Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
how can I ensure food is safe - just watched Food Inc. and I can't stop crying
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The 1% salmonella contamination in Scandinavian countries was for flocks, not for individual eggs. Other countries had a much higher percentage of flocks contaminated with salmonella, more like 40%. I am fairly sure that the US would have a similar rate. http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/Top-poultry-processors-faulted-for-high-Salmonella-rates Good to know that the real salmonella problem is not with raw eggs, though, so much as with the chickens. And if only 1% of chickens in Denmark had salmonella, I guess I can see why my friend thought Danish eggs were safe to eat uncooked. |
Anonymous
Well, I'm no expert, but my understanding was this:
http://www.organicgrassfedbeefinfo.com/safety-of-grass-fed-beef.html I am willing to be enlightened/educated if the above information is incorrect! |
Anonymous
NP here. You're right, 16:25. Grain-fed cattle also require high levels of antibiotics because they're constantly sick from eating grain, and we all know the many problems that stem from using antibiotics in this way. Even vegetarians aren't safe, because E. coli from these animals contaminates fields and water sources and ends up on vegetables. Like some other posters, I recommend reading Schlosser's Fast Food Nation and Pollan's In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma. I'd add another book too: The Way We Eat by Peter Singer. All of these, especially the latter, have a number of good ideas about how to find safer food. I definitely would not count on USDA or the FDA to ensure the safety of our food. |
Anonymous
I don't get this. Whaat you are saying about the first stomach, the rumen, is true. It is pH neutral, and grains can throw that off. But the last stomach in a cow's system (they have multiple stomachs) is highly acidic. Therefore any bacteria that make it through that stomach have to survive the acidic environment there. And I do not believe tolerance of acidity is the feature that makes dangerous forms of e. coli dangerous to begin with. The thing that makes them virulent is their ability to adhere to the cells in the intestine, which is a physical property combined with in some cases the ability to release enterotoxins and the like. None of this has to do with pH in my understanding. |
Anonymous
|
Re OP's second post about Walmart and other big box retailers carrying organic food, I understand that organic organizations do not support their food. Sorry I don't recall all of the details, but during china's melamine in milk scandal, these organizations said that Walmart's organic milk wasn't "organic" by their standards at all. That they gave these cows better feed, but their conditions really weren't any better. Regardless of my skimpy information, the bottom line was that as soon as "organic" goes mainstream it will be seriously diluted. Unless, obviously, there are (govt) controls. Google milk and walmart and it will come up.
A bit of twist on this food safety topic...I never ate much canned food, but now with the news of BPA inside canned food, I find I cannot even open one. Gross! So, no more tuna, beans, v8, etc. It's safer for you to not eat canned food either. I think it's right that we vote three times a day. |
Anonymous
My understanding of the Walmart organic milk debate (which btw affects many other in-store organic milk brands such as Safeway) shows the profit motive behind the organic food movement. Walmart organic milk was derided primarily because it was sold at a much lower price. The way it was attacked was that the cows are fed about 3/4 of the year on grain and about 1/4 of the year on grass. But none of that has anything to do with the organic certification, with which it complied. Now it's OK if people want to buy milk to support small farmers. And it is also OK if people want to drink milk from grassfed cows, although for me I do not see the point because I drink fat free milk. But that is not what the organic certification is about. Organic certification is about eliminating synthetic compounds from the food supply. If Walmart or Safeway can comply, they are certified organic. Everyone is so quick to suspect Walmart. But really, shouldn't the scrutiny be turned on the small producers that run the organic movement? Walmart drives down prices, which is good for consumers. It means that people of lower incomes could have the ability to buy higher quality milk, and that is a moral good. On the other hand, it's clear that many organic farmers got into the business because they can charge a large premium for their