Discussion:
Consumer Reports: Mechanically tenderized beef increase risk of food poisoning for those who like their steaks medium-rare or rare
(too old to reply)
Peter Lawrence
2013-07-09 16:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically tenderizing
beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well inside a steak and
hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for those who prefer their
steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E. Coli outbreaks have been traced
to this practice including one fatality:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm


- Peter
sf
2013-07-09 17:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically tenderizing
beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well inside a steak and
hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for those who prefer their
steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E. Coli outbreaks have been traced
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
Aren't mechanically tenderized steaks (aka: cube steaks) usually
cooked thoroughly? IME, they're tough as shoe leather unless they are
braised for 45-60 minutes - which should be long enough to kill the
bacteria. If it isn't, then your beloved big business needs to
improve their practices to not sicken or kill off their customer base.
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
Peter Lawrence
2013-07-09 17:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by sf
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically tenderizing
beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well inside a steak and
hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for those who prefer their
steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E. Coli outbreaks have been traced
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
Aren't mechanically tenderized steaks (aka: cube steaks) usually
cooked thoroughly? IME, they're tough as shoe leather unless they are
braised for 45-60 minutes - which should be long enough to kill the
bacteria. If it isn't, then your beloved big business needs to
improve their practices to not sicken or kill off their customer base.
Steak cuts, like New York steaks, are also mechanically tenderized, not just
traditionally "tough cuts".


- Peter
sf
2013-07-09 18:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by sf
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically tenderizing
beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well inside a steak and
hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for those who prefer their
steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E. Coli outbreaks have been traced
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
Aren't mechanically tenderized steaks (aka: cube steaks) usually
cooked thoroughly? IME, they're tough as shoe leather unless they are
braised for 45-60 minutes - which should be long enough to kill the
bacteria. If it isn't, then your beloved big business needs to
improve their practices to not sicken or kill off their customer base.
Steak cuts, like New York steaks, are also mechanically tenderized, not just
traditionally "tough cuts".
I haven't seen that.
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
s***@gmail.com
2013-07-09 20:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by sf
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically tenderizing
beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well inside a steak and
hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for those who prefer their
steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E. Coli outbreaks have been traced
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
Aren't mechanically tenderized steaks (aka: cube steaks) usually
cooked thoroughly? IME, they're tough as shoe leather unless they are
braised for 45-60 minutes - which should be long enough to kill the
bacteria. If it isn't, then your beloved big business needs to
improve their practices to not sicken or kill off their customer base.
Steak cuts, like New York steaks, are also mechanically tenderized, not just
traditionally "tough cuts".
That would suck.

I have seen cubesteak, but the purpose of NY strip is to be thick.
Sqwertz
2013-07-09 18:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically tenderizing
beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well inside a steak and
hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for those who prefer their
steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E. Coli outbreaks have been traced
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
I'm really surprised to see that CostCo uses the blades on New York
Strips. It should not be needed, especially on USDA Choice steaks
(the label they picture doesn't indicate a grade but I think all
Costcos are >= Choice)

The steaks that I know have undergone that treatment have that slight
"ground beef" taste and I only expect that treatment on my skirt
steaks. If you look closely you CAN see the blade tenderization by
spreading the beef fibers on the surface of the meat or especially on
the fat cap/trim.

-sw
Ciccio
2013-07-09 19:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically
tenderizing beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well
inside a steak and hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for
those who prefer their steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E.
Coli outbreaks have been traced to this practice including one
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been
-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
For decades and, at least, 200+ instances, when I've made braciole I've had
the butchers run round steaks through the tenderizer/blades twice. I've
never measured the internal temperature, but my cooking routine when I make
them is to brown them and then let them braise/simmer in the sauce about 3-
4 hours. Nobody who has ever eaten them has ever complained, except for
eating too much and being too full.:-)

Ciccio
sf
2013-07-09 21:06:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:37:01 +0000 (UTC), Ciccio
Post by Ciccio
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically
tenderizing beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well
inside a steak and hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for
those who prefer their steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E.
Coli outbreaks have been traced to this practice including one
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been
-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
For decades and, at least, 200+ instances, when I've made braciole I've had
the butchers run round steaks through the tenderizer/blades twice. I've
never measured the internal temperature, but my cooking routine when I make
them is to brown them and then let them braise/simmer in the sauce about 3-
4 hours. Nobody who has ever eaten them has ever complained, except for
eating too much and being too full.:-)
Where do you buy round steaks these days? I haven't seen one in years
and thought it was being turned into hamburger. I don't even see top
or bottom round, but that would be easier to miss if you're not
looking for it specifically.
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
Ciccio
2013-07-09 21:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by sf
Where do you buy round steaks these days? I haven't seen one in years
and thought it was being turned into hamburger. I don't even see top
or bottom round, but that would be easier to miss if you're not
looking for it specifically.
I find both top and bottom round in Gene's and/or Raley's. I don't know
about Safeway as I have ignored Safeway's meats for 20+ years, unless a
Super-Duper sale on some butcher item catches my eye and even then...

Ciccio
Sqwertz
2013-07-10 03:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ciccio
Post by sf
Where do you buy round steaks these days? I haven't seen one in years
and thought it was being turned into hamburger. I don't even see top
or bottom round, but that would be easier to miss if you're not
looking for it specifically.
I find both top and bottom round in Gene's and/or Raley's. I don't know
about Safeway as I have ignored Safeway's meats for 20+ years, unless a
Super-Duper sale on some butcher item catches my eye and even then...
Top round, especially, is disguised as London broil, rump roast, tip
roast, eye of round, or my favorite - hardly ever seen at restaurants
any more - a Barron of Beef.

-sw
sf
2013-07-10 05:09:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 21:42:51 +0000 (UTC), Ciccio
Post by Ciccio
Post by sf
Where do you buy round steaks these days? I haven't seen one in years
and thought it was being turned into hamburger. I don't even see top
or bottom round, but that would be easier to miss if you're not
looking for it specifically.
I find both top and bottom round in Gene's and/or Raley's. I don't know
about Safeway as I have ignored Safeway's meats for 20+ years, unless a
Super-Duper sale on some butcher item catches my eye and even then...
Okay, thanks. No Raley's here and I've never heard of Gene's.
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
Peter Lawrence
2013-07-10 08:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by sf
Okay, thanks. No Raley's here and I've never heard of Gene's.
Correct. There is no Raley's, Nob Hill or Bel Air supermarkets (they're all
the same chain) in or near San Francisco.

The two closest stores to you would be the Nob Hill Foods store located in
Redwood Shores (Redwood City) on Redwood Shores Blvd. It's conveniently
located just off of Hwy 101 (Holly Ave/Redwood Shores Blvd Exit) or the Nob
Hill Foods located in Alameda. There's also a Nob Hills Food in Mountain
View (near Hwy 85 and Hwy 237).


