http://mlvb.net/news.msn.com/us/cons...-ground-turkey

A food safety regulator says antibiotic-resistant bacteria, found on
samples of ground turkey, is "a major public health threat."

KANSAS CITY Dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria has been found in
ground turkey on U.S. grocery shelves across a variety of brands and
stores located in 21 states, according to a report by a consumer
watchdog organization.

Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were found to
be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were contaminated
with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
found.

The nonprofit, independent product-testing organization said in the June
issue of its magazine that the sampling marked the first time it had
conducted a laboratory analysis of ground turkey, a popular consumer
alternative to hamburger. It was alarmed by the results. "Some bacteria
that end up on ground turkey, including E. coli and staph aureus, can
cause not only food poisoning but also urinary, bloodstream, and other
infections," said a Consumer Reports statement on its findings.

The group said it samples ground turkey from 27 different brands,
including major and store brands.

Turkeys, like other livestock in the United States, are commonly given
repeated low doses of antibiotics in an effort to keep the animals
healthy and help promote growth. But there has been growing concern that
widespread use of antibiotics in animals that are not sick is speeding
the development of antibiotic resistance.

The National Turkey Federation said the findings were sensationalized on
a sampling that was "extremely small," and said that blaming use of
antibiotics in animals was "misleading."

"There is more than one way they (harmful bacteria) can wind up on food
animals," said National Turkey Federation vice president Lisa Picard.
"In fact, it's so common in the environment, studies have shown that
generic E. coli and MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus)
can even be found on about 20 percent of computer keyboards." The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration also found widespread contamination,
discovering antibiotic-resistant E. coli, salmonella and other harmful
bacteria in turkey, ground beef, pork chops and chicken in sampling done
in 2011.

The food safety regulator says resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is
"a major public health threat," and last year issued voluntary
guidelines for animal health and animal agriculture industries aimed at
limiting the antibiotic use in livestock. The agency has rebuffed
efforts to mandate reduced usage, however.

U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, last month reintroduced
legislation that would ban non-therapeutic uses of eight types of
antibiotics in food animal production.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also has issued a warning
about antibiotic resistance infections, saying they are becoming
increasingly difficult to treat and more infected people are likely to
die.

"Humans don't consume antibiotics every day to prevent disease and
neither should healthy animals," said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, director of
the Food Safety and Sustainability Group at Consumer Reports. "Prudent
use of antibiotics should be required to stem the public health crisis
generated from the reduced effectiveness of antibiotics."
.................................

I've been buying a lot of ground turkey, to use in place of beef in a
lot of dishes, as felt it was better for us, but then read this article
and it makes me stop and think twice before ever buying it again. <gag>

Anybody else buy ground turkey?

Judy

"Judy Haffner" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://mlvb.net/news.msn.com/us/cons...-ground-turkey
>
> A food safety regulator says antibiotic-resistant bacteria, found on
> samples of ground turkey, is "a major public health threat."
>
> KANSAS CITY Dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria has been found in
> ground turkey on U.S. grocery shelves across a variety of brands and
> stores located in 21 states, according to a report by a consumer
> watchdog organization.
>
> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were found to
> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were contaminated
> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
> found.
>
> The nonprofit, independent product-testing organization said in the June
> issue of its magazine that the sampling marked the first time it had
> conducted a laboratory analysis of ground turkey, a popular consumer
> alternative to hamburger. It was alarmed by the results. "Some bacteria
> that end up on ground turkey, including E. coli and staph aureus, can
> cause not only food poisoning but also urinary, bloodstream, and other
> infections," said a Consumer Reports statement on its findings.
>
> The group said it samples ground turkey from 27 different brands,
> including major and store brands.
>
> Turkeys, like other livestock in the United States, are commonly given
> repeated low doses of antibiotics in an effort to keep the animals
> healthy and help promote growth. But there has been growing concern that
> widespread use of antibiotics in animals that are not sick is speeding
> the development of antibiotic resistance.
>
> The National Turkey Federation said the findings were sensationalized on
> a sampling that was "extremely small," and said that blaming use of
> antibiotics in animals was "misleading."
>
> "There is more than one way they (harmful bacteria) can wind up on food
> animals," said National Turkey Federation vice president Lisa Picard.
> "In fact, it's so common in the environment, studies have shown that
> generic E. coli and MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus)
> can even be found on about 20 percent of computer keyboards." The U.S.
> Food and Drug Administration also found widespread contamination,
> discovering antibiotic-resistant E. coli, salmonella and other harmful
> bacteria in turkey, ground beef, pork chops and chicken in sampling done
> in 2011.
>
> The food safety regulator says resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is
> "a major public health threat," and last year issued voluntary
> guidelines for animal health and animal agriculture industries aimed at
> limiting the antibiotic use in livestock. The agency has rebuffed
> efforts to mandate reduced usage, however.
>
> U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, last month reintroduced
> legislation that would ban non-therapeutic uses of eight types of
> antibiotics in food animal production.
>
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also has issued a warning
> about antibiotic resistance infections, saying they are becoming
> increasingly difficult to treat and more infected people are likely to
> die.
>
> "Humans don't consume antibiotics every day to prevent disease and
> neither should healthy animals," said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, director of
> the Food Safety and Sustainability Group at Consumer Reports. "Prudent
> use of antibiotics should be required to stem the public health crisis
> generated from the reduced effectiveness of antibiotics."
> ................................
>
> I've been buying a lot of ground turkey, to use in place of beef in a
> lot of dishes, as felt it was better for us, but then read this article
> and it makes me stop and think twice before ever buying it again. <gag>
>
> Anybody else buy ground turkey?
>
> Judy

