I Bought a Gallon of Milk Today

Do you think they have much soy milk in Venezuela?

I'm allergic to both milk and soy. So it doesn't matter to me. Folks COULD do what is natural and not consume the mammary secretions of other animals. :D If you are thirsty, drink water. It's WAY cheaper. At least for now.

vegan?

People could do whats natural and consume whatever they can to provide energy and nutrition. Veganism/vegetarianism is completely unnatural. This coming from a vegetarian.

STatWar, I live in Springfield! It's a small world isn't it! What store do you get Heartland milk from?

I'm going to be in Springfield in a couple of months. Is this milk I need to try?

Maybe we need a Springfield Vinemeet....;-)

Well, I'm scheduled to be in Springfield for the week of 4/14 but that might change.

Well April is a good month in Missouri! Maybe we can figure something out...

I have family that lives out in Marshfield so I normally pick up a few bottles at the local grocery store there. I think you can get it in Springfield though.. I've never bothered to look for it though. I normally buy most of my groceries from Fort Leonard Wood.

And yes... it is a small world.

Like D/0, I can do a Springfield Vinemeet in April.

In fact, I will be passing through town today. I hope to talk a buddy into swinging by Mexican Villa and downing a burrito enchilada style. Greasy goodness, oh my!

That is one of the things I really miss about Springfield, Mexican Villa. Well, that and my bowling alley.

I'd be interested in a Springfield Vinemeet, but won't be able to until at least June.

I did make it to Mexican Villa (The original location on National just south of the MSU campus). I practically inhaled my burrito. I am still full.

In former Soviet Union, toilet paper lines up to buy YOU!

Why is it that leftists fail to realize the folly of their ways?

Probably for the same reasons that rightists fail to recognize the folly of theirs. And yes, hidebound ideology is stupid no matter who is practicing it.

...hidebound ideology is stupid...

You are spot on, AdipicAcid!

Folly is the decision to tread an ideological path bounded by limits such as "left" or "right."

The nickname for the Redmond Safeway is the Soviet Safeway, There is always a line and they are always out of stock.

In former Soviet Union, toilet paper lines up to buy YOU!

That one actually made me laugh out loud.

Thanks Bill. Why is it that leftists fail to realize the folly of their ways? It puzzles me.

While I understand and agree with your article, I can't help but think that comments like this, putting blame on an entire political spectrum isn't right.

Believing yourself to be fully Conservative of Liberal is the true folly in politics today.

Are you kidding? Clinton and Obama are socialists? This is a joke, right?

Bodhi, what is your reference for thinking Obama and Clinton are socialists?

Fox?

Bodhi, what is your reference for thinking Obama and Clinton are socialists?

Um... reality? That, and their stated positions and plans for the country.

Are you really lulled into such a false sense of security by the liberal media that you believe they're otherwise? Yikes.

I can maybe see Clinton, but Obama?

Mayhaps you can explain further? I'm curious.

Your point makes me wonder how much cheaper milk would be without all those subsidies.

Milk would certainly be cheaper, but many small producers would be out of business. Which is the better outcome?

Subsidies take the price of milk up in the short run - by inflating the market - but keep it low in the long run by making the supply abundant.

The fact that there is a large selection of milk is because of those subsidies, and that selection creates competition and that brings prices down.

But the subsidy keeps the market in the sweet spot -- it's difficult for a creamery to go out of business with them in place and, as such, the consumer benefits from a competitive marketplace without the risk of an oligopolistic or monopolistic market forming after a race to the bottom.

So yes... they keep prices high... and low.

Oh.. .and here's that link. It's a PDF but google makes it available as HTML.

Bodhi, I'm of two minds on agricultural subsidies so let me play the devil's advocate and argue for them.

The United States is not the least expensive place in the world to raise crops or livestock. As such, we're probably going to be out-competed by other places that can grow stuff cheaper than we can -- it's the consequence of affluence, I'm afraid.

If we let the market do what it wants we're probably going to end up importing most of our foods from overseas because, at the end of the day, it's not worth raising most of the crops we have in this country if the government isn't going to support the price.

So let me then ask you this question: do you imagine the world would be a different place today if, in 1938, the United States had been dependent on a foreign country... say... Germany... for it's supply of grain?

Food subsidies keep America feeding herself and that, it can be argued, it a national security priority.

But the subsidy keeps the market in the sweet spot -- it's difficult for a creamery to go out of business with them in place and, as such, the consumer benefits from a competitive marketplace without the risk of an oligopolistic or monopolistic market forming after a race to the bottom.

