Pasteurized beef?
Sharon In Vermont
write to your Representatives about.
====================================
March 5, 2002
Bill Defines Irradiated Meat as 'Pasteurized'
By ELIZABETH BECKER
WASHINGTON, March 4 — If a last-minute provision in the Senate farm bill
becomes law, irradiated hamburger could become known by a more appealing
name: pasteurized beef.
Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who heads the Senate Agriculture
Committee, said today that he had inserted the provision in an effort to
"more clearly define pasteurization," the process by which
disease-producing bacteria have long been destroyed in some foods
through heating.
The Harkin change would define irradiation as a kind of pasteurization.
It has been sought for several years by the growing irradiated-food
industry, which argues that irradiation is a "cold pasteurization" and
deserves to be referred to as such.
But neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the Agriculture
Department has yet to agree that meat treated by radiation, a process
approved by the government two years ago, should qualify as pasteurized.
Food safety advocates argue that the legislative provision is an effort
to avoid F.D.A. regulatory procedures that would ordinarily be needed in
order to define irradiation as a form of pasteurization for labeling
purposes. Both the industry and Mr. Harkin deny any such end run.
Mr. Harkin's home state is also home, in Sioux City, to the main plant
of the SureBeam Corporation, the No. 1 irradiator of ground beef sold in
the United States. He inserted the provision almost three weeks ago, on
the last day of Senate debate on the farm bill. The provision was later
discovered by the public-interest lobby Public Citizen.
In another late change, Mr. Harkin also inserted a clause that would
forbid the agriculture secretary to keep irradiated food out of the
school lunch program or any other federal nutrition program.
Only the Senate version of the bill includes those provisions. The
legislation is now in a House-Senate conference, and it is uncertain
whether the clauses will survive.
The two sides in the food safety debate agree that when consumers see
"irradiation" on a label, they often view it as a warning that the
product has undergone a potentially dangerous process.
Irradiation is something the consumer associates with "wartime and bombs
and bad things," said Diane Toops, food and trend editor of Food
Processing, a trade magazine that views irradiation favorably. And since
Sept. 11, the process has become associated with anthrax as well,
because irradiation is now used to kill germs in the postal system.
While Mr. Harkin played down the effect of his last-minute changes,
consumer advocates said the provision on irradiation's definition could
allow irradiated food to be labeled "pasteurized" without F.D.A. action.
Under current regulations, the label on irradiated meat must instead
state that it has been "treated by irradiation" and must be marked with
the symbol for irradiation, called a radura.
"It would be terrible, just horrible, misleading the public about what
industry is doing to its food," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public
Citizen.
Wil Williams, spokesman for the SureBeam Corporation, said that Senator
Harkin was simply "coming up with one standard definition" and that
SureBeam had no intention of skirting the regulatory process.
"Irradiation is pasteurization — partial sterilization to eliminate
pathogens," Mr. Williams said. "All the farm bill does is come up with a
standard everyone can use."
Since irradiation was approved by the government two years ago, he said,
it has been used to remove germs from millions of pounds of beef.
A spokesman for Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman had no comment on
the Harkin provisions.
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information
=====================================
This site, (http://www.citizen.org/fax/background.cfm?ID=35&source=1)
Public Citizen, will send a fax of protest for you if you fill in your
info.
Sharon in Vermont
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
John Gilmer
"Sharon In Vermont" <it_does...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:021a889ee6857404050...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> Wow. Our food chain is getting muddier and muddier. Here's something to
> write to your Representatives about.
>
> ====================================
>
> March 5, 2002
> Bill Defines Irradiated Meat as 'Pasteurized'
> By ELIZABETH BECKER
>
> becomes law, irradiated hamburger could become known by a more appealing
> name: pasteurized beef.
I do hope "they" include the COLD with the "pasturized." Otherwise, it is
a fraund on the consumers and an insult to Pasteur.
Fran Higham
The point
> is, Pasteurization and irradiation have the same end result: A product
that
> is more likely to be free from fecal contamination.
This comment would no doubt have Pasteur rolling in his grave. It just had
me rolling on the floor laughing.
Goedjn
"...forbid the agriculture secretary to keep irradiated food out of the
school lunch program or any other federal nutrition program."
Since the precendent there is, any interest group with sufficient clout
can tell the Ag.Sec. that he HAS to allow their food into the school
lunch program?
Although, if terminoligy was really meaningless,
they wouldn't need to be changing the labeling requirement,
anyway, now would they?
Bob Adkins wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:09:42 -0500, "John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I do hope "they" include the COLD with the "pasturized." Otherwise, it is
> >a fraund on the consumers and an insult to Pasteur.
>
> Who cares! Pasteur is very dead, and terminology is meaningless. The point
> is, Pasteurization and irradiation have the same end result: A product that
> is more likely to be free from fecal contamination.
>
> Hey, Pasteurized milk was slow to catch on. People wanted "fresh" milk!
> Going back even further, tomatoes were slow to catch on. Folks thought they
> were poisonous!
>
> "From the Heart of Cajun Country".
>
> Bob
RGB
"Goedjn" <Goe...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3C86948E...@pobox.com...
> I'd be more upset about this bit about:
> "...forbid the agriculture secretary to keep irradiated food out of the
> school lunch program or any other federal nutrition program."
>
> Since the precendent there is, any interest group with sufficient clout
> can tell the Ag.Sec. that he HAS to allow their food into the school
> lunch program?
>
> Although, if terminoligy was really meaningless,
> they wouldn't need to be changing the labeling requirement,
> anyway, now would they?
The whole mess is due to ignorance; too many undereducated
people who think irradiated means radioactive.
Sue
Alan Chapman
(Bob Adkins) wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:09:42 -0500, "John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net>
> wrote:
> Pasteurization and irradiation have the same end result: A product
> that is more likely to be free from fecal contamination.
I think you need to learn about the difference between faecal and
bacterial. Whilst faecal contamination will include contamination by
pathogens, not all bacterial contamination comes from faecal sources.
Irradiation is aimed at reducing *bacterial* contamination. So, if
something is faecally contaminated, irradiation should reduce the amount
of bacteria present, but it will *not* remove the physical traces of
faeces.
Alan.
Alan Chapman
(RGB) wrote:
> "Goedjn" <Goe...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3C86948E...@pobox.com...
> >
> > Although, if terminoligy was really meaningless,
> > they wouldn't need to be changing the labeling requirement,
> > anyway, now would they?
>
> The whole mess is due to ignorance; too many undereducated
> people who think irradiated means radioactive.
However, the fact that products are irradiated, may lead some people to
question the hygiene standards of the producer.
Alan.
RGB
"Alan Chapman" <r55...@email.sps.mot.com> wrote in message
news:memo.2002030...@cardiff.sps.mot.com...
Since the producer is the one who raises the cattle and sells them to a
slaughterhouse, why would that be an issue?
You just gave another example of my previous statement.
Sue, whose family 'produces' beef cattle
>
> Alan.
Goedjn
> >
> > Although, if terminoligy was really meaningless,
> > they wouldn't need to be changing the labeling requirement,
> > anyway, now would they?
>
> The whole mess is due to ignorance; too many undereducated
> people who think irradiated means radioactive.
>
were actually thinking about solving the problem instead
of fooling people, they'd have come up with the obvious
solution: Look up the name of the guy who patented
THIS process, and call it that.
You know: Pasturized = the process invented by Pastuer, (i.e. heat
treatment)
Jepsonized* (or whatever) = the process invented by Jepson
(i.e. irradiation)
*I have no idea who invented the basic process
End of problem, except for people who know what irradiation does,
and still don't like it..
C. Brunner
<it_does...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[some snipping done...]
>March 5, 2002
>Bill Defines Irradiated Meat as 'Pasteurized'
>By ELIZABETH BECKER
>
>WASHINGTON, March 4 — If a last-minute provision in the Senate farm bill
>becomes law, irradiated hamburger could become known by a more appealing
>name: pasteurized beef.
