Yet another reason to grind your own meat

[SirPorkaLot]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/12/28/ground-meat-fatal-bacteria_n_1173246.html

It is getting scary out there on grocery shelves.

[caseydog]

I'm sure the free market has EVERYTHING under control. Darned liberal media. :rolleyes:

CD :becky:

[colonel00]

Thanks. While the argument is valid to a point. I hate when people use statements like the following to slant a stat to fit their point.

There's A 25% Chance Your Ground Meat Has A Potentially Fatal Bacteria

The key word here is "potentially". I am not disagreeing that grinding your own meat is a much better idea if you can do it. I am just disagreeing with the way it was presented. Essentially it lessens the argument to anyone who actually listens to what it is saying. IMO, this statement holds the same amount of weight as:

I have a 25% chance of potentially winning the lottery
Actually, as long as I am actually buying a ticket, I have a 100% chance of potentially winning the lottery.

98% of the things you read on the internet are potentially fabricated 68% of the time.
Let that one sink in :becky:

[landarc]

That is probably true, but, with the exception of those with immune system compromises, Staph. aureus is not a dangerous bacteria, it is actually very common in our environment, and our bodies. and is actually very easily dealt with by a healthy immune system. The reality of ground beef though, is that you do not know what you are getting, where or when it was originally processed or how it was stored. This is true for many meats, but, ground beef is processed an additional step. I was surprised to find out that old meat can be processed into new ground beef, also that regrind is allowed into ground beef.

All of this should be alarming, the bacteria S.a. is less of an issue, and that is frrom someone who has dealt with S.a. MRSA as well as Type 'A' in the past. The real reason to grind your own is, it simply tastes better and gives you more control over the end product.

[caseydog]

Thanks. While the argument is valid to a point. I hate when people use statements like the following to slant a stat to fit their point.



The key word here is "potentially". I am not disagreeing that grinding your own meat is a much better idea if you can do it. I am just disagreeing with the way it was presented. Essentially it lessens the argument to anyone who actually listens to what it is saying. IMO, this statement holds the same amount of weight as:


Actually, as long as I am actually buying a ticket, I have a 100% chance of potentially winning the lottery.


Let that one sink in :becky:

I think you misread the statement. It does not say there is a 25 percent chance that your meat will potentially contain bacteria. It says that there is a 25-percent chance that your meat will have bacteria in it, and that bacteria is potentially fatal.

See the difference?

CD

[silverfinger]

Im not dead yet! :heh:

[SirPorkaLot]

That is probably true, but, with the exception of those with immune system compromises, Staph. aureus is not a dangerous bacteria, it is actually very common in our environment, and our bodies. and is actually very easily dealt with by a healthy immune system. The reality of ground beef though, is that you do not know what you are getting, where or when it was originally processed or how it was stored. This is true for many meats, but, ground beef is processed an additional step. I was surprised to find out that old meat can be processed into new ground beef, also that regrind is allowed into ground beef.

All of this should be alarming, the bacteria S.a. is less of an issue, and that is frrom someone who has dealt with S.a. MRSA as well as Type 'A' in the past. The real reason to grind your own is, it simply tastes better and gives you more control over the end product.


I offered no opinion on the article other than it is a another good reason to grind your own meat.

Bacteria (good & bad) thrive in certain environments, it just so happens that the temperature and humidity levels they thrive is just slightly above the temp they are supposed to grind and store ground meat at.
Therefore is they grind or store in a slightly too warm environment, then the invitations to the bacteria brigades go out en masse.

So there is some shreds of truth in this article, and they are enough to warrant being concerned if you buy pre-ground meat.

[caseydog]

I don't buy pre-ground meat, because processors can use up to 15-percent "pink slime" in that ground beef, and they DO NOT have to put anything on the label telling you about it.

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution: 70% of America's Beef is Treated with Ammonia - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wshlnRWnf30)

CD

[landarc]

I agree with your point SirPork, I was jusdt pointing out, that article makes a point that I feel is tailored to create panic, I don't like the idea of buying spoiled meat, so I agree with you on the fact that ground beef is a bad thing in terms of spoilage.

[SirPorkaLot]

I agree with your point SirPork, I was jusdt pointing out, that article makes a point that I feel is tailored to create panic, I don't like the idea of buying spoiled meat, so I agree with you on the fact that ground beef is a bad thing in terms of spoilage.

Are you serious???

What's the chance the media (let alone a decidedly liberal media outlet like Huff Post) would tailor an article to create a panic?? :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting we as intelligent adults have the responsibility to read any and all media articles with a jaundiced eye, and develop our own opinions based on the facts we are able to obtain instead of assuming the media has it exactly right?

That Sir is preposterous....I know for a fact Snookie exists

[jasonjax]

I agree with your point SirPork, I was jusdt pointing out, that article makes a point that I feel is tailored to create panic, I don't like the idea of buying spoiled meat, so I agree with you on the fact that ground beef is a bad thing in terms of spoilage.


Sensationalism in the media? Say it ain't so?

I'm thinking based on my 38 years on this planet and the countless burgers, meatloaf, hamburger helper, salisbury steak, and all other forms of ground beef I've consumed that I'd be one dead farker if any of those percentages had any semblance of reality to a "potentitally" deadly bacteria in it.

Anyways, not arguing against the virtues of grinding your own meat, which in fact, I want to try in the near future, but come-on, the shear numbers involved in real life studies invalidate this bullshiz study imho.

Wouldn't people be getting seriously sick left right and center, some dying on a regular basis. How many folks you know of that went to the hospital due to eating a bad burger from ground beef at the local super-market?

Meh.

[Funky D]

Agree with Silver... odd, I've been eating store-ground beef for 40 years, and I'm just fine. :) Amazing... they should write a story about ME!

[SirPorkaLot]

Wouldn't people be getting seriously sick left right and center, some dying on a regular basis. How many folks you know of that went to the hospital due to eating a bad burger from ground beef at the local super-market?

Meh.

Yes & No.

Food poisoning can take on various forms.
Something as simple as an upset stomach or diarrhea hours after eating a burger can potentially be attributed to bacteria in your meat.

