[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

I like my meat well done, including beef and would never consider eating it raw. That doesn't mean I don't want the system to produce the cleanest meat it can.

You're not just making excuses because these are Alberta meat plants, are you?

Again, I agree. They should make the best product they can. But don't blame misuse of the product on the product. Whether that product is clothes, cars or meat.

And they are Brazillian meat plants. I don't care where they are located.

[BeaverFever]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your (food) expectations do not meet with reality....I have yet to see any standards that say meat should be free from naturally ocurring bacteria. If you can find some, I would be most grateful.

Well obviously it's meant to be free from E.coli now, isn't it?

$1:

It's not? Why then do we blame people who are driving well above the speed limit, or beyond safe driving conditions for their accident?

This is not an example of a defective product.

$1:

If the car is not designed for crashes over 5kph, then it shouldn't be doing that speed.

If you don't cook your meat, and you get sick from it, it must be Harpers' fault.

Quick, somebody call the governments of the world and let them know every safety standard ever written in the last 100 years should be immediately repealed. From now on, even the most routine and mundane activities can and should result in your death if you have even one second of carelessness or distraction in your busy lives! The way it was meant to be! Accidentally touch something while making hamburger? You and your family deserve to get sick and die! Human error will no longer be tolerated for any reason, there are no small mistakes! Business will no longer be held accountable for failure!

What you don't get is that although properly handling of meat is a precaution you are expected to take, it's not meant to be the one an only line between eating and dying. It's understood that humans, being humans, will not always do everything perfectly every second of their life and people will from time to time accidentally under-cook their food or cross-contaminate. BUT THESE MISTAKES ARE NOT MEANT TO BE DEADLY -- Hence the food safety standards that have been in place for generations.

$1:

Ok, let's go with your analogy just for the sake of discussion. If you know the clothes are flammable, is a marshmallow roast the best activity? That would definitely be high risk. You rightly said 'flame resistant', so if they are up to standards they will not burn for a prescribed length of time; but they will burn. When they burn, is it the standard that's wrong, or the use of the product?

You're still not getting it. How about I assume they're flame resistant because that's what the law requires? Are you saying that if the company is non-compliant with the law and something bad happens its my fault?

$1:

If you know the egg has a high chance of samonella, is eating it raw the best course of action? Since I cannot and have never found any standard for naturally ocurring bacteria - is eating raw poultry an incorrect use of the product, or a failure of standards?


Your Honour, let the record show the defendant wishes to use the 'Because I said so' defense.

Again, you don't get it. You might as well be saying you can't eat raw carrots because you can't eat raw pork. They're different. It's pretty clear that people can and do safely eat raw beef and raw eggs-- in some cultures, they've been doing it for a very long time. It's not the Russian roulette game you're trying to make it out to be. Chicken and pork cannot ever safely be eaten raw. Beef and eggs are safely eaten raw.

Maybe I'll put it this way: E.coli is deadly and therefore not an acceptable risk to consumers and food producers are responsible to deliver meat to the consumer E.coli-free. That's not me talking, that's every food inspection agency on the planet.

And the plants aren't Brazilian, they're still Albertan-owned...for now. They are just being operated by the US subsidiary of a Brazilian company, who may or may not buy the plant at a later date.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your (food) expectations do not meet with reality....I have yet to see any standards that say meat should be free from naturally ocurring bacteria. If you can find some, I would be most grateful.

Well obviously it's meant to be free from E.coli now, isn't it?

Like I said before, e-coli is naturally occurring. How is it meant to be free from a naturally ocurring bacteria?

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

It's not? Why then do we blame people who are driving well above the speed limit, or beyond safe driving conditions for their accident?

This is not an example of a defective product.

Like I said in response to Andy; it is an example of a normally safe product being used incorrectly.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

If the car is not designed for crashes over 5kph, then it shouldn't be doing that speed.

If you don't cook your meat, and you get sick from it, it must be Harpers' fault.

Quick, somebody call the governments of the world and let them know every safety standard ever written in the last 100 years should be immediately repealed. From now on, even the most routine and mundane activities can and should result in your death if you have even one second of carelessness or distraction in your busy lives! The way it was meant to be! Accidentally touch something while making hamburger? You and your family deserve to get sick and die! Human error will no longer be tolerated for any reason, there are no small mistakes! Business will no longer be held accountable for failure!

