Your professional ethics

Jawgap · 16-01-2015 5:12pm

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

I don't think people realise how much shoite goes into our food. My brother in law works in the factory which makes ice cream for McDonalds. He told me that for every 10 tonnes of ice cream they produce, they put in 1 tonne of refined sugar. Another tonne of dextrose. Another tonne of glucose. It isn't labelled as sugar but they're all forms of sugar. I check food labels on everything I buy these days. Most food companies have no ethics and are throwing absolute filth into our food. Everything is artificial and the cheapest thing to produce to maximise profit.

Over half the calorific content in a ripe banana is derived from sugar and nearly 75% of the calorific content in fresh pineapple is from sugar - a lot of that is fructose, but it's the good kind of fructose.

Truth is the vast majority of people have no idea what goes into their food or the social cost associated with food production which is why they are so susceptible to the lure of organic food and have been conditioned to fear GMOs.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with fast food - as long as it's eaten infrequently as part of a balanced diet.

ScumLord · 16-01-2015 5:13pm

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

But food companies are still sugar coating their ingredients, pardon the pun. Most people wouldn't know what glucose or dextrose is. Most people can't read food labels and I'm sure if they could and understand the ingredients, they wouldn't half the shoite on the shelves.

Well that's their own fault. We can't keep banning things and mollycoddling the entire population because some people won't educate themselves. I'm pretty sure at this stage most people are aware of the facts on cheap processed food yet they continue to buy them because they are cheap.

I want more natural ingredients in my food.

Well then buy foods with natural ingredients, there's plenty out there it's a growing market. Or even better yet just buy the natural ingredients and make your own food.

CarpeDiem85 · 16-01-2015 5:20pm

I do make the majority of my food from scratch. Even things like tinned tomatoes and yogurts, I'd be wary of. If I can't pronounce, never mind understand the majority of the ingredients on food labels, I won't buy it. I still think that food companies are to blame. Loading everything with salt and sugar under different disguises really irkes me. We need a food revolution.

Jawgap · 16-01-2015 5:24pm

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

I do make the majority of my food from scratch. Even things like tinned tomatoes and yogurts, I'd be wary of. If I can't pronounce, never mind understand the majority of the ingredients on food labels, I won't buy it. I still think that food companies are to blame. Loading everything with salt and sugar under different disguises really irkes me. We need a food revolution.

Ingredients:
Chopped Tomatoes 65%, Tomato Paste, Salt, Acidity Regulator: Citric Acid

Activia

Yogurt (Skimmed Milk, Cream (Milk), Skimmed Milk Concentrate / Powder, Live Cultures including Bifidobacterium Lactis (Bifidus ActiRegularis®)), Strawberry (8%), Sugar (8%), Stabilisers (Modified Maize Starch, Carrageenan), Purple Carrot Juice Concentrate, Flavouring, Acidity Regulators (Citric Acid, Sodium Citrate)

Not sure what's not to understand.

ScumLord · 16-01-2015 5:27pm

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

I still think that food companies are to blame.

I don't really anymore. Sure they're a big part of the problem, they take take advantage to the extreme in some cases but they are at the mercy of the market. They know people will nearly always go for the cheapest option so they make their food cheaper. That won't change until the consumer changes their buying habits and I don't think that's going to happen any time soon..

CarpeDiem85 · 16-01-2015 5:34pm

Sorry, I'd still need a degree in chemistry to understand what is in that yoghurt! I just checked the ingredients in my daughter's organic yoghurt... Organic apple and pear concentrate, organic skimmed milk, water, gelling agent and cultures. Not exactly rocket science to understand so why the huge difference in ingredients.

ScumLord · 16-01-2015 5:41pm

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

Sorry, I'd still need a degree in chemistry to understand what is in that yoghurt! I just checked the ingredients in my daughter's organic yoghurt... Organic apple and pear concentrate, organic skimmed milk, water, gelling agent and cultures. Not exactly rocket science to understand so why the huge difference in ingredients.

Because they're a different product and different flavours.

The activia seems pretty straight forward to me. Everything there is found in natural food they're just regulating an exact amount of it.