Not any more. I never thought it was better for you than beef. In fact
studies have shown that it is not, since they use parts of the turkey that
you might not normally eat. I did buy it a couple of times because daughter
doesn't like beef. But it turns out that she doesn't really like that
either. And I had a hard time cooking it. I bought the patties. Never
again.

On 2013-05-01, Judy Haffner > wrote:
>
> "Humans don't consume antibiotics every day to prevent disease and

Unfortunately, they do. To believe antibiotics suddenly stop being
antibiotics simply because they are present in the body of an eatible
animal that may or may not be cooked is absurd on the face of it. We
ingest these anitbiotics with ever bite of fowl, beef, swine, fish, we
eat. You can bet yer life it isn't making us healthier in the long
run.

nb

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, (Judy Haffner)
wrote:

>
>http://mlvb.net/news.msn.com/us/cons...-ground-turkey
>snip article
>
>I've been buying a lot of ground turkey, to use in place of beef in a
>lot of dishes, as felt it was better for us, but then read this article
>and it makes me stop and think twice before ever buying it again. <gag>
>
>Anybody else buy ground turkey?
>
>Judy

Yes. I buy a Costco pack of ground turkey whenever it is time for me
to make a 10-quart batch of spaghetti sauce. I haven't used it for
anything else although I was considering it for one of the meats in
meat loaf. Maybe not now.
Janet US

On 5/1/2013 3:43 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
> http://mlvb.net/news.msn.com/us/cons...-ground-turkey
>
> A food safety regulator says antibiotic-resistant bacteria, found on
> samples of ground turkey, is "a major public health threat."
>
(snip)
> ................................
>
> I've been buying a lot of ground turkey, to use in place of beef in a
> lot of dishes, as felt it was better for us, but then read this article
> and it makes me stop and think twice before ever buying it again. <gag>
>
> Anybody else buy ground turkey?
>
> Judy
>
I haven't bought ground turkey since the 1980's. Yes, everyone said it
was "healthier". Then I read somewhere they grind the skin right along
with everything else. How can eating ground turkey skin be "healthy"?
I just started buying leaner cuts of ground beef instead. I haven't
looked at a package of ground turkey in decades.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
>
> On 5/1/2013 3:43 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
> > Anybody else buy ground turkey?
> >
> I haven't bought ground turkey since the 1980's. Yes, everyone said it
> was "healthier". Then I read somewhere they grind the skin right along
> with everything else. How can eating ground turkey skin be "healthy"?
> I just started buying leaner cuts of ground beef instead. I haven't
> looked at a package of ground turkey in decades.

I also tried a package of ground turkey in the late 80's when they were
promoting it as healthy. I didn't even know about the skin thing. I just
didn't like it. I wasn't impressed so I've never bought any since.

G.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> On 5/1/2013 3:43 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>> > Anybody else buy ground turkey?
>> >
>> I haven't bought ground turkey since the 1980's. Yes, everyone said it
>> was "healthier". Then I read somewhere they grind the skin right along
>> with everything else. How can eating ground turkey skin be "healthy"?
>> I just started buying leaner cuts of ground beef instead. I haven't
>> looked at a package of ground turkey in decades.
>
> I also tried a package of ground turkey in the late 80's when they were
> promoting it as healthy. I didn't even know about the skin thing. I just
> didn't like it. I wasn't impressed so I've never bought any since.
>

ditto.

On 5/1/2013 10:43 AM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> On 5/1/2013 3:43 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>>> Anybody else buy ground turkey?
>>>
>> I haven't bought ground turkey since the 1980's. Yes, everyone said it
>> was "healthier". Then I read somewhere they grind the skin right along
>> with everything else. How can eating ground turkey skin be "healthy"?
>> I just started buying leaner cuts of ground beef instead. I haven't
>> looked at a package of ground turkey in decades.
>
> I also tried a package of ground turkey in the late 80's when they were
> promoting it as healthy. I didn't even know about the skin thing. I just
> didn't like it. I wasn't impressed so I've never bought any since.
>
> G.
>
Oh, I found ways to use it. It was fine in a pot of chili. Or formed
into patties then topped with tomato sauce to which I added basil and
oregano. Top with shredded mozzarella and bake. Then I heard/read
about the skin being ground in with the meat and thought "well that's
just silly".