There are certain strains (IE: E-coli) that are most assuredly going to put you visiting a medical professional, and others that may not manifest themselves any more than a slight headache or slightly upset stomach (depending on the strength of your immune system)

[KnucklHed BBQ]

Obviously they aren't treating the meat with enough live virus spray if there is still bacteria growing... duhhh...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2464943&page=1#.TvzhfDUS0uc

[jasonjax]

None-the-less, when considering the magnitude of the population based cohort study going on each and every day, even our CDC would have picked up on something besing systemically wrong with our ground-beef supply at such a macro level. I throw the B.S. flag.

[SirPorkaLot]

Im not dead yet! :heh:

Agree with Silver... odd, I've been eating store-ground beef for 40 years, and I'm just fine. :) Amazing... they should write a story about ME!

40 years ago your ground meat likely came to you from your own geographical region.

Today the ground meat on your grocer's shelves are just as likely to come from Northwest China as it is mid-west US.

Not to mention GMO products, etc..

If you think today's food supply is safer or even as safe as it was 40 years ago, then I highly suggest you start doing a little research.

[SirPorkaLot]

None-the-less, when considering the magnitude of the population based cohort study going on each and every day, even our CDC would have picked up on something besing systemically wrong with our ground-beef supply at such a macro level. I throw the B.S. flag.

There is evidence everywhere you look that our food supply is in grave danger, and is getting worse everyday.

Bottom line: KNOW WHERE YOUR FOOD COMES FROM

[jasonjax]

There is evidence everywhere you look that our food supply is in grave danger, and is getting worse everyday.

Bottom line: KNOW WHERE YOUR FOOD COMES FROM


I completely agree with you here. I'm just saying that I still feel, relatively speaking, "safe" when eating ground beef from a respected food market.

I absolutely agree we need to keep a very close eye on our food supplies as globalization becomes more and more prevalent.

Ever checked what percentage of meat is actually inspected by the USDA? Or what budget cuts are happening to the FDA and USDA? One of the few places I think a national government should be involved is regulating the food safety of its people.

But I digress...

[caseydog]

Wouldn't people be getting seriously sick left right and center, some dying on a regular basis. How many folks you know of that went to the hospital due to eating a bad burger from ground beef at the local super-market?

Meh.

Actually, they are.

Every few weeks, it seems I hear of a new food recall, and people getting sick from tainted foods.

The FDA and USDA are supposed to protect us from these things, but they are "big government," which we all know is a bad thing, so their budgets are being frozen, or cut.

Just as we all seem to "know" that the "liberal media" is feeding us BS, we also seem certain that big business, first and foremost, wants to supply consumers with safe foods. Next to that, they want to pay good wages to hire top quality workers -- they are the job creators. Profits are way down the list of priorities for agri-business, right.

And, who do we think we are, wanting to know what's in our foods -- socialists?

CD

[caseydog]

KNOW WHERE YOUR FOOD COMES FROM


Absolutely! Big business isn't watching out for us, and big government isn't either -- an will likely be doing less of it in the future.

You really have to take an interest in what you eat. It can be a PITA, but unless consumers demand better, suppliers are going to sell us the most profitable crap they can get away with.

CD

[jasonjax]

If only my yard were a little bigger I could get a couple head of cattle. Hehe.

[caseydog]

If only my yard were a little bigger I could get a couple head of cattle. Hehe.

As I type this, there are beef cattle grazing about 300 yards from my house. I'd love to buy one an have it butchered. Talk about fresh and local. :thumb:

CD

[silverfinger]

Im not dead yet! :heh:

I posted this as a joke (a quote from movie, The holy grail).
You have to wonder what goes into fast food burgers. :scared:

The hamburger meat I buy from Sam's club seems to be top quality but who am I to really know how it is prepared. I know I will be making some pasta with it tomorrow.

[BDAABAT]

OK folks, lets do some basic math and check the facts before going all buck-willy.

Q: How many people in the US eat ground beef that someone else ground for them?

There are ~ 330 million people in the US. For grins, let's assume half are either vegetarians, are too young to eat meat, or for whatever reason don't eat ground beef OR they grind their own. That leaves ~165 million people who could eat ground beef.

Now, let's assume that most of those folks that are meat eaters have SOME type of ground beef AT LEAST once per month (again, just for grins and perspective). So, at a minimum, that assumes there are ~165 million people eating ground beef once per month, which would equate to 165 million * 12 = 1,980,000,000 potentially exposed people in the US per year.

OK, let's keep going along this path and assume that ~half of those folks actually follow ALL cooking guidelines every time they make something with ground beef for hand washing, food storage and handling, and for cooking ground meat to the proper USDA recommended temperature of a minimum of 160 degrees... :rolleyes:.

That leaves about a billion person-exposures per year. Based on the above article, one would expect LARGE numbers of people (as in, tens to hundreds of millions of cases PER YEAR) developing Staph food poisoning every year.

Now, how many people actually get food poisoning by the listed bacteria???

According to the Foodbourne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, there were a total of 19,089 infections, 4,247 hospitalizations, and 68 deaths were reported from FoodNet sites in 2010. Salmonella infection was the most common infection reported (17.6 illnesses per 100,000 persons) and was associated with the largest number of hospitalizations (2,290) and deaths (29); no significant change in incidence of Salmonella infection has occurred since the start of surveillance during 1996--1998.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6022a5.htm?s_cid=mm6022a5_w

Yes, being one of those ~20,000 cases of food poisoning seriously SUCKS! 68 food poisoning deaths (from all forms of food poisoning) is 68 too many. But, it's no where near what one would expect based upon the report listed by the OP. Again, just for some perspective, that's almost as many people who died from E. coli contaminated sprouts from an organic German farm this year.

The bottom line: the US has the best and safest food in the world. Food safety in the US has never been better... literally, food safety has never, EVER been better in the history of the world! It is a phenomenal accomplishment and should be recognized as such.

So, while it's all fine and dandy to grind your own meat because it tastes good, don't do it because you are afraid of food poisoning from commercially obtained beef based on a HuffPo "article".

