"Ed Huntress" wrote:

And shot full of hormones and antibiotics, just to keep them alive.

I'm starting to wonder about that stuff crossing into humans, expecially the
hormones. When I was 15, girls were not as well endowed as they are now.

Wes

On Oct 6, 10:01 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:50:09 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:





On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:53:11 -0400, john wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

LOL You know what they say about the word ' assume

Rule # 1 on buying ground meat.... don't get any from a big packing
house. Fresh ground local meat is the only way to go.

And did you know E-Coli is a MAJOR problem in corn-fed beef and almost
unheard of in range fed or grain finished range fed beef?
American beef is virtually100% corn fed or corn finished beef.







True, and I probably sounded like I (as a consumer) want more protection
than I really do. Please nothing rotten, and I'll make sure that what I
get is thoroughly cooked anyway. Please don't adulterate it in a way I
can't tell. If it's really bright freaking red then I'll know that
there's either dye or CO involved, if you sell me a used car that has
struts missing from the engine compartment I'll know it's been totalled
even if the title isn't branded, if you sell me a new car I'll have looked
it up in Consumer Reports, etc.

I do try to buy meat that looks like it's been ground a few feet away from
the counter, but I'll bet that doesn't work 100% at any rate.

On the other hand, when I step onto a manufacturing floor I don't want
government inspectors (with some exceptions, based on gender, age,
appearance and attitude) sticking their hands down my shorts. No, I
don't mind too much that I am required to make a safe product -- I
wanted to do that anyway, and I like to know that my sleazy competitors
are required to live up to my standards. But I _would_ mind having a
bunch of regulators who barely passed "Physics for Civil Servants"
sitting in on my design reviews, questioning my innovations.

I hate to say it but lawyers keep things safer than any government will.

Yes, but it's the government (in the larger sense -- not a huge executive
branch) that gives the lawyers scope to work in. Without a balance of
power, and a constitutional right to redress, what could the lawyers do?

And if I screw up? Well, in a free world giving someone the freedom to
screw up means letting them feel the pain of it afterwards. If I have
to take a bunch of stuff back because I misrepresented it as safe food
or safe children's toys, then that's life. And if my business is so
weak that doing so puts me under -- that's life too.

Here is a problem, intentionally screwing up a product to save a buck
should be punishable civilly and criminally. If it is an accident the
lawyers will take their toll.

I would extend that 'intentional' to being negligent -- if you're working
on something that's safety related and you're not dotting all the 'i's and
crossing all the 't's then a consequent accident is your fault, even if
you didn't intend for something to go wrong. It may not be as bad as if
you deliberately cut corners _knowing_ that it would cause a problem, but
cutting corners and not _looking_ to see if it would cause a problem is
almost as bad.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I seem to recall reading that is not feeding them corn...it is the
feeding lot lifestyle versus home on the grass range.

I guess if I were standing in my own excrement, I would likely end up
as E.coli in who ate me too.

TMT

On Oct 7, 12:47 am, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
And shot full of hormones and antibiotics, just to keep them alive.

I'm starting to wonder about that stuff crossing into humans, expecially the
hormones. When I was 15, girls were not as well endowed as they are now.

Wes

Oh Wes....it is just your imagination. LOL

In all seriousness, hormones from meat production have been detected
in people, in the unborn and in our water supplies.

So yes...it is likely that girls are entrying puberty earlier because
of them.

TMT

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:16:42 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT


Any business is like a barn with nothing but doors instead of walls. It's
hard to make sure they are all closed. Yes, quality needs to be primary and
take full focus. But, something can ALWAYS go wrong, even with the best
efforts of management. It just happens! I KNOW this first hand. Maybe
there should be an insurance available to prevent the demise of a company.

Would you accept this attitude from your heart surgeon or your grocer?
"**** happens" is not an acceptable position for management to take.
It's a copout. Injuring customers is bad bidness. Management must
focus on profit, bidness is bidness, but if focus on profit superceds
responsibility and competence with consequent injury to customers then
management has failed and it's in the public interest for the biz to
be sucked dry and perish. Pick yer pony, take yer ride.

An insurance company to prevent the demise of a bidness might be a
swell bidness concept because it would then be liable, management
could divert profit to pay the premiums rather than competently
manage, screw the shareholders if they can't take a joke. Rots o'
ruck finding an insurance company that is dumb enough not to profit
nicely from management's copout, but if the shareholders can be
snowjobbed to buy it then give management a raise and a bonus.

You're a shareholder in a privately held corp? Oh.... dear! Well,
**** happens!

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:25:16 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:16:42 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT


Any business is like a barn with nothing but doors instead of walls. It's
hard to make sure they are all closed. Yes, quality needs to be primary and
take full focus. But, something can ALWAYS go wrong, even with the best
efforts of management. It just happens! I KNOW this first hand. Maybe
there should be an insurance available to prevent the demise of a company.

Would you accept this attitude from your heart surgeon or your grocer?
"**** happens" is not an acceptable position for management to take.
It's a copout. Injuring customers is bad bidness. Management must
focus on profit, bidness is bidness, but if focus on profit superceds
responsibility and competence with consequent injury to customers then
management has failed and it's in the public interest for the biz to
be sucked dry and perish. Pick yer pony, take yer ride.

Actually your heart surgeon takes exactly that attitude. Next time you
visit your doctor ask him what the survival rate is for several types
of operations or sickness. You will find that doctors quite willing to
tell you what the percentage of fatality is for various procedures and
none of them are 100% survival.

Of course any doctor does everything he can to cure his patients but
as you so deftly put it, "**** happens".


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

Tim Wescott wrote in article
...
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:



And if I screw up? Well, in a free world giving someone the freedom to
screw up means letting them feel the pain of it afterwards. If I have to
take a bunch of stuff back because I misrepresented it as safe food or
safe children's toys, then that's life. And if my business is so weak
that doing so puts me under -- that's life too.

--


How many businesses do you suppose are in a position to recall an entire
year's production?

That's what's happening with Topps right now.....

They produce two million pounds per year and are recalling 1.7 million
pounds - most of which has - in all likelihood - already been consumed.

john wrote in article
...


Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks


-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my
food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping,
is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

LOL You know what they say about the word ' assume

Rule # 1 on buying ground meat.... don't get any from a big packing
house. Fresh ground local meat is the only way to go.



