http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Food Fraud: Not China this time - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/245ac529c9e4870a?hl=en
* You owe it to yourself to give this a try!!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e139f2589cb80fe4?hl=en
* Frugal pre-paid funeral expenses? - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ce3b2b4cec57072f?hl=en
* Free iPods at Key Bank - 4 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c3ae9b693333f40a?hl=en
* long distance - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3958949a13d8893f?hl=en
* Turn your Monthly Bills into extra cash! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/89e6fbdeef8fce80?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Food Fraud: Not China this time
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/245ac529c9e4870a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 12:51 pm
From: PaPaPeng
Special Report Earth
Buyer beware: the rise of food fraud
15 November 2006
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19225771.900-buyer-beware-the-rise-of-food-fraud.html
Take a look at the basmati rice in your local shop. Are you sure it is
the fine, flavoursome grain the name suggests? Was it really grown in
those green northern Indian paddy fields that the picture on the
packet shows?
Perhaps not. In 2002 the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) carried out
the first DNA survey of basmati rice sold in the UK. It found that
only 54 per cent of the bags labelled as such contained pure basmati
rice - defined as a particular species of grain grown in the plains
around the Ganges in northern India and east Pakistan. All the other
samples had been diluted with inferior varieties - some by more than
60 per cent. One FSA official calculated that the fraud swindled
consumers out of over £5 million that year alone.
Basmati is not the only superior-quality food that has been targeted
by fraudsters. Honey, whisky, gin, vodka, fruit juice, butter, cheese,
meat, fish, coffee and even potatoes: they have all been packed out
with inferior brands and found their way into supermarkets, shops and
bars.
Food fraud is big business. For obvious reasons no one knows its true
extent, but spot checks and surveys suggest that criminals and crooked
food producers cheat shoppers out of hundreds of millions of pounds
every year. "When we have done surveys on individual foods the level
of fraud is often around 10 per cent," says Mark Woolfe, a scientist
in the FSA's enforcement division in London. "The UK food sector alone
is worth around £70 billion per year, so a small percentage of fraud
can be worth a lot of money."
But fraudsters had better watch their backs. From sophisticated
chemical analysis and satellite imaging to DNA tagging, scientists are
devising new techniques to track food from farm to fork. The European
Union is so concerned about the problem that earlier this year it
launched a continent-wide project to boost the development of these
technologies. The food detectives are fighting back.
The first written account of food fraud dates back to 1820, when
Fredrick Accum, a German chemist, published A Treatise on
Adulterations of Food, and Culinary Poisons, which exposed culinary
sharp practice in London. It detailed how bakers cut their flour with
alum and chalk to make loaves whiter, and tipped in plaster and
sawdust to make them heavier. Brewers added substances like the poison
strychnine to beer to make it taste bitter and save money on hops.
Perhaps worst of all was the use of lead, copper or mercury salts to
make brightly coloured sweets and jellies that would be attractive to
children.
Today tight controls on food safety have largely stamped out
adulteration that might lead to health problems. So unscrupulous food
producers are finding ways of debasing food without raising the safety
alarms. The big money now lies in diluting expensive brands with
cheaper, low-quality lookalikes. The higher prices that people will
pay for "premium" foods from a particular place, such as Parma ham,
Greek olive oil and Scotch whisky, coupled with the increase in global
trade, has meant faking origin has become particularly lucrative. The
unprecedented boom in demand for organic food has given fraudsters
another high-price market to exploit, especially as there is no
definitive way of confirming whether a product is genuinely organic
(see "Forensic organics").
After discovering the basmati rice scandal, the FSA began developing a
new DNA-fingerprinting technique - like that used by the police to
trace crime-scene DNA to its owner - which could be used by
food-standards inspectors across the UK. "We had been looking for ways
of authenticating basmati for many years and then we had this
breakthrough with the DNA test," says Woolfe. As a result, the FSA has
begun prosecuting fraudsters: earlier this year, a court fined two
Essex-based companies, Basmati Rice and Surya Rice, over £8000 each
for selling packs labelled "basmati" that were adulterated with
between 55 and 75 per cent non-basmati rice. The agency claims this
new surveillance has cut basmati fraud dramatically. It might be
right. Earlier this year the Rice Association, a British trade body,
conducted a survey that found just 16 per cent of tested samples were
diluted with high levels of non-basmati rice.
The FSA and its EU partners now use the technique to check whether
products are free of genetically modified organisms. In September,
Dutch authorities identified GM material in long-grain rice from the
US labelled GM-free. This sparked a flurry of testing across Europe on
American long-grain rice.
Takeshi Nishio, from Tohoku University, Japan, has invented a way of
pre-empting rice bootleggers by using a genetic equivalent of a
certificate of origin. He has selectively bred a variety of
Koshihikari rice - a high-quality strain that connoisseurs consider to
have a superlative flavour - to have a specific genetic marker. The
Uonuma district of Japan is known for producing high-quality crops of
this rice, so farmers are concerned that their reputation should not
be tarnished by inferior rice falsely sold under the district's name.
Nishio hopes to sell his genetically distinctive rice under licence to
Uonuma farmers and plans to apply the same idea to other cereals and
vegetables in the future.
"2% of branded gin and vodka sold in bars in the UK is diluted with
cheaper spirits"Without a scheme like Nishio's, DNA fingerprinting
isn't enough to identify food from a particular location, rather than
just being of a particular species. Many foods can be grown anywhere
that has the right climate, so something more is needed to identify
the geographical source of the crop. Robert Oger, from the Walloon
Agricultural Research Centre in Belgium, wants to solve the problem by
keeping an eye on crops as they grow. As part of GeoTraceAgri, a
project funded by the European Commission, he has been looking at ways
of using aerial and satellite data to verify the origin, quality and
quantity of crops.
First Oger and his team visit farms under surveillance to gather
statistics about their production capacity: for example, they will
note what kind of crops they grow and calculate expected yields based
on local soil and climatic conditions. Back in their lab, they monitor
the farm via satellite images to see how well the crops develop and
identify external impacts, such as how often pollution from a nearby
power station drifts over the fields. "If a field is monitored by
satellite we can see how many trees a farmer has got and therefore how
much they can reasonably produce," Oger says. He hopes the
surveillance will deter producers from bolstering their output with
inferior product and passing it off as being from a particular farm or
region, and help him detect the location of inferior or contaminated
crops.
Eventually, he would like to see food products labelled with a
geographical identification number that customers could key into a
website to see for themselves the olive trees that their olive oil
came from, for instance. "The idea is to build something similar to
Google Earth for food products, so that someone can see exactly where
the bottle of wine on their table came from," he says.
While satellite monitoring can spot pollution and estimate reasonable
yields, and DNA marking can identify a species, neither can say for
sure whether a food comes from a specific site. That's where chemical
analysis comes in. TRACE, an EU research programme, was launched
earlier this year to develop a technique that tracks food back to the
soil it grew in. Locked inside every plant and animal is a chemical
memory of the weather and environment it grew up in. This is found in
the ratios of various isotopes - different forms of a single chemical
element that have different atomic masses. All food and drink contains
hydrogen and oxygen, for instance, that got there when the animal or
plant drank the local water, and hydrogen and oxygen have both heavy
and light isotopes. The ratio of light to heavy isotopes is a unique
signature of a particular climate and geography. For example, in cold
climates evaporation is less vigorous and fewer heavy isotopes make it
into the rain-cloud mix. Consequently English rain (and English lamb)
has a higher proportion of lightweight oxygen and hydrogen isotopes
than Spanish rain (and Spanish lamb). This relationship can also be
used to distinguish coastal from inland areas and mountains from
plains: the concentration of heavy isotopes in raindrops tends to
decrease as clouds move inland or gain altitude.
"The technique is most powerful when used to look at products made
solely from raw materials sourced from small, distinct geographical
regions, as is often the case with protected foods," says Simon Kelly,
a scientist at the government-funded Institute of Food Research in
Norwich, UK. To narrow the food's origin down even further it may be
possible to exploit isotopes in the soil and rocks. "Geology can
change over just hundreds of metres, so potentially we can pin down an
individual farm or valley," says Kelly.
Isotope analysis can also help in establishing broad groups of plant
species in a sample. For example, Woolfe has used natural variations
in carbon isotopes between different crops to work out whether juice
drinks are indeed "pure" and from a specific place, as packets often
claim, or diluted with cheaper juice from elsewhere. The idea relies
on a basic observation of plant biology. All plants consume carbon
dioxide to produce sugars during photosynthesis. They do this by
building sugar compounds containing either three or four carbon atoms.
This labels them as "C3" plants (such as apples and other fruit) or
"C4" plants (for example, sugar cane). C4 plants absorb the carbon-13
isotope faster than they do carbon-12 and more than C3 plants do, so
the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in C4 plants is, on average,
higher than in C3 plants. In one survey, Woolfe found that apple
juice, which should contain only C3 compounds, also contained a high
level of carbon-13 isotopes, indicating the presence of a lot of C4
plant product - in that case, sugar-cane juice.
Isotopes can even be used to reveal what food your food ate. This has
been the focus of work at the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) of the
UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in York, where
researchers have developed a carbon-isotope technique to test what
chickens were reared on. "We can check whether the more expensive
'corn-fed'-labelled chicken really is corn-fed," says Paul Brereton of
the CSL, who is also director of the EU's TRACE programme.
"6% of premium-brand whisky in UK bars is diluted with cheaper
whisky"Such analysis is also a key component in distinguishing farmed
from wild fish. Farmed fish tend to be fatter because they eat more
and are less active than their wild cousins, says Woolfe. The
difference between farmed and wild fish due to different diet and
exercise regimes shows up in the fatty acids and the carbon and
nitrogen-isotope ratios in fish oil. "We can differentiate between
wild and farmed fish including species like salmon, sea bass and sea
bream," he says.
Kelly and his colleagues are now building isotopic maps of Europe so
that products such as Champagne, Stilton cheese and Parma ham can be
confidently matched with their place of origin. For prized regional
products such as these, isotopic maps will be invaluable in verifying
a product's origin and preventing it being devalued by cheap copies.
"Some chickens in UK shops and supermarkets have been found to contain
up to 55% water, absorbed with the help of beef and pork
proteins"However, seasonal variation in the weather and local
geological quirks mean that isotopic analysis can never provide a
perfect location fix. "Natural variation means that figures can
overlap," says Andrew Mackie, who works at the British government's
Analytical and Scientific Services laboratory in Edinburgh. "In some
instances isotopic analysis can only provide intelligence, not
evidence for a court of law," says Kelly.
But combined with other evidence it can be an invaluable tool. In 2003
German authorities combined isotopic evidence with paper-trail
analysis to put a stop to a sophisticated scam, known as "carousel
fraud". A group of German companies had been illegally claiming
subsidies by trading EU-made butter to and from Estonia (then not a
member of the EU). Each time a butter lorry crossed the border from
Germany to Poland the companies were given EU export subsidies. Once
in Estonia the butter was repackaged and labelled to make it look like
it had originated in Estonia, heaved back on a lorry and hauled back
to Germany. This time, the importers took advantage of a tax break on
foreign imports aimed at increasing trade with prospective EU member
countries, as Estonia then was. The investigation revealed that 22 out
of 25 butter samples taken from Estonian-labelled butter imported into
the EU were not Estonian. In at least one case, the isotopic ratios of
hydrogen and oxygen in a butter sample indicated it could only have
come from Ireland.
With a battery of new tests at their disposal, scientists are
scrutinising many of the foods we buy and finding ways of positively
identifying them. The FSA, meanwhile, is about to publish the
conclusions of five new surveys of fruit, fish and meat fraud. The
next step is to co-ordinate the data and make it easy to follow food
from farm to dinner plate. "Eventually we want to integrate these
methods into electronic systems that will track food from the field
onwards, right until it reaches the kitchen," says Brereton.
Tougher problems are ahead for the food detectives. "The biggest
challenge now is food sold under 'ethical' labels, such as Fair Trade
and organic, and those concerning animal welfare and countryside
protection," Woolfe says. These products are sold at a high price, but
there is no technical way of checking any of these claims. That's what
it's like in the fight against food fraud, though: no sooner will the
scientists find a way of stopping a fraud than the fraudsters will
find a new way of covering their tracks. "It is cat and mouse," says
Brereton.
"16% of basmati-branded rice sold in UK shops is mixed with
non-basmati varieties"
From issue 2577 of New Scientist magazine, 15 November 2006, page
40-43
Forensic organics
Organic food has become big, big business. Last year, demand increased
by 30 per cent in the UK and by more than 20 per cent in the US.
Globally, the organic food industry is now worth an estimated £16.7
billion, almost double its size five years ago. From muddy carrots to
hormone-free milk, many of us are now prepared to pay extra for
organic produce.
The increase in demand has in some places outstripped supply, and that
has attracted fraudsters. "There have been various reports that a lot
of organic food is believed not to be organic," says Paul Brereton, a
food scientist at the UK government's Central Science Laboratory (CSL)
in York. So how can shoppers be sure they are not paying over the odds
for food that is not in fact organic?
Seals of approval, such as certification from the Soil Association -
the main regulator of organic food in the UK - give shoppers a degree
of confidence. But short of frequent farm visits, there is no
foolproof way to check whether a particular food on a supermarket
shelf has indeed been produced organically because there are so many
different criteria and most are hard to verify scientifically. For
example, synthetic fertilisers (banned in organic farming) are almost
impossible to distinguish from natural ones. "Finding a test for
organic food is the holy grail," says Brereton.
Slowly, however, progress is being made. A team led by Mitchell Kelly,
also at CSL, has developed a test for one of the criteria that define
organic meat. Organic meat farmers are permitted to use antibiotics on
their livestock only once per year - for many animals, such as pigs,
turkeys and chickens, that means once in their lifetime - to help cure
infections. Some farmers try to bend this rule. They believe that
giving livestock frequent, low-level doses of antibiotics could
promote growth by acting as a prophylactic, and help animals absorb
more nutrients from their food. But more than one dose of antibiotics
per year would disqualify the meat from being labelled organic.
Until now there was no way of testing the history of an animal's
antibiotics regime - only the level it had in its system at death.
Earlier this year, Kelly and his colleagues announced they had
discovered that shining ultraviolet light on sections of the animal's
bones revealed its antibiotic consumption in the shape of rings. The
number of rings distinguishable in the animal's bones reflected the
number of treatments it had received (see below). Each treatment shows
up like a ring in the trunk of a tree.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 2:00 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
But some rather silly stuff anyway.
PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Special Report Earth
> Buyer beware: the rise of food fraud
> 15 November 2006
> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19225771.900-buyer-beware-the-rise-of-food-fraud.html
This rag keeps getting worse every year.
> Take a look at the basmati rice in your local shop. Are you sure it is the
> fine, flavoursome grain the name suggests? Was it really grown in those
> green northern Indian paddy fields that the picture on the packet shows?
What matters is whether its the variety named, not where its grown.
No fraud involved if its the variety named.
> Perhaps not. In 2002 the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) carried
> out the first DNA survey of basmati rice sold in the UK. It found that
> only 54 per cent of the bags labelled as such contained pure basmati
> rice - defined as a particular species of grain grown in the plains
> around the Ganges in northern India and east Pakistan.
Nope, its the variety that matters, not where its grown.
Modern agriculture has moved WAY past the original source of a variety.
> All the other samples had been diluted with inferior varieties - some
> by more than 60 per cent. One FSA official calculated that the fraud
> swindled consumers out of over £5 million that year alone.
> Basmati is not the only superior-quality food that has been targeted by
> fraudsters. Honey, whisky, gin, vodka, fruit juice, butter, cheese, meat,
> fish, coffee and even potatoes: they have all been packed out with
> inferior brands and found their way into supermarkets, shops and bars.
Yes, its a particular problem with fish, so many varietys etc.
> Food fraud is big business. For obvious reasons no one knows its true
> extent, but spot checks and surveys suggest that criminals and crooked
> food producers cheat shoppers out of hundreds of millions of pounds
> every year. "When we have done surveys on individual foods the level
> of fraud is often around 10 per cent," says Mark Woolfe, a scientist
> in the FSA's enforcement division in London. "The UK food sector
> alone is worth around £70 billion per year, so a small percentage
> of fraud can be worth a lot of money."
> But fraudsters had better watch their backs. From sophisticated
> chemical analysis and satellite imaging to DNA tagging, scientists
> are devising new techniques to track food from farm to fork.
You dont need to track it with most food.
> The European Union is so concerned about the problem that earlier
> this year it launched a continent-wide project to boost the development
> of these technologies. The food detectives are fighting back.
Usual mindless journalistic hype.
> The first written account of food fraud dates back to 1820, when
> Fredrick Accum, a German chemist, published A Treatise on
> Adulterations of Food, and Culinary Poisons, which exposed
> culinary sharp practice in London. It detailed how bakers cut
> their flour with alum and chalk to make loaves whiter, and
> tipped in plaster and sawdust to make them heavier.
This is getting very mindless. Modern bread has a lot of additives
designed to give the consumers the sort of bread they want, and
to extend the shelf life of the bread. Thats not food faud.
> Brewers added substances like the poison strychnine
> to beer to make it taste bitter and save money on hops.
Fuck all ever did that, and its not relevant today anyway.
> Perhaps worst of all was the use of lead, copper or mercury salts to make
> brightly coloured sweets and jellies that would be attractive to children.
Thats not food fraud either.
> Today tight controls on food safety have largely stamped
> out adulteration that might lead to health problems.
So there wasnt any point in including it in an article about food fraud.
> So unscrupulous food producers are finding ways
> of debasing food without raising the safety alarms.
Or there has always been some substitution of inferior
varietys etc in an attempt to keep the costs down.
> The big money now lies in diluting expensive
> brands with cheaper, low-quality lookalikes.
Nothing new as far as that is concerned. Its just a lot easy to police now.
> The higher prices that people will pay for "premium" foods
> from a particular place, such as Parma ham, Greek olive oil
> and Scotch whisky, coupled with the increase in global trade,
> has meant faking origin has become particularly lucrative.
Nothing new about that either.
> The unprecedented boom in demand for organic food
> has given fraudsters another high-price market to exploit,
> especially as there is no definitive way of confirming whether
> a product is genuinely organic (see "Forensic organics").
Duh.
> After discovering the basmati rice scandal, the FSA began
> developing a new DNA-fingerprinting technique - like that used
> by the police to trace crime-scene DNA to its owner - which
> could be used by food-standards inspectors across the UK.
There's been plenty of that done for years now.
> "We had been looking for ways of authenticating basmati for many years
> and then we had this breakthrough with the DNA test," says Woolfe.
Pity others had been doing it for years, you didnt invent anything.
> As a result, the FSA has begun prosecuting fraudsters: earlier this
> year, a court fined two Essex-based companies, Basmati Rice and
> Surya Rice, over £8000 each for selling packs labelled "basmati" that
> were adulterated with between 55 and 75 per cent non-basmati rice.
Just a fart in the bath basically.
> The agency claims this new surveillance has cut basmati fraud dramatically.
> It might be right. Earlier this year the Rice Association, a British trade body,
> conducted a survey that found just 16 per cent of tested samples were
> diluted with high levels of non-basmati rice.
> The FSA and its EU partners now use the technique to check
> whether products are free of genetically modified organisms.
> In September, Dutch authorities identified GM material in
> long-grain rice from the US labelled GM-free. This sparked
> a flurry of testing across Europe on American long-grain rice.
> Takeshi Nishio, from Tohoku University, Japan, has invented
> a way of pre-empting rice bootleggers by using a genetic
> equivalent of a certificate of origin. He has selectively bred
> a variety of Koshihikari rice - a high-quality strain that
> connoisseurs consider to have a superlative flavour - to have
> a specific genetic marker. The Uonuma district of Japan is
> known for producing high-quality crops of this rice, so farmers
> are concerned that their reputation should not be tarnished by
> inferior rice falsely sold under the district's name. Nishio hopes
> to sell his genetically distinctive rice under licence to Uonuma
> farmers and plans to apply the same idea to other cereals and
> vegetables in the future.
> "2% of branded gin and vodka sold in bars in the UK is diluted with
> cheaper spirits"Without a scheme like Nishio's, DNA fingerprinting
> isn't enough to identify food from a particular location, rather than
> just being of a particular species. Many foods can be grown
> anywhere that has the right climate, so something more is
> needed to identify the geographical source of the crop.
Or get a clue and realise that what matters is the variety, not where its grown.
> Robert Oger, from the Walloon Agricultural Research Centre in Belgium,
> wants to solve the problem by keeping an eye on crops as they grow.
> As part of GeoTraceAgri, a project funded by the European Commission,
> he has been looking at ways of using aerial and satellite data to verify
> the origin, quality and quantity of crops.
Not even feasible to identify the variety from a satellite.
> First Oger and his team visit farms under surveillance to gather
> statistics about their production capacity: for example, they will
> note what kind of crops they grow and calculate expected yields
> based on local soil and climatic conditions.
And that can never be more than a crude estimate since
the weather conditions matter so much with the yield.
You cant even accurately predict the yield for a particular field.
> Back in their lab, they monitor the farm via satellite images to see
> how well the crops develop and identify external impacts, such as
> how often pollution from a nearby power station drifts over the fields.
Waffle.
> "If a field is monitored by satellite we can see how many trees a farmer has got
Yes.
> and therefore how much they can reasonably produce," Oger says.
Nope.
> He hopes the surveillance will deter producers from bolstering their output
> with inferior product and passing it off as being from a particular farm or region,
More fool him. They arent the ones doing the substitution.
> and help him detect the location of inferior or contaminated crops.
Mindlessly silly.
> Eventually, he would like to see food products labelled with a
> geographical identification number that customers could key into
> a website to see for themselves the olive trees that their olive oil
> came from, for instance. "The idea is to build something similar to
> Google Earth for food products, so that someone can see exactly
> where the bottle of wine on their table came from," he says.
Wota silly little wanker.
> While satellite monitoring can spot pollution and estimate reasonable yields,
Nope.
> and DNA marking can identify a species, neither can say for sure
> whether a food comes from a specific site. That's where chemical
> analysis comes in. TRACE, an EU research programme, was launched
> earlier this year to develop a technique that tracks food back to the
> soil it grew in. Locked inside every plant and animal is a chemical
> memory of the weather and environment it grew up in. This is found in
> the ratios of various isotopes - different forms of a single chemical
> element that have different atomic masses. All food and drink contains
> hydrogen and oxygen, for instance, that got there when the animal or
> plant drank the local water, and hydrogen and oxygen have both heavy
> and light isotopes. The ratio of light to heavy isotopes is a unique
> signature of a particular climate and geography. For example, in cold
> climates evaporation is less vigorous and fewer heavy isotopes make it
> into the rain-cloud mix. Consequently English rain (and English lamb)
> has a higher proportion of lightweight oxygen and hydrogen isotopes
> than Spanish rain (and Spanish lamb). This relationship can also be
> used to distinguish coastal from inland areas and mountains from
> plains: the concentration of heavy isotopes in raindrops tends to
> decrease as clouds move inland or gain altitude.
