Is there any DNA testing going on in North America to verify animal
and fish species being offered for sale? I'm not that picky about
various types of animals and fish. I do wonder if chemicals used to
fatten up animals and fish can harm humans consuming them?

William

On Tue, 06 May 2014 11:44:03 -0400, William > wrote:

> Is there any DNA testing going on in North America to verify animal
> and fish species being offered for sale? I'm not that picky about
> various types of animals and fish.
>

If we don't have proper USDA inspections of our meat processing plants
- what makes you think we're going to get DNA testing?

> I do wonder if chemicals used to
> fatten up animals and fish can harm humans consuming them?

Hello, Rip Van Winkle... where have you been the last 25 years?
All you need to do is notice the statistics about early puberty in
girls (USA).

Synthetic growth hormones
Antibiotics
Steroids

The obesity rate can also be attributed, at least partially, to it.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 May 2014 11:44:03 -0400, William > wrote:
>
> > Is there any DNA testing going on in North America to verify animal
> > and fish species being offered for sale? I'm not that picky about
> > various types of animals and fish.
> >
>
> If we don't have proper USDA inspections of our meat processing plants
> - what makes you think we're going to get DNA testing?

There have been a number of "media articles" claiming DNA testing of
fish species at markets and sushi restaurants show widespread
mislabeling. It's up to you to determine whether the "media" has any
higher credibility than the "government".

>
> > I do wonder if chemicals used to
> > fatten up animals and fish can harm humans consuming them?
>
> Hello, Rip Van Winkle... where have you been the last 25 years?
> All you need to do is notice the statistics about early puberty in
> girls (USA).
>
> Synthetic growth hormones
> Antibiotics
> Steroids

The early puberty trends were in place long before there were any
steroids, antibiotics or hormones available for livestock, and also
shows in other countries where those are not available or used. It's
easy to point a finger there when you want to dislike the US food
system, but early puberty seems more human evolution than anything else.

>
> The obesity rate can also be attributed, at least partially, to it.

Again, easy to point fingers at what you want to dislike, but the
reality is that obesity is more closely related to increasingly
sedentary lifestyles and increasing lack of cooking and nutrition
education. Home ecc. type classes have been removed from schools just
like shop class has, and the result has been generations of people with
far fewer real-world skills than their parents. This has been great for
the service industry composed of those from third world countries where
practical skills are still taught, but is very bad for the state of the
country overall.

On Tue, 06 May 2014 11:53:57 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 06 May 2014 11:44:03 -0400, William > wrote:
> >
> > > Is there any DNA testing going on in North America to verify animal
> > > and fish species being offered for sale? I'm not that picky about
> > > various types of animals and fish.
> > >
> >
> > If we don't have proper USDA inspections of our meat processing plants
> > - what makes you think we're going to get DNA testing?
>
> There have been a number of "media articles" claiming DNA testing of
> fish species at markets and sushi restaurants show widespread
> mislabeling. It's up to you to determine whether the "media" has any
> higher credibility than the "government".
>
> >
> > > I do wonder if chemicals used to
> > > fatten up animals and fish can harm humans consuming them?
> >
> > Hello, Rip Van Winkle... where have you been the last 25 years?
> > All you need to do is notice the statistics about early puberty in
> > girls (USA).
> >
> > Synthetic growth hormones
> > Antibiotics
> > Steroids
>
> The early puberty trends were in place long before there were any
> steroids, antibiotics or hormones available for livestock, and also
> shows in other countries where those are not available or used. It's
> easy to point a finger there when you want to dislike the US food
> system, but early puberty seems more human evolution than anything else.
>
So say you. Feeding cattle hormones has been in place since the
thirties.
> >
> > The obesity rate can also be attributed, at least partially, to it.
>
> Again, easy to point fingers at what you want to dislike, but the
> reality is that obesity is more closely related to increasingly
> sedentary lifestyles and increasing lack of cooking and nutrition
> education. Home ecc. type classes have been removed from schools just
> like shop class has, and the result has been generations of people with
> far fewer real-world skills than their parents. This has been great for
> the service industry composed of those from third world countries where
> practical skills are still taught, but is very bad for the state of the
> country overall.

And so it goes. You took "partially" to mean absolutely.

