For those who thought -

[William Kanitz]

How are they ever going to keep all those packages seperate? Only with our www.scoringag.com database. Another link http://www.scoringag.com/Public/docs/packingplant_solution_en.pdf

 

[mrj]

Let the consumer decide what they eat and don't eat. It should be their choice. If it is not disclosed, they will never know.

Tyson's little arsenic in chicken feed was a huge blunder. Why shouldn't consumers have the right to know if the food they eat has these things in it? Because it puts the dents in the profitability of people like Tyson?

That is the worst reason.

Econ, where has anyone other than you said consumers shouldn't have a right to know about their food? Consumers have a right to know that not all claims about "healthy" foods are true.

If my desire for testing before making claims was followed, IF arsenic existed in processed poultry it would show up in the tests, and I do not care who "profits", I just do not want them doing so by unverified claims that their product is "safer" than others'.

So called "disclosure" has to be verified before being used as a basis for claims of a superior product, IMO.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Let the consumer decide what they eat and don't eat. It should be their choice. If it is not disclosed, they will never know.

Tyson's little arsenic in chicken feed was a huge blunder. Why shouldn't consumers have the right to know if the food they eat has these things in it? Because it puts the dents in the profitability of people like Tyson?

That is the worst reason.

Econ, where has anyone other than you said consumers shouldn't have a right to know about their food? Consumers have a right to know that not all claims about "healthy" foods are true.

If my desire for testing before making claims was followed, IF arsenic existed in processed poultry it would show up in the tests, and I do not care who "profits", I just do not want them doing so by unverified claims that their product is "safer" than others'.

So called "disclosure" has to be verified before being used as a basis for claims of a superior product, IMO.

MRJ

MRJ, there were no tests being done.

It was only after some period of time that enough was known about the arsenic and the "enviro whackos" got involved that there was a change. I happen to like those kind of people. We should have these kind of things in mind in the companies that are making the decisions on these issues but they have continually been let off the hook that they don't care. It is all about the bottom line. There are a lot of things in this world that are more important than "the bottom line" and you have mentioned some of them in a post about this. I appreciated that post.

Tyson was making an extra buck and not disclosing these hazards in their products. That was a fraud. Upper management paid nothing for this mistake.

 

[Tommy]

mj...IF arsenic existed in processed poultry it would show up in the tests

Not if mj, it has shown up in tests.

Study Has Many Clucking about Elevated Levels of Arsenic Found in Chicken


November 22, 2005



By Michael Greger, M.D.

After reviewing 5,000 chicken samples, researchers from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service last year discovered alarmingly high levels of arsenic contamination in the flesh of broiler chickens, those chickens raised for meat.1 These government researchers found that the amount of arsenic in the chicken samples greatly exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency's upper safety limit of arsenic allowed in drinking water. In fact, the amount of arsenic found in the chicken was six to nine times that allowed by the EPA.

How did the arsenic get into the chickens? The poultry industry fed it to them. In the United States, most broiler chickens—constituting 99% of the chicken meat that people eat—are fed arsenic.2, 3 Although fish and shellfish also present significant dietary sources of arsenic,4 according to the Food and Drug Administration, arsenic compounds are extensively added to the feed of farm animals—particularly chickens and pigs—to make them grow faster.5 The animals Americans eat are so heavily infested with internal parasites that adding arsenic to the feed can result in a "stunning" increase in growth rates.6

Ellen Silbergeld, Ph.D., a professor and researcher from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the poultry industry's practice of using arsenic compounds in its feed is something that has not been studied. "It's an issue everybody is trying to pretend doesn't exist," said Silbergeld.

 

[Kathy]

This looks like a good time to post what I found in a 1947 (first published 1936) book from the USA called Feeds and Feeding. It is long, sorry, but very interesting. Instead of treating these chickens and pigs with arsenic, perhaps they should investigate copper.

In this old book, it mentions wasting disease in cattle in Florida. A goggle search and Entrez Pubmed search of "salt sick in Florida Cattle" proved very interesting. The title of this very thick book is:

"

Feeds and Feeding" A Handbook for the student and stockman, by F.B. Morrison, professor of animal husbandry and animal nutrition, Cornell University. First published in 1936, and my copy is the 1947 20th edition. Publisher The Morrison Publishing Company.

Pages 116 and 117, chapter "Proteins-Minerals-Vitamins", is sections 173 and 174:
(I will type them out for you, verbatim):

"173. Iron and copper; cobalt. – An adequate supply of iron is essential for animals, because the oxygen needed by the tissues is transported in the blood by the hemoglobin, which is an iron-containing compound. (62) Iron is also usually present in the nuclei, or life centers, of the body cells, which control their activities. Iron compounds are, moreover, believed to play an important part in the oxidation of nutrients in the cells.

