Re: the sad truth...was Phude Fascists

[Guest guest]

Interesting...I am of the same opinion...but I will not rely on my govt to

provide that...

NO one should have the right to sell mislabeled or otherwise adulterated food.

The thing to realize is that our govt is who allows chicken to be labled amish

if it

is simply driven thru the area...not actually sourced there...

We may not like billy bob clinton...but he was right it all depends on the legal

definition of what amish, natural, all nature and pure is...do not trust your

govt to provide integrity here...they provide loopholes and create the

appearance of good while the substance is shockingly much less than we would

wish for...

it should be a business' dutyy to provide the credentials from independant

sources -

not the jd power and assoc type stuff...

I mean if you pay a company to say good things about you and dial it up and

create drama - even false and misleading drama about you, they will do what you

are paying them to do...

We no longer run on the rails of truth here...it is all pageantry and slight of

hand which is rewarded as being 'clever'...very hard to make an honest buck

these days...

d

From: Dolores <dgk@...>

Subject: Re: " Phude Fascists " was Does anyone have a

recommendation

Coconut Oil

Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 9:53 AM

 

Interesting. I wonder what those railing against the " Phude Fascists " have

to say about that. After all Tropical Traditions is hardly an agra business.

Look folks, I'm just as much in favor of small family farms and organic foods as

anyone. I buy from them as much as possible and love my raw organic cheese from

my local health food store, but I think that NO ONE - selling any kind of food -

should have the " feedom " to sell mislabeled food or that which is raised in an

unclean manner or contain substances that make people sick. And if the

government has no regulation over that then who will?

Best,

Dee

> >

> > , the owner of the Tropical Traditions list bounced a post of

> > mine because I mentioned the word " evolution " He wanted no talk of

> > evolution on his list because he was a bible believer.

> >

> > People were not allowed to mention any other brands of coconut oil on

> > his list or make comparisons among different brands.

> >

> > Alobar

> >

>

[Guest guest]

So who DO you trust then Don? Apparently no one. That's fine if that's what YOU

want to do but it does nothing to save children from eating food that's been

contaminated with, say, e coli. We happen to know a couple who's child became

mentally disabled by eating a hamburger that had been contaminated with e coli.

I agree that the government could do more - much more and much better - to

oversea the country's food products (most especially the huge farm factories and

companies such as Monsanto etc.), but LESS oversight and control is not the

answer.

Dee

>

> > >

>

> > > , the owner of the Tropical Traditions list bounced a post of

>

> > > mine because I mentioned the word " evolution " He wanted no talk of

>

> > > evolution on his list because he was a bible believer.

>

> > >

>

> > > People were not allowed to mention any other brands of coconut oil on

>

> > > his list or make comparisons among different brands.

>

> > >

>

> > > Alobar

>

> > >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dolores,

I understand your concern...was there myself...

but found the old axiom to be right, if you want it done right, do it

yourself...

I would cook my own hamburger...

I remember a huge issue quite a while back w/ jack in the box burgers and e

coli...

the problem is a corp will lie and deny even when caught - need i reference

billy bob again?...its the way we do things, it seems...so as much as it is in

you learn to do for your self and get meat at reputable places and cook it

yourself...

the small family or corner store could not afford to not take necessary

precautions...

greed for more profit is behind all this in the big corps...

d

From: Dolores <dgk@...>

Subject: Re: the sad truth...was " Phude Fascists "

Coconut Oil

Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 4:19 PM

 

So who DO you trust then Don? Apparently no one. That's fine if that's

what YOU want to do but it does nothing to save children from eating food that's

been contaminated with, say, e coli. We happen to know a couple who's child

became mentally disabled by eating a hamburger that had been contaminated with e

coli.

I agree that the government could do more - much more and much better - to

oversea the country's food products (most especially the huge farm factories and

companies such as Monsanto etc.), but LESS oversight and control is not the

answer.

Dee

>

> > >

>

> > > , the owner of the Tropical Traditions list bounced a post of

>

> > > mine because I mentioned the word " evolution " He wanted no talk of

>

> > > evolution on his list because he was a bible believer.

>

> > >

>

> > > People were not allowed to mention any other brands of coconut oil on

>

> > > his list or make comparisons among different brands.

>

> > >

>

> > > Alobar

>

> > >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Properly cooking the hamburger that caused an outbreak of the well known

" hamburger disease " is the parents' responsibility.

I think cooking food is the key to saving more children from being infected.

Also, attending to bowel ecology. People with a good ecology almost never get

bowel issues.

I think I'd rely on that control more than I would the government.

all good,

Duncan

>

> So who DO you trust then Don? Apparently no one. That's fine if that's what

YOU want to do but it does nothing to save children from eating food that's been

contaminated with, say, e coli. We happen to know a couple who's child became

mentally disabled by eating a hamburger that had been contaminated with e coli.

>

> I agree that the government could do more - much more and much better - to

oversea the country's food products (most especially the huge farm factories and

companies such as Monsanto etc.), but LESS oversight and control is not the

answer.

>

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

Things may be different in Canada, but here in the US, when one buys

hamburger which is not organic, one is taking risks.

FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle

A coalition of food and consumer groups that includes Consumers

Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the

Food and Drug Administration to ban the practice. Mc's Corp.,

the nation's largest restaurant user of beef, also wants the FDA to

prohibit the feeding of so-called poultry litter to cattle.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/31/business/fi-feed31

E. Coli Concern: Once-Tainted Meat Allowed Back Into System

Imagine a ton of freshly ground beef. The company in charge of

processing this meat finds out during a routine test that it is

contaminated with E. coli. They record the test results, which are

read by a government inspector, who acknowledges that the meat is

indeed tainted.