You ignore the other side of the coin though. While it's difficult for a creamery to go out of business, it's also nearly impossible for a new creamery to come into business. Just because there are many producers of a product doesn't mean that the market is competitive or efficient.

Wonderful piece, Bodhi - it cuts through the fog of socialism like butter...

Killfile -

Food subsidies keep America feeding herself and that, it can be argued, it a national security priority.

Do you really think that without subsidies there would be no sustainable market for milk, meat and produce?

Why is it that government always seems to have to subsidize where government has screwed up by meddling in the first place?

Do you really think that without subsidies there would be no sustainable market for milk, meat and produce?

No sustainable domestic market. Unless you want US farmers to work for Guatemalan or Venezuelan wages.

Food subsidies keep America feeding herself and that, it can be argued, it a national security priority.

Oh, come on, Killfile, can we dispense with justifying every government policy on the basis of how it supports the Imperial Legions?

The United States is one of the largest nations on Earth with vast amounts of fertile land. The notion that any country could have starved out the United States simply by cutting off trade is ludicrous. Besides, one of the key benefits of trade is that you tie yourself economically to potential adversaries thus making it less likely that either party will desire war.

Farm subsidies guarantee revenues to producers but that's not the most important issue. These subsidies are increasing the amount of agricultural output depressing wholesale prices. This enables and encourages very large scale purchases which in turn creates an artificial economy of scale in the grocery business. This (like many American policies) encourages the creation of national chain stores. Ironically, this makes small producers chronically uncompetitive and defeats the whole stated purpose of the policy which is to protect small farmers.

Entelechy, history has shown us again and again that being able to feed your own population from within the borders of your own country is a really good idea. You'd be astonished how little actual food there is in this country at any given time -- estimates range from a week's worth to a few month's.

If the United States - or any other country for that matter - is dependent upon another for its food stuffs then there exists a very direct and very powerful way to exert enormous influence over that country.

I'm not saying that these subsidies are good ideas - one can make excellent arguments that they're not and the benefits of free and fair trade are among them - but you can not simply ignore or wish away the vulnerabilities that come from the failure to safeguard the supply of one of the resources that this country simply can not do without.

Killfile, government subsidies and tariffs in the agricultural market are directly responsible for the corn byproducts in all packaged foods, the meat so cheap that Americans eat 3 times as much as they did 50 years ago, GMO soy entering all sorts of packaged food products, the use of high fructose corn syrup, the massive consolidation of family farms into agribusinesses, the rise of factory farming, and dozens of other ills of the modern American diet and economy which are all of relatively recent vintage, coinciding perfectly with the rise of government farm intervention. Would a free market in US agriculture have problems of its own? Sure, but they wouldn't be these particular problems which have been so devastating on America's waistline, health, and lifestyle. That "cheap food" on the shelves comes with a high external price of heart attacks, diabetes, and early hospitalization and death.

but you can not simply ignore or wish away the vulnerabilities that come from the failure to safeguard the supply of one of the resources that this country simply can not do without.

We depend on every single resource we import. If we didn't, it wouldn't be worth importing it in the first place.

Division by Zero...Milk would certainly be cheaper, but many small producers would be out of business. Which is the better outcome?

Killfile...But the subsidy keeps the market in the sweet spot -- it's difficult for a creamery to go out of business with them in place and, as such, the consumer benefits from a competitive marketplace without the risk of an oligopolistic or monopolistic market forming after a race to the bottom.

You both have some valid points but as one who spends a lot of time in the dairy subsidies and effects let's try to put this in a clear, realistic view. There has been an oversupply of dairy for about 25 years. In 1998 Congress spent $1.8 billion dollars to slaughter dairy cows and calves.

NYTimes June 1998 Under the $1.8 billion Federal program, partly paid for by the farmers themselves, about 14,000 farmers slaughtered 1.5 million dairy cows and calves in 1986 and 1987 throughout the United States. Richer Feed, Greater Production

Because there are milk income loss payments it didn't matter to the farmer if it was a profitable market product, the Federal payments made it a sure money maker. When the cost got too high they switched to the big kill plan but the farmer payments continued. Because those payments are based on the yield per cow they have never helped the small dairies with 250 or fewer cows, the money is in the 1,000+ operations.

So the small farmers are struggling and along comes Monsanto with the rBGH that will make the cows give 10% more milk. That's 10% more Federal payments for the biggest farmers and the small ones it just doesn't really offset the cost of the hormone shots and antibiotics that come with the infections that result from a cow milking for three or four years straight and being fuller as opposed to her normal udder size and nine months with rest and calving.

Now consumers are willing to pay a bit more for the milk from the cows that aren't treated and in a true capitalist market the smaller yielding variety would command a premium over the factory farm, high quantity comparative. But Monsanto sues the dairies trying to let consumers know that they have anything different.

Just last week Indiana had a bill to ban milk producers from adding that their milk was from cows not treated with rBGH. It was a huge battle by activists like me to defeat a similar bill in Pennsylvania nd that was easier because the Penn Secretary of Agriculture, Dennis Wolff had been a Monsanto dairy farmer.

Now the giant factory farm can sell bvelow the cost of the small farmer's production cost and the difference between one cow milking 12 months plus 10% against a cow milking 9 months, selling milk at an equal price shuts down the family farms.

In fact over 1,000 family farms are lost every year and the agribusiness uses these subsidies to drive small farmers in every crop sector out of business. It's great you got your milk Bodhi but thie dairy market is the most corrupt rigged game there is.

Bodhi, of course you're right about paying in taxes too, about a billion a year hidden in an assortment of subsidy and loss payment programs. Why they can't just buy the milk to feed to the hungry is another story!

To Brian's question of whether a free agriculture market would have a problem, over 400 products get no subsidies at all, approximately 59% of farmers and ranchers get not a penny, 60% of those subsidy dollars go to 35 Congressional districts to pay for corn, soy, cotton, canola and rice, all the Monsanto, ADM and Cargill crops. It is as clear a case of corporate welfare as you'll ever find. The farmers in all the other crops manage to market just fine!!

You'd be astonished how little actual food there is in this country at any given time -- estimates range from a week's worth to a few month's.

It's not astonishing at all -- food tends to spoil, ergo, most of the food produced is consumed in the near-term.

It is seriously over-the-top to argue for farm subsidies on the basis of some hypothetical medieval siege of the United States.

It is seriously over-the-top to argue for farm subsidies on the basis of some hypothetical medieval siege of the United States.

It's not about a siege, it's about maintaining the ability to feed ourselves. Look -- if we're not food independent we're dependent on someone else. That someone else has some serious leverage on us - and based upon how much food we consume and how long it takes to transport anything in that quantity we're talking about a very real need maintain a steady stream of imports if we're not producing it ourselves.

What happens when someone says - screw that, we're not feeding you anymore? I'm not talking about a naval blocade (though that's happened in the last 100 years). I'm just talking about what happens when the United States can be jerked around on a leash that's a hell of a lot shorter than our oil supply chain.

And our in-country food reserves demonstrate how short that leash is. If we rely on imports we'd have as little as a week to get domestic food production going and I'm telling you that it's simply not possible. While the economic consequences of oil shocks were bad in the 1970s, imagine what happens when the supermarkets are empty too.

It's not cool.

The American century is all but over folks. We need to stop imaging that we're invulnerable to these sorts of things.

Again though -- I will reiterate that I'm playing the devil's advocate in all of this. Still... it's a fun argument ;-)

The American century is all but over folks.

You're right, Killfile.

So perhaps we should start thinking of ourselves as members of global humanity, rather than continuing to artificially divide one another into differing "tribes" based upon the ever fuzzier boundaries of nation-states. Then we can properly focus on utilizing the planets resources based upon efficiency and productivity, not on where it happens to be located.

It's not about a siege, it's about maintaining the ability to feed ourselves. Look -- if we're not food independent we're dependent on someone else. That someone else has some serious leverage on us -

Right now the bulk of that leverage belongs to the patent protected Monsanto crops and agribusiness. What happens when they are finally subjected to the testing that would have prevented humans from consuming them in the first place and the public realizes that like a survivor adrift in the ocean with water and nothing to drink we are overflowing with corn and soy not fir to feed to the livestock? It is not necessary to conquor a population with force when food can be used as a weapon.

As always I would like to encourage everyone to support your small and local farmers, get involved in the area CoOps and CSA programs, that's Community Supported Agriculture. American farmers are struggling against the agribusiness giants factory farm and subsidy %$#@ and they need us to buy from them. They need us to support diversity in crops and communities. In turn we will develop the food security Killfile is talking about. Sustainable farming, without petrochemicals will in turn sustain us.

Try Local Harvest to connect with farmers in your area, they have a zip code search feature and if you are or know a farmer, sign up.

Considering that a patent can be voided or possessed in the national interest (see the patents on nuclear energy), isn't it better if the crops are at least grown here? If Monsanto really tried to blackmail the US people, they'd last about 14 picoseconds.

On the other hand, if we only have seven days of food on hand, and say China is providing the rest, then we are truly their @!$%# and there is little we can do about it. It's kind of like the national debt: even if it is huge, it's less of a problem if it is owed to US citizens than foreign nationals.

Or to be more succinct: how many divisions does Monsanto command? If they want to get into a real brawl, lawyers will avail them nothing.

On the other hand, if we only have seven days of food on hand, and say China is providing the rest, then we are truly their @!$%# and there is little we can do about it.

In the first place I'm not sure how true that is since so much food criss crosses the globe. I would need to see a far more detailed account of what comes in that is not feed to accept the seven day concept. Here in NYC we have a huge volume supplied locally and US yields of most commodities are at record levels. Granted that's Cargil ADM and Monsanto growing ingredients for processed %$#@ but still it's a dramatic claim.

On to another question. Who is behind all the agribusiness development in China? Our largest corporations and investment banks. How idiotic is it to be shipping food from China to the US when our own farmers have lost export revenue they need. Most foods should be local, this is a plan to divide the global growing by the same folks who created the Banana Republics initially.

While people continue to look at the world through National divisions, which does hold some merit, the bigger picture is what corporate interests control those economies.

As Monsanto has used the WTO and Congress to pursue the planting of their patented seed around the globe they have become the dominant player in the global food supply. Not to mention the primary cause of deforestation and clearcutting of the Brazilian Amazon.

While Congress calls it free trade it is really a process of granting greater powers to the very forces destroying our economy by giving them more access to low labor, more places to produce in environmentally toxic ways and the economic power to control our destiny.

If our Congress is bought and paid for by corporate interests what chance does the third world have of Sovereign government? This is about Wall Street create one world rule fueled by American taxpayers and enforced by the Pentagon.

They still can't hold a gun to our heads in a national emergency the way a foreign supplier can. We simply take the seeds. End. They are less of a threat than being non-self-sufficient in the provision of basic foodstuffs.

You all seem to imagine we'd buy all our food from a single country overseas. Why would we do that? How could we do that? It wouldn't even be physically possible. We buy from every country, and sell to every country. We are the world's largest grain producer. Worrying about us starving is simply ridiculous.

No, just a substantial amount of it. We do not buy all of our petroleum from a single source, yet if one of the major producers were to cut us off at the knees it would be devastating.

We are the worlds largest producer of grain because our government supports the price.

Look ... without price supports the cost of grain is pretty much determined by how much land costs, how much seed costs, and how much labor costs. Land is expensive in the USA because we're an affluent country. Seed costs pretty much the same world-wide, and labor is also expensive in this country.

All other things being equal, we should never be able to complete with foreign grain production -- the third would should kick ass and take names in that respect.

So, without government support of the grain market, where are Americans going to buy their grain? Where it's cheapest of course! Guess where that will be?

That makes American grain production stagnate and fall, eventually we're not growing it here anymore.

Industry tends to concentrate naturally where things are most efficient -- there's a reason all your cheep plastic crap comes from China. Quite logically, foodstuff production will centralize in the areas that are best suited for it. And those places will have anyone who depends on them for staple foods by the balls.

Bodhi, cheap food isn't a problem. The problem is that the cheap food won't be American food, it'll be the imports. As the market shifts to those imports (because they are cheap) domestic production will drop.

It's just simple market economics. If it's less expensive to produce the food we depend on in the Vulga region or India or South America, or a half dozen other places it will be produced there and we'll buy it from there.

Maybe this is confusing because we're talking about food. Let's try something else. The United States used to have the most powerful manufacturing sector in the world. We won WWII with it. Over the years it became too expensive to manufacture most things in the United States. It proved to be less expensive to make those things in China and so that's where they're made now... we import them. It works well.

What if, for some reason, we needed little plastic widgets to survive. Daily. Every day, lots of plastic widgets. We'd be pretty dependent on China if that were the case... and China could jerk us around pretty hard.

It's the exact same thing... just a different product.

It's the exact same thing... just a different product.

Energy is another.

So, without government support of the grain market, where are Americans going to buy their grain? Where it's cheapest of course! Guess where that will be?

In America, substantially. The margins on our exported grain are razor thin with these price supports. When the price supports end we stop exporting most of what we export today. The cost of shipping heavy, low value, bulk foods like grains is enormous for the value of what you can sell. The primary effect will be allowing other countries to sell to each other without us flooding the market. Our agribusiness system is very highly mechanized and very productive, and it would be extremely difficult for poor countries to produce grain so much cheaper than us that it makes sense for them to sell it to us.

