"Toxic Gas"? or "Toxic Comptition"????

[mrj]

Is it really any surprise that this issue is being promoted by a business that may well be using headlines unfriendly to beef to drum up support demanding government deny use of technology developed and used by a competitor they fear?

Here is how it looks to me.

FACT: Both USDA and FDA reviewed the technology at issue and have no objection to its use, based on the science presented by the developer to those agencies.

FACT: the petitioner is a competitor of the company using the co2 to keep the natural color and extend the shelf life of their beef.

FACT: FDA will now review the petition and determine if the information presented has merit.

FACT: The Beef Checkoff researched this technology and found that it does keep the red color in beef longer and it increases shelf life. These findings are consistent with others' research. The level of co2 used is 0.4%, a very low level that won't harm humans. More info available at www.beef.org.........it may be easier to go to the other thread starting with "Toxic gas...." and click on the link posted by Murgen.

MAIN POINT: This attack on new technology to give beef greater shelf life......(and I am convinced BY THE SCIENCE of this process that there is no intent to sell spoiled beef).....by someone who doesn't want to compete against this technology is, IMO, an abusive use of scare tactics fed to the media to gain attention with the un-substantiated claim of "covering up spoiled meat". HOWEVER, if you read their petition closely, the official complaint is ONLY that FDA must remove the practice of using co2 because "appropriate" procedures were not followed.

I certainly do not want meat passed off as safe if it is not. Nor do I want a safe practice enhancing the shelf life of beef thrown to serve quite "competition" agenda.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, I think a question that must be answered it this;

Are consumers using color as an indicator of freshness and if so, is that color a result of freshness or is it being manipluated via a chemical reaction the consumer is unaware of?

The fact that other countries have banned the practice also raises a red flag.

 

[mrj]

MRJ, I think a question that must be answered it this;

Are consumers using color as an indicator of freshness and if so, is that color a result of freshness or is it being manipluated via a chemical reaction the consumer is unaware of?

The fact that other countries have banned the practice also raises a red flag.

Sandhusker, "the fact that other countries have banned the practice..." leaves me wondering if such bans have more to do with a "back door" means of stopping imports.....such as the ban on beef from implanted cattle by the EU.

I think we court danger when we allow emotion based pseudo-science and perceptions cancel out the peer reviewed sound science that is demonstrated to have benefits for consumers and the beef industry.

Extremely limited shelf life is a real problem for the beef industry that costs everyone in the system, from farm gate to consumers plate. Finding means to effectively improve it has benefits for all of us.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, I think a question that must be answered it this;

Are consumers using color as an indicator of freshness and if so, is that color a result of freshness or is it being manipluated via a chemical reaction the consumer is unaware of?

The fact that other countries have banned the practice also raises a red flag.

Sandhusker, "the fact that other countries have banned the practice..." leaves me wondering if such bans have more to do with a "back door" means of stopping imports.....such as the ban on beef from implanted cattle by the EU.

I think we court danger when we allow emotion based pseudo-science and perceptions cancel out the peer reviewed sound science that is demonstrated to have benefits for consumers and the beef industry.

Extremely limited shelf life is a real problem for the beef industry that costs everyone in the system, from farm gate to consumers plate. Finding means to effectively improve it has benefits for all of us.

MRJ

Fair enough. What about the question I posed?

 

[Murgen]

Are consumers using color as an indicator of freshness and if so, is that color a result of freshness or is it being manipluated via a chemical reaction the consumer is unaware of?

Is that freshness perceived due to color, and there not being anything wrong with the meat at all?

Are consumers aware of the fact that meat changes color, and that is still just as safe?

 

[mrj]

MRJ, I think a question that must be answered it this;

Are consumers using color as an indicator of freshness and if so, is that color a result of freshness or is it being manipluated via a chemical reaction the consumer is unaware of?

The fact that other countries have banned the practice also raises a red flag.

