what I was doing is pouring postive intent into something that was created out of negative intent. Not because I told him that, because he succeeded in perceiving it himself in trying to understand me.

The body is an extension of the mind, people seek the tools that provide them with what they want. So despite all of my unhealthy habits, I am never sick nor unwell. It makes my energy field heavy more than anything but is great work in training to raise vibration of stagnant energy. Once it's within me, I have to work with it.

[Jade]

That's fine, again, I just hope (and assume that) as the veil thins and we move into 4D, people will be more conscious with what they consume. Eating itself is a STS act - rarely are we eating for the benefit of others - unless we move higher into realizing that we must sustain our body complex at its highest caliber to be of the best service - I just hope people will learn to work with their body complexes instead of against them.

Let's take what Ra has to say about diet:

40.13 Questioner: Then you are saying that cancer is quite easily healed mentally and is a good teaching tool because it is quite easily healed mentally and once the entity forgives the other-self at whom he is angry cancer will disappear. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. The other portion of healing has to do with forgiveness of self and a greatly heightened respect for the self. This may conveniently be expressed by taking care in dietary matters. This is quite frequently a part of the healing and forgiving process. Your basic premise is correct.

Now of course this isn't black and white with a period on the sentence, however Ra says healing the self involves showing the self a heightened level of respect, "conveniently expressed" by change in diet, "quite frequently a part of the healing and forgiving process". People are free to say "This is my body, I will do with it as I please!" but the key to balance and healing is respecting and cooperation with the body. In my opinion, eating McDonald's is not respectful to the body under most circumstances. I'm not even slightly implying that eating McDonald's makes one polarize towards STS, but I do believe it is generally counter to balancing the body in any meaningful way.

Why do people eat at McDonald's? Is it because they wish to nourish their body with magical chemicals, or is it because it's cheap and addictive? I mean, of course anything can be used in any fashion, but when the mass majority utilizes catalyst in an unconscious or improper way, it's easy to make a blanket statement about something like McDonald's food not being symbolic of respecting the body complex (and therefore analogously the Earth body, as McDonald's as an entity has no respect for our bodies or the planet's).

[Diana]

They're tools, what you do with them is your choice. Anything with chemicals can be loved and anything with chemicals can be used with a positive purpose.

A friend of mine (inactive forum member) kept telling me for months straight that I was STS with my body and did not pour any good intent into it because of my "negative" habits. Two days ago he finally admitted that what I was doing is pouring postive intent into something that was created out of negative intent. 

I agree that anything can be loved and changed. Do you think you are representative of the human population? If you are succeeding in changing the intent in things you consume, do you think that's what an obese eighteen year old with heart problems who has lived on fast food all his/her life is doing?

Let me ask you, are you addicted to anything? Cigarettes? 

[Minyatur]

They're tools, what you do with them is your choice. Anything with chemicals can be loved and anything with chemicals can be used with a positive purpose.

A friend of mine (inactive forum member) kept telling me for months straight that I was STS with my body and did not pour any good intent into it because of my "negative" habits. Two days ago he finally admitted that what I was doing is pouring postive intent into something that was created out of negative intent. 

I agree that anything can be loved and changed. Do you think you are representative of the human population? If you are succeeding in changing the intent in things you consume, do you think that's what an obese eighteen year old with heart problems who has lived on fast food all his/her life is doing?

Let me ask you, are you addicted to anything? Cigarettes? 

Maybe a slight addiction to cigarettes but nothing I'd find hard overcoming, I've rarely had intents to stop. I've lost complete interest and then at a later time found purpose in it and decided to keep the habit. I'd say it is a constant choice I am making rather than being addicted to something. Last time I tried to take a break I craved for it like two times within the first day and one time within the second day and third day not even once. To me it's more something I can enjoy than an addiction and I try to balance it with my will each passing day.

I've never considered myself addicted to anything, I do things in the extreme and abuse them but I drop them as easily and I take them. 


I am aware I am not representative of the whole population, but people still find what they seek. You can say these habits are self destructive but then you could ask why are people self destructive?

[Diana]

.
Hats off to the Bolivian people who rejected an evil corporation engaged in assault by poisoning the people.

That's awesome!

When I visited Bolivia in the 90's it was considered the poorest country in the world. Yet food grew naturally there; I remember seeing the indigenous people walking with large bunches of bananas. Another thing about Bolivia was that the friends I stayed with ate meat (I was a vegetarian). They told me that the meat was so much better than the U.S. meat because the animals were not brought up on factory farms and shot full of growth hormones and antibiotics. The Aztecs, before Spaniards destroyed the empire, had only the death penalty for one thing: theft. And that's because the first 3 rows of any crop were free to anyone, and therefore no one had to starve.

If we would stop poisoning the planet with pesticides and growing massive amounts of GM corn to feed livestock (which is the most inefficient exchange of energy ever), stop obliterating rain forest and species in it hence the ecosystem, and nurture the earth, there would be no starvation. I do understand the concept of "feeding the world." But that is the advertising. Factory farms are about profit. Millions are spent on advertising campaigns, paying off politicians, probably aligning with big pharma (because bad food makes people sick), lobbyists for the meat and dairy association and other organizations.

Starvation can always be tracked to greed. In the middle ages with feudal lords, it was the greed of the land owners. It is greed now. If there was a seed of an idea to feed the world from a STO perspective, it was taken over as a way to reap profits.

 

[Jade]

UN says that we already have enough food the feed the world, we just need to be better with how we handle and distribute it. Also, less livestock eating it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cutt...mg00000054

[Billy]

I believe that the food and resources are there for everyone to be fed, both healthily and well, we just need to make the choice.  I have heard people complain about not being able to afford to shop at an organic grocer, but then hear about them spending money on a brand new car, expensive clothing and/or whatever luxury which they do not really need.  I am not saying that this is the case for everyone, but I really think that it comes down to people's priorities in life, and it seems to me that people are choosing those things which are not beneficial over those things which are.  

Also, if you are smart about your shopping, you can live off an organic diet at almost the same cost as one which is not.  If you are really determined to do something, you can usually find a way.  The key is simplicity.  It is hard I admit.  We are so attached to our lifestyles (I am no exception) but I feel that if we really put in the effort to simplify and cut down, we would find a lot more meaning and happiness in our lives. Less is more.