- Peter
Ciccio
2013-07-10 17:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by sf
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 21:42:51 +0000 (UTC), Ciccio
Post by Ciccio
Post by sf
Where do you buy round steaks these days? I haven't seen one in years
and thought it was being turned into hamburger. I don't even see top
or bottom round, but that would be easier to miss if you're not
looking for it specifically.
I find both top and bottom round in Gene's and/or Raley's. I don't know
about Safeway as I have ignored Safeway's meats for 20+ years, unless a
Super-Duper sale on some butcher item catches my eye and even then...
Okay, thanks. No Raley's here and I've never heard of Gene's.
You probably don't know of Gene's Fine Foods as, I believe, its only two
store are in Saratoga and Pleasanton.

I'm sure many places have round steak besides Raley's and Gene's. It may
not catch your eye because it's often marketed by different names, e.g.,
London broil, round roast, butterball steak, rump roast, just off the top
of my head.



Ciccio
s***@gmail.com
2013-07-10 18:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ciccio
I'm sure many places have round steak besides Raley's and Gene's. It may
not catch your eye because it's often marketed by different names, e.g.,
London broil, round roast, butterball steak, rump roast, just off the top
of my head.
One thing I don't remember seeing for years is the classic round steak, with the slice of round bone with the savory nugget of marrow inside.
sf
2013-07-10 20:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Ciccio
I'm sure many places have round steak besides Raley's and Gene's. It may
not catch your eye because it's often marketed by different names, e.g.,
London broil, round roast, butterball steak, rump roast, just off the top
of my head.
One thing I don't remember seeing for years is the classic round steak, with the slice of round bone with the savory nugget of marrow inside.
That's exactly what I was talking about. Thanks.
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
sf
2013-07-10 20:40:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:28:36 +0000 (UTC), Ciccio
Post by Ciccio
I'm sure many places have round steak besides Raley's and Gene's. It may
not catch your eye because it's often marketed by different names, e.g.,
London broil, round roast, butterball steak, rump roast, just off the top
of my head.
That could be the problem. I also remember round steak having a round
bone, which is something I just don't see anymore.
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
Al Eisner
2013-07-10 00:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ciccio
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically
tenderizing beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well
inside a steak and hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for
those who prefer their steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E.
Coli outbreaks have been traced to this practice including one
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been
-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
For decades and, at least, 200+ instances, when I've made braciole I've had
the butchers run round steaks through the tenderizer/blades twice. I've
never measured the internal temperature, but my cooking routine when I make
them is to brown them and then let them braise/simmer in the sauce about 3-
4 hours. Nobody who has ever eaten them has ever complained, except for
eating too much and being too full.:-)
Ciccio
It seems highly unlikely that beef braised for four hours would have
a bacteria problem, regardless of the initial treatment. Right?
--
Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA
Steve Pope
2013-07-10 00:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Eisner
It seems highly unlikely that beef braised for four hours would have
a bacteria problem, regardless of the initial treatment. Right?
Depends on the bacteria -- I'm guessing some spore-forming bacteria could
survive braising levels of heat.

Steve
Pico Rico
2013-07-10 00:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Pope
Post by Al Eisner
It seems highly unlikely that beef braised for four hours would have
a bacteria problem, regardless of the initial treatment. Right?
Depends on the bacteria -- I'm guessing some spore-forming bacteria could
survive braising levels of heat.
Steve
"survive" is vastly different than multiplying.
Ciccio
2013-07-10 01:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Eisner
It seems highly unlikely that beef braised for four hours would have
a bacteria problem, regardless of the initial treatment. Right?
I don't know. Maybe for the of heck it, the next time I make braciole, I'll
measure its internal temperature.

Ciccio
evergene
2013-07-11 01:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Eisner
It seems highly unlikely that beef braised for four hours would have
a bacteria problem, regardless of the initial treatment. Right?
From the CR article on ground turkey:
"Although the bacteria we found are killed by thorough cooking, they
can produce toxins that may not be destroyed by heat."

Sounds to me like the safest meat is meat from low-volume producers
who spend the time and money it takes to process meat properly.
Unfortunately that meat will be more expensive than factory meat.
Pico Rico
2013-07-11 01:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by evergene
Post by Al Eisner
It seems highly unlikely that beef braised for four hours would have
a bacteria problem, regardless of the initial treatment. Right?
"Although the bacteria we found are killed by thorough cooking, they
can produce toxins that may not be destroyed by heat."
even braising at low temp would get the product to a high enough temp soon
enough to prevent the bacteria from growing and producing the toxins. this
CR statement is very misleading. Sure, you could put the meat/bacteria in
an incubator to produce globs of toxins, then cook the meat and kill the
bacteria and leave the toxins, but who does this?
Tim May
2013-07-11 06:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by evergene
Post by Al Eisner
It seems highly unlikely that beef braised for four hours would have
a bacteria problem, regardless of the initial treatment. Right?
"Although the bacteria we found are killed by thorough cooking, they
can produce toxins that may not be destroyed by heat."
Sounds to me like the safest meat is meat from low-volume producers
who spend the time and money it takes to process meat properly.
Unfortunately that meat will be more expensive than factory meat.
I priced meat today at a farmers market in Santa Cruz, and it started
at $12.99 a pound and went up from there.

Sorry, I'll take my chances at meat that is half this in price. It
hasn't killed me yet.
--
Tim May
Al Eisner
2013-07-12 23:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by evergene
Post by Al Eisner
It seems highly unlikely that beef braised for four hours would have
a bacteria problem, regardless of the initial treatment. Right?
"Although the bacteria we found are killed by thorough cooking, they
can produce toxins that may not be destroyed by heat."
Is it saying that this problem results from tenderizing methods moving
bacteria to the interior of the meat? Why wouldn't they produce toxins
at the surface as well? And does the article imply that one should
never consume hamburgers less than well done?
Post by evergene
Sounds to me like the safest meat is meat from low-volume producers
who spend the time and money it takes to process meat properly.
Unfortunately that meat will be more expensive than factory meat.
Vegetarianism is another solution.
--
Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA
evergene
2013-07-09 22:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically tenderizing
beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well inside a steak and
hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for those who prefer their
steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E. Coli outbreaks have been traced
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
- Peter
Thanks for posting those two links to Consumer Reports. Interesting
that Whole Foods claims that they don't sell any mechanically
tenderized beef. I wonder if that's true.

Funny thing about Costco policy, as quoted in the CR article, is that
"all of its beef is tenderized by machines except for filets and flank
steaks." The way I read that, cuts that shouldn't need to be
tenderized, e.g. strip steak, rib eye, etc., are given the blade
treatment, but flank steak, which is fairly chewy and might benefit
from the blades, is not.

