Meat recall from PC brands.

[bouche]

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/07/01/consumer-pc-beef-ecoli-recall.html

if you've read Fast Food Nation you have heard of the Greely meat plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Food_Nation

[phishtaper]

other reports said that unpackaged, meat counter, steaks were also affected. ugh.

[phorbesie]

doh! i hope all the meat we ate yesterday was not affected!

[SaggyBalls]

Looks like the 'free from' line isn't affected.

Makes snese though, cause if a farmer has to raise an animal to not need hormones or antibiotics to be sold/ eaten, it probably won't have a problem with E.Coli.

Everything i've purchased in those lines of chicken and pork have been the best cuts i've ever eaten from a Grocery Store.

I look there first and tend to see if anything's a good enough sale to buy my hypocrisy.

[d_rawk]

Makes snese though, cause if a farmer has to raise an animal to not need hormones or antibiotics to be sold/ eaten, it probably won't have a problem with E.Coli.

I'm not familiar with the 'free from' brand of products, but so true. We all live with E. Coli, as do most animals, and not only do we get along well with it, but we probably benefit from it.

The virulent strains that make us and cattle sick need not happen or be allowed to replicate as quickly as they do. Grain finished beef is a false economy.

[SaggyBalls]

"I'm not familiar with the 'free from' brand of products, but so true. We all live with E. Coli, as do most animals, and not only do we get along well with it, but we probably benefit from it."

Yup. Grain Finished Beef blooms virulent E.Coli.

High end slaughterhouses and Abbatoirs - I can only presu,me that's a big piece of the puzzle along with proper aging.

Nobody should ever have to eat bloody meat.

But then again, how low will you go to buy my hypocrisy?

[jaybone]

What exactly do you mean by "grain finished" beef?

US beef is grass fed, and some steak fans prefer the sweetness of the US product.

Does that mean that US beef is safer?

[d_rawk]

Not as a rule, no. While most US beef has opportunity to eat some grass somewhere along the way, feed lot cattle do not graze (logistically they can not) and are primarily on corn and other grains to the exclusion of grasses during the fattening period (the 3 - 4 months prior to slaughter).

You can't really keep a cow on grains much longer than that as they will simply up and die on you. But you can get away with a few months. How we thought we could continually do this to a ruminate animal without consequence to ourselves, or why we'd want to consume something we'd made terminally ill is one of those peculiar bits of human lunacy that only make sense through the lens of tunnel visioned private economics. The relative cheapness and abundance of subsidized corn strikes again. IMO.

[d_rawk]

While I'm running my mouth, let me say this:

It is possible to produce beef on a commercial scale that isn't dangerous. But pasture demands a certain type of restriction of scale just by virtue of land mass being the finite resource that it is. The big players want a way out of this, but their way out is our cost.

There are many small to medium scale ranches that produce high quality beef from pasture-fed, grazing, healthy heads. And yeah, it's more expensive then what you get at the closest grocery store. It should be. Lives - healthy, happy, non-infected lives - aren't cheap. Taking one life to sustain another is huge. That is a big deal. I'm not making a moral argument. I've long made peace with the fact that I will take another life to sustain my own. And unless you are Meggo, yes, yours too. I am saying that the process of that is awe inspiring. And I am saying that I don't suspect that I can disease something, consume it, and expect to be well by eating diseased flesh.

What it takes to run a commercially viable beef supply is a shift from the mental model of increasing profit by increasing scale to increasing profit by maintaining scale and reducing cost. And that is just step one. But the latter, while tried and true, is not in vogue. And it won't be in vogue until we are tripping all over each other's puke and dead bodies.the top>

Deep breath. Thanks for indulging me.

[SaggyBalls]

Alberta beef could never live to be as meaty and fat grazing on those dry plains.

Small Ontario Farms produce a fantastic animal. If I have the option I never eat Alberta beef.

I'm not a fan of Grain Fed animal.