Bruce

[Crazy Harry]

about a week ago a 10 lb chub of 73/27 ground beef was $23.59 and a chuck roll neck off was $2.49/ lb. ( it was actually less than that because thje scale maxed out5 at 30 lbs and it was about 5 lbs over that so they just charged me for 30 lbs.:-D) I asked my wife if I should grind some up for hamburger, the reply was "why would you make hamburger out of a perfectly good roast?" s now there are half a dozen chuck steaks and a roast in the freezer and one roast was smoked for Christmas.

I did grind up a couple if pork butts and made sausage.

[Gore]

What? All of 68 people died from food illness last year, while over 30,000 from motor vehicle accidents? Guess I better give up eating, because I'm not going to give up the car. For the record you're just as likely to die in an elevator/escalator accident (about 30 deaths/year) as from salmonella poisoning, but we don't hear the outcry not to take the elevator for safety reasons.

[landarc]

I don't really want to know how you know Snookie, or even how well you know Snookie, if you care about your health, you will be careful with anything known as Snookie. You are gonna be better off grinding your own meat. :becky:

Actually, our super large governement does a great job of protecting our food supply minimally, which I think is an acceptable thing. I think there is some over-protection that occurs, however, I choose to pay a lot more for meat that I feel comfortable with eating. Then again, I will occasionally buy a fast food burger. I think it is great that I can get a piece of meat, or tray of grind, that is minimally assured to be safe, or that I can spend my own money, on a cut of meat that is privately documented to be safer (in my mind) as I see fit.

As an aside, did you know that there are classified reports on food safety in the U.S. Reports that cover our food sources that are classified and not openly available?

[gtr]

Does this mean I shouldn't be eating In-n-Out while driving? :confused:

[landarc]

In Culver City it is okay, cause you are not going anywhere at 7pm.

[Pugsley]

one thought.... cook your ground meats to a safe temp.......kills lots of the bad boys
jlm

[silverfinger]

Does this mean I shouldn't be eating In-n-Out while driving? :confused:

I will never stop eating at in an out. Thats something us so cal folk have that is farking incredible! :becky:

[caseydog]

I will never stop eating at in an out. Thats something us so cal folk have that is farking incredible! :becky:

From the In-n-Out website...

"We have always made every one of our hamburger patties ourselves using only whole chucks from premium cattle selected especially for In-N-Out Burger. We pay a premium to purchase fresh, high quality beef chucks. We individually inspect every single chuck we receive to make sure that it meets our standards. Then our highly skilled, in-house butchers remove the bones. We grind the meat ourselves and make it into patties ourselves. We do all of this in our facility on our property in Baldwin Park, Ca. These steps enable us to completely control the patty-making process and be absolutely certain of the quality and freshness of every patty we make. We’ve always made our hamburger patties this way."

They also pay they're employees better than any other fast food joint, so they get better employees. Their food may not be "healthy," but it should, at least, be safe.

BTW, there is one about three miles from my house -- in Texas. It isn't a SoCal thing anymore. :becky:

CD

[silverfinger]

From the In-n-Out website...

"We have always made every one of our hamburger patties ourselves using only whole chucks from premium cattle selected especially for In-N-Out Burger. We pay a premium to purchase fresh, high quality beef chucks. We individually inspect every single chuck we receive to make sure that it meets our standards. Then our highly skilled, in-house butchers remove the bones. We grind the meat ourselves and make it into patties ourselves. We do all of this in our facility on our property in Baldwin Park, Ca. These steps enable us to completely control the patty-making process and be absolutely certain of the quality and freshness of every patty we make. We’ve always made our hamburger patties this way."

They also pay there employees better than any other fast food joint, so they get better employees. Their food may not be "healthy," but it should, at least, be safe.

BTW, there is one about three miles from my house -- in Texas. It isn't a SoCal thing anymore. :becky:

CD

They are soooooo good!

[caseydog]

What? All of 68 people died from food illness last year, while over 30,000 from motor vehicle accidents? Guess I better give up eating, because I'm not going to give up the car. For the record you're just as likely to die in an elevator/escalator accident (about 30 deaths/year) as from salmonella poisoning, but we don't hear the outcry not to take the elevator for safety reasons.

Okay, so eating pink slime and bacteria isn't as likely to kill me than some idiot talking on a cell phone in a Chevy Suburban -- do I really want to eat farking pink slime and bacteria?

NO!

Bottom line: I want to KNOW what I am eating, and I want it to be better than "statistically safe."

I honestly don't care what anyone else chooses to eat. I want to eat real food. The only way I can do that is if I ask questions and take control of the situation. I have NO faith in big business to give a chit, and little faith in the government to regulate big business. One is greedy, and the other is broke.

CD

[colonel00]

Just eat McDonald's CD. No pink slime in soy burgers :tsk:

[Outnumbered]

Are you suggesting we as intelligent adults have the responsibility to read any and all media articles with a jaundiced eye, and develop our own opinions based on the facts we are able to obtain instead of assuming the media has it exactly right?


As a member of the media, I respond with an emphatic....YES!!

[Outnumbered]

Not to mention GMO products, etc..


What GMO meat products are there on the grocery store shelves? I'm just curious.

It's like saying there is hormone-free meat. It doesn't exist. Actually, nearly every food product has hormones in it. Don't believe the hype.

[Outnumbered]

one thought.... cook your ground meats to a safe temp.......kills lots of the bad boys
jlm

Ah...reason. Thanks for that. I know people who work in the meat industry who eat their steaks at medium rare. They won't have ground beef that's done less than medium well. That tells me a lot. Proper cooking of ground meat is the only way to go. It doesn't mean it's bad for you. It just means you need to know what you're doing.

[Gore]

Okay, so eating pink slime and bacteria isn't as likely to kill me than some idiot talking on a cell phone in a Chevy Suburban -- do I really want to eat farking pink slime and bacteria?

NO!

Bottom line: I want to KNOW what I am eating, and I want it to be better than "statistically safe."

I honestly don't care what anyone else chooses to eat. I want to eat real food. The only way I can do that is if I ask questions and take control of the situation. I have NO faith in big business to give a chit, and little faith in the government to regulate big business. One is greedy, and the other is broke.

