 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / March 2005Vegan Diet did NOT Kill Florida Child - a Bizarre Case of Oppression
I like myself a hamburger as much as the next guy, but I am pissed as hell that this family is undergoing this kind of bogus persecution over a scientific issue that the prosecutors in Florida don't understand! If a famous nutritional expert like Michael Greger says that being vegan is safe, then it's safe. (http://www.drgreger.org/bio.html) It isn't my choice, but Dr. Greger should know. He is the dude that helped get Oprah Winfrey off when the beef association went after her and he is taking on the whole Atkins company and has proven that their diet is not safe. He is a general practitioner specializing in clinical nutrition and a founding member of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. He is author of Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student and has contributed to a number of books on nutrition and food safety issues. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine and teaches at Cornell. If he was a quack, he wouldn't be teaching there. This story pisses me off because it it about religious and racial oppression and not science. Fortunately for this family, a great attorney by the name of Ellis Rubin is now the defense attorney and it looks like they might get these false charges dropped. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/20/national/main668225.shtml This is the story" A Bizarre Case of Oppression Think about it. How would you like to be arrested and thrown in jail because you were following a non-mainstream diet? Does that seem like fiction? Further, suppose that your children were taken away from you and placed in foster care (for which you are then asked to pay child support while still under arrest) because the state believes that your raw vegan diet is not healthy. And this strange situation has arisen because, after four normal, healthy children that you successfully raised without ever having to visit a doctor, your fifth child died. Never mind that the child had a missing thymus gland (a fatal birth defect, documented in the medical literature as DeGeorge Syndrome, that impairs the immune system, leading to infection and death). And never mind that your baby lived for five months, whereas infants with this syndrome are reported as usually living for no more than a few weeks). It also appears to be of no consequence that before the ordeal began, people in public places have stopped to ask you how you manage to keep your children so radiantly healthy. And how would you like, after spending three months in jail, to be under house arrest for the next year and a half with an electronic monitor permanently strapped to your ankle, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, while you fight a family court case (charges of parental negligence) and a criminal court case (charges of aggravated manslaughter), pay for two telephones in your home (so you can be "monitored"), pay child support and rent for your section 8 apartment. (Don't even ask how you can pay these bills when you no longer have a vehiclebecause the insurance expired while you were in jail and your car is now in police custody). And your passport and residency card have been confiscated, while you are still expected to find a job and show income in order to even have a chance of getting your children back. And youa devoted parent and a highly spiritual individual who believes in treading lightly on this earth, hugging the trees for the life and nourishment they providewonder what will happen next. Two birthdays of your four young children have passed without your even being allowed to see them once; meanwhile, they have been vaccinated against your wishes, causing them to fall sick, and two of them, at least on two occasions to your knowledge, have been taken to the emergency room in a hospitalwhen your children had never had to see a doctor in all their lives before this nightmare began. And you and your spouse have been through one public defender or pro bono attorney after another, and they all get to the same perspective eventuallyaccept a plea bargain for a limited sentencing. The state realizes that it made a mistake in your case, but then, it doesn't want to look bad. And for this reason alone, the prosecutor's office is not going to let you go free. They and the public defender's office work hand in hand to dispose of the huge number of cases they have on their plates. Your enormous misfortune is that you've fallen into their plate. Hang on to this scenariobecause this is reality for Joseph and Lamoy Andressohn of Homestead, Florida. She is only 29, and he a little older. Their crime is that they are on a living food diet. They fed their children only organic fruits, vegetables and nuts, even though they made barely enough to live day-to-day. Yet the state has charged them with parental neglect, labeling the children "malnourished" without evidence to back it up; and charged the parents with "aggravated manslaughter" of their fifth child! Keep reading the story here: http://www.familynightmare.org/ > I like myself a hamburger as much as the next guy, but I am pissed as > hell that this family is undergoing this kind of bogus persecution [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > (Don't even ask how you can pay these bills when you no longer have a > vehicle-because the insurance expired while you were in jail and your > car is now in police custody). And your passport and residency card > have been confiscated, while you are still expected to find a job and > show income in order to even have a chance of getting your children > back. > > And you-a devoted parent and a highly spiritual individual > who believes in treading lightly on this earth, hugging the trees for > the life and nourishment they provide-wonder what will happen next. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > them, at least on two occasions to your knowledge, have been taken to > the emergency room in a hospital-when your children had never had to > see a doctor in all their lives before this nightmare began. And you > and your spouse have been through one public defender or pro bono > attorney after another, and they all get to the same perspective > eventually-accept a plea bargain for a limited sentencing. The state > realizes that it made a mistake in your case, but then, it doesn't > want to look bad. And for this reason alone, the prosecutor's office [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Keep reading the story here: http://www.familynightmare.org/ Anyone imposing a vegetarian or vegan diet on a child should be charged for failure to provide the necessities of life. The children should be immediately removed from these dangerous nut-cases. They deserve much more punishment than the system can provide. TC "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Anyone imposing a vegetarian or vegan diet on a child should be charged > for failure to provide the necessities of life. The children should be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > TC Few things I agree with TC but this is one of them. There is a difference between children and adults nutritionally. A growing body is not the same as in an adult. You are what you eat and they are nuts. > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > A growing body is not the same as in an adult. > You are what you eat and they are nuts. And the adults impose their beliefs on them to the serious detriment of their health. TC A vegan diet can be suitable if the child gets the proper amount of protein. With that said, most vegans do not! The human body is designed to eat meat (look at your teeth) as well as veggies, etc. --------------------- www.urine-pimp.com ?????????????????????? > A vegan diet can be suitable if the child gets the proper amount of > protein. > > With that said, most vegans do not! The human body is designed to eat > meat (look at your teeth) as well as veggies, etc. You have teeth like a dog? > --------------------- > www.urine-pimp.com > ?????????????????????? > > A vegan diet can be suitable if the child gets the proper amount of > > protein. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You have teeth like a dog? Yes. In Bali it is a normal custom to fill down incisors as they remind people of dogs. They are filled flat across and even. > > --------------------- > > www.urine-pimp.com > > ?????????????????????? > You have teeth like a dog? Sure- same as you. There's a reason why the incisors are often called the *canines*. >> I like myself a hamburger as much as the next guy, but I am pissed as >> hell that this family is undergoing this kind of bogus persecution [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > They deserve much more punishment than the system can provide. I disagree. Seventh-day adventists and billions of people in India, China and SE Asia have a vegetarian diet. Jeff > TC > >> I like myself a hamburger as much as the next guy, but I am pissed as > >> hell that this family is undergoing this kind of bogus persecution [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > > > TC I don't know how many asians in general are vegetarians but Hindus most certainly are and they suffer from 3X the CVD's as meat eaters. TC > >> I like myself a hamburger as much as the next guy, but I am pissed as > >> hell that this family is undergoing this kind of bogus persecution [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > > > TC You are right. Millions of people live their whole lives without ever touching meat. That is a scientifically proven fact. I wouldn't raise one of my kids vegan because I like meat too much, but I have the balls to admit that a Cornell/Tufts graduate and professor that is an expert on nutrition is more qualified to say whether it is unhealthy or not than any of the opponents to it on usenet. and did you read the latest from his defense? The diet didn't kill the kid! The prosecution jumped all over this one because of the family's religion and the color of their skin. > > >> I like myself a hamburger as much as the next guy, but I am pissed > as [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > >> the defense attorney and it looks like they might get these false > > >> charges dropped. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/20/national/main668225.shtml > > >> This is the story" > > >> [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > prosecution jumped all over this one because of the family's religion > and the color of their skin. Michael Greger is a Peta activist. He, like the rest of the Peta bunch, advocates vegetarianism not based on any nutritional science but based of their animal rights beliefs. You want to quote him as a nutritional or other kind of scientific authority, go ahead, but he holds no credibility whatsoever in any field of science, regardless of the Dr. before his name. You are wasting your breath. TC > Michael Greger is a Peta activist. Heck, I support People for the Eating of Tasty Animals too. >>>>>I like myself a hamburger as much as the next guy, but I am > [quoted text clipped - 350 lines] > > TC Agreed. The nutrition info that comes from PETA is absolute garbage, and is usually based on a few anecdotes or an incredibly small (selected?) sample group, and then blown up to look like real empirical evidence. It's certainly worth noting that he doesn't even try to publish in any major peer-review journals, and nobody else seems to have succeeded in repeating his studies and getting the same results. But that doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is bad for kids - it is also true that there are millions of kids being raised vegetarian all over the world, and they aren't dropping like flies. Judging by some of the lifelong vegetarians I went to college with, they aren't exactly growing up with brain damage, either. That said, raising a kid vegetarian in a Western country is something I (as a vegan) would seriously think twice about. (I would never even consider raising a kid vegan.) The fact of the matter is, despite what a lot of activists will claim, there are lots of nutrients that are very problematic for vegetarians - vitamin B12, which has no vegetable sources, is a prime example. Good luck getting most American kids to take to a diet that includes such yummy supplements as brewer's yeast. I imagine raising a 6-year old on a diet consisting largely of lentils, brown rice, tofu, and lots and lots and lots of greens would be akin to completing the trials of Hercules. > > It > > > >> isn't my choice, but Dr. Greger should know. Dr. Greger is a graduate of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Does > > > >> that seem like fiction? > > charged > > > > for failure to provide the necessities of life. The children [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > TC That isn't true TC, He isn't a PETA activist and has, in fact, published a piece on his web site about the role of activism that contradicts PETA's violence and all that. It is untrue as well because he is a scientist and one who is employed by one of the best universities in the country. He has also published a shitload of scientific research in the American Medical Journal and a lot of other publications of that nature. If he didn't have credibility, he never would have accomplished as much as he has. He is an authority in the field of nutrition. Vegans know more about their nutritional needs than meat eaters do. >> >> I like myself a hamburger as much as the next guy, but I am pissed > as [quoted text clipped - 156 lines] > prosecution jumped all over this one because of the family's religion > and the color of their skin. >>> I like myself a hamburger as much as the next guy, but I am pissed as >>> hell that this family is undergoing this kind of bogus persecution [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > I disagree. Seventh-day adventists and billions of people in India, China > and SE Asia have a vegetarian diet. Chinese eat meat. They do not eat dairy - which is odd, considering that the Oriental blood type which is dominantly type B can handle dairy. Indians also eat meats and lots of dairy. They do not eat beef, specifically - and speaking of which, did you know that beef which is 'cold pasteurized' (which means it's irradiated with gamma rays) is processed that way because it has sh.t on it? They use the gamma rays to sterilize the bacteria in the fecal contamination from the slaughterhouse. The sh.t is not actually *removed* from the beef, it's sent to process again, where it is turned into ground beef patties sold to the fast food industry and major chain supermarkets. The largest ground beef recalls in American history have occurred on Dubya's watch, just so you know how well this system is working, BTW. Right after the 2000 election, the Bush cretins stopped Clinton's Department of Agriculture plans to enact strict legislation that would force meat producers to label processed meat prodcucts and warn of Listeria. Bush's USDA solution is to irradiate the meat, instead of making the slaughter and handling of the meat be done cleanly and professionally. Slaughterhouse workers are told they are responsible for lost profits if they stop the slaughterline to clean feces off the meat, so they expect only that it will be done when there is fibre visible in the sh.t. Anyone who deals with food sanitation knows that the bacteria are present in the smallest fecal contaminations - an almost invisible smear of sh.t can kill, let alone a turd with grass in it. There is quite literally, sh.t in the hamburger. Sterilized sh.t, but there nonetheless. Might as well be licking a cow's a.shole. Next time you order a BigMac, think of that. Deb. "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@comcast.net> > > Chinese eat meat. They do not eat dairy - which is odd, considering that the > Oriental blood type which is dominantly type B can handle dairy. Indians > also eat meats and lots of dairy. Only a quarter of Chinese are type B. http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/secrets_in_blood.html I take it you are rounding off of "a quarter" or 25% to a dominant group. You then relate the blood group to diet to say that orientals can handle diary products. Let me be more precise in saying that relating blood type to diet is meaningless. Your general statements are a bunch of pure all meat bull. "Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote > > "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@comcast.net> > > Chinese eat meat. > They do not eat dairy - which is odd, considering that the > > Oriental blood type which is dominantly type B can handle dairy. Indians > > also eat meats and lots of dairy. The problem is the human digestive system may not be able to digest dairy (including cow's milk) products due to heavy, thick casein protein. The inability to digest the protein in cow's milk may cause humans to get ear infections and strep throats. > Chinese eat meat. >>They do not eat dairy - which is odd, considering that the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > cause humans > to get ear infections and strep throats. First, WTF is wrong with your settings? Or is that how you type? Second, BS. Most people have no problem digesting casein. Many people, though, are lactose intolerant -- their intestinal flora aren't up to handling that particular carbohydrate. There is absolutely no evidence -- short of the crap that certain anti-dairy activists (not mentioning names, but someone keeps cross-posting his hysterical diatribes here) make up -- that dairy proteins increase the risk of ear and strep throat infections. Contaminated milk (or other foods) CAN lead to strep infections. That has NOTHING to do with proteins, as you allege. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/strep.htm > > Chinese eat meat. > >>They do not eat dairy - which is odd, considering that the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > though, are lactose intolerant -- their intestinal flora aren't up to > handling that particular carbohydrate. You got that backwards,THEY are not capable of breaking the disaccaride, the intestinal flora is--this leads to excessive gas (which gotta go out somewhere).  SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick >did you know > that beef which is 'cold pasteurized' (which means it's irradiated with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to process again, where it is turned into ground beef patties sold to the > fast food industry and major chain supermarkets. Nor is it necessary, if it's cooked properly. That's why beef is "cold" pasteurized- because if heat were used, it would have to be enough to thoroughly cook it, which makes it hard to sell uncooked. The mushrooms on your pizza are the same way- they might be rinsed, but there's still a lot of sh.t on them. Ten minutes at 550 degrees later, it's just recycled protein. Only someone who thinks with their fecal matter would have a problem with eating beef. As to a recall, that just shows the system is working. Imagine what would have happened if there hadn't been a recall. Not eating meat for health reasons is fine, and there's no problem passing that on to kids, under the proper supervision of a qualified physician and nutritionist. As to moral reasons, that's a load of crap. Cows exist to be eaten and to provide leather. Prove to me, with verifiable, scientific evidence, that nonexistence is better for the cow than even a crappy life. Otherwise, "animals are our friends, so we can't eat them" is just so much crap. What about plant's feelings? It has been proven many times that plants can recognize people. > >did you know > > that beef which is 'cold pasteurized' (which means it's irradiated with [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Otherwise, "animals are our friends, so we can't eat them" is just so much > crap. > What about plant's feelings? It has been proven many times that plants can > recognize people. Then they'll know who is eating them. >What about plant's feelings? It has been proven many times that plants can >recognize people. Touch a Mimosa pudica and observe! Don't tell it doesn't feel your touch. >>did you know >> that beef which is 'cold pasteurized' (which means it's irradiated with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nor is it necessary, if it's cooked properly. Who cooks meat properly? Most undercook, or it is incorrectly handled and cross contamination occurs. > That's why beef is "cold" > pasteurized- because if heat were used, it would have to be enough to > thoroughly cook it, which makes it hard to sell uncooked. Most do not realize it is processed at all in such a fashion, and I notice you have removed the part where I actually *EXPLAINED* that cold pasteurization is gamma ray irradiation of meat and the WHY of it occurring. If you cannot allow a full discourse of what is the reason behind the process, instead of using a dismissive argument on a euphemistic term the FOOD INDUSTRY ITSELF chose to hide behind, one has to wonder what your reasons are. I note you haven't said this processing isn't real or you haven't denied that it is done so because of business money concerns. > The mushrooms on your pizza are the same way- they might be rinsed, but > there's still a lot of sh.t on them. Ten minutes at 550 degrees later, it's > just recycled protein. Meat is not rinsed. > Only someone who thinks with their fecal matter would have a problem with > eating beef. Are you a Beef Industry Shill? You sound like one. > As to a recall, that just shows the system is working. Imagine what would > have happened if there hadn't been a recall. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Otherwise, "animals are our friends, so we can't eat them" is just so much > crap. Bubba, I'm looking at buying a half a black angus this year from a local farm that raises about 12 head each year. Organic. No anti-biotics, hormones or feed made from other animal parts. They eat grass on some of the finest acreage in southern Maine. One buys the grain, and the farmer who's raising the cow takes the other half as payment for his time, and effort for doing it. And believe me, they don't get slaughtered in some corporate bottom-line run, sh.t laden, meat-factory. The cost runs to less than $4.00 a lb, for the whole half and that includes the good cuts. Can YOU get a filet mignon for 4 bucks a pound? I'm hoping to shortly. I love to eat dead cows, bison, chickens, ostriches, haddocks, lambs ..but not deer - Blecch - no venison. Where did I say don't eat beef? I said be careful of the industrial beef, it's got sh.t on it. Deb. > >>did you know > >> that beef which is 'cold pasteurized' (which means it's irradiated with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Who cooks meat properly? Most undercook, or it is incorrectly handled and > cross contamination occurs. Thus, my statement about cooking properly. Incompetent cooking and spoilage is not limited to meat, or even animal products. > > That's why beef is "cold" > > pasteurized- because if heat were used, it would have to be enough to > > thoroughly cook it, which makes it hard to sell uncooked. > > Most do not realize it is processed at all in such a fashion, Most people prefer ignorance. and I notice > you have removed the part where I actually *EXPLAINED* that cold > pasteurization is gamma ray irradiation of meat and the WHY of it occurring. Because it wasn't relevant. > If you cannot allow a full discourse of what is the reason behind the > process The method of process was not the issue- the use of meat was. Pay attention. I have to wonder why you want to go on an irrelevant tangent. > I note you haven't said this processing isn't real or you haven't denied > that it is done so because of business money concerns. Again, the method of processing isn't relevant to the discussion. As to the money, there is *no other reason* why the industry should be concerned. The industry exists to provide the public what it wants- *cheap food*. > > The mushrooms on your pizza are the same way- they might be rinsed, but > > there's still a lot of sh.t on them. Ten minutes at 550 degrees later, it's > > just recycled protein. > > Meat is not rinsed. Depends on how you cook it, and *rinsed or unrinsed*, properly cooked that fecal contamination becomes recycled protein. > > Only someone who thinks with their fecal matter would have a problem with > > eating beef. > > Are you a Beef Industry Shill? Just someone who does his homework, and doesn't hide behind handwaving or irrational scare tactics. Try using relevant facts in the future. > > As to a recall, that just shows the system is working. Imagine what would > > have happened if there hadn't been a recall. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Bubba, I'm looking at buying a half a black angus this year from a local > farm that raises about 12 head each year. Organic. *All food, without exception, is organic*. >And believe me, they don't get slaughtered in some corporate bottom-line > run, sh.t laden, meat-factory. Good for you. Most people don't care. Do be certain to have your beef laboratory tested to see how much fecal contamination occurs- it *will be* greater than zero, and anyone that says otherwise is lying. >The cost runs to less than $4.00 a lb, for > the whole half and that includes the good cuts. Can YOU get a filet mignon > for 4 bucks a pound? Actually, yes, my local chain grocery store often has it (and I don't have to buy half a cow), but I usually eat cuts that cost less than $1.50 a pound. I know how to cook meat, and the cheaper cuts make better jerky. > I love to eat dead cows, bison, chickens, ostriches, haddocks, lambs ..but > not deer - Blecch - no venison. I haven't tried venison, yet. My wife is a city girl, and I can't get her to try rabbit, lamb, snake, or quail. > Where did I say don't eat beef? I never claimed you did. If you were paying attention to the subject line, you'd see the words "vegan diet", and since you don't seem to know what that means (since if you did AND you were paying attention to the subject, you wouldn't have posted the above), a vegan is someone who not only doesn't eat meat, but tries not to use any animal products at all. Some still use leather, but don't eat animal products. > I said be careful of the industrial beef, it's got sh.t on it. And I'm saying be careful of the beef *you* buy, because it's got sh.t on it, too. >> >>did you know >> >> that beef which is 'cold pasteurized' (which means it's irradiated with [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Most people prefer ignorance. Only naive ones, and when they do know, and figure out the contempt they are held in by the producers who give them such low-grade product, they get pretty disgusted and stop buying. This is what business is afraid of: They don't want the wider general public to know the score on how they make what they do - it might actually mean the value of their real product - their stock - may go down in price. Turning cows into meat is just a means to the end - the real thing that these corporations make to sell IS the stock. > and I notice >> you have removed the part where I actually *EXPLAINED* that cold [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The method of process was not the issue- the use of meat was. Pay attention. > I have to wonder why you want to go on an irrelevant tangent. I specifically MADE the process a tangent, remember? >> I note you haven't said this processing isn't real or you haven't denied >> that it is done so because of business money concerns. > > Again, the method of processing isn't relevant to the discussion. As to the > money, there is *no other reason* why the industry should be concerned. I'd have though that any decent person or group of people would be concerned about doing a job correctly and letting the money come from the naturally occurring high standards that it brings. Guess that is too much effort, eh? This is selling to the lowest common denominator and it says much that they do so. Oh yeah, that's real decent. What a bunch of paragons of virtue and SUCH high Christian values - isn't that what America is all about now, since Bush was re-elected? Oh, but I forgot, somehow business is exempt from behaving as if they are a part of this society and practicising it's values. >The industry exists to provide the public what it wants- *cheap food*. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Depends on how you cook it, and *rinsed or unrinsed*, properly cooked that > fecal contamination becomes recycled protein. It's still sh.t. Cooked sh.t. >> > Only someone who thinks with their fecal matter would have a problem > with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Just someone who does his homework, and doesn't hide behind handwaving or > irrational scare tactics. Try using relevant facts in the future. Scare tactics or the truth? There's sh.t in industrially slaughtered beef, and the industry nukes it to kill the bacteria, instead of cleanly and carefully slaughtering. If business is doing something that scares people when they find out, maybe it should stop. Too bad if their stocks lose value. It's only money, after all. >> > As to a recall, that just shows the system is working. Imagine what > would [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > *All food, without exception, is organic*. Want to bet? Tell me where partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening occurs naturally in the environment. How about Olestra? Got any Sucrylose? Perhaps propylene glycol grows in trees? This is all considered food. Friend, I'm married to a chef. I know food. I know it's chemistry, it's nutritive values and it's manufacture. >>And believe me, they don't get slaughtered in some corporate bottom-line >> run, sh.t laden, meat-factory. > > Good for you. Most people don't care. That's not what I have found when they know the full score. > Do be certain to have your beef > laboratory tested to see how much fecal contamination occurs- it *will be* > greater than zero, and anyone that says otherwise is lying. Bullshit. I grew up on a farm, where we raised poultry and pork and slaughtered on premises. Pigs and cows go pretty much the same, but with a hog, you scald the skin with boiling water and use a draw blade to get the hairs off. If done carefully and adroitly, there is NO contamination. It is possible to gut an animal without cutting into the GI tract. The last two cuts to excise the innards are at the throat - where the trachea splits and when you ring cut around the anus. Then you run up across with a clean blade and make the cuts to peel the hide back and then it's hung and split with a saw. If you take time and do it correctly, it's clean. This is what business doesn't do. Take. The. Time. >>The cost runs to less than $4.00 a lb, for >> the whole half and that includes the good cuts. Can YOU get a filet mignon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to buy half a cow), but I usually eat cuts that cost less than $1.50 a > pound. I know how to cook meat, and the cheaper cuts make better jerky. What store is this, selling filet mignon less than 4 bucks per .lb? >> I love to eat dead cows, bison, chickens, ostriches, haddocks, lambs ..but >> not deer - Blecch - no venison. > > I haven't tried venison, yet. It's kind of like aged beef - not in the texture but in that gamey, funky taste - some say it's the forest - it's definitely NOT sweet like buffalo or beef. It's somewhat like goat. >My wife is a city girl, and I can't get her to > try rabbit, lamb, snake, or quail. Try and run a New Zealand spring lamb past her. It's very sweet and tender. >> Where did I say don't eat beef? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > meat, but tries not to use any animal products at all. Some still use > leather, but don't eat animal products. I did mention this as an aside. I know veganism. My husband who's a chef and occasionally deals with them in the restaurants he's worked in, calls them 'macro-neurotics' because of the limitations they place on themselves. Cooking for them is fairly limited. I tried a near-vegan diet (ovo-lacto vegetarian?) five years ago, no meat of any kind and a very small amount of dairy, and an occasional egg. I was so constantly hungry I gained 20 lbs. that I haven't been able to shed in the time since. Go figure. >> I said be careful of the industrial beef, it's got sh.t on it. > > And I'm saying be careful of the beef *you* buy, because it's got sh.t on > it, too. Ermmm... nope. > This is what business is afraid of: They don't want the wider general public > to know the score on how they make what they do - it might actually mean the > value of their real product - their stock - may go down in price. > > Turning cows into meat is just a means to the end - the real thing that > these corporations make to sell IS the stock. Business shouldn't be concerned with anything else except as an afterthought. The primary reason for a business of any kind to exist, including your friendly organic farmer, is to make money. Regardless of success in other areas, if a profit is not made, then the business will cease to exist. This is elementary school economics. Pride in producing a clean product does not buy feed or pay the electric bill. Giving the public what it wants, as shown by what they are willing to pay for, does. If the public is unconcerned about the quality of the product, there's no reason why a business should concern itself with quality. It's not enough to pay lip service- if someone talks about wanting quality but still buys crap, then their dollars prove that they don't really care about quality. The only time a business should concern itself with quality is when the buying public makes it clear that they *will not* buy anymore until the quality is improved. It's simple- if a business does not concern itself first and foremost with making a profit, it will cease to exist and then it cannot provide the product. Every product, without exception, follows this rule. *Even non-profit organzations do*. After all, if the customers of a non-profit, which are the people providing the money, NOT the population intended to be served, are not happy to the point where they provide more money than the non-profit spends, the non-profit will cease to exist as well. Try reading Adam Smith. > > and I notice > >> you have removed the part where I actually *EXPLAINED* that cold [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I specifically MADE the process a tangent, remember? Yes, and I changed it back. Start a new thread if you want to discuss the process. In this thread, I'll keep trimming it out because it isn't relevant. > >> I note you haven't said this processing isn't real or you haven't denied > >> that it is done so because of business money concerns. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd have though that any decent person or group of people would be concerned > about doing a job correctly If the public is buying the product and the company is making a profit, it *is* doing its job correctly. and letting the money come from the naturally > occurring high standards that it brings. When the public shows that it wants high standards, then that is what they will get. The public has shown through its actions that it prefers cheap meat over quality meat. Talk is irrelevant- expenditure of food dollars counts. > Guess that is too much effort, eh? A business would be irresponsible to do things that its customers have not shown that they want. > This is selling to the lowest common denominator and it says much that they > do so. It says that the company recognizes its customers wants and provides it at a price the public is willing to pay. That means the company is behaving exactly as it should. > Oh yeah, that's real decent. It sure it. It means the public gets what it shows through its food dollars it wants, and it means the company will remain in business to continue to serve the public because it makes a profit. This means that, not only will the company continue to employ people, but will help others indirectly because of all the middlemen and service people that remain employed. It's real decent that the business makes money by giving the public what it wants. > What a bunch of paragons of virtue and SUCH high Christian values Exactly. Why would a business want to screw the public or its owners by doing something other than what the public shows it wants? Providing the product demanded at the price demanded is the height of virtue. You seem to be under the impression that making a profit and serving the public is evil. - isn't > that what America is all about now Actually, it's what America's *always* been about. The business of America *is* business. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in history class. > Oh, but I forgot, somehow business is exempt from behaving as if they are a > part of this society and practicising it's values. What business are you talking about? The meat business in this country is clearly practicing this country's values, since the society it is a part of continues to patronize it. > >The industry exists to provide the public what it wants- *cheap food*. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It's still sh.t. Cooked sh.t. Yes it is, and clearly acceptable to the public. It's also on the food *you* buy. What's your point? > >> > Only someone who thinks with their fecal matter would have a problem > > with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Scare tactics or the truth? You've been using scare tactics thus far, you might consider the truth in the future. >There's sh.t in industrially slaughtered beef, There's sh.t in *all* slaughtered beef. What's your point? > and the industry nukes it to kill the bacteria Good for them! It does the job and is relatively inexpensive. It should be used more often. , instead of cleanly and > carefully slaughtering. Which *still* gets sh.t in your food, and also does a disservice to the vast majority of the public, since it would improperly raise the cost of meat, and the public has shown *with its food dollars* that they don't care. Doing what you suggest would require a business to provide a *disservice* to the public. What do you have against your fellow man, that you would force *your* choices on them? > If business is doing something that scares people when they find out, maybe > it should stop. Or not. Maybe it should stop when enough people have shown, through their actual purchasing habits and not a lot of handwaving rhetoric, that it's important to the customers that the business change. Unless and until the buying public shows that failure to change will affect profits, a business *should* continue to do what it's been doing. Otherwise, it's a disservice to the public. > Too bad if their stocks lose value. Which clearly isn't happening, since the public is still buying what the company is providing. *Clearly* the meat industry is providing what the general public wants, since they keep buying it, and thus the industry would be *wrong* to change what it does. >It's only money, after all. Which shows that the industry is doing *exactly what the people want*. You clearly don't have a clue that *businesses do what the public demand with their dollars*. You seem to be under the impression that the meat-eating public is some poor victim, forced to jump when the industry tells them. If that were the case, then what has the meat industry done to *you personally* for failure to comply? Has someone from the Beef Council threatened to beat you up because you choose not to buy what you claim is their tainted meat? Did Winn-Dixie sue you for not buying their meat special of the week? What has the industry done to you, personally, for not complying with what you seem to think is the industry's orders? Please provide verifiable details, such as a medical or police report or a court order. Clearly, then, if the meat industry has done nothing to you for failure to comply, it has no power to do anything, and is entirely dependent on the buying public. You would insist that the industry tail is wagging the public dog, yet you can't provide any verifiable evidence of that. > >> > As to a recall, that just shows the system is working. Imagine what > > would [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Want to bet? Sure. I'll take a sample of *your* meat and a sample grabbed off the local supermarket shelf and take them both to a chemist. Bet they both come back organic. >Tell me where partially hydrogenated vegetable >shortening occurs naturally in the environment. How >about Olestra? Got any Sucrylose? *All of which are organic compounds*. > Perhaps propylene glycol grows in trees? Perhaps it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an organic compound. > This is all considered food. Yes, it is, and it's clear the buying public *wants* to eat it, because they willingly buy it and eat it. What's your point? > Friend, I'm married to a chef. I know food. I know it's chemistry, it's > nutritive values and it's manufacture. Then you should well know that everything you mentioned above is an organic compound. > >>And believe me, they don't get slaughtered in some corporate bottom-line > >> run, sh.t laden, meat-factory. > > > > Good for you. Most people don't care. > > That's not what I have found when they know the full score. *If they still buy it, then they do not care.* > > Do be certain to have your beef > > laboratory tested to see how much fecal contamination occurs- it *will be* > > greater than zero, and anyone that says otherwise is lying. > > Bullshit. And pigs sh.t, and chickens sh.t, and even fish sh.t. What's your point? >I grew up on a farm, where we raised poultry and pork and > slaughtered on premises. Pigs and cows go pretty much the same, but with a > hog, you scald the skin with boiling water and use a draw blade to get the > hairs off. If done carefully and adroitly, there is NO contamination. Feel free to provide *verifiable* laboratory tests. Without such verifiable information, you're just *assuming* there's no contamination. Willful ignorance and handwaving won't change the facts. It is > possible to gut an animal without cutting into the GI tract. The last two > cuts to excise the innards are at the throat - where the trachea splits and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If you take time and do it correctly, it's clean. But not sh.t-free. And I've personally *done it* with pigs, so I have personal experience whereof I speak. > This is what business doesn't do. Take. The. Time. Because. The. Public. Shows. It. Doesn't. Care. I can use lots of periods and capital letters like a netkook as well. > >>The cost runs to less than $4.00 a lb, for > >> the whole half and that includes the good cuts. Can YOU get a filet mignon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What store is this, selling filet mignon less than 4 bucks per .lb? My local store is Hitchcock's Foodway, a small local chain. They don't often carry filet mignon, but I've seen it there occasionally at less than $4 per pound. Gosh, it's amazing what can happen when you work with *facts* instead of scare tactics. > >> I love to eat dead cows, bison, chickens, ostriches, haddocks, lambs ..but > >> not deer - Blecch - no venison. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > taste - some say it's the forest - it's definitely NOT sweet like buffalo or > beef. It's somewhat like goat. Had goat BBQ once- roadside vendor. He missed a chunk of bone, but otherwise it was pretty good stuff. > >My wife is a city girl, and I can't get her to > > try rabbit, lamb, snake, or quail. > > Try and run a New Zealand spring lamb past her. It's very sweet and tender. Might try that- after hiding the label, first :) > >> Where did I say don't eat beef? > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Ermmm... nope. Let's see the verifiable lab results. I used to work in a 7-11. Night shift. Had this magnificent young specimen of vegan womanhood come in several times a night to buy a Double Gulp of coffee. I mean, 3-4 times a night she'd buy the HALF GALLON cup. Since she was sooooo easy on the eyes, I watched her often enough to notice that she always put exactly 24 non-dairy creamers. One night she got distracted, and #21 was dairy. She was torn. Does she dump it and start over, or live with the shame? The cry of the bean overcame her resistance, and she put three more non-dairy creamers in. Anyone who says you cannot be healthy on a vegan diet has not met this young woman. She was clearly in *very good* health, if you know what I mean. With that much coffee a night- and who knows what she drank elsewhere- she should have looked like a crack whore. *Clearly* she derived sufficient nutrition from her diet, and it went to *all* the right places. We talked about a lot of things, except her diet. Well, she might have talked about it as well, but after the first conversation about her use of non-dairy creamer, I was too distracted to listen :) >> This is what business is afraid of: They don't want the wider general > public [quoted text clipped - 405 lines] > talked about it as well, but after the first conversation about her use of > non-dairy creamer, I was too distracted to listen :) >> This is what business is afraid of: They don't want the wider general > public [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > makes it clear that they *will not* buy anymore until the quality is > improved. Well there you have it. When the public does not know, how can any producer say they do not care? Most DO care. They do not know what their options are, or they believe they cannot change what business does. I'm amazed that boycotting a product is such a novel idea, that it gets overlooked as an option. > It's simple- if a business does not concern itself first and foremost with > making a profit, it will cease to exist and then it cannot provide the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Try reading Adam Smith. I do. I particularly like the part where he mentions that business itself must be regulated in order for it to not become corrupted by greed. >> > and I notice >> >> you have removed the part where I actually *EXPLAINED* that cold [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > If the public is buying the product and the company is making a profit, it > *is* doing its job correctly. Until someone gets poisoned. > and letting the money come from the naturally >> occurring high standards that it brings. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > meat over quality meat. Talk is irrelevant- expenditure of food dollars > counts. Expenditures of food dollars is roughly 10% of total costs - half of what it was 50 years ago and the health situation hasn't been more grim. Obesity and diabetes skyrocketing. Too much cheap food, and too little education on nutrition. >> Guess that is too much effort, eh? > > A business would be irresponsible to do things that its customers have not > shown that they want. Business doesn't ask. Let me tell you something. I am in the Nielsen Homescan Consumer Shopping panel - have been now for over five years. I have gone to the lengths to actually *write* in a daily journal, the purchases of everything I make. Most of what we buy is locally produced and much is handmade - it's cost is very compteitive so it's not some food snobbery thing going on here - I have recieved communications back from Nielsen, that they did not want to know what I was purchasing, unless it was something that was scanned with the hand scanner. Bar codes only. Now to the point that they use this method to collect data on what Americans purchase is already skewed from what is really happening. Do people not care? I do, yet I cannot even add my purchases to a national tally of what consumers DO want.You cannot say that most don't care: Most don't know they have better options. >> This is selling to the lowest common denominator and it says much that > they [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > real decent that the business makes money by giving the public what it > wants. So what's the problem with saying that the meat they choose to buy for dirt cheap, is covered in the sh.t that is an inevitable result in wanting it inexpensively? >> What a bunch of paragons of virtue and SUCH high Christian values > > Exactly. Why would a business want to screw the public or its owners by > doing something other than what the public shows it wants? Providing the > product demanded at the price demanded is the height of virtue. You seem to > be under the impression that making a profit and serving the public is evil. Hiding behing ignorance is no virtue. Why do these businesses scream bloody blue murder when someone points out the result of the cheap meat? > - isn't >> that what America is all about now > > Actually, it's what America's *always* been about. The business of America > *is* business. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in history class. Oh no! We have a mandate to be more Christian! Our Founding Fathers were Christian! It's not enough to beat up on homosexuals. >> Oh, but I forgot, somehow business is exempt from behaving as if they are > a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > clearly practicing this country's values, since the society it is a part of > continues to patronize it. So why the problem about letting people know what it's end result, qualitatively, is? >> >The industry exists to provide the public what it wants- *cheap food*. >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yes it is, and clearly acceptable to the public. It's also on the food *you* > buy. What's your point? I don't eat sh.t laden meat. I eat cleanly killed meat, from non-industrial sources. Do explain how the two largest beef recalls in US history have come from such a cleanly and carefully run system? >> >> > Only someone who thinks with their fecal matter would have a problem >> > with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You've been using scare tactics thus far, you might consider the truth in > the future. It's not a scare tactic to tell the public what they are getting is the inevitable end result of wanting cheap beef: sh.t laden meat, that is irradiated to cover for the fact that it's slaughtered at top speed and there is a higher risk of fecal contamination because of how fast the lines move. It's a scare tactic because someone, usually a business concern, stands to lose money. It's only money, after all. Certainly less important than a human life. >>There's sh.t in industrially slaughtered beef, > > There's sh.t in *all* slaughtered beef. What's your point? There's fecal contamination only when the GI tract is nicked as it is being gutted. >> and the industry nukes it to kill the bacteria > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > majority of the public, since it would improperly raise the cost of meat, > and the public has shown *with its food dollars* that they don't care. They don't KNOW. > Doing what you suggest would require a business to provide a *disservice* to the > public. What do you have against your fellow man, that you would force > *your* choices on them? No forcing them to NOT buy sh.t laden beef, just letting them know that the cheap stuff, produced in factories at top speed, has a higher likelyhood of fecal contamination, as a by-product of the process of making it. >> If business is doing something that scares people when they find out, > maybe [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *should* continue to do what it's been doing. Otherwise, it's a disservice > to the public. Again, how is the public going to know what it is buying is of lesser value and potentially compromised safety, if any attempt to point out the process, leads to the dismissive, 'this is what Joe Public wants.. why rock the complacent boat' line you are spewing. Again, the attitude of 'well, this is what they want' is as much of a 'don't bother you can't make a change anyways..' statement that is designed to make people NOT want to try to change. Play to the insecurity that you cannot effect a change, so don't even try.. "Just shut up, eat the sh.t and go away..." seems to be what YOU are saying. Sorry, I'm not going to back down. >> Too bad if their stocks lose value. > > Which clearly isn't happening, since the public is still buying what the > company is providing. *Clearly* the meat industry is providing what the > general public wants, since they keep buying it, and thus the industry would > be *wrong* to change what it does. Again, does the public know? When I did not know, I did not care. After I did, I changed and found better, safer, local sources - and I pay less. >>It's only money, after all. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for failure to comply? Has someone from the Beef Council threatened to beat > you up because you choose not to buy what you claim is their tainted meat? This is in the Bush Administration's Department of Agriculture's own guidelines. Fecal contamination is permissible, as long as there aren't chunks of fibre visible. The gamma ray irridation, the 'cold pasteurization' is SUPPOSED to take care of e-coli or listeria. Hence we had the largest beef recalls in history on Dubya's watch. How long do you tolerate such on the edge practices before they really screw up and kill folks? > Did Winn-Dixie sue you for not buying their meat special of the week? What > has the industry done to you, personally, for not complying with what you > seem to think is the industry's orders? Please provide verifiable details, > such as a medical or police report or a court order. I hear Winn Dixie ain't doing so hot. Maybe if they sold organic only, they might have had better profit margins and not be in bankruptcy? I do read the Wall Street Journal, BTW. > Clearly, then, if the meat industry has done nothing to you for failure to > comply, it has no power to do anything, and is entirely dependent on the > buying public. You would insist that the industry tail is wagging the public > dog, yet you can't provide any verifiable evidence of that. The dog doesn't know it's tail is sitting on the railroad tracks and the train's coming. I'm merely ponting out that the tail is in danger of being run over. >> >> > As to a recall, that just shows the system is working. Imagine what >> > would [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > *All of which are organic compounds*. In inorganic combinations that the human body, which IS the result of 4 million or so years of selective dietary adaptaion, has no adaptation to digest without problems. Hence diabetes (amongst others) in the population, that costs everyone, though the high price of medical services and drugs. >> Perhaps propylene glycol grows in trees? > > Perhaps it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an organic > compound. It's a man made compound, processed from petrochemicals. It is of the glycol family, and is entirely artificial. Does that mean that gasoline is safe to drink? It's an organic compound. Volatile even, but hey, so's Bacardi 151. >> This is all considered food. > > Yes, it is, and it's clear the buying public *wants* to eat it, because they > willingly buy it and eat it. What's your point? Again, does the public *want* to eat it, or do they not KNOW they are eating it? >> Friend, I'm married to a chef. I know food. I know it's chemistry, it's >> nutritive values and it's manufacture. > > Then you should well know that everything you mentioned above is an organic > compound. In inorganic combination that the human body cannot digest without long term damage. >> >>And believe me, they don't get slaughtered in some corporate bottom-line >> >> run, sh.t laden, meat-factory. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > *If they still buy it, then they do not care.* They do not KNOW. Why does business get all like a bunch of shrinking violets when their processes and practices are pointed out? What have they got to hide? >> > Do be certain to have your beef >> > laboratory tested to see how much fecal contamination occurs- it *will [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > information, you're just *assuming* there's no contamination. Willful > ignorance and handwaving won't change the facts. You find me a kosher abbatoir or a small slaughterhouse that's been a point source for recalls of contaminated meat. > It is >> possible to gut an animal without cutting into the GI tract. The last two [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > But not sh.t-free. The sh.t is when you slit the throat and the blood shoots out the neck. In the case of the pigs, they'd start to barrel-roll across the ground and sh.t, until the blood ran out and the body finally quit. You do not butcher where you kill. There is no fecal contamination if you do not cut the GI tract while you are slaughtering. > And I've personally *done it* with pigs, so I have > personal experience whereof I speak. Ummmmm.... Done it with pigs? What it? Now you're making me nervous here. >> This is what business doesn't do. Take. The. Time. > > Because. The. Public. Shows. It. Doesn't. Care. Again, the public does not know. > I can use lots of periods > and capital letters like a netkook as well. Don't lose it here with namecalling. >> >>The cost runs to less than $4.00 a lb, for >> >> the whole half and that includes the good cuts. Can YOU get a filet [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > pound. Gosh, it's amazing what can happen when you work with *facts* instead > of scare tactics. Is that in the South? You mentioned Winn Dixie, so I'll say yes? What you bought would be over 14 bucks a pound if you bought it in northern New England. Kinda pricey up here.. That also is a fact. >> >> I love to eat dead cows, bison, chickens, ostriches, haddocks, lambs > ..but [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Had goat BBQ once- roadside vendor. He missed a chunk of bone, but otherwise > it was pretty good stuff. I've never had goat that didn't have bones in it - I've tried it Jamaican, with the hot jerk sauces and Somalian style, with spices - it's somewhat like Indian food. >> >My wife is a city girl, and I can't get her to >> > try rabbit, lamb, snake, or quail. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Might try that- after hiding the label, first :) Homemade mint chutney's best. There's tons of online recipes. I know many go for the mint sauces that are commercially available, but they often are too sweet, and the meat's flavor is lost. The trick is to get the smallest, teeny weeniest lambchops you can find. The younger the better. I am always amazed how lamb is so tasty and mutton so rank. If you get older lamb, go for the sweeter mint sauce. >> >> Where did I say don't eat beef? >> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Let's see the verifiable lab results. Okay, let's! The largest recalls in US history of industrial beef are all the lab results I need to see. Small slaughterhouses and abbatoirs, esp. the kosher ones, don't produce fecally contaminated meat that needs to be irradiated to make it safe. > I used to work in a 7-11. Night shift. Had this magnificent young specimen > of vegan womanhood come in several times a night to buy a Double Gulp of > coffee. I mean, 3-4 times a night she'd buy the HALF GALLON cup. Since she > was sooooo easy on the eyes, I watched her often enough to notice that she > always put exactly 24 non-dairy creamers. Shouldn't it have been that she got a huge cup of creamer and put coffee in it? > One night she got distracted, and #21 was dairy. She was torn. Does she dump > it and start over, or live with the shame? > > The cry of the bean overcame her resistance, and she put three more > non-dairy creamers in. I know only 1 vegan who's not ever used an animal by-product. One of the radical vegan girls I ran into ate lots of Jello. Ermmm. She was so obnoxious, I didn't bother to inform her where it came from. There's alot of faddisness in it. > Anyone who says you cannot be healthy on a vegan diet has not met this young > woman. She was clearly in *very good* health, if you know what I mean. Yeah, I do.. Although, I've seen incredibly mixed results with it as well. Lots of girls that have terrible skin problems - gaah, I've seen that one alot. Last time my husband cooked for a bunch of vegan kids, they all but faceplanted when they shut down as their bodies digested dinner. Damndest thing I've seen. These hyperactive Berkshire granola munchers who'd been like shaken BB's in a tin can all day, stopped for about an hour and a half. I had to wonder what they weren't getting in their diets that caused this. He cooked vegan for them, it was balanced nutritionally - maybe that was it. Had another one, a customer, whose four year old son, who she was feeding the same, was chewing the woodwork - windowsills - in their house. Hmmm. > With that much coffee a night- and who knows what she drank elsewhere- she > should have looked like a crack whore. *Clearly* she derived sufficient [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > talked about it as well, but after the first conversation about her use of > non-dairy creamer, I was too distracted to listen :) Ahhh. the beauty... of beauty. > >> This is what business is afraid of: They don't want the wider general > > public [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Well there you have it. When the public does not know, how can any producer > say they do not