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/1/2013 10:43 AM, Gary wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/1/2013 3:43 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>>>> Anybody else buy ground turkey?
>>>>
>>> I haven't bought ground turkey since the 1980's. Yes, everyone said it
>>> was "healthier". Then I read somewhere they grind the skin right along
>>> with everything else. How can eating ground turkey skin be "healthy"?
>>> I just started buying leaner cuts of ground beef instead. I haven't
>>> looked at a package of ground turkey in decades.
>>
>> I also tried a package of ground turkey in the late 80's when they were
>> promoting it as healthy. I didn't even know about the skin thing. I just
>> didn't like it. I wasn't impressed so I've never bought any since.
>>
>> G.
>>
> Oh, I found ways to use it. It was fine in a pot of chili. Or formed
> into patties then topped with tomato sauce to which I added basil and
> oregano. Top with shredded mozzarella and bake. Then I heard/read about
> the skin being ground in with the meat and thought "well that's just
> silly".
>

no, that's just flavor.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/1/2013 10:43 AM, Gary wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/1/2013 3:43 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>>>> Anybody else buy ground turkey?
>>>>
>>> I haven't bought ground turkey since the 1980's. Yes, everyone said it
>>> was "healthier". Then I read somewhere they grind the skin right along
>>> with everything else. How can eating ground turkey skin be "healthy"?
>>> I just started buying leaner cuts of ground beef instead. I haven't
>>> looked at a package of ground turkey in decades.
>>
>> I also tried a package of ground turkey in the late 80's when they were
>> promoting it as healthy. I didn't even know about the skin thing. I just
>> didn't like it. I wasn't impressed so I've never bought any since.
>>
>> G.
>>
> Oh, I found ways to use it. It was fine in a pot of chili. Or formed
> into patties then topped with tomato sauce to which I added basil and
> oregano. Top with shredded mozzarella and bake. Then I heard/read about
> the skin being ground in with the meat and thought "well that's just
> silly".

Well anything to make up the weight for greater profit I prefer my own
wee grinder and I choose what to put through it.

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 5/1/2013 11:11 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>> I also tried a package of ground turkey in the late 80's when they were
>>> >>promoting it as healthy. I didn't even know about the skin thing. I just
>>> >>didn't like it. I wasn't impressed so I've never bought any since.
>>> >>
>>> >>G.
>>> >>
>> >Oh, I found ways to use it. It was fine in a pot of chili. Or formed
>> >into patties then topped with tomato sauce to which I added basil and
>> >oregano. Top with shredded mozzarella and bake. Then I heard/read about
>> >the skin being ground in with the meat and thought "well that's just
>> >silly".
>> >
> no, that's just flavor.
>
That was rather my point. Ground turkey without a lot of seasoning is
pretty darn bland. Even a whole roasted turkey doesn't pop my cork.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/1/2013 11:11 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>> I also tried a package of ground turkey in the late 80's when they were
>>>> >>promoting it as healthy. I didn't even know about the skin thing. I
>>>> >>just
>>>> >>didn't like it. I wasn't impressed so I've never bought any since.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>G.
>>>> >>
>>> >Oh, I found ways to use it. It was fine in a pot of chili. Or formed
>>> >into patties then topped with tomato sauce to which I added basil and
>>> >oregano. Top with shredded mozzarella and bake. Then I heard/read
>>> >about
>>> >the skin being ground in with the meat and thought "well that's just
>>> >silly".
>>> >
>> no, that's just flavor.
>>
> That was rather my point. Ground turkey without a lot of seasoning is
> pretty darn bland. Even a whole roasted turkey doesn't pop my cork.
>
>

salt and mayo. And a slice of a DECENT tomato, if you have it.

"Judy Haffner" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://mlvb.net/news.msn.com/us/cons...-ground-turkey
>
> A food safety regulator says antibiotic-resistant bacteria, found on
> samples of ground turkey, is "a major public health threat."
>
> KANSAS CITY Dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria has been found in
> ground turkey on U.S. grocery shelves across a variety of brands and
> stores located in 21 states, according to a report by a consumer
> watchdog organization.


Who needs the USDA? Keep the gumint outa my food!

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
>> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were found to
>> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were contaminated
>> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
>> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
>> found.
>
> Once the USDA gets wind of this, they will no doubt crack down on
> these dirty turkey farms and make our food supply safe for
> consumption. Just as they are doing with chicken.


No they won't. We can't afford food inspection. We're broke.

On 5/1/2013 11:16 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Oh, I found ways to use it. It was fine in a pot of chili. Or formed
>> into patties then topped with tomato sauce to which I added basil and
>> oregano. Top with shredded mozzarella and bake. Then I heard/read
>> about the skin being ground in with the meat and thought "well that's
>> just silly".
>
> Well anything to make up the weight for greater profit I prefer my
> own wee grinder and I choose what to put through it.
>
Aye, and I use a grinder myself these days. But I won't be grinding turkey.

Jill

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:27:37 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, Judy Haffner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were found
>>>> to
>>>> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were
>>>> contaminated
>>>> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
>>>> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
>>>> found.
>>>
>>> Once the USDA gets wind of this, they will no doubt crack down on
>>> these dirty turkey farms and make our food supply safe for
>>> consumption. Just as they are doing with chicken.
>>
>> No they won't. We can't afford food inspection. We're broke.
>
> The processors/manufacturers should be paying for the inspector(s).
> But the Big Meat lobby has made sure that nobody has ever proposed
> such a simple plan.
>

That sure sounds like soshilizm to me. The free market will keep meat safe.

On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:27:37 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, Judy Haffner wrote:
> >
> >> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were found to
> >> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were contaminated
> >> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
> >> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
> >> found.
> >
> > Once the USDA gets wind of this, they will no doubt crack down on
> > these dirty turkey farms and make our food supply safe for
> > consumption. Just as they are doing with chicken.
>
>
> No they won't. We can't afford food inspection. We're broke.
>
That's for sure! Strangle the FDA, OSHA etc and wonder why things are
the way they are.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:27:37 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, Judy Haffner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were found
>>>> to
>>>> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were
>>>> contaminated
>>>> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
>>>> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
>>>> found.
>>>
>>> Once the USDA gets wind of this, they will no doubt crack down on
>>> these dirty turkey farms and make our food supply safe for
>>> consumption. Just as they are doing with chicken.
>>
>> No they won't. We can't afford food inspection. We're broke.
>
> The processors/manufacturers should be paying for the inspector(s).
> But the Big Meat lobby has made sure that nobody has ever proposed
> such a simple plan.
>

there is nothing wrong with that idea, but of course those costs would get
passed on to the consumer.

On Wed, 1 May 2013 10:37:19 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> news
> > On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:27:37 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >
> >> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, Judy Haffner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were found
> >>>> to
> >>>> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were
> >>>> contaminated
> >>>> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
> >>>> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
> >>>> found.
> >>>
> >>> Once the USDA gets wind of this, they will no doubt crack down on
> >>> these dirty turkey farms and make our food supply safe for
> >>> consumption. Just as they are doing with chicken.
> >>
> >> No they won't. We can't afford food inspection. We're broke.
> >
> > The processors/manufacturers should be paying for the inspector(s).
> > But the Big Meat lobby has made sure that nobody has ever proposed
> > such a simple plan.
> >
>
> That sure sounds like soshilizm to me. The free market will keep meat safe.
>
>
LOL

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

(Judy Haffner) wrote in
:

> KANSAS CITY Dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria has been
> found in ground turkey

Not in jive turkey? :-))

--

Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected
from happening.

-- Barbara Tober

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
:

> That sure sounds like soshilizm to me. The free market will
> keep meat safe.

Tell that to the victims of listeriosis. I'm sure your faith in
kapitalyism will reassuire the families of the deceased:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Ca...iosis_outbreak

Family member: "Paul M. Cook's naive faith in the invisible hand is
so heartwarming. I'm so glad my husband died before socialists
could implement life saving sanitary measures at Maple Leaf Foods."

Other family members: nodding in approval.

--

Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected
from happening.

-- Barbara Tober

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
> :
>
>> That sure sounds like soshilizm to me. The free market will
>> keep meat safe.
>
> Tell that to the victims of listeriosis. I'm sure your faith in
> kapitalyism will reassuire the families of the deceased:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Ca...iosis_outbreak
>
> Family member: "Paul M. Cook's naive faith in the invisible hand is
> so heartwarming. I'm so glad my husband died before socialists
> could implement life saving sanitary measures at Maple Leaf Foods."
>
> Other family members: nodding in approval.
>

Victims should be proud they died for a good cause.

On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:54:14 -0500, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
> :
>
> > That sure sounds like soshilizm to me. The free market will
> > keep meat safe.
>
> Tell that to the victims of listeriosis. I'm sure your faith in
> kapitalyism will reassuire the families of the deceased:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Ca...iosis_outbreak
>
> Family member: "Paul M. Cook's naive faith in the invisible hand is
> so heartwarming. I'm so glad my husband died before socialists
> could implement life saving sanitary measures at Maple Leaf Foods."
>
> Other family members: nodding in approval.

I guess you missed his sarcasm.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Wed, 1 May 2013 10:43:29 -0700, "Pico Rico" >
wrote:

>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> news
> > On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:27:37 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >
> >> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, Judy Haffner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were found
> >>>> to
> >>>> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were
> >>>> contaminated
> >>>> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
> >>>> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
> >>>> found.
> >>>
> >>> Once the USDA gets wind of this, they will no doubt crack down on
> >>> these dirty turkey farms and make our food supply safe for
> >>> consumption. Just as they are doing with chicken.
> >>
> >> No they won't. We can't afford food inspection. We're broke.
> >
> > The processors/manufacturers should be paying for the inspector(s).
> > But the Big Meat lobby has made sure that nobody has ever proposed
> > such a simple plan.
> >
>
> there is nothing wrong with that idea, but of course those costs would get
> passed on to the consumer.
>
There's nothing more efficient than putting the Fox in charge of the
hen house!

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Pico Rico wrote:
>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> news
> > On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:27:37 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >
> >> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, Judy Haffner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were found
> >>>> to
> >>>> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were
> >>>> contaminated
> >>>> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
> >>>> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
> >>>> found.
> >>>
> >>> Once the USDA gets wind of this, they will no doubt crack down on
> >>> these dirty turkey farms and make our food supply safe for
> >>> consumption. Just as they are doing with chicken.
> >>
> >> No they won't. We can't afford food inspection. We're broke.
> >
> > The processors/manufacturers should be paying for the inspector(s).
> > But the Big Meat lobby has made sure that nobody has ever proposed
> > such a simple plan.
> >
>
> there is nothing wrong with that idea, but of course those costs would get
> passed on to the consumer.

News flash - The consumer who purchases a product will pay for all costs
associated with it's production, distribution and retailing. Whether
those costs are taken via taxes or via corporate taxes or regulations,
the consumer will and rightfully should pay for the costs associated
with what they purchase.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> Pico Rico wrote:
>>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> news
>> > On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:27:37 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, Judy Haffner wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were
>> >>>> found
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were
>> >>>> contaminated
>> >>>> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
>> >>>> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
>> >>>> found.
>> >>>
>> >>> Once the USDA gets wind of this, they will no doubt crack down on
>> >>> these dirty turkey farms and make our food supply safe for
>> >>> consumption. Just as they are doing with chicken.
>> >>
>> >> No they won't. We can't afford food inspection. We're broke.
>> >
>> > The processors/manufacturers should be paying for the inspector(s).
>> > But the Big Meat lobby has made sure that nobody has ever proposed
>> > such a simple plan.
>> >
>>
>> there is nothing wrong with that idea, but of course those costs would
>> get
>> passed on to the consumer.
>
> News flash - The consumer who purchases a product will pay for all costs
> associated with it's production, distribution and retailing. Whether
> those costs are taken via taxes or via corporate taxes or regulations,
> the consumer will and rightfully should pay for the costs associated
> with what they purchase.

actually, if they are paid by taxes out of the general fund, it may not be
the consumer who is bearing the brunt. But it should be - we have too much
of a mish mash in government funding.

Judy Haffner wrote:
>
> Anybody else buy ground turkey?
>
> Judy

I do from time to time and will continue to do so. The knowledge free
propagandists like to twist these stories to push their agendas, be it
anti-agribusiness, anti-GMO, anti-factory farm, anti-free market, or
whatever else they come up with to be anti about.

Some thoughts to ponder:

What percentage of the food consuming US population of ~330,000,000
becomes ill each year much less die from such food contamination?

10,000? 0.003%
100,000? 0.03%
1,000,000? 0.3%

What added cost is reasonable to try to ensure that a minute percentage
of the population does not suffer illness associated with contaminated
food?

At what point does that added cost cause more people to suffer
malnutrition due to their inability to afford the increased costs of
food due to an attempt to prevent them from illness due to
contamination?

We of course do have the technology to ensure food safety without huge
added costs, it's called irradiation. Unfortunately due to our failing
schools, a tiny minority of anti-nuclear propagandists have convinced
the ignorant populace that somehow the technology of food irradiation is
unsafe with false claims that it makes the food radioactive, mutates the
food, causes cancer, etc. all of which are entirely untrue. These same
anti-nuclear propagandists are also the reason the Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance Imaging is known as an MRI.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2013-05-01, Judy Haffner > wrote:
>>
>> "Humans don't consume antibiotics every day to prevent disease and
>
> Unfortunately, they do. To believe antibiotics suddenly stop being
> antibiotics simply because they are present in the body of an eatible
> animal that may or may not be cooked is absurd on the face of it. We
> ingest these anitbiotics with ever bite of fowl, beef, swine, fish, we
> eat. You can bet yer life it isn't making us healthier in the long
> run.

There are some very common medical conditions that are sometimes treated
with daily antibiotics. Gastroparesis and acne are two such.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> On 5/1/2013 3:43 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>> > Anybody else buy ground turkey?
>> >
>> I haven't bought ground turkey since the 1980's. Yes, everyone said it
>> was "healthier". Then I read somewhere they grind the skin right along
>> with everything else. How can eating ground turkey skin be "healthy"?
>> I just started buying leaner cuts of ground beef instead. I haven't
>> looked at a package of ground turkey in decades.
>
> I also tried a package of ground turkey in the late 80's when they were
> promoting it as healthy. I didn't even know about the skin thing. I just
> didn't like it. I wasn't impressed so I've never bought any since.

I tried it for meatballs. Coulda played tennis with them!

Pico Rico wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Pico Rico wrote:
> >>
> >> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> >> news > >> > On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:27:37 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, Judy Haffner wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were
> >> >>>> found
> >> >>>> to
> >> >>>> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were
> >> >>>> contaminated
> >> >>>> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
> >> >>>> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
> >> >>>> found.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Once the USDA gets wind of this, they will no doubt crack down on
> >> >>> these dirty turkey farms and make our food supply safe for
> >> >>> consumption. Just as they are doing with chicken.
> >> >>
> >> >> No they won't. We can't afford food inspection. We're broke.
> >> >
> >> > The processors/manufacturers should be paying for the inspector(s).
> >> > But the Big Meat lobby has made sure that nobody has ever proposed
> >> > such a simple plan.
> >> >
> >>
> >> there is nothing wrong with that idea, but of course those costs would
> >> get
> >> passed on to the consumer.
> >
> > News flash - The consumer who purchases a product will pay for all costs
> > associated with it's production, distribution and retailing. Whether
> > those costs are taken via taxes or via corporate taxes or regulations,
> > the consumer will and rightfully should pay for the costs associated
> > with what they purchase.
>
> actually, if they are paid by taxes out of the general fund, it may not be
> the consumer who is bearing the brunt. But it should be - we have too much
> of a mish mash in government funding.

Ultimately it is. A person may not eat meat, and thus think their tax
dollars shouldn't pay for meat inspection, however invariable they will
utilize something else that consumes tax dollars that someone who eats
meat doesn't so it all averages out. It would be nice to see such a fine
accounting of tax dollars spent, but ultimately it would just be
interesting in showing how the averages all balance out.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
:

>> Tell that to the victims of listeriosis. I'm sure your faith
>> in kapitalyism will reassuire the families of the deceased:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Ca...iosis_outbreak
>>
>> Family member: "Paul M. Cook's naive faith in the invisible
>> hand is so heartwarming. I'm so glad my husband died before
>> socialists could implement life saving sanitary measures at
>> Maple Leaf Foods."
>>
>> Other family members: nodding in approval.
>
> Victims should be proud they died for a good cause.

Seeing as you think that, I'm putting you in charge of spreading
the good word. Your first task, let the families of the victims of
the Texas fertilizer plant explosion know that without the
invisible hand preventing safety regulations, their family members
would still be alive.

Then you can tackle the families of the nearly 400 dead in Savar.

--

Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected
from happening.

-- Barbara Tober

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> Tell that to the victims of listeriosis. I'm sure your faith
>>> in kapitalyism will reassuire the families of the deceased:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Ca...iosis_outbreak
>>>
>>> Family member: "Paul M. Cook's naive faith in the invisible
>>> hand is so heartwarming. I'm so glad my husband died before
>>> socialists could implement life saving sanitary measures at
>>> Maple Leaf Foods."
>>>
>>> Other family members: nodding in approval.
>>
>> Victims should be proud they died for a good cause.
>
> Seeing as you think that, I'm putting you in charge of spreading
> the good word. Your first task, let the families of the victims of
> the Texas fertilizer plant explosion know that without the
> invisible hand preventing safety regulations, their family members
> would still be alive.

And you know they would not have died from say, car accidents? Fertilizer
does not kill people. People kill people.

> Then you can tackle the families of the nearly 400 dead in Savar.

This isn't a football game. This is life.

Michel Boucher wrote:
>
> Seeing as you think that, I'm putting you in charge of spreading
> the good word. Your first task, let the families of the victims of
> the Texas fertilizer plant explosion know that without the
> invisible hand preventing safety regulations, their family members
> would still be alive.

The fertilizer warehouse explosion (not actually a plant) was not a
safety regulation issue. The issue was the encroachment of a residential
area into an industrial one. The fertilizer warehouse was there first.

Some years back there was similar blame and whining when there was a
fire at a warehouse full of pool chemicals in CT. The usual fuss about
why it was allowed in a residential area, when the real question was why
was residential building allowed in an industrial area. The pool
chemical warehouse again was there long before the residential
development around it.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> Pico Rico wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Pico Rico wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> >> news >> >> > On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:27:37 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, Judy Haffner wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were
>> >> >>>> found
>> >> >>>> to
>> >> >>>> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were
>> >> >>>> contaminated
>> >> >>>> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of
>> >> >>>> which
>> >> >>>> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer
>> >> >>>> Reports
>> >> >>>> found.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Once the USDA gets wind of this, they will no doubt crack down on
>> >> >>> these dirty turkey farms and make our food supply safe for
>> >> >>> consumption. Just as they are doing with chicken.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No they won't. We can't afford food inspection. We're broke.
>> >> >
>> >> > The processors/manufacturers should be paying for the inspector(s).
>> >> > But the Big Meat lobby has made sure that nobody has ever proposed
>> >> > such a simple plan.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> there is nothing wrong with that idea, but of course those costs would
>> >> get
>> >> passed on to the consumer.
>> >
>> > News flash - The consumer who purchases a product will pay for all
>> > costs
>> > associated with it's production, distribution and retailing. Whether
>> > those costs are taken via taxes or via corporate taxes or regulations,
>> > the consumer will and rightfully should pay for the costs associated
>> > with what they purchase.
>>
>> actually, if they are paid by taxes out of the general fund, it may not
>> be
>> the consumer who is bearing the brunt. But it should be - we have too
>> much
>> of a mish mash in government funding.
>
> Ultimately it is. A person may not eat meat, and thus think their tax
> dollars shouldn't pay for meat inspection, however invariable they will
> utilize something else that consumes tax dollars that someone who eats
> meat doesn't so it all averages out. It would be nice to see such a fine
> accounting of tax dollars spent, but ultimately it would just be
> interesting in showing how the averages all balance out.

It doesn't "all average out" when we have a highly progressive tax system.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> Michel Boucher wrote:
>>
>> Seeing as you think that, I'm putting you in charge of spreading
>> the good word. Your first task, let the families of the victims of
>> the Texas fertilizer plant explosion know that without the
>> invisible hand preventing safety regulations, their family members
>> would still be alive.
>
> The fertilizer warehouse explosion (not actually a plant) was not a
> safety regulation issue. The issue was the encroachment of a residential
> area into an industrial one. The fertilizer warehouse was there first.

And in defiance of the law it stored more than 250 tons of ammonia nitrate
which is a fertilizer and also a potent explosive. They were required to
report any quantity over 400 pounds. They vioilated the law because they
were trying to maximize profit and public safety be damned. You don't get a
free pass because of a zoning law you don't agree with.

> Some years back there was similar blame and whining when there was a
> fire at a warehouse full of pool chemicals in CT. The usual fuss about
> why it was allowed in a residential area, when the real question was why
> was residential building allowed in an industrial area. The pool
> chemical warehouse again was there long before the residential
> development around it.

And it could havhe operated and made a profit by following regulations.
They chose to skirt regulations to make more profit. Would your same
argument hold water if the criminally negligent company set up shop in a
pre-existing residential area?

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
:

>> Seeing as you think that, I'm putting you in charge of
>> spreading the good word. Your first task, let the families
>> of the victims of the Texas fertilizer plant explosion know
>> that without the invisible hand preventing safety
>> regulations, their family members would still be alive.
>
> And you know they would not have died from say, car accidents?
> Fertilizer does not kill people. People kill people.

I'm glad to see you admit there is such a thing as social
responsibility :-)

>> Then you can tackle the families of the nearly 400 dead in
>> Savar.
>
> This isn't a football game. This is life.

Interesting to see you say that.

--

Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected
from happening.

-- Barbara Tober

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Michel Boucher wrote:
> >>
> >> Seeing as you think that, I'm putting you in charge of spreading
> >> the good word. Your first task, let the families of the victims of
> >> the Texas fertilizer plant explosion know that without the
> >> invisible hand preventing safety regulations, their family members
> >> would still be alive.
> >
> > The fertilizer warehouse explosion (not actually a plant) was not a
> > safety regulation issue. The issue was the encroachment of a residential
> > area into an industrial one. The fertilizer warehouse was there first.
>
> And in defiance of the law it stored more than 250 tons of ammonia nitrate
> which is a fertilizer and also a potent explosive. They were required to
> report any quantity over 400 pounds. They vioilated the law because they
> were trying to maximize profit and public safety be damned. You don't get a
> free pass because of a zoning law you don't agree with.

They complied with every single state and local law as well as EPA
regulations. The only thing they didn't comply with was DHS reporting,
which has nothing to do with zoning or safety.

>
> > Some years back there was similar blame and whining when there was a
> > fire at a warehouse full of pool chemicals in CT. The usual fuss about
> > why it was allowed in a residential area, when the real question was why
> > was residential building allowed in an industrial area. The pool
> > chemical warehouse again was there long before the residential
> > development around it.
>
> And it could havhe operated and made a profit by following regulations.
> They chose to skirt regulations to make more profit. Would your same
> argument hold water if the criminally negligent company set up shop in a
> pre-existing residential area?

WTF are you talking about? There was a fire at a warehouse, there was
not even any accusation about negligence or not following regulations.
The whining was about the location and the warehouse was there first in
an area zoned industrial and in compliance with every single regulation.
The blame lies 100% with the city government that allowed the
residential development to encroach on an industrial area.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Michel Boucher wrote:
>>>
>>> Seeing as you think that, I'm putting you in charge of spreading
>>> the good word. Your first task, let the families of the victims of
>>> the Texas fertilizer plant explosion know that without the
>>> invisible hand preventing safety regulations, their family members
>>> would still be alive.
>>
>> The fertilizer warehouse explosion (not actually a plant) was not a
>> safety regulation issue. The issue was the encroachment of a residential
>> area into an industrial one. The fertilizer warehouse was there first.
>
> And in defiance of the law it stored more than 250 tons of ammonia nitrate
> which is a fertilizer and also a potent explosive. They were required to
> report any quantity over 400 pounds. They vioilated the law because they
> were trying to maximize profit and public safety be damned. You don't get
> a free pass because of a zoning law you don't agree with.
>


they failed to report to Homeland Security, which is only concerned that the
stuff doesn't get taken off the radar to make bombs. H.S. cares nothing
about safety violations - that is OSHA, etc. There has been no mention of
the plant's failure in this regard, at least none that I have seen.

On 5/1/2013 10:27 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:43:03 -0800, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
>> Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were found to
>> be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were contaminated
>> with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which
>> proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports
>> found.
>
> Once the USDA gets wind of this, they will no doubt crack down on
> these dirty turkey farms and make our food supply safe for
> consumption. Just as they are doing with chicken.

They're actually proposing to privatize the inspection of chicken
processing - by letting the processing companies inspect themselves.
Sure, _that'll_ work. The poultry processors will triumphantly report
that poultry failing to pass inspection has reached an all-time low.
And we can all feel safer, knowing the fox is guarding the chicken coop.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Michel Boucher wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Seeing as you think that, I'm putting you in charge of spreading
>> >> the good word. Your first task, let the families of the victims of
>> >> the Texas fertilizer plant explosion know that without the
>> >> invisible hand preventing safety regulations, their family members
>> >> would still be alive.
>> >
>> > The fertilizer warehouse explosion (not actually a plant) was not a
>> > safety regulation issue. The issue was the encroachment of a
>> > residential
>> > area into an industrial one. The fertilizer warehouse was there first.
>>
>> And in defiance of the law it stored more than 250 tons of ammonia
>> nitrate
>> which is a fertilizer and also a potent explosive. They were required to
>> report any quantity over 400 pounds. They vioilated the law because they
>> were trying to maximize profit and public safety be damned. You don't
>> get a
>> free pass because of a zoning law you don't agree with.
>
> They complied with every single state and local law as well as EPA
> regulations. The only thing they didn't comply with was DHS reporting,
> which has nothing to do with zoning or safety.

That's still in doubt. EPA is all about safety as environmental regulations
are often crafted with public safety in mind. Such as you can't dump oil in
a lake because people drink the water etc etc etc.

>> > Some years back there was similar blame and whining when there was a
>> > fire at a warehouse full of pool chemicals in CT. The usual fuss about
>> > why it was allowed in a residential area, when the real question was
>> > why
>> > was residential building allowed in an industrial area. The pool
>> > chemical warehouse again was there long before the residential
>> > development around it.
>>
>> And it could havhe operated and made a profit by following regulations.
>> They chose to skirt regulations to make more profit. Would your same
>> argument hold water if the criminally negligent company set up shop in a
>> pre-existing residential area?
>
> WTF are you talking about? There was a fire at a warehouse, there was
> not even any accusation about negligence or not following regulations.
> The whining was about the location and the warehouse was there first in
> an area zoned industrial and in compliance with every single regulation.
> The blame lies 100% with the city government that allowed the
> residential development to encroach on an industrial area.

Your argument fairly quickly falls apart since you cannot deny they hid the
fact that they were storing massive amounts of explosives from the people
who lived nearby. Why keep it a secret? If they were so forthcoming as you
allege what was with the secrecy? You can hardly use the "informed consent"
defense when those affected were never informed.