>But neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the Agriculture
>Department has yet to agree that meat treated by radiation, a process
>approved by the government two years ago, should qualify as pasteurized.
>Food safety advocates argue that the legislative provision is an effort
>to avoid F.D.A. regulatory procedures that would ordinarily be needed in
>order to define irradiation as a form of pasteurization for labeling
>purposes. Both the industry and Mr. Harkin deny any such end run.
This thread, and the whole controversy, have me scratching my head.
What is it people *want*, anyway? Food that is irradiated--be it
steak or strawberries--will keep longer and be less likely to make
people sick. To criticize irradiation because it might tempt
processors to relax their safety standards is kind of like criticizing
fluoridation of water because people will be less likely to brush
their teeth. Come to think of it, the introduction of fluoridation,
pasteurization, refrigeration, and probably even cooking food in the
first place, were pretty controversial. Imagine the gasps when
somebody first advocated putting that nice chunk of raw mastadon into
the coals of a fire?
The phrase "food safety advocates" touched a nerve. I was trained as
a microbiologist before I went to vet school, and I consider myself a
food-safety advocate. The guy who works down the hall is a
food-safety advocate: he has research money to study ways to reduce
the numbers of pathogenic bacteria in food while the "food" is still
alive. (It's called the "pre-harvest" approach.) Another colleage
advocates food safety when he publishes his research on methods of
rapid detection of bacteria in food products. As is implied later in
the article, a "food-safety advocate" isn't necessarily an opponent of
irradiation.
The funniest part of the original post, of course, was the title.
Around here, *all* beef cattle are "pasteurized".
C. Brunner
Goedjn
> This thread, and the whole controversy, have me scratching my head.
> What is it people *want*, anyway? Food that is irradiated--be it
Clear labelling, and a choice, as far as I can see.
John A. Stanley
Bob Adkins <bo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>The main fecal contamination I have in mind is coliform bacteria. It forces
>us to cook our burgers carefully, and one little slip can be fatal.
>
>If I order a steak and it shows some pink, I send it back. It would be nice
>to have a juicy medium cooked steak again. So *what if I glow in the dark?
>All the better to see a nice steak.
I don't worry about bacterial contamination inside a cut of beef. I eat
very little meat, but when I have a steak I wanna hear mooing on my
plate. Rare steaks and raw fish have yet to make me sick. It's ground
meat where the bacteria on the surface get all mixed in throughout the
meat that I avoid (unless the meat is crumbled up and cooked well done
like in chile, sloppy joes, etc.) All the stories of e coli poisoning
from meat that I'm aware of were from cheap fastfood burgers.
--
John A. Stanley Remove delicious mucilaginous vegetable to email
RGB
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:33 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
r55...@email.sps.mot.com
> (Alan Chapman) wrote:
>
>
> >I think you need to learn about the difference between faecal and
> >bacterial. Whilst faecal contamination will include contamination by
> >pathogens, not all bacterial contamination comes from faecal sources.
> >
> >Irradiation is aimed at reducing *bacterial* contamination. So, if
> >something is faecally contaminated, irradiation should reduce the amount
> >of bacteria present, but it will *not* remove the physical traces of
> >faeces.
>
> houses with it.
>
> The main fecal contamination I have in mind is coliform bacteria. It
forces
> us to cook our burgers carefully, and one little slip can be fatal.
>
> If I order a steak and it shows some pink, I send it back. It would be
nice
> to have a juicy medium cooked steak again. So *what if I glow in the dark?
> All the better to see a nice steak.
Irradiation has been used for a long time to clean surgical instruments.
And Irradiation is NOT the same as Radiation.
Sue
Janet Baraclough
from j...@okranatel.net (John A. Stanley) contains these words:
All the stories of e coli poisoning
> from meat that I'm aware of were from cheap fastfood burgers.
There was a case in Scotland about 4 years ago when e coli 157
contamination in one butcher's shop infected 500 people. Twenty of
them died; some survivors are permanently disabled. This was from
eating whole meat (not minced or burgers) which the butcher had
either cooked, or packed, on his own premises.
Afaik, most e coli meat contamination comes from careless
meat-handling and hygeine practices in shops, commercial food prep
areas, and restaurant or home kitchens. This suggests to me that if
meat was irradiated at the wholesalers, it could easily be reinfected
afterwards and be just as much of a health hazard.
Janet
John Gilmer
>
> Afaik, most e coli meat contamination comes from careless
> meat-handling and hygeine practices in shops, commercial food prep
> areas, and restaurant or home kitchens. This suggests to me that if
> meat was irradiated at the wholesalers, it could easily be reinfected
> afterwards and be just as much of a health hazard.
Well, what would be the source of that infection? Most problems come from
using the same surfaces and tools on raw meat as used with cooked meat; the
other cause, of course, is undercooking infected meat. Irradiated
preformed meats coming into a fast food place would keep the bad bugs from
coming into the restaurant in the first place.
John Gilmer
>
> Irradiation has been used for a long time to clean surgical instruments.
> And Irradiation is NOT the same as Radiation.
Yes it is!
There use GAMMA radiation. The other types are alpha, beta, and neutron.
Alpha and neutrol radiation can make the meat radioactive (especially the
neutrol) but all the GAMMA and BETA do it screw up the chemistry of whatever
they hit.
If you screw up the chemistry of a living cell enough it dies.
The WORRY is that you might convert some of the food into a cancer causing
substance by screwing up its chemistry.
RGB
"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:3c8808c3$0$35...@dingus.crosslink.net...
I'd like to see some sites for this claim.
Sue
>
>
Andy Hill
>If I order a steak and it shows some pink, I send it back. It would be nice
>to have a juicy medium cooked steak again. So *what if I glow in the dark?
>All the better to see a nice steak.
>
the steak, that would seem to be a bit conservative. I still order and/or cook
my steaks rare-to-medium rare. Of course, I still cook my hamburgers medium
rare, too, and that admittedly is living slightly on the edge :-) .
Hard to say (from my pretty ignorant perspective) which is more of a risk --
bacterial contamination or the chemical changes from whapping that beef with a
nice dose of ionizing radiation. I *know* my immune system is set up to handle
bacteria (not that I'll necessarily enjoy the side effects while it handles
them). Not so sure if it can handle the other stuff.
Gordon Couger
"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:3c8808c3$0$35...@dingus.crosslink.net...
>
>
> >
not be fit to eat long before it had as many carcinogens as a cup of coffee.
Beta radiation will not penetrate meat far enough to be practical for
killing bacteria it energy level is too low. Alpha radiation won't make it
through the paper. If you did contaminate meat with alpha or beta emitting
sources it would be a problem but they are using the ionizing radiation not
the radioactive material to treat the meat.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Steve Cothran
>Clear labelling, and a choice, as far as I can see.
After once spending a week with salmonella poisioning-food producers
can gamma zap my food all they want, and put a nuke sticker on it so I
will be sure to buy it.
For the guy that wanted some web info, the hysterical term used often
by the nons is "Radiolytes". Search on that and see if you do any
good.
Gordon Couger
Pasture would be proud to have his name on it. He spent his life fighing the
spread of disease and irradiation should have been in use for 50 years. Who
knows how many died as a direct couse from the hysterical reaction to
irradition of foods.
Millions have died because the first world decide that DDT was too dangerous
to use. After starting to use DDT again just to spray the inside of houses
South Africa reduced their malria rate nearly 80%. Maybe that's a good way
to control population.
Gordon Couger
> "John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
> news:3c8808c3$0$35...@dingus.crosslink.net...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Irradiation has been used for a long time to clean surgical
instruments.
> > > And Irradiation is NOT the same as Radiation.
