Kroger quits stocking gas-packaged beef

[Tommy]

SH...When they use science based technology to enhance the color of meat with CO2.

Now Scott, are you trying to mislead or are you just uninformed? If you are trying to mislead that is a lie....right?

BTW Scott what part of your post was a contribution to the thread?

 

[Mike]

Ban Sought on Use of Carbon Monoxide to Fix Meat Color
Published on: February 21, 2006

Millions of Americans may be buying beef or seafood that has been treated with carbon monoxide as a "pigment fixative" – in other words, carbon monoxide has been used to keep the product's pink or rosy color in an effort to keep it looking fresh.

The problem is that sometimes the color may be fresh-looking, but the meat or seafood may actually be spoiled. And since consumers often depend on how a product looks when deciding whether to buy it or eat it, this means that consumers are actually being deceived by a practice that, according to numerous press reports, is both rampant and undisclosed on product labels.

The good news is that numerous media outlets have focused on this practice in recent days. The Washington Post reports that "the growing use of carbon monoxide as a 'pigment fixative' is alarming consumer advocates and others who say it deceives shoppers who depend on color to help them avoid spoiled meat. Those critics are challenging the Food and Drug Administration and the nation's powerful meat industry, saying the agency violated its own rules by allowing the practice without a formal evaluation of its impact on consumer safety."

The New York Times reports that "the carbon monoxide is itself harmless at the levels being used in the treated packaging. But opponents say that the process, which is also used to keep tuna rosy, allows stores to sell meat that is no longer fresh, and that consumers would not know until they opened the package at home and smelled it. Labels do not note whether meat has been laced with carbon monoxide."

And, the Post notes, "no one knows how much carbon-monoxide treated meat is being sold; the companies involved are privately held or keep that information secret."

The use of the word "secret" is particularly annoying in cases like these, because it reflects an unwillingness on the part of companies, and an acquiescence by government, to keep consumers in the dark about the products they buy and eat. It is time for complete and utter transparency by these companies, and for the government to insist that if "pigment fixative" technologies are used, they should be disclosed in bold, clear, unambiguous language on product labels.

 

[Econ101]

Part of the role of regulatory agencies is to ensure companies do not mess in their own bed. Looks like the NCBA in bed with the USDA has created such a mess that we can not test our beef for BSE, we can not sell our beef to foreign companies under their more stringent processing guidelines, we can not properly regulate or investigate the abuses to producers in the industry, we can not make sure that the product is safe to buy or eat by using the sight and smell test.

I don't know how we can get this bed any messier.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Tell me, SH, without going on a tirade, when a consumer buys a package of CO treated beef believing that the color is a result of freshness, are they getting what they think they are paying for?"

Yes unless you can show me where CO treated beef is unsafe.

Why don't you address the packer blaming hypocrisy of criticizing the evil packers for not aging beef then turning right around and criticizing them for enhancing color through the aging process?

I don't care what the packers do, you packer blamers will blame them for something. You're so predictable. "BWAME DA PACKAH!"

Tommy: "Now Scott, are you trying to mislead or are you just uninformed? If you are trying to mislead that is a lie....right?"

If you think you can contradict anything I have stated, step up to the plate big shooter or go back to carrying bats back to the dugout.

Tommy: "BTW Scott what part of your post was a contribution to the thread?"

Pointing out the fact that packer blamers like you blame packers for not aging beef then you turn around and blame them for enhancing the color of beef through the aging process.

The best thing I can offer this forum is to introduce you packer blamers to your hypocritical selves.

What did you contribute Tommy? Nothing, as usual.

Let me know when you compose an original thought Tommy.



~SH~

 

[Tommy]

SH...If you think you can contradict anything I have stated, step up to the plate big shooter or go back to carrying bats back to the dugout.

This is so easy Scott, I have contradicted quite a few things you have mis-stated. I know the difference between CO and CO2, you must not.

What percent of Hispanics do we have here in the USA again Scott?

In your own mind you contribute, the most of us do not agree.

 

[Econ101]

And before you ask Tommy who is "we", SH, I am one of them.