End of conversation.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:17:38 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Tue, 06 May 2014 11:44:03 -0400, William > wrote:
>
>> Is there any DNA testing going on in North America to verify animal
>> and fish species being offered for sale? I'm not that picky about
>> various types of animals and fish.
>>
>
>If we don't have proper USDA inspections of our meat processing plants
>- what makes you think we're going to get DNA testing?
>
>> I do wonder if chemicals used to
>> fatten up animals and fish can harm humans consuming them?
>
>Hello, Rip Van Winkle... where have you been the last 25 years?
>All you need to do is notice the statistics about early puberty in
>girls (USA).
>
>Synthetic growth hormones
>Antibiotics
>Steroids
>
>The obesity rate can also be attributed, at least partially, to it.

I suppose we should count on this organization to protect us from
unsavory meat, pork and poultry producers:

American Meat Institute
1150 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 122
Washington, DC 20036

It's good they are located close to Capital Hill! I still wonder just
how respectful those foreign meat, poultry and fish producers are of
our laws and regulations. I really don't think they care what our law
makers think, until our law makers are loading the bombers and fueling
them for an overseas excursion!

William

On Tue, 06 May 2014 14:07:21 -0400, William > wrote:

> I suppose we should count on this organization to protect us from
> unsavory meat, pork and poultry producers:
>
> American Meat Institute
> 1150 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 122
> Washington, DC 20036
>
> It's good they are located close to Capital Hill!

Regulatory agencies are strangled and politicians are bought by big
business... /sarcasm/ I feel soooo safe.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 May 2014 11:53:57 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > sf wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 06 May 2014 11:44:03 -0400, William > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is there any DNA testing going on in North America to verify animal
> > > > and fish species being offered for sale? I'm not that picky about
> > > > various types of animals and fish.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If we don't have proper USDA inspections of our meat processing plants
> > > - what makes you think we're going to get DNA testing?
> >
> > There have been a number of "media articles" claiming DNA testing of
> > fish species at markets and sushi restaurants show widespread
> > mislabeling. It's up to you to determine whether the "media" has any
> > higher credibility than the "government".
> >
> > >
> > > > I do wonder if chemicals used to
> > > > fatten up animals and fish can harm humans consuming them?
> > >
> > > Hello, Rip Van Winkle... where have you been the last 25 years?
> > > All you need to do is notice the statistics about early puberty in
> > > girls (USA).
> > >
> > > Synthetic growth hormones
> > > Antibiotics
> > > Steroids
> >
> > The early puberty trends were in place long before there were any
> > steroids, antibiotics or hormones available for livestock, and also
> > shows in other countries where those are not available or used. It's
> > easy to point a finger there when you want to dislike the US food
> > system, but early puberty seems more human evolution than anything else.
> >
> So say you. Feeding cattle hormones has been in place since the
> thirties.

And puberty trends have been in place far earlier.

> > >
> > > The obesity rate can also be attributed, at least partially, to it.
> >
> > Again, easy to point fingers at what you want to dislike, but the
> > reality is that obesity is more closely related to increasingly
> > sedentary lifestyles and increasing lack of cooking and nutrition
> > education. Home ecc. type classes have been removed from schools just
> > like shop class has, and the result has been generations of people with
> > far fewer real-world skills than their parents. This has been great for
> > the service industry composed of those from third world countries where
> > practical skills are still taught, but is very bad for the state of the
> > country overall.
>
> And so it goes. You took "partially" to mean absolutely.

And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
animals?

>
> End of conversation.

The typical response of so many when presented with information that
contradicts their beliefs. This increasing trend of clinging to belief
over science that appears in both the left and right wings does not bode
well for the future.

