Dear CO,
Farmed fish has one unspoken objective: the elimination of commercially caught fish in the US - a goal they are near achieving after 45 years of using every lie in the book, every Federally supplied lawyer they could muster, after every trick and piece of propaganda they could muster from big PR firms.
There is no economically way to farm fish that produces the product that Nature does without human intervention. ‘Validation’ by any means is another way for money to change hands ... the bigger the ‘service’, the more money changes hands, and the more political the result achieved.
Don’t doubt me - I’ve been in it since the beginning, and I’ve paid the price in money, and with the lives of friends and loved ones. A price you pay on each time you shovel one of their ‘certified’ products into your mouth.
If one needs a ‘validation’ service to certify some type of food Nature otherwise produces, then that food is a product of money and politics.
Tyson is a late-comer to the game. The Pew Foundation used to be a Danson funder and likely still is. Then there is the whole huge list of wealthy leftist environmental funding sources which are helping you live better through the magic of food chemistry. It is hard to fight ‘non-profit charitable’ organizations and other NGOs with hundreds of millions of dollars to dole out annually and uses Federal Government departments and lawyers to enforce their desires.
One of the other objectives behind fish farming is to not only eliminate commercial fishing, but also to hasten the movement of people into controlled spaces - otherwise known as inner cities - and out of rural uncontrolled spaces (by whatever means necessary).
One day in the not-so-distant future, people will believe, as did old Key Westers, that food comes in packages and cans, made in some distant factory which magically appears on store shelves.
Know who killed your meat and fish, who raised your vegetables and grains.
I happen to know a guy personally who was a pioneer in aquaculture. He's no liar.
There is no economically way to farm fish that produces the product that Nature does without human intervention.
True, but the same could be said of agriculture v. gathering wild vegetation. The product isn't the same, but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily a bad product.
Validation’ by any means is another way for money to change hands ... the bigger the ‘service’, the more money changes hands, and the more political the result achieved.
Back that up. I think Underwriters' Laboratories has done a good job. I think JD Power does a good job. I think the ASTM does a good job, or the ASME, or the IEEE, or VeriSign, Good Housekeeping, or the BBB...
Don’t doubt me - I’ve been in it since the beginning, and I’ve paid the price in money, and with the lives of friends and loved ones. A price you pay on each time you shovel one of their ‘certified’ products into your mouth.
Sorry, that looks like hype to me.
Tyson is a late-comer to the game. The Pew Foundation used to be a Danson funder and likely still is. Then there is the whole huge list of wealthy leftist environmental funding sources which are helping you live better through the magic of food chemistry. It is hard to fight ‘non-profit charitable’ organizations and other NGOs with hundreds of millions of dollars to dole out annually and uses Federal Government departments and lawyers to enforce their desires.
I wrote a whole book on that corrupt loop.
One of the other objectives behind fish farming is to not only eliminate commercial fishing, but also to hasten the movement of people into controlled spaces - otherwise known as inner cities - and out of rural uncontrolled spaces (by whatever means necessary).
The book covered that too. I was on the first Agenda21 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Roundtable in 1994, not to abet it but to turn it toward reason. The whole process was a corrupt fraud.
One day in the not-so-distant future, people will believe, as did old Key Westers, that food comes in packages and cans, made in some distant factory which magically appears on store shelves.
The diesel engine in a fishing boat was made in a factory. So were the hydraulics and electronics. So you know that fishermen are a direct beneficiary of industry. To argue otherwise would by hypocritical. Do you know the guy who mined the iron? Do you know whether they returned that mine to productive land?
Know who killed your meat and fish, who raised your vegetables and grains.
Do you drink coffee? Do you know the guy who raised the beans? Do you eat bananas? Do you drink orange juice? How about the guy who raised the hops in your beer? As I said, "hypocritical."
You don't know whom you are "instructing." You don't know what I do. You don't know what I know or what I've done to support fishermen and how they have been screwed by the likes of Zeke Grader and Glen Spain. Instead, you fall into the leftist Hegelian trap of taking "sides." You know damned well the world can't be fed with current technology without industrial agriculture. We can't all eat "wild fish" without doing what was done to the Grand Banks. Yet there is a place for your industry, if only to manage and monitor the resources that keep it viable while producing a viable high end product. It's a service. Broaden your vision for goodness sake.
Who manages the watersheds that produce anadromous fish? Do you help those foresters, or do you buy that BS crap about "canopy regulations"? HMMM??? Do you count smolts? They do.