I wonder about mid-range butchers like Guerra and Drewes, high-end
butchers like Avedano's. My guess is that Avedano's' beef isn't
mechanically tenderized. It had better not be, given their prices, and
their meat manifesto:
"We cut all of our meat the old-fashioned way, with a handsaw, a meat
cleaver, and a boning knife. All of our choice cuts come from
responsibly raised, hormone,steroid, and antibiotic free animals.
Every week we procure and butcher whole grass-fed lambs, two heritage
breed pigs, and we get a side of grass fed beef from one of our few
handpicked local ranches"
sf
2013-07-10 05:13:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 15:34:48 -0700, evergene
Post by evergene
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically tenderizing
beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well inside a steak and
hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for those who prefer their
steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E. Coli outbreaks have been traced
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
- Peter
Thanks for posting those two links to Consumer Reports. Interesting
that Whole Foods claims that they don't sell any mechanically
tenderized beef. I wonder if that's true.
Funny thing about Costco policy, as quoted in the CR article, is that
"all of its beef is tenderized by machines except for filets and flank
steaks." The way I read that, cuts that shouldn't need to be
tenderized, e.g. strip steak, rib eye, etc., are given the blade
treatment, but flank steak, which is fairly chewy and might benefit
from the blades, is not.
Wouldn't it be obvious if a piece of meat is tenderized by machines?
Post by evergene
I wonder about mid-range butchers like Guerra and Drewes, high-end
butchers like Avedano's. My guess is that Avedano's' beef isn't
mechanically tenderized.
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
evergene
2013-07-10 14:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by sf
Wouldn't it be obvious if a piece of meat is tenderized by machines?
I would have thought so, but the CR beef article says:
"Because obvious marks aren’t left by the small needles or blades
used, you can’t tell by looking at a piece of meat whether it has been
mechanically tenderized. And no labeling is required to let you know
that it has and therefore must be cooked more thoroughly."
sf
2013-07-10 20:42:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:34:17 -0700, evergene
Post by evergene
Post by sf
Wouldn't it be obvious if a piece of meat is tenderized by machines?
"Because obvious marks aren’t left by the small needles or blades
used, you can’t tell by looking at a piece of meat whether it has been
mechanically tenderized. And no labeling is required to let you know
that it has and therefore must be cooked more thoroughly."
That's really scary news. I wonder why labeling isn't required? How
many people have to get sick and die first?
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
Peter Lawrence
2013-07-10 22:04:59 UTC
Permalink
How many people have to get sick and die first?
At least more than one needs to die, it seems. :(


- Peter
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-10 22:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
At least more than one needs to die, it seems. :(
The stupidest part of this is if you're going to cook your beef
well done, you can cook it all the way until tender (braise, etc.),
so it doesn't *need* tenderizing! That's only useful for quick
cooking methods.

I believe one ought to be able to tell by examining with one's
fingers, but that isn't much help in the store.

Food continues to divide further into the two categories of
expensive & crap, with vanishing options otherwise....
evergene
2013-07-10 23:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Food continues to divide further into the two categories of
expensive & crap, with vanishing options otherwise....
One might almost make an analogy with wealth distribution and the
vanishing middle class.
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-10 23:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by evergene
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Food continues to divide further into the two categories of
expensive & crap, with vanishing options otherwise....
One might almost make an analogy with wealth distribution and the
vanishing middle class.
I've never liked "middle class" laments or orientations, because
for one thing, they suggest that some people deserve bad treatment.
However, there's no real doubt that these issues arise from the
same forces of change.

To reframe my "middle class" remark in this context, I have the
following preference: All food should be quality food, and it
should be available to all.
pfraser
2013-07-11 00:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
All food should be quality food, and it
should be available to all.
And beer should still be 11p / pint.
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-11 00:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by pfraser
And beer should still be 11p / pint.
Does that price have a special history?
pfraser
2013-07-11 01:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by pfraser
And beer should still be 11p / pint.
Does that price have a special history?
From my (admittedly marginal) memory, that's what
I paid for a pint of heavy when I first started drinking.
Hans Klager
2013-07-11 16:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by pfraser
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by pfraser
And beer should still be 11p / pint.
Does that price have a special history?
From my (admittedly marginal) memory, that's what
I paid for a pint of heavy when I first started drinking.
I recall paying about 1/3 (one shilling three pence) for
beer. But in the West of England, cider in many pubs was 11p a
pint and 6p a half.

A worthwhile quantity discount.
--
http://www.fightforthefuture.org/#
pfraser
2013-07-11 17:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Klager
I recall paying about 1/3 (one shilling three pence) for
beer. But in the West of England, cider in many pubs was 11p a
pint and 6p a half.
I don't remember cider being that much more expensive than beer.
[Or did you mean 11d and 6d?]
Hans Klager
2013-07-12 17:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by pfraser
Post by Hans Klager
I recall paying about 1/3 (one shilling three pence) for
beer. But in the West of England, cider in many pubs was 11p a
pint and 6p a half.
I don't remember cider being that much more expensive than beer.
[Or did you mean 11d and 6d?]
Yes, half a shilling for half a pint, and a penny short of
a shilling for a full pint.

No "show some ID" bullshit either.
--
"If you have done nothing wrong, comrade, you have nothing to
fear." - Lavrenti Beria, Stalin's head of the NKVD, the secret police.
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-12 19:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Klager
No "show some ID" bullshit either.
The "ID bullshit" is pretty surreal sometimes. I've been carded more
in my 40s than in my 20s -- by a lot.
Peter Lawrence
2013-07-12 20:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
The "ID bullshit" is pretty surreal sometimes. I've been carded more
in my 40s than in my 20s -- by a lot.
You should take that as a compliment to your youthful look.

;)
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-12 20:22:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
You should take that as a compliment to your youthful look.
No sale (and you're hardly the first to say that). It's harassment,
and there's nothing inherently better about being young.
Peter Lawrence
2013-07-12 20:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by Peter Lawrence
You should take that as a compliment to your youthful look.
No sale (and you're hardly the first to say that). It's harassment,
and there's nothing inherently better about being young.
Come'on. It's not harassment. It's usually about being extra cautious and
(in regards to the person asking for the ID) not being confident in their
ability to gauge the age of the person.

For goodness sakes, how much more trouble is it to pull out an ID proving
your age?

(Since there's always a possibility of being carded, only someone who
doesn't believe in Murphy's Law would even risk going to an establishment to
purchase alcohol without a valid ID.)


- Peter
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-12 21:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Come'on. It's not harassment. It's usually about being extra cautious and
(in regards to the person asking for the ID) not being confident in their
ability to gauge the age of the person.
First of all, thinking I might be 20 is ridiculous, and no one thinks
that. They might fret about whether I'm 35 or whatever the stupid
policy is at the time -- that number keeps rising. I expect to be
getting carded at age 80, as the policies keep evolving, which they
will, because the *point* of the policy is harassment. And of course
the policymakers leave this task to an innocent person, as they usually
do, so that annoyance cannot be directed at them.