They don't have to just produce it cheaper, they have to produce it so much cheaper that they can add in the high cost of shipping it to us and still have it be cheaper.

They don't have to just produce it cheaper, they have to produce it so much cheaper that they can add in the high cost of shipping it to us and still have it be cheaper.

The thing that's totally screwed up in all of this is that ADM, Cargill and Monsanto controlling most of the grain in the Midwest is the same pair in Brazil and in China and the crops are cris crossing the world.

It's just insane. If you look around the globe and track the ownership and exports, which I do for the gmo crops you see we are importing and exporting the same things.

The US is suing the EU for blocking our GMO grain exports yet we are importing. Who wins? The shippers and the oil companies. Do we support oil consumption, hmm?

The problem is that the cheap food won't be American food, it'll be the imports.

My great-grandparents spent a lower percentage of their income to buy higher quality locally grown food that my generation does. I find it hard to believe that it's cheaper to buy food from China than to plant a garden or buy from local producers. Mainly because that brain thingee in my head is switched to the "on" position.

I find it hard to believe that it's cheaper to buy food from China than to plant a garden or buy from local producers.

Then you haven't been following what's happened to those local farms. Hint: it's hard to raise vegetables on a piece of land covered in condos and McMansions.

Also, I'm betting your progenitors weren't eating locally grown produce in the winter. At least not fresh.

Actually, we use ~14% less of our income on food than we did pre-industrialization of food. So your grand parents spent more than you do on locally grown food. Just to be correct.

The US can easily outproduce any other country in food production if we choose to. The problem is, we don't choose to. And what production we do choose is based on horrific things like high-fructose-corn-syrup.

Nice try Killfile - but if you think you are going to penetrate facile feel-good right wing 'reasoning' regarding 'SOCIALISM BAD!' rhetoric you are wasting your breath.

This article just made me groan once agaiin 'JEEZ-LOUISE this is some dumb stuff'

• Why pick the 'Jesus loves the little at risk children dairy' as the example of capitalist virtue in this story rather than state that Walmart has low prices on Milk, T-Shirts, and just about everything - all plentifully piled to the rafters in every mega-warehouse sized store? Surely if the point was that capitalism works - then why not point to the more glaring examples of its success?
• Why is there no information given as to which market mechanism failed in the Venezuelan economy that has resulted in shortage other than 'it was SOCIALISM that done it!!?' -- could it be because it is more satisfying to blurt out a knee jerk condemnation with no analysis and expect people to see your point as if by magic because it merely reinforces an already held emotional belief that socialism is bad? I think so, it might feel good to say 'there's a milk shortage in Venezuela but there isn't one in America - so up yours Chavez!' but that doesn't help anyone understand WHY or HOW chavez's socialism has led to this problem.

I am sure there are some large grains of truth in this story that would support a conclusion strongly unfavorable to whatever market tampering Chavez's administration has done - but I just don't see anything beyond flag waving and chest pounding in this article.

but I just don't see anything beyond flag waving and chest pounding in this article.

That's ok we don't see anything at all in yours.

then why not point to the more glaring examples of its success?

How about the computer that you are writing your scree on and the website that you are posting this on. The computer industry is probably the best example of what rampant capitalism can do. Starting in the late seventies we changed the world, through an accelerating spiral of competition, innovation, and a continuing delivery of greater capability at a lower price.

That's just for starters.

Cheaper milk. It's not my responsibility to keep small businesses in business.

Supporting family farms is about much more than just keeping a small business in business. Family farms are an important part of our culture, and it would be nice if the land they occupy isn't entirely taken over by urban sprawl and corporate farms, as would likely happen if we refuse to look out for small farmers. As Killfile pointed out, there is something to be said for having the ability to produce enough food for our country within our country. As Pamela Drew so often points out, it would be nice if we didn't have to rely on the Monsantos, etc in order to do that. Most of our society is too ignorant and self absorbed to consider the long term effects of simply seeking out the cheapest food with no regard for the family farm. So the family farm will cease to exist and according to your logic, that must mean it's just not that important. That logic is flawed for several reasons. First of all, our economy is already fixed and subsidised and manipulated in so many ways that you can't just take away the farm subsidies and assume that the market economy will allow everything to settle into some sort of happy balance. Secondly, there are situations where people need to be protected from themselves. It would very sad to let our greed and ignorance put an end to something as precious as the small American family farm.