> >
the most energetic beam of radiation that there is. As the frequency and/or
energy passed the visible range it becomes capable of doing damage to life
depending on the odds of the wave/partial interacting with the cell it
passes through. For treating food they choose radiation balancing the most
effect on the targets while having the least effect on the food.
You don't use high energy gamma rays because thy go right through an are
very unlikely to hit any thing nor do you use low angry rays that will
almost all react with the meat. One of the nice things about electron beams
is they can be tuned to fit the conditions at hand.
The guys doing this know what they are doing while the folks against it
don't know enough about radiation to know what it is.
RGB
"Andy Hill" <andy...@hp.com> wrote in message
news:1ocf8usha844h9e50...@4ax.com...
People have been zapped with radiation for years. That yearly chest X-ray
when you get your physical will cause more immune system damage than
irradiated meat.
Sue
RGB
"Steve Cothran" <fake_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c8869b5....@news.dtccom.net...
> On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:43:17 -0500, Goedjn <Goe...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Clear labelling, and a choice, as far as I can see.
>
> After once spending a week with salmonella poisioning-food producers
> can gamma zap my food all they want, and put a nuke sticker on it so I
> will be sure to buy it.
I totally agree. I've had it, too. Since then, I've been obessive about
how
I handle various meats.
I visited a friend once who used the same cutting board to fix a salad,
AFTER
she'd just cut up meat on it. I didn't eat much at her house except peanut
butter.
Sue
Gordon Couger
"Janet Baraclough" <janet.a...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200203072...@zetnet.co.uk...
Gordon Couger
"RGB" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a6abcp$bna$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "Steve Cothran" <fake_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c8869b5....@news.dtccom.net...
> > On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:43:17 -0500, Goedjn <Goe...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Clear labelling, and a choice, as far as I can see.
> >
> > After once spending a week with salmonella poisioning-food producers
> > can gamma zap my food all they want, and put a nuke sticker on it so I
> > will be sure to buy it.
>
> I totally agree. I've had it, too. Since then, I've been obessive about
> how
> I handle various meats.
> I visited a friend once who used the same cutting board to fix a salad,
> AFTER
> she'd just cut up meat on it. I didn't eat much at her house except
peanut
> butter.
>
several occasions. My mother over compensated and burned everything.
We have a serious problem that kids are not being taught food safety. Let
alone how to cook. Home economic was not a very spiffy class but we need it
now more than ever. A course in Home management, family relations and child
development could do a great deal for some of this countries problems.
People are the most complex thing on earth built and trained by unskilled
labor.
Gordon
JMartin
> >
If it's meat, it's not living.
Michael
> > Bob Adkins <bo...@charter.net> wrote:
> > >If I order a steak and it shows some pink, I send it back. It would be
> nice
> > >to have a juicy medium cooked steak again. So *what if I glow in the
> dark?
> > >All the better to see a nice steak.
> > >
> > Considering that any contamination is mostly likely on the outside
surface
> of
> > the steak, that would seem to be a bit conservative. I still order
> and/or cook
> > my steaks rare-to-medium rare.
I order my steaks "wounded, a good vet could bring it back" and have never
had a problem. I eat a low carb diet so I probably eat more beef than the
average person. Steak and eggs for breakfast today.
mjb
Janet Baraclough
from "John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> contains these words:
> > Afaik, most e coli meat contamination comes from careless
> > meat-handling and hygeine practices in shops, commercial food prep
> > areas, and restaurant or home kitchens. This suggests to me that if
> > meat was irradiated at the wholesalers, it could easily be reinfected
> > afterwards and be just as much of a health hazard.
> Well, what would be the source of that infection?
Bacteria (faecal or otherwise) spread from or by people... who do
not always follow proper commercial hygeine procedures around
lavatories, wash basins, floors, shoes, clothing, surface wipers,
food equipment, fly and vermin control...to name but a few.
> Most problems come from
> using the same surfaces and tools on raw meat as used with cooked meat; the
> other cause, of course, is undercooking infected meat.
> Irradiated
> preformed meats coming into a fast food place would keep the bad bugs from
> coming into the restaurant in the first place.
Outside the best-kept-kitchen door are scores of routes to introduce
bacteria from a non-food source. Wild birds often carry salmonella in
their gut. Food waste is stored outside; birds feed on dropped
scraps; salmonella from trodden on birdshit enters kitchen floor on
cooks shoe; careless person wipes floor with work-surface wipe, or
fails to wash hands; salmonella transfered to food. Or, member of
kitchen staff is careless about washing hands after defecation;
coliform infection meets meat preparation area.
Janet.
C. Brunner
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:23:06 GMT, bru...@vetmed.auburn.edu (C. Brunner)
>wrote:
>
>
>>The funniest part of the original post, of course, was the title.
>>Around here, *all* beef cattle are "pasteurized".
>
>When I prepare my meat, poultry, and eggs for consumption, they do indeed
>get *highly pasteurized! I've gotten sick plenty of times from eating
>tainted or left-over food. ~30 times bitten make me real cautious. (yea, I'm
>slow to catch on) I hate belly cramps and a pounding headache.
[snip]
Hey, it was meant to be a PUN! "Past[e]urized", as in a badly spelled
representation of where we grow beef cattle (and it's not in a barn).
Sorry about that--I was in a weird mood yesterday. Must have been
from spending too much time sitting at my computer and not enough time
walking in the woods.
C. Brunner
charles krin
<it_does...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Mr. Harkin's home state is also home, in Sioux City, to the main plant
>of the SureBeam Corporation, the No. 1 irradiator of ground beef sold in
>the United States. He inserted the provision almost three weeks ago, on
>the last day of Senate debate on the farm bill. The provision was later
>discovered by the public-interest lobby Public Citizen.
does the name IBP ring a bell? It's a meat packer that has had some
problems in the past with major league recalls for contaminated ground
beef...and just happens to be from Iowa as well....
ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)
RGB
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:lP2i8.67$ay5.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
I totally agree. Two of my sons took home ec, mostly because the class
was full of girls. In the interest of PC, I understand the class is now
called
Life Experience or something silly like that.
I took a group of teenaged girls grocery shopping once. I was appalled that
none of them had the least idea how to buy food for a balanced meal or
how to cook that meal once they had the ingredients.
I also babysat for my great-nephews a while back. They were two and three
years old. They literally didn't like the taste of water. The only thing
they
had ever had to drink was koolaid, juice, pop and milk. Jeeze.
No wonder we are having a pandemic of obesity.
>
> People are the most complex thing on earth built and trained by unskilled
> labor.
>
> Gordon
>
>
Sue
RSMEINER
But I learned alot anyway.
Funny, I was just thinking of writing a book.
Survival for the Single male.
Just to many males (and females) out there that just don't have a
clue on things they used to teach in home ec or that mothers just
didn't get hammered into their kids heads..
Randy
Janet Baraclough
from Bob Adkins <bo...@charter.net> contains these words:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:59:46 GMT, Janet Baraclough
> <janet.a...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >areas, and restaurant or home kitchens. This suggests to me that if
> >meat was irradiated at the wholesalers, it could easily be reinfected
> >afterwards and be just as much of a health hazard.
> Not if it were vacuum sealed before irradiation, and untouched by human
> hands thereafter. That's the plan, isn't it?
After irradiation, even vacuum packed raw meat still has to be
opened, handled, prepared, cooked and served. Health safety still
depends upon what happens after it's exposed to many other,
none-carcase, sources of bacterial contamination.
Janet.
Janet Baraclough
from "Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> contains these words:
During the big ecoli 157 outbreaks here, the victims most at risk
were those whose immune system was already compromised in some
way....the very old, very young, and already debilitated by other
illnesses. There was a lot of panic about urban schoolchildren going
to farm visits etc (which were at the time, very popular school
outings here, and a common farm diversification.).Farmers replied
that their own very sturdy children survive the same exposure to
animal faeces. IIRC, research showed that rural children develop more
effective immune systems, than urban children who live mostly
indoors, shower twice a day, whose mothers obsessively use
bactericidal soap, wipes, etc.