Almost everyhting sold in supermarkets is grown on larger scale feed lots.

Chicken is a much easier animal to grow solely on grain than cattle. If you go south of the border, much of the chicken inb the supermarket will look yellow.

Corn Fed Chicken. Cheap to feed, grows fast and fat. Most people think it's better because of that.

As long as small scale agriculture keeps getting phased out due to restrictions (HR875) and through agribusiness tax examptions and subsidies, we will continually get cheaper low quality food.

Also, as time goes on, we learn ways to make our cheap food taste much better. It's a bit scary.

[d_rawk]

Corn Fed Chicken. Cheap to feed, grows fast and fat. Most people think it's better because of that.

Fuck that. Fuck corn. I want my chickens eating bugs. Commercial chicken tastes like nothing. Talk to someone 50+ in age .. they'll tell you, chicken used to have an actual flavour.

But I'm being playful and I think we are on the same page here. This is bullshit, all of it. We need to withdraw our dollars from the health depleting barbarity of the feed-lot system, those of us who haven't already.

This isn't the old Soviet Union. They can't say 'Eat Salmon' and you eat the Salmon. They can't say 'Eat Chicken' and you eat the chicken. Dollars are votes. Stop voting.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Guest
changed to 70+ to 50+. 70 had more 'oomph', but 50 is more honest.

[jaybone]

I have to admit that I was wrong when I said that US beef is grass fed. It is actually finished on corn (which many say make it sweeter).

CDN beef is finished on grain.

Not much commercial product is grass fed.

Thanks for the rant SWYF.

Food for thought(?).

I actually sell food for a living and I know that a lot of what I sell is not very sustainable. I love reading up on the food industry. My job is pretty much an enviro/ecological nightmare as what I do involves driving around to different restaurants all over the Western GTA (incl. Hamilton and area).

In spite of the inherent guilt I often feel regarding my job, I figure it is better to be aware of what I am selling and doing to the world so that i can minimize the harm.

[d_rawk]

In spite of the inherent guilt I often feel regarding my job, I figure it is better to be aware of what I am selling and doing to the world so that i can minimize the harm.

For sure, for sure! I think that we are going to get there and the people growing food deserve all sorts of respect. Lord knows that most of us have no idea how to feed ourselves anymore. I'd love to talk to you about what it is that you produce, where you suspect the process could be improved, etc.. Maybe P/Ms?

[AD]

Fuck that. Fuck corn.

Fuck this court. Fuck Jim Lahey. Fuck Randy. Fuck those two idiot cops right there. Fuck suit dummies; as a matter of fact fuck legal aid. Fuck Danny and Terry's Buffalo Chicken Wings. Fuck all the old wood in here. Fuck the moon, fuck corn on the cob, fuck squirrels. Fuck me, fuck you, fuck everything!

[jaybone]

I don't mind discussing these issues in an open format. It certainly doesn't have to be in P/M's. I work for one of the biggest food distribution companies in North America. I sell everything from fresh beef, to seafood, poultry, produce, dry goods paper, chemicals...damn near everything a restaurant might need.

I like my job...most days. I drive around and talk about food to chefs, giving them new ideas for menu items, discovering new applications for products I sell, pretty much just talking about food and stuff. There are way worse ways to make a living.

But I realize that most of what I sell has a big enviro footprint. My company runs trucks full of produce non-stop from California. We use the big factory farms for chickens and eggs. Our beef, while being highly regulated (as is everything I sell- our company is publicly owned so we don't cut any corners- food safety and accountability is the priority) is from the feed lots.

One of the negatives of the aforementioned accountability is that much of the local food is not up to the standards we must meet. We would love to provide more local/organic product, but it simply is cost prohibitive for the farmers to get the necessary to accredtiation (HACCP, for one, plus a ton of insurance in the instance of food born illness) to deal with us.