Most "local" ground beef is made from the day's cuttings in the back room
at the store, so you STILL have that potential of having a single piece
contaminate the rest of the ground beef.

Grinding your own from a single piece of meat is STILL the safest way to
go.

Second would be to buy a roast and have the store butcher grind that single
roast for you.

Wes wrote in article
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

Topp's age is given as 67 in the article, thus it existed between
two and three times the normal/average corporate life span.

Up until 2003 if was a family held business and not a 'corporate' entity.
If
the owners that know the business are on site keeping an eye on things it
is
amazing how things that may get blown off in the corporate world are
addressed immediately.

I wonder if they sold because no one in the family wanted to take over
the
reins? That seems like a common problem with family businesses.


Another common problem these days is that the Old Man knows that Junior
will simply **** away the company's equity, and selling out is the ONLY way
to guarantee the financing of the Old Man's retirement to any degree of
certainty.

The first generation usually builds the business while the second
generation destroys it......

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

Some companys do not deserve to exist.


This even has made the Topp's meat name worthless. How much do you wanna
bet that after a brief hiatus some new meat company arrives on the scene
that just happens to work out of the old faculty?

Wes

Wes wrote in article
...
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

Some companys do not deserve to exist.


This even has made the Topp's meat name worthless. How much do you wanna
bet that after a brief hiatus some new meat company arrives on the scene
that just happens to work out of the old faculty?




In addition to employing the old faculty, they might even use the old
facility, too...eh?

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:29:42 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, F.
George McDuffee quickly quoth:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
snip
Beef recall forces Topps to shut down
snip
some URLs of interest

Topps meat company urls

Too Many Trolls sure is sucking in lots of responders on this
particular troll, isn't he?

--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
============================================

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 00:22:03 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


clare at snyder.on.ca wrote in message
.. .
And did you know E-Coli is a MAJOR problem in corn-fed beef and almost
unheard of in range fed or grain finished range fed beef?
American beef is virtually100% corn fed or corn finished beef.

And shot full of hormones and antibiotics, just to keep them alive.

"Do you mean to tell me that 8 year-old girls with 38DD breasts are
NOT supposed to exist? Bbbut, the AG rep told me that growth hormones
for cattle were safe!" Snopes it for me, will ya, Ed? I haven't.

--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
============================================

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 00:22:03 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


clare at snyder.on.ca wrote in message
. ..
And did you know E-Coli is a MAJOR problem in corn-fed beef and almost
unheard of in range fed or grain finished range fed beef?
American beef is virtually100% corn fed or corn finished beef.

And shot full of hormones and antibiotics, just to keep them alive.

"Do you mean to tell me that 8 year-old girls with 38DD breasts are
NOT supposed to exist? Bbbut, the AG rep told me that growth hormones
for cattle were safe!" Snopes it for me, will ya, Ed? I haven't.

Not Snopes, but PubMed: considerable evidence that zeranol (Ralgro), a
nonsteroidal agent with estrogenic activity used to promote growth of beef,
stimulates breast-tissue growth in vitro. The connections with human
children seem to be statistical but also pretty consistent.

--
Ed Huntress

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

When it comes to toys, food, and drugs, the question is, if not the
government, then who? And if the answer is the manufacturers, the next
question is, since when? And if the answer to that is since now, because we
have a newfound willingness to let the markets determine even such outcomes
as the number of deaths we'll tolerate to expose a manufacturer's
irresponsibility and resulting bankrupcy, the question is, whose deaths?

The fact is that we, as consumers, cannot evaluate the safety of many
products. And we have a very flexible scale when it comes to tolerating
deaths. For example, our magic number for deaths due to vehicle accidents
seems to be around 30,000 - 40,000/year.

The incentives for manufacturers to go beyond a minimum effort on safety and
inspection are slim. So we're getting about what market forces should be
expected to produce: dangerous intestinal bacteria in beef, for example, and
lead paint on toys.

This isn't a place where market forces are going to work. But, who knows,
maybe we'll tolerate 30,000 - 40,000 deaths per year from poorly inspected
food, too. And who knows that those kids wouldn't have lost just as many IQ
points from playing football without a helmet? It is worth dismissing those
problems as long as it keeps the free market as pure as driven snow.
Whatever they do in response to the forces of the market is, by definition,
the right thing. Right?

--
Ed Huntress

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Oct 6, 9:42 pm, Lew Hartswick wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Why should food be an exception?

Lead laced toys will injure as easily as poisoned food.

TMT

WELLL! Toys are not suppose to be eaten. Teach your kids
not to eat them.
...lew...


You apparently have never been around children...or puppies.

TMT

Oh Yes, have had both. No problems.
...lew...

* wrote:
Second would be to buy a roast and have the store butcher grind that single
roast for you.

What about the contamination from the grinder?
...lew...

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 05:36:08 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
snip
Too Many Trolls sure is sucking in lots of responders on this
particular troll, isn't he?
snip
Yes, however everone eats, so they do have a "dog in the fight."

Big question is what can/will we do about it?

If the answer is nothing, then lets all go out in the shop and
make some chips [metal, not potato or taco].


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

Lew Hartswick wrote:

John wrote:

Some big investment company made the owners an offer they couldn't
refuse.
Scene 2.... Investment company sqeezes the operation to get the money
out of it.

scene 3 belly up.
Harley davidson.... well almost.

Bridgeport machine

fellows gear.

J & L

It seems the obvious solution is "de-establish" holding companies.
Sort of like the monopoly prohibition. A company should only
be in business to "do something" buying and selling other
companies isn't "doing something" in my book.
...lew...



The basic problem is that the big investment corps. have an inside track
on writing the laws that apply to them. Campaign donations seem more
like bribery than anything else. This holds true with most of the larger
corps. We are just along for the ride but have to pay for all the gas.

John

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 00:22:03 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:



clare at snyder.on.ca wrote in message
...

And did you know E-Coli is a MAJOR problem in corn-fed beef and almost
unheard of in range fed or grain finished range fed beef?
American beef is virtually100% corn fed or corn finished beef.

And shot full of hormones and antibiotics, just to keep them alive.

"Do you mean to tell me that 8 year-old girls with 38DD breasts are
NOT supposed to exist? Bbbut, the AG rep told me that growth hormones
for cattle were safe!" Snopes it for me, will ya, Ed? I haven't.


Not Snopes, but PubMed: considerable evidence that zeranol (Ralgro), a
nonsteroidal agent with estrogenic activity used to promote growth of beef,
stimulates breast-tissue growth in vitro. The connections with human
children seem to be statistical but also pretty consistent.

--
Ed Huntress



While everyone is getting hyped over lead in our environment, I think
some or the worst stuff is passing under our noses. Tooth paste once
came in lead foil tubes. I used to collect them and melt them down for
the lead.

Some of the drugs advertised on tv say that a pregnant woman
shouldn't even touch them.... Hope that she doesn't live down stream
of a person using them. Septic systems and wells should be located at
least 150 feet apart according to local codes so all the bacteria will
be killed and the water purified as it flows through the ground. What
happens to this drug? As we are well aware, birth defects are on the
rise and it isn't the lead. Lead has been around forever.


John

Lew Hartswick wrote:

* wrote:

Second would be to buy a roast and have the store butcher grind that
single
roast for you.

What about the contamination from the grinder?
...lew...

The e-coli comes from bad handling at the slaughter house. What you
will get from the local butcher not cleaning his grinder properly is
ptomaine poisoning, bad but not as bad as e-coli.

The e-coli is in the inside of the intestines and on the outside skin of
the animal. If the intestine is punctured it will contaminate the whole
carcass and show up in the ground beef. The times I was involved in
butchering cows, they cut out the asshole and tied a knot in the
intestines to keep everything from getting on the beef. e-coli on the
surface of the meat can be dealt with by browning the surface as you
cook it, but once it is ground up, the only way to kill it is to
properly cook it which many times is not done.

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks


-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.


When it comes to toys, food, and drugs, the question is, if not the
government, then who? And if the answer is the manufacturers, the next
question is, since when? And if the answer to that is since now, because we
have a newfound willingness to let the markets determine even such outcomes
as the number of deaths we'll tolerate to expose a manufacturer's
irresponsibility and resulting bankrupcy, the question is, whose deaths?

The fact is that we, as consumers, cannot evaluate the safety of many
products. And we have a very flexible scale when it comes to tolerating
deaths. For example, our magic number for deaths due to vehicle accidents
seems to be around 30,000 - 40,000/year.

The incentives for manufacturers to go beyond a minimum effort on safety and
inspection are slim. So we're getting about what market forces should be
expected to produce: dangerous intestinal bacteria in beef, for example, and
lead paint on toys.

This isn't a place where market forces are going to work. But, who knows,
maybe we'll tolerate 30,000 - 40,000 deaths per year from poorly inspected
food, too. And who knows that those kids wouldn't have lost just as many IQ
points from playing football without a helmet? It is worth dismissing those
problems as long as it keeps the free market as pure as driven snow.
Whatever they do in response to the forces of the market is, by definition,
the right thing. Right?

--
Ed Huntress



The ugly truth is that we are the ultimate factor in keeping ourselves
safe. If you are worried about losing some iq points from playing
football, simple answer is 'don't play football'.
IF you are worry about contaminated meat, don't eat meat or cook it
properly to kill the bugs.
As much as no one wants to admit it, there is a dollar value placed on
all human lives. In reality the scales are very convoluted, in this
last meat contamination issue there were fewer ten people that died.
That's a little more than a bad day in Baghdad, or about two hours of
highway deaths.

If you see your kid chewing on toys you got to make sure that nothing is
coming off them, lead paint or non lead paint. Same goes for attachments
to the toys.

We could digress into banning tobacco products, alcohol and a number of
other items, but it up to the individual to make the decision to use or
not to use them.


John

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:30:14 -0500, "*" wrote:


Most "local" ground beef is made from the day's cuttings in the back room
at the store, so you STILL have that potential of having a single piece
contaminate the rest of the ground beef.

Grinding your own from a single piece of meat is STILL the safest way to
go.

Grinding your own from a cow you raised yourself is the safest. As
long as it was range fed.

Contaminated feed has a long history....

Gunner

"john" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks


-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.


When it comes to toys, food, and drugs, the question is, if not the
government, then who? And if the answer is the manufacturers, the next
question is, since when? And if the answer to that is since now, because
we have a newfound willingness to let the markets determine even such
outcomes as the number of deaths we'll tolerate to expose a
manufacturer's irresponsibility and resulting bankrupcy, the question is,
whose deaths?

The fact is that we, as consumers, cannot evaluate the safety of many
products. And we have a very flexible scale when it comes to tolerating
deaths. For example, our magic number for deaths due to vehicle accidents
seems to be around 30,000 - 40,000/year.

The incentives for manufacturers to go beyond a minimum effort on safety
and inspection are slim. So we're getting about what market forces should
be expected to produce: dangerous intestinal bacteria in beef, for
example, and lead paint on toys.

This isn't a place where market forces are going to work. But, who knows,
maybe we'll tolerate 30,000 - 40,000 deaths per year from poorly
inspected food, too. And who knows that those kids wouldn't have lost
just as many IQ points from playing football without a helmet? It is
worth dismissing those problems as long as it keeps the free market as
pure as driven snow. Whatever they do in response to the forces of the
market is, by definition, the right thing. Right?

--
Ed Huntress

The ugly truth is that we are the ultimate factor in keeping ourselves
safe. If you are worried about losing some iq points from playing
football, simple answer is 'don't play football'.
IF you are worry about contaminated meat, don't eat meat or cook it
properly to kill the bugs.

Oh, good idea. Let's see...lettuce. Boil your lettuce. g Don't eat
spinach.

And dog food. Cripes, you can't even eat a dog anymore.

What's left? How about cats? 'Taste like chicken, I hear. Gunner would get
upset, however.

I'd prefer a market-based solution. If some company is shown to have lax
safety control on food products, take the CEO out and shoot him. Three or
four of those will re-adjust market incentives with no artificial government
distortions.

Drugs would remain a problem. Don't take drugs. In my case, that would mean
digging myself a hole and jumping in.

How about hiring more government inspectors? Nah, the government can't do
anything right. 'Better to just take our chances and let the market work it
out.

We're screwed. I'm digging out my old pressure cooker and I'll make sure
it's all cooked to mush, so we can keep the world safe for unfettered
markets.

As much as no one wants to admit it, there is a dollar value placed on all
human lives.

What do you suppose the price is to the meat packers? Would $50/each cover
it?

In reality the scales are very convoluted, in this last meat
contamination issue there were fewer ten people that died.
That's a little more than a bad day in Baghdad, or about two hours of
highway deaths.

