Re: Consumer Reports: alarm over pork safety (factory farmed, presumably)

[sf]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:05:20 -0500, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> More good reasons to avoid feedlot/factory farm meats as much as possible.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57554632/consumer-reports-sounds-alarm-on-pork-safety/
>
> "Of nearly 200 pork samples tested by Consumer Reports, many tested
> positive for salmonella, listeria, staph bacteria. The magazine says a
> whopping 69 percent contained yersinia, which infects nearly 100,000
> Americans every year. Children are especially vulnerable."
>
> and:
>
> "Even more, 90 percent of the bacteria Consumer Reports found were said
> to be resistant to antibiotics. In other words, they were super-bugs.
>
> Rangan said, "All of these things paint a very concerning picture about
> this indiscriminate use of antibiotics in meat production in this
> country, and what we believe are the resulting consequences of that."
>
> Consumer Reports was also alarmed by traces of ractopamine in one-fifth
> of pork they tested. Farmers use the drug on their hogs to produce
> leaner cuts of meat. It was originally developed to treat asthma, but
> never approved for human use."

Thanks, I sent it to my kids who are being very good about buying
organic and growing their own (vegetables). With prices so high, you
need a little incentive every so often to keep your priorities
straight.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[gtr]

On 2012-11-27 23:23:28 +0000, Sqwertz said:

> But it is interesting to see the insurance lobbies go after the little
> guys regarding salt and fat consumption, helmet laws, anti-smoking,
> and numerous other activities that should be personal choice.

Which "little guys" are you talking about?

> Yet they don't dare go after the even bigger agriculture lobbies, which
> put plenty of people in the hospital each year and cause the insurance
> companies billions.

I can see why nobody goes after the "big lobbies": They're have more
money and will kick your ass!

[Nunya Bidnits]

As we recently witnessed on the national stage, copious amounts of money
don't necessarily guarantee an outcome.

[Julie Bove]

Sqwertz wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:05:20 -0500, Susan wrote:
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> More good reasons to avoid feedlot/factory farm meats as much as
>> possible.
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57554632/consumer-reports-sounds-alarm-on-pork-safety/
>>
>> "Of nearly 200 pork samples tested by Consumer Reports, many tested
>> positive for salmonella, listeria, staph bacteria. The magazine says
>> a whopping 69 percent contained yersinia, which infects nearly
>> 100,000 Americans every year. Children are especially vulnerable."
>

> And they also report that 62% of chicken have camphylbacter, 14% have
> salmonella, and 9% had both.
>
> Sounds like pork is still the better bet.

>
> But it is interesting to see the insurance lobbies go after the little
> guys regarding salt and fat consumption, helmet laws, anti-smoking,

> and numerous other activities that should be personal choice. Yet

> they don't dare go after the even bigger agriculture lobbies, which
> put plenty of people in the hospital each year and cause the insurance
> companies billions.
>

> As for the ractopomine, it's used to cause obesity in animals (yet of
> a leaner kind). Who's to say it's not doing the same to us.
>
> -sw

When I wound up in the ER and the final diagnosis of diabetes, the Dr. there
kept insiting that he thought I had Campylobactor. Said it came from
chicken. I told him that I never ate chicken but he insisted on testing me
for it anyway saying that it was going around there. I didn't have it.

[Steve Freides]

Susan wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> More good reasons to avoid feedlot/factory farm meats as much as
> possible.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57554632/consumer-reports-sounds-alarm-on-pork-safety/
>
> "Of nearly 200 pork samples tested by Consumer Reports, many tested
> positive for salmonella, listeria, staph bacteria. The magazine says a
> whopping 69 percent contained yersinia, which infects nearly 100,000
> Americans every year. Children are especially vulnerable."

Yes, but isn't this why we cook meat to a certain internal temperature?
To kill that stuff?

-S-

[gtr]

On 2012-11-28 03:47:08 +0000, Nunya Bidnits said:

>> I can see why nobody goes after the "big lobbies": They're have more
>> money and will kick your ass!
>
> As we recently witnessed on the national stage, copious amounts of
> money don't necessarily guarantee an outcome.