You might think that this beef would be headed straight for the

garbage bin. But in many cases, this meat is instead cooked, prepared

and packaged as a pre-cooked hamburger patty that you pick up from the

grocery store. And it's all completely legal.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/coli-concern-tainted-beef-makes-consumers/\

story?id=8987973

The problem is especially egregious for those of us who eat burger raw or rare.

Alobar

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Duncan Crow <duncancrow@...> wrote:

>

> Properly cooking the hamburger that caused an outbreak of the well known

" hamburger disease " is the parents' responsibility.

>

> I think cooking food is the key to saving more children from being infected.

Also, attending to bowel ecology. People with a good ecology almost never get

bowel issues.

>

> I think I'd rely on that control more than I would the government.

>

> all good,

>

> Duncan

>

>

> >

> > So who DO you trust then Don? Apparently no one. That's fine if that's what

YOU want to do but it does nothing to save children from eating food that's been

contaminated with, say, e coli. We happen to know a couple who's child became

mentally disabled by eating a hamburger that had been contaminated with e coli.

> >

> > I agree that the government could do more - much more and much better - to

oversea the country's food products (most especially the huge farm factories and

companies such as Monsanto etc.), but LESS oversight and control is not the

answer.

> >

> > Dee

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

Yes, of course we should all practice cooking our food well but the child I

referenced had eaten the hamburger from one of the fast food companies. Not sure

if it was Mcs or some other as it was awhile ago. So was that the parent's

fault too? The reason we have government regulations is so that we can live in

relative freedom to be able to allow our children and ourselves the occasional

treat or relief from cooking without having to obsess about the possible

dangers. And as Alobar points out - the problem is not too MUCH oversight but

too little. But don't let that stop you from having the last word - on a subject

you know very little about.

Dee

> >

> > So who DO you trust then Don? Apparently no one. That's fine if that's what

YOU want to do but it does nothing to save children from eating food that's been

contaminated with, say, e coli. We happen to know a couple who's child became

mentally disabled by eating a hamburger that had been contaminated with e coli.

> >

> > I agree that the government could do more - much more and much better - to

oversea the country's food products (most especially the huge farm factories and

companies such as Monsanto etc.), but LESS oversight and control is not the

answer.

> >

> > Dee

> >

>

[Guest guest]

If i may...

I do not want any more govt oversight in the typical ways they tend to do

things...and often w/ very poor results...

What i want and think will work is to increase the responsibility of those who

provide food service to the public...and at the same time i say that...we must

realize a corp is in business to make $$ not to care for our health...so they

will take short custs...if you have concerns, then you must do due

diligence...and likely make your own the right way...

I am almost 60 and basck in the day it was bad business to have such low regard

for your customers so that if you did them bad it was time to call in the big

guns, aka lawyers...

People were in business to serve a customer base and if they did that well and

responsibly, they made $$.   Now we have bean counters making every decision

about the safety of things... and the cost of being safe.   See...if we buy

this lower grade meat at

XX$$/ pound...we can save this much $$ and get a bonus for ourselves.   This

is the mentality we are dealing with.   If folks just used theiur dollars to

vote for a company and conversley did not spend them at businesses that have low

regard for their customers...

believe me things would change...   The whole no high fructose corn syrup that

we see on labels is from consumer complaint...   I called campbells soup -

ironically the customer service line -  when my kids were young and complained

about the MSG in their soup; they could have cared less - now it is out of the

soup and on labels as a badge of quality.

Its the corporate arrogance that gets them in trouble...

We are all responsible for our choices...and the consequences that

follow...perhaps we get good meat and make the burgers w/ our kids as a family

event...and teach them well...

Duncan, please do have a go at this...

d

From: Dolores <dgk@...>

Subject: Re: the sad truth...was " Phude Fascists "

Coconut Oil

Date: Friday, September 17, 2010, 1:28 PM

 

Duncan,

Yes, of course we should all practice cooking our food well but the child I

referenced had eaten the hamburger from one of the fast food companies. Not sure

if it was Mcs or some other as it was awhile ago. So was that the parent's

fault too? The reason we have government regulations is so that we can live in

relative freedom to be able to allow our children and ourselves the occasional

treat or relief from cooking without having to obsess about the possible

dangers. And as Alobar points out - the problem is not too MUCH oversight but

too little. But don't let that stop you from having the last word - on a subject

you know very little about.

Dee

> >

> > So who DO you trust then Don? Apparently no one. That's fine if that's what

YOU want to do but it does nothing to save children from eating food that's been

contaminated with, say, e coli. We happen to know a couple who's child became

mentally disabled by eating a hamburger that had been contaminated with e coli.

> >

> > I agree that the government could do more - much more and much better - to

oversea the country's food products (most especially the huge farm factories and

companies such as Monsanto etc.), but LESS oversight and control is not the

answer.

> >

> > Dee

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Sorry Dee, I know they use modern cooking methods here in Canada, so the e.

coli risk is minimal here, and I'd assumed since the methods are mainly American

engineered in the first place that they'd be the same there.

