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

Film aims to expose dangers in U.S. food industry

A

Anonymous

Guest
Reader2-- I did a little Googling- and found this film has a website:

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

On the alliances link they list the following:

Center for Foodborne Illness Research

California Center for Public Health Advocacy

Center for Ecoliteracy

Cool Foods Campaign

Center for Science in the Public Interest

Consumer Federation of America

The Food Trust

Food and Water Watch

Jane Goodall Institute

Heifer International
National Farm to School Network

Organic Consumers Association

Oxfam America

Pesticide Action Network North America

Sustainable Table

Slow Food USA

United Farm Workers of America

FIAN

Humane Society of the United States

Center for Food Safety
 

Tex

Well-known member
burnt said:
I think all this negativity can't be good for anyone . . . . . .

I don't think there would be negativity if these companies and corporations didn't buy markets and "just us" with their money.

Everyone needs to know how these companies will sell you down the river, break laws, put in judges when they are sued, and buy off politicians with their money. They don't care about food safety unless it has economic implications to them in their pocket book. If they can hide frauds they perpetuate, they will. The USDA is supposed to regulate these guys but they have been compromised and failed to do this job. Then people in Nebraska elect the former Sec. of Ag. as a Senator.

We don't hold politicians or big money accountable in this country and there is becoming an increasing awareness of this.

Burnt, the negativity wouldn't be there if these guys were good honest businessmen like they should be.

Tex
 

burnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
burnt said:
I think all this negativity can't be good for anyone . . . . . .

I don't think there would be negativity if these companies and corporations didn't buy markets and "just us" with their money.

Everyone needs to know how these companies will sell you down the river, break laws, put in judges when they are sued, and buy off politicians with their money. They don't care about food safety unless it has economic implications to them in their pocket book. If they can hide frauds they perpetuate, they will. The USDA is supposed to regulate these guys but they have been compromised and failed to do this job. Then people in Nebraska elect the former Sec. of Ag. as a Senator.

We don't hold politicians or big money accountable in this country and there is becoming an increasing awareness of this.

Burnt, the negativity wouldn't be there if these guys were good honest businessmen like they should be.

Tex

I have no argument for or against your words, Tex.

But you missed the point of my post. Whenever a post is made that runs counter to what r2 thinks, it is construed as "negativity". However, it appears that she expects to be taken seriously when she posts PETA type material on here?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Here is the bottom line...we have serious health problems in our society and those problems have their foundation in our diet. I have no doubt in my mind that the best, most healthy food in the world come directly off the farm and ranches...not through large corporations.

I stay on Reader constantly to look at the other side of politics. We, producers, need to take an objective look at the food system...because it eventually reflects on us.
 

mrj

Well-known member
The quality of our food is one thing.

The 'quality' of too many of those linked with and obviously influencing that movie is something else entirely!

HSUS is NOT protecting animals, but working to end food animal production.

Too many others on the list have their own political agendas whicn are not conducive to commercial production of food.

Isn't it a bit delusional to believe all those currently being fed by food production AS IT NOW EXISTS in the USA will be even equally well fed if the current system is dismantled in favor of "slow" or "local" food?

It wasn't all that long ago when it took a BIG family working long, hard hours year round to produce enough food for their own use, and possibly a very small amount to trade for non-food necessities.

I do NOT want to go back to those "good old days"!

No mention comes up of excesses of food and beverages, let alone other 'substances' consumed, as being a component of chronic diseases. It is so much easier and 'politically correct' to blame some sort of evil people assumed to be 'tampering' with our food for their own personal greed.

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
The solution isn't simply attacking the front men messengers.

About the only creatures that thrive living in close proximity to each other are bacteria...think about it. When beef was king of the meat counter and grocery store, a large percentage of it was finished on the ranch. There are those on here that still do it and, I believe/know, it is a better product than what comes from the large feedlot/packers. Yes, the large feedlot/packers are more efficient, but has that made producers anymore profitable or has it given the packers more market power?

Do we need to dismantle the present system? I don't think we can.

Do we need to change the present system? I think it's needed to gain better consumer acceptance of our product...increased demand(as in increased consumption AND increase price).



The problem with our diet is that we are eating too many food substances that our bodies don't genetically recognize on a molecular basis...too much processed foods.

Our diet doesn't contain enough natural animal proteins and fats. Our bodies evolved genetically using these components...HOW CAN THEY NOW BE HARMFUL TO OUR HEALTH??????

This is the point our checkoff dollar should be spent promoting...and, yes, that means attacking the edible oil and processed grain industries because they have made us the devil. It's time to fight back!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Another Country Music Celebrity Turns Away from Country Values

Amanda Nolz June 17th, 2009
A year ago, Kellie Pickler announced that she was becoming a vegetarian, joining her country music cohort, Carrie Underwood. Because country music has a fan base of so many agriculturalists, I have a hard time understanding why these gals are still in business. Recently, PETA announced Pickler as the Sexiest Vegetarian Alive, Of her reasoning to become a vegetarian, Pickler told People Magazine, “”One night I couldn’t sleep and I was up just Googling random stuff and I’m like, ‘Hmmm, PETA. I saw all the videos and I just thought it was horrible. It’s animal cruelty. A lot of it has to do with knowing what happens to the animals. It really bothered me and so I will not eat meat.”
 

burnt

Well-known member
RobertMac - Excellent points. The present system WILL NOT be changed because it is too entrenched. Plus it appeals to the inherent laziness in human nature - let someone else do the hard work.

The only way that food production change will happen is from the consumer end. I believe we are seeing it begin as more people all the time are starting to want to know where and how their food is produced.
I see it happening first hand.

These people are not asking me how much I charge, they are just saying "we want (beef, roasting chickens, veggies) that is raised in more humane, healthy settings."

We have quit using implants years ago, less herbicides, non-GMO grains, etc. We are not organic, just lower input and less intensive.

Are the multinationals benefiting? Not so much. But we and the consumers are.

I think that's all that matters.
 

mrj

Well-known member
I have no problem with individuals growing out, even butchering beef or other foods to sell direct to consumers.

Just don't use scare tactics claiming commercially produced foods are inferior UNLESS you have the independent, third party verified tests of your products to PROVE those claims.

For the record, I have sold home grown beef on the hoof, and could do so again if I chose, however it was and would again be, state inspected AND no claims of anything unverifiable would be made. It was sold only on the basis that people liked the way the bee served in my house tasted and asked if they could buy some. We don't have an adequate consumer base within three hundred miles willing to buy by the head to market more than a very small percent of our herd that way.

mrj
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Industry News - AM
Poll shows food safety misconceptions among consumers

By Ann Bagel Storck on 6/17/2009

Many American consumers are misinformed about food safety issues such as how to tell whether a hamburger is thoroughly cooked, according to a new poll from the American Meat Institute.

The poll, which surveyed 1,000 Americans in May, found that 34 percent of Americans correctly believe that a hamburger is ready to eat when the internal temperature has reached 160 degrees F. One in five said that checking the middle of the hamburger to ensure that it is brown is the best approach — a practice experts say is not an accurate indicator that a burger is thoroughly cooked. Likewise, 18 percent wrongly said that checking to see if juices run clear ensures food safety.

Overall, younger Americans are less knowledgeable about proper meat preparation than older generations, the survey found. Only 16 percent of 18-29 year olds know to check the internal temperature of a burger.

The American public is divided over whether they believe meat and poultry products have more or fewer bacteria on them today than they did 10 years ago, according to survey results. While 22 percent of Americans think that there is more bacteria on meat/poultry today than in the past, 26 percent believe the opposite is true and that today's meat/poultry has fewer bacteria. Twenty-two percent don't think bacteria levels have changed, and 29 percent report that they just don't know the answer.

A news release from AMI pointed out that USDA sampling of ground beef shows that E. coli O157:H7 has decreased 45 percent since 2000 to 0.47 percent positive. Salmonella on market hogs has decreased 67 percent since 1998 to 2.8 percent. These strategies have also helped reduce the incidence of Listeria monocytogenes on ready-to-eat meat and poultry products by 74 percent since 2000 to a level of 0.37 percent. All of these bacteria can be destroyed by proper cooking and reheating, the news release noted.


Are their ecoli testing percentages available for the years previous to the "big bad packers" - say the 50's through to the 80's?

The consumer does like the "convenience" foods :!:
 

Tex

Well-known member
S.S.A.P. said:
Industry News - AM
Poll shows food safety misconceptions among consumers

By Ann Bagel Storck on 6/17/2009

Many American consumers are misinformed about food safety issues such as how to tell whether a hamburger is thoroughly cooked, according to a new poll from the American Meat Institute.

The poll, which surveyed 1,000 Americans in May, found that 34 percent of Americans correctly believe that a hamburger is ready to eat when the internal temperature has reached 160 degrees F. One in five said that checking the middle of the hamburger to ensure that it is brown is the best approach — a practice experts say is not an accurate indicator that a burger is thoroughly cooked. Likewise, 18 percent wrongly said that checking to see if juices run clear ensures food safety.

Overall, younger Americans are less knowledgeable about proper meat preparation than older generations, the survey found. Only 16 percent of 18-29 year olds know to check the internal temperature of a burger.

The American public is divided over whether they believe meat and poultry products have more or fewer bacteria on them today than they did 10 years ago, according to survey results. While 22 percent of Americans think that there is more bacteria on meat/poultry today than in the past, 26 percent believe the opposite is true and that today's meat/poultry has fewer bacteria. Twenty-two percent don't think bacteria levels have changed, and 29 percent report that they just don't know the answer.

A news release from AMI pointed out that USDA sampling of ground beef shows that E. coli O157:H7 has decreased 45 percent since 2000 to 0.47 percent positive. Salmonella on market hogs has decreased 67 percent since 1998 to 2.8 percent. These strategies have also helped reduce the incidence of Listeria monocytogenes on ready-to-eat meat and poultry products by 74 percent since 2000 to a level of 0.37 percent. All of these bacteria can be destroyed by proper cooking and reheating, the news release noted.


Are their ecoli testing percentages available for the years previous to the "big bad packers" - say the 50's through to the 80's?

The consumer does like the "convenience" foods :!:

I would be suspect of any statistics that came from the USDA. I know for a fact that they will "investigate" after being tipped off so the investigation shows no problem. There are no good internal controls on their "investigations" so I would assume the same would be true for their ecoli testing program.

We will not know the answer or have good statistics until there is a real whistle blower law to keep upper USDA managers from fudging the figures or hiding facts. Some of those USDA managers need to be behind bars, not in places of policing the industry.

Tex
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Tex said:
I would be suspect of any statistics that came from the USDA. I know for a fact that they will "investigate" after being tipped off so the investigation shows no problem. There are no good internal controls on their "investigations" so I would assume the same would be true for their ecoli testing program.

We will not know the answer or have good statistics until there is a real whistle blower law to keep upper USDA managers from fudging the figures or hiding facts. Some of those USDA managers need to be behind bars, not in places of policing the industry.

Tex

Hey Tex - if you "know for a fact", why haven't you acted upon your knowledge?? You aren't hiding facts are you??? Don't be scared to keep us all posted when you hit the courts.

By the way - I do have problems with the big bad packers also - I just don't let it send me into the same state of paranoia that exists in your life. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
S.S.A.P. said:
Tex said:
I would be suspect of any statistics that came from the USDA. I know for a fact that they will "investigate" after being tipped off so the investigation shows no problem. There are no good internal controls on their "investigations" so I would assume the same would be true for their ecoli testing program.

We will not know the answer or have good statistics until there is a real whistle blower law to keep upper USDA managers from fudging the figures or hiding facts. Some of those USDA managers need to be behind bars, not in places of policing the industry.

Tex

Hey Tex - if you "know for a fact", why haven't you acted upon your knowledge?? You aren't hiding facts are you??? Don't be scared to keep us all posted when you hit the courts.

By the way - I do have problems with the big bad packers also - I just don't let it send me into the same state of paranoia that exists in your life. :wink:

Nope- Canadian producers- in their belief they were their best buddies- totally sold out to them about 15 years ago- and from what I read now- are almost totally controlled by them, in that the same entities own not only the Stockyards, but the Feedlots, and the Slaughter Houses from Alberta to Manitoba....

And the said thing is that all their socalled "cattlemens" associations are in their pockets too-just like the NCBA is down here- and they don't have any R-CALF's or USCA's fighting for the producer... :(
 
Top