Perhaps you're not aware of this, but every single farm bill passed has had the aim of saving the family farm, and every single one has driven more and more family farms out of business. The remedy has always proven worse than the disease, so to many getting the government out completely has come to seem the sanest response.

Can we have a big Duhhhh!

every single farm bill passed has had the aim of saving the family farm, and every single one has driven more and more family farms out of business

something tells me there are some corporate farm lobbyist involved somewhere and the aim strays a little from helping the family farm long before the farm bill goes anywhere... nonetheless, my point wasn't that subsidies are the answer. i just get frustrated when i hear people make comments that basically boil down to "screw the farmers - i want cheap milk (or whatever)." the farmers get screwed plenty, and most people never take the time to think about where their food comes from.

It's a good point--if I remember correctly, that's why we had just about every Communist country in the world, from the USSR to Cuba.

I always wondered what was wrong with you....

I always wondered what was wrong with you...

Haha comment of the day.

Please tell me she doesn't substitute carob for chocolate, Noah! :)

I have had all sorts of healthy and God-awful medicine growing up.

On a plus side, though, some of it has a higher alcohol content than moonshine.

Please tell me she doesn't substitute carob for chocolate, Noah! :)

Only sometimes. :)

Wow - I can't imagine never having Milk - it is my favorite drink. In fact my preference for Milk has survived my Mom's 3 year financial crisis where all we drank was reconstituted powdered milk, my 3 years in England where all we drank was irradiated milk, and my stint in the Army where I, once again, settled for boxes of irradiated milk for various periods of time.

Mmmmmm Milk - If there were Gods it would be their Nectar.

....See now this explains everything.
You're some kind of pinko, that won't even drink milk.
What the hell do you put in your tea? or on your cereal?

-Dave

Well we use cream.

But for cereal we used to use soy milk (which my mom now decided is evil), and now use rice/almond milk.

You get used to it. :)

...now use rice/almond milk

Noah, I'm sending a strike team to rescue you. You'll need to cover the gas bill though.

Chocolate almond milk is wonderful...it tastes like chocolate almonds.

Y'all are just jealous because my parents are wannabe hippies. ;)

My wife is under the impression that Soy contains a high amount of estrogen(?maybe) and so she is reluctant to buy it for the same reason she doesn't like buying meat or other dairy products that contain additional steroids. Perhaps that is why your mom thinks Soy Milk is now evil?

Yep. Soy is officially on the bad-list around here. Dang tasty stuff, though.

Go for almond milk if you're looking for an alternate. But you probably don't want the vanilla flavored stuff. It's pretty nasty.

Noah,

You're mom is right, and what's wrong with wannabe hippies? You only need to visit Pamela Drew's column to find out what's wrong with soy, her exhaustive research will scare the @!$%# out of you, and it should!

And her movie is out, Roundup Ready Nation, see oldfogey's great review.

You're mom is right

My mom is always right.

It runs in the family.

My wife is under the impression that Soy contains a high amount of estrogen(?maybe) and so she is reluctant to buy it for the same reason she doesn't like buying meat or other dairy products that contain additional steroids.

Actually, soy contains isoflavonoid phytoestrogens. Basically chemical structures found in plants that are chemically similar to estrogen and can mimic the effects of estrogen. Currently there is no conclusive evidence that their consumption is associated with adverse effects in humans or animals.

thanks for the clarification

Soy is also high in phytates, which are anti-nutrients. This area of nutrition isn't well studied, with lots of ridiculous hysterical claims on both sides. While almond milk has none of the potential problems of soy milk, it also has next to no nutritional value and I can never find it in unsweetened, while soy milk has omega-3s, protein, and complex carbs in abundance and I can always find it in unsweetened.

I gave up regular milk 9 years ago at the request of my allergist and only drink Silk Soy milk (No GMO products) and have almost stopped having allergy problems and very rarely get sinus infections and noticed the difference within a few days. I was surprised such a small change could have such a major effect as I was living on cortisone shots and allergy shots for years.

Lucky you, Noah for having a smart mom. My daughter never had milk but was raised on soy then rice and almond milk. She's smart, she's strong, she's gorgeous! Let's hear it for hippies everywhere!!

To increase my hippie-rep:

I never go to the doctor.

I've never had any vaccinations.

I was birthed at home.

:)

Noah, do you live in a bubble?

You get ten mana points, Noah, every 5 seconds.

Dude... vaccinations are kinda important. Doctors are entrusted with people's health for a reason you know.