On 06/05/2014 10:53 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 06 May 2014 11:44:03 -0400, William > wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any DNA testing going on in North America to verify animal
>>> and fish species being offered for sale? I'm not that picky about
>>> various types of animals and fish.
>>>
>>
>> If we don't have proper USDA inspections of our meat processing plants
>> - what makes you think we're going to get DNA testing?
>
> There have been a number of "media articles" claiming DNA testing of
> fish species at markets and sushi restaurants show widespread
> mislabeling. It's up to you to determine whether the "media" has any
> higher credibility than the "government".
>
>>
>>> I do wonder if chemicals used to
>>> fatten up animals and fish can harm humans consuming them?
>>
>> Hello, Rip Van Winkle... where have you been the last 25 years?
>> All you need to do is notice the statistics about early puberty in
>> girls (USA).
>>
>> Synthetic growth hormones
>> Antibiotics
>> Steroids
>
> The early puberty trends were in place long before there were any
> steroids, antibiotics or hormones available for livestock, and also
> shows in other countries where those are not available or used. It's
> easy to point a finger there when you want to dislike the US food
> system, but early puberty seems more human evolution than anything else.
>
>>
>> The obesity rate can also be attributed, at least partially, to it.
>
> Again, easy to point fingers at what you want to dislike, but the
> reality is that obesity is more closely related to increasingly
> sedentary lifestyles and increasing lack of cooking and nutrition
> education. Home ecc. type classes have been removed from schools just
> like shop class has, and the result has been generations of people with
> far fewer real-world skills than their parents. This has been great for
> the service industry composed of those from third world countries where
> practical skills are still taught, but is very bad for the state of the
> country overall.
>
Pete: I couldn't agree more!
Graham

"Pete C." > wrote:

> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
> animals?

Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
proffer it first?

Anyway anybody even remotely involved with academics knows that the peer
review system is more about building your career than it is about
scientific validity. When it comes to "peer reviewed science" about food
safety the stench of corruption is overwhelming, and one wonders if you can
possibly be even remotely serious. There's too much money at stake for us
to have real food safety.

sf > wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2014 11:44:03 -0400, William > wrote:
>
>> Is there any DNA testing going on in North America to verify animal
>> and fish species being offered for sale? I'm not that picky about
>> various types of animals and fish.
>>
>
> If we don't have proper USDA inspections of our meat processing plants
> - what makes you think we're going to get DNA testing?
>
>> I do wonder if chemicals used to
>> fatten up animals and fish can harm humans consuming them?
>
> Hello, Rip Van Winkle... where have you been the last 25 years?
> All you need to do is notice the statistics about early puberty in
> girls (USA).
>
> Synthetic growth hormones
> Antibiotics
> Steroids
>
> The obesity rate can also be attributed, at least partially, to it.
>

It's not just the meat and fish that contain suspicious chemicals, most any
processed food and non-organic produce and dry goods will contain something
that is untested (known by the ironic acronym GRAS or generally recognized
as safe) at best or something known to cause harm for decades, like
bisphenol A.

The food safety agencies are now run by executives from the additives and
pharma industries (they are diversified you know) and their
politician-lackeys. People either stupidly put faith in these agencies
because they are apathetic and unwilling to think for themselves, or
because they are true believers and fair weather patriots who believe that
there could never be a conspiracy to undermine the effectiveness of these
agencies when profit is at stake.

Best thing to do is to grow your own food and hunt / fish in unspoiled
areas. Next best thing is to try to eat organic and "natural" as much as
possible and give up processed foods.

My wife's family is from Iowa and they look at the attitudes I expressed
above as not only offensive, but a genuine threat to their livelihood. My
opinion is that any farmer greedy enough to pass off poisoned meat and
produce to an unsuspecting public, while lobbying against effective food
safety standards, is a criminal.

Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
> > the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
> > animals?
>
> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
> proffer it first?
>
> Anyway anybody even remotely involved with academics knows that the peer
> review system is more about building your career than it is about
> scientific validity. When it comes to "peer reviewed science" about food
> safety the stench of corruption is overwhelming, and one wonders if you can
> possibly be even remotely serious. There's too much money at stake for us
> to have real food safety.

It seems that pretty much all sources of information and studies have
vested interests in what that information is claimed to show, whether it
be "research" funded by an industry producing a product, or "research"
funded by an industry producing an ideology. Ultimately it's up to the
reader to assess the credentials and biases of the sources and try to
find the truth.

"Pete C." > wrote:
> Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>>
>>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>>> animals?
>>
>> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>> proffer it first?
>>
>> Anyway anybody even remotely involved with academics knows that the peer
>> review system is more about building your career than it is about
>> scientific validity. When it comes to "peer reviewed science" about food
>> safety the stench of corruption is overwhelming, and one wonders if you can
>> possibly be even remotely serious. There's too much money at stake for us
>> to have real food safety.
>
> It seems that pretty much all sources of information and studies have
> vested interests in what that information is claimed to show, whether it
> be "research" funded by an industry producing a product, or "research"
> funded by an industry producing an ideology. Ultimately it's up to the
> reader to assess the credentials and biases of the sources and try to
> find the truth.

