I can't get enough of the stuff. I eat it with everything and between meals.Celtoid wrote:Jessie...You need to find yourself a good block of feta cheese. When my wife was pregnant she really went for that.
Mostly OT: Mad Cow Disease and Whistle Playing
-
frosty
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:04 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Woodstock,GA. USA
Hey, all this talk about beef is making me hungry for a hamburger!
I cant sit down and eat unless some of it is a meat product(especially beef). I think we were meant to eat animals! Veggies are just here to garnesh and help flavor the meat. OK just joking about that, I like veggies
but I like meat too! Alot and I dont understand why somone might think it disqusting or cruel to eat animals. Maybe someone could help me understand this. Im not trying to start a war.
Ryan
I cant sit down and eat unless some of it is a meat product(especially beef). I think we were meant to eat animals! Veggies are just here to garnesh and help flavor the meat. OK just joking about that, I like veggies
but I like meat too! Alot and I dont understand why somone might think it disqusting or cruel to eat animals. Maybe someone could help me understand this. Im not trying to start a war.
Ryan
-
Chuck_Clark
- Posts: 2213
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Illinois, last time I looked
-
Lorenzo
- Posts: 5726
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Oregon, USA
Right, beeferyan. Chicken's good, beef's better, and just when you think that pork and ham is best, you realize you haven't tried human flesh yet (yum), esp. vegetarians (yum, yum). And you thought roasted pork was sweet.
Oh...that's right...it's not ethical, necessary, or esp sanitary. Almost got lost dreaming.
Do animals have a right to enjoy sunshine, playfulness, companionship, freedom from human appetite? NO! Say it loud! Not in the least. Murder the beasts! Don't think of it as murder, that wouldn't be the best way to look at things! Go into denial, pretend you're not the hand inside the glove that pulls the trigger...that slits the throat. Ahhh, that's better! Take refuge in that intellectual escape-heaven of rationalizing it all away, away, away.... bye!
Oh...that's right...it's not ethical, necessary, or esp sanitary. Almost got lost dreaming.
Do animals have a right to enjoy sunshine, playfulness, companionship, freedom from human appetite? NO! Say it loud! Not in the least. Murder the beasts! Don't think of it as murder, that wouldn't be the best way to look at things! Go into denial, pretend you're not the hand inside the glove that pulls the trigger...that slits the throat. Ahhh, that's better! Take refuge in that intellectual escape-heaven of rationalizing it all away, away, away.... bye!
-
cj
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Deep South
I need to research CJD more, but I was under the impression that cooking doesn't destroy prions (saw it on a news program I believe). I don't eat cow brains intentionally, but what's in hot dogs and the like that are made with fillers? I buy the ones that are supposedly without fillers, but what does my son eat at school? And I'm with the folks who aren't quite appeased by the experts--the whole thing is scary to me. I haven't stopped eating beef, but I can't believe the cattle farmers would even consider feeding cows cannabalistically in the first place. The jury is out on whether humans are exclusively vegetarian, but cows are most certainly so. Yes, they've stopped the practice, but I'm sure there are those not in compliance, as well as the cows born before that.
That news show I saw was terrible. CJD is brutal, and the victim gets to witness his/her own slow decline.
That news show I saw was terrible. CJD is brutal, and the victim gets to witness his/her own slow decline.
-
The Weekenders
- Posts: 10300
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: SF East Bay Area
From today's NY Times
Op-Ed Contributor: One Mad Cow Sets Off a Stampede
December 30, 2003
By SCOTT C. RATZAN
LONDON
The discovery of mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, in a cow in Washington State should concern
us all. Yet this is less because of any risk of contracting
the disease through eating beef and more because a
knee-jerk reaction by the public, news media and policy
makers could threaten our ability to make a reasoned and
effective response to the threat.
So far, we are following the script from 1996, when Britain
issued a warning about a rise in a variant of
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, a brain-wasting syndrome in
humans that resembles mad cow disease. The experts
envisioned all sorts of potential consequences. Some warned
of an outbreak that would kill millions, becoming the AIDS
crisis that Britain never had. The European Union and
countries around the world banned British beef.