Pity that that sort of analysis will never be economically viable.
> "The technique is most powerful when used to look at products made
> solely from raw materials sourced from small, distinct geographical
> regions, as is often the case with protected foods," says Simon Kelly,
> a scientist at the government-funded Institute of Food Research in
> Norwich, UK. To narrow the food's origin down even further it may
> be possible to exploit isotopes in the soil and rocks. "Geology can
> change over just hundreds of metres, so potentially we can pin
> down an individual farm or valley," says Kelly.
Wota silly little wanker.
> Isotope analysis can also help in establishing broad groups of plant
> species in a sample. For example, Woolfe has used natural variations
> in carbon isotopes between different crops to work out whether juice
> drinks are indeed "pure" and from a specific place, as packets often
> claim, or diluted with cheaper juice from elsewhere. The idea relies
> on a basic observation of plant biology. All plants consume carbon
> dioxide to produce sugars during photosynthesis. They do this by
> building sugar compounds containing either three or four carbon atoms.
> This labels them as "C3" plants (such as apples and other fruit) or
> "C4" plants (for example, sugar cane). C4 plants absorb the carbon-13
> isotope faster than they do carbon-12 and more than C3 plants do, so
> the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in C4 plants is, on average,
> higher than in C3 plants. In one survey, Woolfe found that apple
> juice, which should contain only C3 compounds, also contained a high
> level of carbon-13 isotopes, indicating the presence of a lot of C4
> plant product - in that case, sugar-cane juice.
There are much cheaper ways of working that out.
> Isotopes can even be used to reveal what food your food ate. This has
> been the focus of work at the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) of the
> UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in York, where
> researchers have developed a carbon-isotope technique to test what
> chickens were reared on. "We can check whether the more expensive
> 'corn-fed'-labelled chicken really is corn-fed," says Paul Brereton of
> the CSL, who is also director of the EU's TRACE programme.
> "6% of premium-brand whisky in UK bars is diluted with cheaper
> whisky"Such analysis is also a key component in distinguishing farmed
> from wild fish. Farmed fish tend to be fatter because they eat more
> and are less active than their wild cousins, says Woolfe. The
> difference between farmed and wild fish due to different diet and
> exercise regimes shows up in the fatty acids and the carbon and
> nitrogen-isotope ratios in fish oil. "We can differentiate between
> wild and farmed fish including species like salmon, sea bass and sea
> bream," he says.
> Kelly and his colleagues are now building isotopic maps of Europe
> so that products such as Champagne, Stilton cheese and Parma
> ham can be confidently matched with their place of origin.
Big fucking deal.
> For prized regional products such as these, isotopic maps will be invaluable
> in verifying a product's origin and preventing it being devalued by cheap copies.
Pity about the cost of all that desperate wanking.
> "Some chickens in UK shops and supermarkets have been found
> to contain up to 55% water, absorbed with the help of beef and
> pork proteins"However, seasonal variation in the weather and local
> geological quirks mean that isotopic analysis can never provide a
> perfect location fix. "Natural variation means that figures can
> overlap," says Andrew Mackie, who works at the British government's
> Analytical and Scientific Services laboratory in Edinburgh. "In some
> instances isotopic analysis can only provide intelligence, not
> evidence for a court of law," says Kelly.
So much for the desperate wanking earlier.
> But combined with other evidence it can be an invaluable tool. In 2003
> German authorities combined isotopic evidence with paper-trail
> analysis to put a stop to a sophisticated scam, known as "carousel
> fraud". A group of German companies had been illegally claiming
> subsidies by trading EU-made butter to and from Estonia (then not a
> member of the EU). Each time a butter lorry crossed the border from
> Germany to Poland the companies were given EU export subsidies. Once
> in Estonia the butter was repackaged and labelled to make it look like
> it had originated in Estonia, heaved back on a lorry and hauled back
> to Germany. This time, the importers took advantage of a tax break on
> foreign imports aimed at increasing trade with prospective EU member
> countries, as Estonia then was. The investigation revealed that 22 out
> of 25 butter samples taken from Estonian-labelled butter imported into
> the EU were not Estonian. In at least one case, the isotopic ratios of
> hydrogen and oxygen in a butter sample indicated it could only have
> come from Ireland.
The real problem is the terminal stupidity of the subsidys, stupid.
> With a battery of new tests at their disposal, scientists are
> scrutinising many of the foods we buy and finding ways of positively
> identifying them. The FSA, meanwhile, is about to publish the
> conclusions of five new surveys of fruit, fish and meat fraud. The
> next step is to co-ordinate the data and make it easy to follow food
> from farm to dinner plate. "Eventually we want to integrate these
> methods into electronic systems that will track food from the field
> onwards, right until it reaches the kitchen," says Brereton.
Wota fucking wanker. Thats never going to be practical.
> Tougher problems are ahead for the food detectives. "The biggest
> challenge now is food sold under 'ethical' labels, such as Fair Trade
> and organic, and those concerning animal welfare and countryside
> protection," Woolfe says. These products are sold at a high price, but
> there is no technical way of checking any of these claims. That's what
> it's like in the fight against food fraud, though: no sooner will the
> scientists find a way of stopping a fraud than the fraudsters will
> find a new way of covering their tracks. "It is cat and mouse," says
> Brereton.
Wota fucking wanker. It always is with all criminal activity, stupid.
> "16% of basmati-branded rice sold in UK shops is mixed with non-basmati varieties"
> From issue 2577 of New Scientist magazine, 15 November 2006, page 40-43
> Forensic organics
> Organic food has become big, big business. Last year, demand increased
> by 30 per cent in the UK and by more than 20 per cent in the US.
Yep, there are that many fools.
> Globally, the organic food industry is now worth an estimated £16.7 billion,
> almost double its size five years ago. From muddy carrots to hormone-free
> milk, many of us are now prepared to pay extra for organic produce.
Yep, there are that many fools.
> The increase in demand has in some places outstripped supply, and that
> has attracted fraudsters. "There have been various reports that a lot of
> organic food is believed not to be organic," says Paul Brereton, a food
> scientist at the UK government's Central Science Laboratory (CSL) in York.
Must be one of those rocket scientist wankers.
> So how can shoppers be sure they are not paying
> over the odds for food that is not in fact organic?
They cant, stupid.
> Seals of approval, such as certification from the Soil Association -
> the main regulator of organic food in the UK - give shoppers a
> degree of confidence. But short of frequent farm visits, there is no
> foolproof way to check whether a particular food on a supermarket
> shelf has indeed been produced organically because there are so
> many different criteria and most are hard to verify scientifically. For
> example, synthetic fertilisers (banned in organic farming) are almost
> impossible to distinguish from natural ones. "Finding a test for
> organic food is the holy grail," says Brereton.
Not even possible.
> Slowly, however, progress is being made. A team led by Mitchell Kelly,
> also at CSL, has developed a test for one of the criteria that define
> organic meat. Organic meat farmers are permitted to use antibiotics on
> their livestock only once per year - for many animals, such as pigs,
> turkeys and chickens, that means once in their lifetime - to help cure
> infections. Some farmers try to bend this rule. They believe that
> giving livestock frequent, low-level doses of antibiotics could
> promote growth by acting as a prophylactic, and help animals absorb
> more nutrients from their food. But more than one dose of antibiotics
> per year would disqualify the meat from being labelled organic.
> Until now there was no way of testing the history of an animal's
> antibiotics regime - only the level it had in its system at death.