Hey, that's a relief. Topps could have built a marketing campaign around
that. "Topps' Burgers -- Better For You Than a Bad Day in Baghdad."


If you see your kid chewing on toys you got to make sure that nothing is
coming off them, lead paint or non lead paint. Same goes for attachments
to the toys.

What if you don't see him chewing on them, but he does it anyway?


We could digress into banning tobacco products, alcohol and a number of
other items, but it up to the individual to make the decision to use or
not to use them.

Yup, we can't do anything about food packers who don't care if we live or
die, so let's stop eating food and let them run hog wild.

Or maybe we could get rational about inspecting meat and laying some heavy
penalties on those who don't comply? Maybe that would work.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"john" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:


"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...


On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:



Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks


-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.


When it comes to toys, food, and drugs, the question is, if not the
government, then who? And if the answer is the manufacturers, the next
question is, since when? And if the answer to that is since now, because
we have a newfound willingness to let the markets determine even such
outcomes as the number of deaths we'll tolerate to expose a
manufacturer's irresponsibility and resulting bankrupcy, the question is,
whose deaths?

The fact is that we, as consumers, cannot evaluate the safety of many
products. And we have a very flexible scale when it comes to tolerating
deaths. For example, our magic number for deaths due to vehicle accidents
seems to be around 30,000 - 40,000/year.

The incentives for manufacturers to go beyond a minimum effort on safety
and inspection are slim. So we're getting about what market forces should
be expected to produce: dangerous intestinal bacteria in beef, for
example, and lead paint on toys.

This isn't a place where market forces are going to work. But, who knows,
maybe we'll tolerate 30,000 - 40,000 deaths per year from poorly
inspected food, too. And who knows that those kids wouldn't have lost
just as many IQ points from playing football without a helmet? It is
worth dismissing those problems as long as it keeps the free market as
pure as driven snow. Whatever they do in response to the forces of the
market is, by definition, the right thing. Right?

--
Ed Huntress

The ugly truth is that we are the ultimate factor in keeping ourselves
safe. If you are worried about losing some iq points from playing
football, simple answer is 'don't play football'.
IF you are worry about contaminated meat, don't eat meat or cook it
properly to kill the bugs.


Oh, good idea. Let's see...lettuce. Boil your lettuce. g Don't eat
spinach.

nope, just wash it properly and throw out the outside leaves.


cook the spinach. IF you want raw spinach, grow your own.

And dog food. Cripes, you can't even eat a dog anymore.


You got to be friends with Michael Vick to get your dogmeat cheap. They
were well taken care of until they lost.


What's left? How about cats? 'Taste like chicken, I hear. Gunner would get
upset, however.


I bet we all ate cat at one time or another if we ate chinese. I
remember a chinese restruant in Journal Square, NJ that was paying kids
25 cents per cat back in the late fifties.

And Ed, do you remember Merkel Meats, that horsemeat tasted pretty good.


I'd prefer a market-based solution. If some company is shown to have lax
safety control on food products, take the CEO out and shoot him. Three or
four of those will re-adjust market incentives with no artificial government
distortions.


or just feed the CEO some of his own product, and invite the inspectors
to the dinnet too.


Drugs would remain a problem. Don't take drugs. In my case, that would mean
digging myself a hole and jumping in.







How about hiring more government inspectors? Nah, the government can't do
anything right. 'Better to just take our chances and let the market work it
out.


The problem that I see is the the system has become corrupted by
political pressure from the big corps. Heavier penalties for gross
misconduct and more people enforcing the laws.



We're screwed. I'm digging out my old pressure cooker and I'll make sure
it's all cooked to mush, so we can keep the world safe for unfettered
markets.


As much as no one wants to admit it, there is a dollar value placed on all
human lives.


What do you suppose the price is to the meat packers? Would $50/each cover
it?


I think they have just got re evaluation.




In reality the scales are very convoluted, in this last meat
contamination issue there were fewer ten people that died.
That's a little more than a bad day in Baghdad, or about two hours of
highway deaths.


Hey, that's a relief. Topps could have built a marketing campaign around
that. "Topps' Burgers -- Better For You Than a Bad Day in Baghdad."

or a bad day in Newark


The old procedure was to donate the bad food to some foreign third world
country. It still probably is a lot better than the food they were
normally accustomed to.



If you see your kid chewing on toys you got to make sure that nothing is
coming off them, lead paint or non lead paint. Same goes for attachments
to the toys.





What if you don't see him chewing on them, but he does it anyway?

What I am saying is that there are a lot of things that aren't on the
banned list that are potential hazzards for little kids. It is a
constant battle to keep ahead of them.



I remember eating the white paper paste when I was little, I must have
lost at least 10 IQ points. I wonder why they didnt have a big label
on the side that said " do not eat" ,oh, I was too young to read.



We could digress into banning tobacco products, alcohol and a number of
other items, but it up to the individual to make the decision to use or
not to use them.


Yup, we can't do anything about food packers who don't care if we live or
die, so let's stop eating food and let them run hog wild.

Or maybe we could get rational about inspecting meat and laying some heavy
penalties on those who don't comply? Maybe that would work.

--
Ed Huntress




I agree that there should be federal inspectors in the process but
things have changed drasticly in the last 20 or so years. The number of
inspectors had diminished and with more importation of food products we
are left hanging out to the whims of the food packers.


Some industries have a good inspection program but even with the
inspection programs things slip through the cracks. It does seem though
fot that much meat to be contaminated, there was a gross on going
failure in the inspection at Topps.


John

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:15:25 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Oct 7, 12:47 am, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
And shot full of hormones and antibiotics, just to keep them alive.

I'm starting to wonder about that stuff crossing into humans, expecially the
hormones. When I was 15, girls were not as well endowed as they are now.

Wes

Oh Wes....it is just your imagination. LOL

In all seriousness, hormones from meat production have been detected
in people, in the unborn and in our water supplies.

So yes...it is likely that girls are entrying puberty earlier because
of them.

TMT
I think it's making them more agressive too. When we were kids, the
guys would scrap and the girls would clique. You wer "IN" or you
weren't.
Today the girls fight like banshees.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:13:07 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Oct 6, 10:01 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:50:09 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:





On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:53:11 -0400, john wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

LOL You know what they say about the word ' assume

Rule # 1 on buying ground meat.... don't get any from a big packing
house. Fresh ground local meat is the only way to go.