Few people questioned the assertion that there was a link
between eating meat and Creutzfeldt-Jakob in humans. But
the dire predictions never came to pass: only about 20
Britons a year have died of the variant of
Creutzfeldt-Jakob since that scare. There were other
victims though: British beef farmers lost perhaps $10
billion in sales, and the British public's trust in
government and the press took a severe blow.
Yet the old misperceptions are again at center stage. Japan
and South Korea have blocked American beef imports, cattle
prices are tumbling on North American exchanges, and Canada
and the United States are in a diplomatic tangle over who
is to "blame" for the Washington cow.
Before we all go order that turkey burger, we should
consider a few facts. First, there is no direct evidence
that Creutzfeldt-Jakob comes from the ingestion of
contaminated beef, or that the syndrome deserves its
reputation as the "human form" of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy.
In addition, the mad cow prion, the misfolded protein that
is thought to cause the disease in cows, has never been
found in solid muscle meat like the roasts, steaks and
other cuts Americans are likely to eat over the holidays.
The parts that are known to get infected - the brain,
spinal cord and parts of the intestine - are generally not
used in American cooking (And there is a minority of
scientists who believe the prion is not the carrier of the
disease.)
Equally important, most decisions on banning imports or
changing feedstocks in the British scare were made not by
scientists but by politicians and business people and were
based on political and economic considerations rather than
actual risk to human health. History is no guide here.
What is at stake here goes well beyond infected beef: it
involves questions of how we should respond to other
outbreaks like Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome and the
flu epidemic. Competing messages by the news media,
politicians, watchdog groups and medical officials continue
to make the public uneasy.
Yes, the immediate focus must be to save lives. But as a
former public-health researcher (I am now a vice president
in governmental affairs in Europe for Johnson & Johnson,
work that has no relation to the mad cow issue), I feel we
should also look at each new outbreak as an opportunity to
enhance public health. For example, the deadly flu epidemic
may in the end improve public hygiene if we can stress the
need for hand washing, explain to the public the infectious
nature of disease, and reinforce the value of epidemiologic
measures.
Perhaps the mad cow discovery will lead to good policy
decisions based on sound science. But for now, that science
does not exist - we simply do not know exactly what we are
dealing with. Rushing ahead with bans and slapdash
agricultural measures might divert even more attention from
the real threats to our health and well-being.
Scott C. Ratzan, a doctor, is editor of "The Mad Cow
Crisis: Health and the Public Good."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/30/opini ... f6a1242331
December 30, 2003
By SCOTT C. RATZAN
LONDON
The discovery of mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, in a cow in Washington State should concern
us all. Yet this is less because of any risk of contracting
the disease through eating beef and more because a
knee-jerk reaction by the public, news media and policy
makers could threaten our ability to make a reasoned and
effective response to the threat.
So far, we are following the script from 1996, when Britain
issued a warning about a rise in a variant of
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, a brain-wasting syndrome in
humans that resembles mad cow disease. The experts
envisioned all sorts of potential consequences. Some warned
of an outbreak that would kill millions, becoming the AIDS
crisis that Britain never had. The European Union and
countries around the world banned British beef.
Few people questioned the assertion that there was a link
between eating meat and Creutzfeldt-Jakob in humans. But
the dire predictions never came to pass: only about 20
Britons a year have died of the variant of
Creutzfeldt-Jakob since that scare. There were other
victims though: British beef farmers lost perhaps $10
billion in sales, and the British public's trust in
government and the press took a severe blow.
Yet the old misperceptions are again at center stage. Japan
and South Korea have blocked American beef imports, cattle
prices are tumbling on North American exchanges, and Canada
and the United States are in a diplomatic tangle over who
is to "blame" for the Washington cow.
Before we all go order that turkey burger, we should
consider a few facts. First, there is no direct evidence
that Creutzfeldt-Jakob comes from the ingestion of
contaminated beef, or that the syndrome deserves its
reputation as the "human form" of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy.
In addition, the mad cow prion, the misfolded protein that
is thought to cause the disease in cows, has never been
found in solid muscle meat like the roasts, steaks and
other cuts Americans are likely to eat over the holidays.