CD

From the In-n-Out website...

"We have always made every one of our hamburger patties ourselves using only whole chucks from premium cattle selected especially for In-N-Out Burger. We pay a premium to purchase fresh, high quality beef chucks. We individually inspect every single chuck we receive to make sure that it meets our standards. Then our highly skilled, in-house butchers remove the bones. We grind the meat ourselves and make it into patties ourselves. We do all of this in our facility on our property in Baldwin Park, Ca. These steps enable us to completely control the patty-making process and be absolutely certain of the quality and freshness of every patty we make. We’ve always made our hamburger patties this way."

They also pay they're employees better than any other fast food joint, so they get better employees. Their food may not be "healthy," but it should, at least, be safe.

BTW, there is one about three miles from my house -- in Texas. It isn't a SoCal thing anymore. :becky:

CD

So, ... basically you believe the corporate propaganda that you want to believe. :thumb:


:heh:

[wyocurt]

If we listened to a the BS that the media tries to get people to believe in we would all be dead. Do what you want in grinding your own meat as it is the best way but many of the people that can't grind there own will more than ok. The media stinks most of the time.

[stubshaft]

I usually grind my own because it is cheaper here to buy chuck than pre-ground hamburger.

[Kathy's Smokin']

What GMO meat products are there on the grocery store shelves? I'm just curious.

It's like saying there is hormone-free meat. It doesn't exist. Actually, nearly every food product has hormones in it. Don't believe the hype.

Biggest GMO products I'm familiar with are soy, corn, wheat and tomatoes so they're in the produce section and on the shelf. Don't know if China uses GMO's like North America but they have other food issues I'm uncomfortable with (regulation, inspection and enforcement for examples). I believe much of the new "food allergies" emerging are the direct result of GMO and other food pollutants. It takes the body several generations to catch up with the modified plant genes and until then they can cause havoc in the digestive system. I think the expanding food allergy situation in North America should be looked at like "a canary in the coal mine" and be monitored carefully.

Yes, please, support your local farmers if you can and find out where your food comes from. For the last 15 or so years I've only used ground beef bought from farmers I know -- as in Cynthia's family farm, Brad and Sarah's family Red Angus beef farm and my good pal Ralph down the highway who talks my ear off when I stop by to shop. I specifically buy locally and traditionally raised meat that is not fed animal by-products or given antibiotics in feed. I specifically buy meat from local farmers that treat their livestock well. I do not trust large companies, their executives and staff. I think the temptation to process sick and decaying meat where it might not be recognized is too great in a faceless company. Yes, animals have naturally occurring hormones in their body like humans, it's part of the messaging system our bodies use as well as body process control, etc.. Not all livestock is given growth hormones to blow them up big and fast before market. The 'given' growth hormones are the problem because they remain in the meat and affect the endocrine system of the human eating the meat. Growth hormones are illegal in Canada but I wouldn't be surprised if they were used by some faceless few who think they can get away with it. Greed is a part of life. I'm a noob to Q'ing so I'm been using regular hunks of meat from the grocery store for my learning curve -- but as soon as I have some good experience under my belt I'll be using my friends' meat for smoking, too. I don't have freezer orders that contain cuts for cuing yet but our freezer orders made from now on will. I think buying local from farmers you know is one of the cornerstones to food safety and security. Raising your own meat is, too. We're living on one pension in our household so we have to be careful with grocery expenses. It's a choice we make, we give up other things to keep our budget in line. I think of it as an investment in our health. I see food as medicine. There are now many cities with farmers markets and freezer orders of traditionally raised meat will bring the cost to the same or less than regular-priced meat in the grocery store. There's a reward to doing that -- grocery store meat shrinks significantly more than the local meat I buy so I'm actually getting a better deal than it looks at first glance.

[landarc]

To my knowledgw, there are no true GMO products for human consumption on the U.S. Market. There are hybrids and crosses of plants. But, organisms modified by induced cross genus manipulation are not produced in the U.S. Foods produced overseas may not hold to this standard. It is not accurate or reasoned to lump traditionally developed hybrids and crosses into the GMO category.

[SirPorkaLot]

To my knowledge, there are no true GMO products for human consumption on the U.S. Market. There are hybrids and crosses of plants. But, organisms modified by induced cross genus manipulation are not produced in the U.S. Foods produced overseas may not hold to this standard. It is not accurate or reasoned to lump traditionally developed hybrids and crosses into the GMO category.

I am not a scientist, but we eat what our food eats.
IE: If livestock is fed genetically modified feed, then guess what we eat?


Source: Wikipedia/Gmo

93% of all soybean in US is GMO
86% of field corn
93% of Canola
Alfalfa (unknown at this time, as it was removed from banned list on Jan 2011.)

[Disciple882542]

This is mainly dealing with there packaged Wal Mart meat and the "chubs" sold at other stores, correct?

How do you guys feel about the meat a your local Winn Dixie or other grocery store that butchers their own meat? I know the meat guys pretty and management pretty well at our local grocery stores and would tend to believe that their meat practices are sanitary.

God bless,
Disciple

[SirPorkaLot]

This is mainly dealing with there packaged Wal Mart meat and the "chubs" sold at other stores, correct?

How do you guys feel about the meat a your local Winn Dixie or other grocery store that butchers their own meat? I know the meat guys pretty and management pretty well at our local grocery stores and would tend to believe that their meat practices are sanitary.

God bless,
Disciple

Any place that butchers and grinds their own meat is a great place to start for sure!
:thumb:

I know my butcher will grind in front of me (not that way you filthy minded pervert) upon request if i ask.

[landarc]

The problem with the Wiki on GMO is the broad definition used by many people, including scientists relative to what is a GMO. I tend towards a stricter definition, which requires modification of a gene sequence and the inroduction of foreign RNA or DNA material to effect a modification of a plants basic funtions. Many of the corn and soybeans commonly referred to as GMO as actually selected and manipulated hybrids that are using genetic switches inherent to the given plant, that would normally not be on, or off, which, to my mind, are not GMO. This is not to say that they are any healthier or less healthy for us to eat.