And did you know E-Coli is a MAJOR problem in corn-fed beef and almost
unheard of in range fed or grain finished range fed beef?
American beef is virtually100% corn fed or corn finished beef.







True, and I probably sounded like I (as a consumer) want more protection
than I really do. Please nothing rotten, and I'll make sure that what I
get is thoroughly cooked anyway. Please don't adulterate it in a way I
can't tell. If it's really bright freaking red then I'll know that
there's either dye or CO involved, if you sell me a used car that has
struts missing from the engine compartment I'll know it's been totalled
even if the title isn't branded, if you sell me a new car I'll have looked
it up in Consumer Reports, etc.

I do try to buy meat that looks like it's been ground a few feet away from
the counter, but I'll bet that doesn't work 100% at any rate.

On the other hand, when I step onto a manufacturing floor I don't want
government inspectors (with some exceptions, based on gender, age,
appearance and attitude) sticking their hands down my shorts. No, I
don't mind too much that I am required to make a safe product -- I
wanted to do that anyway, and I like to know that my sleazy competitors
are required to live up to my standards. But I _would_ mind having a
bunch of regulators who barely passed "Physics for Civil Servants"
sitting in on my design reviews, questioning my innovations.

I hate to say it but lawyers keep things safer than any government will.

Yes, but it's the government (in the larger sense -- not a huge executive
branch) that gives the lawyers scope to work in. Without a balance of
power, and a constitutional right to redress, what could the lawyers do?

And if I screw up? Well, in a free world giving someone the freedom to
screw up means letting them feel the pain of it afterwards. If I have
to take a bunch of stuff back because I misrepresented it as safe food
or safe children's toys, then that's life. And if my business is so
weak that doing so puts me under -- that's life too.

Here is a problem, intentionally screwing up a product to save a buck
should be punishable civilly and criminally. If it is an accident the
lawyers will take their toll.

I would extend that 'intentional' to being negligent -- if you're working
on something that's safety related and you're not dotting all the 'i's and
crossing all the 't's then a consequent accident is your fault, even if
you didn't intend for something to go wrong. It may not be as bad as if
you deliberately cut corners _knowing_ that it would cause a problem, but
cutting corners and not _looking_ to see if it would cause a problem is
almost as bad.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I seem to recall reading that is not feeding them corn...it is the
feeding lot lifestyle versus home on the grass range.

I guess if I were standing in my own excrement, I would likely end up
as E.coli in who ate me too.

TMT
Nope. Hay fed and grain fed feedlot cattle do NOT have the e-coli
population corn fed cattle have. I's something to do with the corn in
the gut making it a "perfect host" for E-coli.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:43:27 -0500, "*" wrote:



Wes wrote in article
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

Topp's age is given as 67 in the article, thus it existed between
two and three times the normal/average corporate life span.

Up until 2003 if was a family held business and not a 'corporate' entity.
If
the owners that know the business are on site keeping an eye on things it
is
amazing how things that may get blown off in the corporate world are
addressed immediately.

I wonder if they sold because no one in the family wanted to take over
the
reins? That seems like a common problem with family businesses.


Another common problem these days is that the Old Man knows that Junior
will simply **** away the company's equity, and selling out is the ONLY way
to guarantee the financing of the Old Man's retirement to any degree of
certainty.

The first generation usually builds the business while the second
generation destroys it......



The way I see it, the first generation starts the business. The second
generation builds the business, and the third generation fritters it
away.

The first generation has the idea and makes a living from it. The
second generation, with the advantage of Dad's help makes a killing on
it, and the third generation, with the curse of family wealth, and
never having had to DO anything, parties it all away.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"john" wrote in message
...


I bet we all ate cat at one time or another if we ate chinese. I remember
a chinese restruant in Journal Square, NJ that was paying kids 25 cents
per cat back in the late fifties.

You *eat* in Journal Square? I try not to breathe there. d8-)

There also was the Chinese restaurant over near Somerville that was cited
for using roadkilled venison, and that was only a few years ago.


And Ed, do you remember Merkel Meats, that horsemeat tasted pretty good.

Some people think very highly of horsemeat. But then, I used to like
'possum, too, and I still think my _Gourmet_ magazine recipe for groundhog
in sour cream can't be beat.

I'm really not prejudiced against particular species. It's just what's done
to them.

How about hiring more government inspectors? Nah, the government can't do
anything right. 'Better to just take our chances and let the market work
it out.


The problem that I see is the the system has become corrupted by political
pressure from the big corps. Heavier penalties for gross misconduct and
more people enforcing the laws.

I'm for that.


I agree that there should be federal inspectors in the process but things
have changed drasticly in the last 20 or so years. The number of
inspectors had diminished and with more importation of food products we
are left hanging out to the whims of the food packers.

FWIW, I think that reducing the number of food inspectors is a very bad
idea. I also am wary of all of the fresh food we're importing, although that
one certainly is a losing battle. I'm shooting for increasing my percentage
of locally grown food this year, and it's not that tough to do.

We know from experience, before the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act,
how things are driven by unregulated market forces. It's deadly. I can't
accept the idea that we can't have vastly improved food inspection, nor do I
believe consumers would fight the extra costs by lobbying to reduce
inspections.

In any case, it can't cost more than the present effects of using corn to
produce ethanol. Have you priced corn on the commodity markets lately? Holy
cow.

Some industries have a good inspection program but even with the
inspection programs things slip through the cracks. It does seem though
fot that much meat to be contaminated, there was a gross on going failure
in the inspection at Topps.


John

Something is screwy about that whole thing. I think there will be more to be
heard about that story.

--
Ed Huntress

clare wrote:

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:13:07 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:


On Oct 6, 10:01 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:50:09 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:






On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:53:11 -0400, john wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

LOL You know what they say about the word ' assume

Rule # 1 on buying ground meat.... don't get any from a big packing
house. Fresh ground local meat is the only way to go.

And did you know E-Coli is a MAJOR problem in corn-fed beef and almost
unheard of in range fed or grain finished range fed beef?
American beef is virtually100% corn fed or corn finished beef.








True, and I probably sounded like I (as a consumer) want more protection
than I really do. Please nothing rotten, and I'll make sure that what I
get is thoroughly cooked anyway. Please don't adulterate it in a way I
can't tell. If it's really bright freaking red then I'll know that
there's either dye or CO involved, if you sell me a used car that has
struts missing from the engine compartment I'll know it's been totalled
even if the title isn't branded, if you sell me a new car I'll have looked
it up in Consumer Reports, etc.