Your attitude here is only possible if you think checking my age is
reasonable in the first place. I do not.
Post by Peter Lawrence
For goodness sakes, how much more trouble is it to pull out an ID proving
your age?
More trouble than not. And first I had to get one. I did not have a
"valid id" prior to 9/11, which began the insistence that I have one
to buy beer. The first person to deny me, at Safeway, even told me
9/11 was the reason, as if that should be self-evident.

Surely this registers on even your bullshit meter?

Then to link this to the obnoxious fetishization of youth makes me
really annoyed.
Peter Lawrence
2013-07-12 21:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by Peter Lawrence
Come'on. It's not harassment. It's usually about being extra cautious and
(in regards to the person asking for the ID) not being confident in their
ability to gauge the age of the person.
First of all, thinking I might be 20 is ridiculous, and no one thinks
that. They might fret about whether I'm 35 or whatever the stupid
policy is at the time -- that number keeps rising. I expect to be
getting carded at age 80, as the policies keep evolving, which they
will, because the *point* of the policy is harassment. And of course
the policymakers leave this task to an innocent person, as they usually
do, so that annoyance cannot be directed at them.
Your attitude here is only possible if you think checking my age is
reasonable in the first place. I do not.
The law requires that only people 21 years of age or older can purchase
alcohol. While we might think it's silly (or even harassment <roll eyes> )
that someone who looks to the vast majority of people to be over the age of
21 is carded, for an employee to make sure that they are isn't being overly
unreasonable.
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by Peter Lawrence
For goodness sakes, how much more trouble is it to pull out an ID proving
your age?
More trouble than not. And first I had to get one. I did not have a
"valid id" prior to 9/11, which began the insistence that I have one
to buy beer. The first person to deny me, at Safeway, even told me
9/11 was the reason, as if that should be self-evident.
Surely this registers on even your bullshit meter?
I don't know if you ever seen a cashier being busted by the ABC for selling
alcohol to someone under the age of 21. I have at the CVS located at San
Antonio and El Camino. It was an undercover ABC agent who was only 20 years
old (he looked like someone in his late twenties or early thirties). When
he busted the young cashier (probably in her early twenties) she started
bawling, knowing probably that it would probably cost her her job at CVS.

So I don't fault any employee being extra careful just to make sure that
they're not selling alcohol to someone that's underage.
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Then to link this to the obnoxious fetishization of youth makes me
really annoyed.
It's linked to youth not because of any admiration of youth but because
people under the age of 21 are not allowed to purchase alcohol.


- Peter
Hans Klager
2013-07-11 16:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by pfraser
Post by Todd Michel McComb
All food should be quality food, and it
should be available to all.
And beer should still be 11p / pint.
And 6p a half.
--
http://www.fightforthefuture.org/#
Ciccio
2013-07-11 00:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
I've never liked "middle class" laments or orientations, because
for one thing, they suggest that some people deserve bad treatment.
People deserve treatment. The adjective "bad" is so relative that in the
context you use it, it is meaningless.
Post by Todd Michel McComb
All food should be quality food, and it
should be available to all.
What quality? Available how? Once those questions are answered, what if
there is not enough quality food to make available to all. How is it
decided who gets it?

Ciccio
Pico Rico
2013-07-11 00:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ciccio
Post by Todd Michel McComb
I've never liked "middle class" laments or orientations, because
for one thing, they suggest that some people deserve bad treatment.
People deserve treatment. The adjective "bad" is so relative that in the
context you use it, it is meaningless.
Post by Todd Michel McComb
All food should be quality food, and it
should be available to all.
What quality? Available how? Once those questions are answered, what if
there is not enough quality food to make available to all. How is it
decided who gets it?
Ciccio
foie gras and nothing but filet mignon for the masses!
Ciccio
2013-07-11 02:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pico Rico
Post by Ciccio
What quality? Available how? Once those questions are answered, what if
there is not enough quality food to make available to all. How is it
decided who gets it?
foie gras and nothing but filet mignon for the masses!
24:7? Once per day? Once per week? How much to each? or Does each
individual get to decide the to each "his needs"? OK, 300 million people,
90 million cows, 10 filets mignons per cow. So, 3 filets mignons per
person. Forget that!!! Right now, I handily can have, at least, 1 per day
or 365 per year.

Again, I am shown that life is way over 100 times better under capitalism
than under a lefty/commie/socialist/liberal government.


Ciccio
Hans Klager
2013-07-11 16:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pico Rico
Post by Ciccio
Post by Todd Michel McComb
I've never liked "middle class" laments or orientations, because
for one thing, they suggest that some people deserve bad treatment.
People deserve treatment. The adjective "bad" is so relative that in the
context you use it, it is meaningless.
Post by Todd Michel McComb
All food should be quality food, and it
should be available to all.
What quality? Available how? Once those questions are answered, what if
there is not enough quality food to make available to all. How is it
decided who gets it?
foie gras and nothing but filet mignon for the masses!
Why bread when I prefer cake.
--
http://www.fightforthefuture.org/#
(null)
2013-07-11 01:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ciccio
Post by Todd Michel McComb
All food should be quality food, and it
should be available to all.
What quality? Available how? Once those questions are answered, what if
there is not enough quality food to make available to all. How is it
decided who gets it?
Also, what happens to food that is not "quality"?
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-11 01:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by (null)
Also, what happens to food that is not "quality"?
If no one wants it, instead of forcing them, how about making
something else?
(null)
2013-07-11 02:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by (null)
Also, what happens to food that is not "quality"?
If no one wants it, instead of forcing them, how about making
something else?
How about lowering the price until someone wants it?
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-11 02:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by (null)
How about lowering the price until someone wants it?
That can be problematic. Take this thread. There's no labeling.
There's no real awareness of the problem. (It's basically kept
secret.) And then there's the practical side which will mean that
some people will have no alternative.
Hans Klager
2013-07-11 19:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by (null)
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by (null)
Also, what happens to food that is not "quality"?
If no one wants it, instead of forcing them, how about making
something else?
How about lowering the price until someone wants it?
Feed it to the pigs and chickens. Then eat the pigs and
chickens.
--
http://www.fightforthefuture.org/#
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-11 01:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ciccio
What quality? Available how? Once those questions are answered,
what if there is not enough quality food to make available to all.
How is it decided who gets it?
These sorts of artificial questions are representative of the
"CAN'T DO" attitude that has taken over this country.
Ciccio
2013-07-11 02:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by Ciccio
What quality? Available how? Once those questions are answered,
what if there is not enough quality food to make available to all.
How is it decided who gets it?
These sorts of artificial questions are representative of the
"CAN'T DO" attitude that has taken over this country.
Bullshit, I did NOT say CAN'T DO. I am asking do what? Questions are not
artifical just because you are incapable of answering them. If you are
admitting you CAN'T answer them, even the easy ones, then say so. No need
to give excuses like "artificial" blah-blah-blah.

Ciccio
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-11 02:54:56 UTC
Permalink
If you are admitting you CAN'T answer them, even the easy ones,
then say so.
Those questions sure looked obstructionist to me, and I'm
satisfied with the attention I gave them.
Ciccio
2013-07-11 16:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
If you are admitting you CAN'T answer them, even the easy ones,
then say so.
Those questions sure looked obstructionist to me, and I'm
satisfied with the attention I gave them.
My, how convenient that is for you. You are the one being the
obstructionist, by obstructing even the slightest inquiry of your flawed
premise. The reason is apparent because your entire premise implodes even
upon a cursory examination. It is totally obliterated upon any examination
of depth. Unfortunately for you, your attempts, and the attempts of other
extremists, to obfuscate and obstruct the fatal flaws of your premise,
cannot withstand the light of history or rational thinking. Of course, that
is fortunate for the rest of us.

Ciccio
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-11 16:49:54 UTC
Permalink
... your attempts, and the attempts of other extremists ....
So now, wanting everyone to have quality food is an "extreme"
position. Even Republicans used to think this was a reasonable
thing.
Ciccio
2013-07-11 17:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
... your attempts, and the attempts of other extremists ....
So now, wanting everyone to have quality food is an "extreme"
position. Even Republicans used to think this was a reasonable
thing.
So you're saying that extremists use the same propaganda techniques as
mainstream politicians by using vague and ambiguous terms like "wanting
everybody to have quality food." Nothing new there...

It you mean by"everybody to have quality food,"that the government it is to
take money, by force and fear, from people who earned the money and then
given to bums so they can buy the steaks of their choice, then that is
extreme.

If you mean preventing food that will absolutely cause serious illness or
death from entering the stream of commerce, then that is not, at all,
extreme.

Those are two examples of "wanting everybody to have quality food." So,
since you are evasive about defining what you mean, perhaps give examples
of what you mean by "everyone to have quality food."

Ciccio
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-11 19:33:58 UTC
Permalink
... given to bums so they can buy the steaks ....
I'm fascinated by some people's notion of what constitutes quality
food, whereas some people (seemingly of quite mainstream politics)
have no trouble with the concept.
Ciccio
2013-07-12 00:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
... given to bums so they can buy the steaks ....
I'm fascinated by some people's notion of what constitutes quality
food, whereas some people (seemingly of quite mainstream politics)
have no trouble with the concept.
You certaninly have trouble with the concept as you are unable to give a
single example of it. I, however, gave two examples of it. Then you have
dodged completely how the food is to be "provided."

Ciccio
Peter Lawrence
2013-07-12 05:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ciccio
Post by Todd Michel McComb
... given to bums so they can buy the steaks ....
I'm fascinated by some people's notion of what constitutes quality
food, whereas some people (seemingly of quite mainstream politics)
have no trouble with the concept.
You certaninly have trouble with the concept as you are unable to give a
single example of it. I, however, gave two examples of it. Then you have
dodged completely how the food is to be "provided."
Todd is a high-level conceptual thinker. He lets others work out the details.

:)
Ciccio
2013-07-12 16:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Todd is a high-level conceptual thinker. He lets others work out the details.
:)
Oh, I often see quite a few of "those types" whenever C-SPAN and some other
forums have politician interviewees or when good journalists interview
extremists. Jeez, when that happens there is so much ducking, weaving, and
sidestepping going on, it could be a bad boxing match.

Ciccio
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-12 19:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Todd is a high-level conceptual thinker. He lets others work out the details.
It's a funny line, but I do really think there are lots of individual
choices involved. It'd be pretty stupid for me to claim I knew
what everyone ought to eat, or how they ought to get it. However,
that doesn't stop me from believing that being in favor of quality
food available to everyone is a real political position.
evergene
2013-07-11 01:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ciccio
Post by Todd Michel McComb
I've never liked "middle class" laments or orientations, because
for one thing, they suggest that some people deserve bad treatment.
I don't see how you (Todd) can construe the term "vanishing middle
class," a phrase that refers to a well-documented transfer of wealth
over the past 30 or so years, to mean anything like "some people
deserve bad treatment."
Post by Ciccio
People deserve treatment. The adjective "bad" is so relative that in the
context you use it, it is meaningless.
Post by Todd Michel McComb
All food should be quality food, and it
should be available to all.
What quality?
How about food that's not contaminated with E. coli, fecal bacteria,
salmonella, staphylococcus aureus?
Post by Ciccio
Available how?
Sanitary food production practices enforced by the government.
Post by Ciccio
Once those questions are answered, what if
there is not enough quality food to make available to all. How is it
decided who gets it?
If the subject is whether contaminated food should be sold to the
public, is there really any decision to make?

It's an old problem:
"There was never the least attention paid to what was cut up for
sausage; there would come all the way back from Europe old sausage
that had been rejected, and that was moldy and white--it would be
dosed with borax and glycerine, and dumped into the hoppers, and made
over again for home consumption...There would be meat stored in great
piles in rooms; and the water from leaky roofs would drip over it, and
thousands of rats would race about on it. It was too dark in these
storage places to see well, but a man could run his hand over these
piles of meat and sweep off handfuls of the dried dung of rats. These
rats were nuisances, and the packers would put poisoned bread out for
them; they would die, and then rats, bread, and meat would go into the
hoppers together." ---Upton Sinclair, "The Jungle", 1906
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-11 02:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by evergene
I don't see how you (Todd) can construe the term "vanishing middle
class," a phrase that refers to a well-documented transfer of wealth
over the past 30 or so years, to mean anything like "some people
deserve bad treatment."
It's a lament and orientation, as I said. Why should I care about
"the middle class" per se? It's impossible for me to read that
lament without thinking of the historical privilege of the middle
class over others. You can say to yourself that you meant none of
that, and were only noting a well-known trend, and that's fine, but
you're not going to find me lamenting the middle class or orienting
my thoughts on them, and if you suggest such an analogy, I feel
compelled to say as much.
Post by evergene
How about food that's not contaminated with E. coli, fecal bacteria,
salmonella, staphylococcus aureus?
That doesn't sound impossible, does it?
evergene
2013-07-11 05:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by evergene
I don't see how you (Todd) can construe the term "vanishing middle
class," a phrase that refers to a well-documented transfer of wealth
over the past 30 or so years, to mean anything like "some people
deserve bad treatment."
It's a lament and orientation, as I said. Why should I care about
"the middle class" per se? It's impossible for me to read that
lament without thinking of the historical privilege of the middle
class over others.
What you call "historical privilege" is a standard of living that
working people had to fight for. It wasn't given to them, they didn't
inherit it, and it took many decades to achieve. That standard of
living has been under assault and is declining. I get that you don't
care about it, but you seem to think the middle class is responsible
for the poverty of the working poor and unemployed, if indeed those
are the "others" you're talking about.

Do you think poor people don't aspire to the very same "privilege" --
namely a decent standard of living -- that the middle class used to
have?
Post by Todd Michel McComb
You can say to yourself that you meant none of
that, and were only noting a well-known trend, and that's fine, but
you're not going to find me lamenting the middle class or orienting
my thoughts on them, and if you suggest such an analogy, I feel
compelled to say as much.
Post by evergene
How about food that's not contaminated with E. coli, fecal bacteria,
salmonella, staphylococcus aureus?
That doesn't sound impossible, does it?
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-11 07:25:08 UTC
Permalink
I get that you don't care about it, but you seem to think the
middle class is responsible for the poverty of the working poor
and unemployed, if indeed those are the "others" you're talking
about.
This is a complicated question. Many people who identify as "middle
class" -- many people, period -- are just doing their best in a
complicated world, and wish everyone well. I get that. However,
when we're talking about *class identification* and you specifically
raised a class identification, then it's constructed to exclude
people. (As far as the "others" I'm talking about, that would be
absolutely anyone, not just those two categories.)

If "middle class" can mean "absolutely anyone" to you, then say
that, but the context of this thread, my remark on the bifurcation
of food options, does not suggest that to me.
Do you think poor people don't aspire to the very same "privilege" --
namely a decent standard of living -- that the middle class used to
have?
Many poor people would love to be "middle class," and even would love
to be able to look down on other people, since of course that's not
something they've been able to do.

Many people who have not had privileges would like to have privileges,
likewise. If that's universal, fine, but if it continues to be
constructed in opposition, then I'm opposed to that. (If everyone
has privilege, it wouldn't be called that anymore.)

And many self-described middle class people do enjoy looking down on
others.

You'll notice exactly where I turned in my post which questioned the
middle class: I asserted a desire for quality & affordable food for
everyone. I see absolutely no benefit in constructing that project
around a subset of people, even if others are theoretically able to
add to that group as supplement.
evergene
2013-07-11 18:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
I get that you don't care about it, but you seem to think the
middle class is responsible for the poverty of the working poor
and unemployed, if indeed those are the "others" you're talking
about.
This is a complicated question. Many people who identify as "middle
class" -- many people, period -- are just doing their best in a
complicated world, and wish everyone well. I get that. However,
when we're talking about *class identification* and you specifically
raised a class identification, then it's constructed to exclude
people. (As far as the "others" I'm talking about, that would be
absolutely anyone, not just those two categories.)
If "middle class" can mean "absolutely anyone" to you, then say
that, but the context of this thread, my remark on the bifurcation
of food options, does not suggest that to me.
Originally, when you wrote, "Food continues to divide further into the
two categories of expensive & crap, with vanishing options otherwise,"
I was was struck by how similar your language is to descriptions of
changes in the distribution of wealth.

That's the context of my comment: a parallel between meat that's
neither crappy nor expensive, and a standard of living that's neither
crappy nor expensive.

We could go back and forth forever about what constitutes mid-range
meat and a middle-class living standard. To me, decent meat is meat
that doesn't make the eater sick. It doesn't have to be Wagyu beef, or
heritage pork, or tenderloin. And a middle-class society is a society
in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining
a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules.

Your point was that mid-range meat is disappearing. My point, which I
probably shouldn't have made in this forum, is that the middle class
-- people not on food stamps but also not millionaires -- is also
shrinking.

I don't view a desire for uncontaminated meat as a desire for any kind
of privilege, and I don't view a desire for a decent standard of
living as a desire for privilege.
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Do you think poor people don't aspire to the very same "privilege" --
namely a decent standard of living -- that the middle class used to
have?
Many poor people would love to be "middle class," and even would love
to be able to look down on other people, since of course that's not
something they've been able to do.
Many people who have not had privileges would like to have privileges,
likewise. If that's universal, fine, but if it continues to be
constructed in opposition, then I'm opposed to that. (If everyone
has privilege, it wouldn't be called that anymore.)
And many self-described middle class people do enjoy looking down on
others.
You'll notice exactly where I turned in my post which questioned the
middle class: I asserted a desire for quality & affordable food for
everyone. I see absolutely no benefit in constructing that project
around a subset of people, even if others are theoretically able to
add to that group as supplement.
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-11 19:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by evergene
Your point was that mid-range meat is disappearing. My point, which I
probably shouldn't have made in this forum, is that the middle class
-- people not on food stamps but also not millionaires -- is also
shrinking.
I could have simply agreed with your observation, and I almost did,
but then thought I'd implicitly be endorsing the narrative of "middle
class." I'm glad I didn't do that, because I think this thread
has revealed significant issues.
Post by evergene
I don't view a desire for uncontaminated meat as a desire for any kind
of privilege, and I don't view a desire for a decent standard of
living as a desire for privilege.
Obviously you don't. However when you define it around the "ordinary
citizen" instead of "everyone" -- and include tropes like "hard work"
& "rules" -- I find it difficult to agree with you.
evergene
2013-07-11 21:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by evergene
Your point was that mid-range meat is disappearing. My point, which I
probably shouldn't have made in this forum, is that the middle class
-- people not on food stamps but also not millionaires -- is also
shrinking.
I could have simply agreed with your observation, and I almost did,
but then thought I'd implicitly be endorsing the narrative of "middle
class." I'm glad I didn't do that, because I think this thread
has revealed significant issues.
Post by evergene
I don't view a desire for uncontaminated meat as a desire for any kind
of privilege, and I don't view a desire for a decent standard of
living as a desire for privilege.
Obviously you don't. However when you define it around the "ordinary
citizen" instead of "everyone" -- and include tropes like "hard work"
& "rules" -- I find it difficult to agree with you.
FWIW, that description of a middle class society came from a column by
Krugman. I thought it was general enough to be accepted; I guesss I
was mistaken.