Of course, so why even bother to bring the "peer reviewed science" religion
into it at all? It is best to err on the side of caution when it comes to
food safety, which is what encourages me to avoid anything that is
unnecessary like additive-laden meat, poison filled veggies,
antibiotic-filled dairy, and adulterated processed food. It is just easier
and surely much healthier than cramming any old thing into the food hole.

On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
> wrote:

>Best thing to do is to grow your own food and hunt / fish in unspoiled
>areas.

Welcome to my world

On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>> animals?
>
> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
> proffer it first?

Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie.
They know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.

It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
stick their names on articles written by writers.

Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>>
>>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>>> animals?
>>
>> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>> proffer it first?
>
> Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
> quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
> know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.
>
> It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
> it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
> stick their names on articles written by writers.

I would wager most people have no idea what "peer reviewed science" really
means other than knowing that they should put a religious-grade belief in
anything that happens to be peer reviewed. Nowadays peer review is a tool
that the state can use to justify actions it wanted to take, a tool for big
pharma and big ag to shove more magic poisons down our gullets, and I could
go on but it seems pointless. People will believe what they wish, whether
their religion is based on magical characters or the scientific
priesthood.

Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>
> Dave Smith > wrote:
> > On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> >> "Pete C." > wrote:
> >>
> >>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
> >>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
> >>> animals?
> >>
> >> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
> >> proffer it first?
> >
> > Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
> > quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
> > know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.
> >
> > It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
> > it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
> > stick their names on articles written by writers.
>
> I would wager most people have no idea what "peer reviewed science" really
> means other than knowing that they should put a religious-grade belief in
> anything that happens to be peer reviewed. Nowadays peer review is a tool
> that the state can use to justify actions it wanted to take, a tool for big
> pharma and big ag to shove more magic poisons down our gullets, and I could
> go on but it seems pointless. People will believe what they wish, whether
> their religion is based on magical characters or the scientific
> priesthood.

Part of the problem is the fact that there are few players other than
those with a vested interest who have the time or funds to do any actual
research. Ag companies have a vested interest, NGO "public interest"
groups have a vested interest, and government funded labs still have a
vested interest tied to those of whatever party is in power at the time
if they want to continue to be funded.

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:12:22 PM UTC-4, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>
> >>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>
> >>> animals?
>
> >>
>
> >> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>
> >> proffer it first?
>
> >
>
> > Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
>
> > quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
>
> > know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.
>
> >
>
> > It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
>
> > it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
>
> > stick their names on articles written by writers.
>
>
>
> I would wager most people have no idea what "peer reviewed science" really
>
> means other than knowing that they should put a religious-grade belief in
>
> anything that happens to be peer reviewed. Nowadays peer review is a tool
>
> that the state can use to justify actions it wanted to take, a tool for big
>
> pharma and big ag to shove more magic poisons down our gullets, and I could
>
> go on but it seems pointless. People will believe what they wish, whether
>
> their religion is based on magical characters or the scientific
>
> priesthood.

You're a real half-wit.

"Pete C." > wrote:
> Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>
>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>> On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>>>>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>>>>> animals?
>>>>
>>>> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>>>> proffer it first?
>>>
>>> Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
>>> quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
>>> know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.
>>>
>>> It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
>>> it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
>>> stick their names on articles written by writers.
>>
>> I would wager most people have no idea what "peer reviewed science" really
>> means other than knowing that they should put a religious-grade belief in
>> anything that happens to be peer reviewed. Nowadays peer review is a tool
>> that the state can use to justify actions it wanted to take, a tool for big
>> pharma and big ag to shove more magic poisons down our gullets, and I could
>> go on but it seems pointless. People will believe what they wish, whether
>> their religion is based on magical characters or the scientific
>> priesthood.
>
> Part of the problem is the fact that there are few players other than
> those with a vested interest who have the time or funds to do any actual
> research. Ag companies have a vested interest, NGO "public interest"
> groups have a vested interest, and government funded labs still have a
> vested interest tied to those of whatever party is in power at the time
> if they want to continue to be funded.

Of course this is correct. I don't think the parties matter that much any
more though - the big industries hedge their bets so that they get what
they want no matter who wins these shams we call elections. Universities
are not trustworthy either. What is sad is that I am labeled anti-science
even though I both believe in and use the scientific method in my daily
work, by people who think that by calling politically- and
pecuniarily-inspired research "peer reviewed" makes to true. This is the
religion of science and it is both sad and scary to see it in action.

So my recourse is to err on the side of caution when it comes to food and
medicine. After all, "Let your medicine be your food and your food be your
medicine." Other factors like air pollution, water pollution, and the
ultimate decay of society remain largely outside my ability to control.

> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:12:22 PM UTC-4, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>
>>>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>>
>>>>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>>
>>>>> animals?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>>
>>>> proffer it first?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
>>
>>> quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
>>
>>> know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
>>
>>> it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
>>
>>> stick their names on articles written by writers.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would wager most people have no idea what "peer reviewed science" really
>>
>> means other than knowing that they should put a religious-grade belief in
>>
>> anything that happens to be peer reviewed. Nowadays peer review is a tool
>>
>> that the state can use to justify actions it wanted to take, a tool for big
>>
>> pharma and big ag to shove more magic poisons down our gullets, and I could
>>
>> go on but it seems pointless. People will believe what they wish, whether
>>
>> their religion is based on magical characters or the scientific
>>
>> priesthood.
>
> You're a real half-wit.

Oh did I offend your religious beliefs? That must be sad for you.

On 06/05/2014 6:04 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> > wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:12:22 PM UTC-4, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>>>
>>>>>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>>>
>>>>>> animals?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>>>
>>>>> proffer it first?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
>>>
>>>> quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
>>>
>>>> know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
>>>
>>>> it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
>>>
>>>> stick their names on articles written by writers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would wager most people have no idea what "peer reviewed science" really
>>>
>>> means other than knowing that they should put a religious-grade belief in
>>>
>>> anything that happens to be peer reviewed. Nowadays peer review is a tool
>>>
>>> that the state can use to justify actions it wanted to take, a tool for big
>>>
>>> pharma and big ag to shove more magic poisons down our gullets, and I could
>>>
>>> go on but it seems pointless. People will believe what they wish, whether
>>>
>>> their religion is based on magical characters or the scientific
>>>
>>> priesthood.
>>
>> You're a real half-wit.
>
> Oh did I offend your religious beliefs? That must be sad for you.
>
I think it was when you used the magic phrase "big pharma". Whenever I
see that, it's usually from the mouths of those that believe in quack
medicine.
Graham

On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
> wrote:

> My
> opinion is that any farmer greedy enough to pass off poisoned meat and
> produce to an unsuspecting public, while lobbying against effective food
> safety standards, is a criminal.

They do that while taking farm subsidies and government provided crop
insurance. What a racquet. Their hand is out to the government and
they're on the dole - but they can't make the mental connection that
they're receiving welfare.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On 06/05/2014 7:02 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
> > wrote:
>
>> My
>> opinion is that any farmer greedy enough to pass off poisoned meat and
>> produce to an unsuspecting public, while lobbying against effective food
>> safety standards, is a criminal.
>
> They do that while taking farm subsidies and government provided crop
> insurance. What a racquet. Their hand is out to the government and
> they're on the dole - but they can't make the mental connection that
> they're receiving welfare.
>
>
Not just in the US.
In just about every civilized country, farmers aver that they are the
bastions of free enterprise but are the first in line for government
handouts.
Graham

sf > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
> > wrote:
>
>> My
>> opinion is that any farmer greedy enough to pass off poisoned meat and
>> produce to an unsuspecting public, while lobbying against effective food
>> safety standards, is a criminal.
>
> They do that while taking farm subsidies and government provided crop
> insurance. What a racquet. Their hand is out to the government and
> they're on the dole - but they can't make the mental connection that
> they're receiving welfare.
>


Exactly. They *KNOW* they are on the dole, they just won't admit it.

graham > wrote:
> On 06/05/2014 6:04 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:12:22 PM UTC-4, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>>>>
>>>>>>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>>>>
>>>>>>> animals?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>>>>
>>>>>> proffer it first?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
>>>>
>>>>> quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
>>>>
>>>>> know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
>>>>
>>>>> it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
>>>>
>>>>> stick their names on articles written by writers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would wager most people have no idea what "peer reviewed science" really
>>>>
>>>> means other than knowing that they should put a religious-grade belief in
>>>>
>>>> anything that happens to be peer reviewed. Nowadays peer review is a tool
>>>>
>>>> that the state can use to justify actions it wanted to take, a tool for big
>>>>
>>>> pharma and big ag to shove more magic poisons down our gullets, and I could
>>>>
>>>> go on but it seems pointless. People will believe what they wish, whether
>>>>
>>>> their religion is based on magical characters or the scientific
>>>>
>>>> priesthood.
>>>
>>> You're a real half-wit.
>>
>> Oh did I offend your religious beliefs? That must be sad for you.
>>
> I think it was when you used the magic phrase "big pharma". Whenever I
> see that, it's usually from the mouths of those that believe in quack medicine.
> Graham