I do try to buy meat that looks like it's been ground a few feet away from
the counter, but I'll bet that doesn't work 100% at any rate.

On the other hand, when I step onto a manufacturing floor I don't want
government inspectors (with some exceptions, based on gender, age,
appearance and attitude) sticking their hands down my shorts. No, I
don't mind too much that I am required to make a safe product -- I
wanted to do that anyway, and I like to know that my sleazy competitors
are required to live up to my standards. But I _would_ mind having a
bunch of regulators who barely passed "Physics for Civil Servants"
sitting in on my design reviews, questioning my innovations.

I hate to say it but lawyers keep things safer than any government will.

Yes, but it's the government (in the larger sense -- not a huge executive
branch) that gives the lawyers scope to work in. Without a balance of
power, and a constitutional right to redress, what could the lawyers do?

And if I screw up? Well, in a free world giving someone the freedom to
screw up means letting them feel the pain of it afterwards. If I have
to take a bunch of stuff back because I misrepresented it as safe food
or safe children's toys, then that's life. And if my business is so
weak that doing so puts me under -- that's life too.

Here is a problem, intentionally screwing up a product to save a buck
should be punishable civilly and criminally. If it is an accident the
lawyers will take their toll.

I would extend that 'intentional' to being negligent -- if you're working
on something that's safety related and you're not dotting all the 'i's and
crossing all the 't's then a consequent accident is your fault, even if
you didn't intend for something to go wrong. It may not be as bad as if
you deliberately cut corners _knowing_ that it would cause a problem, but
cutting corners and not _looking_ to see if it would cause a problem is
almost as bad.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I seem to recall reading that is not feeding them corn...it is the
feeding lot lifestyle versus home on the grass range.

I guess if I were standing in my own excrement, I would likely end up
as E.coli in who ate me too.

TMT

Nope. Hay fed and grain fed feedlot cattle do NOT have the e-coli
population corn fed cattle have. I's something to do with the corn in
the gut making it a "perfect host" for E-coli.




Corn is not the right stuff for the cows seven stomachs to digest but it
does put weight on them fast. Its something to do with the high
sugar/carb. level in the corn.


John

On Oct 7, 6:30 am, "*" wrote:
john wrote in article
...







Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my
food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping,
is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

LOL You know what they say about the word ' assume

Rule # 1 on buying ground meat.... don't get any from a big packing
house. Fresh ground local meat is the only way to go.

Most "local" ground beef is made from the day's cuttings in the back room
at the store, so you STILL have that potential of having a single piece
contaminate the rest of the ground beef.

Grinding your own from a single piece of meat is STILL the safest way to
go.

Second would be to buy a roast and have the store butcher grind that single
roast for you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In a dirty grinder....

TMT

On Oct 7, 6:43 am, "*" wrote:
Wes wrote in article
...





F. George McDuffee wrote:

Topp's age is given as 67 in the article, thus it existed between
two and three times the normal/average corporate life span.

Up until 2003 if was a family held business and not a 'corporate' entity.
If
the owners that know the business are on site keeping an eye on things it
is
amazing how things that may get blown off in the corporate world are
addressed immediately.

I wonder if they sold because no one in the family wanted to take over
the
reins? That seems like a common problem with family businesses.

Another common problem these days is that the Old Man knows that Junior
will simply **** away the company's equity, and selling out is the ONLY way
to guarantee the financing of the Old Man's retirement to any degree of
certainty.

The first generation usually builds the business while the second
generation destroys it......- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I remember reading somewhere that over 90% of private businesses don't
survive the transfer over to the second generation.

They die for many reasons...one is that the first generation doesn't
prepare the second generation for the reins of ownership.

I have seen that problem in many of the smaller businesses that I have
watched die over the years.

And many times the original owner doesn't want to let go...the kids
take the hint and vote with their feet.

TMT

On Oct 7, 7:36 am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:29:42 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, F.
George McDuffee quickly quoth:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
snip
Beef recall forces Topps to shut down
snip
some URLs of interest

Topps meat company urls

Too Many Trolls sure is sucking in lots of responders on this
particular troll, isn't he?

--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
============================================

Jealous? LOL

People don't respond if there is no interest.

Anyone who eats has a personal interest in this subject.

It also extends to any product you might buy....including tools.

So it is actually ON TOPIC...unlike the many neocon crap posts we see
here.

Go touch your inner curnudgeon.....LOL

TMT

On Oct 7, 1:14 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:13:07 -0700, Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Oct 6, 10:01 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:50:09 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:53:11 -0400, john wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

LOL You know what they say about the word ' assume

Rule # 1 on buying ground meat.... don't get any from a big packing
house. Fresh ground local meat is the only way to go.

And did you know E-Coli is a MAJOR problem in corn-fed beef and almost
unheard of in range fed or grain finished range fed beef?
American beef is virtually100% corn fed or corn finished beef.

True, and I probably sounded like I (as a consumer) want more protection
than I really do. Please nothing rotten, and I'll make sure that what I
get is thoroughly cooked anyway. Please don't adulterate it in a way I
can't tell. If it's really bright freaking red then I'll know that
there's either dye or CO involved, if you sell me a used car that has
struts missing from the engine compartment I'll know it's been totalled
even if the title isn't branded, if you sell me a new car I'll have looked
it up in Consumer Reports, etc.

I do try to buy meat that looks like it's been ground a few feet away from
the counter, but I'll bet that doesn't work 100% at any rate.

On the other hand, when I step onto a manufacturing floor I don't want
government inspectors (with some exceptions, based on gender, age,
appearance and attitude) sticking their hands down my shorts. No, I
don't mind too much that I am required to make a safe product -- I
wanted to do that anyway, and I like to know that my sleazy competitors
are required to live up to my standards. But I _would_ mind having a
bunch of regulators who barely passed "Physics for Civil Servants"
sitting in on my design reviews, questioning my innovations.

I hate to say it but lawyers keep things safer than any government will.

Yes, but it's the government (in the larger sense -- not a huge executive
branch) that gives the lawyers scope to work in. Without a balance of
power, and a constitutional right to redress, what could the lawyers do?