> Earlier this year, Kelly and his colleagues announced they had
> discovered that shining ultraviolet light on sections of the animal's
> bones revealed its antibiotic consumption in the shape of rings. The
> number of rings distinguishable in the animal's bones reflected the
> number of treatments it had received (see below). Each treatment shows
> up like a ring in the trunk of a tree.
You'll have to pardon us if we dont actually cream our jeans.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 5:12 pm
From: PaPaPeng
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:51:55 GMT, PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Special Report Earth
>Buyer beware: the rise of food fraud
>15 November 2006
>http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19225771.900-buyer-beware-the-rise-of-food-fraud.html
>
>Take a look at the basmati rice in your local shop. Are you sure it is
>the fine, flavoursome grain the name suggests? Was it really grown in
>those green northern Indian paddy fields that the picture on the
>packet shows?
=========================
China's about-face on product safety
By Antoaneta Bezlova
August 3, 2007
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/IH03Cb01.html
BEIJING - Dogged by a plethora of reports in the foreign media
highlighting problem Chinese goods and worried that product-safety
recalls are spiraling into a major problem for its export juggernaut,
Beijing has shifted gears to defend its battered "Made in China"
reputation.
On Wednesday, the world's largest toymaker, Mattel, announced a
massive recall of Chinese-made toys because of excessive lead in their
paint. Reluctant to acknowledge such problems when they first came to
light several months ago, Chinese authorities are now daily rounding
up companies suspected of faulty products. The safety crackdown on
domestic producers has been accompanied by a public relations campaign
aimed at international traders.
"The Chinese government pays great attention to addressing flaws in
product quality, especially the quality of food products," Li
Changjiang, minister in charge of the General Administration of
Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, said at a specially
convened press conference.
The government's acknowledgement of existing problems makes a
remarkable departure for a bureaucratic system prone to cover-ups.
When a pet-food ingredient produced in China was linked to the deaths
of cats and dogs in North America in April, Beijing's first reaction
was to deny it. "The poisoning of American pets has nothing to do with
China," claimed a report in the Communist Party's flagship newspaper,
the People's Daily.
Export-control officials argued that food contamination occurred both
within the United States and with US exports to China. "No
food-inspection system is foolproof," Li Yuanping, director general of
the Import and Export Food Safety Bureau, countered at the time.
But international worries about China's exports have continued to
mount with more and more reports about substandard and fake products
coming to light. Since April, a slew of exports - including
toothpaste, tires, seafood and toys - have been recalled or rejected
around the world. What is worse, mislabeled drug ingredients in
Chinese exports have been blamed for killing and injuring people in
Panama and Haiti.
As a result, China has come under political pressure from the US and
the European Union, where politicians are demanding assurances about
the quality and safety of Chinese exports.
After slapping controls on China's seafood imports because of unsafe
chemical residues found in farm-raised fish, the US administration
dispatched its health chief for talks with Chinese officials this
week.
"Our US regulatory agencies are concerned about what they see as an
insufficient infrastructure across the board in China to assure the
safety, quality and effectiveness of many products exported to the
United States," Mike Leavitt said in Beijing on Tuesday.
Leavitt's mission to Beijing came on the heels of a visit by the head
of the EU's consumer-protection agency, Meglena Kuneva, last week.
Kuneva urged Chinese regulators to track down every producer of
substandard goods and stop their exports to Europe.
China's safety woes have not been limited to Europe and North America.
Excessive antibiotic or pesticide residue has caused bans in Japan on
Chinese poultry products, frozen spinach and tea. Hong Kong blocked
imports of turbot fish last year after inspectors found traces of
malachite green, a possible cancer-causing chemical used to treat
fungal infections.
Last year Taiwan too banned imports of hairy crabs from mainland China
over traces of carcinogens. This June, Russia's federal agricultural
authorities banned fish from China because of antibiotic
contamination.
Watching the volley of safety complaints, Chinese officials have grown
worried that an all-around international campaign on problem goods
could lead to sanctions and hurt the country's exports.
Exports and foreign investment are the chief engines of China's
booming economy. According to World Trade Organization statistics,
China's total food exports reached US$246 billion in 2005, which is
nearly eight times the $31 billion it exported in 1980.
In a dramatic display of concern, two weeks ago China executed the
former head of the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), Zheng
Xiaoyu, for accepting bribes in return for granting government
approval for various medicines in 2005.
Experts say several agencies involved in safety and quality
supervision, such as the SFDA and the General Administration of
Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, squabble over the
division of powers and tend to deny responsibility for mistakes.
In recent weeks, the government has pledged to overhaul the
regulations on food and drug safety and announced a nationwide quality
and safety inspection. This week, Beijing issued a regulation holding
local governments responsible for any major food poisoning or other
health threat caused by contaminated or substandard food.
Yet, while aiming to publicize its actions on safety controls, Beijing
has also tried to limit future PR fallout. Newspapers in the capital
have been warned against running negative news on food safety, even
negative articles reprinted from newspapers in other regions, reported
the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post this week.
Some observers are criticizing foreign media for exaggerating food
safety.
"All these negative reports and commentaries about 'Made in China' -
it all smacks of psychological warfare," argued Zhang Guoqing, an
expert on international affairs with the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences. "It is worth reminding detractors that China's trade surplus
is a testimony to the opportunities and attraction of the Chinese
economy."
(Inter Press Service )
==============================================================================
TOPIC: You owe it to yourself to give this a try!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e139f2589cb80fe4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 1:53 pm
From: rutgerskevin
Could you use some extra money? I know what you are thinking, this is
just going to be about some kind of scam. I felt the same way until I
actually tried Cash Crate. Don't take my word for the legitimacy of
Cash Crate, I urge you to read the public forum on the site before you
join. You will be able to read about common pitfalls, complaints, and
countless success stories. Curious? Click below.
http://www.cashcrate.com/84770">Cash Crate
Here's how it works: Once you make $10, your referrer gets a $3 plus
20% of your lifetime earnings on this site, plus 10% of what your
referrals make. We'll talk about referrals later. By just completing
all the offers that are 100% free and don't require a credit card, you
can make well over $100.
So now you see the next step--Do exactly what I am doing now--post
your referral link on every message board you know about. You can
even post on the same boards I do (Yahoo, Google, Msn, Aol etc.)--I
don't care--The more money you make the more I make. It only takes a
couple of active referrals to make some serious passive income.
Let's make some money together!!!
http://www.cashcrate.com/84770>Cash Crate
Other sites that pay
http://www.inboxdollars.com/?r=rutgerskevin>Inbox Dollars
http://www.treasuretrooper.com/151579>Treasure Trooper
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal pre-paid funeral expenses?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ce3b2b4cec57072f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 3:03 pm
From: bb90125@yahoo.com
On Jul 27, 1:55 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Logan Shaw <lshaw-use...@austin.rr.com> wrote
> >> bb90...@yahoo.com wrote
> >>> Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote
> >>>> <bb90...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>> Thank you everyone for the responses. Yes, this will be a suicide
> >>>>> situation. My family has never been a fan of cremation, but at the
> >>>>> same time I don't want to put them thru having to selecting a
> >>>>> casket, tombstone, and all the other stuff. If I can take care of
> >>>>> all that ahead of time by pre-paying
> >>>> I've seen the impact that suicides can have on family members in
> >>>> terms guilt, anger, and hardship, especially if there is a spouse
> >>>> and kids involved.
> >>> There is no spouse or kids involved, so if there was I could see
> >>> your point. But at other times a suicide can actually be the best
> >>> situation for everyone involved. It really can be a win-win.
> >> I don't want to ramble on too much about this, so I'll get straight
> >> to the point. Hopefully not an oversimplification, but basically
> >> suicide is what happens when someone runs out of other ways (that
> >> they know of) to cope with their situation[1].