 

[Sandhusker]

Quote:
Sandbag: "Tell me, SH, without going on a tirade, when a consumer buys a package of CO treated beef believing that the color is a result of freshness, are they getting what they think they are paying for?"


SH, "Yes unless you can show me where CO treated beef is unsafe."

Let's see here.... they buy the beef because they believe the color is a result of freshness, but instead is the result of a chemical reaction - but you say you think they are getting what the are paying for? SH, they think they are buying fresh meat. Isn't the color one of these ILLUSIONS that you yap about constantly?

 

[mrj]

Guys, after re-reading all three pages of this thread, there is so much mis-information it is hard to know where to start!

First, the $1.+Billion dollars lost to the retailers is IN THE STORY starting this thread. ANd I've seen it in news stories in the news.

There have been TWO different gases processes mentioned in some stories, even in this thread! One is mixed gases, the other is the straight CO. And, yes, I did check out the difference between CO and CO2.

Sandhusker, what part of "the shelf life of the product is about 10 days" do you not understand? I believe where the term "Fresh" is used in meats, it refers to meat that is never frozen. And believe we can safely assume that it does NOT mean a product that has spoiled.

ALSO, and I believe this is very beneficial to consumers and producers, the CO apparently does have some anti-bacterial activity, stopping growth of bacteria which MAY inadvertently have come in contact with the meat. You may recall that I have heard researchers state there have been cases where workers cutting and handling the beef can and have contaminated it with their own germs, including E Coli.

Further, Sandhusker, have you ever eaten apple slices on a salad bar, or sliced bananas in a restaurant as a dessert, or salad? Most likely they have been "treated" by soaking for a few minutes in Fruit Fresh (which isa mixture of destrose, citric acid, ascorbic acid and silicon dioxide) to keep them from NATURALLY turning a disgusting brown color. Are you very sure the color is a result of chemical reaction? Or is it because, as in the case of the fruit, stopping the air in the room from reahing the surface of the food? I believe the vacuum sealed packaged beef with the CO added to keep the oxygen from coming into contact with the beef is what PRESERVES that NATURAL color of that beef.

If you believe exposing beef to CO gas to keep it from turning an ugly color (which happens for basically the same reasons as the apple/banana color change) is deceptive and done to cheat consumers, I guess I can feel a bit sorry for you. However, there is no science based reason for stopping the practice.

Mike, why do you want the retailers to lose $1.+ Billion per year on meat they must throw out, or drop prices below their cost? In your zeal to punish them, do you forget that the less money they make, the less they will have to pass back down the system, and the less we producers will ultimately get for our cattle?

Econ, what can you cite as evidence that "NCBA is in bed with the USDA"? The actions of NCBA are according to member mandate. The membership is more than 60% cow/calf producers. The fact that those 14,400+ cow/calf producers DO NOT think the same as R-CALF members may be a surprise to you, but it also DOES NOT mean that they are somehow so charmed by packers as to do their bidding, nor to give USDA a pass when FINDING them wrong about something affecting the cattle industry.

MRJ

 

[mrj]

Guys, after re-reading all three pages of this thread, there is so much mis-information it is hard to know where to start!

First, the $1.+Billion dollars lost to the retailers is IN THE STORY starting this thread. ANd I've seen it in news stories in the news.

There have been TWO different gases processes mentioned in some stories, even in this thread! One is mixed gases, the other is the straight CO. And, yes, I did check out the difference between CO and CO2.

Sandhusker, what part of "the shelf life of the product is about 10 days" do you not understand? I believe where the term "Fresh" is used in meats, it refers to meat that is never frozen. And believe we can safely assume that it does NOT mean a product that has spoiled.

ALSO, and I believe this is very beneficial to consumers and producers, the CO apparently does have some anti-bacterial activity, stopping growth of bacteria which MAY inadvertently have come in contact with the meat. You may recall that I have heard researchers state there have been cases where workers cutting and handling the beef can and have contaminated it with their own germs, including E Coli.