But that's STILL noteworthy for being a curious and wholly unexpected
phenomenon. I think it may be better said, when parsed to the lowest
molecular level, that copious amounts of money spent by idiots
guarantee only the spending of money.

On the right, Dick Army, Karl Rove and the other "geniuses" seem to
have their heads so buried in FOXThink, that they convinced themselves
that it represented some kind of reality. The Koch Bros. and others
pissed their money away on "big picture conceptualists". That's fine.
That's not like one lobby (insurance) going after another lobby
(agriculture). Those are *reality-based* operations, and they try to
spend their money against actualities.

Relative to the sudden perspective that money doesn't always win: I
remember when Michael Huffington (the "husband") ran for the senate out
here. He spent the largest amount ever for a non-Presidential
election: 28 million. And lost by 2%. Everyone was flabbergasted that
the price of a senate seat couldn't be bought for 28 million.

Then Linda McMahon spent 100 million for two failures to buy a senate
seat. I thought what made all of these stories so noteworthy is that
they were anomolies: money is ALWAYS supposed to win. The fact that
sometimes it doesn't, has really got some fund-raisers scratching their
heads.

[gtr]

On 2012-11-28 04:40:51 +0000, Sqwertz said:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:12:23 -0800, gtr wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-27 23:23:28 +0000, Sqwertz said:
>>
>>> But it is interesting to see the insurance lobbies go after the little
>>> guys regarding salt and fat consumption, helmet laws, anti-smoking,
>>> and numerous other activities that should be personal choice.
>>
>> Which "little guys" are you talking about?
>

> You and I and everybody else reading this. Restaurants and smaller
> manufacturers are often victim as well (no more soft drinks over 16oz,

That's in ONE city, right?

> no more salt, no more candy over 200 calories, etc..)

I haven't heard about these laws. Are they laws, or shriek-radio
talking points?

[gtr]

Sure. Does it kill all those many things? And how safe is "safe".
I'm scared to death to eat a medium-rare steak any more.

[George M. Middius]

gtr wrote:

> Relative to the sudden perspective that money doesn't always win: I
> remember when Michael Huffington (the "husband") ran for the senate out
> here. He spent the largest amount ever for a non-Presidential
> election: 28 million. And lost by 2%. Everyone was flabbergasted that
> the price of a senate seat couldn't be bought for 28 million.

Heh. Remember when Meg Whitman lost in the governor race? "But I made
the highest bid!"

[gtr]

On 2012-11-28 19:52:50 +0000, Susan said:

> On 11/28/2012 2:20 PM, gtr wrote:
>
>> Sure. Does it kill all those many things? And how safe is "safe". I'm
>> scared to death to eat a medium-rare steak any more.
>

> I'm not only because the pathogens are typically on the outside and
> burnt off, unlike ground meat, which has it all throughout due to
> mixing.

Excellent input. I'll have to come up with something new to keep me
awake at night. Hmm... Got it!

[Doug Freyburger]

gtr wrote:

>Nunya Bidnits said:
>
>> As we recently witnessed on the national stage, copious amounts of
>> money don't necessarily guarantee an outcome.
>
> But that's STILL noteworthy for being a curious and wholly unexpected
> phenomenon. I think it may be better said, when parsed to the lowest
> molecular level, that copious amounts of money spent by idiots
> guarantee only the spending of money.

No, it happens every cycle in US politics.

> On the right, Dick Army, Karl Rove and the other "geniuses" seem to
> have their heads so buried in FOXThink, that they convinced themselves
> that it represented some kind of reality. The Koch Bros. and others
> pissed their money away on "big picture conceptualists". That's fine.
> That's not like one lobby (insurance) going after another lobby
> (agriculture). Those are *reality-based* operations, and they try to
> spend their money against actualities.
>
> Relative to the sudden perspective that money doesn't always win: I
> remember when Michael Huffington (the "husband") ran for the senate out
> here. He spent the largest amount ever for a non-Presidential
> election: 28 million. And lost by 2%. Everyone was flabbergasted that
> the price of a senate seat couldn't be bought for 28 million.
>
> Then Linda McMahon spent 100 million for two failures to buy a senate
> seat. I thought what made all of these stories so noteworthy is that
> they were anomolies: money is ALWAYS supposed to win. The fact that
> sometimes it doesn't, has really got some fund-raisers scratching their
> heads.