care? *You* know. *I* know. The national news media has shown it. The USDA records talk about it. It isn't the responsibility of the industry or government to throw people to the floor and shove it in people's faces. There's nothing at all being hidden. > Most DO care. *Obviously not*, because they still buy. >They do not know what their options are, Because they choose to be ignorant. or they believe they > cannot change what business does. Then they accept the consequences of their actions. Government and industry are not your mommie. I'm amazed that boycotting a product is > such a novel idea, that it gets overlooked as an option. And *thus* a light bulb appears over your head, as you finally understand what I've been saying. > > It's simple- if a business does not concern itself first and foremost with > > making a profit, it will cease to exist and then it cannot provide the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I do. I particularly like the part where he mentions that business itself > must be regulated in order for it to not become corrupted by greed. How about the part about profits? How about the part where businesses *should not* engage in charity? > > If the public is buying the product and the company is making a profit, it > > *is* doing its job correctly. > > Until someone gets poisoned. Pay attention: if the public is buying the product and the company is making a profit, the company is doing its job. After all, people are poisoned with tobacco and alcohol, yet the public continues to buy it, which means that the public is willfully buying poison. > > When the public shows that it wants high standards, then that is what they > > will get. The public has shown through its actions that it prefers cheap [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > diabetes skyrocketing. Too much cheap food, and too little education on > nutrition. What's your point? That doesn't have anything to do with *industry*, it has to do with the public being a bunch of lazy, tubby bastards. Once again, your placing your blame on the wrong party. If someone is fat, it's not because of industry, it's because he eats too much and exercises too little. > >> Guess that is too much effort, eh? > > > > A business would be irresponsible to do things that its customers have not > > shown that they want. > > Business doesn't ask. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha! Clearly, you were just looking at the pretty pictures when you were reading Adam Smith. The public tells business that it doesn't want something by not buying it. Let me tell you something. I am in the Nielsen > Homescan Consumer Shopping panel - have been now for over five years. You too? I did that for about a year. >I have recieved communications back from Nielsen, that > they did not want to know what I was purchasing, unless it was something > that was scanned with the hand scanner. Bar codes only. Which is understandable, since that is what their data collection system is designed to collect, since that sort of data is what Nielsen's customers want. *Once again* you are helping me prove my point by providing an example of a company wanting to provide what its customers want. *You* are not a customer of Nielsen. >I do, yet > I cannot even add my purchases to a national tally of what consumers DO > want. You've just clearly demonstrated that you don't have a clue as to what Nielsen does. Nielsen isn't in the business of "showing what people want"- Nielsen is in the business of providing specific types of data to its customers. >You cannot say that most don't care: Yes I can, and I have, and the data shows it. >Most don't know they have better > options. Most are too lazy to expend the effort to find out. It's easier to sit back and take it. It's not *words* that show what the public wants with their food dollars, it's *expenditures*, and the actual purchases show that the public is happy with what it's getting. All of your whining doesn't change that. *Deeds, not words* show that you are wrong. > >> This is selling to the lowest common denominator and it says much that > > they [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > cheap, is covered in the sh.t that is an inevitable result in wanting it > inexpensively? There's no problem at all, since the public has demonstrated through its purchases that crappy meat is acceptable. > >> What a bunch of paragons of virtue and SUCH high Christian values > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hiding behing ignorance is no virtue. What a shame the public insists on doing so. Why do these businesses scream bloody > blue murder when someone points out the result of the cheap meat? Because the industry is getting blamed instead of the correct party. > > - isn't > >> that what America is all about now [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oh no! We have a mandate to be more Christian! What, you and the mouse in your pocket? Our Founding Fathers were > Christian! And Jewish, and Deist, and atheist... >It's not enough to beat up on homosexuals. Enjoy your hobby. > >> Oh, but I forgot, somehow business is exempt from behaving as if they are > > a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So why the problem about letting people know what it's end result, > qualitatively, is? Nothing, and the information is readily available to the public. *Get off your a.s and look*. > > Yes it is, and clearly acceptable to the public. It's also on the food *you* > > buy. What's your point? > > I don't eat sh.t laden meat. If you eat meat, then you eat sh.t. > Do explain how the two largest beef recalls in US history have come > from such a cleanly and carefully run system? Note what you said- there were *recalls*, which clearly shows that the system *does* work. > > You've been using scare tactics thus far, you might consider the truth in > > the future. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there is a higher risk of fecal contamination because of how fast the lines > move. OK, you *and lots of other people have told them*. What's your point? > It's a scare tactic because someone, usually a business concern, stands to > lose money. It's only money, after all. Certainly less important than a > human life. How kind of you to think so. The industry certainly has done nothing to promote that viewpoint. THe industry cares about providing its customers with what they want. > >>There's sh.t in industrially slaughtered beef, > > > > There's sh.t in *all* slaughtered beef. What's your point? > > There's fecal contamination only when the GI tract is nicked as it is being > gutted. Sorry, I don't seem to see your verifiable lab results to support your claim. Cows make sh.t, walk in sh.t, eat and drink sh.t. > > Which *still* gets sh.t in your food, and also does a disservice to the vast > > majority of the public, since it would improperly raise the cost of meat, > > and the public has shown *with its food dollars* that they don't care. > > They don't KNOW. They don't want to know. The ignorance is willful, since the information is freely available. I won't blame industry because the public *refuses* to find out. For example, folks who thought the government should act as mommy and daddy decided that patients need to know more about their medicines. Thus, the Patient Package Insert was born. Sounds like a great idea- but empirical data shows that the vast majority of the public, especially those taking a drug for the first time, *throw them away*. Millions of dollars spent on something the public *said* it wanted, but which accomplished little more than raising the price of medicine. You can talk all you want, but reality does not match what you say. > > Doing what you suggest would require a business to provide a *disservice* to > the > > public. What do you have against your fellow man, that you would force > > *your* choices on them? > > No forcing them to NOT buy sh.t laden beef Why would you want the industry to start using force on the public? What have you got against the public? Nobody is *forced* to buy meat by the industry. , just letting them know that the > cheap stuff, produced in factories at top speed, has a higher likelyhood of > fecal contamination, as a by-product of the process of making it. All they have to do is watch the news. > >> If business is doing something that scares people when they find out, > > maybe [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Again, how is the public going to know *They get off their a.ses and find out*. The data is freely available. > Again, the attitude of 'well, this is what they want' is as much of a 'don't > bother you can't make a change anyways..' Nonsense. That you can't tell the difference says a whole lot about *you* and your agenda. > Sorry, I'm not going to back down. I haven't asked you to do so. Watching you try to avoid the truth has become entertaining. > >> Too bad if their stocks lose value. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Again, does the public know? The data is available. Unlike yourself, I believe in freedom, and I don't believe the public should be hit over the head. If people prefer being willfully ignorant, then so be it. For myself, I prefer to do my homework. Unlike yourself, I choose not to force my beliefs on others. > When I did not know, I did not care. After I > did, How did you find out? Did some meat industry turncoat slip you documents out the back door of the slaughterhouse? Or did you avail yourself of the freely available public information? I just did a search of Google using the phrase "bad meat" and 4,950,000 results appeared. Number 2 seems to be about a movie by that name. >I changed and found better, safer, local sources - and I pay less. *Good for you*. Why are you trying to force your choice on others? > >>It's only money, after all. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This is in the Bush Administration's Department of Agriculture's own > guidelines. That's nice- now how about answering the questions I *asked*, which was, what has the meat industry done to *you personally* for not complying with what you seem to think are their orders? > Fecal contamination is permissible, as long as there aren't chunks of fibre > visible. Sounds like a realistic plan. >The gamma ray irridation, the 'cold pasteurization' is SUPPOSED to > take care of e-coli or listeria. Usually it does. >Hence we had the largest beef recalls in > history on Dubya's watch. Once again, you show the industry is working safely. > How long do you tolerate such on the edge practices before they really screw > up and kill folks? *As long as the public shows that it DOES NOT CARE about those practices by buying their meat.