Janet.
RGB
Yeah, those city kids just can't stand up to the reality of life.
I grew up on a farm, loved to have city kids come visit. We'd
lure them into a corn cob fight (they get the clean ones, we'd
throw the ones from the hog lot), go hunting for crawdads in
the creek, climb a few trees, slide down a few ravines.....
Sue
>
> Janet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Maren Purves
> I visited a friend once who used the same cutting board to fix a salad,
> AFTER
> she'd just cut up meat on it.
you mean without washing it inbetween (hot! and with soap)?
Maren
John Gilmer
> Bacteria (faecal or otherwise) spread from or by people... who do
> not always follow proper commercial hygeine procedures around
> lavatories, wash basins, floors, shoes, clothing, surface wipers,
> food equipment, fly and vermin control...to name but a few.
Sure but the DEADLY BUGS are not usually found in those places. The DEADLY
BUGS come in on the meat!
>
> > Most problems come from
> > using the same surfaces and tools on raw meat as used with cooked meat;
the
> > other cause, of course, is undercooking infected meat.
>
> > Irradiated
> > preformed meats coming into a fast food place would keep the bad bugs
from
> > coming into the restaurant in the first place.
>
> Outside the best-kept-kitchen door are scores of routes to introduce
> bacteria from a non-food source. Wild birds often carry salmonella in
> their gut. Food waste is stored outside; birds feed on dropped
> scraps; salmonella from trodden on birdshit enters kitchen floor on
> cooks shoe; careless person wipes floor with work-surface wipe, or
> fails to wash hands; salmonella transfered to food. Or, member of
> kitchen staff is careless about washing hands after defecation;
> coliform infection meets meat preparation area.
The coliform from people might make you sick if you bring into into the top
of the "food chain" but it is unlikely to kill or there would be a lot more
dead people around.
I don't know much about salmonella in wild birds. Irradiation will do
nothing there, of course.
John Gilmer
"JMartin" <antar...@comwares.net> wrote in message
news:d7ccce13.0203...@posting.google.com...
No, but there are living and dangerous things in the meat (e-coli, for
example).
John Gilmer
"Bob Adkins" <bo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:l9jh8ugehj8af4f3m...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:28:24 -0500, "John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >If you screw up the chemistry of a living cell enough it dies.
>
>
> >The WORRY is that you might convert some of the food into a cancer
causing
> >substance by screwing up its chemistry.
>
That's right. Some folks take that risk and others don't.
>
> Look, irradiation has been used for years on chicken and pork. We're still
> here!
I have NOTHING against irradiated food; I just believe it should be properly
labeled.
Andy Hill
>"Andy Hill" <andy...@hp.com> wrote
>> Hard to say (from my pretty ignorant perspective) which is more of a
>risk --
>> bacterial contamination or the chemical changes from whapping that beef
>with a
>> nice dose of ionizing radiation. I *know* my immune system is set up to
>handle
>> bacteria (not that I'll necessarily enjoy the side effects while it
>handles
>> them). Not so sure if it can handle the other stuff.
>
>People have been zapped with radiation for years. That yearly chest X-ray
>when you get your physical will cause more immune system damage than
>irradiated meat.
>
>
someone *seriously* screws up, there won't be anything over background. The
issue is chemical changes in the meat. I mean, the whole point is to damage the
reproductive machinery of bacteria (perhaps those of virii and prions, too, but
I'm not really sure). A dose of radiation big enough to do that is also going
to do some damage to the proteins, etc. in the meat itself. Maybe those
chemical changes are benign, maybe they aren't. All I know is that eating meat
damaged in this way is going to be something *new* for my body (and the human
species in general), and it's hard to predict the long-term consequences (well,
it's basically impossible for me, but I'm just a dumb engineer).
RGB
IMHO, that's rather a stretch. Cooking meat changes it, adding spices and
herbs changes it, etc. I really think the whole thing is just another scare
tactic.
Sue, who knows boiled meat tastes different than roasted meat which
tastes different from fried meat.
RGB
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 19:15:55 -0500, "RGB" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Yeah, those city kids just can't stand up to the reality of life.
> >I grew up on a farm, loved to have city kids come visit. We'd
> >lure them into a corn cob fight (they get the clean ones, we'd
> >throw the ones from the hog lot), go hunting for crawdads in
> >the creek, climb a few trees, slide down a few ravines.....
>
>
What part? My dad is from Lewis County. My inlaws are from Somerset.
> Did you trick the green horns into rubbing nettle weed on their skin?
No, we weren't quite that mean. But we'd drag them through a few
briars and burr patches. And we'd tell them that cows are really
nasty biters.
Sue
>
> "From the Heart of Cajun Country".
>
> Bob
RGB
"Maren Purves" <m.pu...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote in message
news:3C8967...@jach.hawaii.edu...
Exactly!!! I ate the meat. I didn't eat the salad. Nearly starved during
my visit, especially after she dragged out a two week old roast and started
hacking hunks off for supper.
Food in my refrigerator gets tossed after four days.
Sue, who never wants to get food poisoning again.
>
> Maren
Anthony Matonak
...<snip stuff about what irradiation might do to meat>...
> IMHO, that's rather a stretch. Cooking meat changes it, adding spices and
> herbs changes it, etc. I really think the whole thing is just another scare
> tactic.
>
> Sue, who knows boiled meat tastes different than roasted meat which
> tastes different from fried meat.
Well, it's not really the point what irradiation does to foods but rather
the idea that the food industry wants to do something (irradiation) to
the food and call it something else (pasteurization) on the label. This
is like putting MSG in the food and calling it 'natural flavoring' on
the label. Without a truthful label it's impossible for consumers to
make informed decisions about what they are purchasing.
Anthony
Gordon Couger
They will not use radiation to denature prions. I am not sure what you would
have left but I don't think it wouldn't resemble meat much.
The pathogenic bacteria that are targeted with ionizing radiation are easily
kill by the radiation. So a protein gets a little damage it is a lot less
than it will get in your gut when you start digesting it. There have been
studies on this for many year that show no harm. Do you have some vision of
the future that is hidden from the rest of us? If so Please send me 5
closing price of stocks on Monday.
Gordon
RGB
"Anthony Matonak" <res0...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3C89BDB3...@gte.net...
I agree on that point. I'd buy irradiated beef in a heart beat.
BTW, a local judge is in the hospital with eColi poisoning.
Haven't heard about his progress but since he's the only
probate judge in the county, things are really backing up in court!
Sue
>
> Anthony
phxbrd
"Sharon In Vermont" <it_does...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:021a889ee6857404050...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> Wow. Our food chain is getting muddier and muddier. Here's something to
> write to your Representatives about.
>
> ====================================
If you have a problem with irradiated food, why don't you detail same here
for us? Your post seemed only to attempt to stir groundless hysteria
without showing even one good reason for such opposition to a good plan long
in place.
Gordon Couger
strains of e. coli and many other farm bacteria and develop resistance to
most at and early age.
I know I have been covered with cow manure from head to foot and breathed
the dry dust of manure with no ill effects I know of for much of my life.
Another mistake in the original.
> > > Afaik, most e coli meat contamination comes from careless
> > > meat-handling and hygiene practices in shops, commercial food prep
> > > areas, and restaurant or home kitchens. This suggests to me that if
> > > meat was irradiated at the wholesalers, it could easily be reinfected
> > > afterwards and be just as much of a health hazard.
> > >
Less than half is food born in the US. Water, swimming pools and improper
hygiene in health care and child care spread a lot of it just not in
headline making numbers.