Sorry if I'm rambling...I'm kinda drunk (one of the perks of being in sales on a Friday).

[SaggyBalls]

What about the smaller local producers that don't have to be organic to make a great product?

Does that still require far too much work, or is it merely not as 'cost effective' as American/lot meat?

[d_rawk]

That's exactly the thing though - it's not so much work as money. Like Jaybone said, HACCP, the insurance requirements of distributors, etc.., none of which are specific to only organic producers. This could quickly become a topic more fit for the politics forum In the US, the costs associated with the NAIS program alone are enough to drive smaller scale producers out of the market. The requirements and fees are designed for the lots and large scale agribusiness. It's a lovely bit of doublespeak for something to be both voluntary and mandatory.

Check out my boy Sean's interview with Marti Oakley from April (The Future of our Food)

[d_rawk]

And with Linn Cohen-Cole - The Death of Organic Farming and Fight For Farmers: The New Civil Rights Movement

[timouse]

i'm loving this conversation. to throw my own $0.02 in regarding feedlot beef...ruminants are designed to eat grass. corn and grains are not good for them, and in fact give them acid indigestion, that as someone pointed out earlier will kill them if they are fed this sort of a diet for long enough.

So said cows in a feedlot, getting a mix of corn and grain, are suffering from acidosis, and their rumens and intestines become an acid (low pH) environment. Conincidentally, the virulent to human form of e. coli, 0157-H7, loves acid environments and thrives in grain fed animals. So not only are we hurting the cows by burning out their innards and confining them in unsanitary crowded conditions, but we are breeding in them a bacteria that will hurt us in a big way.

go grass fed.

[d_rawk]

Well put timouse!

Has anyone seen Food Inc. yet? It is coming to the Bytowne in August. Given the buzz, I suspect that movie is going to mobilize a lot of people. I'm a little bit afraid based on the clips I have seen that it is going to be full of Michael Pollan-isms (ie. good intentions without substance - see the standing open letter An Open Letter to Michael Pollan) but it should at least get the conversation out of the jambands.ca type sphere and onto the tables of the world.

Just wathched "From Food to Pharm" (nothing to write home about) and am now starting "Fathead" for a written review. I saw from the trailer that it has Mary Enig in it - who I happen to think is the best thing since wrestling and is the woman who sounded the alarm about trans fats back in the day but had to fight and fight and fight for anyone to take it seriously. It seems good in that it at least takes major shots at the fallacies of dietary cholesterol and saturated fats being harmful, but I have reservations about some of the other messaging. I guess I'll probably have more to say after I've seen it a couple of times and had a chance to think it through.

The bonus material rules, though. I'll put a clip below from a bonus interview with Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Foundation - the woman I wish I could marry.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Guest

[d_rawk]

[slavetothegroove]

http://www.themeatrix.com/ Funny video's.

http://www.foodmatters.tv/

Great documentary. Doesn't focus on meat, but more about nutrition, and pharmaceuticals, and health. Worth the watch

[d_rawk]

[d_rawk]

[SaggyBalls]

While I'm a firm believer in healthier animals - eating meat from sentient beings that we hold in esteem and treat fairly and humanely, there is much truth to the virtues upheld in a plant based diet.

I liked Sally Fallon's letter but I find that in denouncing one side, she creates a rival argument that, although not nearly as flawed as the one she is refuting, still isn't a cure-all.

She ties most of the loose ends up and has painted a great picture for me - and reminds me of the importance of animal products in our diet.

In doing this though, she not only refutes the importance of eating more vegetable matter, but she argues against it again, while there is quite a bit of truth to the importance of eating plants her argument can be construed as being contrary to this.

While I appreciate her stance on improving what goes into animals for consumption, and eating richer, nutrient-rich food, there will always be the other side of the argument that will work its way back to the top.

After all, plant matter increases our overall vibrational level - and until we put food beasts in the highest esteem we will have to experience this truth with nothing else coming close.