Money can break a US election, but money can't win a US election. Ther
is seriously nothing new in this.

Every office has a minimum funding level to be considered a serious
candidate. It ranges from a couple hundred dollars to run for town
council to a couple hundred million to run for President. Fail to raise
this much and you don't have a chance no matter your platform and
popularity. Every primary election cycle plenty of candidates don't
make it for lack of funding.

The two large parties keep the ante high on this buy-in price partially
to keep small parties out of the running.

Once you're in the running how much you spend is very poorly correlated
with winning in the US. Every election cycle there's some unpopular
candidate who outspends the winner 2-to-1 or even 10-t-1 and loses.
Happens every cycle somewhere in the US.

The voters care for platform and popularity much more than they care
about funding.

Does this principle apply to lobbying? I don't know. Lobbiests are
very powerful and very well funded.

[Nunya Bidnits]

Those are the only two possibilities?

The "or" limitation in the question is a convenient construction intended to
control or restrict the answer. Probably won't work though.

[Nunya Bidnits]

You can't kill all of it short of cooking it to death. (Although chicken and
turkey breast at 165F is already dried out and past edible IMO) The
standards for controlling this stuff by cooking are based on a reduction of
pathogens to a safe level, meaning a level where your immune system can cope
with it without you having to get sick. But if the food is heavily
contaminated, then the reduction may not be sufficient. And to make things
worse, there are strains of heat resistant salmonella.

For example, according to Thermal Death Time tables, at 165F chicken
achieves the required reduction in salmonella pathogens in <10 seconds. But
what if the chicken contains ten times the normal level of salmonella? A ten
log reduction in this case will still likely yield ten time the acceptable
level of the pathogen. This is why they try to control the contamination at
the production level.

This is one of several reasons the gummint gives you the ultimate dumbed
down timing, because most people will have the chicken at = or >165F for a
lot longer than 10 seconds, resulting in additional kill. But if you tried
to follow the tables and hold chicken at 145F for 12 minutes (I'm working
from recall here, that may not be the exactly accurate time) which also
achieves the desired reduction, chances are a heavily contaminated piece of
chicken could still make someone sick. This gives you an idea how long it
takes to achieve total undetectable levels at such a temperature:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1057731/

MartyB

[Nunya Bidnits]

I'm not. Give me a slice of rare to medium-rare prime rib, some au jus, and
some horseradish, and I'm a happy camper and until I get sick from doing
that, I have no intention of accepting beef that overcooked by my personal
standards.

The beef pathogens of greatest concern like e. coli are mainly on the
surface, except ground beef. Roasting or broiling steaks and roasts at
typical temperatures takes care of that readily. Now when it comes to ground
beef, if asked, I order it medium well.

MartyB

[Nunya Bidnits]

gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> On 2012-11-28 03:47:08 +0000, Nunya Bidnits said:

>> As we recently witnessed on the national stage, copious amounts of
>> money don't necessarily guarantee an outcome.
>
> But that's STILL noteworthy for being a curious and wholly unexpected
> phenomenon. I think it may be better said, when parsed to the lowest
> molecular level, that copious amounts of money spent by idiots
> guarantee only the spending of money.

Well not necessarily. There are plenty of suckers out there who readily
gravitate into obscene ideas like buzzards on a shitwagon.

[gtr]

On 2012-11-28 23:25:52 +0000, Nunya Bidnits said:

>>> no more salt, no more candy over 200 calories, etc..)
>>
>> I haven't heard about these laws. Are they laws, or shriek-radio
>> talking points?
>
> Those are the only two possibilities?