Further, Sandhusker, have you ever eaten apple slices on a salad bar, or sliced bananas in a restaurant as a dessert, or salad? Most likely they have been "treated" by soaking for a few minutes in Fruit Fresh (which isa mixture of destrose, citric acid, ascorbic acid and silicon dioxide) to keep them from NATURALLY turning a disgusting brown color. Are you very sure the color is a result of chemical reaction? Or is it because, as in the case of the fruit, stopping the air in the room from reahing the surface of the food? I believe the vacuum sealed packaged beef with the CO added to keep the oxygen from coming into contact with the beef is what PRESERVES that NATURAL color of that beef.

If you believe exposing beef to CO gas to keep it from turning an ugly color (which happens for basically the same reasons as the apple/banana color change) is deceptive and done to cheat consumers, I guess I can feel a bit sorry for you. However, there is no science based reason for stopping the practice.

Mike, why do you want the retailers to lose $1.+ Billion per year on meat they must throw out, or drop prices below their cost? In your zeal to punish them, do you forget that the less money they make, the less they will have to pass back down the system, and the less we producers will ultimately get for our cattle?

Econ, what can you cite as evidence that "NCBA is in bed with the USDA"? The actions of NCBA are according to member mandate. The membership is more than 60% cow/calf producers. The fact that those 14,400+ cow/calf producers DO NOT think the same as R-CALF members may be a surprise to you, but it also DOES NOT mean that they are somehow so charmed by packers as to do their bidding, nor to give USDA a pass when FINDING them wrong about something affecting the cattle industry.

MRJ

 

[Mike]

Mike, why do you want the retailers to lose $1.+ Billion per year on meat they must throw out, or drop prices below their cost? In your zeal to punish them, do you forget that the less money they make, the less they will have to pass back down the system, and the less we producers will ultimately get for our cattle?

I don't WANT them to lose money. :???: :???: :???:

But I know in my business when I'm looking at something that won't sell at the given price, I can mark it down and move it. Heckuva lot better than losing it all.

Just seems that there is a lot of mismanagement in retail if they are losing that much to spoilage. :shock:

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, do what ever you want to with the beef, just label it accordingly so the consumer knows exactly what they are getting. What is wrong with being straight up honest with the consumer?

 

[Econ101]

MRJ: "Sandhusker, what part of "the shelf life of the product is about 10 days" do you not understand? I believe where the term "Fresh" is used in meats, it refers to meat that is never frozen. And believe we can safely assume that it does NOT mean a product that has spoiled. "

So, MRJ, the term "Fresh" has its own meaning but the color of meat can be manipulated with CO2 to make it look "fresh"?

You are on the packer backer side of this issue as you are on almost every issue, MRJ. Admit it, you will put packer interests before customer or producer interests everytime. Nothing new.


MRJ:"Econ, what can you cite as evidence that "NCBA is in bed with the USDA"? The actions of NCBA are according to member mandate. The membership is more than 60% cow/calf producers. The fact that those 14,400+ cow/calf producers DO NOT think the same as R-CALF members may be a surprise to you, but it also DOES NOT mean that they are somehow so charmed by packers as to do their bidding, nor to give USDA a pass when FINDING them wrong about something affecting the cattle industry. "

Econ: Mrj, I think the member mandate lie has been well vetted here on this forum. You do not know what the other NCBA members think of rcalf. You are only guessing as to what they say. You don't even know how many have to be a part of NCBA to be able to get other benefits and not just believe the junk you keep putting out.

 

[Anonymous]

Tommy: "This is so easy Scott, I have contradicted quite a few things you have mis-stated."

Yeh, something like a typo between CO and CO2.

WOW TOMMY! GREAT CONTRIBUTION! HAHAHA!

Tommy: "What percent of Hispanics do we have here in the USA again Scott?"

Enough to eat all the Mexican beef in the United States labeled by your costly, irrelevant, unenforceable "M"COOL law.

Tommy: "In your own mind you contribute, the most of us do not agree."

Tommy you don't speak for anyone but yourself and a handful of other blamers that can't think for themselves. You don't like what I have to say because the truth doesn't jive with your need to blame. You contributions amount to trying to pick apart the difference between CO and CO2. That's your level of contribution.

Conman supports you. What more do I need to say? LOL!

Sandbag: "Let's see here.... they buy the beef because they believe the color is a result of freshness, but instead is the result of a chemical reaction - but you say you think they are getting what the are paying for? SH, they think they are buying fresh meat. Isn't the color one of these ILLUSIONS that you yap about constantly?"