Sandhusker, "the fact that other countries have banned the practice..." leaves me wondering if such bans have more to do with a "back door" means of stopping imports.....such as the ban on beef from implanted cattle by the EU.

I think we court danger when we allow emotion based pseudo-science and perceptions cancel out the peer reviewed sound science that is demonstrated to have benefits for consumers and the beef industry.

Extremely limited shelf life is a real problem for the beef industry that costs everyone in the system, from farm gate to consumers plate. Finding means to effectively improve it has benefits for all of us.

MRJ

Fair enough. What about the question I posed?

Your question deserves study. Being a consumer occasionally purchasing beef, I've always thought bright red beef looked pretty, but understood that the 'faded out' beef was equally good, ALL OTHER INDICATORS BEING EQUAL. Actually, an "off" smell isn't an indicator of spoiled beef either, I'm told, in the case of high quality aged beef.

Maybe it is a little like consumers believing the "USDA Inspected" stamp means something more than "inspected" for safety. Or that the "USDA CHOICE", etc. stamp means something more than grade of beef.

Do we really want a "Nanny" government protecting us from our own ignorance? The most we need, IMO, is signage in the meat market, and some small amount of consumer education to point out the obvious regarding these situations.

Now I have a question. Does anyone know if there has been ANY complaint of the problems described in the press release? That is the first thing I believe FDA needs to find out. And it needs to be complaints from BEFORE the press release, not after it was out!

MRJ

 

[Murgen]

Maybe a little of our checkoffs could be spent on a little education, and the expense of the CO could be avoided!

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Do we really want a "Nanny" government protecting us from our own ignorance? The most we need, IMO, is signage in the meat market, and some small amount of consumer education to point out the obvious regarding these situations."

Your son, SH, thinks we need a nanny for BSE testing to protect us from our own ignorance..... :wink: Could you be disagreeing with him on a big topic?

I think we need government to keep honesty in the marketplace. Consumers should be confident they are not being misled.

 

[STAFF]

SIMILAR THOUGHTS IN THE FISH INDUSTRY

Alaska: First-Ever U.S. Labeling LEGISLATION for GE Food BECOMES LAW


Statement from Tracie Letterman, Fish Program Director for Center for Food Safety, following Alaska governor Frank Murkowski signing into law the nation's first labeling
legislation for genetically engineered food. Senate Bill 25 requires that genetically engineered fish be "conspicuously labeled to identify the fish or fish product as a genetically modified fish or fish product," whether packaged or unpackaged:

"Alaska has become the first state to give its citizens what 90 percent of Americans want—labels for genetically engineered foods. We anticipate that this legislation will
be a bellwether for other state efforts to label biotech foods. It's only a matter of time before all states move to fill in the regulatory gap left by the Federal government's failure to require mandatory labeling."
==================================================================================================
First-Ever U.S. Labeling LEGISLATION for Genetically Engineered Food BECOMES LAW in Alaska

Statement from Tracie Letterman, Fish Program Director for Center for Food Safety, following Alaska governor Frank Murkowski signing into law the nation's first labeling
legislation for genetically engineered food. Senate Bill 25 requires that genetically engineered fish be "conspicuously labeled to identify the fish or fish product as a genetically modified fish or fish product," whether packaged or unpackaged:

"Alaska has become the first state to give its citizens what 90 percent of Americans want—labels for genetically engineered foods. We anticipate that this legislation will
be a bellwether for other state efforts to label biotech foods. It's only a matter of time before all states move to fill in the regulatory gap left by the Federal government's failure to require mandatory labeling."

BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 25 was approved unanimously by the Alaska Senate in March and the House in early May, and was signed by Governor Murkowski on May 19 (see Senate Journal record at:
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_jrn_page.asp?session=24&bill=SB25&jrn=1708&hse=S).