Big Pharma *IS* quack medicine these days. Half the pills they make these
days will slowly kill you, and the other half will just drive you insane.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>>
>>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>>> animals?
>>
>> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>> proffer it first?
>
> Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
> quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
> know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.

I've noticed that too!


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

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
> > wrote:
>
>>Best thing to do is to grow your own food and hunt / fish in unspoiled
>>areas.
>
> Welcome to my world

We don't have anywhere to fish and we have only stopped travelling with
work (so far) this year. I am in the process of planting veggies. As for
the hunted meat? Oh yes) As much as we can!

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

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
> > wrote:
>
> > My
> > opinion is that any farmer greedy enough to pass off poisoned meat and
> > produce to an unsuspecting public, while lobbying against effective food
> > safety standards, is a criminal.
>
> They do that while taking farm subsidies and government provided crop
> insurance. What a racquet. Their hand is out to the government and
> they're on the dole - but they can't make the mental connection that
> they're receiving welfare.
>

By all means stop all the subsidies and crop insurance. Wait a year or
so and see your food options dwindle to barely affordable imported crap
from China or completely unaffordable US produced foods.

What we need is more people growing their own food in backyard and
community gardens a.k.a. the old "Victory Gardens". Of course we have
allowed housing to be dense to the point that nobody has room to grow
anything, and where there is a little yard, we allow sickening HOAs to
prohibit growing anything edible.

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:04:51 PM UTC-4, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:12:22 PM UTC-4, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>
> >> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> animals?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>
> >>
>
> >>>> proffer it first?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
>
> >>
>
> >>> quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
>
> >>
>
> >>> know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
>
> >>
>
> >>> it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
>
> >>
>
> >>> stick their names on articles written by writers.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I would wager most people have no idea what "peer reviewed science" really
>
> >>
>
> >> means other than knowing that they should put a religious-grade belief in
>
> >>
>
> >> anything that happens to be peer reviewed. Nowadays peer review is a tool
>
> >>
>
> >> that the state can use to justify actions it wanted to take, a tool for big
>
> >>
>
> >> pharma and big ag to shove more magic poisons down our gullets, and I could
>
> >>
>
> >> go on but it seems pointless. People will believe what they wish, whether
>
> >>
>
> >> their religion is based on magical characters or the scientific
>
> >>
>
> >> priesthood.
>
> >
>
> > You're a real half-wit.
>
>
>
> Oh did I offend your religious beliefs? That must be sad for you.

Actually, I don't have any religious beliefs. I was referring to your tin-foil hat view of science. Apparently you think everybody should be able to spout whatever nonsense they want and that asking them to scientifically prove it is unreasonable. Half-wit.

sf > wrote in news:lq1im9ptebjjp4loj79bpjc49er9cdco0d@
4ax.com:

> On Tue, 06 May 2014 11:44:03 -0400, William > wrote:
>
>> Is there any DNA testing going on in North America to verify animal
>> and fish species being offered for sale? I'm not that picky about
>> various types of animals and fish.
>>
>
> If we don't have proper USDA inspections of our meat processing plants
> - what makes you think we're going to get DNA testing?
>
>> I do wonder if chemicals used to
>> fatten up animals and fish can harm humans consuming them?
>
> Hello, Rip Van Winkle... where have you been the last 25 years?
> All you need to do is notice the statistics about early puberty in
> girls (USA).
>
A high calorie diet causes puberty to occur at an earlier age. You don't
need chemicals to explain that. Phytoestrogens from soy *might* be an
issue, but it's mostly nutrient rich diet, and maybe even multivitamins.
It makes evolutionary sense for women to become fecund earlier in times of
plenty.
>
> Synthetic growth hormones
>
I assume you mean in milk, not meat.
>
> Antibiotics
>
Antibiotic resistance is a horrible thing, but it's not that the human
ingesting the meat from the animal is bad. It's that the bacteria are
evolving resistance to the antibiotics. While bacteria are not sexual,
they do share DNA. They don't really mate, but they do *hook up*.
>
> Steroids
>
In meat producing animals? I don't think they give anabolic steroids to
animals. Maybe I'm incorrect, but that would make the meat tough. Think
about steers and surgical capons
>
> The obesity rate can also be attributed, at least partially, to it.
>
Unlikely. The obesity rate is far more due to high GI carbs and sedentary
lifestyle, *and* to an increased normality of eating as a pastime.
>