Isn't aging one of the things you packer blamers were bitching about? Now you bench about the color enhancement through the aging process. Saving consumers from themselves again.

Is the beef safe Sandbag?

Hey if you blamers want to pass another "SAVE CONSUMERS FROM THEMSELVES" law to label beef as "color enhanced and aged" or "non aged and fresh", be my guest. You blamers have always felt you knew more about the retail beef industry than those who are in the retail beef industry. Typical of your arrogance.

Mike: "But I know in my business when I'm looking at something that won't sell at the given price, I can mark it down and move it. Heckuva lot better than losing it all."

You think the retail beef industry needs you to tell them that?

Sandbag: "What is wrong with being straight up honest with the consumer?"

You mean like labeling Creekstone's beef, "BSE TESTED BUT NOT GUARANTEED TO BE BSE FREE".

That kind of honesty?

#^*(@#%&(*@# HYPOCRITE!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH ,"Isn't aging one of the things you packer blamers were bitching about? Now you bench about the color enhancement through the aging process. Saving consumers from themselves again."

So now you're moving aging from the cooler to the display case? :lol:

SH "Is the beef safe Sandbag?"

Safety isn't the issue. The customer getting what they they think they are paying for is.

SH, "Hey if you blamers want to pass another "SAVE CONSUMERS FROM THEMSELVES" law to label beef as "color enhanced and aged" or "non aged and fresh", be my guest. You blamers have always felt you knew more about the retail beef industry than those who are in the retail beef industry. Typical of your arrogance."

You're the one who wants to save the Japanese conumers from themselves, aren't you? :wink: Talk about a double standard... :roll:


Quote:
Sandbag: "What is wrong with being straight up honest with the consumer?"


SH, "You mean like labeling Creekstone's beef, "BSE TESTED BUT NOT GUARANTEED TO BE BSE FREE". That kind of honesty? #^*(@#%&(*@# HYPOCRITE! "

Is that not honest?

You never cease to amaze and amuse me, SH.

 

[Econ101]

Tommy: "This is so easy Scott, I have contradicted quite a few things you have mis-stated."

Yeh, something like a typo between CO and CO2.

WOW TOMMY! GREAT CONTRIBUTION! HAHAHA!

Tommy: "What percent of Hispanics do we have here in the USA again Scott?"

Enough to eat all the Mexican beef in the United States labeled by your costly, irrelevant, unenforceable "M"COOL law.

Tommy: "In your own mind you contribute, the most of us do not agree."

Tommy you don't speak for anyone but yourself and a handful of other blamers that can't think for themselves. You don't like what I have to say because the truth doesn't jive with your need to blame. You contributions amount to trying to pick apart the difference between CO and CO2. That's your level of contribution.

Conman supports you. What more do I need to say? LOL!

Sandbag: "Let's see here.... they buy the beef because they believe the color is a result of freshness, but instead is the result of a chemical reaction - but you say you think they are getting what the are paying for? SH, they think they are buying fresh meat. Isn't the color one of these ILLUSIONS that you yap about constantly?"

Isn't aging one of the things you packer blamers were bitching about? Now you bench about the color enhancement through the aging process. Saving consumers from themselves again.

Is the beef safe Sandbag?

Hey if you blamers want to pass another "SAVE CONSUMERS FROM THEMSELVES" law to label beef as "color enhanced and aged" or "non aged and fresh", be my guest. You blamers have always felt you knew more about the retail beef industry than those who are in the retail beef industry. Typical of your arrogance.

Mike: "But I know in my business when I'm looking at something that won't sell at the given price, I can mark it down and move it. Heckuva lot better than losing it all."

You think the retail beef industry needs you to tell them that?

Sandbag: "What is wrong with being straight up honest with the consumer?"

You mean like labeling Creekstone's beef, "BSE TESTED BUT NOT GUARANTEED TO BE BSE FREE".

That kind of honesty?

#^*(@#%&(*@# HYPOCRITE!


~SH~

SH, all laws are meant to save us from ourselves. So too the balance of power in our government. You would deny a foreign market to packers who would sell to the customer and what they want just because it might give a market to a small packer that is not one of the big boys. What a joke.