Numerous jurisdictions around the country have passed or are working on legislation to regulate genetically engineered foods in the absence of U.S. government
oversight or restrictions. Often these bills are intended to protect local farming from biotech contamination or human health and the environment. A Rutgers University
poll published in November 2004 confirmed earlier findings that nine-out-of-ten Americans (89 percent in the most recent poll) want to have genetically engineered foods labeled.

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration is reviewing an application for approval to commercialize genetically engineered salmon developed to grow much more rapidly that wild salmon.

Center for Food Safety (CFS) reviewed the language of the bill and worked to support its passage. CFS has worked around the country in support of labeling legislation for
genetically engineered foods and to prevent genetically engineered fish from invading our oceans and harming human health.

The legislation identifies genetically modified fish as "a finfish or shellfish whose genetic structure has been (A) altered at the molecular level by means that are not
possible under natural conditions or processes, including recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic
material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure; (B) the progeny of a finfish or shellfish described in (A) of this paragraph." The term "genetically
modified fish product" is defined as any "…product prepared from a genetically modified fish."

 

[fedup2]

Let me see if I have this all straight.

1. A BSE tested label does not just imply that the meat was tested. It creates an illusion that it is safe.
2. USDA inspected label means that it was inspected and does not imply that it is from the USA nor does it create an illusion about safety.
3. Not having a USDA sticker creates the illusion that the meat has not been inspected.
4.Using a gas that preserves shelf life but masks potential aging or spoiling problems does not create the illusion that the meat is fresh.
:???: :???: :???: :???:

SH says that the USDA should inspect the meat & the USDA should not let a private firm test for BSE as it would deceive the consumer.
MRJ says Do we really want a "Nanny" government protecting us from our own ignorance? :shock:
Now I am totally confused! :???: Do you want the USDA protecting us from our own ignorance or not? Or only when it suits your opinion? What are the rules for determining what creates an illusion or deception? Up to this point, they seem flexible as to how they support a personal opinion. Geeze, I guess I'll never catch on! As always I have more questions than answers.

Hope everyone has a happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Sandhusker]

Let me see if I have this all straight.

1. A BSE tested label does not just imply that the meat was tested. It creates an illusion that it is safe.
2. USDA inspected label means that it was inspected and does not imply that it is from the USA nor does it create an illusion about safety.
3. Not having a USDA sticker creates the illusion that the meat has not been inspected.
4.Using a gas that preserves shelf life but masks potential aging or spoiling problems does not create the illusion that the meat is fresh.
:???: :???: :???: :???:

SH says that the USDA should inspect the meat & the USDA should not let a private firm test for BSE as it would deceive the consumer.
MRJ says Do we really want a "Nanny" government protecting us from our own ignorance? :shock:
Now I am totally confused! :???: Do you want the USDA protecting us from our own ignorance or not? Or only when it suits your opinion? What are the rules for determining what creates an illusion or deception? Up to this point, they seem flexible as to how they support a personal opinion. Geeze, I guess I'll never catch on! As always I have more questions than answers.

Hope everyone has a happy Thanksgiving!

The problems must be yours as SH's only bias is the truth. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

What is the purpose of BSE testing if not to find BSE?

If you are using a test that will not reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age, pretty senseless UNLESS ......YEH.......UNLESS YOU WANT TO CREATE AN "ILLUSION" OF FOOD SAFETY?????

YOU GO SANDMAN!


"USDA inspected" means exactly what it says. Inspected by USDA. Since it was inspected and since it was inspected by USDA, WHAT ELSE WOULD IT SAY??????

If you are going to suggest that CO2 packaging is fraud, you must also take a position that all preservatives are fraud. Do you want to go down that road Fedup?

Sorry if I confused the confused again.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

What is the purpose of BSE testing if not to find BSE?

If you are using a test that will not reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age, pretty senseless UNLESS ......YEH.......UNLESS YOU WANT TO CREATE AN "ILLUSION" OF FOOD SAFETY?????