Overreaction Guy, paging Overreaction Guy! Please pick up a white courtesy phone!

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

What you don't get is that although properly handling of meat is a precaution you are expected to take, it's not meant to be the one an only line between eating and dying. It's understood that humans, being humans, will not always do everything perfectly every second of their life and people will from time to time accidentally under-cook their food or cross-contaminate. BUT THESE MISTAKES ARE NOT MEANT TO BE DEADLY -- Hence the food safety standards that have been in place for generations.

ROFLMAO What food safety has been in place for generations? For generations THERE WAS NO FOOD SAFETY! For example, the French cooking tradition of Charcuterie was legislated because uncooked spoiled pork was killing people, so selling raw pork was outlawed. Fewer people died, but if machinery isn't properly kept you get the Maple Leaf listeriosis outbreak.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Ok, let's go with your analogy just for the sake of discussion. If you know the clothes are flammable, is a marshmallow roast the best activity? That would definitely be high risk. You rightly said 'flame resistant', so if they are up to standards they will not burn for a prescribed length of time; but they will burn. When they burn, is it the standard that's wrong, or the use of the product?

You're still not getting it. How about I assume they're flame resistant because that's what the law requires? Are you saying that if the company is non-compliant with the law and something bad happens its my fault?

If you have to ask 'are you saying...' then I am not. Again, 'Flame resistant' does not mean 'flame proof'. If you are unsure of something, feel free to look up standards, including those that govern 'flame resistance', such as the Nomex standards.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

If you know the egg has a high chance of samonella, is eating it raw the best course of action? Since I cannot and have never found any standard for naturally ocurring bacteria - is eating raw poultry an incorrect use of the product, or a failure of standards?

Your Honour, let the record show the defendant wishes to use the 'Because I said so' defense.

Again, you don't get it. You might as well be saying you can't eat raw carrots because you can't eat raw pork. They're different. It's pretty clear that people can and do safely eat raw beef and raw eggs-- in some cultures, they've been doing it for a very long time. It's not the Russian roulette game you're trying to make it out to be. Chicken and pork cannot ever safely be eaten raw. Beef and eggs are safely eaten raw.

Maybe I'll put it this way: E.coli is deadly and therefore not an acceptable risk to consumers and food producers are responsible to deliver meat to the consumer E.coli-free. That's not me talking, that's every food inspection agency on the planet.

You should also look up the difference between traditional small farms and Western Factory farming. We accept things here that many parts of the world do not. If you can find Canadian or even North American standards as to samonella in poultry and e-coli in beef, I'd like to read it. Hint: carrots do not naturally have e-coli. They have to pick it up from poorly maintained machinery.

And if you want to eat raw eggs, knock yourself out. I don't wish the concequences of eating a bad factory farm egg on anybody. For things like Mayonnaise and Aiole, I make sure to get organic free range eggs.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

And the plants aren't Brazilian, they're still Albertan-owned...for now. They are just being operated by the US subsidiary of a Brazilian company, who may or may not buy the plant at a later date.

I live in Alberta. I know what it means when they say 'has an option to purchase. . .' - that they are already bankrupt and the sale is a foregone conclusion unless the plant is not profitable. Then they will be liquidated.

[Xort]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Pouring thousands of kilograms into the landfill isn't going to help either. There was an opportunity to do SOME good here; not as much good as we'd prefer, I'll grant you, but some good nonetheless.

Millions not thousands.

[Jonny_C]

The original post shows that "tweeting" has simply made it possible for people to make stupid comments instantly.

I've lost count of how many times now I've heard of people apologizing for tweets.

[Thanos]

Politicians should know better by now how the internet can come back and bite them on the ass when things like a Twitter comment goes wrong. Not that it's a huge gaffe on Smith's part, but still.

Just another comment. Not that I'm overly sentimental over the fate of a steer, but this loss of product is also a huge wastage of animal life. It's not like it's on the same level as the last of the wolves or grizzlies getting wiped out by some asshole poachers, but it's still ethically disturbing that thanks to the laziness or "hurry! hurry! hurry!" attitude at XL the lives of probably hundreds (or thousands) of these animals were basically taken for nothing. Toss in the amount of money the ranchers that raised them had to spend until they were fit to go to market and the whole episode, thanks to XL, has been an uglier-than-usual exercise in futility. Were I more superstitious I'd say that some kind of karmic comeuppance is sort of overdue for the individuals responsible for this kind of rather horrifying waste.