But, while germplasm such as the terminator corn or Round-up resistant soybeans are rumored to be in the food stream, there is no proof or methodology for proving they are in the food stream once they have been ingested. Again, this may concern some, others it may not, I for one, choose generally to eat organic and most of the meat I buy, I prefer pasture raised and finished. Of course, it is impossible to reasonably eat only these types of food without either a lot of land or money.

Most of the produce, if not all, that we normally buy, even in direct to market and organic sitautions represent intra-genus hybridization practices and a certain amount of genetic modification to achieve the types of plants we currently use for food sourcing. Now, the bigger issue, of course, is the crossing of organisms at the Order level and not the Genus or Species level. It remains to be seen the effect of say, pushing a fish gene into a tomato, and how it will affect the body. But, these types of plants and animals are extremely rare and have not proven to be robust.

[SirPorkaLot]

The problem with the Wiki on GMO is the broad definition used by many people, including scientists relative to what is a GMO. I tend towards a stricter definition, which requires modification of a gene sequence and the inroduction of foreign RNA or DNA material to effect a modification of a plants basic funtions. Many of the corn and soybeans commonly referred to as GMO as actually selected and manipulated hybrids that are using genetic switches inherent to the given plant, that would normally not be on, or off, which, to my mind, are not GMO. This is not to say that they are any healthier or less healthy for us to eat.

But, while germplasm such as the terminator corn or Round-up resistant soybeans are rumored to be in the food stream, there is no proof or methodology for proving they are in the food stream once they have been ingested. Again, this may concern some, others it may not, I for one, choose generally to eat organic and most of the meat I buy, I prefer pasture raised and finished. Of course, it is impossible to reasonably eat only these types of food without either a lot of land or money.

Most of the produce, if not all, that we normally buy, even in direct to market and organic sitautions represent intra-genus hybridization practices and a certain amount of genetic modification to achieve the types of plants we currently use for food sourcing. Now, the bigger issue, of course, is the crossing of organisms at the Order level and not the Genus or Species level. It remains to be seen the effect of say, pushing a fish gene into a tomato, and how it will affect the body. But, these types of plants and animals are extremely rare and have not proven to be robust.


uhhh....thanks?

Now could someone translate Landarc's response to redneck English for me?

I think it says:
Sir Pork: don't worry your head none about this here GMO stuff, as most of what is out there is just graft'n some plants together.
If you wanna be sure, grow your own stuff.

[Outnumbered]

I work in the agriculture industry. The terminator gene was developed by Monsanto as a way to keep people from taking gmo seed and growing the produce from it. It is not on the market because of the public outcry over having it.

I personally have a big problem with it and I don't agree with the rules that keep farmers from keeping their own seed no matter where it was produced. I understand though why Monsanto doesn't like it.

The numbers Sir Pork gives for corn, soybeans, canola are accurate on what is produced. These products are extremely controversial and I'm glad we live in country where we actually have a choice to consume these products or not.

But I always caution people to think about reality before they start saying these products should not be used. Norman Borlaug, the father of the green revolution and the man who is responsible for producing hybrid wheat that has saved millions of lives around the world by making crop production in arid climates where the only abundance was/is famine, said we could feed about 4 billion people on the land mass we have today with conventional agriculture. We have eclipsed 7 billion people on our plant and we're on the way (according to the UN) to 9.5 billion by 2050.

So, who do we ask to starve first if we do away with modern-agriculture technology?

Again, we are very lucky in the U.S. Our poorest people have government aid, and for the most part, can afford a healthy diet...though admittedly hunger is a growing problem in the U.S.

On top of that, China, India, Brazil and other developing countries have tasted the very reason for this discussion board. They've tasted meat. They figured out it's pretty good and they want more. It takes corn and soybeans to produce the protein we all crave on here. So should we tell them they can't have it?

[The_Kapn]

I have tried to follow all the interesting info presented above.
Good stuff.

I grind all of my own beef (brisket and el-cheapo rib eye) because:
1. I control the sanitation.
2. I control the texture. We like a course grind.
3. I control the flavor.

Those are all the reasons I need.

It is cheap, fun, and easy. :-D

TIM

[Kathy's Smokin']

To my knowledgw, there are no true GMO products for human consumption on the U.S. Market. There are hybrids and crosses of plants. But, organisms modified by induced cross genus manipulation are not produced in the U.S. Foods produced overseas may not hold to this standard. It is not accurate or reasoned to lump traditionally developed hybrids and crosses into the GMO category.

Very interesting. I'll have to look further into this since I have great respect your knowledge and opinions, landarc. An example that I remember reading about is the injection of fish genes into tomatoes to make them more frost hardy. I read this a long time ago, at least a dozen or more years ago. In Canada we regularly discuss GMO's in our food stream, it's not just sensationalized news and media stories, the discussion of it is everywhere including the medical and science communities. We even have a major grocery store that will not label which produce is from GMO's and which is not. Perhaps I need to look further into what you are calling hybrids -- does a fish gene added to a tomato make it a hybrid or a genetically modified organism? Would not a hybrid come from breeding between 'like' plants (say, two different apples) and genetically modified organisms, or GMO's, perhaps come from breeding between 'unlike' plants or organisms (say tomatoes and fish)? I'll look into what David Suzuki's website and the Government of Canada website have to say. I'll try to do some of this in January and report back.

[Kathy's Smokin']

Sorry, my posting above was made before I had a chance to read all of page 4!! I'm still going to try to look at reference material in January. I've come across a lot of information about feeding more people with less that I need to brush up on before I post about that, too.

[Outnumbered]

does a fish gene added to a tomato make it a hybrid or a genetically modified organism? Would not a hybrid come from breeding between 'like' plants (say, two different apples) and genetically modified organisms, or GMO's, perhaps come from breeding between 'unlike' plants or organisms.

You're right on both counts, but the definition of a GMO is too limiting. A hybrid is indeed breeding two separate lines of the same plant to get a superior product. This is why corn now yields 150-160 bu./acre on avg in the U.S. (though lower this year due to a bad weather year.) Before hybrids were available, yields were in the 15-20 bu./acre range. Soybeans can be hybrids, but it's a difficult process and there is negligible yield benefit to doing. So soybeans commercially available are open pollinated.

By the strictest definition, you could say that hybridization does indeed create a GMO. Corn has been bred for centuries to get what we call corn today. The origin of corn is from Mexico and the original plant has absolutely no resemblance to today's corn. The only similarity is they are both grasses. The Mayans bred it to get something that could produce something they could eat.

GMOs would be as you explain (the fish gene in a tomato) and it is possible to do this in a lab. There are currently no plant materials that contain any animal gene on the commercial market. (At least as of a year ago I know that was the case, and I'm not aware of any changes in regulations since then.)

The GMOs on the market have a gene placed into the plant and that is replicated through a breeding process in the field to get the desired traits commercially available. The Roundup Ready gene is a naturally-occurring organism, but it's not naturally occurring in corn or soybeans.

The drawback is that it is not naturally occurring. The benefit is that it is much safer for the farmer because they use fewer pesticides, which also, taken on its own, is better for the environment. Further drawbacks to the environment are that we have overused Roundup and there is a rapidly-developing problem of weeds that are resistant to the chemistry.

I know people that swear biotechnology is the reason for increases in food allergies. I've studied what they've said and I see how they can draw that conclusion, but I don't buy it. There are some incredible leaps they make to reach that conclusion.

I'd suggest checking out the research from USDA and Monsanto on the products to see what the people who say they're OK have to say.

On the other side, I've become pretty good friends with a lady named Robyn O'Brien who has founded an organization called Allergykids.org. We don't agree on much, but we've had some spirited and very cordial debates on the subject.

[SirPorkaLot]

Kathy & Outnumbered:
Thank you for your input on this (GMO) subject. It is one of great interest to me, and the more I learn the better.

While this post did not start out particularly to discuss GMOs, it IS a "where does your food come from" topic as well, so fits it right in.

I am not a farmer, nor a rancher.
I don't grow crops, don't butcher meat, but I am quite concerned with the potential issues that the current food chain allows, and am not too sure that growing our own crops and butchering our own meat won't be a necessity in coming generations.

[caseydog]

So, ... basically you believe the corporate propaganda that you want to believe. :thumb:


:heh:

Nope. I don't believe anything that comes from anyone who profits from me believing what they say. But, In-n-Out Burger, so far, has a decent reputation for making proper unhealthy fast food. :laugh:

I cook most of what I eat myself. I am very choosey about the ingredients I buy. When I do eat out, and especially when I eat out, I try to pick good vendors, and any company that is willing to tell me where they get there meat, and is willing to pay a living wage to the people that work for them, gets a little more slack than the others. It's all relative.

Shopping for anything in the US has become a chore over my lifetime. I've come to realize that if I want to eat good food, I have to really pay attention.

I am a HUGE supporter of rigorous labeling laws. As long as I can read on a label what I am eating, and where it came from, I can make my own choice, and pay more for what I eat, if I have to.

Gore, you are a world traveller. You have been to the same markets I have been to. There is nothing better than buying food that you KNOW where it came from, and KNOW how it was processed.

CD

[Kathy's Smokin']

Thank you for the detailed post, Outnumbered, I appreciate you taking the time. It seems to me that I've let the reasons I believe what I believe slip away and I need to remind myself why I believe what I do. So much to learn, so much to remember........ and remember. I will admit that I am reluctant to take as truth what Monsanto has to say for several reasons. I used to admire and trust big business but over the years life experience has beaten that out of me. I will have to find sound and varied third party information to re-educate myself on this but I will try to keep an open mind and at least take a look at what Monsanto has to say. I am a fan of natural in the broad and narrow sense depending on the context, of the 'old' ways of farming, living and eating and have been interested long enough to see food that was demonized years ago run full circle and become a saviour. (The latest -- lard is good for you and raises good cholesterol.) My bias is a product of my experience, study and intuition. My uncle, a farmer, has already been faced with Round Up resistance which I see as a good thing. Before I say too much about what I consider better and sustainable farming practices, I'll have to refresh and expand my knowledge base because my brethren are just too smart to do otherwise. That's a good thing and I thank you for it.

[BDAABAT]

Couple comments:

First, who knew that a post about ground beef could lead in so many interesting directions!?!? One of the many reasons why I love this site!

Next: lets take a step back and ask more basic questions: why do you believe what you believe about food?

There are some folks who have stated here that they believe that GMO food is bad or that organically produced food is good (or commercially prepared ground beef is bad for you). Why? Do you have objective evidence to support those beliefs?

So, lets start with the basics: how has food evolved over time?


Humans have been manipulating food for thousands of years. They’ve used a variety of methods to achieve the wonderful assortment of foods that we now can all enjoy. Initial methods of crop modification were primitive: have two crops growing near each other to see what happens. As humans gained more knowledge of how biology and plant physiology, they applied more specific and targeted methods for trying to cross breed plants and animals. Humans manually rubbing pollen from one plant onto another was a very common technique. This is pretty far from being “natural”.

Over the past 60-80 or so years, humans learned about genetics and applied those skills to manipulation of commercial plants and animals. Armed with that knowledge, food producers in the mid part of the 20th century started using tools (e.g., ionizing radiation and chemicals to produce DNA breaks) to induce genetic damage to plants and animals to try to develop mutations that could (hopefully) turn out to be beneficial. This was a dramatic improvement over mixing pollen from one species with another in a sort of random attempt at producing mutant varieties. But, it was still a very scattered and sort of shotgun-type approach with extremely low success rates. One never knew what the final product would be or if it would be safe to use.



With this approach, like all previous approaches to development of new cultivars, there was and is no requirement for testing for safety of the final product. In fact, there are cases of these non-GMO but still human modified products being harmful to humans (e.g., celery with large amounts of naturally occurring skin sensitizing compounds, potatoes with higher than expected “natural” potato toxins).

As humans knowledge of genetics improved, new tools became available. Those tools allowed specific genes to be switched on or off or specific genes from one organism to be inserted into another, depending on the desired characteristics of the final product. This very detailed and very specific approach to new cultivar development is really just a continuation of what humans have been doing for thousands of years. Humans are applying their knowledge to create more and better food for other humans.