 

[mrj]

MRJ: "Sandhusker, what part of "the shelf life of the product is about 10 days" do you not understand? I believe where the term "Fresh" is used in meats, it refers to meat that is never frozen. And believe we can safely assume that it does NOT mean a product that has spoiled. "

So, MRJ, the term "Fresh" has its own meaning but the color of meat can be manipulated with CO2 to make it look "fresh"?
**************
The CO gas actually used in that packaging referred to in the story of Kroger ending usage does not "manipulate" the beef, but excludes the air from contacting and discoloring it. That you choose to believe something other than that fact does not change that fact.
MRJ
**************

You are on the packer backer side of this issue as you are on almost every issue, MRJ. Admit it, you will put packer interests before customer or producer interests everytime. Nothing new.
***********
Wrong again! I'm ALWAYS on the side of the producer and the consumer. We both want beef to be the best it can be.
When choosing a fresh apple or banana salad in a restaurant, I will choose that treated with something like Fruit Fresh over that which has turned brown from exposure to air. As a beef consumer, I will choose beautifully red Atmospheric Packaged beef when I can find it over the slightly browning air exposed beef. Same difference. The consumer will choose the best deal. The beef will be removed from the case BEFORE the "sell by" date indicated on the package for real freshness and product safety.MRJ
**************


MRJ:"Econ, what can you cite as evidence that "NCBA is in bed with the USDA"? The actions of NCBA are according to member mandate. The membership is more than 60% cow/calf producers. The fact that those 14,400+ cow/calf producers DO NOT think the same as R-CALF members may be a surprise to you, but it also DOES NOT mean that they are somehow so charmed by packers as to do their bidding, nor to give USDA a pass when FINDING them wrong about something affecting the cattle industry. "

Econ: Mrj, I think the member mandate lie has been well vetted here on this forum.
***************
The ONLY lie about the NCBA member mandate, has been when some of you claim that members do not mandate policy of the organization.
MRJ
**************
You do not know what the other NCBA members think of rcalf. You are only guessing as to what they say.
MRJ here: Econ, you can rid yourself of that delusion! There have been numerous members of NCBA who have said many things about R-CALF to me along the lines of "isn't it sad that all that effort and money is being wasted on lawsuits and attacking beef safety in ads in city newspapers consumers will see and become confused about?" But, really, why are you even interested in that? How does it affect you? I most certainly do not have to guess what those I talk to at meetings are saying. They are very capable of making their thoughts clear......no guessing about it. MRJ
*****************

You don't even know how many have to be a part of NCBA to be able to get other benefits and not just believe the junk you keep putting out.

**************
Econ, are you claiming that you do? What is the number, please? And, what is your source for that information? I can say with at least as validity that you do not know how many R-CALF members are just in name only, paid for by donors of money rather than actually paying their own dues and actively participating in the business meetings of that group. MRJ
********************


Sandhusker, when did I state that I do not want the Atmospheric Packaging labeled as to what it is? I believe that should have done from the start, if in fact it was not. Do you KNOW that it isn't labeled?

Why do you believe those who developed and or those who use that packaging do not do so for the purpose of selling better quality beef, and hopefully recouping their costs by the fact that they will not have to put the beef on special (lower) prices sooner that the beef would lose it's color WHILE STILL BEING VERY FRESH from a safety and normal shelf life status

. FACT: beef will develop an ugly brown color long before it is "spoiled" when kept in properly chilled retail coolers.

That ugly color causes meat to be put on sale prices as soon as it begins to develop. Any that does not sell quickly will have to be thrown out as soon as the "sell by" date arrives. That is what adds up to the $1.+Billion in loss. It is either sold at discount prices that may be below the cost of purchase, or it may be an outright total loss.

While I understand that some people cheer at any loss to retailers and packers and others you love to hate in the chain of beef production, how do you think that loss will affect cattle producers, really????

