Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Sunday, July 06, 2008

British Government To Begin Crackdown On Food Waste

It’s the equivalent of the government telling you to clean your plate because there are starving people in Africa.

The Government is to launch a campaign to stamp out Britain’s waste food mountains as part of a global effort to curb spiralling food prices.

Supermarkets will be urged to drop “three for two” deals on food that encourage shoppers into bulk-buying more than they need, often leading to the surpluses being thrown away. The scandal of the vast mountains of food that are thrown away in Britain while other parts of the world starve is revealed in a Cabinet Office report today. It calls for a reduction in food waste: up to 40 per cent of groceries can be lost before they are consumed due to poor processing, storage and transport.

The report says UK households could save an average of £420 per year by not throwing away 4.1 million tonnes of food that could have been eaten.

Gordon Brown said he would make action to tackle the soaring cost of food a priority at the G8 summit starting today in Japan. “If we are to get food prices down, we must do more to deal with unnecessary demand, such as by all of us doing more to cut our food waste which is costing the average household in Britain around £8 per week,” he told journalists on board the plane to the summit.

“Do more to deal with unnecessary demand?” And who, exactly, gets to decide that demand which is unnecessary?

It would seem as though the British government is very close to telling Britons exactly how much they will be allowed to eat.  Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the ideals of freedom and liberty.

And for what goal?  To leave more food available for the hungry in other countries?  That’s not going to work.  If the British government does manage to succeed in reducing demand for food among Britons to a level that only meets what Britons need to stay alive, and that’s a very big if, this is not necessarily going to create demand among the impoverished, hungry international masses.  All it’s going to do is put some of the people who were supplying the excess of food to Great Britain out of business.

The impoverished, hungry international masses won’t be buying more food because the reason they weren’t buying food in the first place had nothing to do with food shortages and everything to do with their political and economic situations.  If these people did not live amidst tyranny, if they did not live in totalitarian economic environments, they would have the same sort of access to sustenance that Britons, Americans, the French, the Germans and all the rest of the free and affluent world enjoy.

The idea that the food Prime Minister Brown is apparently going to deny Britons the access to will somehow be boxed up and shipped to those who are hungry in other parts of the world is, on its face, absurd and offensive to those who value things like liberty and freedom.  And even if it were possible to get that “excess” food to the people who need it the amount of good it would do would be marginal, because in order to truly cure the plight the hungry masses of the world find themselves in is to empower them to be able to feed themselves.

That means supporting the aspirations of free people around the world.  That means helping them fight tyranny and find freedom.  That means, as much as leftists will hate to hear it, the Bush doctrine.

Which, I admit, is an imperfect strategy but certainly one that holds up better under scrutiny, and is more in keeping with the ideals of a free society, than the idea that denying citizens of a free society access to government-defined excesses of food will somehow cause that food to appear before the hungry, oppressed masses in other parts of the world.

Comments

This is from your own link to “Bush doctrine”

President Bush decided soon after the 9/11 attacks that the proper response was not just military attacks against Al Qaeda bases, but deposing the Taliban altogether and installing in their place a U.S.-friendly democratic government. This presented a foreign-policy challenge, since it was not the Taliban that had initiated the attacks, and there was no evidence that they had any foreknowledge of the attacks. In an address to the nation on the evening of September 11, Bush stated his resolution of the issue by declaring that “we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."[6]

This is from free dictionary

im·pe·ri·al·ism (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
1. The policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

So tell me the difference between “Bush doctrine” and Imperialism, they are both accomplishing the same thing.


Buy American, Buy Union Made… the job you save might be your own.

Buzz on July 7, 2008 at 07:01 am

Buzz,

Your own cited definition of imperialism is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make since both Afghanistan and Iraq have held their own free elections and chosen their own governments… something that can not be said of Iraq under Saddam, Libya under Ghaddafi, Syria under either Assad, Egypt under Mubarak, or just about any other majority Islamic country.

If your silly point were to have any sort validity, Mr. Bush and his supporters would very nearly have to seize control of the government of the US, arrest the members of Congress, and declare himself to be president for life… as has been virtually the case in all the examples I’ve cited.  You might just was well declare the US/Allied victory over Hitler’s Nazi Germany to have been mere American imperialism.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on July 7, 2008 at 07:19 am

Back to the subject of this thread:

“Do more to deal with unnecessary demand?” And who, exactly, gets to decide that demand which is unnecessary?

This is the inevitable result of having any other economic system other than “free people making free choices”.  Socialism always exerts control by limiting supply, in order to starve demand.  That is why it generates less prosperity than a free market system.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on July 7, 2008 at 09:07 am
Avatar for Erica

Well, we are facing a global food crisis in the midst of an exploding population. Food waste is not only bad for the individual who throws it away, but it’s truly bad for us all on a macro scale.

That said, I’m not sure how this will be implemented or really, how it *could* be implemented in a way that would work.

At the UK considers their impact on the world. Here in the US, we’ve got a bumbling idiot for a leader who still prescribes to the bigger is better mentality.

Erica on July 7, 2008 at 06:43 pm

Well, we are facing a global food crisis in the midst of an exploding population.

It’s only a “crisis” in the sense that belief serves the propaganda purposes of you lefties.  It has been artificially produced by Dem energy policies written by enviro extremists that mandate the use of food for energy, when we have stored solar energy in the form of oil, coal and gas readily available, and which don’t require using edible items for producing energy.  You lefties are truly insane.
The man you refer to as “a bumbling idiot” has consistently outsmarted you for almost eight years; what does that make you?


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on July 7, 2008 at 07:19 pm

...the bigger is better mentality.

Actually, it’s the “more prosperous is better” mentality.  As you are a leftie, I don’t expect you to know that.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on July 7, 2008 at 07:36 pm

No wonder Brown’s popularity is lower than Bush’s. You’ve got to be really stupid to see an excess of food for your people as a problem.

ollie-B on July 8, 2008 at 07:28 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.