And if I screw up? Well, in a free world giving someone the freedom to
screw up means letting them feel the pain of it afterwards. If I have
to take a bunch of stuff back because I misrepresented it as safe food
or safe children's toys, then that's life. And if my business is so
weak that doing so puts me under -- that's life too.

Here is a problem, intentionally screwing up a product to save a buck
should be punishable civilly and criminally. If it is an accident the
lawyers will take their toll.

I would extend that 'intentional' to being negligent -- if you're working
on something that's safety related and you're not dotting all the 'i's and
crossing all the 't's then a consequent accident is your fault, even if
you didn't intend for something to go wrong. It may not be as bad as if
you deliberately cut corners _knowing_ that it would cause a problem, but
cutting corners and not _looking_ to see if it would cause a problem is
almost as bad.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I seem to recall reading that is not feeding them corn...it is the
feeding lot lifestyle versus home on the grass range.

I guess if I were standing in my own excrement, I would likely end up
as E.coli in who ate me too.

TMT

Nope. Hay fed and grain fed feedlot cattle do NOT have the e-coli
population corn fed cattle have. I's something to do with the corn in
the gut making it a "perfect host" for E-coli.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

E.coli is a naturally occurring bateria in the soil...it's everywhere.

It becomes concentrated in the gut...and when you have livestock
standing in their own excrement it is easy for the animal to become
covered with it.

Proper processing of the animal takes care of the problem...proper
processing has not been occurring.

TMT

Ed Huntress wrote:

"john" wrote in message
...


I bet we all ate cat at one time or another if we ate chinese. I remember
a chinese restruant in Journal Square, NJ that was paying kids 25 cents
per cat back in the late fifties.


You *eat* in Journal Square? I try not to breathe there. d8-)

lol, I lived in Secaucus for many years. 50's to the 70's and worked
in the pig farms, in the truch maintance garage. I could never get near
"city fed pork" stuff while cooking smelled just like the garbage they
fed the pigs.



There also was the Chinese restaurant over near Somerville that was cited
for using roadkilled venison, and that was only a few years ago.


Nothing wrong with roadkill if the meat wasnt brused. I hit one once at
one in the morning and it was a clean kill... head hit the front bumper,
but wasn't in the mood to screw with it at 1 AM.





And Ed, do you remember Merkel Meats, that horsemeat tasted pretty good.


Some people think very highly of horsemeat. But then, I used to like
'possum, too, and I still think my _Gourmet_ magazine recipe for groundhog
in sour cream can't be beat.

I'm really not prejudiced against particular species. It's just what's done
to them.


My theory is that if everyone else is eating it and it tastes good,
don't ask what it is.






FWIW, I think that reducing the number of food inspectors is a very bad
idea. I also am wary of all of the fresh food we're importing, although that
one certainly is a losing battle. I'm shooting for increasing my percentage
of locally grown food this year, and it's not that tough to do.


There should be a lot of local grown food in your area or did the
farmers all decide growing houses was more profitable? The problem with
some 'locally grown food' stands is that you see the empty boxes behind
the stand that the food came in from distant places.



We know from experience, before the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act,
how things are driven by unregulated market forces. It's deadly. I can't
accept the idea that we can't have vastly improved food inspection, nor do I
believe consumers would fight the extra costs by lobbying to reduce
inspections.


I guess you read Upton Sinclair too.


In any case, it can't cost more than the present effects of using corn to
produce ethanol. Have you priced corn on the commodity markets lately? Holy
cow.


Ethanol is another ripoff by the food cartel, Cargill, ADM and others.
I am waiting to see how the govt changes the rules again on computing
the inflation rate to hid the increases in food prices due to the
increased cost of corn.



Some industries have a good inspection program but even with the
inspection programs things slip through the cracks. It does seem though
fot that much meat to be contaminated, there was a gross on going failure
in the inspection at Topps.


John


Something is screwy about that whole thing. I think there will be more to be
heard about that story.



We have a couple of new large scale meat processing plants opening up in
this area.... I wonder if there is a connection?




John

On Oct 7, 1:15 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Oct 7, 12:47 am, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:
And shot full of hormones and antibiotics, just to keep them alive.

I'm starting to wonder about that stuff crossing into humans, expecially the
hormones. When I was 15, girls were not as well endowed as they are now.

Wes

Oh Wes....it is just your imagination. LOL

In all seriousness, hormones from meat production have been detected
in people, in the unborn and in our water supplies.

So yes...it is likely that girls are entrying puberty earlier because
of them.

TMT

Maybe I should mention that girls ARE entering puberty MUCH earlier
than they used to...the question yet to be answered is WHY?

TMT

"john" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:

"john" wrote in message
...


I bet we all ate cat at one time or another if we ate chinese. I
remember a chinese restruant in Journal Square, NJ that was paying kids
25 cents per cat back in the late fifties.


You *eat* in Journal Square? I try not to breathe there. d8-)

lol, I lived in Secaucus for many years. 50's to the 70's and worked in
the pig farms, in the truch maintance garage. I could never get near
"city fed pork" stuff while cooking smelled just like the garbage they
fed the pigs.

I remember when we had to wrap garbage separately from trash, because the
garbage was taken to the hog farms. And that was when we lived in Vineland
and again in West Trenton.


There also was the Chinese restaurant over near Somerville that was cited
for using roadkilled venison, and that was only a few years ago.


Nothing wrong with roadkill if the meat wasnt brused. I hit one once at
one in the morning and it was a clean kill... head hit the front bumper,
but wasn't in the mood to screw with it at 1 AM.

I don't think the Chinese restaurant was particular about *when* it was
killed. I've never hit a deer but my boss in Michigan used to carry his
gutting knife and big trash bags in his trunk for just such eventualities.



FWIW, I think that reducing the number of food inspectors is a very bad
idea. I also am wary of all of the fresh food we're importing, although
that one certainly is a losing battle. I'm shooting for increasing my
percentage of locally grown food this year, and it's not that tough to
do.


There should be a lot of local grown food in your area or did the farmers
all decide growing houses was more profitable?

It's houses around here, but you don't have to go far to get to the truck
farms and the farm stands.

The problem with some 'locally grown food' stands is that you see the
empty boxes behind the stand that the food came in from distant places.

Oh, yeah. I only buy from ones I know. And I know what *isn't* grown for
market in central and western NJ. That helps.

We know from experience, before the passage of the Pure Food and Drug
Act, how things are driven by unregulated market forces. It's deadly. I
can't accept the idea that we can't have vastly improved food inspection,
nor do I believe consumers would fight the extra costs by lobbying to
reduce inspections.