--
--Bryan

"Happy ****ing 'new years' that was when me and my father
had to identify her dead mud covered body they pulled from
the family car she'd driven into the Mississippi river!"
--John Kuthe in rec.food.cooking, 3-7-2014

On Wed, 07 May 2014 08:52:17 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > My
> > > opinion is that any farmer greedy enough to pass off poisoned meat and
> > > produce to an unsuspecting public, while lobbying against effective food
> > > safety standards, is a criminal.
> >
> > They do that while taking farm subsidies and government provided crop
> > insurance. What a racquet. Their hand is out to the government and
> > they're on the dole - but they can't make the mental connection that
> > they're receiving welfare.
> >
>
> By all means stop all the subsidies and crop insurance. Wait a year or
> so and see your food options dwindle to barely affordable imported crap
> from China or completely unaffordable US produced foods.

Baloney.
>
> What we need is more people growing their own food in backyard and
> community gardens a.k.a. the old "Victory Gardens".

At the price of water these days? You missed your calling as a
standup comedian.

> Of course we have
> allowed housing to be dense to the point that nobody has room to grow
> anything, and where there is a little yard, we allow sickening HOAs to
> prohibit growing anything edible.

HOAs serve a good purpose. It keeps neighborhoods from looking like a
junkyard populated by the colorblind.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 May 2014 08:52:17 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > sf wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > My
> > > > opinion is that any farmer greedy enough to pass off poisoned meat and
> > > > produce to an unsuspecting public, while lobbying against effective food
> > > > safety standards, is a criminal.
> > >
> > > They do that while taking farm subsidies and government provided crop
> > > insurance. What a racquet. Their hand is out to the government and
> > > they're on the dole - but they can't make the mental connection that
> > > they're receiving welfare.
> > >
> >
> > By all means stop all the subsidies and crop insurance. Wait a year or
> > so and see your food options dwindle to barely affordable imported crap
> > from China or completely unaffordable US produced foods.
>
> Baloney.

Hardly.

> >
> > What we need is more people growing their own food in backyard and
> > community gardens a.k.a. the old "Victory Gardens".
>
> At the price of water these days? You missed your calling as a
> standup comedian.

The "price of water" is not an issue, I can pump all I want / need from
my own well here in the free world (not CA). Also water is not much of
an issue even in cities as modern farming techniques (hydroponic and
aquaponic) use 75% less water than old school dirt farming.

There are a few medium scale urban farming projects going on currently
in big cities in old warehouse buildings, collecting organic waste from
the city and recycling it into the farms. So far they seem to be having
decent results and for the first time in history essentially a large
city is actually producing something it needs rather than being
dependent on rural areas for survival (yet disrespectful of those in the
rural areas they depend on).

>
> > Of course we have
> > allowed housing to be dense to the point that nobody has room to grow
> > anything, and where there is a little yard, we allow sickening HOAs to
> > prohibit growing anything edible.
>
> HOAs serve a good purpose. It keeps neighborhoods from looking like a
> junkyard populated by the colorblind.

No, that is the job of town/city government where laws and legal
protections rule for all. HOAs are sickening extra-judicial entities
that run roughshod over people's rights with no legal protections.

