Arsenic found in chicken meat

The government controls these products for a reason and it is not always for the well being of the people. How much grain does the USDA grow anyways?
Quote:
 
Quote:
I'm saying that it is an alarmist type of issue. Folks making too much about everything. Yeah, arsenic isn't good, I agree, but there are lots of contaminants in the environment, and you will come into contact with them at some time, as in your water example.

Sodium explodes when it comes into contact with water. Chlorine in gaseous form can kill you. Combine them and you can season food. Use too much NaCl and you can create health issues.

Folks glom onto one item, or chemical compound, or small issue, and then blow it out of proportion. It is all relative.
 
I am going to tentatively step in and ask a question - hopefully one of you will know. Is this ingredient containing arsenic added to the feed I am buying, and if it is, what name would I be looking for on the label? Anyone that could help - that would be apprecitated.
 
Dogfish, it sounds like you are trying to make a larger philosophical point, but you seem to agree that adding arsenic to chicken feed is a bad practice. Do I have that right? If so, I agree with you on both counts. People often misperceive risks, and are much more concerned - and more likely to take action - about trivial risks than the larger but commonly-encountered risks. Sometimes that works out for the best anyway; for example, even though the arsenic in chicken meat presents very little health risk to consumers, if concern over that trivial risk causes growers to stop using Roxarsone, it's a big environmental win - because the real problem is applying 2 million pounds per year of arsenic to farmland and garden soils (through the chicken manure).

I apply the same logic to "organic" food and feeds: the incremental change to personal health is negligible, but the environmental benefit to soils, water, wildlife, and people in argricultural areas (where chemical applications are concentrated) is immense. In effect, those who buy organic food (and chicken feed) are basically paying for the slow cleanup of the agricultural environment.
 
Quote:
Yup, we agree. Just making a point. The article is along the lines of a story I saw on TV today. It warned parents that people with inflatable pools should be careful, as kids could fall in and drown. Duh.
 
City soils are very toxic too and in many cases more so than the agricultural soils as the city folk as well as their hired foreign gardeners and housekeepers pour on all types of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, household cleaning products, etc. onto their yards and inside and ourside their homes in the little is good, MORE is better mentality.
 
Good point, Bossroo - I've read that suburban lawns are among the most toxic environments in America, because of the quantities of weedkillers, fertilizers, and pesticides people apply to them. (An environment in which only grass can grow, is probably not a healthy ecosystem.)

As you say, many people ignore the labels and apply way more than is necessary or desireable. Municipal wastewater treatment plants are among the victims of this mentality - because certain of the commonest pesticides (Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos) are often over-applied, then the lawn is over-irrigated, water runs off across the sidewalk and into the sewer system... carrying those chemicals with it. Both are persistent, meaning they break down slowly, and they are toxic in very tiny concentrations (less than a part per billion) to sensitive aquatic life. When the city sewer authority has to meet a whole-effluent toxicity criterion, this can cause real trouble. I used to work on a project where this was a major issue.
 
Quote:
Albion, right on the money! This is what I'm always trying to tell people who have no clue what "Organic" means, or don't understand why it's important. As an organic farmer myself, I just love when people "get it." Props, and thank you.
thumbsup.gif
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom