Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
I'd be interested in your comments about our grocery store meat supplies.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/we ... 28949.html
Tex
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Hi Deb,
Well, call me a fatalist, but as far as I can tell, bacteria are everywhere. I totally agree with Gloria's observations. If you can find anything in your home, (including in your refrigerator), that is absolutely bacteria-free, you probably just haven't tested it carefully enough. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that we should just ignore the problem, because that could quickly lead to disastrous consequences.
IMO, totally bacteria-free meat, (or bacteria-free food of any type, for that matter), is wishful thinking. Anything that we touch, or allow to contact just about any surface in our home, is doomed to contamination. Sure, we have to try to keep the problem to absolute minimum levels, but I doubt that we will ever completely eliminate it, because bacteria are truly ubiquitous. For one thing, every time the industry comes up with a method that might be able to successfully accomplish the lofty goal of eradicating bacteria in food, some so-called consumer advocacy group will be opposed to it, and will campaign so vigorously, that the idea is defeated before it ever has a chance to prove it's value, (irradiation, for example). Even if the food is totally uncontaminated when we receive it, though, that status changes as soon as we open the package, and as soon as we touch it, the clock starts ticking on the population dynamics of the new "colony" that we almost certainly created.
Bacterial contamination has always been a problem, (since the very dawn of life on this planet), and it will probably always be a problem. Bacteria are the main reason why we have such a robust immune system. Contamination is much less of a problem today than it was a hundred years ago, and far, far less of a problem than it was 200 years ago, but bacteria will always be a problem, because they are so well established on this planet.
Not using antibiotics in the production of livestock for food, will not solve many problems, because without antibiotics, (if needed), many animals have low-level infections, (or worse), whether that is evident or not, and of course, their intestines are loaded with them. No one intentionally chooses to eat the meat of an infected animal, (unless they are starving). Most consumers seem to be vehemently opposed to the use of antibiotics in livestock production, but the fact of the matter is, they typically improve the overall health of those animals, significantly. If they didn't, no one would use them, because they would be an unnecessary expense in a very competitive industry.
This brings to mind the old absurd claim by many animal rights groups that predators take only sick and injured animals from the herd.
Yeah, sure. The fact is, not even most animal predators choose to eat sick or injured prey species, unless they themselves are physically unable to catch and kill normal, healthy animals. Some species, of course, are more discriminating than others. Coyotes, for example, will eat virtually anything, dead or alive. Cats are much more particular.
A couple of decades ago, mule deer populations were declining in West Texas, and no one could figure out why. A study was made on a small herd of West Texas mule deer that were isolated from any other herd, because of the terrain. Researchers were studying the impact of mountain lions, (cougars), on desert mule deer, and this provided an ideal cohort for study, when a family of mountain lions moved into the area. There were 18 deer in the herd, when the study began, all of which appeared to be healthy, except for one crippled doe. I've forgotten how many months elapsed, from start to finish, but the cats eventually killed and ate every last mule deer in that herd. Guess which deer was the last one taken - it was the crippled doe, of course.
Oops, I got sort of sidetracked there, but the point is, all predators, (including humans), prefer to eat meat from prime, healthy animals, and antibiotics help to keep those animals healthy. We, ourselves, are walking bacteria "farms", but for the most part, our own bacteria won't hurt us - we're adapted to them, and they are adapted to us. It's bacteria from other sources, (especially other humans), that are a threat. When someone else's bacteria try to take over our body, that's when we go see our doc for a prescription for an antibiotic.
Despite the fact that the article leaves the impression that beef and pork have major contamination issues, the greatest risk is with chickens. Tests show that typically, over 70 % of chickens are contaminated with salmonella, (to say nothing of the other pathogens). Obviously, anyone who doesn't thoroughly cook any meat they consume, is playing a very risky game, in this age of weakened/compromised immune systems. Of course, these days, certain vegetables commonly eaten raw, are sometimes just as risky.
I guess the take home message that I get from that article is, "So what else is new?"
The ability to utilize fire for cooking meat, was the greatest discovery ever made by our ancient ancestors, in the war against bacteria. That option provided tremendous health benefits. Ever since then, our progress has been excruciatingly slow. We need another breakthrough.
Of course, this is just my opinion, and since it's free, there's no question about what it's worth.
Tex
Well, call me a fatalist, but as far as I can tell, bacteria are everywhere. I totally agree with Gloria's observations. If you can find anything in your home, (including in your refrigerator), that is absolutely bacteria-free, you probably just haven't tested it carefully enough. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that we should just ignore the problem, because that could quickly lead to disastrous consequences.
IMO, totally bacteria-free meat, (or bacteria-free food of any type, for that matter), is wishful thinking. Anything that we touch, or allow to contact just about any surface in our home, is doomed to contamination. Sure, we have to try to keep the problem to absolute minimum levels, but I doubt that we will ever completely eliminate it, because bacteria are truly ubiquitous. For one thing, every time the industry comes up with a method that might be able to successfully accomplish the lofty goal of eradicating bacteria in food, some so-called consumer advocacy group will be opposed to it, and will campaign so vigorously, that the idea is defeated before it ever has a chance to prove it's value, (irradiation, for example). Even if the food is totally uncontaminated when we receive it, though, that status changes as soon as we open the package, and as soon as we touch it, the clock starts ticking on the population dynamics of the new "colony" that we almost certainly created.
Bacterial contamination has always been a problem, (since the very dawn of life on this planet), and it will probably always be a problem. Bacteria are the main reason why we have such a robust immune system. Contamination is much less of a problem today than it was a hundred years ago, and far, far less of a problem than it was 200 years ago, but bacteria will always be a problem, because they are so well established on this planet.
Not using antibiotics in the production of livestock for food, will not solve many problems, because without antibiotics, (if needed), many animals have low-level infections, (or worse), whether that is evident or not, and of course, their intestines are loaded with them. No one intentionally chooses to eat the meat of an infected animal, (unless they are starving). Most consumers seem to be vehemently opposed to the use of antibiotics in livestock production, but the fact of the matter is, they typically improve the overall health of those animals, significantly. If they didn't, no one would use them, because they would be an unnecessary expense in a very competitive industry.
This brings to mind the old absurd claim by many animal rights groups that predators take only sick and injured animals from the herd.
Yeah, sure. The fact is, not even most animal predators choose to eat sick or injured prey species, unless they themselves are physically unable to catch and kill normal, healthy animals. Some species, of course, are more discriminating than others. Coyotes, for example, will eat virtually anything, dead or alive. Cats are much more particular.A couple of decades ago, mule deer populations were declining in West Texas, and no one could figure out why. A study was made on a small herd of West Texas mule deer that were isolated from any other herd, because of the terrain. Researchers were studying the impact of mountain lions, (cougars), on desert mule deer, and this provided an ideal cohort for study, when a family of mountain lions moved into the area. There were 18 deer in the herd, when the study began, all of which appeared to be healthy, except for one crippled doe. I've forgotten how many months elapsed, from start to finish, but the cats eventually killed and ate every last mule deer in that herd. Guess which deer was the last one taken - it was the crippled doe, of course.
Oops, I got sort of sidetracked there, but the point is, all predators, (including humans), prefer to eat meat from prime, healthy animals, and antibiotics help to keep those animals healthy. We, ourselves, are walking bacteria "farms", but for the most part, our own bacteria won't hurt us - we're adapted to them, and they are adapted to us. It's bacteria from other sources, (especially other humans), that are a threat. When someone else's bacteria try to take over our body, that's when we go see our doc for a prescription for an antibiotic.
Despite the fact that the article leaves the impression that beef and pork have major contamination issues, the greatest risk is with chickens. Tests show that typically, over 70 % of chickens are contaminated with salmonella, (to say nothing of the other pathogens). Obviously, anyone who doesn't thoroughly cook any meat they consume, is playing a very risky game, in this age of weakened/compromised immune systems. Of course, these days, certain vegetables commonly eaten raw, are sometimes just as risky.