GMO food undergoes a huge amount of testing before being released into the market. And, based on the data so far, there is no evidence of harm from use of GMO products. And, yes, you’ve been exposed to GMO produce if you eat soy or mango or potato or tomato or sugar or milk or any of the multitude of products that use those products in them.

So, what’s the objective evidence against GMO food? It’s been used for the past 20 or so years… has there been any evidence of problems??? Nope.

How about “organic” food.. is that better for you than conventional produced food? If so, how?

I guess one needs to define what is meant by “better”.

Is organic food safer for you to eat than non-“organic” food?
Is organic food better for the environment?
Is organic food better for the overall well being of a population?

The answer to all of those questions is no.

Is organic food safer? No. People generally don’t get sick from commercially prepared food that is grown using conventional methods. People generally don’t get sick from “organic” food. Not much of a difference. And, while there are occasional toxic outbreaks from people inadvertently exposed to pesticides that have been either misapplied to produce, there are also outbreaks of severe food poisoning from “organic” crops (see the German experience this past May-June with 45 people who died and the thousands who became ill from exposure to “organic” sprouts).

Is organic food better for the environment? Again, sort of depends on what you mean by “better”.

Think about it this way.

US population in 1900 was ~ 77 million.
Percentage of people that was involved in agriculture was ~40% of the population. :shock:
Total acres of cropland was ~ 800 million.
US population in 2010: ~ 330 million. Percentage of people involved in agriculture is < 2%. :shock:

Total acres of cropland is now < 900 million acres and has been dropping over the past 50 years.

So, there are many, ~ 4 times more people to feed in the, but the US not only can feed all of them, we produce so much that we can export food. And, we do this using almost the same amount of land that was used in 1900 but with far, FAR fewer people needed to produce that massively increased volume of food.

All of which means fewer total acres of land are needed to produce enough food for our population. Fewer tilled acres is MUCH better for the environment than tilled, but "organic" farmland. In fact, forested land area is now greater than it was in 1900! That’s a remarkable achievement... one that CANNOT be done without using modern, intensive farming methods.

But, what about pesticides? Aren’t they BAD???!!??

Well, the answer is yes and no. The key is: the dose makes the poison. Teeny amounts of commercially applied pesticide residues don’t result in acute or long-term harm. They don’t lead to development of cancer. Pesticides have been used extensively in the US over the past 60 or so years. If pesticides really did cause cancer, one would expect to see big increased in cancer rates. We don’t. Cancer is largely a disease of aging. If one looks at age adjusted cancer rates over time, you see an increase in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which is due to better detection methods. The rates are now falling. This isn’t the pattern that what one would expect from an entire population being exposed to large amounts of carcinogens over time.

So, please don’t do shots of organophosphates. If you do or know someone that has, please call 800-222-1222 (the nationwide number in the US for poison centers). But, don’t worry about the potential dangers of minute quantities of pesticides that might happen to be left on the product. And don't be afraid of GMO products. Eat what you like, eat it in moderation, and enjoy your time on the planet.


Happy New Year everyone!



Bruce

[tortaboy]

Interesting discussion....We don't know what has caused many of the health problems we have now such as large numbers of autistic children, breast cancer, etc.

You mention the drop in the number of people involved in agriculture. Isn't that more directly related to modern cultivation methods that remove the human element from production tasks? Machines can do everything from planting to picking to transporting. Is this really relavent in a conversation about is our food more or less healthy due to modern science?

If all these breakthroughs were positive....What has caused Monsanto to become such a hated company?

[BDAABAT]

@Tortaboy: there were advances in agriculture all over the place. But overall yields have increased dramatically over the past 100 or so years, in large part because of changes in crop science.

Re: Monsanto being hated. You'll have to ask the people who hate Monsanto and really ask why they are hated. Why would anyone "hate" a company that produces goods and services that are valuable? If you don't like their products, don't use them. No logical reason for hate.

Re: increases in Autism, breast cancer, etc, over time. If you don't know what's causing changes in human health over time, does it make sense to throw out an assertion without any evidence? Is there a biological mechanism that could reasonably explain increases in disease as a result of exposure? Why not just assume that the changes are due something else...say, to emergence of stuffed animals? Stuffed animal availability in the pediatric population has increased at about the same rate as Autism and kids are exposed to more and more stuffed animals, therefore, it's gotta be the stuffed animals, right? No. Correlation does not equal causation.

BTW: breast cancer rates have not increased consistently over time. Rates increased during the 1980's with increased testing. But, overall rates have since dropped from that surge in rates that was solely due to better detection efforts.

Bruce

[tortaboy]

@Tortaboy: there were advances in agriculture all over the place. But overall yields have increased dramatically over the past 100 or so years, in large part because of changes in crop science.

Re: Monsanto being hated. You'll have to ask the people who hate Monsanto and really ask why they are hated. Why would anyone "hate" a company that produces goods and services that are valuable? If you don't like their products, don't use them. No logical reason for hate.

Re: increases in Autism, breast cancer, etc, over time. If you don't know what's causing changes in human health over time, does it make sense to throw out an assertion without any evidence? Is there a biological mechanism that could reasonably explain increases in disease as a result of exposure? Why not just assume that the changes are due something else...say, to emergence of stuffed animals? Stuffed animal availability in the pediatric population has increased at about the same rate as Autism and kids are exposed to more and more stuffed animals, therefore, it's gotta be the stuffed animals, right? No. Correlation does not equal causation.

BTW: breast cancer rates have not increased consistently over time. Rates increased during the 1980's with increased testing. But, overall rates have since dropped from that surge in rates that was solely due to better detection efforts.

Bruce

Bruce,

You are taking this from a discussion, to a rant.

Please let me know exactly where I made ANY assertions?

I never claimed to hate Monsanto, but frankly I do not trust them at all due to practices that appear to be solely in the interest of Monsanto. An Illogical statement would be, "do not use them"...re Monsanto products. Maybe if I were Amish, I could do so...short of that, EVERYONE uses Monsanto products.

You've obviously made up your mind. I'm trying to be open minded.