On Wed, 07 May 2014 14:27:23 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>sf wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 07 May 2014 08:52:17 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > sf wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
>> > > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > My
>> > > > opinion is that any farmer greedy enough to pass off poisoned meat and
>> > > > produce to an unsuspecting public, while lobbying against effective food
>> > > > safety standards, is a criminal.
>> > >
>> > > They do that while taking farm subsidies and government provided crop
>> > > insurance. What a racquet. Their hand is out to the government and
>> > > they're on the dole - but they can't make the mental connection that
>> > > they're receiving welfare.
>> > >
>> >
>> > By all means stop all the subsidies and crop insurance. Wait a year or
>> > so and see your food options dwindle to barely affordable imported crap
>> > from China or completely unaffordable US produced foods.
>>
>> Baloney.
>
>Hardly.
>
>> >
>> > What we need is more people growing their own food in backyard and
>> > community gardens a.k.a. the old "Victory Gardens".
>>
>> At the price of water these days? You missed your calling as a
>> standup comedian.
>
>The "price of water" is not an issue, I can pump all I want / need from
>my own well here in the free world (not CA).

Enjoy it while you can. I can assure you 'the price of water' will
become *very* relevant in the not too distant future and don't think
just because it's your well, that you'll have any rights to it.

On 2014-05-06 22:47:01 +0000, Jeßus said:

> On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
> > wrote:
>
>> Best thing to do is to grow your own food and hunt / fish in unspoiled
>> areas.
>
> Welcome to my world

I am no Nimrod (until the 1930s this wasn't a synonym for "moron" but
instead meant "the best hunter who ever lived) but I try my best. On
my list is a drilling with a 12 gauge barrel, a .30-06 or something in
that class, and a .22, so I can carry one gun and hunt everything from
squirrels to moose. Now I just have to convince my wife that a gun
that costs at a minimum several thousand bucks is a good investment!

"Oregonian Haruspex" > wrote in message
...
> On 2014-05-06 22:47:01 +0000, Jeßus said:
>
>> On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Best thing to do is to grow your own food and hunt / fish in unspoiled
>>> areas.
>>
>> Welcome to my world
>
> I am no Nimrod (until the 1930s this wasn't a synonym for "moron" but
> instead meant "the best hunter who ever lived) but I try my best. On my
> list is a drilling with a 12 gauge barrel, a .30-06 or something in that
> class, and a .22, so I can carry one gun and hunt everything from
> squirrels to moose. Now I just have to convince my wife that a gun that
> costs at a minimum several thousand bucks is a good investment!

DH says:

It would be very rare to find a Drilling with that combination, they are
usually 2 shotgun barrels of the same gauge plus a rifle barrel, though I
have seen a few Vierlings with 2 rifle barrels in different calibres. A
cheaper option would be a set of rifle sights mounted on a standard o/u or
sbs plus barrel inserts in a fullbore and a rimfire calibre. Zeroing or
aim-off is always a problem with at least one of the rifled barrels/inserts
when you have more than one unfortunately.


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

On Wed, 7 May 2014 10:33:20 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Best thing to do is to grow your own food and hunt / fish in unspoiled
>>>areas.
>>
>> Welcome to my world
>
>We don't have anywhere to fish and we have only stopped travelling with
>work (so far) this year. I am in the process of planting veggies. As for
>the hunted meat? Oh yes) As much as we can!

Excellent Nothing like having your own veggies... I guess no
turnips in there?

On Wed, 7 May 2014 19:31:36 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex
> wrote:

>On 2014-05-06 22:47:01 +0000, Jeßus said:
>
>> On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Best thing to do is to grow your own food and hunt / fish in unspoiled
>>> areas.
>>
>> Welcome to my world
>
>I am no Nimrod (until the 1930s this wasn't a synonym for "moron" but
>instead meant "the best hunter who ever lived) but I try my best. On
>my list is a drilling with a 12 gauge barrel, a .30-06 or something in
>that class, and a .22, so I can carry one gun and hunt everything from
>squirrels to moose. Now I just have to convince my wife that a gun
>that costs at a minimum several thousand bucks is a good investment!

Well, they can be a good investment if you get the right one

I get by mostly with a .22, for bunnies and wallabies but sometimes
use a .22 magnum , also a high powered .177 air rifle for bunnies. I
don't have my own rifle for deer though, I'll have to do something
about that one day.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 May 2014 10:33:20 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 6 May 2014 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Best thing to do is to grow your own food and hunt / fish in unspoiled
>>>>areas.
>>>
>>> Welcome to my world
>>
>>We don't have anywhere to fish and we have only stopped travelling with
>>work (so far) this year. I am in the process of planting veggies. As for
>>the hunted meat? Oh yes) As much as we can!
>
> Excellent Nothing like having your own veggies... I guess no
> turnips in there?

You betcha sweet bippy, Buster ;-)


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