• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Dogburgers anyone?

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Location
South East Kansas
Dogburgers anyone?

Posted by Andrew Martin at 4:23 pm CST

A short notice from the United States Department of Agriculture has created a stir-and perhaps a wave of nausea-among the nation's meat inspectors.

Called "FSIS NOTICE 15-06: Use of Non-Amenable Animal Tissue in Inspected Products," the notice essentially says that animals that you wouldn't normally associate with hamburgers can be "included in amenable meat or poultry products produced in official establishments."

In other words, anything from deer to dog meat can be ground into hamburger, as long as it meets state regulations, which inspectors say tend to be looser than the federal government's.

"Suffice it to say, this is bizarre to inspectors in the field," said Trent Berhow, president of the Midwest Council of Food Inspectors locals, who lives in Iowa. "To read this, it looks to us that any product that is slaughtered under state inspection requirements can be co-mingled with federally inspected products.

"Could you bring roadkill in?" he asked. "I don't know how to read this. I don't think you would get (the USDA) to say we are talking about roadkill here."

Steven Cohen, a spokesman for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, said the notice was simply clarifying previous policies that had conflicted with each other. The bottom line, Cohen said, is that any kind of animal meat can be used with USDA inspected meat as long as its not adulterated.

For instance, he said, he said buffalo meat could be blended with ground beef, though he noted that the types of meat would have be listed as part of the ingredients on the label. Could dog meat be blended with ground beef?

"I don't believe that it is illegal, but there is no place that is producing dog meat," Cohen said, adding that the regulation fits a "very limited circumstance. "I don't think there's anyone who is doing this on a commercial basis."

But roadkill wouldn't qualify because, since the animal wasn't slaughtered, it would be considered adulterated, he said.

Non-amenable animal tissue, as defined in the notice, is any tissue from animals not subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. It includes edible tissue from exotic animals, rabbits, migratory birds and other animals not under the scope of USDA inspection, like alligator and kangaroo.

News of the notice swept through the community of meat inspectors after one of them sent an email to USDA's technical support center asking for clarification. In response to a question, Kris Kenne, a USDA staff officer, said someone could mix deer meat with pork and sell deer dogs with a USDA logo as long as the ingredients were labeled and state law allowed it.

Does this also mean that a slaughtered cat or dog can be added to sausage, Kenne was asked?
"Yes, that is a possibility should one wish to pursue to use them as an ingredient in the product. Public perception may not be so acceptable of the practice though," Kenne responded.

Kenne was not at his office on Friday and could not be reached for comment.
 
PORKER said:
That right ,Kangaroo trim from Austrialia in your burger,OR Dog

We are getting closer and closer to the Soylent Green movie:



RECENT REVIEWS
* The Boys from Brazil
* Gamera
* The Black Hole
* The Thing (1951)
* "Who Goes There?"
* A Canticle for Leibowitz
* The Shockwave Rider
* The Lost World
* 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
* Solaris
* Akira
* Starship Troopers
* Dune
* Earth vs. The Flying Saucers
* The Martian Chronicles
* Forbidden Planet
* War of the Worlds
* Metropolis


Request a review

Letters

Gallery

Back issues

Search

Feedback

Submissions

The Staff

Home


Suggestions

Soylent Green

Hmm....so what exactly is Olestra, anyway?
* Soylent Green
* Starring Charlton Heston, Edward G. Robinson
* MGM/UA Home Video
* Rated PG
* 97 minutes
* Color 1973

Review by Tamara I. Hladik

In 2022, New York City is populated with 40 million people, half of whom are unemployed. The air is smoggy and sooty, and the sun bakes everything, everyday, at 90 degrees. Overpopulation and the destruction of the environment may have rendered human life cheap, but food--that is, real food--is quite expensive. A jar of real strawberry jam costs $150, if it's available--supermarkets don't exist anymore. The government now dispenses rations of food substances made by the Soylent corporation: Soylent Yellow, Soylent Red, and the newest product, Soylent Green.
Our Pick: B-

But even these Soylent products are in short supply. Riot police are always dispatched when Soylent is distributed, because violence kicks in when the food runs out. Thorn (Heston) is a member of this modern, beleaguered police force, which pilfers every crime scene for the necessities of life. When Thorn is called in to investigate the death of a Soylent Corporation executive, his take is a treasure trove: a towel, a bar of soap, paper, and some real food--celery, a couple of apples, and half a pound of beef.

But what at first seems to Thorn a clumsy robbery soon seems a highly-managed assassination. But ironically, it is the death of Thorn's aging friend, Sol (Robinson), one of the few who still remembered what food was, what plenty meant, that cracks the case and unmasks a conspiracy. It is only through Sol's death that Thorn understands what the world has lost and what it has become...
Dystopia, euthanasia and all the rest

Soylent Green is a basic, cautionary tale of what could become of humanity physically and spiritually if it doesn't nurture the planet that nurtures it. There is little in this film that has not been seen in its brethren: faceless, oppressive crowds; sheep mentality; the corrosion of the soul, of imagination, of collective memory. Quirkily enough, Soylent Green often succeeds despite its director, whose tendency is to overuse Charlton Heston to illustrate every nuance of this dystopia.

Ironically, the film's most powerful moments do not belong to Heston, who makes a dubious, ambiguous hero. It is Robinson who lays claim to the most moving passages of the film. As Sol he speaks frequently throughout the film of what the planet was like, and he sounds like any old-timer of any generation. But in this bleak future, as one of the few who remembers, he is the film's conscience and soul. When Sol finally succumbs to despair and relinquishes himself to a government euthanasia center, Thorn sees glimpses of the Earth's lost legacy. In his world, the average person only sees blue skies and green forests via canned video during their last 20 minutes of life in a government euthanasia center.

The film definitely has its moments, when its imagery is powerful and haunting. The sight of inexorably rolling front-loaders indiscriminately scooping up masses of squirming humanity from the streets is as powerful as anything else the film has to say. Mostly, though, the profundity of humanity's transformation is dealt with in less than a masterful manner. This theme has been conducted better by others.

One of my favorite scenes was when Sol goes to the Exchange, one of the last crippled vestiges of democracy left in the city. There he has a terrific scene with Celia Lovsky (who played the Vulcan matriarch T'Pau in Amok Time). As the elderly, as people who have living knowledge of what was, they are us, and bridge the gap between now and this possible future. -- Tamara
 
WHERE is THE OUTRAGE when this IS SAID<<<<Steven Cohen, a spokesman for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, said the notice was simply clarifying previous policies that had conflicted with each other. The bottom line, Cohen said, is that any kind of animal meat can be used with USDA inspected meat.
 
A date on the piece at the top would be helpful. The time listing is not adequate to place it.

Wouldn't it be realistic to believe that what currently is considered 'hamburger', and maybe even the legal term or designation of 'hamburger' is beef? I would like it to stay that way, and become the legal designation. However, we recently frequently see 'turkey burger', 'bisonburger' et. al. I've never seen 'dogburger' and doubt I will, and seriously doubt it is used.

I've been told, and suppose I could check it out, that state regulations for, and inspections of beef, must be equal or superior to federal regs, but may NOT be less than fed regs. I feel that is accurate, because it has been used as an argument for making state inspected beef allowed in interstate trade. I've heard that it is the small packers who prevent that, believeing that local, smaller plants could be too much competition for them. That is hearsay, BTW.

What that story appears to me, is very likely a union ruckus.

The comments on "roadkill", "dog meat", "any kind of animal meat" are outrageous inflammatory speculations designed to stir up trouble.

I didn't see where it said 'other' meats could be COMBINED with the beef hamburger. Did I miss that statement?

Isn't it more likely that they are saying things like the 'turkeyburger', 'porkburger', 'bison/buffaloburger', 'elkburger', 'deerburger', et. al. will be allowed in "official establishents" and USDA Inspected meat, "as long as it was not ADULTERATED". I believe the ADULTERATED term is impostant. At least I suspect that could mean the meats could not be mixed together unless so stated on the label.

There are quite a number of businesses raising exotic animals for meat now, so wonder if this is to accomodate those, as well as the normally eaten meats such as poultry and buffalo/bison not originally used as 'burger'?

Wouldn't it be awful if this was benign and beneficial, rather than some hideous scandal, though????

MRJ
 
Non-amenable animal tissue, as defined in the notice, is any tissue from animals not subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. It includes edible tissue from exotic animals, rabbits, migratory birds and other animals not under the scope of USDA inspection, like alligator and kangaroo. Read it AGAIN MRJ!
 
PORKER said:
Non-amenable animal tissue, as defined in the notice, is any tissue from animals not subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. It includes edible tissue from exotic animals, rabbits, migratory birds and other animals not under the scope of USDA inspection, like alligator and kangaroo. Read it AGAIN MRJ!


Porker, I definitely did state that I didn't SEE what you pointed out above.

My point remains: The story is intentionally sensationalized and inflammatory. There are many "exotic" animals and even rattlesnakes eaten by many people.

The story did point out that the "exotic" meat would have to be listed on the label. I have little doubt there will be quite a demand for most of those animals mentioned in the story, and, in the right place, probably even dog meat, provided it has been legally processed to make the cut on inclusion as detailed in that story!

MRJ
 
MRJ said:
PORKER said:
Non-amenable animal tissue, as defined in the notice, is any tissue from animals not subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. It includes edible tissue from exotic animals, rabbits, migratory birds and other animals not under the scope of USDA inspection, like alligator and kangaroo. Read it AGAIN MRJ!


Porker, I definitely did state that I didn't SEE what you pointed out above.

My point remains: The story is intentionally sensationalized and inflammatory. There are many "exotic" animals and even rattlesnakes eaten by many people.

The story did point out that the "exotic" meat would have to be listed on the label. I have little doubt there will be quite a demand for most of those animals mentioned in the story, and, in the right place, probably even dog meat, provided it has been legally processed to make the cut on inclusion as detailed in that story!

MRJ

MRJ, you need to think about the implications of the clarification of the policy. That load of meat roaming around the ocean could find its way in your next burger under the new clarification. If that isn't alarming to you, then it is obvious that you do not care about how the details of policy makers could ruin this industry. You need to take your cheerleading outfit off, put it aside and do a little more thinking about what is going on in this industry.
 
Called "FSIS NOTICE 15-06: Use of Non-Amenable Animal Tissue in Inspected Products," the notice essentially says that animals that you wouldn't normally associate with hamburgers can be "included in amenable meat or poultry products produced in official establishments."

In other words, anything from deer to dog meat can be ground into hamburger, as long as it meets state regulations, which inspectors say tend to be looser than the federal government's.

"Suffice it to say, this is bizarre to inspectors in the field," said Trent Berhow, president of the Midwest Council of Food Inspectors locals, who lives in Iowa. "To read this, it looks to us that any product that is slaughtered under state inspection requirements can be co-mingled with federally inspected products.

"Could you bring roadkill in?" he asked. "I don't know how to read this. I don't think you would get (the USDA) to say we are talking about roadkill here."

Steven Cohen, a spokesman for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, said the notice was simply clarifying previous policies that had conflicted with each other. The bottom line, Cohen said, is that any kind of animal meat can be used with USDA inspected meat as long as its not adulterated.

MRJ,I DON"T think Cattlemen want that crap in our Hamburger
 
I used to eat at this Chinese food place, The Golden Unicorn, all the time. Excellent food, and LOTS of it. Heckuva deal.

Right up until one night, after a buddy and I had gorged ourselves, the federal health inspector raided the place and they got shut down for cat meat, dog meat, deer meat and UNIDENTIFIED meats in the the cooler in the back.

So tell me, if they are allowing this crap into the hamburger, and it has to be listed on the label, when, as a restaurant goer, do I get to read the ingredient label? Heck, when, as shoppers, do you see many people reading the labels of the pre-made hamburgers?

Quite frankly, if the USDA needed to make policy about it, its already been done or is BEING done, and we simply don't know it.

And here I thought Mickey D burgers were always made of sawdust....

Rod
 
For shame!!!!

Aren't you the guys who proclaim: "give consumers what they want"?

There are people who WANT those exotic meats. I do not. I don't even want the term "hamburger" allowed on any traditional appearing meat pattie that is not pure beef!

I did not see ANY point in that story that said "exotic" meats would, or should be allowed WITHOUT labeling.

Clearly, Diamond S, the story you tell involved ILLEGAL activity.

Has ANYONE from USDA stated that was OK? Maybe you need to check the records of inspections of restaurants you go to. Personally, I believe that record should be posted on the entrance door. Then, some people would insist that the inspector could have been "paid off under the table". So maybe they will have to eat at home exclusively, raise and butcher their own beef, etc. if they choose to believe the entire world has no honest people in "high places". I will take my chances because I'm a relatively trusting person......until back-stabbed a time or two.....then...look out!!!

BTW, I used to avoid McDonalds like the plague, but having had no choice a time or two in recent years, was pleasantly surprised at the palatability of their burgers.

MRJ
 
MRJ said:
1) Aren't you the guys who proclaim: "give consumers what they want"?

<snip>

2) I did not see ANY point in that story that said "exotic" meats would, or should be allowed WITHOUT labeling.

Clearly, Diamond S, the story you tell involved ILLEGAL activity.

1) I'd say there are a whack of consumers who DO NOT WANT Fluffy or Fido ground up into their hamburger. If people want it, fine, but it had better be in more than the fine print on the label. I'd want to see HUGE letters on the box stating FIDO burgers. The first time an ordinary everyday housewife grabs a box o burgers, doesn't read the label close enough, but then discovers FIDO in the ingredient list AFTER she's fed half the box to her kiddos, there is going to be outrage.

I thought the purpose of the USDA was to PROTECT the consumer AND safeguard consumer confidence. It may not hurt the consumer, but it sounds like an odd way to safegard consumer confidence in beef.

2) Clearly illegal, but it also perfectly illustrates my point. How are we to know, as consumers, what we're eating in a restaurant? Do we get the list of ingredients laid down in front of us? Not at any restaurant I've ever been to. And I don't see anything in that USDA release that says restaurants have to tell you.

I don't know about you, but I certainly DON'T want to eat any more Fluffy Balls, whether it be illegally or legally.

Rod
 
The story is intentionally sensationalized and inflammatory. MRJ QUOTE.

MRJ It is not a story,*********FSIS Rule"FSIS NOTICE 15-06: Use of Non-Amenable Animal Tissue in Inspected Products," the notice essentially says that animals that you wouldn't normally associate with hamburgers can be "included in amenable meat or poultry products produced in official establishments."

IT's A FSIS RULE,so quite passing it of as somebodys story.**********A short notice from the United States Department of Agriculture has created a stir-and perhaps a wave of nausea-among the nation's meat inspectors .
AND its Consumers,,,,,
 
Porker, you say this is NOT a (news)story, but is "FSIS NOTICE 15-06".

OK, it looks like PARTS of it are, but it also appears quite obvious that PARTS are sensationalism of that notice by the author, Andrew Martin.

Can we agree on that, or not?

Tommy said:
Dogburgers anyone?

Posted by Andrew Martin at 4:23 pm CST
**********************
This looks like a sensationalized lead in to the "notice".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A short notice from the United States Department of Agriculture has created a stir-and perhaps a wave of nausea-among the nation's meat inspectors.
**************************
This is, I believe, the "notice". In fact, only the parts WITHIN QUOTATION MARKS in the paragraph below, appear to be the "notice".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Called "FSIS NOTICE 15-06: Use of Non-Amenable Animal Tissue in Inspected Products," the notice essentially says that animals that you wouldn't normally associate with hamburgers can be "included in amenable meat or poultry products produced in official establishments.
****************************
This paragraph below is pure conjecture isn't it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In other words, anything from deer to dog meat can be ground into hamburger, as long as it meets state regulations, which inspectors say tend to be looser than the federal government's.
*********************

The paragraph below, where the words within quotation marks appears to be quoted from the Union guy, shows that he believe the meat can ONLY be "MEAT THAT IS SLAUGHTERED UNDER STATE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS"......doesn't it? Do you REALLY believe that could include dog meat?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Suffice it to say, this is bizarre to inspectors in the field," said Trent Berhow, president of the Midwest Council of Food Inspectors locals, who lives in Iowa. "To read this, it looks to us that any product that is slaughtered under state inspection requirements can be co-mingled with federally inspected products.
************************

Looks quite clear he does not believe it includes "road kill", IMO!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Could you bring roadkill in?" he asked. "I don't know how to read this. I don't think you would get (the USDA) to say we are talking about roadkill here."
************************

Steven Cohen, a spokesman for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, said the notice was simply clarifying previous policies that had conflicted with each other. The bottom line, Cohen said, is that any kind of animal meat can be used with USDA inspected meat as long as its not adulterated.

For instance, he said, he said buffalo meat could be blended with ground beef, though he noted that the types of meat would have be listed as part of the ingredients on the label. Could dog meat be blended with ground beef?
***********************
What is difficult to understand about the statement: "there is no place that is producing dog meat"? You may say: but he said he doesn't believe "that it is illegal", yet isn't it extremely far-fetched to take this as that dog meat is imminently likely to be added to beef hamburger?????
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I don't believe that it is illegal, but there is no place that is producing dog meat," Cohen said, adding that the regulation fits a "very limited circumstance. "I don't think there's anyone who is doing this on a commercial basis."

But roadkill wouldn't qualify because, since the animal wasn't slaughtered, it would be considered adulterated, he said.
*********************
In paragraph below, (which, incidentally does not look like the "notice", does it?) the person, supposedly Mr. Cohen (?), (but no quotes indicate it is other than the author of the "story", Mr. Martin,) SOMEONE quite clearly states: "that it includes edible tissue from EXOTIC animals, rabits, migratory birds, and other animals not under the scope of USDA inspection, like alligator and kangaroo." Did he say "dog" there????
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Non-amenable animal tissue, as defined in the notice, is any tissue from animals not subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. It includes edible tissue from exotic animals, rabbits, migratory birds and other animals not under the scope of USDA inspection, like alligator and kangaroo.
*********************

The only reference to "dogs" in this paragraph is clearly to (hot)dogs!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
News of the notice swept through the community of meat inspectors after one of them sent an email to USDA's technical support center asking for clarification. In response to a question, Kris Kenne, a USDA staff officer, said someone could mix deer meat with pork and sell deer dogs with a USDA logo as long as the ingredients were labeled and state law allowed it.
*********************

This is the ONLY paragraph where anyone actually says dog or cat meat could be used. Mr Keene is described as a USDA staff officer. His comment is NOT part of the "notice", is it???
^^^^^^^^^^^
Does this also mean that a slaughtered cat or dog can be added to sausage, Kenne was asked?
"Yes, that is a possibility should one wish to pursue to use them as an ingredient in the product. Public perception may not be so acceptable of the practice though," Kenne responded.

Kenne was not at his office on Friday and could not be reached for comment.
**************************

I hope that makes it more clear to you why I have posted previously as I have. And I also hope that you don't really intend to tell people that all the extraneous sensationalism is really a part of the government "notice"!

Now. I really would like to know, first, why did Mr. Martin publish that story before getting confirmation or denial of his last question to a USDA staff officer, or at the very least , wait until that person could be reached for further comment?

Another question may be: why is Mr. Martin denigrating ethnicities that DO eat cat or dog meat? How is that worse than eating Rattlesnake, for instance, or Alligator, or Kangaroo, or even horse meat (if one considers cats, dogs, and horses sacred from eating because they sometimes are pets, for instance)?

The labeling, and informing customers of what is in the meat is the important point.

It seems obvious to me that this rule is for special request meat mixtures, not for the general purpose of finding a cheap source of 'meat' to extend the expensive beef in making hamburger. That is what some of you are implying, isn't it? Do you actually believe that dogs and cats would be such a source? Maybe PETA would release them from their lucrative pet shelters for that purpose, but my guess is it would take MONEY......which seems clearly their major quest, after all!

MRJ
 
USE OF NON-AMENABLE ANIMAL TISSUE IN INSPECTED PRODUCTS


This notice provides inspection program personnel with clarification regarding the use of non-amenable animal tissue in official inspected products. This notice addresses questions that FSIS has received regarding the use of non-amenable animal tissue. Also, this notice cancels any previous instructions (e.g., FSIS Notice 14-91, Use of Non-Amenable Species in Federally and State Inspected Products) regarding this subject.

Non-amenable animal tissue, for the purpose of this notice, means tissue from animals not subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. It includes edible tissue from 1) exotic animals (reindeer, elk, deer, antelope, water buffalo, or bison) or hybrid animals showing predominant characteristics of non-amenable animals, (e.g., catalo); 2) rabbits; 3) migratory water fowl or game birds; and 4) other animals not under the scope of FSIS voluntary inspection, e.g., alligator, kangaroo.

For many years, FSIS policy (FSIS Notice 14-91) was that tissues from non-amenable species had to originate from one of three FSIS recognized approved sources (FSIS voluntarily inspected, state inspected, or foreign government inspected). Questions have been raised about the statutory basis for this policy.
As a result, FSIS has reexamined the policy, and has concluded that non-amenable animal tissues do not need to bear a mark of inspection (Federal, State or Non-domestic) to be included in amenable meat or poultry products produced in official establishments. An establishment may use non-inspected non-amenable animal tissue in inspected meat and poultry products in accordance with 9 CFR 318.1(c), 318.6(a), and 424.21(a)(1). Inspection program personnel are to verify the proper use of non-inspected non-amenable animal tissue in the same manner that they verify the use of all ingredients covered under 9 CFR 318.1(c), 318.6(a), and 424.21(a)(1).

This FSIS notice does not add any new verification procedures for inspection program personnel to perform. It also does not change the scope or availability of the voluntary inspection program.


Any questions should be referred to the Technical Service Center at 1-800-233-3935.
 
PORKER said:
I still do not want any crap in my hamburger,MRJ

Thats what it boils down, doesn't it? And the first time someone unwittingly buys hamburger with crap (cat, dog or rat) in it, there will be cries of outrage from consumers across the US and Canada (I'm trying to find out our own rules up here) and demand for beef will take at least a short term hit.

I can't imagine ANY beef producer being good with this.

Rod
 
MRJ, after reading your posts on this topic and all the others that concern the USDA, (and also those of your other two notorious members) I have to wonder; Is there some NCBA rule that states you will lose your membership if you're ever critical of the USDA? Is it a requirement to be a "yes man"?
 
Sandhusker said:
Is there some NCBA rule that states you will lose your membership if you're ever critical of the USDA? Is it a requirement to be a "yes man"?

:lol: :cry:
 
As a result, FSIS has reexamined the policy, and has concluded that non-amenable animal tissues do not need to bear a mark of inspection (Federal, State or Non-domestic) to be included in amenable meat or poultry products produced in official establishments. An establishment may use non-inspected non-amenable animal tissue ( ANYTHING)in inspected meat and poultry products in accordance with 9 CFR 318.1(c), 318.6(a), and 424.21(a)(1).

So MRJ, are you gonna EAT out again. Check your dice as you may need them for a quick decision on whether consumption is a good idee.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top