I guess you read Upton Sinclair too.

Yes, and quite a bit about the Act itself, as well as the early history of
the drug industry. It's not pretty.



In any case, it can't cost more than the present effects of using corn to
produce ethanol. Have you priced corn on the commodity markets lately?
Holy cow.


Ethanol is another ripoff by the food cartel, Cargill, ADM and others.

Yes. There was still another story about what a loser corn ethanol is in
_The Economist_ just last week.

I am waiting to see how the govt changes the rules again on computing the
inflation rate to hid the increases in food prices due to the increased
cost of corn.

If the bill is written by a congressman from the Midwest, we'll know what to
look for.


Some industries have a good inspection program but even with the
inspection programs things slip through the cracks. It does seem though
fot that much meat to be contaminated, there was a gross on going failure
in the inspection at Topps.


John


Something is screwy about that whole thing. I think there will be more to
be heard about that story.



We have a couple of new large scale meat processing plants opening up in
this area.... I wonder if there is a connection?

I don't know. Once holding companies are involved it tends to get very
complicated. I hope one or more of the news organizations are digging into
it right now.

--
Ed Huntress

In article . com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Oct 7, 1:15 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Oct 7, 12:47 am, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:
And shot full of hormones and antibiotics, just to keep them alive.

I'm starting to wonder about that stuff crossing into humans, expecially
the
hormones. When I was 15, girls were not as well endowed as they are now.


Wes

Oh Wes....it is just your imagination. LOL

In all seriousness, hormones from meat production have been detected
in people, in the unborn and in our water supplies.

So yes...it is likely that girls are entrying puberty earlier because
of them.

TMT

Maybe I should mention that girls ARE entering puberty MUCH earlier
than they used to...the question yet to be answered is WHY?

The largest effect, which has been known for decades, long before modern
additives existed, is nutrition. People are a lot better fed than they
used to be, often to the point of obesity, so it's going to be hard to
prove that anything extra in the food is the cause, although people will
try.

To prove the case, we would have to find hundreds of underfed girls that
nonetheless were getting the full dose of extras extras, and follow them
from birth to age 20 or so.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Oct 7, 1:15 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Oct 7, 12:47 am, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:
And shot full of hormones and antibiotics, just to keep them alive.

I'm starting to wonder about that stuff crossing into humans,
expecially
the
hormones. When I was 15, girls were not as well endowed as they are
now.


Wes

Oh Wes....it is just your imagination. LOL

In all seriousness, hormones from meat production have been detected
in people, in the unborn and in our water supplies.

So yes...it is likely that girls are entrying puberty earlier because
of them.

TMT

Maybe I should mention that girls ARE entering puberty MUCH earlier
than they used to...the question yet to be answered is WHY?

The largest effect, which has been known for decades, long before modern
additives existed, is nutrition. People are a lot better fed than they
used to be, often to the point of obesity, so it's going to be hard to
prove that anything extra in the food is the cause, although people will
try.

To prove the case, we would have to find hundreds of underfed girls that
nonetheless were getting the full dose of extras extras, and follow them
from birth to age 20 or so.

Actually, fat tissue is easy to distinguish from glandular tissue. And
that's not the only premature (or "precocious") sexual development that's
been tied to estradiol levels in meat.

It's pretty well established.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:56:13 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, F.
George McDuffee quickly quoth:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 05:36:08 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
snip
Too Many Trolls sure is sucking in lots of responders on this
particular troll, isn't he?
snip
Yes, however everone eats, so they do have a "dog in the fight."

Big question is what can/will we do about it?

The best answer is to not follow his trolls, isn't it, Unk?


If the answer is nothing, then lets all go out in the shop and
make some chips [metal, not potato or taco].

I've been doing household tasks today. 3 loads of wash while I stored
the hoses and other outside goodies in the pump house, swept the back
patio and walk, and did a leaf burn.

I also 320-sanded and put a coat of Behlen's Rockhard Table Top
Varnish on the kitchen table and am now 320-prepping the chairs for
wax.

Metalwise, I'm too cheap to buy a real masonry hoe. What's the best
way (type of holesaw?) to put a pair of 2 or 2-1/2" holes in the
blade? http://tinyurl.com/32mo86 I'd play with a plasma cutter if I
had one.

--
Ultimately, the only power to which man should aspire
is that which he exercises over himself.
-- Elie Wiesel

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Oct 7, 1:15 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Oct 7, 12:47 am, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:
And shot full of hormones and antibiotics, just to keep them alive.

I'm starting to wonder about that stuff crossing into humans,
expecially
the
hormones. When I was 15, girls were not as well endowed as they are
now.


Wes

Oh Wes....it is just your imagination. LOL

In all seriousness, hormones from meat production have been detected
in people, in the unborn and in our water supplies.

So yes...it is likely that girls are entrying puberty earlier because
of them.

TMT

Maybe I should mention that girls ARE entering puberty MUCH earlier
than they used to...the question yet to be answered is WHY?

The largest effect, which has been known for decades, long before modern
additives existed, is nutrition. People are a lot better fed than they
used to be, often to the point of obesity, so it's going to be hard to
prove that anything extra in the food is the cause, although people will
try.

To prove the case, we would have to find hundreds of underfed girls that
nonetheless were getting the full dose of extras extras, and follow them
from birth to age 20 or so.

Actually, fat tissue is easy to distinguish from glandular tissue. And
that's not the only premature (or "precocious") sexual development that's
been tied to estradiol levels in meat.

Telling tissue types apart is easy for sure, but that was not the issue.

And "been tied to" is a statement of correlation; causation is not
proven, and that is the difficult thing.

The classic example is the true statement that there is a positive and
significant correlation between ice cream sales and automobile accident
rate - they rise and fall together. So, to save lives we should forbid
the sale of ice cream?


It's pretty well established.

What is pretty well established? The problem here is that we have
confounding variables, integrated calories versus a whole slew of
additives, all of which increased at more or less the same time, making
it hard to disentangle correlation from cause from effect.

There was a good article in the NY Times Magazine of a few Sundays ago
on these same kinds of methodological problems, but with respect to the
health effects or non-effects of hormone replacement therapy.

I think it's this one: "Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?", By
GARY TAUBES, Published: September 16, 2007, but don't have electronic
access to check.

Joe Gwinn