Irradiation will stop the influx of e. coli:157 from meat into the
restaurants and meat handling facilities so there is much less of a
reservoir for cross contamination and if proper hand washing and if the
plastic chopping blocks were replaced with wooden ones we could greatly
reduce the risk of all diseases in meat.
Gordon
Tralrdr
>They wanted to see some, but we told them they grew were deep in the woods.
Heh. Reminds me of the time we sent my brother in law out for a pr of post
hole diggers and post holes.
He went lookin', too. Got some funnylooks at the hardware store.
carrie n miller
Fran Higham
> do not always follow proper commercial hygeine procedures
> around lavatories, wash basins, floors, shoes, clothing, surface
> wipers, food equipment, fly and vermin control...to name but a
> few.
Or, member of
> kitchen staff is careless about washing hands after defecation;
> coliform infection meets meat preparation area.
I suspect from reading this thread, that many people haven't got a clue
about how food poisoning occurs.
If we consider coliform bacteria: in some cases this is even found in
drinking water. It can certainly be found on water taps in washrooms so
washing ones hands is not necessarily a guarantee of clealiness. Do you
remember the oft quoted study on the number of different sources of urine in
the open bowl of peanuts on the bar? (I recognise that this is probably an
urban myth, but I know how many times I've watched people walk out of
toilets without washing their hands!)
Even if meat is not touched by human hands, that doesn't necessarily mean
that it is safe. Whether meat is zapped by irraditaion or not, it could
easily be infected between the packaging and the table. Human hands would
probably be the most common source of infection but contamination can come
from a number of sources. They could be in the fridge, in the washing of
utensils/plates etc, in the water, on chopping boards, in other ingredients,
on the cloth used by the waiter on the edge of the plate etc etc etc or any
of the other sources you mention.
I don't, by choice, eat frozen meat because I don't like the changes that
even that simple process makes to the meat. I will be very interested in
trying meat that is irradiated to see if it is any different than normal
meat bought straight from the butcher.
Fran Higham
> Hey, it was meant to be a PUN! "Past[e]urized", as in a badly spelled
> representation of where we grow beef cattle (and it's not in a barn).
> Sorry about that--I was in a weird mood yesterday.
Well I understood it and enjoyed it and got a chuckle out of it!
My cattle also are "pasteurised" (which is no doubt why we're dealing with a
few cases of pink eye ATM even if it is rather late in the season for it).
John A. Stanley
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>... and if the
>plastic chopping blocks were replaced with wooden ones we could greatly
>reduce the risk of all diseases in meat.
I believe the health codes for restaurants in some states require
plastic cutting boards, i.e., wooden ones are against code.
--
John A. Stanley Remove delicious mucilaginous vegetable to email
Ecnerwal
>>plastic chopping blocks were replaced with wooden ones we could greatly
>>reduce the risk of all diseases in meat.
>
> I believe the health codes for restaurants in some states require
> plastic cutting boards, i.e., wooden ones are against code.
Ain't politics wonderful? The plastics industry got this crap passed. It
was obviously a crock of bull, but they had lots of convincing money for
politicians. The wood industry then proved, with actual research, that
bacteria survive _better_ on plastic cutting boards, knife handles, etc.
than on wood ones that had been outlawed by the politicians owned by the
plastics industry. Wood actually kills the beasties, plastic does not.
If the politicians gave a damn about your health, plastic cutting
boards, knife handles, etc would be outlawed, and wood would be
required. QED, politicians don't actually care one bit about food safety.
RGB
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 23:44:05 -0500, "RGB" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Sue, who never wants to get food poisoning again.
>
some
> frozen cookie dough. My stomach felt like I had eaten a pound of broken
> glass. Ack!
What's bad is when you end up sitting on the toilet with a bucket in your
lap.
Gordon Couger
"John A. Stanley" <j...@okranatel.net> wrote in message
news:H+oi849z...@okranatel.net...
> In article <Bnvi8.150$HK6.2...@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
> "Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
> >... and if the
> >plastic chopping blocks were replaced with wooden ones we could greatly
> >reduce the risk of all diseases in meat.
>
> I believe the health codes for restaurants in some states require
> plastic cutting boards, i.e., wooden ones are against code.
>
on wood even with cleaning. It seems wood has some natural way of killing
bacteria. The plastic cutting boars were and idea that made so much sense
that nobody bothered to test it.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Gordon Couger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ecnerwal" <Lawren...@SOuthernVERmont.NETwork>
Newsgroups: misc.rural
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Pasteurized beef?
: >>... and if the
:
Politicians don't understand food safety and it would require them to admit
they made a mistake. A very difficult thing for a politician to do.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
"Fran Higham" <ma...@mak.com.au> wrote in message
news:a6e6me$dlglp$1...@ID-60053.news.dfncis.de...
> "Janet Baraclough" <janet.a...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in
> >
> > Bacteria (faecal or otherwise) spread from or by people... who
> > do not always follow proper commercial hygeine procedures
> > around lavatories, wash basins, floors, shoes, clothing, surface
> > wipers, food equipment, fly and vermin control...to name but a
> > few.
> (snip)
>
> Or, member of
> > kitchen staff is careless about washing hands after defecation;
> > coliform infection meets meat preparation area.
>
> I suspect from reading this thread, that many people haven't got a clue
> about how food poisoning occurs.
>
> If we consider coliform bacteria: in some cases this is even found in
> drinking water. It can certainly be found on water taps in washrooms so
> washing ones hands is not necessarily a guarantee of clealiness. Do you
> remember the oft quoted study on the number of different sources of urine
in
> the open bowl of peanuts on the bar? (I recognise that this is probably an
> urban myth, but I know how many times I've watched people walk out of
> toilets without washing their hands!)
>
> Even if meat is not touched by human hands, that doesn't necessarily mean
> that it is safe. Whether meat is zapped by irraditaion or not, it could
> easily be infected between the packaging and the table.
The beef would not be irradiated until after packgaging just for this
reason.
Any meat but under cooked ground meat usualy safe. It is the salads and
uncooked stuff that they contaminated after they handled the beef that
general causes the probem.
>Human hands would
> probably be the most common source of infection but contamination can come
> from a number of sources. They could be in the fridge, in the washing of
> utensils/plates etc, in the water, on chopping boards, in other
ingredients,
> on the cloth used by the waiter on the edge of the plate etc etc etc or
any
> of the other sources you mention.
================
Hygine is a big problem not only in restruant but in hospital, day care and
healt care.
>
> I don't, by choice, eat frozen meat because I don't like the changes that
> even that simple process makes to the meat. I will be very interested in
> trying meat that is irradiated to see if it is any different than normal
> meat bought straight from the butcher.
>
Gound meat, sausages, chicken and eggs are the main thing that are being
irradiated.
Roasts, steaks and such have no need of irradiation until the meat is cut it
is not exposed to pathogens even if you eat it very rare all the pathogens
on the out side of the meat will be killed.
As to your butcher's ground meat it will probably be different then the
irradiated ground meat because it will be made from different kinds of meat.
Commercial hamburger meat contains a lot of meat from mature bulls because
it is too tough for much else and it will gain the 2% weight in water that
is allowed by the USDA. It will also have a lot of trim meat such a face
meat and if the bulls weren't fat enough some fat trim will be added. While
your butcher will probably make most of his ground beef from the trim from
what he sell unless he has a large ground beef trade and has to buy ground
beef in bulk. It will also depend on if your butcher buys his beef swinging
or buys boxed beef. He will have more trim from a full side than boxed beef.
Steve Cothran
wrote:
>What's bad is when you end up sitting on the toilet with a bucket in your
>lap.
>
>Sue
What's worse is that when you are finally exhausted to the point that
you can sleep, you have to wear a diaper. By this time, you are all
out of crap, so mucus is substituted.