In spite of the importance of iron, the animal body contains but a very small amount. Indeed, iron forms only about one part in twenty-five thousand, by weight, of our bodies. The tissues of a full-grown, healthy person contain only one-tenth ounce of this mineral.

In addition to a sufficient supply of iron, small traces of copper must be provided in the food to make possible the formation of hemoglobulin in the body.53 It has been found that the copper is not a part of hemoglobin, but that it is necessary to enable the body to produce hemoglobulin.54 When the essential traces of copper are not present, the animal can still assimilate iron from the food, but it merely stores the iron in the liver, and is unable to manufacture hemoglobulin. Traces of copper are therefore essential for animal life, although this mineral is a violent poison when any considerable amount is taken into the body.

It has recently been found that smaller traces of cobalt, a rare mineral, are also needed, at least by some animals, for the formation of hemoglobin, although it appears to contain no cobalt.

If animals are fed a diet that is too low in iron, or in copper or cobalt, nutritional anemia will result. In this disease there is a serious lack of hemoglobin in the blood. Such anemia is very different from the disease in humans called pernicious anemia, and also differs from anemia caused by great loss of blood, as from a wound.

There is usually no lack of iron, copper, or cobalt in the rations of farm animals, except perhaps during the suckling period, as is discussed later. (174) However, in a few localities the forage is so low in one or more of these minerals that serious anemia of stock results.

It was long known that cattle would not thrive on certain areas in Florida. They lost their appetites, they became emaciated and weak, and their blood was very low in hemoglobin. Young cattle were most affected by the disease and were often badly stunted. Many of the animals died from the disease, which is called "salt sick". Goats, sheep, and swine were also affected in certain of the areas.

After extensive investigation by the Florida Station it was concluded that the disease was due to a serious lack in the forage of iron, or of both iron and copper. Then it was found in Australia and New Zealand experiments that serious anemia in livestock might be caused by a deficiency in cobalt. The Florida investigators have recently found that at least in some areas of the state, the "salt sick" diseases is due to a lack of cobalt.55

Recovery follows rapidly when the animals are allowed to take as much as they wish of such a mineral mixture as the following: 100 lbs. common salt, 25 lbs. red oxide of iron, 2 lbs. finely-ground copper sulfate, and 1 ounce of cobalt chloride. The mixture must be mixed very thoroughly so no animal will get too much copper sulfate. In a few localities the forage is also deficient of phosphorous. In such cases it is also necessary to include bone meal or some other phosphorous supplement in the mineral mixture.

Baffling diseases of stock in certain other areas have been found to be caused by a lack of iron, copper, or cobalt, and have been cured by the suitable mineral supplement. For example, such deficiency diseases have been found and overcome in areas on the coast of Massachusetts, and in parts of Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, southern Scotland, and British East Africa. Most recently, a disease of cattle in certain districts of Michigan has been found to be due to a deficiency of cobalt.

Many investigations have been conducted to determine which sources of iron are most readily available for hemoglobin building, especially in the human body. It has been found that simple inorganic iron salts, such as ferric chloride, are readily utilized, while the iron in the complex organic iron compound in the hemoglobin of blood was much less readily used.56 This indicates that iron in organic compounds must be broken down in the body into simple inorganic iron salts, before it can be used. It was also found that the organic iron in the cereal grains was not so available as that in inorganic salts.

The green-leaved parts of plants, especially of young plants, are rich in iron. Other feeds and foods relatively high in iron are most meats, legume seeds, cereal grains, and cane molasses."

It is interesting to note that the book says nothing of scrapie in sheep. On page 791 chapter "Feeding and Caring for Sheep and Lambs", section (1256) reads as follows:

1256. Stomach worms and other parasites. – In the humid districts of the United States, stomach worms, Haemonchus contortus, and also other internal parasites are a serious tax upon sheep raising. For success it is necessary to use effective methods of controlling these parasites.

Thee stomach worms not only draw nourishment from the blood, but it is also believed that poisonous secretions from the worms reduce the number of red blood cells and the hemoglobin content of the blood of the infested animals. Badly affected sheep may have only one-quarter the normal number of red blood cells. Lambs are usually affected more seriously than older sheep.

The eggs of the stomach worms pass out in the droppings of sheep and are scattered about the pastures, where they son hatch and develop to the larval stage. Sheep become infested only by swallowing the worms at this state while grazing.

Fields on which no sheep, cattle, or goats have grazed for a year and those that have been freshly plowed and cultivated since sheep grazed thereon, are practically free from infestation. Old bluegrass pastures are especially to be avoided. It is also dangerous to allow sheep to drink from stagnant pools. During warm weather, otherwise clean pastures may become infested in 10 to 20 days of grazing.

