You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Food System Broken?
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
PORKER
Well-known member
Moreover, no other agricultural commodity--not fruits, vegetables or milk--faces similar restrictions to shipment across state lines. Adding to the incongruence, the shipment ban applies to beef, chicken, lamb, pork and goat, but not to some other meats, including alligator, quail, venison, bison, elk and rabbit--so the elk bratwurst Rick Reams has sold at the Milwaukee Brewers stadium could be shipped across state lines.
In this case the Topps grinds came from overseas BEEF ! I have never heard anybody get sick from US bison.
In this case the Topps grinds came from overseas BEEF ! I have never heard anybody get sick from US bison.
Tex, since someone else supplied the NCBA position on state inspected meat, I still have to admit to not understanding your "bank robber analogy".
Do you realize that it has been quite a while since Jan Lyons was an officer of NCBA? She may yet be on the board, but what, really, do you believe she done to stop this effort for state inspected beef to go through?
I believe it has been more of an effort by the SMALL Federally Inspected packers within states holding back interstate shipment from the state inspected plants, due to the increased competition they fera that would create for themselves. Aren't there small packer members of AMI, not just large ones?
It seems reasonable to me that the meat processed in state inspected plants my be more thoroughly, even better, inspected, simply due to their size and number giving inspectors more time for each inspection. What do others think about that?
It also seems logical that unions would not want this, as there are some states that have Right to Work laws (SD does) and might not have unionized inspectors doing the state work, but may be required for Federal Inspection? What about that? Logical or not?
So much of this seems to me to be way more about gaining political, financial, and popular clout, from the groups (F.Union, CFA, state Depts of Ag, govt employees, Food & Water Watch, CSPI (what kind of 'scientists' do they have????) NCL, and others; to the politicians, the bureaucracies, on up and down the lists of groups involved.
Remember, every time we demand government fix a problem for us, the bureaucracies get bigger and more firmly entrenched and the agency heads have less effect while the bureacrats under them have more, IMO.
mrj
Do you realize that it has been quite a while since Jan Lyons was an officer of NCBA? She may yet be on the board, but what, really, do you believe she done to stop this effort for state inspected beef to go through?
I believe it has been more of an effort by the SMALL Federally Inspected packers within states holding back interstate shipment from the state inspected plants, due to the increased competition they fera that would create for themselves. Aren't there small packer members of AMI, not just large ones?
It seems reasonable to me that the meat processed in state inspected plants my be more thoroughly, even better, inspected, simply due to their size and number giving inspectors more time for each inspection. What do others think about that?
It also seems logical that unions would not want this, as there are some states that have Right to Work laws (SD does) and might not have unionized inspectors doing the state work, but may be required for Federal Inspection? What about that? Logical or not?
So much of this seems to me to be way more about gaining political, financial, and popular clout, from the groups (F.Union, CFA, state Depts of Ag, govt employees, Food & Water Watch, CSPI (what kind of 'scientists' do they have????) NCL, and others; to the politicians, the bureaucracies, on up and down the lists of groups involved.
Remember, every time we demand government fix a problem for us, the bureaucracies get bigger and more firmly entrenched and the agency heads have less effect while the bureacrats under them have more, IMO.
mrj
Sandhusker
Well-known member
What about when the government is the one causing the problems? Just let it go?
mrj said:Tex, since someone else supplied the NCBA position on state inspected meat, I still have to admit to not understanding your "bank robber analogy".
Do you realize that it has been quite a while since Jan Lyons was an officer of NCBA? She may yet be on the board, but what, really, do you believe she done to stop this effort for state inspected beef to go through?
I believe it has been more of an effort by the SMALL Federally Inspected packers within states holding back interstate shipment from the state inspected plants, due to the increased competition they fera that would create for themselves. Aren't there small packer members of AMI, not just large ones?
It seems reasonable to me that the meat processed in state inspected plants my be more thoroughly, even better, inspected, simply due to their size and number giving inspectors more time for each inspection. What do others think about that?
It also seems logical that unions would not want this, as there are some states that have Right to Work laws (SD does) and might not have unionized inspectors doing the state work, but may be required for Federal Inspection? What about that? Logical or not?
So much of this seems to me to be way more about gaining political, financial, and popular clout, from the groups (F.Union, CFA, state Depts of Ag, govt employees, Food & Water Watch, CSPI (what kind of 'scientists' do they have????) NCL, and others; to the politicians, the bureaucracies, on up and down the lists of groups involved.
Remember, every time we demand government fix a problem for us, the bureaucracies get bigger and more firmly entrenched and the agency heads have less effect while the bureacrats under them have more, IMO.
mrj
mrj, Brad S. had a social connection with Jan Lyons. That is similar to being the neighbor, the church goer, etc. It doesn't matter if she is not in a leadership position now or not. When we judge people on who we think they are (like Bush with Putin) instead of their actions, we make a big mistake.
Ask RM if his plant is a packer with the AMI line. Lots of small packing operations were pushed out by the Federal inspection system that required different plant set ups, not on the end result of a safe product. Now they ran out a lot of the local meat packers not aligned with the big boys they are going to the HACCP protocol. The little packers like the one RM deals with should not be considered the same as the big packers who pushed the USDA into this policy. It is a little concerning to me that you don't understand this.
These things were happening during Lyon's term and she couldn't or wouldn't see it.
If you work for the federal govt., being in a union at the same time is a little redundant.
The number of inspectors does matter a little, but not as much as an honest regulatory attitude in the management that makes the decisions that create a difference. You should have seen the squirming in the oversight hearing when the regulatory attitude was being questioned. If you had a hundred inspectors and one guy at the top that didn't make the right decisions, the number of inspectors just don't matter. That is where the political influence came from.
Personally, I don't care what the federal employees union wants in this manner. The govt. policy of giving foreign packers the same weight as domestic packers with less oversight showed the USDA had a losing logical battle when it came to state vs. federal oversight.
We need to stop concentrating power into the hands of the few. That is always a road to corruption, whether it be in industry or in government functions. The federal only system does that.
If the states were not doing their job in regulating properly (and they would have to do a worse job than the feds), then the feds could step in. The argument that state inspection can not be as safe is just ridiculous. The argument that the feds wouldn't be able to step in is also ridiculous. The argument that overseas inspectors are safer than state inspection systems is a real logical problem, especially when we have seen the results.
State inspected plants need to be encouraged if they are getting as good or better results. It is much harder for corruption or incompetence that is planned from the top to establish itself in a competitive state and federal system.
I am not for increasing constantly the size of government. Federal inspection systems and equivalent (equivalent in results, not process) state systems will help show where the inefficiencies in the federal system are.
My state lost too many small packers because of dictates from the feds that did not base their actions on a resultant safer product and instead focused on facility design.
Making a govt. more accountable for results, I would agree with you, is the answer, not throwing more and more money at it. Not having enough money to do the job is just as bad.
Why are you implying that I'm against state inspected beef being allowed to be sold interstate????
I've favored that for decades!
Re. your blame of Jan L. or NCBA for, failing (in your apparent opinion) to promote interstate shipment of state inspected beef during her term of leadership, I do not know whether that item was on the agenda of NCBA at that time or not. I DO know that even NCBA does not have the funds to do all that every member believes should be done at any given time. Things do have to be prioritized before being implemented as Policy for the group.
I don't know the politics of other states, but SD has a quite healthy number of state inspected packing plants, and quite a few small Federally inspected plants. I don't know if this is because of our Right to Work status, of not, but that can't hurt the situation, as unionized work force could by driving up costs of these small plants.
If unionization of federal workers is redundant, why are there so many unionized federal employees???? Personally, I don't believe government workers should be unionized!
Obviously, you give more credence to the liklihood that most people are easily corrupted that I do. I more fear bureaucratic bungling, laziness, and simply redundancy to the point of stumbling over one another, than I do intentional wrong and or collusion to intentionally cheat the in the systems of food safety, regulatory agencies, et. al.
I've visited with people who have toured foreign meat plants and found them to be state-of-the-art, pristine, and eagerly inspected plants. Maybe they are not all that way, and maybe some people do fall prey to bribery, but I seriously doubt many, or most are in that status.
mrj
I've favored that for decades!
Re. your blame of Jan L. or NCBA for, failing (in your apparent opinion) to promote interstate shipment of state inspected beef during her term of leadership, I do not know whether that item was on the agenda of NCBA at that time or not. I DO know that even NCBA does not have the funds to do all that every member believes should be done at any given time. Things do have to be prioritized before being implemented as Policy for the group.
I don't know the politics of other states, but SD has a quite healthy number of state inspected packing plants, and quite a few small Federally inspected plants. I don't know if this is because of our Right to Work status, of not, but that can't hurt the situation, as unionized work force could by driving up costs of these small plants.
If unionization of federal workers is redundant, why are there so many unionized federal employees???? Personally, I don't believe government workers should be unionized!
Obviously, you give more credence to the liklihood that most people are easily corrupted that I do. I more fear bureaucratic bungling, laziness, and simply redundancy to the point of stumbling over one another, than I do intentional wrong and or collusion to intentionally cheat the in the systems of food safety, regulatory agencies, et. al.
I've visited with people who have toured foreign meat plants and found them to be state-of-the-art, pristine, and eagerly inspected plants. Maybe they are not all that way, and maybe some people do fall prey to bribery, but I seriously doubt many, or most are in that status.
mrj
mrj said:Why are you implying that I'm against state inspected beef being allowed to be sold interstate????
I've favored that for decades!
Re. your blame of Jan L. or NCBA for, failing (in your apparent opinion) to promote interstate shipment of state inspected beef during her term of leadership, I do not know whether that item was on the agenda of NCBA at that time or not. I DO know that even NCBA does not have the funds to do all that every member believes should be done at any given time. Things do have to be prioritized before being implemented as Policy for the group.
I don't know the politics of other states, but SD has a quite healthy number of state inspected packing plants, and quite a few small Federally inspected plants. I don't know if this is because of our Right to Work status, of not, but that can't hurt the situation, as unionized work force could by driving up costs of these small plants.
If unionization of federal workers is redundant, why are there so many unionized federal employees???? Personally, I don't believe government workers should be unionized!
Obviously, you give more credence to the liklihood that most people are easily corrupted that I do. I more fear bureaucratic bungling, laziness, and simply redundancy to the point of stumbling over one another, than I do intentional wrong and or collusion to intentionally cheat the in the systems of food safety, regulatory agencies, et. al.
I've visited with people who have toured foreign meat plants and found them to be state-of-the-art, pristine, and eagerly inspected plants. Maybe they are not all that way, and maybe some people do fall prey to bribery, but I seriously doubt many, or most are in that status.
mrj
What I said was that the USDA was shutting down plants because of the numerous facility change requirements, not real food safety results. This process was going on when Jan was head. An in-touch leader would have listened to those on the ground of these issues.
I am glad you agree with me on the state and interstate deal. We can both go to bed happy knowing that we agree.
As for other country's processing facilities, I would agree with you that there are a lot of good facilities over seas. It just didn't sound logical that the USDA would allow foods from those plants to be imported and sold in the U.S. where they had less control than they would of state inspected plants and not let state inspected plants to have interstate sales.
China, however, hasn't allowed complete access to food safety inspectors from the U.S. They just believed in holding those responsible with capital punishment (pretty harsh).
PORKER
Well-known member
Food Safety on Washington's Front Burner
December 4, 2007
Food safety is very much on the minds of Washington, D.C., policymakers at the moment. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, the Bush administration's point man on import safety, is scheduled to be the first witness this morning when U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., opens a 10:30 a.m. EST hearing on food safety by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Kennedy chairs. The hearing will focus on FDA's oversight of the safety of domestic and imported food products.
