Slog Comments

 

Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Lew Siffer 1
Can't grow that shit in the US?
Posted by Lew Siffer on January 21, 2013 at 2:43 PM · Report this
Banna 2
"...they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Think about it, Charles.
Posted by Banna http://www.ucp.org on January 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM · Report this
Rotten666 3
I see what you did there, Charles.

Don't you have anything better to do than get everyone riled up?
Posted by Rotten666 on January 21, 2013 at 2:49 PM · Report this
4
Grow more of the shit. I looked it up, it grows at a variety of altitudes, there's a pretty wide range of temperatures it's fine with and it prefers terrible, sandy soil. Should be incredibly easy to get more of it going. Crashing an export in one relatively poor country and one very poor country isn't going to fix things.
Posted by Sean on January 21, 2013 at 2:50 PM · Report this
Zebes 5
Oh, what, so vegans can't be hispanic now? Is that what you're saying? I am so offended.
Posted by Zebes http://www.badrap.org/rescue/index.html on January 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM · Report this
6
Nice headline, Charles.
WSU has a big grant to study quinoa in the US. They've got trial fields growing in WA, OR, ID and a fourth state, maybe MT?
Posted by alight on January 21, 2013 at 3:18 PM · Report this
Agent Beryllium 7
I feel guilty about having frozen Quinoa Melange from Trader Joe's in my frigde now, but what do I do in the immidiate future to help? Continue to occasionally buy quinoa to reassure US farmers than it's a good cash crop? Stop buying quinoa so there's more for Andeans? Is there someone to send letters to?

It's all fine and well to comment on a Slog blurb that American farmers should look into growing the stuff, but what can *I* do?
Posted by Agent Beryllium http://https://www.facebook.com/lagent.beryllium on January 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM · Report this
8
This was debunked as total bullshit.
Posted by ryanmm on January 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM · Report this
9
1) Nice headline. Ass.
2) So what's the solution? Eat less quinoa, and this will somehow make life measurably better for people? While not an expert, I'd assume the answer has more to do with tariffs and price controls (by their government and ours) than with people needing to eat less quinoa.

Worst. Marxist. Ever.
Posted by duffellduffell on January 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM · Report this
10
This is just vegan bating. Why would you do that? For the most part, vegans aren't bad people. Yes, some are pretentious, but others are just trying to find some way of reducing their footprint or making a stand against the treatment of animals in American agriculture. Just leave them alone. The only time you hear most vegans complain is when you attack them. They're not hurting you, or anyone for this matter (This article has been debunked, and beyond that, most vegans don't give a shit about quinoa). So what gives?
Posted by AndyInChicago on January 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM · Report this
raku 11
I lol'ed
Posted by raku on January 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM · Report this
12
Oh right. He fixed the racist headline to another racist headline. What a dope. But a dope who writes dainty twaddle. Yes.
Posted by rabbitbrush on January 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM · Report this
14
It's grass. There is nothing special about Peru. It'll grow it lots of places.

Not only that this price theory story was already debunked in the NYT.
Posted by tkc on January 21, 2013 at 4:31 PM · Report this
15
Hey, Charles, "White" "Hippy" "Vegan" Farmers in the Washington Okanogan have been growing quinoa since the 1990s.

(No, I don't know if they are white, hippy, or vegan, just as you don't know who buys quinoa in this country. Dope.)
Posted by rabbitbrush on January 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM · Report this
blip 16
When the NYT reported on this story 2 years ago they attributed quinoa's rising popularity to NASA, who discovered it when searching for foods ideal for long-term space travel.

It's interesting how the Guardian was able to pique peoples' interest in an old story by re-framing it ever so slightly, because now it's all over the internet ("Smug" is the 3rd word in MSN's blog post referencing the Guardian article). People really love to hate vegans.
Posted by blip on January 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM · Report this
Charles Mudede 17
14@, please read the link: http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jan…

"Averaging $3,115 (£1,930) per tonne in 2011, quinoa has tripled in price since 2006. Coloured varieties fetch even more. Red royal quinoa sells at about $4,500 a tonne and the black variety can reach $8,000 per tonne. The crop has become a lifeline for the people of Bolivia's Oruro and Potosi regions, among the poorest in what is one of South America's poorest nations."

this is the guardian. i think the debunking of this story is a myth...
Posted by Charles Mudede on January 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 18
@ 8, I'm with Charles on this one. Show your work or shut up.
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM · Report this
19
Haha, look at the huffy vegan #8. Who you gonna preach to now, overprivileged hippie? Haha...

@12 - You are SO Seattle. And that's *not* a compliment.
Posted by Confluence on January 21, 2013 at 5:30 PM · Report this
Banjax 20
Charles, the word vegan (or even vegetarian) is nowhere to be found in the Guardian article you linked in comments. Yet it covers the issue well, as journalism should.
The article you link in your original post, however... that's an opinion piece ("Comment is free") by a grandstanding food writer, and her vegan-baiting is based on misinformation—like, that certain "pesky" amino acids are so hard to come by that vegans have to either eat quinoa or take supplements—and a comical inflation of vegan numbers and influence. (She also pointed out that vegans are destroying the world by eating soy, though Guardian editors added a note clarifying that 97% of soy is used for livestock feed.)
That's not journalism, that's trolling.

.
Posted by Banjax on January 21, 2013 at 6:23 PM · Report this
21
I think the upshot is that our food web is all interconnected, and there are no methods of eating that do not put someone else out in some way. You have to kill something to eat it (plant or animal), and if you eat it someone else doesn't get to, and if a grower/harvester can get lots of $ for it, then it'll be less available for people who have less resources.
Posted by Chris Jury http://www.thebismarck.net on January 21, 2013 at 6:57 PM · Report this
thatsnotright 23
Charles, you give into to your inner troll so easily. You are an intelligent man but you waste your energy on cheap tricks that keep you from the top flight of thought. Sad really.What a waste.
Posted by thatsnotright on January 21, 2013 at 10:38 PM · Report this
24
@23 you say this as if trolling is not the highest art form.
Posted by rcrantz on January 22, 2013 at 12:01 AM · Report this
25
Wouldn't first world or wealthy be more accurate?
Posted by Spike1382 on January 22, 2013 at 12:56 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 26
Ok, that's pretty funny.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on January 22, 2013 at 6:28 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.