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

USDA re-opens Canadian border

Keep on going out on tangents :roll: Maybe answer the questions afterall the predicxtions of r-calf were damage to the US cattle industry if Canadian OTMs were allowed in. How much damage today? :roll: :secret: :lol2: Is the US beef industry ruined? :lol2: :cowboy:
 
Just admit it on rule 2 , r-calf and it's supporters are gettin a whippin today. :wave: :cowboy: You can keep dodg'n your head but your hands are tied behind your back in the rule 2 fight. Sorry but this is too easy throw the towel in i hate seeing someone getting massacred this bad. :cboy: Maybe this will help if you need some libation to numb the pain :drink: :drink: :drink:
 
That poll or the link to it WAS posted on this site by someone using it to prove their point that COOL is wanted by consumers, however, theydidn't check the supporting comments on the poll which showed that many consumers said they don't often read the labels on foods. It was several months ago.

Since I've never tasted gin, I wouldn't know the difference between a superior brand, a cheap Mexican import, or swamp water! Nor would I care, since I drink good bourbon or an occasional nice Amaretto or home crafted liquers on fairly rare occasions.

Has anyone ever posted anything about development of the carbon monxide packaging, and reasons for it? I've read it, but can't find it now.

It is really amazing that so many people posting on this website are so all knowing about what is in the minds of business owners and managers. Even more amazing is that none of those businesses have honest, concientious morally upright owners or managers, but all are out to cheat, deceive and poison their customers while cheating their suppliers!!!

BTW Tex, my point about labeling and packaging which excludes oxygen from contact with beef is NOT to "defend packers" but to question whether or not we are shooting ourselves (cattle producers) in the foot by trashing a packaging method that can keep very good beef, intended to be sold well within proper time limits, from APPEARING bad simply due to oxygen changing the color of the meat. When properly used and handled, by all parties, including the consumer, that packaging logically is the safest method of handling meat.

Some have lamented the practice of stores selling pre-packaged beef instead of having a meat cutter on the premises. THINK! How much more contamination is beef exposed to with every extra time it is handled while outside a package? And haven't most of us read about angry employees who deliberately contaminate foods with their own saliva.....or worse???? Some places, and some meat cutters may be fine, but I prefer a less handled product, thank you. It has far less risk of contamination from any source.

mrj
 
mrj said:
That poll or the link to it WAS posted on this site by someone using it to prove their point that COOL is wanted by consumers, however, theydidn't check the supporting comments on the poll which showed that many consumers said they don't often read the labels on foods. It was several months ago.

Since I've never tasted gin, I wouldn't know the difference between a superior brand, a cheap Mexican import, or swamp water! Nor would I care, since I drink good bourbon or an occasional nice Amaretto or home crafted liquers on fairly rare occasions.

Has anyone ever posted anything about development of the carbon monxide packaging, and reasons for it? I've read it, but can't find it now.

It is really amazing that so many people posting on this website are so all knowing about what is in the minds of business owners and managers. Even more amazing is that none of those businesses have honest, concientious morally upright owners or managers, but all are out to cheat, deceive and poison their customers while cheating their suppliers!!!

BTW Tex, my point about labeling and packaging which excludes oxygen from contact with beef is NOT to "defend packers" but to question whether or not we are shooting ourselves (cattle producers) in the foot by trashing a packaging method that can keep very good beef, intended to be sold well within proper time limits, from APPEARING bad simply due to oxygen changing the color of the meat. When properly used and handled, by all parties, including the consumer, that packaging logically is the safest method of handling meat.

Some have lamented the practice of stores selling pre-packaged beef instead of having a meat cutter on the premises. THINK! How much more contamination is beef exposed to with every extra time it is handled while outside a package? And haven't most of us read about angry employees who deliberately contaminate foods with their own saliva.....or worse???? Some places, and some meat cutters may be fine, but I prefer a less handled product, thank you. It has far less risk of contamination from any source.

mrj
Click to expand...

mrj, had you been informed about the carbon monoxide in meat you would have known the answers. All you get are the talking points for the industry's fraud and deception.

It was said (primarily because we had an astute representative, Bart Stupak in a real oversight committee hearing) by the CEO of Cargill, Mr. Page, that carbon monoxide does NOTHING to decrease the oxygen and therefore the potential for some microbial growth in meat packaging. It is a deceptive color fixative. That is the only reason.

The argument you just brought up, that decreasing the oxygen in a package is beneficial, is nothing more than the talking point that Mr. Page brought up by the committee that Bart Stupak took apart during the hearing. It was a deception that Cargill tried on the committee and it didn't hold water. It was as close to lying to Congress as you can get.

You seem to bend over backwards to deceive people, just as Cargill and Hormel does.

Before you start defending packers, you need to get your information straight. Perhaps one of your NCBA buddies can get you a copy of the hearing, or if you would just pay attention to the committee hearing on CSpan, as it has been played over and over again, you would know the issue.

To reiterate: The hearing WAS NOT over excluding oxygen from the packaging, providing potential (the studies that were cited by Cargill--no independent studies) bacterialogical benefets, it was about using carbon monoxide in packaging to deceive consumers.

Your insistence to drag everything else (spitting) on meat and everything else is a loser's argument because you have no other.

You are nothing but a packer queen when you do this. Enjoy your crown.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top