I drink (violently), smoke every few hours and have what some would call an appalling diet.
Been to the doctor twice in 3 years, once for a blood test, another for a tetanus shot, having sliced open my hand with a machete... wow I'm amazed I'm not dead too.

You're a damn pinko. Have a glass of milk and be happy. Hell dip your sugar free, salt free, taste free cookie in it. Do you a world of good.

-Dave

Hey Dave, you've got yourself some good genes. Most Americans don't get smallpox vaccinations anymore.

I've never had any vaccinations.

If everyone did this, we'd be back to the polio days in no time. Vaccinations are a matter of public health.

The body does have an amazing capacity to repair itself.
Just look at me the morning after a heavy night, and then 24 hours later.
But some stuff seems rudimentary to me.
"There is a way to not get smallpox"..... Then give it to me jackass.

Just as a matter of public record Noah and I are roughly the same age.
He doesn't drink or smoke as far as I know.

-Dave

Vaccinations are a matter of public health.

As a matter of personal health, though, they ain't so hot.

In other words: feel free to shoot yourself full of vaccinations. :)

If it weren't for the people getting vaccinated, Noah, we'd have a lot of pretty ugly diseases still making the rounds here. You are relying on others for your health, in a sense.

I was going to point out the same thing. Those people who are not getting vaccinated are enjoying their health only as a result of those of us who do get vaccinated. If more people would stop getting vaccinated then those diseases would increase in the population again.

Damn, Bodhi, you beat me to it! Ethanol big time.

My daughter bought one of those corn-burning furnaces two years ago as a green thing and as a hedge against natural gas prices. She can't afford the corn anymore.

Ethanol doesn't help. But you didn't mention rising gas prices and inflation. Inflation makes everything cost more and higher gas prices mean it's more expensive to transport.

Inflation makes everything cost more

True,

for around $2. per gallon just a year ago. Today it is around $5.

But not 150% more in just a year. And gas prices were right around this same level last year as well, and it's not like milk is something that can be stockpiled and takes time for gas prices to affect its price.

The thing is that the government gives far more subsidies to corn growers for ethanol than they do to dairy farmers or most other agriculture. Thus the farmers are responding to the government's interference in the market place by switching from their previous crops to ethanol. This means less supply of other agricultural products and thus greater prices.

That's true Adam, it also means the dairy farmers pay more for feed.

The meat producers as well. The vast majority of grain in this country is fed to animals, not humans. The cheapness of that feed is part of the reason milk and meat have been artificially cheap.

Bluecollarbytes, your comment deserves a vote from a True Brit for those remarks.

we who live here are blessed

I wish more people realized that.

only by the homeowners

You are only kidding yourself if you don't believe that non-homeowners are also paying their share through increased rent that covers the property taxes of their landlords as well as higher retail prices to cover the property taxes of the store owners.

and surely you understand she (i'm guessing on the she) only called you a "silly child" in a tongue in cheeck manner. Surely.

I'm sorry I didn't pick up on the tongue-in-cheek humor!

:-)

I just want everyone to at least have a prayer of sharing the bounty so many of the rest of us enjoy without a second thought

Beautifully said. I am one of those who walks into a grocery store and buys whatever looks interesting with little thought as to cost, and I often forget what an amazing thing that is. There is no reason that anyone in this country should have to live like your friend, it is truly a mark against us that it happens.

You know Jones Girl, my daughter is engaged to a Frenchman. She was in Paris when Katrina hit, and she told me about the amazement of their friends when the footage of stranded, destitute Americans hit the airwaves there. They thought nobody was poor in America. She, having been born and raised in the American south, knows better, but I wonder sometimes if there aren't many Americans who also find it hard to believe.

I guess the thing that upsets me more than anything else about it is when I hear from an American (I don't care what the French think) that these people are simply too lazy to work or their lives wouldn't be so desperate. There's probably some of them who could work and won't. There aren't very many. And you are so right -- we all bear responsibility for it. We certainly are our brother's keeper. And we could do far, far better without breaking a sweat.

that these people are simply too lazy to work or their lives wouldn't be so desperate

I fully believe that my life, as a middle-class/upper middle class person, sees nowhere near a tenth of the work that minimum wage earners do. For me, it's a rough day if I don't have time to peek online for 5 minutes from my comfie chair in a comfortable office. I rarely head home dead tired and always to a full kitchen. Few things rile me as much as someone claiming that the poor are lazy or don't work.

We live in a not-so-great society when we have people who work hard forced to chose between heat, food and doctors.