> > Nope, its also the best approach in some situations.
>
> >> As such, you are by definition in a difficult situation.
>
> > Wrong again.
>
> >> By definition, there are strong forces pressing you in a direction
> >> that you would not normally be inclined to go.
>
> > Wrong again. It is just what plenty are inclined to do in that
> > situation.
> >> Under the weight of those forces, it becomes hard to really be
> >> objective and think totally rationally.
>
> > And plenty come to the objective and rational conclusion that is the
> > best thing to do.
> >> Don is right about the effect that suicide can have on family and
> >> friends.
>
> > And he's wrong when he implys that that effect is anything like the
> > most common result.
> >> I know because I've seen (felt) it first-hand.
>
> > And plenty have the reverse too, none of those consequences.
>
> >> But I don't say this to make you feel guilty. I don't want to put
> >> more pressure when there is already too much pressure.
>
> > You dont know that there is any pressure at all.
>
> >> I merely bring it up to illustrate that if you are thinking in terms
> >> of it being a "win-win", then probably that indicates your view is
> >> being clouded.
>
> > Like hell it does.
>
> > That is just your prejudices talking.
>
> >> The point of all this is that I am trying to encourage you to seek
> >> out people who can support you and help you find ways to cope.
>
> > Plenty dont want to cope, they have decided that its the best
> > approach.
> >> This world can be harsh sometimes, but don't let that make you think
> >> there aren't people out there who are willing to help.
>
> > Plenty dont want help and have decided that they have had a
> > pretty decent life and that the future doesnt appeal. Their choice.
>
> >> I know that when my friend chose suicide, he did not seem to
> >> understand what his friends would have been willing to do for him,
> >> had they (we) known that he needed it.
> > Very arrogant assumption that he needed help.
>
> And presumably he was aware of the your attitude and thats why he
> never said anything about his suicide, so you couldnt interfere with it.
>
> >> [1] barring circumstances like a truly terminal physical illness;
> >> that is a bit of a different situation.
> > What is so 'irrational' about deciding that suicide is preferred to the non suicide situation ?
>
> We had one of the locals in a 50K town who murdered 3 kids. No
> one could work out who had done it until the murderer botched an
> attempt at suicide, it failed largely due to poor planning/bad luck.
>
> The stupid legal system fixed the medical problems, wasted an
> immense amount of money on the full trial etc and conviction.
> The murderer eventually managed to kill himself effectively in jail.
>
> Our equivalent of Greenspan and his wife both decided that they had
> had a very decent life, that the downsides of old age didnt appeal, and
> they both chose to suicide. Lots of howling by the stupid god botherers,
> but obviously the suiciders werent around to actually give a damn.
>
> There's plenty of situations other than terminal
> physical illness where suicide makes sense.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rod Speed is definitely one who "gets it" in terms of this issue.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 4:03 pm
From: Wayne Sallee
Eternity is a long time.
Wayne Sallee
Webmaster@LeesburgNazarene.org
bb90125@yahoo.com wrote on 8/2/2007 6:03 PM:
> On Jul 27, 1:55 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Logan Shaw <lshaw-use...@austin.rr.com> wrote
>>>> bb90...@yahoo.com wrote
>>>>> Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote
>>>>>> <bb90...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Thank you everyone for the responses. Yes, this will be a suicide
>>>>>>> situation. My family has never been a fan of cremation, but at the
>>>>>>> same time I don't want to put them thru having to selecting a
>>>>>>> casket, tombstone, and all the other stuff. If I can take care of
>>>>>>> all that ahead of time by pre-paying
>>>>>> I've seen the impact that suicides can have on family members in
>>>>>> terms guilt, anger, and hardship, especially if there is a spouse
>>>>>> and kids involved.
>>>>> There is no spouse or kids involved, so if there was I could see
>>>>> your point. But at other times a suicide can actually be the best
>>>>> situation for everyone involved. It really can be a win-win.
>>>> I don't want to ramble on too much about this, so I'll get straight
>>>> to the point. Hopefully not an oversimplification, but basically
>>>> suicide is what happens when someone runs out of other ways (that
>>>> they know of) to cope with their situation[1].
>>> Nope, its also the best approach in some situations.
>>>> As such, you are by definition in a difficult situation.
>>> Wrong again.
>>>> By definition, there are strong forces pressing you in a direction
>>>> that you would not normally be inclined to go.
>>> Wrong again. It is just what plenty are inclined to do in that
>>> situation.
>>>> Under the weight of those forces, it becomes hard to really be
>>>> objective and think totally rationally.
>>> And plenty come to the objective and rational conclusion that is the
>>> best thing to do.
>>>> Don is right about the effect that suicide can have on family and
>>>> friends.
>>> And he's wrong when he implys that that effect is anything like the
>>> most common result.
>>>> I know because I've seen (felt) it first-hand.
>>> And plenty have the reverse too, none of those consequences.
>>>> But I don't say this to make you feel guilty. I don't want to put
>>>> more pressure when there is already too much pressure.
>>> You dont know that there is any pressure at all.
>>>> I merely bring it up to illustrate that if you are thinking in terms
>>>> of it being a "win-win", then probably that indicates your view is
>>>> being clouded.
>>> Like hell it does.
>>> That is just your prejudices talking.
>>>> The point of all this is that I am trying to encourage you to seek
>>>> out people who can support you and help you find ways to cope.
>>> Plenty dont want to cope, they have decided that its the best
>>> approach.
>>>> This world can be harsh sometimes, but don't let that make you think
>>>> there aren't people out there who are willing to help.
>>> Plenty dont want help and have decided that they have had a
>>> pretty decent life and that the future doesnt appeal. Their choice.
>>>> I know that when my friend chose suicide, he did not seem to
>>>> understand what his friends would have been willing to do for him,
>>>> had they (we) known that he needed it.
>>> Very arrogant assumption that he needed help.
>> And presumably he was aware of the your attitude and thats why he
>> never said anything about his suicide, so you couldnt interfere with it.
>>
>>>> [1] barring circumstances like a truly terminal physical illness;
>>>> that is a bit of a different situation.
>>> What is so 'irrational' about deciding that suicide is preferred to the non suicide situation ?
>> We had one of the locals in a 50K town who murdered 3 kids. No
>> one could work out who had done it until the murderer botched an
>> attempt at suicide, it failed largely due to poor planning/bad luck.
>>
>> The stupid legal system fixed the medical problems, wasted an
>> immense amount of money on the full trial etc and conviction.
>> The murderer eventually managed to kill himself effectively in jail.
>>
>> Our equivalent of Greenspan and his wife both decided that they had
>> had a very decent life, that the downsides of old age didnt appeal, and
>> they both chose to suicide. Lots of howling by the stupid god botherers,
>> but obviously the suiciders werent around to actually give a damn.
>>
>> There's plenty of situations other than terminal
>> physical illness where suicide makes sense.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Rod Speed is definitely one who "gets it" in terms of this issue.
>
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 4:10 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Wayne Sallee <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote
> Eternity is a long time.
There is no eternity, just the time between when you
choose to end your life and when it would otherwise end.
> bb90125@yahoo.com wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Logan Shaw <lshaw-use...@austin.rr.com> wrote
>>>>> bb90...@yahoo.com wrote
>>>>>> Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote
>>>>>>> <bb90...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Thank you everyone for the responses. Yes, this will be a
>>>>>>>> suicide situation. My family has never been a fan of
>>>>>>>> cremation, but at the same time I don't want to put them thru
>>>>>>>> having to selecting a casket, tombstone, and all the other
>>>>>>>> stuff. If I can take care of all that ahead of time by
>>>>>>>> pre-paying
>>>>>>> I've seen the impact that suicides can have on family members in
>>>>>>> terms guilt, anger, and hardship, especially if there is a
>>>>>>> spouse and kids involved.