It's absolutely amazing the lengths your body will go to to rid itself
of something harmful. I finally ended up in the hospitial with IV's
strung up so I wouldn't die....a thought which sounded pretty good at
that moment.
All this suffering and a week out of work over (they thought) some
thousand island dressing on a fast-food sandwich. Yeah, zap it.
Gordon Couger
"Steve Cothran" <fake_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c8b1d65...@news.dtccom.net...
I turn 60 this year and I have had food poisoning no more than six times in
my life. I either eat in better places than you or have a better immune
system.
Gordon
John Gilmer
> >
> They sure do require plastic and bacteria live much longer on plastic than
> on wood even with cleaning. It seems wood has some natural way of killing
> bacteria. The plastic cutting boars were and idea that made so much sense
> that nobody bothered to test it.
This wasn't known at the time. The amount of "plastic" used in cutting
boards is down in the noise so I don't think Dow Chemical paid off the
politicians. I think "they" required plastic boards because "they"
honestly believed plastic was safer; and now research has proven them wrong
but "they" don't want to be taken as reactionaries so the plastic cutting
boards will stay.
Steve Cothran
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>
>
>I turn 60 this year and I have had food poisoning no more than six times in
>my life. I either eat in better places than you or have a better immune
>system.
Maybe both. I turn 46 this year and have had it 3 times, each time
from a fast-food joint. Case #1 & 2 were mild as they go. Case #3
almost took me out.
I am on the road daily, and eat from fine restaurants or dives,
depending on where I am. IMO, LeRoy's Diner is less likely to bother
you as LeRoy wants you to come back. The 16 year old girl at Mickey
D's just don't give a damn.
Gordon Couger
>
>
> > >
> > They sure do require plastic and bacteria live much longer on plastic
than
> > on wood even with cleaning. It seems wood has some natural way of
killing
> > bacteria. The plastic cutting boars were and idea that made so much
sense
> > that nobody bothered to test it.
>
> This wasn't known at the time. The amount of "plastic" used in cutting
> boards is down in the noise so I don't think Dow Chemical paid off the
> politicians. I think "they" required plastic boards because "they"
> honestly believed plastic was safer; and now research has proven them
wrong
> but "they" don't want to be taken as reactionaries so the plastic cutting
> boards will stay.
>
Gordon
Steve Cothran
>
>In Australia we have some of the worlds strictest laws on labeling of
>genetically modified food. Americans may have unknowingly eating it
>for years, but many people here try to avoid it.
What is their reason? Because modified food is somehow unhealthy?
Folks have been genetically modifying foods for centuries, by
something as simple as keeping the seeds of peas that stay in the pod
rather than popping out, and planting them the next season.
Goedjn
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:59:06 +1100, ernie...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> >
> >In Australia we have some of the worlds strictest laws on labeling of
> >genetically modified food. Americans may have unknowingly eating it
> >for years, but many people here try to avoid it.
>
> What is their reason? Because modified food is somehow unhealthy?
Some people have religious objections, some people distrust modern
technology, and some people just don't like it. Why do they need a
reason?
> Folks have been genetically modifying foods for centuries, by
> something as simple as keeping the seeds of peas that stay in the pod
> rather than popping out, and planting them the next season.
Yes, but selection and hybridizing like that is unlikely to
kill you with an alergic reaction to peanut-genes spliced onto
previously safe kindey-beans, or get you sent to hell for
eating leavening because some twit spliced corn-genes into
the olives to get a different oil...
Steve Cothran
or get you sent to hell for
>eating leavening because some twit spliced corn-genes into
>the olives to get a different oil...
Were I able, I would splice pot and kudzu, and sit back gleefully
watching as the State started its "war on kudzu".
RGB
What a hilarious idea. I can just see it now, roots of kudzu, body
and leaves of pot.....
Sue
Fran Higham
wrote:
>
> >I suspect from reading this thread, that many people haven't got a clue
> >about how food poisoning occurs.
> I'm sure most of us know, but don't want to repeat that which most all of
us
> already know.
The unfortunate thing about reading a thread and having a little bit of
knowledge of a subject is that it becomes obvious when pertinent information
is either not included or is dismissed without due consideration by
restricting the topic too narrowly.
I hate seeing wrong or incomplete information bandied about on newsgroups as
I think it is detrimental in many areas and when it comes to health, it can
be downright dangerous.
So the question is, do I sit by and let the discussion fixate on turds when
there is also clostridia, botulism, salmonella, listeria etc, etc??
If you want to stick exclusively to the turd theory of food poisoning then
that's fine by me, but that should not prevent me from saying that there are
many other ways that food poisoning can occur and that these do NOT involve
the presence of turd germs.
A preponderance to see only coliform food poisoning as being THE danger is
neither useful or accurate and does restricts the topic.
All these other forms of food poisoning are just as deadly and they may or
may not be ameliorated by the use of irradiation. They also only take one
time contact and can also kill a child (or anyone if serious enough).
I'm sure that most of us also know that most coliform bacteria
> is ubiquitous and unavoidable, but luckily harmless. However, it only
takes
> 1 time to come in contact with one of the dangerous flavors of E. coli to
> put us or one of our children down. Today it's #157, tomorrow it may be
#nnn
> that'll kill dozens and make many thousands sick. I have seen how pitiful
it
> is for parents to watch their child slowly die, and it's not worth the
risk.
>
> Yes, there are a few who don't know common sense sanitation practices.
Yes,
> there are a few careless eating establishments. But believe me, a virulent
> strain of E coli does not discriminate. It happens in the nicest of
families
> and eateries. All it takes is a moment of inattention, and we have sick or
> even dead people.
I did imply this in my previous post (but I didn't include any reference to
social status as I know that 'social class' has nothing to do with food
poisoning. It is a well known fact amongst residents of monarchist
countries that those of Royal blood are all likely to be subject to cases of
food poisoning - the Royal schedule means that function food always presents
a breeding ground for nasties)
> Nuke the bastards and sort them out later. Label the products as being
nuked
> the nervous nellie's can avoid it even to their own detriment.
Well thanks for the advice, but I really would like to see a little more
scientific a basis for adopting that view than you currently have given.
> What we
> must not do is feed antibiotics to livestock. This is asking for
> super
> strains of E coli and other microorganism's, and universal
> resistance to antibiotics.
I thought we were discussing irradition? I must have missed the post where
this course of action was suggested. I would have had quite a lot to say to
anyone who made such a stupid suggestion.
Fran Higham
> As to your butcher's ground meat it will probably be different then the
> irradiated ground meat because it will be made from different kinds of
meat.
> Commercial hamburger meat contains a lot of meat from mature bulls because
> it is too tough for much else and it will gain the 2% weight in water that
> is allowed by the USDA. It will also have a lot of trim meat such a face
> meat and if the bulls weren't fat enough some fat trim will be added.
While
> your butcher will probably make most of his ground beef from the trim from
> what he sell unless he has a large ground beef trade and has to buy ground
> beef in bulk. It will also depend on if your butcher buys his beef
swinging
> or buys boxed beef. He will have more trim from a full side than boxed
beef.
I find this quite interesting. I must ring up my nearest abattoir and ask
about the composition of the meat. We have few bulls here and most of the
'rubbish (ie cheap)' meat is made up of old cows. I must admit I would have
expected that the same sort of thing would be the case in the US.
I've toured a abattoirs a couple of times and I can't even remembver a
mention of bulls but I certainly remember the old cow carcases.
Steve Cothran
>As to possible risks with genetically modified foods, who knows? Can
>give you lots of examples of things that were once thought safe, such
>as asbestos, chloroflurocarbons, DDT, PCBs, etc. that turned out to be
>unsafe.
And it is widely reported that Malaria rates in some areas went
through the roof when its use was stopped. Pick your poison.
>You ask why Australians worry about labeling GM foods: We wonder why
>Americans haven't insisted on such labeling long before now.