product. They might have gone out of business, and now they make substantial profits. They want to protect those profits at all costs. They do not want you to have a cheaper product, even if it is possible. Over the course of history, artisans who made products by hand have been driven out of the marketplace by mass production methods. They all bemoaned the lack of quality in their competition, and yet today we would not think of buying a handmade car, except as a collector's piece. We would not trust a handmade tool as much as a manufactured one. We would be shocked at the cost if we had to buy entirely handmade clothing and toys for Christmas. So were those artisans looking out for you the consumer? Or were they making a desperate attempt to save themselves? If the public wants to create a new logic for organic food production that encompasses a broader set of values, fine. But as for me I want food that is chemical free but I don't want to pay in order to subsidize someone else's bucolic vision. |
Anonymous
I don't know anything about cows and their second stomachs and PH. I just know what I read in the paper, which may well not be at all true. But it doesn't sound to me ike "tolerance of acidity" is what is making these e coli strains dangerous to humans. Just that it makes dangerous strains of ecoli less likely to be killed off, eiether in the cows stomachs or in our own. Usually, our acid kills the e coli. But if enough e coli develop tolerance to acid, they will not die off in the cows stomachs, and could get passed on to us through the meat (through unsanitary slaughtering processes.) Read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/11/us/shift-in-cow-feed-may-make-beef-safer.html?pagewanted=1
|
Anonymous
RE: Walmart - I'm sure that is true for some brands, but some brands like Stonyfield are legit and you don't have to worry about it. I'm sure Wal-mart also carries Horizon, which I have heard is not as good. But don't assume just because it is Walmart it can't be legit. You just have to do your research. As for canned foods - BPA is a big PR nightmare and it's only a matter of time before they come up with a BPA free can that is mainstream. Think of baby bottles. You can't go in a grocery store in this area and not find a BPA free bottle. In five years that will be even more so. I don't eat a lot of canned goods but I will still eat black beans in a can - it's easier and I'm doing it in moderation. |
Anonymous
The problem with Walmart or Horizon organic milk is not that it's cheap, PP. It's that it is not carefully sourced and tracked and, at least in Horizon's case, it is largely produced on factory farms that may be "organic" in the USDA sense of the word but that have poor standards for animal welfare. The nonprofit Cornucopia Institute carefully studies milk sold as organic and provides full ratings for sourcing and tracing, pasturing, etc.. Cornucopia has also written white papers about Horizon and about Wal-Mart organics. See http://www.cornucopia.org/. Trader Joe's doesn't do too well either. Whole Foods does; their private label milk comes from Organic Valley. You mention the profit motive, and you're right -- but remember that the profit motive is precisely why Wal-Mart got into organics in the first place. Many supposedly small organic labels are owned by large corporations that primarily sell conventional food. The "small producers who run the organic movement" don't really exist, except in the case of the family farms that are part of the Organic Valley co-op. Cornucopia has a chart showing "who owns organic" that is pretty interesting. I personally do like to support small organic farmers rather than Wal-Mart, so I buy Organic Valley. But Horizon and many other organic food companies are by no stretch of the imagination "small producers." OP, if you buy milk from Organic Valley (or the Whole Foods private label, which is produced by Organic Valley), and eggs from OV or Giving Nature or, especially, the progressive pastured eggs, you can feel more confidence about those foods and the conditions under which they were produced. High standards for animal welfare are important not just to the health and safety of animals, but of people as well. |
Anonymous
|
My understanding of the Walmart organic milk debate (which btw affects many other in-store organic milk brands such as Safeway) shows the profit motive behind the organic food movement. Walmart organic milk was derided primarily because it was sold at a much lower price. The way it was attacked was that the cows are fed about 3/4 of the year on grain and about 1/4 of the year on grass. But none of that has anything to do with the organic certification, with which it complied.