Certainly not, but they seem the likely possibilities. Others might be
local school
rules, potentional legislation still being debated in a state or
municipality, a dream sequence in a sci-fi thriller; my imagination is
boundless, but my little piggies need a rest. An answer to where the
"no more salt" and "no more candy over 200 calories" realities exist
would be much more useful that my brain farts, I imagine.

> The "or" limitation in the question is a convenient construction
> intended to control or restrict the answer.

You're quite wrong; that technique is both ineffective and kind of
numb-skulled. I try to avoid these qualities in rhetoric. If possible.

> Probably won't work though.

Not answering the question because it has been found to be deviously
constructed has been pretty effective so far. So maybe the
numb-skulled approach has its merits after all.

[Jean B.]

Susan wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> More good reasons to avoid feedlot/factory farm meats as much as possible.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57554632/consumer-reports-sounds-alarm-on-pork-safety/
>
>
> "Of nearly 200 pork samples tested by Consumer Reports, many tested
> positive for salmonella, listeria, staph bacteria. The magazine says a
> whopping 69 percent contained yersinia, which infects nearly 100,000
> Americans every year. Children are especially vulnerable."
>

> and:
>
> "Even more, 90 percent of the bacteria Consumer Reports found were said
> to be resistant to antibiotics. In other words, they were super-bugs.
>
> Rangan said, "All of these things paint a very concerning picture about
> this indiscriminate use of antibiotics in meat production in this
> country, and what we believe are the resulting consequences of that."
>
> Consumer Reports was also alarmed by traces of ractopamine in one-fifth
> of pork they tested. Farmers use the drug on their hogs to produce
> leaner cuts of meat. It was originally developed to treat asthma, but
> never approved for human use."

Another good reason to get pork at the place that raises the pigs,
etc., etc. Just less of it because it is extremely expensive.

[gtr]

On 2012-11-29 04:28:30 +0000, Sqwertz said:

>>>> no more salt, no more candy over 200 calories, etc..)
>>>
>>> I haven't heard about these laws. Are they laws, or shriek-radio
>>> talking points?
>>
>> Those are the only two possibilities?
>>
>> The "or" limitation in the question is a convenient construction intended to
>> control or restrict the answer. Probably won't work though.
>

> She can look them up if she wants, but the examples I gave were just
> that - examples used to demonstrate the larger picture that was the
> point I was expressing.

Oh I see. Well they were sure handy examples of restrictions that
aren't happening. They chit-chat about death camps and "re-education
camps" and President's born in Kenya. So chit-chat is cheap and hardly
worth citing as "examples" of something.

> I'm not going to fall for nitpicking and play semantics on the four
> examples I chose, two of which she now wants me to "prove".

Not asking you to prove: I thought you were talking about realities.
You've cleared that up.

[gtr]

On 2012-11-29 07:26:04 +0000, Sqwertz said:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:40:38 -0800, gtr wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-29 04:28:30 +0000, Sqwertz said:
>>
>>>>>> no more salt, no more candy over 200 calories, etc..)
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't heard about these laws. Are they laws, or shriek-radio
>>>>> talking points?

[snip]

> They *are* realities.
>
> See, this is turning into that ugly piss fest that you so desired.

Wow--dramatic! I only asked where this was happening? The answer is
some kinda big fucking "mystery". Okay. Piss fest concluded.

[Steve Freides]

Nunya Bidnits wrote:

> You can't kill all of it short of cooking it to death. (Although
> chicken and turkey breast at 165F is already dried out and past
> edible IMO) The standards for controlling this stuff by cooking are
> based on a reduction of pathogens to a safe level, meaning a level
> where your immune system can cope with it without you having to get
> sick. But if the food is heavily contaminated, then the reduction may
> not be sufficient. And to make things worse, there are strains of
> heat resistant salmonella.

OK - I confess I don't think much about this sort of thing. No one here
is partial to very rare meat in any form, anyway, although as time
passes, we all are tending to like things more rare. A typical
restaurant order for anyone in my family is medium (which, of course,
means different things in different restaurants and with different cuts
of meat, etc.). That said ...