Jawgap · 16-01-2015 5:44pm

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

Sorry, I'd still need a degree in chemistry to understand what is in that yoghurt! I just checked the ingredients in my daughter's organic yoghurt... Organic apple and pear concentrate, organic skimmed milk, water, gelling agent and cultures. Not exactly rocket science to understand so why the huge difference in ingredients.

Well the Activia has more information.

For a start it specifically names the culture used - what culture was used to in the organic yoghurt?

Second, it names the gelling agent - good old Carrageenan - they probably don't specify the gelling agent on the organic yoghurt because of the necessity to use them (to prevent the product from separating) and the bad rep they've got recently. Chances are the organic yoghurt also uses Carrageenan.

I presume whatever culture was used in the organic product generated a sufficiently low pH that a regulator wasn't needed, but citric acid and sodium citrate are chemicals found in citrus fruits and manufactured in the body in the case of citrate.

The organic fruit concentrates are no more nor less nutritional than fruit concentrates from conventional production.

CarpeDiem85 · 16-01-2015 5:48pm

No, they are different companies with very different ethics evidently. One wants to produce pure, natural food. The other wants to pile a load of artifially produced chemicals into a huge container to produce as much product as possible to maximise profit. I think I'd rather pay extra for the other. I just can't believe what companies are trying to label as food these days, it's bile. Why the government are letting them away is beggars belief.

Jawgap · 16-01-2015 5:49pm

the other point sometimes worth noting is that 'organic' as a status has to be applied for and paid for, like certification to certain environmental & sustainability standards e.g. Marine Stewardship Council.

Some companies / producers put in place then necessary systems and pay to be audited to obtain the certification along with the right to use the word 'organic' in connection with certain specific products.

Other companies may produce food to the same standard but opt not to pay the fees associated with certification - meaning they can't describe their product(s) as organic - but it doesn't mean they are lacking in quality.

AnonoBoy · 16-01-2015 5:51pm

I'm a hitman but because of my ethics I only kill, y'know, bad guys.

"If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there."

ScumLord · 16-01-2015 5:53pm

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

No, they are different companies with very different ethics evidently. One wants to produce pure, natural food. The other wants to pile a load of artifially produced chemicals into a huge container to produce as much product as possible to maximise profit.

All food contain chemicals. There's nothing in the activia that doesn't occur naturally in food. the major difference is probably that Activia are actively managing the chemical balance to ensure shelf life and that when you open the pot you see the yogurt you expect rather than something that's separated out into liquids and solids.

I think I'd rather pay extra for the other. I just can't believe what companies are trying to label as food these days, it's bile. Why the government are letting them away is beggars belief.

You have to be careful with some "organic" foods, there can be little difference between them and your typical processed foods bar one organic ingredient.

People these days get scared off by the word processed but the fact is just about everything you eat is processed in some form or another.

jimgoose · 16-01-2015 5:53pm

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I'm a hitman but because of my ethics I only kill, y'know, bad guys.

"If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there."

You my frieeend. I keeel you for naaathing!

Jawgap · 16-01-2015 5:58pm

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

No, they are different companies with very different ethics evidently. One wants to produce pure, natural food. The other wants to pile a load of artifially produced chemicals into a huge container to produce as much product as possible to maximise profit. I think I'd rather pay extra for the other. I just can't believe what companies are trying to label as food these days, it's bile. Why the government are letting them away is beggars belief.

Another round of labelling legislation was introduced just before Christmas - there has never been as much or as detailed information about our food. And it's only set to get more detailed with greater adoption of DNAtraceback, herd profiling, isotopic databases, new GS1 standards (the bar codes) etc,

The companies are following the market and not everyone wants or can afford organic etc food.

Some do, and that's a valid lifestyle choice, but it's a mistake to think that organic food, for example, is nutritionally better than conventionally grown / farmed food - a bad organic producer will produce some pretty horrendous stuff, whereas a good conventional producer will produce a qualitatively superior product. Saying that, companies are happy to provide, at a premium, organic products to feed on people's misconceptions.