MRJ

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ: "Sandhusker, what part of "the shelf life of the product is about 10 days" do you not understand? I believe where the term "Fresh" is used in meats, it refers to meat that is never frozen. And believe we can safely assume that it does NOT mean a product that has spoiled. "

Econ: So, MRJ, the term "Fresh" has its own meaning but the color of meat can be manipulated with CO2 to make it look "fresh"?
**************
MRJ: The CO gas actually used in that packaging referred to in the story of Kroger ending usage does not "manipulate" the beef, but excludes the air from contacting and discoloring it. That you choose to believe something other than that fact does not change that fact.
MRJ

Econ: It is called oxidation, MRJ. CO or CO2 gas prevents oxidation which discolors the meat and allows someone to have an indication of how "fresh" it is by its color. It is a hoax.
**************

Econ: You are on the packer backer side of this issue as you are on almost every issue, MRJ. Admit it, you will put packer interests before customer or producer interests everytime. Nothing new.
***********
MRJ: Wrong again! I'm ALWAYS on the side of the producer and the consumer. We both want beef to be the best it can be.
When choosing a fresh apple or banana salad in a restaurant, I will choose that treated with something like Fruit Fresh over that which has turned brown from exposure to air. As a beef consumer, I will choose beautifully red Atmospheric Packaged beef when I can find it over the slightly browning air exposed beef. Same difference. The consumer will choose the best deal. The beef will be removed from the case BEFORE the "sell by" date indicated on the package for real freshness and product safety.MRJ

Econ: You sure don't mind fooling them.
**************


MRJ:"Econ, what can you cite as evidence that "NCBA is in bed with the USDA"? The actions of NCBA are according to member mandate. The membership is more than 60% cow/calf producers. The fact that those 14,400+ cow/calf producers DO NOT think the same as R-CALF members may be a surprise to you, but it also DOES NOT mean that they are somehow so charmed by packers as to do their bidding, nor to give USDA a pass when FINDING them wrong about something affecting the cattle industry. "

Econ: Mrj, I think the member mandate lie has been well vetted here on this forum.
***************
MRJ:The ONLY lie about the NCBA member mandate, has been when some of you claim that members do not mandate policy of the organization.
MRJ

Econ: As I said, that issue has been well vetted and got more rcalf members than probably anything. That means you lost on the issue, MRJ.
**************
Econ: You do not know what the other NCBA members think of rcalf. You are only guessing as to what they say.

MRJ here: Econ, you can rid yourself of that delusion! There have been numerous members of NCBA who have said many things about R-CALF to me along the lines of "isn't it sad that all that effort and money is being wasted on lawsuits and attacking beef safety in ads in city newspapers consumers will see and become confused about?" But, really, why are you even interested in that? How does it affect you? I most certainly do not have to guess what those I talk to at meetings are saying. They are very capable of making their thoughts clear......no guessing about it. MRJ

Econ: These issues are better discussed by cattlemen that want to produce a safe and profitable product than by someone like Reader or Flounder at the funeral or a farmer who has been pushed into foreclosure by the exercise of market power.
*****************

Econ: You don't even know how many have to be a part of NCBA to be able to get other benefits and not just believe the junk you keep putting out.

**************
MRJ: Econ, are you claiming that you do? What is the number, please? And, what is your source for that information? I can say with at least as validity that you do not know how many R-CALF members are just in name only, paid for by donors of money rather than actually paying their own dues and actively participating in the business meetings of that group. MRJ

Econ: You can believe that the members of rcalf are not in it for the packers, like the NCBA happens to be.
********************


Sandhusker, when did I state that I do not want the Atmospheric Packaging labeled as to what it is? I believe that should have done from the start, if in fact it was not. Do you KNOW that it isn't labeled?

Econ: MRJ, I know how it is labled. Real little.

MRJ:
Why do you believe those who developed and or those who use that packaging do not do so for the purpose of selling better quality beef, and hopefully recouping their costs by the fact that they will not have to put the beef on special (lower) prices sooner that the beef would lose it's color WHILE STILL BEING VERY FRESH from a safety and normal shelf life status

. FACT: beef will develop an ugly brown color long before it is "spoiled" when kept in properly chilled retail coolers.

That ugly color causes meat to be put on sale prices as soon as it begins to develop. Any that does not sell quickly will have to be thrown out as soon as the "sell by" date arrives. That is what adds up to the $1.+Billion in loss. It is either sold at discount prices that may be below the cost of purchase, or it may be an outright total loss.