We certainly are our brother's keeper.

Conservative Republicans would beg to differ.

This Fiscally Conservative Republican doesn't think the the Govt should be our brothers keeper.

There is a big difference.

This Fiscally Conservative Republican doesn't think the the Govt should be our brothers keeper. There is a big difference

I certainly don't disagree with you. I will say this though. I sure hear a whole lot more so-called fiscally conservative Republicans raising Cain about their tax dollars going for our admittedly grossly inefficient entitlement programs, than I hear them complaining about the $12 billion a month we spend to blow up the middle east. I think if we have to have taxes, tax money should be spent on Americans first and everything else second. But I'd be as happy as any fiscally conservative anything to not have taxes period. That way we could choose to be our brothers' keepers with all the extra money we'd have to do that with, and the world would certainly be a better place all the way around.

What are the odds?

. . .one 68 year old woman who works as a maid, sells her food stamps to pay her light bill, and shares with 2 grandchildren

If I might ask, where are the children's parents?

I didn't ask her. You see a great many children in poor communities being raised by grandparents, and they are the lucky ones. It's also possible she was babysitting. She told me they were her grandchildren, but not whether or not they live with her.

If I may ask, why do you ask?

Because single parenthood and broken families are one of the leading indicators as to whether the household and children will be impoverished. I'm sure you remember that Pat Moynihan wrote a seminal study on this many years ago and today it's as true among poor white families as it is among black families.

Because single parenthood and broken families are one of the leading indicators as to whether the household and children will be impoverished. I'm sure you remember that Pat Moynihan wrote a seminal study on this many years ago and today it's as true among poor white families as it is among black families.

When you say that single parenthood is one of the leading indicators of children living in poverty, the only point I can think of that you might be trying to make is it usually takes two incomes for a family to get by. I'm quite sure the grandmother in question would agree with you.

There are still millions of Americans who don't have, and likely never will have, the luxury of freely partaking of America's bountifully stocked grocery stores through absolutely no fault of their own. I wish that was different, that's all. And I can't imagine how anyone can not wish that. We send jillions of dollars abroad and we neglect our own. It's beyond ridiculous and morally indefensible. Period.

Perhaps he too is on a strict budget, Bodhi.

Congress.

Who isn't?

So perhaps you should withdraw your question above, which is an attempt to ignore his points by making it about him not shopping for her.

"Jane you ignorant slut"

Careful locus, that's how it started with Koozebane

Ah, yes...I remember Koozebane fondly. I've been here too long.

Well, good for you. And let's don't play like Americans aren't real used to insults from the French as well.

Did somebody say your leader was a Venezuelan despot?

nahh I just read the article

Socialism fails everywhere it is tried.

Is chill seriously the only person to point out that there are no milk shortages in Europe?

It's not just a matter of France (which is hardly the most socialist country in the EU). What about the Scandinavian countries? Go anywhere in Europe, and you'll find milk aplenty.

The problem isn't socialism. The problem is stupid policy. As the EU has discovered be various means, price controls for their own sake is unwise, and Chavez isn't exactly economically savvy. Price controls in specific contexts can, at the very least, be nonharmful. The lessons of the EU's experimentations with various aspects of socialist theory have demonstrated that a nominally socialist government can enjoy the chief benefits of a capitalist society (such as avoiding rampant shortages and being able to trade on the world market).

Damning socialism because Chavez has the economic savvy of goldfish is like damning capitalism because Bush thinks deficit spending is a good business model.

Besides, most europeans would take our currency versus the US peso.

The USA is NO LONGER a conservative capitalist state. It is a tax and SPEND disaster.

The recent US military budget is a global disgrace.

The Sub prime disgrace is a fraction of Iraq spending.

It is a tax and SPEND disaster.

Chill, you mis-spelled "borrow money from the Chinese." Just FYI.

Well, at least our immigrants are Christians and don't go on mini-jihads everytime their knickers get in a knot unlike les beurs. But I do love France and while I haven't flown on AOM, I'm looking forward to it if this is any indication.

The main issue with socialism, the people who endorse keep forgetting that everyone isn't like them. Everyone isn't Jesus, The Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi. Would it work if we were all like those men? Yes it would.

I'm a socialist and I can see problems with it. But mostly, I just think people should have food and medicine if they need it. I'm crazy, I know.

And the main problem with capitalism is that everyone isn't Jesus, The Dalai Lama, or the Mahatma. Thus the need for a mixed economy to moderate the extremes of both ideologies.

And to show how fair and balanced I am,

I give you socialism.