Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How safe is your fresh foods at the supermarket or restaurant??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    Haven't been sick from eating food in over 70 years. Why worry now?
    Just thinking about yourself again?

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
    Considering what part of the chicken the egg comes out of and you will see the scope of the contamination issue especially with caged factory farm chickens.
    And you'd be wrong. The egg is contaminated when it is formed within the chicken and the yolk contains the salmonella as this is present within the chicken. The shell protects the content of the egg from contamination at the point of laying. Battery hens are prone to being infected with the virus because of the crowded nature of their confinement means that one hen quickly infects all the rest. Broiler hens can be similarly infected and therefore eating under cooked chicken is not a good idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    In 1988 British cabinet minister Edwina Currie made a statement about most egg producing flocks of hens being contaminated with Salmonella. There was uproar, egg consumption fell by over 60% and the farming lobby, the opposition parties and much of the media were calling for her head. She was forced to resign. In 2001 it was revealed that a suppressed civil service report had stated that there had been "a salmonella epidemic of considerable proportions"
    Considering what part of the chicken the egg comes out of and you will see the scope of the contamination issue especially with caged factory farm chickens.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    In 1988 British cabinet minister Edwina Currie made a statement about most egg producing flocks of hens being contaminated with Salmonella. There was uproar, egg consumption fell by over 60% and the farming lobby, the opposition parties and much of the media were calling for her head. She was forced to resign. In 2001 it was revealed that a suppressed civil service report had stated that there had been "a salmonella epidemic of considerable proportions"

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    There has been a severe shortage of food inspectors for decades. "Inspection" has become an oxymoron.
    As evident by the increasing number of recalls for produce and other products found to be contaminated with e-coli and listeria after they have been packaged and in some cases sold.

    As it is impossible to prevent birds from contaminating fruits and leafy vegetables with their germ laden droppings, the only recourse the processors have is to wash and sanitize their product as much as possible without making it taste like sanitizer. It is a fine balance between taste and germ free. Once placed on the shelf, unless sealed in plastic which can also cause shelf life issues, produce is totally exposed to handling by the germ laden public and their even more germ laden spoiled brat kids.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    There has been a severe shortage of food inspectors for decades. "Inspection" has become an oxymoron.

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    He was caught. They just didn't have enough evidence to try him for the murders, so they tried him for extortion.
    He was likely a copycat looking for instant money of which they had the solid evidence to convict him on extortion.

    Even if he was the one, or never actually tampered with the product, that person got away with murder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
    How quickly people forgot about this;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders
    The Terrorist responsible was never caught.

    The results is the overkill seen on product packaging today in an effort to make them tamper resistant.
    He was caught. They just didn't have enough evidence to try him for the murders, so they tried him for extortion.

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    All the precautions, testing, inspections, that are conducted to the nth degree to protect our food supplies and make sure that no harmful levels of anything are present become meaningless when some nut case can run through the food centers poisoning the produce as he goes for days on end.

    (Note, he was finally caught via a security camera that recorded him doing the dirty deed.)

    How quickly people forgot about this;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders
    The Terrorist responsible was never caught.

    The results is the overkill seen on product packaging today in an effort to make them tamper resistant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsar
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    You're guessing, in other words you don't know. I wish not to guess on matters this serious. How much arsenic am I consuming if there's a lot of chicken in my diet? How safe are these trace amounts in young children? Why is chicken being linked to increased risk of cancer if the amounts present are safe?

    Regardless of the amount present, what's the point in taking the risk in the first place? Just for marketing purposes to artificially make the chicken look better? Is that worth it to you?

    Arsenic is not the only thing being put into our chicken, there's also prozac, hormones and other detrimental chemicals.
    So, don’t eat chicken. See problem solved.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    You're guessing, in other words you don't know. I wish not to guess on matters this serious. How much arsenic am I consuming if there's a lot of chicken in my diet? How safe are these trace amounts in young children? Why is chicken being linked to increased risk of cancer if the amounts present are safe?

    Regardless of the amount present, what's the point in taking the risk in the first place? Just for marketing purposes to artificially make the chicken look better? Is that worth it to you?

    Arsenic is not the only thing being put into our chicken, there's also prozac, hormones and other detrimental chemicals.
    I'm basing that on the actual regulatory limits for arsenic in stuff the FDA and other government agencies have set.

    The limit in drinking water is 10 ppb. It used to be 15. 15 is nearly irrelevant and 10 just made drinking water more expensive for no discernable health benefits.

    The limit in food for organic arsenic is about 20 to 100 ppb depending on the food item. Again, that's so low as to be irrelevant. You need to be ingesting 100 to 1000 times that amount for decades to have a serious risk of health issues from it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/he...-fda.html?_r=0

    http://www.webmd.com/children/news/2...nt-rice-cereal

    I see your response as typical of scientific illiterates. Nothing personal there, you may not be, but if you won't look up the specs and know at least a minimum about the danger you will be ill-informed by the media when they publish articles like the original one. That's because journalists are almost uniformly scientific illiterates.

    Just because someone publishes and article doesn't make them knowledgeable or correct on the subject matter. There's a trade off going on here. "All natural" isn't always "better." Miniscule amounts of something (like a few ppb of arsenic) generally are not going to cause health problems for you and even if they do, it will take decades to manifest itself. You have far greater health issues to worry about than a few ppb of some heavy metal.