Econ: The best tool of selling more beef is having a good eating experience. If people eat beef because it looks good and still isn't, how do you think that is going to help demand?

While I understand that some people cheer at any loss to retailers and packers and others you love to hate in the chain of beef production, how do you think that loss will affect cattle producers, really????

MRJ

Econ: No one is cheering the loss of retailers. Everyone wants them to handle the food items produced properly. Only an IDIOT would make that statement. Put on the shoe, MRJ.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "So now you're moving aging from the cooler to the display case?"

Diversion!

First you packer blaming hypocrites blamed packers for not aging beef and now when the enhance the color through the aging process, you bench about that.

Sandbag: "Safety isn't the issue. The customer getting what they they think they are paying for is."

Safety and beef quality is the issue. If it wasn't the issue, CO would not be being used. Consumers aren't bitching about it, PACKER BLAMERS LIKE YOU ARE.

Sandbag: "You're the one who wants to save the Japanese conumers from themselves, aren't you?"

The fact that the Japanese accepted U.S. beef WITHOUT TESTING proved your stupid claim that Japan wanted tested beef to be false. Typical of most of your stupid claims.

Sandbag: "Is that not honest?"

LOL! Creekstone never had any intention to include a disclaimer on their label stating that "BSE TESTED DOES NOT GUARANTEE BSE FREE". To suggest otherwise is more of your deceptive spin. Creekstone wanted to sell the "ILLUSION OF SAFETY", not real BSE safety. Typical of your deceptive ways you supported this consumer deception.

Now Japan is acccepting US beef WITHOUT TESTING proving USDA to be right and you packer blamers to be wrong once again.

Adding a disclaimer that "BSE TESTED DOES NOT GUARANTEE BSE FREE" would defeat the whole reason for testing (selling the "ILLUSION" of food safety").

Your criticism of retail outlets enhancing the color of beef is so typical of the backwards thought process of packer blamers. It's absolutely amazing how those who claim to be in the "CATTLE INDUSTRY" and not the "BEEF INDUSTRY" think they know more about the "BEEF INDUSTRY" than those who are actually in the "BEEF INDUSTRY". Typical blamer arrogance. Saving consumers from themselves.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "So now you're moving aging from the cooler to the display case?"

Diversion!

First you packer blaming hypocrites blamed packers for not aging beef and now when the enhance the color through the aging process, you bench about that.

Sandbag: "Safety isn't the issue. The customer getting what they they think they are paying for is."

Safety and beef quality is the issue. If it wasn't the issue, CO would not be being used. Consumers aren't bitching about it, PACKER BLAMERS LIKE YOU ARE.

Sandbag: "You're the one who wants to save the Japanese conumers from themselves, aren't you?"

The fact that the Japanese accepted U.S. beef WITHOUT TESTING proved your stupid claim that Japan wanted tested beef to be false. Typical of most of your stupid claims.

Sandbag: "Is that not honest?"

LOL! Creekstone never had any intention to include a disclaimer on their label stating that "BSE TESTED DOES NOT GUARANTEE BSE FREE". To suggest otherwise is more of your deceptive spin. Creekstone wanted to sell the "ILLUSION OF SAFETY", not real BSE safety. Typical of your deceptive ways you supported this consumer deception.

Now Japan is acccepting US beef WITHOUT TESTING proving USDA to be right and you packer blamers to be wrong once again.

Adding a disclaimer that "BSE TESTED DOES NOT GUARANTEE BSE FREE" would defeat the whole reason for testing (selling the "ILLUSION" of food safety").

Your criticism of retail outlets enhancing the color of beef is so typical of the backwards thought process of packer blamers. It's absolutely amazing how those who claim to be in the "CATTLE INDUSTRY" and not the "BEEF INDUSTRY" think they know more about the "BEEF INDUSTRY" than those who are actually in the "BEEF INDUSTRY". Typical blamer arrogance. Saving consumers from themselves.


~SH~

SH, why are you so against U.S. beef being tested and traded to foreign lands? If the Japanese want us to pickle it in ginger root extract because they think it gives them longer life, why would you come out against it? Just because the major packers do not hold ginger root extract and you don't believe in the "illusion" of the longer life the Japanese may believe?