The United States next week will sign two binding memoranda of understanding with China that are intended to ensure food, animal feed, drugs, and medical devices imported from China meet U.S. safety standards, Leavitt said yesterday in a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Four weeks ago, Leavitt spoke at the White House about a report delivered by him and 11 other Cabinet secretaries on strengthening the safety of imported products. The report outlined a new strategy: ensuring safety at the foreign manufacturing/growing point rather than policing products upon arrival at 300 U.S. entry points that now receive goods from 825,000 importers but may be receiving triple today's import volume by 2015, Leavitt said. He called it "a strategy of preventing with verification. That is to say, we roll the borders back and make certain that quality is being built in at the manufacturing point," adding that "the basic strategic change here is going from just intervening at the border to building it in."
Sen. Kennedy's hearing notice said five witnesses are on a panel to testify after Leavitt: Michael R. Taylor, a George Washington University research professor of health policy; Paul Young, Ph.D., senior marketing manager for Waters Corp. in Northern Ireland; Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association; Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest; and J. Joseph Corby, director of the New York Department of Agriculture & Markets in Albany, N.Y.
December 4, 2007
Food safety is very much on the minds of Washington, D.C., policymakers at the moment. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, the Bush administration's point man on import safety, is scheduled to be the first witness this morning when U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., opens a 10:30 a.m. EST hearing on food safety by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Kennedy chairs. The hearing will focus on FDA's oversight of the safety of domestic and imported food products.
The United States next week will sign two binding memoranda of understanding with China that are intended to ensure food, animal feed, drugs, and medical devices imported from China meet U.S. safety standards, Leavitt said yesterday in a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Four weeks ago, Leavitt spoke at the White House about a report delivered by him and 11 other Cabinet secretaries on strengthening the safety of imported products. The report outlined a new strategy: ensuring safety at the foreign manufacturing/growing point rather than policing products upon arrival at 300 U.S. entry points that now receive goods from 825,000 importers but may be receiving triple today's import volume by 2015, Leavitt said. He called it "a strategy of preventing with verification. That is to say, we roll the borders back and make certain that quality is being built in at the manufacturing point," adding that "the basic strategic change here is going from just intervening at the border to building it in."
Sen. Kennedy's hearing notice said five witnesses are on a panel to testify after Leavitt: Michael R. Taylor, a George Washington University research professor of health policy; Paul Young, Ph.D., senior marketing manager for Waters Corp. in Northern Ireland; Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association; Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest; and J. Joseph Corby, director of the New York Department of Agriculture & Markets in Albany, N.Y.
PORKER said:Food Safety on Washington's Front Burner
December 4, 2007
Food safety is very much on the minds of Washington, D.C., policymakers at the moment. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, the Bush administration's point man on import safety, is scheduled to be the first witness this morning when U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., opens a 10:30 a.m. EST hearing on food safety by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Kennedy chairs. The hearing will focus on FDA's oversight of the safety of domestic and imported food products.
The United States next week will sign two binding memoranda of understanding with China that are intended to ensure food, animal feed, drugs, and medical devices imported from China meet U.S. safety standards, Leavitt said yesterday in a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Four weeks ago, Leavitt spoke at the White House about a report delivered by him and 11 other Cabinet secretaries on strengthening the safety of imported products. The report outlined a new strategy: ensuring safety at the foreign manufacturing/growing point rather than policing products upon arrival at 300 U.S. entry points that now receive goods from 825,000 importers but may be receiving triple today's import volume by 2015, Leavitt said. He called it "a strategy of preventing with verification. That is to say, we roll the borders back and make certain that quality is being built in at the manufacturing point," adding that "the basic strategic change here is going from just intervening at the border to building it in."
Sen. Kennedy's hearing notice said five witnesses are on a panel to testify after Leavitt: Michael R. Taylor, a George Washington University research professor of health policy; Paul Young, Ph.D., senior marketing manager for Waters Corp. in Northern Ireland; Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association; Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest; and J. Joseph Corby, director of the New York Department of Agriculture & Markets in Albany, N.Y.
What we need is testing at the grocer's shelf and holding responsible everyone in the supply chain. If the stores can not put the responsibility of the damage on their Chinese suppliers, they need to shoulder it themselves.
It would clean up things real fast.
PORKER
Well-known member
If the stores can not put the responsibility of the damage on their Chinese suppliers, they need to shoulder it themselves.
I agree but that should go for all imports nomatter the country.
I agree but that should go for all imports nomatter the country.
PORKER said:If the stores can not put the responsibility of the damage on their Chinese suppliers, they need to shoulder it themselves.
I agree but that should go for all imports nomatter the country.
I wasn't trying to be racist, there, porker. Of course that should apply to ALL countries, not just China.
Industrial Agriculture
Many of the ingredients used in food animal feed these days are not the kind
of food the animals are designed by nature to eat, including same species
meat; diseased animals; feathers, hair, skin, hooves, and blood; manure and
other animal waste; plastics; drugs and chemicals; and unhealthy amounts of
grains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
29968153 When many Americans think of farm animals, they picture cattle
munching grass on rolling pastures, chickens pecking on the ground outside
of picturesque red barns, and pigs gobbling down food at the trough.
Over the last 50 years, the way food animals are raised and fed has changed
dramatically—to the detriment of both animals and humans. Many people are
surprised to find that most of the food animals in the United States are no
longer raised on farms at all. Instead they come from crowded animal
factories, also known as large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
Just like other factories, animal factories are constantly searching for
ways to shave their costs. To save money, they've redefined what constitutes
animal feed, with little consideration of what is best for the animals or
for human health. As a result, many of the ingredients used in feed these
days are not the kind of food the animals are designed by nature to eat.
Just take a look at what's being fed to the animals you eat.
Same Species Meat
Diseased Animals
Feathers, Hair, Skin, Hooves, and Blood
Manure and Other Animal Waste
Plastics
Drugs and Chemicals
Unhealthy Amounts of Grains
Are these ingredients legal? Unfortunately, yes. Nevertheless, some raise
human health concerns. Others just indicate the low standards for animal
feeds. But all are symptoms of a system that has lost sight of the
appropriate way to raise food animals.
Same Species Meat, Diseased Animals, and Feathers, Hair, Skin, and Blood
The advent of "mad cow" disease (also known as bovine spongiform
encephalopathy or BSE) raised international concern about the safety of
feeding rendered[1] cattle to cattle. Since the discovery of mad cow disease
in the United States, the federal government has taken some action to
restrict the parts of cattle that can be fed back to cattle.
However, most animals are still allowed to eat meat from their own species.
Pig carcasses can be rendered and fed back to pigs, chicken carcasses can be
rendered and fed back to chickens, and turkey carcasses can be rendered and
fed back to turkeys. Even cattle can still be fed cow blood and some other
cow parts.
Under current law, pigs, chickens, and turkeys that have been fed rendered
cattle can be rendered and fed back to cattle—a loophole that may allow mad
cow agents to infect healthy cattle.
Animal feed legally can contain rendered road kill, dead horses, and
euthanized cats and dogs.
Rendered feathers, hair, skin, hooves, blood, and intestines can also be
found in feed, often under catch-all categories like "animal protein
products."
Manure and Other Animal Waste
Feed for any food animal can contain cattle manure, swine waste, and poultry
litter. This waste may contain drugs such as antibiotics and hormones that
have passed unchanged through the animals' bodies.
The poultry litter that is fed to cattle contains rendered cattle parts in
the form of digested poultry feed and spilled poultry feed. This is another
loophole that may allow mad cow agents to infect healthy cattle.
Animal waste used for feed is also allowed to contain dirt, rocks, sand,
wood, and other such contaminants.
Plastics
Many animals need roughage to move food through their digestive systems. But
instead of using plant-based roughage, animal factories often turn to
pellets made from plastics to compensate for the lack of natural fiber in
the factory feed.
Drugs and Chemicals
Animals raised in humane conditions with appropriate space and food rarely
require medical treatment. But animals at animal factories often receive
antibiotics to promote faster growth and to compensate for crowded,
stressful, and unsanitary living conditions. An estimated 13.5 million
pounds of antibiotics—the same classes of antibiotics used in human
medicine—are routinely added to animal feed or water. This routine,
nontherapeutic use of antibiotics speeds the development of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can infect humans as well as animals.
Antibiotic resistance is a pressing public health problem that costs the
U.S. economy billions of dollars each year.
Some of the antimicrobials used to control parasites and promote growth in
poultry contain arsenic, a known human carcinogen. Arsenic can be found in
meat or can contaminate human water supplies through runoff from factory
farms.
Unhealthy Amounts of Grains
One last surprise. While grain may sound like a healthful food, the
excessive quantities fed to some animals are not. This is especially true
for cattle, which are natural grass eaters. Their digestive systems are not
designed to handle the large amounts of corn they receive at feedlots. As a
result of this corn-rich diet, feedlot cattle can suffer significant health
problems, including excessively acidic digestive systems and liver
abscesses. Grain-induced health problems, in turn, ramp up the need for
drugs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Want to Change What Animals are Fed?
The rise in animal factories over the last 50 years has led to a system that
is out of control. Mad cow disease, increased liver abscesses, and the rise
of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are just some examples of the damage that
comes from unwise and often inhumane approaches to raising food animals.
As a consumer armed with information, you have the power to promote a modern
approach to raising animals that is both productive and healthful. You can
help to effect change by supporting systems and producers that feed animals
the food they were meant to eat.
You can:
Avoid factory farmed animal products altogether by choosing plant-based
foods.
Choose grass-fed and grass-finished beef and dairy products and
pasture-raised pork, poultry, and egg products.
Select certified organic meats, eggs, and dairy and those clearly labeled as
using only vegetarian animal feed.
Purchase meats, eggs, and dairy products from local farmers on the farm, at
farmers markets, or by buying a share from a local farmer as part of a
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
For More Information
Sapkota, A.R., L.Y. Lefferts, S. McKenzie, and P. Walker. 2007. What do we
feed to food-production animals? A review of animal feed ingredients and
their potential impacts on human health. Environmental Health Perspectives
115 (5):663-670.
Visit the Eat Well Guide to learn how you can locate sustainably produced
meats, eggs, and dairy products.
Visit the American Grassfed Association's list of producers to locate
producers of grass-fed and grass-finished animal products.
Click here for a guide to Community Supported Agriculture.
Click here to find a farmers market near you.
Click here to learn more about the Union of Concerned Scientists' work on
sustainable agriculture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[1] Rendering is an industrial process in which animal carcasses, parts, and
other wastes are ground up, heated, and further processed to create a
variety of products, including animal feed ingredients. Meat and bone meal,
blood meal, and feather meal are some examples of rendered products.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/they-eat-what.html#Same_Species_Meat_Diseased_Animals_and_F
Sirloin with a Touch of Cr@p
Exactly what do chickens and cows eat before we eat them?
By Lee Klein
Published: November 22, 2007
http://search.miaminewtimes.com/2007-11-22/news/meat-you-might-not-want-to-eat/full
TSS
Many of the ingredients used in food animal feed these days are not the kind
of food the animals are designed by nature to eat, including same species
meat; diseased animals; feathers, hair, skin, hooves, and blood; manure and
other animal waste; plastics; drugs and chemicals; and unhealthy amounts of
grains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
29968153 When many Americans think of farm animals, they picture cattle
munching grass on rolling pastures, chickens pecking on the ground outside
of picturesque red barns, and pigs gobbling down food at the trough.
Over the last 50 years, the way food animals are raised and fed has changed
dramatically—to the detriment of both animals and humans. Many people are
surprised to find that most of the food animals in the United States are no
longer raised on farms at all. Instead they come from crowded animal
factories, also known as large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
Just like other factories, animal factories are constantly searching for
ways to shave their costs. To save money, they've redefined what constitutes
animal feed, with little consideration of what is best for the animals or
for human health. As a result, many of the ingredients used in feed these
days are not the kind of food the animals are designed by nature to eat.
Just take a look at what's being fed to the animals you eat.
Same Species Meat
Diseased Animals
Feathers, Hair, Skin, Hooves, and Blood
Manure and Other Animal Waste
Plastics
Drugs and Chemicals
Unhealthy Amounts of Grains
Are these ingredients legal? Unfortunately, yes. Nevertheless, some raise
human health concerns. Others just indicate the low standards for animal
feeds. But all are symptoms of a system that has lost sight of the
appropriate way to raise food animals.
Same Species Meat, Diseased Animals, and Feathers, Hair, Skin, and Blood
The advent of "mad cow" disease (also known as bovine spongiform
encephalopathy or BSE) raised international concern about the safety of
feeding rendered[1] cattle to cattle. Since the discovery of mad cow disease
in the United States, the federal government has taken some action to
restrict the parts of cattle that can be fed back to cattle.
However, most animals are still allowed to eat meat from their own species.
Pig carcasses can be rendered and fed back to pigs, chicken carcasses can be
rendered and fed back to chickens, and turkey carcasses can be rendered and
fed back to turkeys. Even cattle can still be fed cow blood and some other
cow parts.
Under current law, pigs, chickens, and turkeys that have been fed rendered
cattle can be rendered and fed back to cattle—a loophole that may allow mad
cow agents to infect healthy cattle.
Animal feed legally can contain rendered road kill, dead horses, and
euthanized cats and dogs.
Rendered feathers, hair, skin, hooves, blood, and intestines can also be
found in feed, often under catch-all categories like "animal protein
products."
Manure and Other Animal Waste
Feed for any food animal can contain cattle manure, swine waste, and poultry
litter. This waste may contain drugs such as antibiotics and hormones that
have passed unchanged through the animals' bodies.
The poultry litter that is fed to cattle contains rendered cattle parts in
the form of digested poultry feed and spilled poultry feed. This is another
loophole that may allow mad cow agents to infect healthy cattle.
Animal waste used for feed is also allowed to contain dirt, rocks, sand,
wood, and other such contaminants.
Plastics
Many animals need roughage to move food through their digestive systems. But
instead of using plant-based roughage, animal factories often turn to
pellets made from plastics to compensate for the lack of natural fiber in
the factory feed.
Drugs and Chemicals
Animals raised in humane conditions with appropriate space and food rarely
require medical treatment. But animals at animal factories often receive
antibiotics to promote faster growth and to compensate for crowded,
stressful, and unsanitary living conditions. An estimated 13.5 million
pounds of antibiotics—the same classes of antibiotics used in human
medicine—are routinely added to animal feed or water. This routine,
nontherapeutic use of antibiotics speeds the development of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can infect humans as well as animals.
Antibiotic resistance is a pressing public health problem that costs the
U.S. economy billions of dollars each year.
Some of the antimicrobials used to control parasites and promote growth in
poultry contain arsenic, a known human carcinogen. Arsenic can be found in
meat or can contaminate human water supplies through runoff from factory
farms.
Unhealthy Amounts of Grains
One last surprise. While grain may sound like a healthful food, the
excessive quantities fed to some animals are not. This is especially true
for cattle, which are natural grass eaters. Their digestive systems are not
designed to handle the large amounts of corn they receive at feedlots. As a
result of this corn-rich diet, feedlot cattle can suffer significant health
problems, including excessively acidic digestive systems and liver
abscesses. Grain-induced health problems, in turn, ramp up the need for
drugs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Want to Change What Animals are Fed?
The rise in animal factories over the last 50 years has led to a system that
is out of control. Mad cow disease, increased liver abscesses, and the rise
of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are just some examples of the damage that
comes from unwise and often inhumane approaches to raising food animals.
As a consumer armed with information, you have the power to promote a modern
approach to raising animals that is both productive and healthful. You can
help to effect change by supporting systems and producers that feed animals
the food they were meant to eat.
You can:
Avoid factory farmed animal products altogether by choosing plant-based
foods.
Choose grass-fed and grass-finished beef and dairy products and
pasture-raised pork, poultry, and egg products.
Select certified organic meats, eggs, and dairy and those clearly labeled as
using only vegetarian animal feed.
Purchase meats, eggs, and dairy products from local farmers on the farm, at
farmers markets, or by buying a share from a local farmer as part of a
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
For More Information
Sapkota, A.R., L.Y. Lefferts, S. McKenzie, and P. Walker. 2007. What do we
feed to food-production animals? A review of animal feed ingredients and
their potential impacts on human health. Environmental Health Perspectives
115 (5):663-670.
Visit the Eat Well Guide to learn how you can locate sustainably produced
meats, eggs, and dairy products.
Visit the American Grassfed Association's list of producers to locate
producers of grass-fed and grass-finished animal products.
Click here for a guide to Community Supported Agriculture.
Click here to find a farmers market near you.
Click here to learn more about the Union of Concerned Scientists' work on
sustainable agriculture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[1] Rendering is an industrial process in which animal carcasses, parts, and
other wastes are ground up, heated, and further processed to create a
variety of products, including animal feed ingredients. Meat and bone meal,
blood meal, and feather meal are some examples of rendered products.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/they-eat-what.html#Same_Species_Meat_Diseased_Animals_and_F
Sirloin with a Touch of Cr@p
Exactly what do chickens and cows eat before we eat them?
By Lee Klein
Published: November 22, 2007
http://search.miaminewtimes.com/2007-11-22/news/meat-you-might-not-want-to-eat/full
TSS
PORKER
Well-known member
Don't eat the ALMONDS
The nutrition of almonds, the vitamins, minerals, good fats and enzymes are heat sensitive but Pasteurization kills almond sales.
Pasteurizing them kills them.
Pasteurization heats the fats and makes it rancid and promotes ill health.
Why does the USDA think that decreasing the nutritional value of the food will make it better for human consumption?
OrganicConsumers.org says this about the USDA's pasteurization of almonds
While the USDA generously describes the new almond treatments as pasteurization, the most common treatment method expected to be used fumigates almonds with propylene oxide. In lab experiments, the chemical leads to gene mutation, DNA strand breaks, and neoplastic cell transformation. The U.S. EPA has classified propylene oxide as a probable human carcinogen. Its use in treating food for human consumption is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and most other countries.
So, the carcinogen is banned from the EU, Canada, Mexico and most other countries but they're going to force the almond growers to sprinkle it generously on our Almonds. Nice. Who's in charge of this again?
Stop The Insanity
Organic Consumers has been leading a campaign to stop this stupidity. I've participated as best I can and brought it to the attention of my readers.
It didn't work, but we may have an opportunity to reverse it for a small period of time
A recent alert from Organic Consumers
Despite a negative backlash from almond producers, retailers and consumers, the USDA has implemented its ruling to require that all raw almonds sold in stores must be pasteurized. The rule went into effect on September 1st, and since then, all retail outlets have been forced to remove true raw almonds from store shelves. Consumers will be misled by this action as there will still be almonds on store shelves labeled as "raw", but they will actually be pasteurized.
One of the FDA-recommended pasteurization methods requires the use of propylene oxide, which is classified as a "possible human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is banned in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.
Since the decision about the rule was made, Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, has stepped down.
The nutrition of almonds, the vitamins, minerals, good fats and enzymes are heat sensitive but Pasteurization kills almond sales.
Pasteurizing them kills them.
Pasteurization heats the fats and makes it rancid and promotes ill health.
Why does the USDA think that decreasing the nutritional value of the food will make it better for human consumption?
OrganicConsumers.org says this about the USDA's pasteurization of almonds
While the USDA generously describes the new almond treatments as pasteurization, the most common treatment method expected to be used fumigates almonds with propylene oxide. In lab experiments, the chemical leads to gene mutation, DNA strand breaks, and neoplastic cell transformation. The U.S. EPA has classified propylene oxide as a probable human carcinogen. Its use in treating food for human consumption is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and most other countries.
So, the carcinogen is banned from the EU, Canada, Mexico and most other countries but they're going to force the almond growers to sprinkle it generously on our Almonds. Nice. Who's in charge of this again?
Stop The Insanity
Organic Consumers has been leading a campaign to stop this stupidity. I've participated as best I can and brought it to the attention of my readers.
It didn't work, but we may have an opportunity to reverse it for a small period of time
A recent alert from Organic Consumers
Despite a negative backlash from almond producers, retailers and consumers, the USDA has implemented its ruling to require that all raw almonds sold in stores must be pasteurized. The rule went into effect on September 1st, and since then, all retail outlets have been forced to remove true raw almonds from store shelves. Consumers will be misled by this action as there will still be almonds on store shelves labeled as "raw", but they will actually be pasteurized.
One of the FDA-recommended pasteurization methods requires the use of propylene oxide, which is classified as a "possible human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is banned in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.
Since the decision about the rule was made, Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, has stepped down.
PORKER said:Don't eat the ALMONDS
The nutrition of almonds, the vitamins, minerals, good fats and enzymes are heat sensitive but Pasteurization kills almond sales.
Pasteurizing them kills them.
Pasteurization heats the fats and makes it rancid and promotes ill health.
Why does the USDA think that decreasing the nutritional value of the food will make it better for human consumption?
OrganicConsumers.org says this about the USDA's pasteurization of almonds
While the USDA generously describes the new almond treatments as pasteurization, the most common treatment method expected to be used fumigates almonds with propylene oxide. In lab experiments, the chemical leads to gene mutation, DNA strand breaks, and neoplastic cell transformation. The U.S. EPA has classified propylene oxide as a probable human carcinogen. Its use in treating food for human consumption is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and most other countries.
So, the carcinogen is banned from the EU, Canada, Mexico and most other countries but they're going to force the almond growers to sprinkle it generously on our Almonds. Nice. Who's in charge of this again?
Stop The Insanity
Organic Consumers has been leading a campaign to stop this stupidity. I've participated as best I can and brought it to the attention of my readers.
It didn't work, but we may have an opportunity to reverse it for a small period of time
A recent alert from Organic Consumers
Despite a negative backlash from almond producers, retailers and consumers, the USDA has implemented its ruling to require that all raw almonds sold in stores must be pasteurized. The rule went into effect on September 1st, and since then, all retail outlets have been forced to remove true raw almonds from store shelves. Consumers will be misled by this action as there will still be almonds on store shelves labeled as "raw", but they will actually be pasteurized.
One of the FDA-recommended pasteurization methods requires the use of propylene oxide, which is classified as a "possible human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is banned in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.
Since the decision about the rule was made, Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, has stepped down.
Had Mike Johanns been a real man on the right side of the issues, he would have fought for them in while in office. It looks as if he was nothing more than a figurehead for big corporate agribusiness interests. Why would anyone think this qualifies him to run for the Senate?
PORKER said:Don't eat the ALMONDS
The nutrition of almonds, the vitamins, minerals, good fats and enzymes are heat sensitive but Pasteurization kills almond sales.
Pasteurizing them kills them.
Pasteurization heats the fats and makes it rancid and promotes ill health.
Why does the USDA think that decreasing the nutritional value of the food will make it better for human consumption?
OrganicConsumers.org says this about the USDA's pasteurization of almonds
While the USDA generously describes the new almond treatments as pasteurization, the most common treatment method expected to be used fumigates almonds with propylene oxide. In lab experiments, the chemical leads to gene mutation, DNA strand breaks, and neoplastic cell transformation. The U.S. EPA has classified propylene oxide as a probable human carcinogen. Its use in treating food for human consumption is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and most other countries.
So, the carcinogen is banned from the EU, Canada, Mexico and most other countries but they're going to force the almond growers to sprinkle it generously on our Almonds. Nice. Who's in charge of this again?
Stop The Insanity
Organic Consumers has been leading a campaign to stop this stupidity. I've participated as best I can and brought it to the attention of my readers.
It didn't work, but we may have an opportunity to reverse it for a small period of time
A recent alert from Organic Consumers
Despite a negative backlash from almond producers, retailers and consumers, the USDA has implemented its ruling to require that all raw almonds sold in stores must be pasteurized. The rule went into effect on September 1st, and since then, all retail outlets have been forced to remove true raw almonds from store shelves. Consumers will be misled by this action as there will still be almonds on store shelves labeled as "raw", but they will actually be pasteurized.
One of the FDA-recommended pasteurization methods requires the use of propylene oxide, which is classified as a "possible human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is banned in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.
Since the decision about the rule was made, Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, has stepped down.
Had Mike Johanns been a real man on the right side of the issues, he would have fought for them in while in office. It looks as if he was nothing more than a figurehead for big corporate agribusiness interests. Why would anyone think this qualifies him to run for the Senate?
PORKER
Well-known member
Another author wrote this!!
It's FDA mandated.FDA Approves Controversial Spray-On Viruses For Deli Meats to stop listeriosis.
This Forbes story reveals the shocking news that the FDA is going to allow for the very first time a series of six viruses to be sprayed as a food additive onto deli meats such as sliced turkey and ham as well as hot dogs,sausages, and other ready-to-eat packaged meats. You heard me right--VIRUSES SPRAYED ON OUR MEAT!
Plus,what is the sudden urgency of this that would cause the FDA to move so quickly to grant approval for this virus concoction to be put on perfectly good meat? Well, it appears there is a segment of our population that gets sick with an infection called listeriosis and one-fifth of those people die annually. How many Americans contract listeriosis each year and get sick and/or die? Millions? Hundreds ofthousands?
Would you believe ONLY 2,500 get seriously ill and a grand total of 500 of those people die, according to statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control? That's a mere SEVEN people for every one million who get the disease and just a little over 1 person per million who dies. That's it! And THIS warrants a move to introduce a series of viruses to tens of millions of people?! ARGH!
While it is awful to hear that ANYONE has to get sick or even die from something as horrific as something like listeriosis, does it really take a drastic action by the FDA like spray-on viruses on deli meats when the over whelming majority of Americans will not be affected by this disease? Who's to say these new viruses won't lead to some other kind of sickness in the millions upon millions of people who would otherwise be just fine eating the meat sans the viruses? There are too many unanswered questions in my mind to make me feel comfortable with this.
The story explains that this virus spray developed by a company called Intralytix, Inc. (who stands to reap HUGE profits from the sale and distribution of their virus spray) is actually bacteriophages which fight and kill the Listeria monocytogenes bacterium that ends upon uncooked deli meats. This disease is more apt to hit women who are pregnant, newborn babies and adults with a weak immune system.
So,if those people are in the high-risk category, then why don't we give them access to this virus spray so they can give a little squirt on their meat before eating it if they are the ones who are most susceptible? Why expose the other 99.999% of us who don't have any difficulty eating deli meats to this new string of viruses that may or may not be good for us to consume over the long-term? By the way, where are the studies on how safe these viruses really are? Hmmmm? FDA, it's time to pony up the information!
I eat a lot of sliced turkey aspart of my low-carb lifestyle. I really enjoy eating a cold cut turkey and cheese wrap with a little mayonnaise and/or mustard and sometimes some spinach leaves. It's a quick and easy lunch and helps fuel my workout during my lunch break from work. I have eaten it hot out of the microwave and cold, so I guess I have been exposed to the risk of getting listeriosis myself. But I have eaten luncheon meats 5 days a week for the past three years with no sign of sickness at all. NONE!
But now I'm going to be exposed to these viruses which will make me re think the kind of meats I buy from the grocery store. This really stinks, ya know? Sure, Intralytix President and CEO John D. Vazzana,who has been lobbying the FDA to approve their virus spray since 2002,says this food additive (as they are calling it) is completely safe as does the FDA food additive safety regulator Andrew Zajac.
"As long as it used in accordance with the regulations, we have concluded it's safe," Zajac said.
But what makes them so sure the viruses will be used "in accordance with the regulations" and not cause people any harm? Oh, we're just supposed to trust them and believe them at face value that these supposedly"safe" viruses they are adding to our food will have ZERO negative impact on our bodies. Puh-leez! I wouldn't trust the government from here to my front door on something that could directly impact my life like this.
Here's a scary quote from the FDA:
"The viruses are grown in a preparation of the very bacteria they kill, and then purified. The FDA had concerns that the virus preparation potentially could contain toxic residues associated with the bacteria.However, testing did not reveal the presence of such residues, which in small quantities likely wouldn't cause health problems anyway," the FDAsaid.
Jeepers creepers! Since listeria exists in deli meats primarily because they are not cooked or heated up prior to consumption, then why doesn't the FDA just put out a recommendation for people in the vulnerable groups to do just that prior to consuming these foods? That certainly makes a lot more sense than taking the bold and risky action to begin spraying viruses on the meat that millions of people consume daily. Duh!
Even scarier is the eerie revelation by Zajac in this story that consumers will have no idea this virus spray has been added to the deli meats they purchase. If it's so safe, then why not? Yikes,you mean there won't be a big yellow sticker on it with the message"FDA-APPROVED SPRAY-ON VIRUSES APPLIED TO THIS MEAT!" Ya think OscarMeyer and Bryan would appreciate having that on their bestselling deli meats? Nah, didn't think so.
UGH! Do you see where this is going people? Now that the FDA has approved this action, Intralytix is already feeling cocky enough to begin an immediate worldwide production of their spray-on virus and are even currently working on another spray that will allegedly kill the E. coli bacteria on beef prior to grounding. AAACK! What are they doing to our beef now?!
Are you as outraged about this as I am? If not, then you should be. Feel free to tell me why you aren't angry about this if this is of no concern to you. But if you are upset and want to voice your opinion, then make your voice heard by commenting below and also by demanding answers from Andrew Zajac at the FDA. E-mail him to express YOUR concerns about this issue at [email protected].. Let me know if he responds so I can post it here.
This is an important issue for people who are livin' la vida low-carb and I urge you to tell everyone you know about what the FDA has approved to be put on deli meats. MAKE A FUSS, SAY NO TO VIRUS!
It's FDA mandated.FDA Approves Controversial Spray-On Viruses For Deli Meats to stop listeriosis.
This Forbes story reveals the shocking news that the FDA is going to allow for the very first time a series of six viruses to be sprayed as a food additive onto deli meats such as sliced turkey and ham as well as hot dogs,sausages, and other ready-to-eat packaged meats. You heard me right--VIRUSES SPRAYED ON OUR MEAT!
Plus,what is the sudden urgency of this that would cause the FDA to move so quickly to grant approval for this virus concoction to be put on perfectly good meat? Well, it appears there is a segment of our population that gets sick with an infection called listeriosis and one-fifth of those people die annually. How many Americans contract listeriosis each year and get sick and/or die? Millions? Hundreds ofthousands?
Would you believe ONLY 2,500 get seriously ill and a grand total of 500 of those people die, according to statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control? That's a mere SEVEN people for every one million who get the disease and just a little over 1 person per million who dies. That's it! And THIS warrants a move to introduce a series of viruses to tens of millions of people?! ARGH!
While it is awful to hear that ANYONE has to get sick or even die from something as horrific as something like listeriosis, does it really take a drastic action by the FDA like spray-on viruses on deli meats when the over whelming majority of Americans will not be affected by this disease? Who's to say these new viruses won't lead to some other kind of sickness in the millions upon millions of people who would otherwise be just fine eating the meat sans the viruses? There are too many unanswered questions in my mind to make me feel comfortable with this.
The story explains that this virus spray developed by a company called Intralytix, Inc. (who stands to reap HUGE profits from the sale and distribution of their virus spray) is actually bacteriophages which fight and kill the Listeria monocytogenes bacterium that ends upon uncooked deli meats. This disease is more apt to hit women who are pregnant, newborn babies and adults with a weak immune system.
So,if those people are in the high-risk category, then why don't we give them access to this virus spray so they can give a little squirt on their meat before eating it if they are the ones who are most susceptible? Why expose the other 99.999% of us who don't have any difficulty eating deli meats to this new string of viruses that may or may not be good for us to consume over the long-term? By the way, where are the studies on how safe these viruses really are? Hmmmm? FDA, it's time to pony up the information!
I eat a lot of sliced turkey aspart of my low-carb lifestyle. I really enjoy eating a cold cut turkey and cheese wrap with a little mayonnaise and/or mustard and sometimes some spinach leaves. It's a quick and easy lunch and helps fuel my workout during my lunch break from work. I have eaten it hot out of the microwave and cold, so I guess I have been exposed to the risk of getting listeriosis myself. But I have eaten luncheon meats 5 days a week for the past three years with no sign of sickness at all. NONE!
But now I'm going to be exposed to these viruses which will make me re think the kind of meats I buy from the grocery store. This really stinks, ya know? Sure, Intralytix President and CEO John D. Vazzana,who has been lobbying the FDA to approve their virus spray since 2002,says this food additive (as they are calling it) is completely safe as does the FDA food additive safety regulator Andrew Zajac.
"As long as it used in accordance with the regulations, we have concluded it's safe," Zajac said.
But what makes them so sure the viruses will be used "in accordance with the regulations" and not cause people any harm? Oh, we're just supposed to trust them and believe them at face value that these supposedly"safe" viruses they are adding to our food will have ZERO negative impact on our bodies. Puh-leez! I wouldn't trust the government from here to my front door on something that could directly impact my life like this.
Here's a scary quote from the FDA:
"The viruses are grown in a preparation of the very bacteria they kill, and then purified. The FDA had concerns that the virus preparation potentially could contain toxic residues associated with the bacteria.However, testing did not reveal the presence of such residues, which in small quantities likely wouldn't cause health problems anyway," the FDAsaid.
Jeepers creepers! Since listeria exists in deli meats primarily because they are not cooked or heated up prior to consumption, then why doesn't the FDA just put out a recommendation for people in the vulnerable groups to do just that prior to consuming these foods? That certainly makes a lot more sense than taking the bold and risky action to begin spraying viruses on the meat that millions of people consume daily. Duh!
Even scarier is the eerie revelation by Zajac in this story that consumers will have no idea this virus spray has been added to the deli meats they purchase. If it's so safe, then why not? Yikes,you mean there won't be a big yellow sticker on it with the message"FDA-APPROVED SPRAY-ON VIRUSES APPLIED TO THIS MEAT!" Ya think OscarMeyer and Bryan would appreciate having that on their bestselling deli meats? Nah, didn't think so.
UGH! Do you see where this is going people? Now that the FDA has approved this action, Intralytix is already feeling cocky enough to begin an immediate worldwide production of their spray-on virus and are even currently working on another spray that will allegedly kill the E. coli bacteria on beef prior to grounding. AAACK! What are they doing to our beef now?!
Are you as outraged about this as I am? If not, then you should be. Feel free to tell me why you aren't angry about this if this is of no concern to you. But if you are upset and want to voice your opinion, then make your voice heard by commenting below and also by demanding answers from Andrew Zajac at the FDA. E-mail him to express YOUR concerns about this issue at [email protected].. Let me know if he responds so I can post it here.
This is an important issue for people who are livin' la vida low-carb and I urge you to tell everyone you know about what the FDA has approved to be put on deli meats. MAKE A FUSS, SAY NO TO VIRUS!