Anyway, the baseline for any notion of decent meat -- in fact any kind
of decent food at all -- has to be that it isn't contaminated. The CR
articles pointed out that contaminated meat and turkey are commonly
sold. The fight to get that crap out of the markets is at least a
hundred years old. The adversaries in that fight haven't changed --
it's still corporate food producers trying to maximize their profit,
against the government (and some elements of the press, e.g. Consumer
Reports), trying to represent consumers' health.
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-11 21:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by evergene
Anyway, the baseline for any notion of decent meat -- in fact any kind
of decent food at all -- has to be that it isn't contaminated.
I would add that it not contaminate the environment when producing
it, not contaminate the workers, etc.
Post by evergene
The adversaries in that fight haven't changed -- it's still corporate
food producers trying to maximize their profit, against the government
(and some elements of the press, e.g. Consumer Reports), trying to
represent consumers' health.
I don't know that one can assume the government is representing
consumers' health. They are often aligned to corporate profit.
We need to advocate that our representatives protect health (this
being different from curing health problems already contracted, a
highly profitable industry).
SMS
2013-07-12 01:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by evergene
Anyway, the baseline for any notion of decent meat -- in fact any kind
of decent food at all -- has to be that it isn't contaminated.
I think that the concept of food being sold uncontaminated ended during
the Reagan administration with the deregulation of various food
industries. Salmonella became acceptable in chicken and eggs. Meat
inspection was drastically cut back. The solution became to cook
everything to a temperature where the contaminants were removed. No more
Eggs Benedict. No more home made mayo. No more rare hamburgers.
sf
2013-07-12 06:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by evergene
Anyway, the baseline for any notion of decent meat -- in fact any kind
of decent food at all -- has to be that it isn't contaminated.
I think that the concept of food being sold uncontaminated ended during
the Reagan administration with the deregulation of various food
industries. Salmonella became acceptable in chicken and eggs. Meat
inspection was drastically cut back. The solution became to cook
everything to a temperature where the contaminants were removed. No more
Eggs Benedict. No more home made mayo. No more rare hamburgers.
AKA - blame the victim.
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
Peter Lawrence
2013-07-12 07:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by sf
Post by SMS
Post by evergene
Anyway, the baseline for any notion of decent meat -- in fact any kind
of decent food at all -- has to be that it isn't contaminated.
I think that the concept of food being sold uncontaminated ended during
the Reagan administration with the deregulation of various food
industries. Salmonella became acceptable in chicken and eggs. Meat
inspection was drastically cut back. The solution became to cook
everything to a temperature where the contaminants were removed. No more
Eggs Benedict. No more home made mayo. No more rare hamburgers.
AKA - blame the victim.
Last time I checked, we're still a democracy.

Blame the voters that keep voting in bums to our elected offices.

If you don't like our government, you can only blame those who voted in the
bums.


- Peter
sms
2013-07-12 10:12:59 UTC
Permalink
On 7/12/2013 12:47 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote:

<snip>
Post by Peter Lawrence
Last time I checked, we're still a democracy.
Blame the voters that keep voting in bums to our elected offices.
If you don't like our government, you can only blame those who voted in
the bums.
Not sure what country you're in, but the U.S. is not a democracy, it's a
constitutional republic.

No candidate runs a platform of making food less safe, nor is doing so
an impeachable offense. Educating voters as to the type of candidate
likely to favor worsening food safety won't help unless food safety is
an important issue to the voter, and it's not.
Peter Lawrence
2013-07-12 15:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by sms
<snip>
Post by Peter Lawrence
Last time I checked, we're still a democracy.
Blame the voters that keep voting in bums to our elected offices.
If you don't like our government, you can only blame those who voted in
the bums.
Not sure what country you're in, but the U.S. is not a democracy, it's a
constitutional republic.
I knew you or someone else was going to bring this up. People still call it
a democracy (and people understand what that means in terms of elections in
the United States). If you prefer to be pedantic about this, whatever.
Post by sms
No candidate runs a platform of making food less safe, nor is doing so an
impeachable offense. Educating voters as to the type of candidate likely to
favor worsening food safety won't help unless food safety is an important
issue to the voter, and it's not.
And that's the crux of the problem: "unless food safety is an important
issue to the voter, and it's not." That's my main point. It's the voters
that are to blame, since they choose to elect (and reelect) people who don't
care enough about food safety because they themselves don't really care
enough about food safety.


- Peter
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-12 19:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
And that's the crux of the problem: "unless food safety is an important
issue to the voter, and it's not." That's my main point. It's the voters
that are to blame, since they choose to elect (and reelect) people who don't
care enough about food safety because they themselves don't really care
enough about food safety.
I definitely won't go so far as to say the voters are the main people to
blame, since there are obviously profit incentives at work here, and so
lots of effort put into gaming the system.

However, I do agree with you somewhat. Even though the public isn't
presented with quality candidates at the national level, we can still
be more vocal about problems like this, instead of going along with it.
evergene
2013-07-12 21:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by sms
<snip>
Post by Peter Lawrence
Last time I checked, we're still a democracy.
Blame the voters that keep voting in bums to our elected offices.
If you don't like our government, you can only blame those who voted in
the bums.
Not sure what country you're in, but the U.S. is not a democracy, it's a
constitutional republic.
I knew you or someone else was going to bring this up. People still call it
a democracy (and people understand what that means in terms of elections in
the United States). If you prefer to be pedantic about this, whatever.
Post by sms
No candidate runs a platform of making food less safe, nor is doing so an
impeachable offense. Educating voters as to the type of candidate likely to
favor worsening food safety won't help unless food safety is an important
issue to the voter, and it's not.
And that's the crux of the problem: "unless food safety is an important
issue to the voter, and it's not." That's my main point. It's the voters
that are to blame, since they choose to elect (and reelect) people who don't
care enough about food safety because they themselves don't really care
enough about food safety.
Except that when they're informed, they do care. It was public
opinion, reacting to the publication of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"
in 1906, that forced passage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act of
1906 and The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. And it's been public
opinion that forced every subsequent piece of food safety legislation.

Sinclair noted that he became famous, "not because the public cared
anything about the workers, but simply because the public did not want
to eat tubercular beef".
sf
2013-07-12 19:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by sms
<snip>
Post by Peter Lawrence
Last time I checked, we're still a democracy.
Blame the voters that keep voting in bums to our elected offices.
If you don't like our government, you can only blame those who voted in
the bums.
Not sure what country you're in, but the U.S. is not a democracy, it's a
constitutional republic.
No candidate runs a platform of making food less safe, nor is doing so
an impeachable offense. Educating voters as to the type of candidate
likely to favor worsening food safety won't help unless food safety is
an important issue to the voter, and it's not.
We can, of course, thank the republicans for pulling the rug out of
oversight by reducing the budgets to the programs that inspect and
regulate.
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
Peter Lawrence
2013-07-12 20:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by sf
We can, of course, thank the republicans for pulling the rug out of
oversight by reducing the budgets to the programs that inspect and
regulate.
But why didn't the Democrats restore them when they had complete power (the
first two years of the Clinton Administration and the first two years of the
Obama Administration)?


- Peter
sf
2013-07-12 20:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by sf
We can, of course, thank the republicans for pulling the rug out of
oversight by reducing the budgets to the programs that inspect and
regulate.
But why didn't the Democrats restore them when they had complete power (the
first two years of the Clinton Administration and the first two years of the
Obama Administration)?
I don't remember Clinton's issue, but Obama was trying to govern by
consensus and we can all see how that worked out.
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
sms
2013-07-12 22:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by sf
We can, of course, thank the republicans for pulling the rug out of
oversight by reducing the budgets to the programs that inspect and
regulate.
It was their corporate sponsors in the affected industries that
"encouraged" these actions with campaign contributions. It had very
little to do with the actual cost of the inspections and the cost of the
regulations.

