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).