How to send your farmer to jail Update on Tester Amendment Post 239

[noodleroo]

Quote:
Its no wonder they want him in jail

In the beginning of the video, Mr. Kane has some constitutional confusion: you can't be forced to testify against yourself in a CRIMINAL action; this was a CIVIL lawsuit against him. He can be forced to testify in a civil case. What was extremely interesting is what he found out with the Freedom of Information Act. I'm sure he's looking over his shoulder all the time these days. I would be...

 

[mame1616]

Quote:
Whow! Back up! Wait a minute!
I know it does not become radioactive, but for goodness sakes! It is rendered dead! No life giving nutrition is left in it!
I'll have to dig around for the data later on, but please, I beg of you to do some more research.

Wait, are you referring to veggies as well? I was just referring to meats - pork in particular. Irradiation is EXTREMELY effective at decontamination. I don't know about the effects on plant matter. My apologies if I wasn't clear on that.

A great deal of the contamination comes from the processing of the meat - too many, too fast, and too filthy. It would help if the animals weren't covered with their own feces to begin with. I'm sure you've heard of the fecal soup all chickens are dragged through - supposedly a scalding bath, but it's completely filled with poop. With irradiation, they're trying to close the barn door after the cow has gotten out. Instead of fixing the way they care for and process the meat, they just try and "band-aid" the feces these animals are covered with - cows, pigs and chickens. But they won't change their methods or processing, because it would cost too much money. Of course irradiation is effective at killing organisms. So is bleach. But, why don't they eliminate the source of the irradiation in the first place? You can't trust an industry that is fighting for the right to continue feeding chicken manure to cows. Noodleroo is right - it's all about the money.

 

[kstaven]

After reading this thread and seeing where it has gone I feel I have to jump into the discussion, considering we run a COW SHARE. Like it or not there are two sides to this and most times all people see are the extreme sides. Many people approach this subject from the side of RIGHTS and they have a valid point. But along with those rights comes a very real side which incorporates RESPONSIBILITY. It may be ones right to cow share, but along with that comes the responsibility to do things in such a manner with proper procedure, equipment, and protocols to ensure they are not needlessly risking anyone involved in such.

I have been involved in this long enough to say that "All raw milk is not equal due to animal diet, environment they are raised/handled in, and the procedures or lack there-of employed by the share. There are good reasons one would want to see dairy animals disease tested and good reasons one would want to see periodic representative milk testing done."

Over the years there have been cases of operations unfairly singled out, harassed, and tactics used that have been extremist. But in all fairness there have also been cases where there was a very real problem.

Max Kane has raised many valid points along the way, but one must also realize he would not knowingly get milk from a sub-standard operation either, and to deny the existence of such is not being honest or realistic. With any food source producer there is good and bad. With any food source, no matter how good procedure and safety mechanisms are, there is and always will be a risk.

In order to see any real change out there some realistic middle ground needs to be found. This applies to those who want food choice availability and those who enforce and write regulation. This is the biggest hurdle we face.

In a perfect world it would come down to more common sense and little regulation. But in all reality, there are a few who would cut corners to save a buck that make regulations and some form of enforcement necessary. This can be applied to small producer and large producer alike. The problem with enforcement comes in with the apparent lack of a level playing field.

A shift in the cow share community toward admitting there can be problems, and endorsing good practice more, would likely give the whole movement a more favorable image in the public eye( which is where we win or lose in the end). This is a game of numbers when dealing with politicians and increased numbers serve to quiet the extreme opposition elements and tactics used against those who fight for freedom of choice. This is something we are gradually seeing more of. People are spending more time researching, asking questions and reacting in a more informed fashion than was typical in the past. Unfortunate that all to often the majority of the mainstream media quotes come from the reactionary uninformed; all because that is what sells papers and keeps the audience interested. It also serves to make the opposition appear more credible.


Putting Max in jail would serve to scare some off in the short term but in the end I believe it would be a tactical blunder.

 

[mame1616]

Quote:
Amen.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Wait, are you referring to veggies as well? I was just referring to meats - pork in particular. Irradiation is EXTREMELY effective at decontamination. I don't know about the effects on plant matter. My apologies if I wasn't clear on that.

A great deal of the contamination comes from the processing of the meat - too many, too fast, and too filthy. It would help if the animals weren't covered with their own feces to begin with. I'm sure you've heard of the fecal soup all chickens are dragged through - supposedly a scalding bath, but it's completely filled with poop. With irradiation, they're trying to close the barn door after the cow has gotten out. Instead of fixing the way they care for and process the meat, they just try and "band-aid" the feces these animals are covered with - cows, pigs and chickens. But they won't change their methods or processing, because it would cost too much money. Of course irradiation is effective at killing organisms. So is bleach. But, why don't they eliminate the source of the irradiation in the first place? You can't trust an industry that is fighting for the right to continue feeding chicken manure to cows. Noodleroo is right - it's all about the money.

Um, yeah, that's kinda my point.

If it costs more to change the methods, don't you realize who those costs are necessarily passed on to? The customers. I said before, until natural methods become more common and therefore cheaper, irradiation is the best we can do. Face reality - at the moment, many people cannot afford organic foods.

Also, I stated pork in particular. Studies show that a perfectly healthy pig is (don't quote me on this; I may be off by a few percentage points) about 70% infected with salmonella. By the time it reaches the buther, it's around 95%. That's why it needs to be cooked so thoroughly. This has always been an issue, so don't blame it on corporate farming.

