Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!think!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: exploitation of resources/sugar
Message-ID: <7800381@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 11:03:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800381
Posted: Wed Aug 14 11:03:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 02:39:15 EDT
References: <3583@decwrl.UUCP>
Lines: 84
Nf-ID: #R:decwrl:-358300:inmet:7800381:000:3754
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Aug 14 11:03:00 1985


>/* Written 10:37 am  Aug 13, 1985 by teddy!lkk in inmet:net.politics */
>In article <3583@decwrl.UUCP> munson@squirt.DEC writes:
>>
>>For those of you who think that sugar is not a 'staple' I propose the following
>>field trip:  Toodle down to your nearest food store and read some labels.
>>
>> * Head for the cereals aisle, and check the ingredients of any 4 cereals
>>        (include 1 kiddie cereal).
>> * Read the labels on some cans of soup (house brands and Campbell's).
>> * Look at the back of a peanut butter jar (especially Skippy, jiff, or 
>>        Peter Pan).
>> * Peruse the contents of tomato or spaghetti sauce.
>> * Scan the frozen foods section.
>> * Contemplate the soft drinks aisle.
>> * Notice the 'flavorings' used in processing meats (lunchmeats, sausage, etc.)
>> * Examine 'health' foods like granola or yoghurt.
>>
>>Mind you, this doesn't address things like baked goods (pastries and whatnot),
>>candy, or 'fast food'.  Nor will I do more than mention corn sweetners (how 
>>many ears of corn does it take to make a teaspoon of 'corn sweetner'??).
>>
>>Shall we continue our discussion of exploitation now?
>>
>>				As always,
>>				Joanne E. Munson
>
>
>Sure, let's continue.  All you have demonstrated is the incredible amount of
>sugar Americans consume.  You still can't live on it, which means it
>is not a staple.  Check out the figures on the average calorie intake of
>American compared to the rest of the world.  Or the rate of obesity.
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Sport Death,
>Larry Kolodney
>(USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk
>(INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
>/* End of text from inmet:net.politics */
>

Grr... Dictionary war! Here's my opening shot:
(Webster's New World)

1. the chief commodity, or any of the most important commodities, made,
grown, or sold in a particular place, region, country, etc. 2. a chief
item, part, material, or element in anything. 3. raw material 4. any
chief item of trade, regularly stocked and in constant demand (flour,
sugar, and salt are *staples*) 5. the fiber of cotton, wool, flax, etc.,
with reference to length and fineness 6 [Now rare] a principal market,
trading center, etc. --*adj*. 1. regularly found on the market or in
stock as a result of a constant demand  2. produced, consumed or
exported regularly and in quantity 3. most important; leading; principal
[*staple* industries] --vt -pled, -plling to sort (wool, cotton, etc.)
according to the nature of its staple.
(end of definition from Webster's)

I'll leave out the alternative definition of the sort of staple that
comes out of a stapler.

There's not much doubt that sugar is a staple, especially as it's given
as an EXAMPLE of a staple by the dictionary.

I suspect the confusion arose because of the oft-used "staple of their 
diet" (staple being used here as "chief item").  

Once again folks, if you don't check in a dictionary before correcting
someone's diction, you're asking for it (and making the rude assumption
that you know the language better than the other person does).

As for the "exploitation", discussion itself, I'd like to inject
just one idea for people to consider: if another country gives us
luxury items like (say) silk scarves in exchange for our wheat, and
use up their land making silkworm-growing areas, silk-processing plants
and so forth, and they do this because it is the most economical way of
getting food (let us say that it would be more expensive for them to
make wheat than it is for them to make the corresponding-in-value amount
of silk) then we are exploiting them, and they are exploiting us, but
both of us are better off for it (we're better off because we'd rather
buy the silk than make it ourselves, and we'd rather have the silk
than the wheat we exchanged for it).