Now it's OK if people want to buy milk to support small farmers. And it is also OK if people want to drink milk from grassfed cows, although for me I do not see the point because I drink fat free milk. But that is not what the organic certification is about. Organic certification is about eliminating synthetic compounds from the food supply. If Walmart or Safeway can comply, they are certified organic. Everyone is so quick to suspect Walmart. But really, shouldn't the scrutiny be turned on the small producers that run the organic movement? Walmart drives down prices, which is good for consumers. It means that people of lower incomes could have the ability to buy higher quality milk, and that is a moral good. On the other hand, it's clear that many organic farmers got into the business because they can charge a large premium for their product. They might have gone out of business, and now they make substantial profits. They want to protect those profits at all costs. They do not want you to have a cheaper product, even if it is possible. Over the course of history, artisans who made products by hand have been driven out of the marketplace by mass production methods. They all bemoaned the lack of quality in their competition, and yet today we would not think of buying a handmade car, except as a collector's piece. We would not trust a handmade tool as much as a manufactured one. We would be shocked at the cost if we had to buy entirely handmade clothing and toys for Christmas. So were those artisans looking out for you the consumer? Or were they making a desperate attempt to save themselves? If the public wants to create a new logic for organic food production that encompasses a broader set of values, fine. But as for me I want food that is chemical free but I don't want to pay in order to subsidize someone else's bucolic vision. Re Walmart's organic milk production, here's an account from NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/business/16milk.html?_r=2&oref=slogin Yes, it is chemical free, the cows are eating organically produced grains. But, I didn't say it wasn't organic. I said the organic industry claimed it isn't. I meant that if people chose to shop there they would be voting for this bare bones idea of organic, which is definitely better than traditionally produced milk. But, if you believe in a greater organic movement, there is a "logic for organic food production" that goes beyond only having cows eating majority grains which encompasses greater time pasture roaming and feeding, less crowding, and better conditions for the cows and I would dare say the dairy workers. I would absolutely agree with you that the organic farmers have their own interests, everyone does. But, I would disagree that it is primarily to gouge customers or that it's solely to get rich. I am *guessing* that Walmart makes a bigger profit margin off organics than independent organic farmers do. And, I would respectfully disagree that these small organic farmers and the artisans you mention are definitely "looking out" for me more than Walmart is. (Hello etsy artisans, another favorite of mine.) If they don't look out for me, they lose a job. Walmart doesn't have much to lose because the majority of Americans consider the lowest price as the only benchmark for shopping, and Walmart can deliver that by mass producing goods. Which gets me to your statement that Walmart's lowering of prices is good for consumers. But, at what cost? What about the employee who works there and gets fired for calling in sick? (see momsrising.org) What about the consumers who lose their jobs because it's suddenly been outsourced to China? These consumers shop at Walmart and cannibalize their consumer neighbor. What about the people making the products they sell there who aren't paid a living wage? And, do you know why the Chinese put melamine in their milk? To lower their costs. And, they did that because they can't cost cut on labor, which is already bare bones. Walmart can still cost cut on labor, but when they start buying more organics from China, China will cut the costs by using inferior and illegal materials. Think dog food, toothpaste, drywall, next organics. Sorry, but this topic is food safety and I personally believe that reversing the trend of big box retailers/corporations will help with food safety, but yes, it's more costly. I understand that not everyone has lots of disposable income right now, but in the instances where people do, what if there was a moral obligation to support a "bucolic vision" of fair wages, and small operations over big box corporations. In many parts of Asia and Africa those with money are morally obligated to have household help, to let their money trickle down. Just a different opinion. Sorry, I will get off my Walmart soapbox, I'm just so tired of my well-to-do friends saying they "hate Walmart, but I go there because the toilet paper is cheap." |
Anonymous
|
When you look at why farmer switch to organic production, it is almost exclusively in order to increase their margins. There has been enough news coverage on that to see a pattern. Farmer sees income drying up, farmer switches to organic.
That does not make them bad, but in what other area do we act so trusting of someone who wants to sell us something?. Anywhere else we are so skeptical, which is why we have a saying about it. In this case, the industry is trying to claim that the milk is not "organic" as they see it, even though it complies with the regulations and fits the standard definition of organic. If they or you want it to be a wider movement, that's fine. Lobby to get the definition of organic changed. But while I trust your motives, I bet you dollars to donuts that the industry is complaining because of the price pressure. As for the profit margins, Walmart as a retailer makes very thin profit margins. And they are perfectly willing to provide some high profile goods at their own cost in order to get people in their stores. That is how they became the largest music retailer, because they would rather sell the CD's at cost to get you in the door. And that is why they give fantastic deals on generic prescription drugs. And that is almost certainly why they were willing to price a high profile item like organic milk at a discount. |
Anonymous
That's one possibility, certainly. Another is that it's cheaper because it's poorly sourced. |
Anonymous
|
You guys stress me out!
|
Anonymous
| Where can I Watch this movie? cable, theather? thank you |
Anonymous
We ended up buying it - but I'm sure you can rent it - should be on netflix, in stores, etc. soon if not already. |