The lack of regulation of the food industry actually drives up prices of
safer foods by making safer foods boutique items rather than mass-market
items.
Todd Michel McComb
2013-07-12 20:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by sf
Post by SMS
The solution became to cook
everything to a temperature where the contaminants were removed. No more
Eggs Benedict. No more home made mayo. No more rare hamburgers.
AKA - blame the victim.
Yes, it becomes our fault for wanting to prepare the food as if it
isn't contaminated.

This is why, although he has a point, I can't really agree with Peter's
"blame the voters" position either.
sf
2013-07-11 04:54:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:30:22 +0000 (UTC), Ciccio
Post by Ciccio
What quality? Available how? Once those questions are answered, what if
there is not enough quality food to make available to all. How is it
decided who gets it?
Why should we have to decide who gets food that is GMO free, pesticide
free, anti-biotic and hormone free (for starters)? If those assholes
didn't restrict/eliminate reproductive education and health services,
we might even have a smaller population who are end users of food.
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
sf
2013-07-11 04:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
I have the
following preference: All food should be quality food, and it
should be available to all.
+1
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
Tim May
2013-07-11 06:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by evergene
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Food continues to divide further into the two categories of
expensive & crap, with vanishing options otherwise....
One might almost make an analogy with wealth distribution and the
vanishing middle class.
I've never liked "middle class" laments or orientations, because
for one thing, they suggest that some people deserve bad treatment.
However, there's no real doubt that these issues arise from the
same forces of change.
To reframe my "middle class" remark in this context, I have the
following preference: All food should be quality food, and it
should be available to all.
Yeah, free money for all!

Idiot.
--
Tim May
Hans Klager
2013-07-12 17:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Yeah, free money for all!
Sounds like stock options to me. Or is that free money for
the lucky few?
--
"If you have done nothing wrong, comrade, you have nothing to
fear." - Lavrenti Beria, Stalin's head of the NKVD, the secret police.
Tim May
2013-07-11 06:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by evergene
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Food continues to divide further into the two categories of
expensive & crap, with vanishing options otherwise....
One might almost make an analogy with wealth distribution and the
vanishing middle class.
The middle class _IS_ the lower class. Think of it as evolution in action.

And the middle class keeps voting for more statism, more welfare. No
wonder they are gutterizing themselves the same way the negro did.
--
Tim May
Hans Klager
2013-07-11 16:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by evergene
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Food continues to divide further into the two categories of
expensive & crap, with vanishing options otherwise....
One might almost make an analogy with wealth distribution and the
vanishing middle class.
We have returned to the turnip eaters and the game
eaters.
--
http://www.fightforthefuture.org/#
sf
2013-07-11 04:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by Peter Lawrence
At least more than one needs to die, it seems. :(
The stupidest part of this is if you're going to cook your beef
well done, you can cook it all the way until tender (braise, etc.),
so it doesn't *need* tenderizing! That's only useful for quick
cooking methods.
Agreed!!!
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
SMS
2013-07-11 20:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Food continues to divide further into the two categories of
expensive & crap, with vanishing options otherwise....
That's true if you buy the expensive food at a store like Whole Foods.
But there's plenty of non-crap food that's not expensive if you know
when and where to shop.

That said, top quality beef is expensive and since it's sold in smaller
higher end markets there's not much competition. Even with mid-quality
beef like what Costco sells there's not a lot of competition any more
now that most big supermarket chains sell only lower quality, ungraded
beef (some Safeways and Luckys do sell USDA choice but it's extremely
expensive).

We eat a lot of wild fish, a lot of fruit, and a lot of vegetables. I
can't imagine paying the prices charged by Safeway or Whole Foods, but
Sprouts, Costco, and Oakmont often have very good prices. I.e. tomorrow
Sprouts has wild Mahi Mahi for $3.99/lb and whole cantaloupes for 48¢
each (not per pound). When the fish goes on sale we buy a lot and freeze it.
Tim May
2013-07-11 06:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
How many people have to get sick and die first?
At least more than one needs to die, it seems. :(
Many tens of millions need to die, but how can we get them to eat this
apparently deadly stuff?
--
Tim May
Pico Rico
2013-07-11 12:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Post by Peter Lawrence
How many people have to get sick and die first?
At least more than one needs to die, it seems. :(
Many tens of millions need to die, but how can we get them to eat this
apparently deadly stuff?
they are already eating it, but they just aren't dieing.
sf
2013-07-11 19:52:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 05:37:41 -0700, "Pico Rico"
Post by Pico Rico
Post by Tim May
Post by Peter Lawrence
How many people have to get sick and die first?
At least more than one needs to die, it seems. :(
Many tens of millions need to die, but how can we get them to eat this
apparently deadly stuff?
they are already eating it, but they just aren't dieing.
Where is that stuff being sold?
--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
sms
2013-07-11 02:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically
tenderizing beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well inside
a steak and hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for those who
prefer their steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E. Coli outbreaks
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
Hmm, so maybe the chemical tenderization of meat, which used to be
popular, will make a comeback.
Helpful person
2013-07-12 12:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by sms
Hmm, so maybe the chemical tenderization of meat, which used to be
popular, will make a comeback.
You mean like marination?

http://www.richardfisher.com
SMS
2013-07-12 13:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Helpful person
Post by sms
Hmm, so maybe the chemical tenderization of meat, which used to be
popular, will make a comeback.
You mean like marination?
No. Swift used to pre-tenderize beef in the live animal with papain
injections. They called it "Pro-Ten" beef. The papain was activated when
the beef was cooked. When I lived in Florida, Publix sold it for a while
and their meat sales plunged as consumers defected to Winn-Dixie. See an
advertisement for Pro-Ten at <Loading Image...>.
evergene
2013-07-12 23:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
Consumer Reports points at the widespread practice mechanically tenderizing
beef with blades or needles helps push bacteria well inside a steak and
hence increasing the risk of food poisoning for those who prefer their
steaks rare or medium-rare. A number of E. Coli outbreaks have been traced
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm
And so it goes:

Sysco Corporation, one of the nation’s largest food distributors, is
under investigation by the California Department of Public Health
looking into concerns over food safety.

This comes after an NBC Bay Area investigation uncovered more than a
dozen outdoor storage sheds used by the company to keep perishable
food items.

NBC Bay Area's surveillance cameras caught Sysco trucks delivering
chicken, pork, steak, turkey, bacon, produce, and other food items to
these outdoor metal sheds in the middle of the night.

Hours later, Sysco employees were observed picking up these food items
in their personal cars and delivering the food to restaurants, swim
centers and hotels.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/State-Inspectors--214864221.html
Loading...