How likely is one to get food poisoning, e.g., compared to getting
struck by lightening, being in a car crash, that sort of thing? My
impression has been that at least some of this is the fact that we're a
big country, we eat a lot of meat, and we have several 24-hour news
television stations. Even a few hundred people getting food poisoning
every year in a country of 300 million people is still pretty good odds,
it seems to me.

I am _not_ saying it's not an issue - honestly, I don't know, which is
why I'm asking. No one in my immediate, or so far as I know, even my
extended family has ever gotten food poisoning.

-S-

[Brooklyn1]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:44:30 -0500, "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com>
wrote:

In the US millions of people contract food borne illness every day,
it's just not severe enough to go to the ER or a family doctor so
never gets reported... most food poisonings are relatively mild,
entails headaches, a day on the throne... how many contract food
poisoning is fairly acurately estimated from OTC drug purchases.

[Janet Bostwick]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:51:17 -0500, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes

>
>On 11/29/2012 2:44 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>
>> How likely is one to get food poisoning, e.g., compared to getting
>> struck by lightening, being in a car crash, that sort of thing? My
>> impression has been that at least some of this is the fact that we're a
>> big country, we eat a lot of meat, and we have several 24-hour news
>> television stations. Even a few hundred people getting food poisoning
>> every year in a country of 300 million people is still pretty good odds,
>> it seems to me.
>>
>> I am _not_ saying it's not an issue - honestly, I don't know, which is
>> why I'm asking. No one in my immediate, or so far as I know, even my
>> extended family has ever gotten food poisoning.
>>
>

>Food borne illnesses are among the most rapidly growing types of
>infection in the U.S.
>
>You don't have to eat rare meat to get them. And pork is dry as dust
>when cooked well enough to kill this stuff off.
>
>Susan
What are the kill temps?
Janet US

[Robert Klute]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:19:51 -0700, Janet Bostwick <nos...@cableone.net>
wrote:

>What are the kill temps?
>Janet US

You should read the article, as the testing was done on specific
pathogens and foods, but here is the gist of it.

Temperature - 90% reduction - non-detectable levels
130 - 80 minutes - 5 1/2 hours
135 - 50 minutes - 4 hours
140 - 10 minutes - 80 minutes
145 - 6 minutes - 30 minutes
150 - 2 minutes - 12 minutes

[Brooklyn1]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:29:15 -0500, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:

>x-no-archive: Yes

>
>On 11/29/2012 5:19 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
>> What are the kill temps?
>> Janet US
>

>Pretty sure 160 needs to be achieved, but one can cook to lower temp and
>let it rise to kill temp while resting, using a thermometer to be sure.
>
>USDA says that means unground meats can be cooked to 145 (too high for
>me, if it's steak!) and rested til 160, but ground meat should be fully
>cooked to 160.

Depends on the meat, beef cuts don't need to be cooked at all.
If you grind beef yourself then you can eat it as rare as you like,
you can even eat it raw.

[Nunya Bidnits]

gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> On 2012-11-29 04:28:30 +0000, Sqwertz said:
>
>>>>> no more salt, no more candy over 200 calories, etc..)
>>>>
>>>> I haven't heard about these laws. Are they laws, or shriek-radio
>>>> talking points?
>>>
>>> Those are the only two possibilities?
>>>
>>> The "or" limitation in the question is a convenient construction
>>> intended to control or restrict the answer. Probably won't work
>>> though.
>>
>> She can look them up if she wants, but the examples I gave were just
>> that - examples used to demonstrate the larger picture that was the
>> point I was expressing.
>
> Oh I see. Well they were sure handy examples of restrictions that
> aren't happening. They chit-chat about death camps and "re-education
> camps" and President's born in Kenya. So chit-chat is cheap and hardly
> worth citing as "examples" of something.

So now you're trying to associate Steve's point with birtherism? No shit?

www.zapatopi.net/afdb

[Nunya Bidnits]

gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> On 2012-11-28 23:25:52 +0000, Nunya Bidnits said:
>
>>>> no more salt, no more candy over 200 calories, etc..)
>>>
>>> I haven't heard about these laws. Are they laws, or shriek-radio
>>> talking points?
>>
>> Those are the only two possibilities?
>
> Certainly not, but they seem the likely possibilities.