I guess the take home message that I get from that article is, "So what else is new?"
The ability to utilize fire for cooking meat, was the greatest discovery ever made by our ancient ancestors, in the war against bacteria. That option provided tremendous health benefits. Ever since then, our progress has been excruciatingly slow. We need another breakthrough.
Of course, this is just my opinion, and since it's free, there's no question about what it's worth.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Thanks, Tex. I suspected that would be your response. I was a mom who wasn't overly concerned if my kids ate dirt (and for some strange reason I had a hard time keeping them out of the dog food bowl :)). But....
Do you think there is considerably less risk of issues with smaller, local farms for produce and meat/poultry? And I do admit I'm plenty concerned about the drug-resistance to antibiotics that we're acquiring.
Do you think there is considerably less risk of issues with smaller, local farms for produce and meat/poultry? And I do admit I'm plenty concerned about the drug-resistance to antibiotics that we're acquiring.
Yes I do. Virtually all of the contamination in meat is picked up after the animal reaches the slaughterhouse, not during the growing process. Whether it's meat or vegetables, smaller producers don't normally use the huge slaughterhouses/vegetable sorting facilities, etc., that the mainstream producers use, to process their products, and smaller producers are much more conscientious about how their produce is handled, before it reaches the consumer.Deb wrote:Do you think there is considerably less risk of issues with smaller, local farms for produce and meat/poultry?
When I was a kid, we processed virtually all of our own meat, and I can guarantee you that even though we didn't have fancy stainless steel facilities, and skilled union meat cutters, like the processing giants, our beef, pork, and chicken was handled with TLC, and we never had to wonder about it's safety. I used to enjoying eating chicken about as well as any other meat, but over the past few years, I've seen so many mangled, bloody chicken limbs, that I just can't bring myself to eat the stuff anymore. So many of the chickens sold at the local small-town stores around here look as though though lost a death match, or they were roadkill. I used to love wings, but these days, so many of them are broken, and bloody, that I just can't "stomach" them, anymore. It's no wonder that "buffalo wings" are so popular - that way, the processors can throw away the broken parts, and salvage the parts that are still palatable, and all the spicy sauce covers up the bloody taste.
To be honest, I'm much more concerned about the overuse of antibiotics on humans, than I am about their use/overuse on animals, but again, on the average, the risk of exposure to that sort of issue is typically much, much lower with the smaller producers, because even if they're not certified organic producers, they tend to only use antibiotics very sparingly, and only when it appears necessary for the survival of the animal. Unlike the big feedlot operators, they are are very unlikely to use antibiotics as a routine prophylactic measure.Deb wrote:And I do admit I'm plenty concerned about the drug-resistance to antibiotics that we're acquiring.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Tex--
I agree with you completely about the local product. For years, my parents have been in the practice of buying "half a cow" from a local small beef cattle farmer. The meat is processed locally, and comes wrapped in butcher paper, cut into steaks, stew meat, and ground beef that tastes like T-bone steak! They just stick it in the deep freeze and pull out packages when they need them. Occasionally, they will do the same thing with a lamb. There is no comparison with supermarket offerings, and when you cost it out, they pay much less!
Mags
I agree with you completely about the local product. For years, my parents have been in the practice of buying "half a cow" from a local small beef cattle farmer. The meat is processed locally, and comes wrapped in butcher paper, cut into steaks, stew meat, and ground beef that tastes like T-bone steak! They just stick it in the deep freeze and pull out packages when they need them. Occasionally, they will do the same thing with a lamb. There is no comparison with supermarket offerings, and when you cost it out, they pay much less!
Mags
Yep, that's definitely the way to go. You end up with much better meat, at a much lower cost, and when you bite into it, you don't have to worry about it biting you in the butt, tomorrow.
Tex
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.