Because we're not 'fraidy-cats. The same reason no Austrailian rocket
has ever landed on the moon. We don't spend our time quaking in our
boots over what "might" happen. Monsanto and the other boys know damn
well that if they injure with their products they will be sued to hell
and gone so.....
>
>"Botox is a purified derivative of the Botulinum bacteria, which is
>harmless in itself, but as it grows produces a toxin that is one of
>the deadliest substances on earth. . . ."
Kind of like Chemotherapy drugs that treat cancer? Poisons that heal?
What if the researchers were too chicken-shit to try it?
Label the damn food, for god's sake. That will leave more for the
non-hysterics to eat.
Janet Baraclough
from fake_...@hotmail.com (Steve Cothran) contains these words:
> >You ask why Australians worry about labeling GM foods: We wonder why
> >Americans haven't insisted on such labeling long before now.
> Because we're not 'fraidy-cats. The same reason no Austrailian rocket
> has ever landed on the moon. We don't spend our time quaking in our
> boots over what "might" happen.
If that's true, is it logical to irradiate your meat?
Janet.
Goedjn
> >Were I able, I would splice pot and kudzu, and sit back gleefully
> >watching as the State started its "war on kudzu".
>
>
> Naaaaah. Even the US Government couldn't win a war on kudzu.
You know, there may be a certain value in just starting the rumor
that you HAVE...
Gordon Couger
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:40:36 +1100, ernie...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >As to possible risks with genetically modified foods, who knows? Can
> >give you lots of examples of things that were once thought safe, such
> >as asbestos, chloroflurocarbons, DDT, PCBs, etc. that turned out to be
> >unsafe.
>
> And it is widely reported that Malaria rates in some areas went
> through the roof when its use was stopped. Pick your poison.
>
>
> >You ask why Australians worry about labeling GM foods: We wonder why
> >Americans haven't insisted on such labeling long before now.
>
> Because we're not 'fraidy-cats. The same reason no Austrailian rocket
> has ever landed on the moon. We don't spend our time quaking in our
> boots over what "might" happen. Monsanto and the other boys know damn
> well that if they injure with their products they will be sued to hell
> and gone so.....
>
> >
> >"Botox is a purified derivative of the Botulinum bacteria, which is
> >harmless in itself, but as it grows produces a toxin that is one of
> >the deadliest substances on earth. . . ."
Botox is a miracle drug for some things. I have a multiple sclerosis lesion
in my spine between C2 & C3 and some muscle damage in the same area. A
little Botox in those damaged muscles and it makes word of difference in
the MS symptoms. The price is pretty rough at $800 a pop.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
> >probably don't know if [Botox injections] will be a problem down the
> >track." "We won't know . . . until a collection of data by orthopedic
>
> Being it's a natural substance, we all consume botulinum toxin in small
> amounts all our lives. Like E. coli, you can't get away from it. It's
> everywhere. Luckily it's in tiny amounts, or we'd all be zombies.
>
If you properly store and cook your food you won't get any. It is destroyed
by heat and the bacteria must have an oxygen free environment to reproduce.
A lethal dose of type a botulism toxin is 35 or 40 nano grams. I doubt that
you can get small doses very often an not notice.
We wouldn't be zombies we would be paralyzed.
Gordon
Steve Cothran
>Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember the history of space travel.
>Were you around when the Russians sent up the first "Sputnik"? I was.
Sputnik did indeed cause some momentary shock to the system. It also
spurred our guys to advancements that no others have matched.
>
> Has anyone bothered to go to the moon in the past 30 years? No.
>Why not? Because there was no particular scientific reason to go there
>in the first place. It was mainly a matter of national pride, and to
>win a propaganda victory over the Communists.
So what's wrong with national pride? We did it, by god, because we
could. And the spin-offs from that technology are with us daily.
>
>Most Christians would capitalize "God". Perhaps you are not a
>Christian. This is, of course, your business.
>
>As the old saying goes, "Everyone has the right to go to Hell in their
>own way."
Not all Americans are Christians. Note that most Atheists do not try
to push their beliefs on others or tell them they will be forever
damned if they do not do a particular thing.
>Trying to imply that anyone who opposes GM food is a "hysteric"?
>...Would you like to tell us about your particular qualifications as a
>psychologist or psychiatrist?
Sure. I have none. Would you care to post your qualifications as a
food expert or biologist? If I was that kind of expert, I doubt that I
would be wasting my time on USENET :)
>If you are not, would you like to explain just why you consider
>yourself competent to diagnose those who oppose GM food as
>"hysterics"?
>
>Don't you even know that many Americans disagree with you?
Gee whiz. It's just my opinion... and a hill of pinto beans has way
more value. Americans disagree on just about everything. Keeps it
lively.
>If you think that there will be any food shortages in Australia as a
>result of refusal to eat GM food, have some bad news for you.
>Australia produces far more food than it consumes.
Noted.
Steve "don't care how you do it in Australia"
Gordon Couger
<ernie...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:t8a59uohsp2t4hj9q...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:29:03 -0600, Bob Adkins <bo...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:40:36 +1100, ernie...@bigpond.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >>As a Sydney cosmetic surgeon says: "It is 100 percent safe, but we
> >>probably don't know if [Botox injections] will be a problem down the
> >>track." "We won't know . . . until a collection of data by orthopedic
> >
> >Being it's a natural substance, we all consume botulinum toxin in small
> >amounts all our lives. Like E. coli, you can't get away from it. It's
> >everywhere. Luckily it's in tiny amounts, or we'd all be zombies.
> >
> >
> >Bob
>
> occasionally exposed to trace amounts, but would have to be very trace
> amounts, or would be unexplained deaths all over the place.
>
> _Clostridium botulinum_ is an anaerobic bacterium and cannot live in
> the presence of oxygen. According to Merck Manual of Diagnosis and
> Therapy, botulism occurs in three forms: foodborne, wound, and
> infant.
>
> Foodborne botulism is pretty rare these days, especially in
> commercially processed food. However, it can occur in honey, and
> honey shouldn't be fed to infants < one year of age.
>
> Wound botulism is also uncommon. Infant botulism usually seen in
> infants 2 to 3 months old. More info available from Merck manual.
> Go to http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/ and enter
> botulism
> in search field.
>
There are a few dozen cases of wound botulism caused by subcutainous
injections of contaminated herion every year.
The body can also build antibodies against botulism toxin. The second
generaton Botox is more highly purified than the first and the hope is that
the body won't build antibodies againt as fast as it did the first batch.
Botox became inefective for some long term useser because the body distroyed
before it could block the ATP sites. I sure hope that I don't become
resistant.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
<ernie...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:mo859u4p58iaugu91...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:24:40 GMT, fake_...@hotmail.com (Steve
> Cothran) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:08:54 +1100, ernie...@bigpond.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember the history of space travel.
> >>Were you around when the Russians sent up the first "Sputnik"? I was.
> >
> > Sputnik did indeed cause some momentary shock to the system. It also
> >spurred our guys to advancements that no others have matched.
>
> >>
> >> Has anyone bothered to go to the moon in the past 30 years? No.
> >>Why not? Because there was no particular scientific reason to go there
> >>in the first place. It was mainly a matter of national pride, and to
> >>win a propaganda victory over the Communists.
> >
> >So what's wrong with national pride? We did it, by god, because we
> >could.
>
> that much money on.:-)
>
> > And the spin-offs from that technology are with us daily.
>
> wouldn't have had anyway? Many would argue that the money could have
> been better spent. Do you think that the current space station will
> ever pay for its development & construction costs?
>
> >>Most Christians would capitalize "God". Perhaps you are not a
> >>Christian. This is, of course, your business.
> >>
> >>As the old saying goes, "Everyone has the right to go to Hell in their
> >>own way."
> >
> >Not all Americans are Christians.