>>>>>> There is no spouse or kids involved, so if there was I could see
>>>>>> your point. But at other times a suicide can actually be the best
>>>>>> situation for everyone involved. It really can be a win-win.
>>>>> I don't want to ramble on too much about this, so I'll get
>>>>> straight to the point. Hopefully not an oversimplification, but
>>>>> basically suicide is what happens when someone runs out of other
>>>>> ways (that they know of) to cope with their situation[1].
>>>> Nope, its also the best approach in some situations.
>>>>> As such, you are by definition in a difficult situation.
>>>> Wrong again.
>>>>> By definition, there are strong forces pressing you in a direction
>>>>> that you would not normally be inclined to go.
>>>> Wrong again. It is just what plenty are inclined to do in that
>>>> situation.
>>>>> Under the weight of those forces, it becomes hard to really be
>>>>> objective and think totally rationally.
>>>> And plenty come to the objective and rational conclusion that is
>>>> the best thing to do.
>>>>> Don is right about the effect that suicide can have on family and
>>>>> friends.
>>>> And he's wrong when he implys that that effect is anything like the
>>>> most common result.
>>>>> I know because I've seen (felt) it first-hand.
>>>> And plenty have the reverse too, none of those consequences.
>>>>> But I don't say this to make you feel guilty. I don't want to put
>>>>> more pressure when there is already too much pressure.
>>>> You dont know that there is any pressure at all.
>>>>> I merely bring it up to illustrate that if you are thinking in
>>>>> terms of it being a "win-win", then probably that indicates your
>>>>> view is being clouded.
>>>> Like hell it does.
>>>> That is just your prejudices talking.
>>>>> The point of all this is that I am trying to encourage you to seek
>>>>> out people who can support you and help you find ways to cope.
>>>> Plenty dont want to cope, they have decided that its the best
>>>> approach.
>>>>> This world can be harsh sometimes, but don't let that make you
>>>>> think there aren't people out there who are willing to help.
>>>> Plenty dont want help and have decided that they have had a
>>>> pretty decent life and that the future doesnt appeal. Their choice.
>>>>> I know that when my friend chose suicide, he did not seem to
>>>>> understand what his friends would have been willing to do for him,
>>>>> had they (we) known that he needed it.
>>>> Very arrogant assumption that he needed help.
>>> And presumably he was aware of the your attitude and thats why he
>>> never said anything about his suicide, so you couldnt interfere
>>> with it.
>>>>> [1] barring circumstances like a truly terminal physical illness;
>>>>> that is a bit of a different situation.
>>>> What is so 'irrational' about deciding that suicide is preferred
>>>> to the non suicide situation ?
>>> We had one of the locals in a 50K town who murdered 3 kids. No
>>> one could work out who had done it until the murderer botched an
>>> attempt at suicide, it failed largely due to poor planning/bad luck.
>>>
>>> The stupid legal system fixed the medical problems, wasted an
>>> immense amount of money on the full trial etc and conviction.
>>> The murderer eventually managed to kill himself effectively in jail.
>>>
>>> Our equivalent of Greenspan and his wife both decided that they had
>>> had a very decent life, that the downsides of old age didnt appeal,
>>> and they both chose to suicide. Lots of howling by the stupid god
>>> botherers, but obviously the suiciders werent around to actually
>>> give a damn. There's plenty of situations other than terminal
>>> physical illness where suicide makes sense.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Rod Speed is definitely one who "gets it" in terms of this issue.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 10:28 pm
From: Logan Shaw
bb90125@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rod Speed is definitely one who "gets it" in terms of this issue.
I don't want to get into a debate, but I want to emphasize something,
because I think it's important.
What I want to emphasize is that suicide is often chosen when you're
in a state that makes it very difficult to think rationally or
objectively. For example, when a mother chooses suicide and leaves
behind young children, was she likely thinking rationally? The
parenting instinct is incredibly strong, so for anything to
override it must mean that that thing has a powerful ability to
alter your thinking.
No, I can't prove that everyone who ever chose suicide was acting
irrationally. But of all the people who commit suicide, what
percentage of them were thinking rationally? Not very many. The
stresses and personal difficulties that push people to the point of
considering suicide are also hard on your mind and can compromise
your ability to think clearly.
I say all that because I want to ask you to examine your thoughts
and be sure you are thinking clearly. There is often a tendency to
rationalize and justify the choice. So I'm asking you to check
for yourself whether you're being honest with yourself about who
you will be hurting and how much, whether you're rationalizing
things, and in general whether you can be confident that you're
thinking clearly.
Once again, this is not meant to make you feel guilty, since that
would serve no purpose. I am only hoping to help in some way if I
can. Even though I don't know what I really can do, at least know
that I am thinking about you. (And most likely, I'm not the only
one.)
- Logan
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 11:37 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote
> bb90125@yahoo.com wrote
>> Rod Speed is definitely one who "gets it" in terms of this issue.
> I don't want to get into a debate, but I want to emphasize something, because I think it's
> important.
Its easy to overstate it tho and it isnt as black and white as you suggest.
> What I want to emphasize is that suicide is often chosen when you're
> in a state that makes it very difficult to think rationally or objectively.
Nope, plenty manage to do that fine.
> For example, when a mother chooses suicide and leaves
> behind young children, was she likely thinking rationally?
She may be, most obviously when she has serious problems
and the kids are better off without her like with a serious drug
habit and she hasnt been able to do something about that.
> The parenting instinct is incredibly strong,
Mindlessly silly. It isnt for plenty.
> so for anything to override it must mean that that thing has a powerful ability to alter your
> thinking.
Mindlessly silly. And that particular situation is irrelevant to hordes
of others where there are no young children involved anyway.
> No, I can't prove that everyone who ever chose suicide was acting irrationally. But of all the
> people who commit suicide, what
> percentage of them were thinking rationally? Not very many.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> The stresses and personal difficulties that push people to the point of considering suicide are
> also hard on your mind and can compromise your ability to think clearly.
And there are plenty of situations where its the rational and sensible thing to do too.
> I say all that because I want to ask you to examine your thoughts and be sure you are thinking
> clearly.
Seems to be thinking very clearly to me, including sorting out
paying for what needs to be done to the body after death, so
no one else will have to pay for that or organise it either.
> There is often a tendency to rationalize and justify the choice.
Doesnt mean that it isnt the rational choice.
> So I'm asking you to check for yourself whether you're being honest with yourself about who you
> will be hurting and how much,
There are plenty of situations where not everyone will agree with
the choices made, but its the rational choice to make anyway.
Essentially their hangups are their problem in the ultimate and it
makes absolutely no sense to continue with what you have decided
makes no sense just because some wont like the choice made.
> whether you're rationalizing things, and in general whether you can be confident that you're
> thinking clearly.
Plenty make all sorts of life choices without
it even being possible to be confident of that.
And in the ultimate, does it actually matter if
one of billions chooses to pull the plug on their life ?
> Once again, this is not meant to make you feel guilty, since that
> would serve no purpose. I am only hoping to help in some way if I
> can. Even though I don't know what I really can do, at least know
> that I am thinking about you. (And most likely, I'm not the only one.)
Yes, and some have decided that its his choice, not yours.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free iPods at Key Bank
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c3ae9b693333f40a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 5:17 pm
From: Gordon
Rick <rickajho@rcn.com> wrote in news:46B20397.3E1A6E00@rcn.com:
> Brontide wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 1, 10:29 pm, Gordon <go...@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>> > If you have a Key Bank in your area you can
>> > get a free iPod by opening a checking account.