[DrCaleb]

Agree with ^^. Waste of life.

But, the worst part for me is now thousands of animals have had to stand in those disgusting feedlots for a month waiting to be next.

[BeaverFever]

So let's get back to basics rather than continuing the line-by-line debate.

Basically, the laws and standards that have been in place to date, here and in the US, Europe and every other industrialized country, don't agree with your interpretation as they do not allow meat packers to sell or distribute meat contaminated with E.Coli. And appartenly, meat packers are able to comply with these requirements(at least most of the time).

You should start an international campaign if you want to move to a new model.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And farmers will tell you, feeding corn to a ruminant is the first mistake, and once we stop doing that, we'll tackle this problem big time.

That's interesting. why's that?

Also, what sound does it make when you pull the spine out of a cow.

[BeaverFever]

Wikipedia Wikipedia:

This is because feeding grain to cattle makes their normally pH-neutral digestive tract abnormally acidic; over time, the pathogenic E. coli becomes acid-resistant.[25] If humans ingest this acid-resistant E. coli via grain-feed beef, a large number of them may survive past the stomach, causing an infection.[26] A study by the USDA Meat and Animal Research Center in Lincoln Nebraska (2000) has confirmed the Cornell research.[27]

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So let's get back to basics rather than continuing the line-by-line debate.

Basically, the laws and standards that have been in place to date, here and in the US, Europe and every other industrialized country, don't agree with your interpretation as they do not allow meat packers to sell or distribute meat contaminated with E.Coli. And appartenly, meat packers are able to comply with these requirements(at least most of the time).

You should start an international campaign if you want to move to a new model.

They encourage meat packers to produce bacteria free meats, but no where in the regulations do they offer 100% effectivness. If we want to remain safe, we must assume there is still the possibility that harmful bacteria exist, and cook meat thoroughly (or cure it to remove bacteria) using a thermometer to be 100% sure.

Or outlaw the big packers, and go back to the small abbatoir and butcher shop models. This is the model that I vote for, with my wallet.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And farmers will tell you, feeding corn to a ruminant is the first mistake, and once we stop doing that, we'll tackle this problem big time.

That's interesting. why's that?

Also, what sound does it make when you pull the spine out of a cow.

What Beaverfever said ^^. I was also told by a Vet that Corn has a high "glycemic index", meaning it raises your blood sugar. The e-coli bacteria also feed off that sugar and multiply faster.

You don't pull the spine out of a cow, it's left in and cut in half with a saw - usually a reciprocating or large bandsaw. Back in the day anyhow, I couldn't really hear it. When I'm out hunting, I use a rip saw to quarter moose and elk, and it's kind of like sawing dirty hardwood. Almost like cutting patio blocks, but more soft and chalky.

[BeaverFever]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So let's get back to basics rather than continuing the line-by-line debate.

Basically, the laws and standards that have been in place to date, here and in the US, Europe and every other industrialized country, don't agree with your interpretation as they do not allow meat packers to sell or distribute meat contaminated with E.Coli. And appartenly, meat packers are able to comply with these requirements(at least most of the time).

You should start an international campaign if you want to move to a new model.

They encourage meat packers to produce bacteria free meats, but no where in the regulations do they offer 100% effectivness. If we want to remain safe, we must assume there is still the possibility that harmful bacteria exist, and cook meat thoroughly (or cure it to remove bacteria) using a thermometer to be 100% sure.

Or outlaw the big packers, and go back to the small abbatoir and butcher shop models. This is the model that I vote for, with my wallet.

But as I said, there has always been a requirement against producing E.Coli-free meat, this isn't someting new. And even the beef industry itself has always said consumers can have confidence that their product is safe e.coli.

To quote a recent Globe and Mail peice on the subject (added emphasis mine):

$1:

The appropriate public policy response to this problem should be to crack down on tenderizing – get rid of it as an industrial process, step up inspections at plants that use this machinery, and penalize producers whose products poison consumers.

Instead, we see the burden shifted to consumers. Of course, we should all practise safe food handling, but that should be in addition to inspection and testing at the source, not instead of it.

It is all well and good to suggest that extra precautions are required when dealing with mechanically tenderized beef, but there is no way for consumers to identify these products, such as mandatory labelling.