To remove the worms from the intestinal tract of sheep various drenches are recommended, the most common probably being the 1 per cent solution of copper sulfate in water.43 The dose depends on the size of the sheep. A good rule is to use 1 ounce of the solution for each 30 to 35 lbs. of sheep or lamb and never give more than 5 ounces to any sheep.44 The dose for an average ewe is from 3.5 to 4.0 ounces.

As copper sulfate is poisonous, the solution must be carefully made up and accurately administered for safety. So the drench will control some of the common tape worms as well, 1 ounce of a 40 per cent solution of nicotine sulfate may be added to 3 to 4 quarts of copper sulfate solution before drenching and for 5 or 6 hours after drenching, to increase the effectiveness. Other drenches sometimes use a carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroethylene, and Lugol's iodine solution.

If sheep are severely infested with stomach worms, a second treatment should be given after 10 days. It is a good plan to drench sheep at regular intervals throughout the grazing season. In the northern states once a month from the time they go on pasture will usually give effective control. In the South more frequent drenching may be necessary. Early lambs are ordinarily given the first treatment at weaning time. ……."

 

[mrj]

MRJ, as learned by the advancement of prion testing, there are many ways to determine the ppm or ppb of residues. Not using a product does not guarantee that it is not there. This said, the producer who does not use hormones and/or antibiotics in their husbandry practices has the right to tell the producer that

***************
I'm aware there are naturally ocurring hormones in beef. That fact was blown WAY our of proportion years ago by people trying to turn consumers off eating beef. We producers had to do the research to prove the amount was not harmful.
MRJ
*************

If they make claims in their news releases advertisements, than you must challenge the news releases and the advertisements. If the packaging simply states these products are not used in their business practices, then this must be allowed to stand on the label.

We cannot confuse labelling with advertising/news releases.
***************
My concern is more with media releases than the actual label, but believe there should be a disclaimer on that label stating something like "no proven health benefits from these practices", if they want to be honest and do not intend to harm producers of conventionally raised beef by their claims.
MRJ
*************

I have posted articles which mentioned that breast epithelial cells had their doubling times increased by 30-40% by growth hormones and that neoplastic transformations also occurred in the breast cell cultures. Finding out where the exposure to these hormones is coming from is important. Water sources contaminated with artificial cattle and human hormone supplements is a very serious issue, as these hormones are not filtered out of the drinking water.
**********************
Have you any concern about the "who and why" of such reasearch? What are they trying to do? Find answers to existing legitimate health concerns.......or drum up support for more government control of land, water, and individuals' activities? Was water actually found to be contaminated with artificial cattle and human hormone supplements? What was the source? Can cattle sources be differentiated from human? Naturally occuring from introduced?

MRJ
*******************

The body is very capable of identifying the hormones which occur naturally and those which are artificially manufactured using ecoli bacteria or yeast - used in the manufactur of cattle growth hormones. The body reacts to these foreign substances. Constant bombardment with these types of artificial products, puts a huge strain on the immune system.

Some of the xenobiotic reactions which take place after exposure to non-hormone products can even stimulate hormone production, so we can agree this is an extremely complicated matter.
*****************
Is this information accepted by the broad scientific community? Have you posted documentation of it someplace I may have missed on this site?
MRJ
*****************

But why use the product in your cattle businesses? The consumers that don't care where their meat came from can continue to go on blissfully ignorant. The consumer that wants to know - has the right to be told if that producer did or did not use a particular chemical in their growing of that meat and the producer has every right to inform them.

If they pro-growth hormone side of the arguement spent more time divulging the reports which prove these products are safe, consumers could make their own educated decisions. Those people who are more awake to their surroundings do not trust the blanket reassurances of governments and large lobby groups.
******************
I happen to be more trusting of government and business than I am of large lobby groups of enviromnental and other varied extremist and "nanny type" groups. BTW, people ranching in western SD, with our climatic extremes, HAVE to be "more awake to our surroundings" than most anyone else, or we will DIE of exposure to one or another of those extremes........or lose our private property rights to those who want to "preserve" these pristine virgin prairies upon which we raise our cattle........or lose the right to raise cattle to those who believe animals have rights superior to humans......for starters!
MRJ
******************

Other claims are secondary and should be dealt with separately.

To answer my own question within this reply:

Why do ranchers use growth hormones? In my opinion they do it because they think they can make more money by having more pounds of beef. They do not use them because they know they are safe. You take the word of scientists, many of whom work for the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the product, that they are safe.

