Faux pas! Food fraud on the rise

If you are what you eat, you might be having an identity crisis.

A new study on food fraud was released Wednesday morning by U.S.
Pharmacopeial Convention (USP), a scientific nonprofit organization
that helps set standards for the "quality, safety and benefit" of
foods and medicines. The group runs a searchable online database of
food fraud reports at foodfraud.org and nearly 800 new records were
added as part of the study - a 60% increase from last year.

Food fraud, as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
is the adulteration, dilution or mislabeling of goods. USP further
defines food fraud in the study as "the fraudulent addition of
nonauthentic substances or removal or replacement of authentic
substances without the purchaser's knowledge for economic gain to the
seller."

The new records show that the most commonly fraudulent products are
olive oil, milk, saffron, honey and coffee.

Tea, fish, clouding agents (used in fruit juices, like lemon, to make
products look freshly squeezed), maple syrup and spices (turmeric,
black pepper and chili pepper) were also top imposters.

Most of the reported food fraud was committed by producers adding
fillers (i.e. other plant leaves to tea leaves), mixing in less
expensive spices with high value spices or watering down liquids.
Olive oils were often replaced and/or diluted with cheaper vegetable
oils. Clouding agents were found in 877 food products from 315
different companies. Another popular target: Pomegranate juice, often
made with grape skins and grape and pear juices.

Tips to combat food fraud
•If there's a "whole" alternative, use it. Buy lemons instead of
lemon juice; pomegranates instead of pomegranate juice; loose leaf
tea; saffron threads; etc. Also, purchase the whole spice
(peppercorns, cloves, nutmeg, cinnamon sticks) and grind/grate it
yourself.
•Buy from reputable sources and brands you trust, including your
local farmers market, co-op and natural food store. Know the who, when
and where of the product.
•Don't buy into the newest health trend. Food fraud appears more
commonly in high-value ingredients that are linked to health benefits
and consumers pay a premium for.
•Beware "white tuna" - it's often not a member of the tuna family at
all. Escolar is commonly marketed as white tuna, super white tuna,
butterfish and walu. Escolar is edible - and legal - but the Food and
Drug Administration does not encourage its consumption. It includes a
waxy substance, called gempylotoxin, that humans can't digest and can
cause purgative effects.
•Educate yourself and train your palate. Does it taste, smell and
look right? If you're wary, search online to see if that particular
brand has been reported as fraudulent before.
•Petition the FDA to set standards for the most commonly fraudulent
products, like honey and olive oil.

Janet US

Janet Bostwick wrote:
> Faux pas! Food fraud on the rise
>
> If you are what you eat, you might be having an identity crisis.
>
> A new study on food fraud was released Wednesday morning by U.S.
> Pharmacopeial Convention (USP), a scientific nonprofit organization
> that helps set standards for the "quality, safety and benefit" of
> foods and medicines. The group runs a searchable online database of
> food fraud reports at foodfraud.org and nearly 800 new records were
> added as part of the study - a 60% increase from last year.
>
> Food fraud, as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
> is the adulteration, dilution or mislabeling of goods. USP further
> defines food fraud in the study as "the fraudulent addition of
> nonauthentic substances or removal or replacement of authentic
> substances without the purchaser's knowledge for economic gain to the
> seller."
>
> The new records show that the most commonly fraudulent products are
> olive oil, milk, saffron, honey and coffee.
>
> Tea, fish, clouding agents (used in fruit juices, like lemon, to make
> products look freshly squeezed), maple syrup and spices (turmeric,
> black pepper and chili pepper) were also top imposters.
>
> Most of the reported food fraud was committed by producers adding
> fillers (i.e. other plant leaves to tea leaves), mixing in less
> expensive spices with high value spices or watering down liquids.
> Olive oils were often replaced and/or diluted with cheaper vegetable
> oils. Clouding agents were found in 877 food products from 315
> different companies. Another popular target: Pomegranate juice, often
> made with grape skins and grape and pear juices.
>
> Tips to combat food fraud
> .If there's a "whole" alternative, use it. Buy lemons instead of
> lemon juice; pomegranates instead of pomegranate juice; loose leaf
> tea; saffron threads; etc. Also, purchase the whole spice
> (peppercorns, cloves, nutmeg, cinnamon sticks) and grind/grate it
> yourself.
> .Buy from reputable sources and brands you trust, including your
> local farmers market, co-op and natural food store. Know the who, when
> and where of the product.
> .Don't buy into the newest health trend. Food fraud appears more
> commonly in high-value ingredients that are linked to health benefits
> and consumers pay a premium for.
> .Beware "white tuna" - it's often not a member of the tuna family at
> all. Escolar is commonly marketed as white tuna, super white tuna,
> butterfish and walu. Escolar is edible - and legal - but the Food and
> Drug Administration does not encourage its consumption. It includes a
> waxy substance, called gempylotoxin, that humans can't digest and can
> cause purgative effects.
> .Educate yourself and train your palate. Does it taste, smell and
> look right? If you're wary, search online to see if that particular
> brand has been reported as fraudulent before.
> .Petition the FDA to set standards for the most commonly fraudulent
> products, like honey and olive oil.
>
> Janet US