There needs to be some modicum of public-health standards for food, especially since, when you manufacture food on a large scale, if things go wrong, they tend to do so on a large scale.

Consumers should not be responsible for cooking their meat to death to kill E.coli any more than they should be responsible for pasteurizing their own milk or boiling their tap water before drinking it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/when-it-comes-to-food-safety-why-is-ottawa-letting-us-fend-for-ourselves/article4629504/


And besides most food poisoning doesn't come from eating under-cooked food, but from contamination of other surfaces during food preparation (e.g. kitchen counter, cutting board or a utensil while making meatballs) and therefore your "just cook it" argument doesn't address the risk. Sure, people need to handle food properly but we're humans, not robots and it is inevitable that while cooking, in the flash of just one second, we are very likely to grab the wrong utensil or touch the wrong surface without even realizing it. I even watched an episode of Marketplace not long ago, where they took two chefs into a kitchen then went through with a black light after to show where these trained processionals cross-contaminated surfaces after handling raw chicken. That show was about the meat industry using your "just cook it right" excuse on the subject of antibiotic-resistant salmonella in chicken.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

But as I said, there has always been a requirement against producing E.Coli-free meat, this isn't someting new. And even the beef industry itself has always said consumers can have confidence that their product is safe e.coli.

To quote a recent Globe and Mail peice on the subject (added emphasis mine):

$1:

Consumers should not be responsible for cooking their meat to death to kill E.coli any more than they should be responsible for pasteurizing their own milk or boiling their tap water before drinking it.

I don't disagree with you. I would love to be able to buy bean sprouts again, if I though there was either no risk to my health, or that I could prepare them in a way that negates any bacteria that might be on them. I just don't trust the big farm method of mass production.

I think it's just a philisophical difference between us. You assume that people always do their jobs correctly in preparing the things we eat, where I know that shortcuts and laziness and just plain assholery abound. So I assume if I want to ensure my food is safe, I need to make it safe.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

And besides most food poisoning doesn't come from eating under-cooked food, but from contamination of other surfaces during food preparation (e.g. kitchen counter, cutting board or a utensil while making meatballs) and therefore your "just cook it" argument doesn't address the risk. Sure, people need to handle food properly but we're humans, not robots and it is inevitable that while cooking, in the flash of just one second, we are very likely to grab the wrong utensil or touch the wrong surface without even realizing it. I even watched an episode of Marketplace not long ago, where they took two chefs into a kitchen then went through with a black light after to show where these trained processionals cross-contaminated surfaces after handling raw chicken. That show was about the meat industry using your "just cook it right" excuse on the subject of antibiotic-resistant salmonella in chicken.

Again, I totally agree. Food safety is extremely lax. I had the good fortune of being in a school that thought Home Economics, and guys were all required to attend it - something rare back-in-the-day. And the teacher was a food safety nut!

I always prepare vegetables first, meat second. I have a multitude of stainless bowls just for the purpose of holding food that is prepped aka:"mis en place". This reduces the risk of cross contamination, but won't help if the surface of the meat still has some bacteria somewhere.

Going back to my original thought, the only way to be sure about many store bought products is to cook it to the point that the bacteria die. That doesn't mean cooking it till it's cremated, or even to the point where it's turning tough. 65C and 75C aren't that high a temperature, and thats where I encourage the use of a thermometer. You kill the bacteria, and the food is still tender.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

I think it's just a philisophical difference between us. You assume that people always do their jobs correctly in preparing the things we eat, where I know that shortcuts and laziness and just plain assholery abound. So I assume if I want to ensure my food is safe, I need to make it safe.

Haha no I don't assume that. I think they should do their jobs properly, not that they always actually do it properly. But I'm fighting the good fight. You see, I feel that if we all subscribe to what you're proposing, we let the food producers off the hook from their current responsibility and what is now viewed as a failure on their part will become socially accpeted as the norm and then whats the point of inspectors, it's all buyer beware.

And as I said, though we should all practise food handling safety and you should be commended for your dedication to it, the reality of human error means that our government policy should not and cannot be to simply rely on the attentiveness of the indivudal consumer as the one and only line of defence. The food safety system needs redundencies. Handling food is a routine daily activity practiced by virtually 100% of the population. People can and will make mistakes while handling food; ooften they will never even realize they made the misatake, even after they get sick, and even if food safety adverts run on TV around the clock.