I don't believe enough research has been done, and I hope more will be done (preferrably by governments and not manufacturers). People will always be synical of the results. That is why they need to know as many facts as they can about what they are eating.

***************
There are plenty of ranchers who have learned they do make money using ionophores. There is sound research showing they are beneficial. It seems to be a matter of whom one finds to be trustworthy.
I suppose some people are "cynical" of many things........very likely because people who want to change our rights and tell us how we must live are throwing such claims and charges indiscriminately at businesses, scientists who work for businesses, and anyone who "works for profit" (excepting "grass-roots-little-guy-farmers/ranchers, of course) and just generally believe they are part of an elite group of wise and educated people who should tell the rest of us how to work and live.

I prefer to see the good side of pharmaceutical companies and the products they have developed that do benefit business, and health of animals and people. Yes, there can be mistakes, there are some people who will cheat, and they both usually found out. The benefits far outweigh the risks, IMO.

I suppose it could come down to what difference does it make whether the world is taken over by corporations........or "Mother Earth worshipers" who won't let humans profit from their "Mother/Goddess".

MRJ

 

[mrj]

The US doesn't take enough precautions in food and in pharmaceuticals / medical / biologic devices. Period.

I used to laugh at the organic, natural craze myself.

My husband was killed by infected human cadaver material sewn into his skull. We have known for 30 years now that this can kill but unlike the UK who outlawed its use 15 years ago, we allow physicians to choose to use it and to NOT fully disclose the risks.

In some ways, the US is ahead in consumer safety but the sad truth is that in some ways it is behind and will fall further behind because we undervalue human life over economics and practicality. Our regulators are (1) often politically led by the administration depending upon which big business concern is lobbying them; (2) tired and bureaucratic and sometimes non proactive civil servants; (3) too chummy with the industries they regulate.

Europe and Japan are ahead of us and believe that an ouch of precaution is worth it when you are dealing with human life and health.

I'm no longer so quick to think claims about hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, unsafe medical equipment are far fetched. It's not so rare as you think for mistakes to be made or for regulators to take too long to take action once they know that a product bears risks.

Reader, You do have my sympathy and I understand that your unique situation is devastating and sad for you, additionally so, if the outcome might have been different had you known of that possibility and had alternate choices re. your husbands' surgery.

It seems likely to me that the many freedoms we take for granted in this nation offer opportunities for both great research and discoveries, and sometimes sadly wrong results. Opportunities are there, as well, for people to act contrary to what is right and they are not always discovered and perpetrators prosecuted for their actions. Still, I would rather the freedoms exist with the possibilities for great good as a result than to have lesser freedom with less chance of bad things happening.

We expect government to always come through on consumer safety and don't expect much effort on the part of we consumers to enhance our health and safety. I do not agree that we undervalue human life here, with the exception of abortion on demand policies. As a participant in an overly regulated industry, I can see the value of good relationships between regulator and regulated........with no wrong-doing on the part of anyone. To deny ranchers, or any other occupation for that matter, the right to work in a friendly manner with those who regulate us is to presume all ranchers to be of evil intent, IMO.

Why are people, especially children of poor families, so frequently brought to this country for care for serious health problems? A heartless, greedy, corporate driven government would not be spending such a huge percentage of the budget on Entitlement programs as ours is. Where would the drive to find new vaccines to protect against feared loss of life to pandemics come from if budgeting was driven by obscene profiteering motives?

We will never know how many wonderful cures were thwarted by over-zealous, overly proactive, overly strict regulators in government. Or how many lives could have been saved by some new product but for the financial toll on the corporation whose owners had a dream of developing a wonder drug or better artificial heart, etc, etc. I can see there are discoveries of new products that turn out to be harmful, but cannot believe it is all planned that way so companies can profit at consumers expense. Can you?

The success of a beef industry consortium, the Beef Industry Food Safety Council (BIFSCo), including funding by beef checkoff, food industry businesses, and government, achieved a very significant drop of more than 80 % in E. coli prevalence in just four years.

That success illustrates the good that can come of government and industry efforts to solve a problem that affects consumers negatively while doing no real harm to cattle or those businesses (other than lawsuits by people affected by the illnesses). These groups were willing to spend lots of their money to improve food safety without being forced to do so by government or anyone else. Acknowlegement is made that there still is a lot of research to be done to end the e coli problem, but this effort involving people from the farm to the consumer is exciting and shows moves in the right direction, IMO.

MRJ

 

[Mike]

A heartless, greedy, corporate driven government would not be spending such a huge percentage of the budget on Entitlement programs as ours is.

Got news for you MRJ. The spending on "entitlement" programs is a disguise to buy votes. Nothing more.........nothing less.