ScumLord · 16-01-2015 6:03pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Another round of labelling legislation was introduced just before Christmas - there has never been as much or as detailed information about our food. And it's only set to get more detailed with greater adoption of DNAtraceback, herd profiling, isotopic databases, new GS1 standards (the bar codes) etc,

Soon they'll be putting the cows facebook profile on the packaging so you can follow her status right up to the one where she says "going for hols in the big truck, so excited, xxx... expect postcards".. Account closed..

CarpeDiem85 · 16-01-2015 6:05pm

Check out an app called Chemical Cuisine, I used it a lot when I had a smart phone. It would really make you think about what is really in our food. Having a close relative die of stomach cancer really led me to rethink what I'm really putting into my body in every form, even down to toothpaste and deodorant.

Jawgap · 16-01-2015 6:11pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Soon they'll be putting the cows facebook profile on the packaging so you can follow her status right up to the one where she says "going for hols in the big truck, so excited, xxx... expect postcards".. Account closed..

It'll be QR codes which you can scan and they'll link to an app which will call up details of the farm, herd, date of calving, dates / place of processing etc. Plus, the app apparently will have the functionality to allow the farmer to hook up a web cam so you'll be able to get a live feed from the farm of origin! In fact that could be done now and probably will be before very long as soon as some buyer for a supermarket decides it's what they want.

There's also a potential plan to 'etch' QR codes onto chicken, fish and other meats (using a laser) that you'll be able to scan to get similar information when you sit down to a meal in a restaurant - I don't see that one being a flyer!

Jawgap · 16-01-2015 6:27pm

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

Check out an app called Chemical Cuisine, I used it a lot when I had a smart phone. It would really make you think about what is really in our food. Having a close relative die of stomach cancer really led me to rethink what I'm really putting into my body in every form, even down to toothpaste and deodorant.

Just had a look - it's published / produced by CSPI. It's perhaps worth remembering that all these NGOs (especially in the States) are fighting for funding dollars and consequently it's in their interest to amplify situations to prey on people's concerns and ignorance.

Personally, I'd find writers, journos etc that I consider trustworthy and read them with a sceptical eye, for example Ben Goldacre ; Sense about Science; Alok Jha; and Monah Mansoori.

Rough Sleeper · 16-01-2015 6:30pm

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

Sorry, I'd still need a degree in chemistry to understand what is in that yoghurt! I just checked the ingredients in my daughter's organic yoghurt... Organic apple and pear concentrate, organic skimmed milk, water, gelling agent and cultures. Not exactly rocket science to understand so why the huge difference in ingredients.

A degree in chemistry is useful if you want to perform complex structural analysis and multi-step syntheses. The ability to read and use a search engine is all you need to figure out what's on that list. Citric acid is found in fruits, for example, and sodium citrate is the salt of citric acid. Not everything that has a chemically sounding name is malign and not everything marketed as "organic" is good for you.

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

He told me that for every 10 tonnes of ice cream they produce, they put in 1 tonne of refined sugar. Another tonne of dextrose. Another tonne of glucose. It isn't labelled as sugar but they're all forms of sugar.

So they put in 2 tonnes of glucose then? Dextrose is glucose. And it absolutely is labelled as sugar in the nutritional information, why would you think otherwise? What do you think it's labelled as?

December2012 · 16-01-2015 6:32pm

I could not do anything that would promote or extend the influence of the Iona Institute or a similar institution.

Venus In Furs · 17-01-2015 2:18am

major bill wrote: »

Irishman works in the UK for UK company yet won't work on a project for the British Military cause it offends him?? Is that right?

Yes. What's the issue with that?

Venus In Furs · 17-01-2015 2:25am

If some 17-year-old got a part-time job in Penneys, they are I suppose working for a company that profits from sweat-shops, but I doubt they even consider this, and I don't exactly think they should be hung out to dry for it.

I think most of us would prefer to avoid unethical companies, but sometimes it doesn't quite work out that way. There's exploitation all over the place. People who work for Apple, well there are the Foxconn workers. People who work on the Brown Thomas or Debenhams make-up counters - animal testing. I wouldn't condemn anyone for having those jobs. I mean, where does it end? Working in a supermarket, you're being paid indirectly by chicken battery farms. Centra - Coca Cola and coffee. Lifestyle Sports - sports-shoe manufacturers.