The parts that are known to get infected - the brain,
spinal cord and parts of the intestine - are generally not
used in American cooking (And there is a minority of
scientists who believe the prion is not the carrier of the
disease.)
Equally important, most decisions on banning imports or
changing feedstocks in the British scare were made not by
scientists but by politicians and business people and were
based on political and economic considerations rather than
actual risk to human health. History is no guide here.
What is at stake here goes well beyond infected beef: it
involves questions of how we should respond to other
outbreaks like Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome and the
flu epidemic. Competing messages by the news media,
politicians, watchdog groups and medical officials continue
to make the public uneasy.
Yes, the immediate focus must be to save lives. But as a
former public-health researcher (I am now a vice president
in governmental affairs in Europe for Johnson & Johnson,
work that has no relation to the mad cow issue), I feel we
should also look at each new outbreak as an opportunity to
enhance public health. For example, the deadly flu epidemic
may in the end improve public hygiene if we can stress the
need for hand washing, explain to the public the infectious
nature of disease, and reinforce the value of epidemiologic
measures.
Perhaps the mad cow discovery will lead to good policy
decisions based on sound science. But for now, that science
does not exist - we simply do not know exactly what we are
dealing with. Rushing ahead with bans and slapdash
agricultural measures might divert even more attention from
the real threats to our health and well-being.
Scott C. Ratzan, a doctor, is editor of "The Mad Cow
Crisis: Health and the Public Good."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/30/opini ... f6a1242331
-
Chuck_Clark
- Posts: 2213
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Illinois, last time I looked
-
The Weekenders
- Posts: 10300
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: SF East Bay Area
-
spittin_in_the_wind
- Posts: 1187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Massachusetts
-
illuminatus99
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 9:52 am
Personally I think anyone that says that killing animals is murder while killing plants is not is just a hypocrite. if you want to make it a moral case let's see you survive on nothing but minerals and then you can talk about the morality of killing things for food.
FWIW the bulk of the meat I eat I shoot and clean myself, it's mostly for economical reasons, for $45 I get a hunting permit and bullets are just a few cents each, on a good season I can bring in enough deer and elk for the entire year, not to mention all the salmon, pheasant and wld turkey...
FWIW the bulk of the meat I eat I shoot and clean myself, it's mostly for economical reasons, for $45 I get a hunting permit and bullets are just a few cents each, on a good season I can bring in enough deer and elk for the entire year, not to mention all the salmon, pheasant and wld turkey...
Ralph Klien the premier of Alberta is quoted this morning after being asked about the paper trail pointing the finger at Canada said, "An American bull sniffing a Canadian cow doesn't ask for that cow's national identity."
I agree with Japan and its attitude towards BSE, that every cow in Japan is tested. With what I would call the unsavory practices of our (NA) beef growers of adding growth hormones and other antibiotics to cattle, I would like testing of EVERY cow, chicken, pig etc to happen also, and that goes for fish raised in pens.
It might become more expensive without all the doping but then the side affect will be that we eat less of the above.
MarkB
I agree with Japan and its attitude towards BSE, that every cow in Japan is tested. With what I would call the unsavory practices of our (NA) beef growers of adding growth hormones and other antibiotics to cattle, I would like testing of EVERY cow, chicken, pig etc to happen also, and that goes for fish raised in pens.
It might become more expensive without all the doping but then the side affect will be that we eat less of the above.
MarkB
Everybody has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.
-
Daniel_Bingamon
- Posts: 2227
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Kings Mills, OH
- Contact:
-
frosty
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:04 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Woodstock,GA. USA
Interesting Lorenzo. Though vegitarian human meat would not have enough grizzle to cook a good tasty steakLorenzo wrote: right beeferyan. Chicken's good, beef's better, and just when you think that pork and ham is best, you realize you haven't tried human flesh yet (yum), esp. vegetarians (yum, yum).
I bet they would make good rawhyde bones for my dog!! 
-
NicoMoreno
- Posts: 2100
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: I just wanted to update my location... 100 characters is a lot and I don't really want to type so much just to edit my profile...
- Location: St. Louis, MO