Or perhaps they seem the most likely to prejudice the answer in a specific
direction. You'd never make it as a market researcher.

> Others might
> be local school
> rules, potentional legislation still being debated in a state or
> municipality, a dream sequence in a sci-fi thriller; my imagination is
> boundless, but my little piggies need a rest. An answer to where the
> "no more salt" and "no more candy over 200 calories" realities exist
> would be much more useful that my brain farts, I imagine.
>
>> The "or" limitation in the question is a convenient construction
>> intended to control or restrict the answer.
>
> You're quite wrong

Haaaaahahaha you gotta be kidding. Nothing could be more obviously right.
You wanted to post a question in such a way as to control the answer. How
did that work out for you?

; that technique is both ineffective and kind of
> numb-skulled. I try to avoid these qualities in rhetoric. If possible.
>
>> Probably won't work though.
>
> Not answering the question because it has been found to be deviously
> constructed has been pretty effective so far. So maybe the
> numb-skulled approach has its merits after all.

Clearly you have adopted that approach without reservation since you expect
answers to conform to such a question and admit you left out the more
rational, less intentionally inflammatory possibilities.

Carry on.

[Mr.E]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 05:15:02 -0500, Andy <a@b.c> wrote:

>This finally made my local Fox TV morning news, with a talkng
>heads spin that it only infectedd pork chops and pork loin!???
>
>So our pulled pork and bacon are saved! Whew!!! Not!
>
>How depressing!
>
>Fine job, FDA and USDA!!!
>
>What else is f*cked up in the food supply that we don't know
>about???
>
Ask Monsanto..
--
Mr.E

[Nunya Bidnits]

People get "food poisoning" all the time at low levels. Often the "24 hour
bug" isn't a bug. Most colds and flus take longer to run their course and
short lived intestinal distress is often the result of low level
contamination of some kind. This doesn't account for the 24 hour flus which
miraculously are cured by a day off of work. ;-)

[Nunya Bidnits]

Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 11/29/2012 2:44 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>

>> How likely is one to get food poisoning, e.g., compared to getting
>> struck by lightening, being in a car crash, that sort of thing? My
>> impression has been that at least some of this is the fact that
>> we're a big country, we eat a lot of meat, and we have several
>> 24-hour news television stations. Even a few hundred people getting
>> food poisoning every year in a country of 300 million people is
>> still pretty good odds, it seems to me.
>>
>> I am _not_ saying it's not an issue - honestly, I don't know, which
>> is why I'm asking. No one in my immediate, or so far as I know,
>> even my extended family has ever gotten food poisoning.
>>
>

> Food borne illnesses are among the most rapidly growing types of
> infection in the U.S.
>
> You don't have to eat rare meat to get them. And pork is dry as dust
> when cooked well enough to kill this stuff off.
>
> Susan

Pork temp standards were revised downwards by the USDA to 145F, which for
leaner cuts like pork loin is still not ideal, texturally speaking, but
vastly better than the old standard which would give you pork loin roasts
with the texture of leather.

MartyB

[Gary]

Nunya Bidnits wrote:

>
> Steve Freides <st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
> > I am _not_ saying it's not an issue - honestly, I don't know, which is
> > why I'm asking. No one in my immediate, or so far as I know, even my
> > extended family has ever gotten food poisoning.
>

> People get "food poisoning" all the time at low levels. Often the "24 hour
> bug" isn't a bug. Most colds and flus take longer to run their course and
> short lived intestinal distress is often the result of low level
> contamination of some kind. This doesn't account for the 24 hour flus which
> miraculously are cured by a day off of work. ;-)

Agreed! I was going to write the same thing. That's what I've heard
too....many people get mild food poisoning and don't realize it. They write
it off to a 24-hour virus.

Gary

[gtr]

I hear it called "the stomach flu". It usually attackes 4-6 hours
after dinner in a restaurant and is over by mid-morning.