And I don't understand the baby formula issue. It's being worked on all the time to ensure it contains as similar nutrients as possible to breast-milk. Breastfeeding isn't always an option.

ScumLord · 17-01-2015 11:49am

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I think most of us would prefer to avoid unethical companies, but sometimes it doesn't quite work out that way. There's exploitation all over the place.

I'd say it's next to impossible to avoid contributing to someone's death or extremely poor working conditions buying products today. The supply chain often crosses that line at some stage. The company you buy your electrical device off might hire people here and pay them a good wage, the company they buy the product off may have pretty decent working standards for their country, but their suppliers could just be a guy at the end of a telephone that can only meet the expected price by using child labour.

Tarzana2 · 17-01-2015 11:57am

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

I don't think I could ever work as a lawyer or solicitor. Having to defend someone who from evidence was more than likely guilty would make me feel physically sick.

Same.

I mean, barristers have to take the next case that comes along, regardless of their own personal feelings on the matter.

How could someone work like that?

Jawgap · 17-01-2015 12:06pm

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Same.

I mean, barristers have to take the next case that comes along, regardless of their own personal feelings on the matter.

How could someone work like that?

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about barristers.

Their first and foremost duty is to the court, not their client, to ensure justice is administered fairly.

From the Bar Standards Board in the UK, but I'm sure there's something similar here

You owe a duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice. This duty overrides any inconsistent obligations which you may have (other than obligations under the criminal law). It includes
the following specific obligations which apply whether you are acting as an advocate or are otherwise involved in the conduct of litigation in whatever role (with the exception of Rule C3.1 below, which
applies when acting as an advocate):
.1 you must not knowingly or recklessly mislead or attempt to mislead the court;
.2 you must not abuse your role as an advocate;
.3 you must take reasonable steps to avoid wasting the court’s time;
.4 you must take reasonable steps to ensure that the court has before it all relevant decisions and legislative provisions;
.5 you must ensure that your ability to act independently is not compromised.

Tarzana2 · 17-01-2015 12:12pm

Jawgap wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about barristers.

They do have the next case that come along though, they can't refuse and wait for the next one.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 17-01-2015 12:16pm

You don't have to practice criminal law if you're not cut out for it. Barristers can specialise in a wide range of areas.

Jawgap · 17-01-2015 12:23pm

Tarzana2 wrote: »

They do have the next case that come along though, they can't refuse and wait for the next one.

In theory yes - the 'cab rank' principle applies, but it is possible to wriggle out from it!

What you can't do is mis-represent your client. So if the client says "I did it but get me off" you can't go in and push arguments that suggest he / she didn't do it.

Likewise, if they say something like "I didn't do it, but I can't be bothered to fight it so I'm just going to plead guilty" - you can't push a guilty.

As I said earlier, the State has all the power - it writes the laws, it enforces the laws and it prosecutes the laws. It has practically unlimited and unfettered power and resources to bring to bear on the individual citizen, so they should be compelled to make sure they do the job properly.

plus, there are loads of examples where people are prosecuted maliciously (thankfully they are very few) or because they're the 'usual suspect' and the police can sometimes be a bit too lazy to follow up properly.

finally, there's the devastating impact a conviction (even for something very small) can have on someone's life - at the very least they deserve a fair hearing.

Jawgap · 17-01-2015 12:30pm

Tarzana2 wrote: »

They do have the next case that come along though, they can't refuse and wait for the next one.

You could argue the same for doctors in the ED - they have to treat the next person in the door on the basis of their medical needs.

Sit in the ED in the Mater and it's only a matter of time before someone from across the road is brought in for something - chances are they're not handcuffed to a prisoner officer because they parked on a double yellow line.

Should doctors de-prioritise a seriously ill convicted criminal over say a hard working parent on a minimum wage who'll lose out a shift if they can't back to work on the same day?

CarpeDiem85 · 17-01-2015 12:46pm

^Hardly comparing like with like. A doctor treats looks after a person's physically wellbeing without having to ask any questions about their personal life and criminal history. If a lawyer/barrister represents a client, their main aim is to get their client off without jail term or on the lowest charge possible, even if the most awful crime was committed.

Your professional ethics

Comments