>
> > Note that most Atheists do not try
> >to push their beliefs on others or tell them they will be forever
> >damned if they do not do a particular thing.
>
> Christianity that is their own affair. Christians don't need to tell
> atheists they are damned, the Bible makes this plain enough.
> >
> >
> >>Trying to imply that anyone who opposes GM food is a "hysteric"?
> >>...Would you like to tell us about your particular qualifications as a
> >>psychologist or psychiatrist?
> >
> >Sure. I have none. Would you care to post your qualifications as a
> >food expert or biologist? If I was that kind of expert, I doubt that I
> >would be wasting my time on USENET :)
>
> why are you pushing GM foods so hard?
> >
> >>If you are not, would you like to explain just why you consider
> >>yourself competent to diagnose those who oppose GM food as
> >>"hysterics"?
> >>
> >>Don't you even know that many Americans disagree with you?
> >
> >Gee whiz. It's just my opinion... and a hill of pinto beans has way
> >more value. Americans disagree on just about everything. Keeps it
> >lively.
>
>
Please keep GM food out of Australia. It makes my crops more competitive.
One of the biggest risk I see in the cotton market in the next 20 years it
BT cotton doubling the yield and cutting the production cost in half for
countries like India, Africa and others with heavy boll worm pressures. The
only way I have left to cut production cost is to install drip irrigation at
a cost of $1,000USD per acre and go no till while a lot of the world can do
it by using better seed for a very very tiny fraction of the cost it I have
to put out.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Gordon
Walter Daniels
r55...@email.sps.mot.com (Alan Chapman) wrote:
>In article <a66rks$5uc$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, bis...@ix.netcom.com
>(RGB) wrote:
>> "Goedjn" <Goe...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> > Although, if terminoligy was really meaningless,
>> > they wouldn't need to be changing the labeling requirement,
>> > anyway, now would they?
>>
>> The whole mess is due to ignorance; too many undereducated
>> people who think irradiated means radioactive.
>
>However, the fact that products are irradiated, may lead some people to
>question the hygiene standards of the producer.
Probably those who think that "perfect sterility" is possible, or
even desirable. Not to let the "less than standard producers" off the
hook, but Volume and Perfection are mutually exclusive. We can have
100% pure grain/meat/etc., at $1,000/pound, or 90% pure at $3/pound.
>Alan.
Walter Daniels FBN Graphics Promotional Consulting.
Is your advertising working with your marketing to help with your selling? If
they aren't working together, you may be spending too much.
http://www.digiserve.com/fbngraphics
*******fbng...@earthlink.net**************
Walter Daniels
wrote:
>Bob Adkins <bo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>If I order a steak and it shows some pink, I send it back. It would be nice
>>to have a juicy medium cooked steak again. So *what if I glow in the dark?
>>All the better to see a nice steak.
>>
>Considering that any contamination is mostly likely on the outside surface of
>the steak, that would seem to be a bit conservative.
Someone had to _cut_ it from a bigger piece, didn't they?
> I still order and/or cook
>my steaks rare-to-medium rare. Of course, I still cook my hamburgers medium
>rare, too, and that admittedly is living slightly on the edge :-) .
>
>Hard to say (from my pretty ignorant perspective) which is more of a risk --
>bacterial contamination or the chemical changes from whapping that beef with a
>nice dose of ionizing radiation.
Bacteria, and any other _living_ cells, are killed at levels *far*
below what will cause damage to *dead* tissue. The dead cells are
*barely* going to suffer any _genetic_ damage (damage to their DNA),
which cause no permanent problems. Cooking causes a greater change.
OTOH, living cells can sustain *very little* damage, before death
results. This is the important factor.
The whole mess is from irrational fears, and a desire to push an
issue. Which would you rather eat, A piece of bloody, Bovine muscle
tissue, or a rare, porterhouse steak? Same thing, just described using
differnt terms.
> I *know* my immune system is set up to handle
>bacteria (not that I'll necessarily enjoy the side effects while it handles
>them). Not so sure if it can handle the other stuff.
TO...@dog-play.com
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:09:42 -0500, "John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net>
> wrote:
>>I do hope "they" include the COLD with the "pasturized." Otherwise, it is
>>a fraund on the consumers and an insult to Pasteur.
> Who cares! Pasteur is very dead, and terminology is meaningless. The point
> is, Pasteurization and irradiation have the same end result: A product that
> is more likely to be free from fecal contamination.
Um - pasteurization does nothing to reduce fecal contiamintion. Its
function is to kill bacteria, with the purpose of killing bacteria that is
harmful.
And terminology is not "meaningless". Pasteurization means the product
has been heated. This changes the nature of the product in a known way.
Reducing bacteria load using other means will have different consequences.
Whether these differences are meaningful is something the consumer should
have the oppportunity to decide.
toadmonkey
from a local butcher. First off, you get to know the butcher as an individual.
Second, a *good* butcher makes the hamberger from the inner meats where there is
no contamination.
In the larger plants fecal contamination is extensive because- quite frankly-
the workers don't give a damn. It's just another carcass they have to process
and they don't care if they drag it on the floor through the fecal contaminants.
They just to get the job done and get home.
A local butcher does care. He/she can also be held liable by either the health
department, the courts, or the community in which they do business.
TM
--Toadmonkey: "Now now. Brain popping and world crashing may be hazardous to ones perception of reality.
Very dangerous business that can lead to madness or something worse for some, truth."
Gordon Couger
"toadmonkey" <html5...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cb9efe...@news.onewest.net...
> The best way to avoid fecal contamination is to purchase your beef &
ground beef
> from a local butcher. First off, you get to know the butcher as an
individual.
> Second, a *good* butcher makes the hamberger from the inner meats where
there is
> no contamination.
>
> In the larger plants fecal contamination is extensive because- quite
frankly-
> the workers don't give a damn. It's just another carcass they have to
process
> and they don't care if they drag it on the floor through the fecal
contaminants.
> They just to get the job done and get home.
>
> A local butcher does care. He/she can also be held liable by either the
health
> department, the courts, or the community in which they do business.
> TM
>
make hamburger. The fat he uses to make the hamburger come from external fat
trim that is most likely to be contaminated than the meat. The beef he buys
is no more or less likely to be contaminated with bacteria than any other
beef. The outbreak will just be smaller.
Gordon
Janet Baraclough
from html5...@yahoo.com (toadmonkey) contains these words:
> The best way to avoid fecal contamination is to purchase your beef & ground beef
> from a local butcher. First off, you get to know the butcher as an individual.
> Second, a *good* butcher makes the hamberger from the inner meats where there is
> no contamination.
Faecal contamination could be on workers hands (or gloves) and
their cutting tools. A knife or saw starts cutting on the outside of
the animal, and cuts through to the inside, taking any bacteria with
it; so this idea about "inner meat" being free of bacteria is mistaken.
Butcher-made burger meat/ground beef/ mince may include prime beef
steak, if you're paying for it, but it will also include scraps of
meat trimmed from cheaper cuts, and a proportion of fat. (It's a lot
better than what you get in processed burgers from elsewhere, which
is meat from redundant dairy cows, including some parts you probably
wouldn't eat if you could recognise them).
Janet
Gordon Couger
"Janet Baraclough" <janet.a...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200204150...@zetnet.co.uk...
Actually a lot of the better hamburger is made from beef bulls that are in
good shape and about 5 or 6 years old. The meat has a good flavor, about the
right mix of fat and it will absorb more water than cow meat or meat from
fat calves.
Gordon
Fran Higham
news:amru8.219$OY.2...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Actually a lot of the better hamburger is made from beef bulls that are in
> good shape and about 5 or 6 years old. The meat has a good flavor, about
the
> right mix of fat and it will absorb more water than cow meat or meat from
> fat calves.
Better hamburger???? Bull meat is inferior stuff and on a par with old cow
meat.