Another fun but stupid poll

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: "Are you going to tell us you're not biased against R-CALF?"

I am biased towards the truth so naturally that would make be biased against the lies and deception of R-CULT!

Sandman: "How about your anti-BSE testing bias (Deception ) that defies all logic?"

I am not against BSE testing that does what it suggests it would do. I am against the fraud that you promote.

Yep, all R-CALF does is lie - not a lick of truth ever. :roll:
And organic suggests nothing? :roll:

 

[ocm]

OCM: "Anyone who claims no bias is just plain wrong and self-deceived."

Reading comprehension problem ocm?

Never said I didn't have a bias, I said I have no bias other than the truth. The truth is my bias and the fact that I detest liars and deceivers.

Still none of the mindless lemmings have stepped forward to explain this "so called" bias that I am supposed to have other than the truth.

STILL WAITING......................


~SH~

Semantics!!

Saying you have no bias other than the truth is like saying you have no bias. Equivalent statement.

 

[Econ101]

Hey, SH, you brought up the idea of using other logins so you could vote more than once. Did you or anyone you know do that? I didn't and I don't know anyone who did.

The truth and nothing but the truth, please.

 

[Jason]

Yep, all R-CALF does is lie - not a lick of truth ever. :roll:
And organic suggests nothing? :roll:

I'm glad you can see R-calf in a clear light now.

As for your organic question, to be called organic a product has to be raised with no chemicals or antibiotics, fed on crops or land not treated with herbicides or pesticides, meeting all requirements set out for organic products. Operations that are certified organic have to be certified and are audited as to compliance. Products are also randomly tested as to residues of chemicals. Sort of like having mandatory ID.

 

[Econ101]

Yep, all R-CALF does is lie - not a lick of truth ever. :roll:
And organic suggests nothing? :roll:

I'm glad you can see R-calf in a clear light now.

As for your organic question, to be called organic a product has to be raised with no chemicals or antibiotics, fed on crops or land not treated with herbicides or pesticides, meeting all requirements set out for organic products. Operations that are certified organic have to be certified and are audited as to compliance. Products are also randomly tested as to residues of chemicals. Sort of like having mandatory ID.

Jason, you haven't been privy to the organic dairy issues have you?

 

[Sandhusker]

Yep, all R-CALF does is lie - not a lick of truth ever. :roll:
And organic suggests nothing? :roll:

I'm glad you can see R-calf in a clear light now.

As for your organic question, to be called organic a product has to be raised with no chemicals or antibiotics, fed on crops or land not treated with herbicides or pesticides, meeting all requirements set out for organic products. Operations that are certified organic have to be certified and are audited as to compliance. Products are also randomly tested as to residues of chemicals. Sort of like having mandatory ID.

Is organic safer?

 

[Jason]

Is organic safer?

For the environment yes. Chemicals all have adverse effects sometimes not many or not severe but effects none the less.

The food produced traditionally is safe as long as it isn't sprayed with the wrong chemical at the wrong time. A good example is fruits and vegetables, they recommend you wash them all under running water to rid them of insecticides.

I have talked with people with severe environmental illness and they are extremely sensitive to chemical residues. They have switched to organic and found relief of the symptoms. This could be a placebo effect or real results. Regardless there is enough support to justify organic.

 

[Econ101]

Is organic safer?

For the environment yes. Chemicals all have adverse effects sometimes not many or not severe but effects none the less.

The food produced traditionally is safe as long as it isn't sprayed with the wrong chemical at the wrong time. A good example is fruits and vegetables, they recommend you wash them all under running water to rid them of insecticides.

I have talked with people with severe environmental illness and they are extremely sensitive to chemical residues. They have switched to organic and found relief of the symptoms. This could be a placebo effect or real results. Regardless there is enough support to justify organic.

Jason, I agree with you on this post. There is a tradeoff between productivity and organic methods. There has been some advancement on that front, however. Quantity vs. quality. It is still a personal value choice but more people are making it. Prince Charles is a big proponent (you still hail the queen up there in Canada don't you?).

 

[Sandhusker]

Is organic safer?

For the environment yes. Chemicals all have adverse effects sometimes not many or not severe but effects none the less.

The food produced traditionally is safe as long as it isn't sprayed with the wrong chemical at the wrong time. A good example is fruits and vegetables, they recommend you wash them all under running water to rid them of insecticides.

I have talked with people with severe environmental illness and they are extremely sensitive to chemical residues. They have switched to organic and found relief of the symptoms. This could be a placebo effect or real results. Regardless there is enough support to justify organic.

Yes, but is the food safer, more nutricious, wholesome, etc....

 

[Jason]

Most people agree the food tastes better but nutrition values are the same.

 

[Econ101]

What is worse than finding a worm in an apple?




Finding half a worm.

If you don't spray apples, you might not get very many without worms. Take your choice. Do you want protein with that apple?

 

[Sandhusker]

Most people agree the food tastes better but nutrition values are the same.

I'd be willing to put organic beef, tomatoes, etc... alongside nonorganic and bet on a taste test.

You're setting yourself up for a split with SH, Jason. If organic product is not better than inorganic for the benefits buyers think, they are being deceived by illusions. :roll: Do you think he will change his views on either BSE tested or organic product to become consistant in his views, or will he retain the hypocracy he defines?

Stay tuned.....

 

[Jason]

Where is the illusion?

Orgainic = raised with no chemicals.

Traditional = raised with chemicals.

Buyers decide if the added cost of organic is worth it to them or not. There is nothing stating orgainic is healthier for the person.

There is science that says organic is better for the environment.

A BSE test on animals that haven't developed prions that can be tested yet is a waste of time. Totally different scenario.

You mentioned Hallal butchering a while back. SH hadn't heard of it, but I have. It is a religious 'rite' or process that is for a persons religious beliefs not food safety. A hallel label isn't going to make others want their beef to be butchered that way, in fact it would preclude those who want it Kosher. Again a totally different scenario.

 

[Sandhusker]

Jason, "You mentioned Hallal butchering a while back. SH hadn't heard of it, but I have. It is a religious 'rite' or process that is for a persons religious beliefs not food safety. A hallel label isn't going to make others want their beef to be butchered that way, in fact it would preclude those who want it Kosher. Again a totally different scenario."

USDA denied testing because it wasn't based on sound science. Halal is based on religion, but it's not based on sound science, either.

 

[Jason]

If you saw a Hallel label would that make you want your beef butchered Hallel? Not unless you are of that religious order (Muslim??).

If you saw a label BSE tested, would you want that or one not tested?

The inference is the one not tested might have BSE, otherwise why test it?

You are the one that says the USDA inspected label is too hard for consumers to understand, but you now say they will understand the BSE tested label with no trouble?

By allowing one company to BSE test and label the beef as tested it creates a precident so the entire industry either has to adopt wasted testing or lose consumers from the confusion it creates trying to explain the BSE tested does not mean BSE free, but doesn't mean BSE contaminated either.

 

[Sandhusker]

Why pull the "inference" card on BSE tested product when every dang thing you buy inferes something? Why allow CAB beef to be sold - doesn't that infer something that may not be correct? Banning products that infer something will clear the shelves.

"NOTICE: BSE tested does not guarantee BSE free" Is that a hard label to understand?

The entire industry does NOT have to adopt BSE testing simply because somebody is testing. Has the entire industry had to adopt organic, hormone free, Kosher, Halal, CAB, Lean, etc....? Why would BSE tested beef be any different - it's simply an option at the meat case. The market will decide what people want and what the industry must do. If people want it, they'll buy it. If not they'll buy something else. If they have any questions, they'll get answers.

 

[Jason]

As soon as you deal with an emotional issue like BSE the label is more important.

Why not label as arsenic free? The implication is other beef has arsenic.

CAB label implys other beef doesn't meet those standards, but that is consumer preference, not a health issue.

Allowing a potential health concern for labeling is not a place we want to go. There is more downside than upside doing this. Consumers have heard about BSE and even the mention on a label causes any rational or irrational fears to come to the fore. If a consumer hasn't heard about CAB they investigate and no fears are presented, just the taste vs cost of the package.

 

[Sandhusker]

Judging by consumer's reactions to BSE in this country, I'd hesitate to call it an emotional issue.

I see your points on labeling, but the "arsnic free" label could be applied right now. If somebody thought they could make a buck on that label, they would be doing it. Retailers know that installing questions or fear is not conducive to long term sales. Point is, I don't think tested beef would be featured or pushed by retailers. I don't see them even offering it unless customers are asking for it.

What I see as a dangerous road is the USDA not applying standards evenly, and even making up requirements that have never been a requirement in the past. What is even more troubling is that, in the case of Creekstone, the tested product would be for a totally different country where testing is currently the law!

 

[Jason]

Judging by consumer's reactions to BSE in this country, I'd hesitate to call it an emotional issue.

I see your points on labeling, but the "arsnic free" label could be applied right now. If somebody thought they could make a buck on that label, they would be doing it. Retailers know that installing questions or fear is not conducive to long term sales. Point is, I don't think tested beef would be featured or pushed by retailers. I don't see them even offering it unless customers are asking for it.

What I see as a dangerous road is the USDA not applying standards evenly, and even making up requirements that have never been a requirement in the past. What is even more troubling is that, in the case of Creekstone, the tested product would be for a totally different country where testing is currently the law!

Why open the can of worms? The Japanese don't take all the beef from those tested carcasses and someone at Creekstone decides to test the US market with the label...then what?

Consumers start questioning why is tested beef available? Do they need tested beef? Maybe they should just not bjy beef at all?

Why support a needless test?

 

[Sandhusker]

Jason, "Why open the can of worms? The Japanese don't take all the beef from those tested carcasses and someone at Creekstone decides to test the US market with the label...then what?"

I guess we'll see if tested beef (and the additional price) has any selling power. I don't think it will.

Jason, "Consumers start questioning why is tested beef available? Do they need tested beef? Maybe they should just not buy beef at all?"

I don't see that happening. I think if consumers had any questions, they would be balking already.

Jason, "Why support a needless test?"

Because I don't see how anybody has the call to stand in the way of a company meeting a consumer's demand as long as nobody outside of the deal is being injured. It seems the anti-testing group is against testing simply because they don't want it personally. That's not a good enough reason to block free enterprise. There a lot of things that I think we would be better off if they were not allowed to be sold, but that's not the way it works in this society.