    When I read an article like the one in the OP, my very first thought is What are the numbers involved? What are the actual measurements? I could get a very sensitive radiac to measure radiation and run it over chicken samples. I bet I would find extremely low levels of radioactivity too. After all, there are radioactive isotopes in most organic matter, like Carbon 18...
    Then I could write an article saying "Radioactivity found in chicken meat!" I wouldn't bother to give the readings, just say something like "Out of 100 samples using sensitive detection equipment, researchers found that radioactivity is present in chicken meat."

    Now, for the scientific illiterate they'd stop buying chicken meat or demand the government do something about this horrible situation. Doesn't matter it's all utter BS I invented using a minimum of facts and a maximum of buzzwords to create hysteria.

    That's why the actual measurements are important and knowing something about what they mean. That way you can make an informed decision rather than let idiots rule your life.

    As for this:

    Regardless of the amount present, what's the point in taking the risk in the first place? Just for marketing purposes to artificially make the chicken look better? Is that worth it to you?
    In my view, safety comes second. Results are more important than safety. If utterly, completely safe chicken cost $20 a pound, I'll take it the way it is now thank you. The difference between 99.8% safe and 100% safe in my view is almost always totally irrelevant.
    I don't mind some risk in my life. I don't want to be 100% safe. That's boring. So, the risk is worth far more to me both in terms of my quality of life (I get to eat the animal of my choice at a reasonable price, and I'm not going to die of that in the next month or two) than the added safety of making the product so safe but expensive I can't afford to enjoy it.
    Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 06 May 16, 18:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I went through the links in the top article looking for one that gave an actual measurement of the level of arsenic present. The FDA's own article on it says this:



    http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/.../ucm257540.htm

    Well, how friggin' useless is that statement? No mention of the level beyond using an analytical method capable of detecting very low levels of inorganic arsenic in edible tissue.

    My guess is that it's a few ppb (Parts Per Billion). That means the measured levels are totally irrelevant to you %*^@ health! Worse, that low a level could be gotten from a number of other sources as well.

    It's a case of panic over nothing. Yes, you can be too safe.
    You're guessing, in other words you don't know. I wish not to guess on matters this serious. How much arsenic am I consuming if there's a lot of chicken in my diet? How safe are these trace amounts in young children? Why is chicken being linked to increased risk of cancer if the amounts present are safe?

    Regardless of the amount present, what's the point in taking the risk in the first place? Just for marketing purposes to artificially make the chicken look better? Is that worth it to you?

    Arsenic is not the only thing being put into our chicken, there's also prozac, hormones and other detrimental chemicals.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    http://www.msn.com/en-ca/foodanddrin...nic/ar-AA8cWca





    http://nutritionfacts.org/2016/01/26...ns-fed-prozac/

    Undeniably our agriculture industry and their lobbyist have done far more harm. Yet, we rather politicize some wack job while excusing criminal behavior when it involves big business.
    I went through the links in the top article looking for one that gave an actual measurement of the level of arsenic present. The FDA's own article on it says this:

    In response, scientists from the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine and the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition developed an analytical method capable of detecting very low levels of inorganic arsenic in edible tissue.

    Using the new method, FDA scientists found that the levels of inorganic arsenic in the livers of chickens treated with 3-Nitro® were increased relative to levels in the livers of the untreated control chickens.
    http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/.../ucm257540.htm

    Well, how friggin' useless is that statement? No mention of the level beyond using an analytical method capable of detecting very low levels of inorganic arsenic in edible tissue.

    My guess is that it's a few ppb (Parts Per Billion). That means the measured levels are totally irrelevant to you %*^@ health! Worse, that low a level could be gotten from a number of other sources as well.

    It's a case of panic over nothing. Yes, you can be too safe.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    FDA has finally confirmed that chicken meat sold in the USA contains arsenic, my head, and stomach, nearly hit the roof. This cancer-causing toxic chemical, that in high doses could kill you, is actually being added to chicken feed on purpose, giving store-bought chicken the illusion of healthy coloring and plump appearance. Shockingly, this is the case with more than 70 percent of all U.S. chickens! That is just awful!
    http://www.msn.com/en-ca/foodanddrin...nic/ar-AA8cWca

    Although it was shown to be a human carcinogen in 1971, DES used in meat production was not completely banned until 1979. (Now, the meat industry just uses different synthetic estrogen implants.)
    The drugs fed to chickens are one reason used to explain why poultry has been tied to increased cancer risk. See Chicken Dioxins, Viruses, or Antibiotics?.

    The most concerning drugs currently in the U.S. poultry supply are the antibiotics, though.
    http://nutritionfacts.org/2016/01/26...ns-fed-prozac/

    Undeniably our agriculture industry and their lobbyist have done far more harm. Yet, we rather politicize some wack job while excusing criminal behavior when it involves big business.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Compared to just 75 years ago, food today is incredibly safe. Show some perspective.

    How safe is safe enough? How much are you willing to spend to be safe? How many people are you willing to see have their lives diminished or even ruined by an excessive level and cost of safety?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X