[BDAABAT]

Tortaboy: sorry you're reading my comments that way. That was not my intention. Just asking questions and providing some information.

And, no, my mind isn't made up about a lot of things. I'm an objectivist. Show me data, show me science and I'll gladly attempt to learn more and change.

I'm curious: why the hate for Monsanto?

Bruce

[tortaboy]

Tortaboy: sorry you're reading my comments that way. That was not my intention. Just asking questions and providing some information.

And, no, my mind isn't made up about a lot of things. I'm an objectivist. Show me data, show me science and I'll gladly attempt to learn more and change.

I'm curious: why the hate for Monsanto?

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Cool...happy to converse.

Personally, I don't hate Monsanto...I do not trust Monsanto. At all.

IMO, Their business practices of squashing any and all competition are abhorrent. Is Monsanto looking out for me? Only to the extent that they can profit off of me....at ANY cost.

I grow much of my fruit and vegetables using worm poop and natural products like fish emulsion. My footprint does not leave behind synthetic fertilizer residue that pollutes waterways....And I'd challenge anyone's results regarding yield and taste. That is why I choose to garden naturally.

Am I squeaky clean myself? Not hardly....my wife drives a gas guzzling SUV, I bbq using coal and wood that creates pollution, etc.

[tortaboy]

And, no, my mind isn't made up about a lot of things. I'm an objectivist. Show me data, show me science and I'll gladly attempt to learn more and change.

Bruce

You're talking to a guy that does fact based analysis for a living. 100-200 page presentations that go all the way to the President of the company.

I love data!

I work with data all day long, everyday.....but I also know better than most how data can be used, abused, and/or buried.

[caseydog]

Tortaboy: sorry you're reading my comments that way. That was not my intention. Just asking questions and providing some information.

And, no, my mind isn't made up about a lot of things. I'm an objectivist. Show me data, show me science and I'll gladly attempt to learn more and change.

I'm curious: why the hate for Monsanto?

Bruce

Do some searching and reading on Monsanto, and you won't like them, either.

Monsanto doesn't just manufacture genetically engineered seeds, they are basically forcing farmers to use their seed, or get sued into bankruptcy.

Let's say I own an organic farm, and use seed from my last year's crop for my new crop, but my neighbor uses Monsanto genetically engineered seed. Cross pollination can genetically alter my corn, and Monsanto will sue me for using seed that I grew, that came from plants that cross pollinated with plants from the farm next door.

Basically, you have to buy Monsanto's genetically engineered seed, even if you don't want to use it, or lose your farm.

CD

[BDAABAT]

Tortaboy: excellent to hear! Thanks for understanding.

Re: Monsanto: my understanding is that they were pretty much screwed either way. They created some GM seed, then got a lot of "feedback" from anti GMO activists (the folks that trashed numerous experimental planting sites in the hopes that the company would give up) that GMO seeds would escape into the wild and cause global food crisis.

So, Monsanto are required by law to control spread of their seed. They've been sued for allowing GM content to get into the wild. GM seed is more tightly regulated than are pesticides. So, what exactly are they supposed to do?

Bruce

[Kathy's Smokin']

Oh, I wish I had in front of me what I've read and learned about this the last twenty years. Alas, I do not and so I will be careful what I post here.

One cigarette or one pack of cigarettes will not assuredly give me cancer. I think from this I can infer the possibility that one vegetable or one basket of vegetables harvested from a GMO plant or a plant sprayed with pesticide may not assuredly give me cancer or other negative health outcome. I think it's important to keep this in mind when talking about the health effects of a given "thing" -- that cause and effect may take decades or longer to detect. What if it takes 2 generations of thorough study to detect a negative health outcome in a subtle way and 3 or more generations to detect those negative health outcomes clearly?

I'd like to use tobacco as an example again just because it's history is familiar to many. In the beginning smoking tobacco was thought to be healthful. Cigarette companies even advertised the health benefits of smoking cigarettes at one time. I don't remember the exact claims of the commercials, unfortunately, because repeating them would be useful for this analogy. (I'll move forward on this posting anyway and hope one of my brethren does remember these commercials and posts what they claimed.) We smoked in trains, planes, at our desks in our workplace, in hospitals, in schools. About 32 years ago in Toronto, Canada, I remember going to night classes at a regular high school and our teacher allowed us high school students to smoke IN THE CLASSROOM because as far as he was concerned we were old enough and there was no harm in it. At some point doctors decided smoking tobacco was bad for your health and that it could lead to cancer, COPD, heart disease and other respiratory problems. Some people tried to sue tobacco companies for selling and promoting tobacco -- after all, smoking tobacco was officially condemned by the Surgeon General. Even with the Surgeon General's condemnation tobacco companies were successful in proving that no proof of harm from smoking tobacco existed. Large companies can manipulate facts, studies, governments and more -- this is just the reality of the world we live in. It's especially complicated when proof of harm takes several decades and billions of dollars to produce. The absence of proof of harm 'yet' does not proclaim a substance or practice harmless. What if it takes a hundred years for us to evolve scientifically to the level we need to in order to prove a direct or indirect harm to health from GMO's (and I don't mean simple hybridization here although I have yet to look for the definitions and information I promised to 'last year') or pesticides, etc., etc.. Wasn't it in 2011 that the first successful suing of a tobacco company took place? When did we start smoking? Couple hundred years ago? More than that? When Columbus met First Nations Indians? What if the timing of our "proof of harm" curve for GMOs/pesticides/etc. has similarly slow timing like the "proof of harm" curve of tobacco?

Anyone worked for a company that would not let you "tell it as it is" to customers and required you to phrase things in such a way as to preserve your company's ability to deny responsibility?

Anyone buy something from company that hid facts from you while they were working to sell you?

Anyone witness prescription drugs pulled off the market because of unacceptable side effects?

Anyone hear of Enron, Conrad Black, Bre-X Gold, the Canadian E-Health scandal, Bell Canada fined millions of dollars for misleading customers, the US mortgage crisis? Is it okay for me to state here that some companies do not tell the truth and some governments/officials let them get away with it?

It's something to think about, isn't it?