I remember some hideous diet pancakes that were out in the 80's. They came
frozen and boasted of high fiber. And what did they put in them? Cellulose
fiber...aka...wood pulp.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:55:36 +1100, John J > wrote:

> So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier thread,
> and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every country should
> have one like this!

I don't blame the FDA. I blame the party of less government. You
want less government, you get less government and big business does
whatever it wants to do with no repercussions. Don't be upset that
the government isn't looking out for you, because you don't want it
to.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:06:28 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> Cellulose fiber...aka...wood pulp.

I remember there was bread out with that stuff in it. I never bought
it, but it was discussed here ad nauseam.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

John J wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:11:54 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:55:36 +1100, John J > wrote:
>>
>>> So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier
>>> thread, and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every
>>> country should have one like this!
>>
>> I don't blame the FDA. I blame the party of less government. You
>> want less government, you get less government and big business does
>> whatever it wants to do with no repercussions. Don't be upset that
>> the government isn't looking out for you, because you don't want it
>> to.
>
> But if you poison someone or commit fraud, you go to jail.

No, John, that's not true.

If you do those things and get _caught_ - and catching people is the
government's job in this, a job it can't do if we don't give it
sufficient funds - then you go to jail.

Big difference ...

-S-

On 2013-01-24, John J > wrote:

> allowed to add those poisons to food. Is the FDA too poorly funded to
> ban the addition of poisons to food?

No, the FDA is populated by former business executives from the very
same companies that are poisining our food. That's how American govt
works. What parallel dimension have you been hiding in?

nb

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:55:36 +1100, John J > wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:39:46 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:
>
>>Faux pas! Food fraud on the rise
>>
>> If you are what you eat, you might be having an identity crisis.
>>
>>A new study on food fraud was released Wednesday morning by U.S.
>>Pharmacopeial Convention (USP), a scientific nonprofit organization
>>that helps set standards for the "quality, safety and benefit" of
>>foods and medicines. The group runs a searchable online database of
>>food fraud reports at foodfraud.org and nearly 800 new records were
>>added as part of the study - a 60% increase from last year.
>>
>>Food fraud, as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
>>is the adulteration, dilution or mislabeling of goods. USP further
>>defines food fraud in the study as "the fraudulent addition of
>>nonauthentic substances or removal or replacement of authentic
>>substances without the purchaser's knowledge for economic gain to the
>>seller."
>>
>>The new records show that the most commonly fraudulent products are
>>olive oil, milk, saffron, honey and coffee.
>>
>>Tea, fish, clouding agents (used in fruit juices, like lemon, to make
>>products look freshly squeezed), maple syrup and spices (turmeric,
>>black pepper and chili pepper) were also top imposters.
>>
>>Most of the reported food fraud was committed by producers adding
>>fillers (i.e. other plant leaves to tea leaves), mixing in less
>>expensive spices with high value spices or watering down liquids.
>>Olive oils were often replaced and/or diluted with cheaper vegetable
>>oils. Clouding agents were found in 877 food products from 315
>>different companies. Another popular target: Pomegranate juice, often
>>made with grape skins and grape and pear juices.
>
>(...)
>
>So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier thread,
>and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every country should
>have one like this!

It's what we do for the UK so that you can feel superior.
Janet US

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:21:08 +1100, John J > wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:11:54 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:55:36 +1100, John J > wrote:
> >
> >> So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier thread,
> >> and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every country should
> >> have one like this!
> >
> >I don't blame the FDA. I blame the party of less government. You
> >want less government, you get less government and big business does
> >whatever it wants to do with no repercussions. Don't be upset that
> >the government isn't looking out for you, because you don't want it
> >to.
>
> But if you poison someone or commit fraud, you go to jail.

How many people do you want to see die before anything happens? It's
pretty obvious you haven't had anything to do with the law or else
you'd know the wheels turn slowly. Who would make the investigations
and who would do the studies? Do you really expect the industry to
police themselves? That's like putting the fox in charge of the hen
house. People were upset enough over pets dying from contaminated dog
food and now you want them to lose human loved ones just so you can
have "less" government? I think not.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

John J wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:07:05 -0500, "Steve Freides" >
> wrote:
>
>> John J wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:11:54 -0800, sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:55:36 +1100, John J >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier
>>>>> thread, and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every
>>>>> country should have one like this!
>>>>
>>>> I don't blame the FDA. I blame the party of less government. You
>>>> want less government, you get less government and big business does
>>>> whatever it wants to do with no repercussions. Don't be upset that
>>>> the government isn't looking out for you, because you don't want it
>>>> to.
>>>
>>> But if you poison someone or commit fraud, you go to jail.
>>
>> No, John, that's not true.
>>
>> If you do those things and get _caught_ - and catching people is the
>> government's job in this, a job it can't do if we don't give it
>> sufficient funds - then you go to jail.
>>
>> Big difference ...
>
> Sure, but if you look at the link sf posted in the earlier thread
> (<http://www.shape.com/blogs/shape-your-life/13-banned-foods-still-allowed-us>),
> that's not about being caught or not. The problem there is that it's
> allowed to add those poisons to food. Is the FDA too poorly funded to
> ban the addition of poisons to food?

You bring up another valid problem. First is sufficient resources to to
the job, and second is sufficient will to do the job. The latter has to
do with lobbying, the revolving door between some industries and the
governmental bodies that are supposed to regulate them, and the like.

-S-

On Jan 24, 12:11*am, sf > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:55:36 +1100, John J > wrote:
> > So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier thread,
> > and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every country should
> > have one like this!
>
> I don't blame the FDA. *I blame the party of less government. *You
> want less government, you get less government and big business does
> whatever it wants to do with no repercussions. *Don't be upset that
> the government isn't looking out for you, because you don't want it
> to.
>
> --
> Food is an important part of a balanced diet.


The "party of less government" always seems to be rather selective,
almost surgical, about where and how they think the government needs
to back off.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:11:54 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:55:36 +1100, John J > wrote:
>
>> So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier thread,
>> and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every country should
>> have one like this!
>
>I don't blame the FDA. I blame the party of less government. You
>want less government, you get less government and big business does
>whatever it wants to do with no repercussions. Don't be upset that
>the government isn't looking out for you, because you don't want it
>to.

The party of more government has been in power recently. Did they do
any better? No.

Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
your money.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:17:15 +1100, John J > wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:19:45 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:21:08 +1100, John J > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:11:54 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:55:36 +1100, John J > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier thread,
> >> >> and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every country should
> >> >> have one like this!
> >> >
> >> >I don't blame the FDA. I blame the party of less government. You
> >> >want less government, you get less government and big business does
> >> >whatever it wants to do with no repercussions. Don't be upset that
> >> >the government isn't looking out for you, because you don't want it
> >> >to.
> >>
> >> But if you poison someone or commit fraud, you go to jail.
> >
> >How many people do you want to see die before anything happens? It's
> >pretty obvious you haven't had anything to do with the law or else
> >you'd know the wheels turn slowly. Who would make the investigations
> >and who would do the studies? Do you really expect the industry to
> >police themselves?
>
> No, but I thought a body like that would be independent. I didn't
> expect the criminal to double as the judge.

You have such sweet dreams.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:15:06 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:11:54 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:55:36 +1100, John J > wrote:
> >
> >> So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier thread,
> >> and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every country should
> >> have one like this!
> >
> >I don't blame the FDA. I blame the party of less government. You
> >want less government, you get less government and big business does
> >whatever it wants to do with no repercussions. Don't be upset that
> >the government isn't looking out for you, because you don't want it
> >to.
>
> The party of more government has been in power recently. Did they do
> any better? No.
>
> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
> your money.

My choice is the party that looks out more for me.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:15:06 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:11:54 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:55:36 +1100, John J > wrote:
>>
>>> So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier thread,
>>> and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every country should
>>> have one like this!
>>
>>I don't blame the FDA. I blame the party of less government. You
>>want less government, you get less government and big business does
>>whatever it wants to do with no repercussions. Don't be upset that
>>the government isn't looking out for you, because you don't want it
>>to.
>
>The party of more government has been in power recently. Did they do
>any better? No.
>
>Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
>your money.
Do you follow the politics or just comment on them? I don't mean that
in a nasty way. There's more to the story.
Janet US

Janet Bostwick wrote:

> The new records show that the most commonly fraudulent products are
> olive oil, milk, saffron, honey and coffee.

I'm not surprised to know about frauds on saffron, nowadays it's pricier
than marihuana
--
"Un pasto senza vino e' come un giorno senza sole"
Anthelme Brillat Savarin

John J wrote:

> So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier thread,
> and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every country should
> have one like this!

Every country ha one, take Europe for example: in Italy and a couple of
other nations there were laws imposing certain standards for chocolate and a
pecial labeling for premium quality ones. Now the EU has made illegal that
special labeling, so that industrial plonk can wear the same labeling of the
best products. Screw'em
--
"Un pasto senza vino e' come un giorno senza sole"
Anthelme Brillat Savarin

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:



>>
>> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
>> your money.
>
>My choice is the party that looks out more for me.

Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
two major ones look out only for themselves.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:16:52 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:



>>
>>Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
>>your money.
>Do you follow the politics or just comment on them? I don't mean that
>in a nasty way. There's more to the story.
>Janet US

I don't follow them closely, but I've never met a Congressman that put
the public interest ahead of party politics. On a local level, we
have some good people from both sides. One you get up higher, they are
mostly interested in securing their own spot on the government dole.
It keeps getting worse as no one wants to compromise.

notbob wrote:

>> allowed to add those poisons to food. Is the FDA too poorly funded to
>> ban the addition of poisons to food?

> No, the FDA is populated by former business executives from the very
> same companies that are poisining our food.

And that will get back to their super-paid jobs in those very same companies
they worked for before serving in the FDA. This is also how the Securities
and Exchange Commission worked before the Enron scandal, then during the
trials someone said that this had to stop. I can gather from your post that
nothing has changed.

> That's how American govt works.

Hey, take a look at Consob, the italian counterpart of your SEC: quoting
Shirley Bassey, that's just history repeating.
--
"Un pasto senza vino e' come un giorno senza sole"
Anthelme Brillat Savarin

John J wrote:

>> Every country ha one, take Europe for example: in Italy and a couple
>> of other nations there were laws imposing certain standards for
>> chocolate and a pecial labeling for premium quality ones. Now the EU
>> has made illegal that special labeling, so that industrial plonk can
>> wear the same labeling of the best products. Screw'em

> I think people who appreciate (and can afford) quality will know what
> to buy.

That's for sure, but the vast majority of people will be buying plonk
without any help from the labels, and that's where the big bucks come from.
--
"Un pasto senza vino e' come un giorno senza sole"
Anthelme Brillat Savarin

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
> >> your money.
> >
> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
>
> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
> two major ones look out only for themselves.

The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
>> >> your money.
>> >
>> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
>>
>> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
>> two major ones look out only for themselves.
>
>The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
>choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
>taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.

The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
that is going to happen soon.
Janet US

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:46:37 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
> >> >> your money.
> >> >
> >> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
> >>
> >> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
> >> two major ones look out only for themselves.
> >
> >The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
> >choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
> >taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.
>
> The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
> that is going to happen soon.
> Janet US

Unfortunately, they gerrimandered nice safe districts in 2010 so we
have to wait for the next census to make it right. Hopefully, they
don't wreck the country in the mean time.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:11:27 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:46:37 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
>> >> >> your money.
>> >> >
>> >> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
>> >> two major ones look out only for themselves.
>> >
>> >The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
>> >choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
>> >taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.
>>
>> The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
>> that is going to happen soon.
>> Janet US
>
>Unfortunately, they gerrimandered nice safe districts in 2010 so we
>have to wait for the next census to make it right. Hopefully, they
>don't wreck the country in the mean time.

The census isn't going to fix it . . . they are currently in process
of redistricting Virginia, Pennsylvania and plans for Wisconsin, Ohio
and Iowa. Since they control the legislature and the governor, the
process is not in doubt. What it does is fixes it so that even if the
one party has way more votes than the other, there is absolutely no
way that party will be able to get enough electoral votes to even come
close to winning.
Janet US

Preserving one's political hide seems to be paramount, come no one votes these bozos out of office? Are robots voting?

Term limits, anyone?

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:47:24 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:11:27 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:46:37 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
> >> >> >> your money.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
> >> >> two major ones look out only for themselves.
> >> >
> >> >The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
> >> >choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
> >> >taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.
> >>
> >> The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
> >> that is going to happen soon.
> >> Janet US
> >
> >Unfortunately, they gerrimandered nice safe districts in 2010 so we
> >have to wait for the next census to make it right. Hopefully, they
> >don't wreck the country in the mean time.
>
> The census isn't going to fix it . . . they are currently in process
> of redistricting Virginia, Pennsylvania and plans for Wisconsin, Ohio
> and Iowa. Since they control the legislature and the governor, the
> process is not in doubt. What it does is fixes it so that even if the
> one party has way more votes than the other, there is absolutely no
> way that party will be able to get enough electoral votes to even come
> close to winning.
> Janet US

I'm amazed that's legal. I thought the point of redistricting was to
balance numbers of people while still retaining your seat.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:23:14 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:47:24 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:11:27 -0800, sf > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:46:37 -0700, Janet Bostwick
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
>> >> >> >> your money.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
>> >> >> two major ones look out only for themselves.
>> >> >
>> >> >The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
>> >> >choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
>> >> >taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.
>> >>
>> >> The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
>> >> that is going to happen soon.
>> >> Janet US
>> >
>> >Unfortunately, they gerrimandered nice safe districts in 2010 so we
>> >have to wait for the next census to make it right. Hopefully, they
>> >don't wreck the country in the mean time.
>>
>> The census isn't going to fix it . . . they are currently in process
>> of redistricting Virginia, Pennsylvania and plans for Wisconsin, Ohio
>> and Iowa. Since they control the legislature and the governor, the
>> process is not in doubt. What it does is fixes it so that even if the
>> one party has way more votes than the other, there is absolutely no
>> way that party will be able to get enough electoral votes to even come
>> close to winning.
>> Janet US
>
>I'm amazed that's legal. I thought the point of redistricting was to
>balance numbers of people while still retaining your seat.

this was the best I could find after a quick search (I've got chili
starting)

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...the-party?lite

http://tinyurl.com/b93x3a7

Janet US

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:47:00 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:23:14 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:47:24 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:11:27 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:46:37 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
> >> >> >> >> your money.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
> >> >> >> two major ones look out only for themselves.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
> >> >> >choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
> >> >> >taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.
> >> >>
> >> >> The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
> >> >> that is going to happen soon.
> >> >> Janet US
> >> >
> >> >Unfortunately, they gerrimandered nice safe districts in 2010 so we
> >> >have to wait for the next census to make it right. Hopefully, they
> >> >don't wreck the country in the mean time.
> >>
> >> The census isn't going to fix it . . . they are currently in process
> >> of redistricting Virginia, Pennsylvania and plans for Wisconsin, Ohio
> >> and Iowa. Since they control the legislature and the governor, the
> >> process is not in doubt. What it does is fixes it so that even if the
> >> one party has way more votes than the other, there is absolutely no
> >> way that party will be able to get enough electoral votes to even come
> >> close to winning.
> >> Janet US
> >
> >I'm amazed that's legal. I thought the point of redistricting was to
> >balance numbers of people while still retaining your seat.
>
> this was the best I could find after a quick search (I've got chili
> starting)
>
> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...the-party?lite
>
> http://tinyurl.com/b93x3a7
>
I've been listening to explanations this afternoon and it seems to be
that every county would count as one vote, no matter how many people
that county includes. What a crock. Fortunately, it sounds like
level headed Republicans are as repulsed by it as everyone else is -
so hopefully it's a dead issue by the time you read this.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:57:28 -0800 (PST), Kalmia
> wrote:

>Preserving one's political hide seems to be paramount, come no one votes these bozos out of office? Are robots voting?
>
>Term limits, anyone?

With a better educated electorate, no term limits would be needed.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:



>>
>> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
>> two major ones look out only for themselves.
>
>The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
>choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
>taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.

I still don't know what party you are talking about. Both the Dems
and Repubs in DC do that sort of thing. The Party of Angels does not
exist.

Remember how the Liar in Chief was not going to take big donations for
his Inauguration? This time around he was hoping for Million Dollar
donors to pay for it. Yeah, no influence to be had there huh?

sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:47:00 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

-snip-
>>
>> this was the best I could find after a quick search (I've got chili
>> starting)
>>
>> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...the-party?lite
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/b93x3a7
>>
>I've been listening to explanations this afternoon and it seems to be
>that every county would count as one vote, no matter how many people
>that county includes. What a crock. Fortunately, it sounds like
>level headed Republicans are as repulsed by it as everyone else is -
>so hopefully it's a dead issue by the time you read this.

Whoa-- it is a stupid idea-- but not *that* stupid.
From the above link;
"have proposed awarding their Electoral College votes by congressional
district instead of the winner-take-all approach used by every state
except for two (Maine and Nebraska). "

In other words-- They are trying to replace the 'winner take all'
system with a proportional one. Counties and congressional
districts bear little resemblance to each other. The electoral
college votes for each state are the congressional districts +2.

Jim

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:40:34 -0500, Jim Elbrecht >
wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:47:00 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
>
> -snip-
> >>
> >> this was the best I could find after a quick search (I've got chili
> >> starting)
> >>
> >> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...the-party?lite
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/b93x3a7
> >>
> >I've been listening to explanations this afternoon and it seems to be
> >that every county would count as one vote, no matter how many people
> >that county includes. What a crock. Fortunately, it sounds like
> >level headed Republicans are as repulsed by it as everyone else is -
> >so hopefully it's a dead issue by the time you read this.
>
> Whoa-- it is a stupid idea-- but not *that* stupid.
> From the above link;
> "have proposed awarding their Electoral College votes by congressional
> district instead of the winner-take-all approach used by every state
> except for two (Maine and Nebraska). "
>
> In other words-- They are trying to replace the 'winner take all'
> system with a proportional one. Counties and congressional
> districts bear little resemblance to each other. The electoral
> college votes for each state are the congressional districts +2.
>
The Teapublicans are trying to anoint a king one way or another. They
couldn't steal the presidency, so now they're trying to cheat their
way in. That scheme will net us more and more elections that are
similar to the GWB election where he lost the popular vote, but won
the electoral college. In essence, we'll be governed by the few, not
the many... and it will be a regency of sorts.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 07:10:50 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:40:34 -0500, Jim Elbrecht >
>wrote:
>
>> sf > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:47:00 -0700, Janet Bostwick
>> > wrote:
>>
>> -snip-
>> >>
>> >> this was the best I could find after a quick search (I've got chili
>> >> starting)
>> >>
>> >> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...the-party?lite
>> >>
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/b93x3a7
>> >>
>> >I've been listening to explanations this afternoon and it seems to be
>> >that every county would count as one vote, no matter how many people
>> >that county includes. What a crock. Fortunately, it sounds like
>> >level headed Republicans are as repulsed by it as everyone else is -
>> >so hopefully it's a dead issue by the time you read this.
>>
>> Whoa-- it is a stupid idea-- but not *that* stupid.
>> From the above link;
>> "have proposed awarding their Electoral College votes by congressional
>> district instead of the winner-take-all approach used by every state
>> except for two (Maine and Nebraska). "
>>
>> In other words-- They are trying to replace the 'winner take all'
>> system with a proportional one. Counties and congressional
>> districts bear little resemblance to each other. The electoral
>> college votes for each state are the congressional districts +2.
>>
>The Teapublicans are trying to anoint a king one way or another. They
>couldn't steal the presidency, so now they're trying to cheat their
>way in. That scheme will net us more and more elections that are
>similar to the GWB election where he lost the popular vote, but won
>the electoral college. In essence, we'll be governed by the few, not
>the many... and it will be a regency of sorts.

exactly. It is intended to nullify the vote of city dwellers who tend
to be students, blacks, Latinos and gays -- the very people who have
been voting progressive.
Janet US

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:46:37 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, Janet
Bostwick > wrote,
>The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
>that is going to happen soon.

Of course not. Only crazy people run for office in the first place.

Ed wrote:

> With a better educated electorate, no term limits would be needed.

We might not see eye-to-eye on every political issue, but I am 100% in
agreement with that.

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> > With a better educated electorate, no term limits would be needed.
>
> We might not see eye-to-eye on every political issue, but I am 100% in
> agreement with that.

Education is wasted on people who refuse to learn. We have slews of such
citizens in America. I have actually met people who only want to read one book
the rest of their lives, and it's not an encyclopedia.

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> > > With a better educated electorate, no term limits would be needed.
> >
> > We might not see eye-to-eye on every political issue, but I am 100% in
> > agreement with that.
>
> Education is wasted on people who refuse to learn. We have slews of such
> citizens in America. I have actually met people who only want to read one book
> the rest of their lives, and it's not an encyclopedia.

You're probably talking about the bible and, yes, that's pretty scary.
On the lighter side, I heard it said once that all you have to read is a
good dictionary from cover to cover. Once you read that you've, in effect,
read all books ever written.

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Ed wrote:
>
>> With a better educated electorate, no term limits would be needed.
>
> We might not see eye-to-eye on every political issue, but I am 100% in
> agreement with that.

Unfortunately it isn't that easy.

New representatives are at a disadvantage for lack of cultural
knowledge. In exchange they are less beholden to the political machine.
Experienced representatives are at an advantage for having cultural
knowledge of the legislative processes. In exchange they are more
beholden to the politcal machine. It's an optimization process that has
never worked well.

California passed term limits. Let's review what happened there.

The initial result was moving a lot of entrenched politicians from the
State Assembly and State Senate into the county and city governments
where there are no term limits. it worked for a while at the state
level at the expense of the county and city levels. They should have
made the term limits apply at the state level on down I figure.

The longer term result was a steady influx of newer inexperienced
representatives. Too many of them have been at the mercy of very
experienced and savvy lobbiests.

The US system is based on a winner-take-all approach. It entrenches the
large parties who talk one way act another. it entrenches lobbiests to
"educate" aka steer representatives. Repeating terms give too much
power to the political machines of the parties. Non-repeating terms
give too much power to the lobbiests who are often former
representatives who valued partisan stances or personal gain more than
taking care of their constituents.

Reforming the US system to proportional representation of some sort is
not going to happen in the short term but I suggest it's the better
approach than term limits at the federal level.

Even knowing the California result, do I favor Congressional term
limits? Yes but I'm aware it's a limited step down a path to repairing
broken aspects of the system.

Doug wrote:

> California passed term limits. Let's review what happened there.
>
> The initial result was moving a lot of entrenched politicians from the
> State Assembly and State Senate into the county and city governments where
> there are no term limits.

My observation was that many politicians merely moved from one district to
another while remaining in the legislature, so business continued as usual.

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
>> California passed term limits. Let's review what happened there.
>>
>> The initial result was moving a lot of entrenched politicians from the
>> State Assembly and State Senate into the county and city governments where
>> there are no term limits.
>
> My observation was that many politicians merely moved from one district to
> another while remaining in the legislature, so business continued as usual.

You must be in a different state than California. In California you get
to serve a maximum of 10 years in any one title. Assemblyman and
Senator are the same title in any district. Folks do go from Assembly
to Senate then to positions on the Tax Board then into elective
positions in the Governor's chain of command. At 10 years per it's
possible to serve an extremely long time at the State level in
California politics but it is not allowed to term limit out in one
district then switch to another. That option was explicit in the Prop.