I mean, isn't e. coli infection from the fast food companies statistically rare

in the USA considering the millions served daily? The stories we hear about

e.coli infection here in Canada usually revolve around backyard get-togethers,

where people often prefer undercooked hamburger, much less so the fast food

outlets. I think we must have enough oversight here and probably don't need more

oversight. Maybe the mad cow scare helped.

all good,

Duncan

>

> Duncan,

>

> Yes, of course we should all practice cooking our food well but the child I

referenced had eaten the hamburger from one of the fast food companies. Not sure

if it was Mcs or some other as it was awhile ago. So was that the parent's

fault too? The reason we have government regulations is so that we can live in

relative freedom to be able to allow our children and ourselves the occasional

treat or relief from cooking without having to obsess about the possible

dangers. And as Alobar points out - the problem is not too MUCH oversight but

too little. But don't let that stop you from having the last word - on a subject

you know very little about.

>

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

Since oversight seems to be working in Canada then doesn't it make sense that we

apply the same vigilance in the U.S.? These idiots (sorry idiots) that keep

screaming " Phude Fascism " are the problem not the solution. While personal

responsibility is always the first line of defense - and I would be the first to

recommend it - that doesn't always do the job in a society in which profit and

greed prevail. The truth is that if we didn't have government inspections there

would be a LOT more children severely impacted by consuming infected food

products, as this child was, and no one would be the wiser as to the cause. This

was indeed the situation before regulations and inspections were in place and at

least one of the reasons mortality rates have since declined. Healthy adults

have a much easier time of dealing with food born illnesses but young children

and the elderly do not. We need to consider the safety of more than just

ourselves.

Dee

> >

> > Duncan,

> >

> > Yes, of course we should all practice cooking our food well but the child I

referenced had eaten the hamburger from one of the fast food companies. Not sure

if it was Mcs or some other as it was awhile ago. So was that the parent's

fault too? The reason we have government regulations is so that we can live in

relative freedom to be able to allow our children and ourselves the occasional

treat or relief from cooking without having to obsess about the possible

dangers. And as Alobar points out - the problem is not too MUCH oversight but

too little. But don't let that stop you from having the last word - on a subject

you know very little about.

> >

> > Dee

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Dee; I don't see evidence of vigilance here, but maybe it is as simple as the

temperature and timer system don't have to be calibrated as often in American

fast food outlets as in Canada. In the deli the employee checks the temperature

of every batch of roast chickens, and I'd expect they check the temperatures

before starting a shift at the burger joint too. In that case the actual

vigilance seems to be on the part of the vendor, not the government. Personal

responsibility does seem to work most of the time

I don't know how many cases of fast food poisoning there are in a year in the

USA, out of how many millions of burgers sold. Is it reasonable to allow or not

allow any of it, and is it even possible to not allow any of it?

Of note, mushroom season is on us in the northwest, and much of the local crop

goes directly to restaurants without any inspection either of the quality type

or cleanliness of the product or cleanliness of the pickers. Will regulatory

bodies stop us from using wild food and organic produce based on a few negative

cases? Probably, at least in the USA. I hope it doesn't come about in that

manner.

I see the serious but rare sensationalised stories as the thin end of the wedge

into public perception, for more government control. I'd have to look at each

proposed change to the legislation and have a vote rather than approve yet

another layer of governnmental oversight. Up here, generally the more the gov't

gets involved the worse things get. I disbelieve that the government can be

anything like decently effective. Just as an example of something I know about,

the fisheries department is helping to collapse the industry by not having half

the clue the fishermen and native tribes do about the number of returning

salmon; even with all the budget, manpower and great data gathering gear the

government can muster, they were out by more than 4 million returning fish again

this year, same thing as they almost shut the west coast fishery down for last

year.

all good,

Duncan

>

> Duncan,

>

> Since oversight seems to be working in Canada then doesn't it make sense that

we apply the same vigilance in the U.S.? These idiots (sorry idiots) that keep

screaming " Phude Fascism " are the problem not the solution. While personal

responsibility is always the first line of defense - and I would be the first to

recommend it - that doesn't always do the job in a society in which profit and

greed prevail. The truth is that if we didn't have government inspections there

would be a LOT more children severely impacted by consuming infected food

products, as this child was, and no one would be the wiser as to the cause. This

was indeed the situation before regulations and inspections were in place and at

least one of the reasons mortality rates have since declined. Healthy adults

have a much easier time of dealing with food born illnesses but young children

and the elderly do not. We need to consider the safety of more than just

ourselves.

>

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

<snip> I don't know how many cases of fast food poisoning there are in a year in

the USA, out of how many millions of burgers sold. Is it reasonable to allow or

not allow any of it, and is it even possible to not allow any of it?

Whether or not it is possible is irrelevant - and yes, it is reasonable to not

allow any of it.

Not all good,

Dee

[Guest guest]

I would vote against legislation that proposes to restrict organic produce sold

at the local market, wild-gathered groceries, self-raised or hunted meat, nose

picking, crawling on the ground, owning a pet, eating raw food, sampling fruit

off the tree, drinking creek water and other common practices that put one in

proximity to germs.

IMO, the thin end of the same legislative wedge that supports freedom from

bacterial contamination in food has also a thick end that will make illegal the

other possible contamination sources above 'for our own good' if we are not

vigilant. I'd take CODEX very seriously because if a transaction is made to

acquire the food it is subject to scrutiny if I understand it right. This kind

of scrutiny is not do-able or even wanted for all our food choices even though

we know that a tiny percentage of people with poor bowel ecology may foster an

infection.

I'm referring to the fact that pathogenic E. coli requires a rather weak

probiotic ecology in order to establish itself in the gut. I'd support educating

people on how to keep their guts healthy to reduce their risk of infection.

Maybe a black box warning on the hamburger would suffice to raise this kind of

awareness.

Meanwhile, exposure is always present. If one doesn't introduce e. coli to their

gut from their meat then they certainly will from 3-4 other foods on the same

plate at the same barbecue, and also from that toothbrush afterward. I support

careful factory food processing and fast food preparation but I think it's an

gross over-reaction to process food so no germs are present at all. I know the

nose pickers will be relieved by not having big brother overlooking the process

Myself, I choose to not buy irradiated produce from the States if I know it's

been so treated, and I keep up my family's probiotic bowel culture.

all good,

(PS Dee when I write my closing I don't mean the subject is " all good " at all,

it means I wish " all good " for my readers. It's a common saying here in the

Canadian Northwest.)

Duncan

> <snip> I don't know how many cases of fast food poisoning there are in a year

in the USA, out of how many millions of burgers sold. Is it reasonable to allow

or not allow any of it, and is it even possible to not allow any of it?

>

> Whether or not it is possible is irrelevant - and yes, it is reasonable to not

allow any of it.

>

> Not all good,

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

I suggest you reread Alobar's post on this subject. To make it easy for you I'll

quote it here:

" Duncan,

Things may be different in Canada, but here in the US, when one buys

hamburger which is not organic, one is taking risks.

FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle

A coalition of food and consumer groups that includes Consumers

Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the

Food and Drug Administration to ban the practice. Mc's Corp.,

the nation's largest restaurant user of beef, also wants the FDA to

prohibit the feeding of so-called poultry litter to cattle.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/31/business/fi-feed31

E. Coli Concern: Once-Tainted Meat Allowed Back Into System

Imagine a ton of freshly ground beef. The company in charge of

processing this meat finds out during a routine test that it is

contaminated with E. coli. They record the test results, which are

read by a government inspector, who acknowledges that the meat is

indeed tainted.

You might think that this beef would be headed straight for the

garbage bin. But in many cases, this meat is instead cooked, prepared

and packaged as a pre-cooked hamburger patty that you pick up from the

grocery store. And it's all completely legal.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/coli-concern-tainted-beef-makes-consumers/\

\

story?id=8987973

The problem is especially egregious for those of us who eat burger raw or rare.

Alobar " (end quote)

Definitely not all good,

Dee

[Guest guest]

Dee, let me explain it for you:

The story is not about serving E. coli contaminated meat, it is about cooking it

to render it pathogen-free and suitable for market. Rendered to alarm

sensibilities no doubt, but we all cook food to prevent E. coli infection, and

we know that " everything but the squeal " is used.

The meat that PASSED the E. coli test is the meat Alobar eats raw. If the RAW

meat was contaminated that would be an issue, but the factory had already found

it and processed it by cooking.

I left your post and quote below so you can re-read it. I think your problem

arose with the use of raw and cooked terminology in the same passage.

all good,

Duncan

>

> Duncan,

>

> I suggest you reread Alobar's post on this subject. To make it easy for you

I'll quote it here:

>

> " Duncan,

> Things may be different in Canada, but here in the US, when one buys

> hamburger which is not organic, one is taking risks.

>

> FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle

> A coalition of food and consumer groups that includes Consumers

> Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the

> Food and Drug Administration to ban the practice. Mc's Corp.,

> the nation's largest restaurant user of beef, also wants the FDA to

> prohibit the feeding of so-called poultry litter to cattle.

> http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/31/business/fi-feed31

>

> E. Coli Concern: Once-Tainted Meat Allowed Back Into System

> Imagine a ton of freshly ground beef. The company in charge of

> processing this meat finds out during a routine test that it is

> contaminated with E. coli. They record the test results, which are

> read by a government inspector, who acknowledges that the meat is

> indeed tainted.

>

> You might think that this beef would be headed straight for the

> garbage bin. But in many cases, this meat is instead cooked, prepared

> and packaged as a pre-cooked hamburger patty that you pick up from the

> grocery store. And it's all completely legal.

>

>

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/coli-concern-tainted-beef-makes-consumers/\

\

> story?id=8987973

>

> The problem is especially egregious for those of us who eat burger raw or

rare.

>

> Alobar " (end quote)

>

> Definitely not all good,

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

You couldn't eat a thing if it had to contain no dead pathogens.

Although the story is really proposed to be a minor rider on the newest 'tainted

food scare' about the raw hamburger that was recently found in the food chain,

the title even says " Government Standards Allow Previously Contaminated Meat, If

Properly Cooked, Onto Your Plate " . As such, it's not considered to be tainted

and does not even contain the subject matter to be related to the raw food

scare.

(snip) Dr. Ira Breite, assistant clinical professor of gastroenterology at the

New York University Langone Medical Center, agreed that tainted meat is indeed

safe to eat if it is properly cooked to decontaminate it..... Is it gross?

Yes... It's the ick factor(/snip)

See, it's the " ICk factor " that the article is reporting on, not contamination

risk in the processed food.

Remember the recycled feces into food story from Japanese researchers some years

back? It was not considered to be tainted food, even though dead pathogens might

comprise 50%-70% of the processed fecal matter.

I think the sad truth is that organic meat is almost as likely to harbour

pathogens as non-organic. It's the sloppy butchery that should be looked at

rather than how the meat is grown. Anybody can be that sloppy.

all good,

Duncan

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

I guess you decided to ignore the part of his post that said:

> > The problem is especially egregious for those of us who eat burger raw or

rare.

Note the words ESPECIALLY egregious - so please don't pretend to " explain "

anything to me.

Two additional points: If the factory had already found it and processed it by

cooking, as you say, then how could it still be raw (if one wishes to eat it

raw)? And what of those who like their beef rare or medium rare? I know lots of

people who do. Isn't it " reasonable " to do everything we can to protect them

too? I think most would agree that it is.

Not all good (Oh, and btw, my Canadian friends usually end with " Cheers " )

Dee

> >

> > Duncan,

> >

> > I suggest you reread Alobar's post on this subject. To make it easy for you

I'll quote it here:

> >

> > " Duncan,

> > Things may be different in Canada, but here in the US, when one buys

> > hamburger which is not organic, one is taking risks.

> >

> > FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle

> > A coalition of food and consumer groups that includes Consumers

> > Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the

> > Food and Drug Administration to ban the practice. Mc's Corp.,

> > the nation's largest restaurant user of beef, also wants the FDA to

> > prohibit the feeding of so-called poultry litter to cattle.

> > http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/31/business/fi-feed31

> >

> > E. Coli Concern: Once-Tainted Meat Allowed Back Into System

> > Imagine a ton of freshly ground beef. The company in charge of

> > processing this meat finds out during a routine test that it is

> > contaminated with E. coli. They record the test results, which are

> > read by a government inspector, who acknowledges that the meat is

> > indeed tainted.

> >

> > You might think that this beef would be headed straight for the

> > garbage bin. But in many cases, this meat is instead cooked, prepared

> > and packaged as a pre-cooked hamburger patty that you pick up from the

> > grocery store. And it's all completely legal.

> >

> >

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/coli-concern-tainted-beef-makes-consumers/\

\

> > story?id=8987973

> >

> > The problem is especially egregious for those of us who eat burger raw or

rare.

> >

> > Alobar " (end quote)

> >

> > Definitely not all good,

> > Dee

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I think you should quit while you're not ahead Duncan. I think I'll take the

word of the Consumers Union, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and

even Mc's over some professor who may well be a shill for the farm

factories feeding chicken feces to cattle. Not only is that an ick factor, it's

totally unconscionable, unnecessary, and uncalled for. Do you mean to tell me

that even organic farmers are feeding such crap to their cows? I seriously doubt

it but if they are they should be prohibited from doing it as well. You can call

me a " phude fascist " if you will.

Not All Good,

Dee

> FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle

> A coalition of food and consumer groups that includes Consumers

> Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the

> Food and Drug Administration to ban the practice. Mc's Corp.,

> the nation's largest restaurant user of beef, also wants the FDA to

> prohibit the feeding of so-called poultry litter to cattle.

> http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/31/business/fi-feed31

>

>

> You couldn't eat a thing if it had to contain no dead pathogens.

>

> Although the story is really proposed to be a minor rider on the newest

'tainted food scare' about the raw hamburger that was recently found in the food

chain, the title even says " Government Standards Allow Previously Contaminated

Meat, If Properly Cooked, Onto Your Plate " . As such, it's not considered to be

tainted and does not even contain the subject matter to be related to the raw

food scare.

>

> (snip) Dr. Ira Breite, assistant clinical professor of gastroenterology at the

New York University Langone Medical Center, agreed that tainted meat is indeed

safe to eat if it is properly cooked to decontaminate it..... Is it gross?

Yes... It's the ick factor(/snip)

>

> See, it's the " ICk factor " that the article is reporting on, not contamination

risk in the processed food.

>

> Remember the recycled feces into food story from Japanese researchers some

years back? It was not considered to be tainted food, even though dead pathogens

might comprise 50%-70% of the processed fecal matter.

>

> I think the sad truth is that organic meat is almost as likely to harbour

pathogens as non-organic. It's the sloppy butchery that should be looked at

rather than how the meat is grown. Anybody can be that sloppy.

>

> all good,

>

> Duncan

>

[Guest guest]

Dee, you don't agree that untainted raw meat would be OK and not " especially

egregious " ? It seems to me that untainted raw meat conforms to the criteria

Alobar was looking for and it seems OK to me.

If the inspection in question had NOT protected the people and the meat had been

sold raw, I'd agree with you that it's " especially egregious " to find that out

by surprise. But, according to the story you're commenting on, no such surprise

occurred; the inspection had failed the meat, which was subsequently kicked out

to be cooked to properly sterilize it. I seriously think you misread the article

both times, Dee.

Cooked meat has never been seen to be egregious; this is kinda new even in a

sensationalised non-news story like that one. Still, all the negativity the

article could muster has boiled down to an " ICk factor " ; in other words public

perception was the real topic. People could do well to remember there are dead

germs on everything that is cooked or irradiated.

I think Alobar's subsequent story on the " retail sale " of well-tainted meat

could be seen as egregious. I support regulating that situation.

all good,

Duncan

>

> Duncan,

>

> I guess you decided to ignore the part of his post that said:

> > > The problem is especially egregious for those of us who eat burger raw or

rare.

>

> Note the words ESPECIALLY egregious - so please don't pretend to " explain "

anything to me.

>

> Two additional points: If the factory had already found it and processed it by

cooking, as you say, then how could it still be raw (if one wishes to eat it

raw)? And what of those who like their beef rare or medium rare? I know lots of

people who do. Isn't it " reasonable " to do everything we can to protect them

too? I think most would agree that it is.

>

> Not all good (Oh, and btw, my Canadian friends usually end with " Cheers " )

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

OF COURSE untainted RAW meat would be OK. But cooked meat is not raw meat and I

fail to see why you keep confusing the situation by continuing to stress the

fact that the company proceeded to cook the meat when it failed to pass

inspection when the real issue is whether or not farms should be allowed to

feed feces from one animal to feed another - or any such egregious practices.

When such practices are allowed then those who eat that meat raw, or even rare,

is in danger of becoming ill. If you just keep on repeating over and over that

cooked meat is ok, then there aren't any other options for how one can safely

eat beef except for well cooked - unless they know exactly where their meat

comes from and how the animals are raised. As I said before, that just isn't

realistic for everyone. But glad to see you finally agree on the need to

regulate the situation - though I see no reason why you select only the " retail

sale " to regulate rather than the way the animals are raised.

Dee

>

> Dee, you don't agree that untainted raw meat would be OK and not " especially

egregious " ? It seems to me that untainted raw meat conforms to the criteria

Alobar was looking for and it seems OK to me.

>

> If the inspection in question had NOT protected the people and the meat had

been sold raw, I'd agree with you that it's " especially egregious " to find that

out by surprise. But, according to the story you're commenting on, no such

surprise occurred; the inspection had failed the meat, which was subsequently

kicked out to be cooked to properly sterilize it. I seriously think you misread

the article both times, Dee.

>

> Cooked meat has never been seen to be egregious; this is kinda new even in a

sensationalised non-news story like that one. Still, all the negativity the

article could muster has boiled down to an " ICk factor " ; in other words public

perception was the real topic. People could do well to remember there are dead

germs on everything that is cooked or irradiated.

>

> I think Alobar's subsequent story on the " retail sale " of well-tainted meat

could be seen as egregious. I support regulating that situation.

>

> all good,

>

> Duncan

>

[Guest guest]

Dee, I didn't read the feeding feces to livestock story because I'm fairly sure

pathogen-free pellets and granules are most commonly used, even in fertlizer.

The animal feed story and the handling tainted meat story will probably remain

unconnected except by the " ICk factor " mentioned in article about processing

tainted meat.

If raw manure is currently legal as a feed additive I would support a regulation

to process it.

An animal's flesh has very low pathogen levels so processing practices are much

more likely than diet to inoculate the meat anyway. Less splashing would be

great.

all good,

Duncan

>

> Duncan,

>

> OF COURSE untainted RAW meat would be OK. But cooked meat is not raw meat and

I fail to see why you keep confusing the situation by continuing to stress the

fact that the company proceeded to cook the meat when it failed to pass

inspection when the real issue is whether or not farms should be allowed to

feed feces from one animal to feed another - or any such egregious practices.

When such practices are allowed then those who eat that meat raw, or even rare,

is in danger of becoming ill. If you just keep on repeating over and over that

cooked meat is ok, then there aren't any other options for how one can safely

eat beef except for well cooked - unless they know exactly where their meat

comes from and how the animals are raised. As I said before, that just isn't

realistic for everyone. But glad to see you finally agree on the need to

regulate the situation - though I see no reason why you select only the " retail

sale " to regulate rather than the way the animals are raised.

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

Oh, I see - you didn't even read the story? Well that explains a lot. And if raw

manure is currently legal as a feed additive you would support a regulation to

PROCESS it for feed?

So, in other words what you are saying is - let them eat shit as long as it's

processed? Well, at least you're not still maintaining it's ok to feed them raw

shit as long as we cook it long enough - because feeding raw shit to animals is

what this fuss was (and is) all about.

Oh, and regarding your claim that> An animal's flesh has very low pathogen

levels so processing practices are much more likely than diet to inoculate the

meat anyway>

I guess you've never heard of mad cow disease?

Not all good,

Dee

> >

> > Duncan,

> >

> > OF COURSE untainted RAW meat would be OK. But cooked meat is not raw meat

and I fail to see why you keep confusing the situation by continuing to stress

the fact that the company proceeded to cook the meat when it failed to pass

inspection when the real issue is whether or not farms should be allowed to

feed feces from one animal to feed another - or any such egregious practices.

When such practices are allowed then those who eat that meat raw, or even rare,

is in danger of becoming ill. If you just keep on repeating over and over that

cooked meat is ok, then there aren't any other options for how one can safely

eat beef except for well cooked - unless they know exactly where their meat

comes from and how the animals are raised. As I said before, that just isn't

realistic for everyone. But glad to see you finally agree on the need to

regulate the situation - though I see no reason why you select only the " retail

sale " to regulate rather than the way the animals are raised.

> > Dee

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Yup, Dee, two unrelated story links appeared in one post and I read the one that

interested me. The poultry-manure-in-cow-feed story failed to mention RAW

poultry waste. It seems you may have misread both articles, much like you did a

few months ago in another story.

Our discussion has not been on the animals' feed until now; it has so far been

on factory-tainted meat, not diseases such as mad cow disease. In any case

diseased animals that may be a hazard are already treated as such.

A re-read of this bit from the same news story might make you feel better about

mad cow disease: " FDA this year banned the use of certain types of tissue from

any form of animal feed, even that eaten by chickens. Those tissues include

brain, spinal cord material and other high-risk tissues where the pathogens

believed to cause mad cow disease typically are found. The tissue ban greatly

reduces chances that prions, implicated in mad cow, can find their way into the

food chain, said. She also said the disease was not a threat to public

health. " Further, " 800,000 cows have recently been tested and found negative in

the USA for mad cow. "

In other words they removed all but the " ICk factor " from the actual waste

stream, much like the other sensationalised article pointed out had been done

with the tainted meat.

As the manure-feed article points out, " feeding farm animals feces may sound

gross, but it goes back to the dawn of animal agriculture, said Dean Cliver,

professor emeritus of food safety at UC . " If anything we have only

improved the historic approach by moving away from " RAW " amendments to cooked.

Dee, if you did read the article correctly and then reported on it incorrectly,

you could expect to be caught. Assaulting peoples' sensibilities while using

misrepresentation to make your point does us a disservice.

If you dig up some facts such as raw feces is still being used in certain feeds,

please let us know. If it is not happening, we may be down to only an " ICk

factor " and you can deal with that at the point of sale.

I don't consider myself complacent here but I don't alarm for nothing and I see

the " ICk factor " articles as pure sensationalism.

all good,

Duncan

>

> Duncan,

>

> Oh, I see - you didn't even read the story? Well that explains a lot. And if

raw manure is currently legal as a feed additive you would support a regulation

to PROCESS it for feed?

>

> So, in other words what you are saying is - let them eat shit as long as it's

processed? Well, at least you're not still maintaining it's ok to feed them raw

shit as long as we cook it long enough - because feeding raw shit to animals is

what this fuss was (and is) all about.

>

> Oh, and regarding your claim that> An animal's flesh has very low pathogen

levels so processing practices are much more likely than diet to inoculate the

meat anyway>

> I guess you've never heard of mad cow disease?

>

> Not all good,

> Dee

>

>

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

The articles you keep accusing me of misrepresenting were originally posted by

Alobar in response to your assertion that " properly cooking the hamburger that

caused an outbreak. . .was the parent's responsibility " . (see message 31190).

Alobar begins his reply to you by saying:

>Duncan,

Things may be different in Canada, but here in the US, when one buys

hamburger which is not organic, one is taking risks.

He then quotes the two articles and ends with:

> The problem is especially egregious for those of us who eat burger raw or

rare.

end quote

So, if you have a problem with the way those articles were interpreted then I

think you should take that up with Alobar rather them with me. And as far as my

mentioning mad cow disease, I only brought that up in relation to your assertion

that " an animal's flesh has very low pathogen levels so processing practices are

much more likely than diet to inoculate the meat. " As you may know, mad cow

disease was not related to processing but to the cows being fed the meat of

other animals - making your assertion re: low pathogen levels in animal flesh a

bit less than one might have confidence in. You were the one who raised that

point, however, not I.

Here are some recent facts on Salmonella and e-coli linked to farming practices:

eggs:

http://tinyurl.com/28snf7j

Beef:

http://tinyurl.com/242bp82

Beyond the ick factor:

http://tinyurl.com/2992gbd

85 recalls in one year:

http://food.change.org/blog/view/food_safety_crisis_85_recalls

Disgusting Conditions Confirm Dangers of Factory Farms:

http://tinyurl.com/25but89

Bison:

http://tinyurl.com/2f9uxbp

Canada:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/09/canada-cowboy-burgers-recalled-for-e-coli/

/510:

http://www.marlerblog.com

Not All Good,

Dee

>

> Yup, Dee, two unrelated story links appeared in one post and I read the one

that interested me. The poultry-manure-in-cow-feed story failed to mention RAW

poultry waste. It seems you may have misread both articles, much like you did a

few months ago in another story.

>

> Our discussion has not been on the animals' feed until now; it has so far been

on factory-tainted meat, not diseases such as mad cow disease. In any case

diseased animals that may be a hazard are already treated as such.

>

> A re-read of this bit from the same news story might make you feel better

about mad cow disease: " FDA this year banned the use of certain types of tissue

from any form of animal feed, even that eaten by chickens. Those tissues include

brain, spinal cord material and other high-risk tissues where the pathogens

believed to cause mad cow disease typically are found. The tissue ban greatly

reduces chances that prions, implicated in mad cow, can find their way into the

food chain, said. She also said the disease was not a threat to public

health. " Further, " 800,000 cows have recently been tested and found negative in

the USA for mad cow. "

>

> In other words they removed all but the " ICk factor " from the actual waste

stream, much like the other sensationalised article pointed out had been done

with the tainted meat.

>

> As the manure-feed article points out, " feeding farm animals feces may sound

gross, but it goes back to the dawn of animal agriculture, said Dean Cliver,

professor emeritus of food safety at UC . " If anything we have only

improved the historic approach by moving away from " RAW " amendments to cooked.

>

> Dee, if you did read the article correctly and then reported on it

incorrectly, you could expect to be caught. Assaulting peoples' sensibilities

while using misrepresentation to make your point does us a disservice.

>

> If you dig up some facts such as raw feces is still being used in certain

feeds, please let us know. If it is not happening, we may be down to only an

" ICk factor " and you can deal with that at the point of sale.

>

> I don't consider myself complacent here but I don't alarm for nothing and I

see the " ICk factor " articles as pure sensationalism.

>

> all good,

>

> Duncan

>

[Guest guest]

Dee, you persist in calling the E. coli scare " linked to farming practices " , but

it is not. It is entirely about carefully handling the meat after the animal is

killed. Sloppy butchery and handling can be a problem in any slaughterhouse or

processing area, even if you do your own.

Most countries including the USA have had salmonella problems for decades now;

however, Canadian eggs and chickens are considered salmonella free even though

our farming practices are pretty much the same here as they are in the USA.

Dnno what went wrong with our neighbours' farms to the south but salmonella-free

chickens are still readily available, and purging American chicken farms down to

bare concrete, sterilising the floors and starting anew is an acceptable option.

I see that after 800,000 animals were tested to be clean, the mad cow scare is

about over. The meat is about as germ-free as we can make it. Yup there was an

exception. As other exceptions arise they will be dealt with so I have no issue

with the process so far.

I eat factory beef; pelletized chicken manure in their feed is irrelevant to me.

I take Black Indian Shilajit for fulvic minerals; it certainly contains or

contained at one point rodent and snake dirt and probably monkey and bat poo as

well, according to information from people who have gone to the source for a

look. I eat organic carrots from the garden and organic mushrooms from the

forest and I don't always wash them; you'd never get all the germs off anyway. I

even drink creek water when I'm out in the bush. I accept some risks of living.

Sure, awareness of the risks is great, but not blowing them out of proportion is

laudable and not allowing the ICk factor to induce an emotional outbreak is

laudable too.

I looked at the first link, the egg one. The female reporter doing a story on

Austin " Jack " DeCoster included sensational allegations about others as if they

were pertinent. The allegations are entirely unconnected to the man: " in 2002,

five undocumented workers were reportedly raped at DeCoster Farms by three

former supervisors " . I suspect the girl dredged up unrelated facts for people

who don't read so well to play on the " ICk factor " sensationalism that overlies

the health story. If I was her boss, as I fired her for it I'd tell her next

time she can please just deal with some facts about the story rather than

muckraking. At least the courts are more honest than the press.

The beef recall article is fine; it is reporting on a system that is working by

identifying and recalling tainted meat (and eggs). Again (and again), this has

nothing to do with farming OR animal feed, the topics we were discussing, and

everything to do with the subsequent handling of the meat.

As I said, replacing the infected bird farms is the option for the eggs issue

and it's about time down there in the USA. Some of the organic farmers have

already done it, and appropriate congrats for doing it. Maybe many managers need

a fire built under them; the wake-up call might seem ominous to them:

" Associated Press: " A poultry industry specialist cautioned, however, that such

conditions likely exist at many egg farms in the U.S. " "

Now we officially know that some individuals are to blame rather than farming

practices, which are standardised: " FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, MD, last

week said these companies were " not operating with the standards of practice

that we consider responsible, " according to the New York Times. "

Certainly, individuals should be accountable, and the law is looking into it as

we speak, without the sensationalism of the " ICk factor " some people have about

feeding cows pelletized manure, which had nothing at all to do with any of these

stories you've posted.

I'm not American but I've already formed my opinion against bill S510. Back to

the drawing board I figure; for now, the existing regulations will suffice.

Maybe you are not deliberately sullying the waters but my comment on your

reading and comprehension arose from your repeated referral to an article that

did not at all contain the support for your point that you said it did, and it's

not the first time. If you regroup today to mount some better arguments we can

continue the discussion later. Even though you often proffer the sensationalised

" ICk factor " rather than health data, I mainly find your posts stimulating

enough to check out. Perception is important in the marketplace, while fact

applies to biology. I'd prefer to discuss biology and keep the " ICk factor "

separate.

all good,

Duncan

>

> Duncan,

>

> The articles you keep accusing me of misrepresenting were originally posted by

Alobar in response to your assertion that " properly cooking the hamburger that

caused an outbreak. . .was the parent's responsibility " . (see message 31190).

Alobar begins his reply to you by saying:

>

> >Duncan,

> Things may be different in Canada, but here in the US, when one buys

> hamburger which is not organic, one is taking risks.

>

> He then quotes the two articles and ends with:

> > The problem is especially egregious for those of us who eat burger raw or

rare.

> end quote

>

> So, if you have a problem with the way those articles were interpreted then I

think you should take that up with Alobar rather them with me. And as far as my

mentioning mad cow disease, I only brought that up in relation to your assertion

that " an animal's flesh has very low pathogen levels so processing practices are

much more likely than diet to inoculate the meat. " As you may know, mad cow

disease was not related to processing but to the cows being fed the meat of

other animals - making your assertion re: low pathogen levels in animal flesh a

bit less than one might have confidence in. You were the one who raised that

point, however, not I.

>

> Here are some recent facts on Salmonella and e-coli linked to farming

practices:

>

> eggs:

> http://tinyurl.com/28snf7j

>

> Beef:

> http://tinyurl.com/242bp82

>

> Beyond the ick factor:

> http://tinyurl.com/2992gbd

>

> 85 recalls in one year:

> http://food.change.org/blog/view/food_safety_crisis_85_recalls

>

> Disgusting Conditions Confirm Dangers of Factory Farms:

> http://tinyurl.com/25but89

>

> Bison:

> http://tinyurl.com/2f9uxbp

>

> Canada:

>

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/09/canada-cowboy-burgers-recalled-for-e-coli/

>

> /510:

> http://www.marlerblog.com

>

> Not All Good,

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

Perhaps this will convince you that the E. coli " scare? " is indeed linked to

farming practices.

http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/how-egg-industry-greed-caused-the-salmonella-ou\

tbreak/

But then again, maybe not. Do keep in mind, however, that the E. coli in the

eggs could have come from nowhere but the farm as there is no " butchery "

involved and " handling " is unlikely as the E. coli was found inside the shells.

In the case of meat, some contamination is due to handling and some to farm

practices. It is not always easy in that case to tell. That is the reason that

ALL methods of meat production - from animal feed and handling to the rest of

production should be subjected to proper oversight and supervision - because

it's

Not All Good,

Dee

>

> Dee, you persist in calling the E. coli scare " linked to farming practices " ,

but it is not. It is entirely about carefully handling the meat after the animal

is killed. Sloppy butchery and handling can be a problem in any slaughterhouse

or processing area, even if you do your own.

>