* > > Did Winn-Dixie sue you for not buying their meat special of the week? What > > has the industry done to you, personally, for not complying with what you > > seem to think is the industry's orders? Please provide verifiable details, > > such as a medical or police report or a court order. > > I hear Winn Dixie ain't doing so hot. Which is nice, but I see that you didn't answer my question. It's pretty obvious that the meat industry has *no power whatsoever* to force to public to buy anything. *Obviously* the public buys what it does because *the public* wants to. >Maybe if they sold organic only I have never seen Winn-Dixie or any other grocery store sell any food that was not organic. > > Clearly, then, if the meat industry has done nothing to you for failure to > > comply, it has no power to do anything, and is entirely dependent on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The dog doesn't know it's tail is sitting on the railroad tracks and the > train's coming. Why do you insist on blaming the industry for the public's behavior? > >> > *All food, without exception, is organic*. > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > In inorganic combinations that the human body Please show me a verifiable, peer-reviewed chemistry book or periodical that uses the phrase "inorganic combinations". Your handwaving and disinformation doesn't change the verifiable *fact* that *all* food is organic. The human body can only digest organic materials. > >> Perhaps propylene glycol grows in trees? > > > > Perhaps it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an organic > > compound. > > It's a man made compound, processed from petrochemicals. Which are *also* organic compounds. If you're going to discuss chemistry, do your homework. I've taken my chemistry sequence, and aced the American Chemical Society exam given in my class. > Does that mean that gasoline is safe to drink? Enjoy. Try a spritz of lime. >It's an organic compound. Yes, it is. What's your point? Are you suggesting that the meat industry wants people to drink gasoline? Please provide your independently verifiable evidence. > Volatile even, but hey, so's Bacardi 151. Which is also a poison. > >> This is all considered food. > > > > Yes, it is, and it's clear the buying public *wants* to eat it, because they > > willingly buy it and eat it. What's your point? > > Again, does the public *want* to eat it Unless you can provide evidence that industry thugs are physically holding people down and forcing it in their mouths, the *verifiable evidence* is YES. > or do they not KNOW they are eating > it? Perhaps if they are eating it in their sleep. > > *If they still buy it, then they do not care.* > > They do not KNOW. They do not CARE. Why does business get all like a bunch of shrinking > violets when their processes and practices are pointed out? In some cases, the processes are proprietary, and exposing them would be theft. However, I can't think of any specific to the meat industry. What have they > got to hide? As far as the quality of the public, not only is nothing being hidden, it's freely available. Even my podunk public library has material on the meat industry. > > Feel free to provide *verifiable* laboratory tests. Without such verifiable > > information, you're just *assuming* there's no contamination. Willful > > ignorance and handwaving won't change the facts. > > You find me a kosher abbatoir or a small slaughterhouse No- *you* are claiming that your meat is sh.t-free. Let's see those lab results from *your* source! You complain about others not knowing, why do you insist on being *willfully* ignorant? Why are you hiding from the truth? > > But not sh.t-free. > > The sh.t is when you slit the throat and the blood shoots out the neck. In > the case of the pigs, they'd start to barrel-roll across the ground So, then, the industry lets its pigs roll around on the ground? Or are you saying that the industry intentionally brings dirt into some floor space to allow the pigs to roll around? > > And I've personally *done it* with pigs, so I have > > personal experience whereof I speak. > > Ummmmm.... Done it with pigs? What it? Slaughtered them, of course. Once again, it's clear you're having difficulty following the conversation. Perhaps you should stop being rude and start properly trimming your quotes. >Now you're making me nervous here. The facts tend to do that. > >> This is what business doesn't do. Take. The. Time. > > > > Because. The. Public. Shows. It. Doesn't. Care. > > Again, the public does not know. Again, the public is willfully ignorant, since the data is freely available. > > I can use lots of periods > > and capital letters like a netkook as well. > > Don't lose it here with namecalling. Stop using poor punctuation to fill in the gaps in your facts. > >> What store is this, selling filet mignon less than 4 bucks per .lb? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Is that in the South? Yes. >What you > bought would be over 14 bucks a pound if you bought it in northern New > England. Kinda pricey up here.. That also is a fact. The fact that it sells shows that the public buys. > > Had goat BBQ once- roadside vendor. He missed a chunk of bone, but otherwise > > it was pretty good stuff. > > I've never had goat that didn't have bones in it - I've tried it Jamaican, > with the hot jerk sauces and Somalian style, with spices - it's somewhat > like Indian food. Haven't found any good Somalian recipes, but I did speak to someone who served there and liked the food. > >> Try and run a New Zealand spring lamb past her. It's very sweet and > > tender. > > > > Might try that- after hiding the label, first :) > > Homemade mint chutney's best. I believe I will look for a recipe for that. She's on her latest diet, "Volumetrics". There's a constant turnover of diet books at our yard sales. She's looking for the magic comfy word instead of doing what it takes- which makes her an ideal example of the meat-buying public. > >> Ermmm... nope. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The largest recalls in US history of industrial beef are all the lab results > I need to see. Please provide a verifiable reference, showing where *your prefered source* is listed. Otherwise, you haven't provided the data showing that your meat is sh.t-free. Why are you hiding from the truth? > Small slaughterhouses and abbatoirs, esp. the kosher ones, don't produce > fecally contaminated meat that needs to be irradiated to make it safe. Let's see your verifiable data to that effect. > > I used to work in a 7-11. Night shift. Had this magnificent young specimen > > of vegan womanhood come in several times a night to buy a Double Gulp of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Shouldn't it have been that she got a huge cup of creamer and put coffee in > it? The coffee gods must have liked her, because the Double Gulp cup wasn't intended for coffee, but it never spilled on her. > I know only 1 vegan who's not ever used an animal by-product. One of the > radical vegan girls I ran into ate lots of Jello. Ermmm. She was so > obnoxious, I didn't bother to inform her where it came from. There's alot of > faddisness in it. I have a book on revenge that suggests inviting a militant vegan over for dinner. After they've eaten the vegan dinner you prepared, you show them the can of tuna that you put in the food. > > Anyone who says you cannot be healthy on a vegan diet has not met this young > > woman. She was clearly in *very good* health, if you know what I mean. > > Yeah, I do.. > Last time > my husband cooked for a bunch of vegan kids, they all but faceplanted when > they shut down as their bodies digested dinner. Damndest thing I've seen. > These hyperactive Berkshire granola munchers who'd been like shaken BB's in > a tin can all day, stopped for about an hour and a half. Hmmm...gotta try that on my own rugrats. > Had another > one, a customer, whose four year old son, who she was feeding the same, was > chewing the woodwork - windowsills - in their house. Hmmm. I chewed my crib- not for the fiber, but because I wanted out! > Ahhh. the beauty... of beauty. Back in the early days of Fox, there was a show called "Key West". One of the best scenes in television history occured when the lead character, recently from New Jersey, saw everyone gathered on the beach at sunset. "What are you looking at?" "The sunset." "Well, yeah, but what are you *looking* at?" "The sunset." Took the guy a while to understand that the crowd was, in fact, looking at the *sunset*, just because it was there. Deborah, the trolls in here go blind with rage if they even suspect that you are a vegan. >>>did you know >>> that beef which is 'cold pasteurized' (which means it's irradiated with [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > Deb. > Deborah, the trolls in here go blind with rage if they even suspect that > you are a vegan. I think you are mistaken. Deborah is not a vegan. Read her whole post. She eats meat from small family owned farms which, of course, is far better (nutritionally speaking) than grocery store meat.. Ren? >>>>did you know >>>> that beef which is 'cold pasteurized' (which means it's irradiated with [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >> >> Deb. >> Deborah, the trolls in here go blind with rage if they even >> suspect that you are a vegan. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of course, is far better (nutritionally speaking) than grocery > store meat.. ================== And far better environmentally and animal-friendly wise than the massive mono-culture crops and imported exotic foods vegans rely on. Problem is, vegan wannabes here on usenet(there are no real vegans on usenet) can't seem to see past their own bloody footprints. > Ren? > [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] >>> >>> Deb. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message