 

[kstaven]

The problem with much of this is, that sooner or later we run out of bandaid methods. The methods bacteria and viruses use to adapt will continue to out-strip our ability to keep up, coupled with the slow adaptive capability of the human immune system to cope with new strains and altered proteins created through many of these methods that cause damage to us creates an environment more lethal than we are already experiencing. Not a pretty picture for our future and that of our children all in the name of profit and cheap food.

 

[Katy]

Quote:
Very well said!!

 

[kstaven]

BTW: Salmonella is not necessarily dangerous to healthy humans. It is the concentration of it that causes the issue. It, like many other so called health demons are more common in our environment than most would want to believe. Believe it or not we are exposed to many of the big bad viruses and bacteria every day.

In all truth I hate using the term bad bacteria because it is in all honesty a half truth. Without their existence much of the bacteria we class as good bacteria would grow to pathogenic levels and devastate the human race because we would have no defenses. The truth is it is all a balancing act that has to exist. Wipe out the so called bad bacteria, or limit its existence too much and we are all in trouble.

 

[mame1616]

Quote:
A great deal of the contamination comes from the processing of the meat - too many, too fast, and too filthy. It would help if the animals weren't covered with their own feces to begin with. I'm sure you've heard of the fecal soup all chickens are dragged through - supposedly a scalding bath, but it's completely filled with poop. With irradiation, they're trying to close the barn door after the cow has gotten out. Instead of fixing the way they care for and process the meat, they just try and "band-aid" the feces these animals are covered with - cows, pigs and chickens. But they won't change their methods or processing, because it would cost too much money. Of course irradiation is effective at killing organisms. So is bleach. But, why don't they eliminate the source of the irradiation in the first place? You can't trust an industry that is fighting for the right to continue feeding chicken manure to cows. Noodleroo is right - it's all about the money.

Um, yeah, that's kinda my point.

If it costs more to change the methods, don't you realize who those costs are necessarily passed on to? The customers. I said before, until natural methods become more common and therefore cheaper, irradiation is the best we can do. Face reality - at the moment, many people cannot afford organic foods.

Also, I stated pork in particular. Studies show that a perfectly healthy pig is (don't quote me on this; I may be off by a few percentage points) about 70% infected with salmonella. By the time it reaches the buther, it's around 95%. That's why it needs to be cooked so thoroughly. This has always been an issue, so don't blame it on corporate farming.

You know, I asked my dad about food poisoning on his farm in Ohio when he was growing up. He said no one ever got sick. They would butcher 3-4 large hogs in one day, all by hand, and no one ever got sick. Neither did anyone get sick from the weekly chicken that was bled, plucked, and gutted hanging from a nail outside the back porch.

A lot of foods do not have to be organic to be natural, or raised the way they were when my dad was growing up. Even the organic labeling has gone over the top - the fees, the expensive testing, etc. A lot of good farmers can't afford it. What started out as a great victory - a verified definition of "organic" has been tainted by gov't involvement.

PS - Rolling eyes is probably not the best smiley to use on such an emotionally charged thread. I wasn't agreeing with you, because I think irradiation is a cop out, and will never accept that there are no health risks. The gov't allows for a certain amount of pus in milk - how much radiation are humans "allowed" to show before they say it is too much? Studies have shown that people are willing to pay more for non-irradiated meat. The problem is getting that meat to be labelled. The companies won't do it because they know the people don't want it.

 

[Sunny the Hippie Chick]

Quote:
About Salmonella.. Ive had it twice.. Small cases, but still misserable. At the time I didnt know that almost all pet lizards carry salmonella. I didnt wash my hands well enough before eatting. Or I didnt clean out the sink well enough after washing out its food bowl. Well after I found out. Every thing from its cage was washed outdoors.

Many people do not know that their pet frog, lizard or turtle usually carries salmonella. One could have petted their turtle then cooked breakfast. Which in turn the people would get sick from eatting breakfast. But it wasnt the chicken eggs that were infected. It was their pet. But who gets in trouble for it. The company that produced the chicken eggs. What happens when in certain areas, where there are more reptile owners. And more of those reptile owners get sick. The majority of the people most likey but the same eggs from the same store. Which in turn makes it look like the eggs were the reason every one was getting sick. You see its not always the food companys fault.

I just used this one as an example. But it could happen with any food source.

Like lets say you are an owner of a reptile. Then you clean the cage and go out to eat with out washing your hands. Then you touch the table. Then new customers show up and eat at the same table. They get sick. Along with other people that eat at that same table. Then an employee cleans that table with a rag. Then goes to the next table with the same rag to clean it. Spreading Salmonella to more tables. That out break was not the resturants fault. Or the food sources fault. But in the media that is who would be to blame. Things are not investigated enough.

So instead of outlawing selling vegis from your garden. Or your own eggs or milk.. Maybe they should outlaw lizards as pets because they also make people sick if not handled properly.

I mean I loved my lizard as a pet. But was more careful after I got sick. But many pet owner dont know that their pet lizard can carry it and show no signs at all.

I cant believe that the gov. would stop people from selling their food they grew in their garden. My Aunt owns a small farm. They eat most of their stuff. But she also sells a small amount at farmers markets. Does this new law make it so she can no longer sell it.

Any way enough rambling that is sort of off topic..