Your position on this one was an obvious attempt to suck up to the big packers who didn't want to let anyone else have a marketing edge that they don't have. So were the actions of the USDA.

The USDA policy has been one of sucking up to the agribusinesses that pay off congress. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are doing it for free, you are either stupid or a cheap date.

If you don't know which one, ask agman. He could probably tell you.

 

[Beefman]

Sandbag: "So now you're moving aging from the cooler to the display case?"

Diversion!

First you packer blaming hypocrites blamed packers for not aging beef and now when the enhance the color through the aging process, you bench about that.

Sandbag: "Safety isn't the issue. The customer getting what they they think they are paying for is."

Safety and beef quality is the issue. If it wasn't the issue, CO would not be being used. Consumers aren't bitching about it, PACKER BLAMERS LIKE YOU ARE.

Sandbag: "You're the one who wants to save the Japanese conumers from themselves, aren't you?"

The fact that the Japanese accepted U.S. beef WITHOUT TESTING proved your stupid claim that Japan wanted tested beef to be false. Typical of most of your stupid claims.

Sandbag: "Is that not honest?"

LOL! Creekstone never had any intention to include a disclaimer on their label stating that "BSE TESTED DOES NOT GUARANTEE BSE FREE". To suggest otherwise is more of your deceptive spin. Creekstone wanted to sell the "ILLUSION OF SAFETY", not real BSE safety. Typical of your deceptive ways you supported this consumer deception.

Now Japan is acccepting US beef WITHOUT TESTING proving USDA to be right and you packer blamers to be wrong once again.

Adding a disclaimer that "BSE TESTED DOES NOT GUARANTEE BSE FREE" would defeat the whole reason for testing (selling the "ILLUSION" of food safety").

Your criticism of retail outlets enhancing the color of beef is so typical of the backwards thought process of packer blamers. It's absolutely amazing how those who claim to be in the "CATTLE INDUSTRY" and not the "BEEF INDUSTRY" think they know more about the "BEEF INDUSTRY" than those who are actually in the "BEEF INDUSTRY". Typical blamer arrogance. Saving consumers from themselves.


~SH~

SH, why are you so against U.S. beef being tested and traded to foreign lands? If the Japanese want us to pickle it in ginger root extract because they think it gives them longer life, why would you come out against it? Just because the major packers do not hold ginger root extract and you don't believe in the "illusion" of the longer life the Japanese may believe?

Your position on this one was an obvious attempt to suck up to the big packers who didn't want to let anyone else have a marketing edge that they don't have. So were the actions of the USDA.

The USDA policy has been one of sucking up to the agribusinesses that pay off congress. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are doing it for free, you are either stupid or a cheap date.

If you don't know which one, ask agman. He could probably tell you.

Econ; Dr Hunt of KSU is one of the nation's most respected meat scientists. Notice the forum in Dallas in March. You should try to go and learn something.

FOOD SAFETY
AMI defends use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging

by Pete Hisey on 3/1/2006 for Meatingplace.com

The American Meat Institute, along with guest meat scientist Mel Hunt of Kansas State University, has launched a campaign to defend the use of carbon monoxide in modified atmosphere packaging of meat products.

In a press conference held Tuesday, James H. Hodges, president of the American Meat Institute Foundation, said that not only is the trace amount of carbon monoxide harmless, its use allows use of large quantities of carbon dioxide, which fights pathogen formation.

Hunt noted that CO MAP packaging promotes food safety, since such cuts are all prepared at the packer and have far less exposure to oxygen and potential adulteration than meat packed by traditional methods. CO doesn't add color to meat any more than oxygen or curing and brining do; all three result in a red color.

Mark Dopp, general counsel and senior vice president of regulatory affairs, AMI, noted that contrary to charges from consumer groups, "CO doesn't impart color; it stabilizes natural color." He added that the majority of meat packaged with CO is sold under brand names, and "this industry has no incentive to destroy our own brands."

AMI will host a 90-minute session concerning the issue during its Annual Meat Conference in Dallas March 12-14.