>>
> iPod nano? Isn't that the one nobody wants? The one with no user
> controls or display that just plays song selections randomly? Is that
> even available in the retail market any longer? Such a deal!
>
> Rick
No Rick,
You are thinking of the Shuffle.
If you took a few seconds to use Google, you would have
seen that the Nano has a display and a scroll wheel.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 5:34 pm
From: Gordon
Brontide <ericew@gmail.com> wrote in news:1186060765.313689.38180
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 1, 10:29 pm, Gordon <go...@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>> If you have a Key Bank in your area you can
>> get a free iPod by opening a checking account.
>
>
> Be forewarned, they didn't get the name "fee"-bank for nothing.
I understand this. No one gives away a $100.00+ promo item
without the hope of getting most of it back. I'm entering
a minefield and I'm aware of that(I read the fine print).
>
> While it is possible that if you follow the letter of the promotion
> you may get a 1gb nano ( the old model ~ $110 retail ) if you follow
> the following rules. ( see complete listing below ).
From what I have been able to determine, I believe that they are
giving away a 2GB Nano. But even if I get a 1G, that would be
OK too.
Oh, and thanks for the better fine print. The other
readers of the list will thank you.
>
> * Open the account before Aug 24th
Done
> * Two -AUTOMATED- deposits/payments of at least $100 before Oct 26th
> ( not including bill pay or debit card use )
Easy
> * You will be taxed on the value of the iPod ( probably around $150,
> so another ~$30 in taxes to the IRS )
I get all my taxes back any way.
> * If you close the account within 6 months they charge you $25
One the two automated transactions are done, what's the cost
of holding the account inactive??
>
> If you do all that you will get an iPod sometime in December
> ( hopefully ).
Yes, I mentioned that.
> Key Bank also charges fees up the wazoo, things like
> using a teller will cost you $5. Even if you do get your iPod you
> will have tied up cash for 6 months, probably incurred the wrath of at
> least $5 in fees, and have to pay at least $30 in additional taxes. I
> have looked into it in the past and it has never seemed like a good
> deal.
>
> -Eric
YMMV: I am not closing my account at my favorite credit union. And I
advies anyone who wants to try this to keep any existing accounts open
too. That way you can do just enough business with Key to qualify for
the iPod, and avoid those activities that incure a fee.
FYI: I got about 11 pages of fine print that I am perusing.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 5:37 pm
From: Gordon
Parallax <Parallax-G@???????.com> wrote in news:Cumsi.268$9h.79
@trndny04:
> Gordon wrote:
>> If you have a Key Bank in your area you can
>> get a free iPod by opening a checking account.
>>
>> Disclaimer: I don't work for Key Bank and this
>> is not spam. I thought readers of this list might
>> be intrested in snagging a free iPod (very frugal).
>>
>>
>> The details:
>> I'm not sure of the geographic coverage of Key Bank.
>> The account in question is their free checking account.
>> You need to deposit at least $50.00 to open the account.
>> The account must remain open for at least 2 months.
>> You have to actually use the account.
>> Delayed gratification; your iPod will be shipped
>> to you around November.
>>
>> I went to Key today and opened my account.
>> I'll keep you posted on the details.
>
> Choosing your banking institution based on the brand of digital music
> player they supply hardly seems like a frugal move.
>
Well no, of course not. And I did not mean to suggest that
you should. I am keeping my longstanding accounts with my
favorite credit union open. And I intend to keep doing business
with them. But that doesn't mean I can't milk Key Bank for the
iPod.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 5:44 pm
From: Gordon
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5hejc8F3k87q5U1@mid.individual.net:
> Parallax <Parallax-G@???????.com> wrote:
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> If you have a Key Bank in your area you can
>>> get a free iPod by opening a checking account.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: I don't work for Key Bank and this
>>> is not spam. I thought readers of this list might
>>> be intrested in snagging a free iPod (very frugal).
>>>
>>>
>>> The details:
>>> I'm not sure of the geographic coverage of Key Bank.
>>> The account in question is their free checking account.
>>> You need to deposit at least $50.00 to open the account.
>>> The account must remain open for at least 2 months.
>>> You have to actually use the account.
>>> Delayed gratification; your iPod will be shipped
>>> to you around November.
>>>
>>> I went to Key today and opened my account.
>>> I'll keep you posted on the details.
>>
>> Choosing your banking institution based on the brand of digital music
>> player they supply hardly seems like a frugal move.
>
> Sure, but if the bank suits otherwise, and the alternatives dont offer
> anything to sign up with them, and the device appeals, why not take
> advantage of it ?
>
Or just do the minimum required to qualify for the iPod. See it as
an oppertunity to milk the system. Please see some of the fine print
that was posted by Eric. This is a minefield and you need to read the
fine print and follow the rules. I'm guessing they figure that
most people won't follow all the rules and will be disqualified,
the fees that they collect from those will justify the expense of
buying an iPod for the few that do qualify. READ THE FINE PRINT.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: long distance
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3958949a13d8893f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 6:46 pm
From: "jason.mangiafico@verizon.net"
quoting:
> > The "trouble" with post-paid services, such as Powernet, is that they must
> > collect Federal taxes and surcharges, at the least. In addition, most sneak in
> > sundryfeesand mystery (free money) charges. Using the Powernet example, ignore
> > the puffery page and pay particular attention to the FAQ:
> >http://www.powernetlongdistance.com/powernetglobal_faq.htm
>
> > and to the sample bill:
> >http://www.powernetlongdistance.com/PNGbill.pdf
>
> Hmm, that's a bummer. A few years ago when I had them, they didn't have
> the $0.99 "Telecom Infrastructure Fee", which is essentially a $0.99
> monthly fee. I truly owed nothing if I made no calls, and only a little
> if I made only a few. So that aspect has gotten worse. (On the other
> hand, they do now have lower per-minute rates than they did then.)
>
> - Logan
I was a PNG customer for years, then that $0.99 monthly fee came
along. The fee really killed me since I was a low usage customer,
after fees would come to 25 percent of the bill. Now even a $0 usage
month becomes a bill for $1.16 because they charge that fee no matter
what and then add the other fees and taxes to it. I guess PNG got too
big to care. I switched to a company called AireSpring, which after
taxes and fees comes to about 12.5 percent of my usage, which is about
right considering the laws. But the important thing is they don't
charge fixed fees, only percentages so that a $0 bill stays that way.
They do the email only bill thing, but you can trick them by saying
that you aren't receiving their notification emails, so by law they
have to send you snail mail bills for free.
I know the laws pretty well. Customer service will almost always tell
you that the fees are "FCC mandated" and can't do anything about it.
That is a lie bacause the FCC charges the phone company a percentage,
not directly to the customer. The phone company has the choice
whether or not to pass the fees to the customer. In fact, most phone
comanies are overcharging these fees to the point where they are
profiting from them, since they can charge whatever they want and it
isn't illegal. Basically just add up the fees and taxes - if it comes
to more than about 12.5 percent of your usage, then they are profiting
and consider dumping that company. This is just the phone companies'
old games they've been pulling for years with hidden fees to nickle
and dime us. The "FCC Mandated" trick is just another way to hide the
fees.
The one that gets me the most is the payphone surcharge. The phone
company has to send $0.24 to the payphone owner per call. Yet it is
getting rarer these days to get even a $0.35 fee. Most are $0.65 or
greater.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Turn your Monthly Bills into extra cash!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/89e6fbdeef8fce80?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 2 2007 8:50 pm
From: tbrandon1
I am looking for men and women who are both willing and able to devote
a minimum of 5-10 hours per week learning how to save on products and
services they are already using and how to build a significant second
income helping others to do the same. Previous experience in telecom
or technology sales is helpful, but not required.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment