tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13593902.post112222812853422113..comments2024-02-11T09:55:50.468-08:00Comments on The Eastside View: Well, of course it’s not that simple...Charles Sherehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10480432901356490235noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13593902.post-1122244651480986252005-07-24T15:37:00.000-07:002005-07-24T15:37:00.000-07:00There’s nothing here that I would disagree with. I...There’s nothing here that I would disagree with. I would only reiterate that there is an increasing number of formerly well-off families who are obliged to obtain the calories necessary for subsistance with the least possible expenditure of time and money: <BR/><BR/>“Over the past 25 years the lives of working Americans have become ever less secure. Jobs come without health insurance; corporations default on their pension obligations; workers lose their jobs more often, and unemployment lasts much longer than it used to.” (Paul Krugman, “America Wants Security”, New York Times, 23 May 2005)<BR/><BR/>For such people, the production, acquisition, preparation and consumption of food is subject to circumstantial laws which are as immutable as those of motion and thermodynamics. If you are a slave to the temporal and financial cost of your calories, junk food is the cheapest food there is. And if you have small children to feed, you will know that their demands and those of their peers are so conditioned by advertising that healthy perishable food will not only be more expensive but will probably be rejected and ultimately thrown away. <BR/><BR/>Food ethics? They begin with not allowing your family to go hungry.John Whitinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16170335248108710190noreply@blogger.com