YOU GO SANDMAN!


"USDA inspected" means exactly what it says. Inspected by USDA. Since it was inspected and since it was inspected by USDA, WHAT ELSE WOULD IT SAY??????

If you are going to suggest that CO2 packaging is fraud, you must also take a position that all preservatives are fraud. Do you want to go down that road Fedup?

Sorry if I confused the confused again.


~SH~

Mr. Truth, you're convieniently ignoring that when people buy something sold as "fresh", they don't expect any preservatives. You also ignored my question on the reason behind the color.

You see no problem with people buying a package of beef because they believe the color is an indicator of freshness but instead is the result of a chemical reaction?

 

[Econ101]

Some lessons should be learned from the red delicious apple example I gave before. The USDA is meant to stop these kind of frauds. They can't even make up their mind of whether or not it is a fraud. Boy is the red meat industry in trouble with people like that at the helm.

 

[PORKER]

Numerous jurisdictions around the country have passed or are working on legislation to regulate genetically engineered foods or COOL in their states as the absence of U.S. government
oversight or restrictions are none. Often these bills are intended to protect local farming from biotech contamination or human health and the environment. A Rutgers University
poll published in November 2004 confirmed earlier findings that nine-out-of-ten Americans (89 percent in the most recent poll) want to have genetically engineered foods labeled. When you add the COOL supporters that want ORIGIN labels 88%,All you got is a few like SH that want to stay the Status Quo and not go with common sense. Mostly they are Companys and investors fearing disclourse of the Truth.

 

[N Ellis]

Can no one see the fraud embodied in the current version of COOL? It makes implications of food safety that are simply not there!

No traceback of US produced beef to original producer is allowed under that law, is it?

Has it beef proven, or is it still simply allegation that co2 is just a cover-up of spoiled beef?

Or is co2 a PRESERVATIVE, keeping beef in a FRESH state for a longer time?

Understandably, it best serves the agenda of the "blamers" to promote the allegations and ignore the research, but does it serve the cattle/beef industry well?

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Can no one see the fraud embodied in the current version of COOL? It makes implications of food safety that are simply not there!

No traceback of US produced beef to original producer is allowed under that law, is it?

Has it beef proven, or is it still simply allegation that co2 is just a cover-up of spoiled beef?

Or is co2 a PRESERVATIVE, keeping beef in a FRESH state for a longer time?

Understandably, it best serves the agenda of the "blamers" to promote the allegations and ignore the research, but does it serve the cattle/beef industry well?

MRJ

MRJ, Why do you have a new handle?

 

[N Ellis]

MRJ, Why do you have a new handle?

Because she was at my home for Thanksgiving and used my computer.

 

[Sandhusker]

Can no one see the fraud embodied in the current version of COOL? It makes implications of food safety that are simply not there!

No traceback of US produced beef to original producer is allowed under that law, is it?

Has it beef proven, or is it still simply allegation that co2 is just a cover-up of spoiled beef?

Or is co2 a PRESERVATIVE, keeping beef in a FRESH state for a longer time?

Understandably, it best serves the agenda of the "blamers" to promote the allegations and ignore the research, but does it serve the cattle/beef industry well?

MRJ

MRJ, customers are taught to use color as an indicator of freshness. Here are some questions I think you should answer;

Is the color in MAP packaged product the result of the meat being fresh or is the result of a chemical reaction?

Are consumers who use color in making their decisions getting what they think they are?

If not, does that serve the cattle/beef industry in a positive manner?

 

[Anonymous]

Porker,

If consumers want Country of Origin Labeling and traceback, they can get it now with "LEGITIMATE" source verified branded beef products. Consumers don't need you to save them from themselves so you can promote Scoring Systems.

As far as my staying the status quo, what a joke. I'm way ahead of you in that I've been promoting source verified branded beef programs way before flawed "M"COOL came along which prohibited the traceback system that you endorse.

Try again!


~SH~