Speaking of Red Meat

[IronEagle]

Re: Speaking of Red Meat

I can see where you are coming from Streetcorner Philosopher. I could go either way. Today I had a nice Ribeye grilled for lunch and a huge serving of fauxtatoes which is one of my favorite meals. The past two evenings I went to Jason's Deli for my dinner break here at the Office and got huge salads. Everything is so fresh on their salad bar that I didn't miss having meat at all! Spinach, romaine lettuce, cucumbers, red & yellow peppers, brocolli, califlower and sprouts was a great combo. They gave me the one on Monday free which was really nice of them.

[TyCowboy]

Re: Speaking of Red Meat

Or eat only that which you take yourself (as a hunter) or have raised to slaughter yourself. I generally eat very little store-bought meat, as I'm generally in fresh supply of wild turkey, venison, and duck. If those aren't around, I often fish for my food.

Call me a nutjob, but it's mostly due to financial practicality...plus I enjoy hunting and fishing.

Ty

[cleochatra]

Re: Speaking of Red Meat

I don't call you a nutjob... with venison I'd call you lucky! Can I come for dinner? *l*

[TyCowboy]

Re: Speaking of Red Meat

Sure...I got plenty!

[bizzlekitty]

Re: Speaking of Red Meat

When there is a diseased cow -- say she has cancer or some other horrible disease -- what do you think happens to her after her diagnosis? Are profit-motivated farmers likely to forego the profits she can generate by not slaughtering her and placing her into the food supply? No! of course not. Short of having mad-cow disease, you can count on virtually every cow -- healthy or not -- to be ground up and put on your supermarket's shelf.

Just curious if you have any documented and non-biased news sources to confirm that such things happen. Because knowing people that work in the beef industry, I know that there are very strict regulations that they are required to follow to ensure that not only is the meat that is produced meat certain standards, but all their facilities and animals that they breed and raise need to past a pretty strict regiment of inspections, immunizations, etc. I also know that as a whole, steers and other animals raised for meat, usually do not have the range of health issues that humans do and are rarely diseased. Not only that, but those raised for beef are usually killed before they are more than a year old, reducing the likelihood of carrying diseases like cancer and other things. Also, the likelihood that a disease could transfer from bovine to human through consumption is slim. You are more likely to get sick from bacteria that resulted from the slaughtering process, which is pretty slim, considering the standards they have nowadays. Or even from your own preparation or not using the meat soon enough.

You seem to sound here like all beef raisers etc. are evil money-hungry capitalist that do not care about the quality of their product, which is not the case. In rare cases if diseases are found in cattle, they all have very strict methods of dealing with such issues, including testing, treatment if needed, and quarantine. This is why all cattle are tagged and branded.

Also, if there were issues with disease, I'm sure you'd hear alot more stories, other than the mad-cow disease, which is not caused by the meat-packing industry, but was from feeding infected animal-byproducts to cattle, which is not something that is typically done, especially in the U.S. Most are range or grain fed.

As cleo pointed out, with some work, you can get more "organic" meat if you are that concerned, but honestly, there isn't going to be a huge difference unless you can actually get to know the people who raise and slaughter the steers and know the process they undergo.

Enough people in the world are eating this beef on a regular basis and there's been no proof that doing so is harmful. It's more likely that all the processed products in our diets (additives, preservatives, etc.) are tons more harmful than natural things like meat.

[TyCowboy]

Re: Speaking of Red Meat

I would point out that most cattle markets will not sell cattle who appear ill or have conditions which are considered dangerous to people.

The issue, however, is that very few diseases which affect cattle are dangerous to people. I'll grant that there are potentials for mutations, but in the years that people have been eating beef, it appears not to have happened to any real frequency.

Ty

[Kent]

Re: Speaking of Red Meat

Downer cattle -- cattle too sick (broken legs) to walk -- are certainly sold in to the food supply. I have relatives who worked for meat processing plants in the recent past, but as was said earlier, get your meat from a reputable source and in grades choice or better, you have nothing to worry about. Buy a bunch of select or worse grades meat, and you are buying meat from less quality cows. I can't stand buying beef from Wal-mart for that reason, but as for quality beef from a butcher or smaller grocer, the more the better.

As for the negative effects, my complete blood work up and physical done after a year of red meat eating Atkins diet could not have been better. You don't have to eat red meat or any meat to do Atkins, but I certainly wouldn't do it that way.

[Elsie150]

Re: Speaking of Red Meat

Just want to add my two cents. And for the record...Yes..I eat meat...daily.

<<Think about a piece of steak: If you were to cook your steak in the microwave or by boiling it, it would taste terrible. Same with chicken or pork. It's not the meat itself which tastes so good, it's the flavorings and methods of cooking which provide most of the flavor.>>

Think about any food...there are ways to prepare it that make it taste better or worse depending...not just steak. As for the flavorings making the steak taste edible...I disagree...I do not marinate my steak and eat it straight up.

Now that being said...I have to totally agree with you on the following point

<<and doctors seem to have no anwers: Cancer, Lupus, Fibro-myalgia, depression, anxiety disorders, etc. Personally I think most of this stuff is sugar-related. I believe if people were to cut sugars to a minimum, many of these disorders would mysteriously vanish. >>

I have...among other things...Fibro-myalgia. And cutting out the sugars has almost made it all go away...a good 90% or more. And also I had a sever hip problem..have for more than 15 years....I have had x-rays done and been offered life time of drugs for it which I turned down as I hate taking pills...massage therapy..you get the picture. This hip problem had me laying on the bed with a baseball pressing on my hip...or with my tens machine after sweeping my kitchen floor which is only 8x6. It limited me in a lot of other ways too...but not since the sugar has gone!!!! That stuff is truly evil!!

[moonwish]

Re: Speaking of Red Meat

From Dr. Isabelle A. Moser:
"Now, regrettably, and at great personal risk to my reputation, I must try to puncture the very favorite belief of food religionists, the doctrine that organically grown food is as nutritious as food can possibly be. People think if you eat Organic foods, you will inevitably live a very long time and be very healthy. Actually, the Organic vs. chemical feud is in many ways false. Many (not all) samples of organically grown food are as low or lower in nutrition as foods raised with chemical fertilizers. Conversely, wisely using chemical fertilizers (not pesticides) can greatly increase the nutritional value of food. Judiciously used Organic fertilizing substances can also do that as well or better. And in either case, using chemical fertilizers or so-called organic fertilizers, to maximize nutrition the humus content of the soil must be maintained. But, raising soil organic matter levels too high can result in a massive reduction in the nutritional content of the food being grown–a very frequent mistake on the part of Organic devotees. In other words, growing nutrition is a science, and is not a matter of religion.
The real dichotomy in food is not "chemical" fertilizer versus "Organic," It is between industrial food and quality food. What I mean by industrial food is that which is raised with the intention of maximizing profit or yield. There is no contradiction between raising food that the "rabbis" running Organic certification bureaucracies would deem perfectly "kosher" and raising that same food to make the most possible money or the biggest harvest. When a farmer grows for money, they want to produce the largest number of bushels, crates, tons, bales per acre. Their criteria for success is primarily unit volume. Many gardeners think the same way. To maximize bulk yield they build soil fertility in a certain direction (organically or chemically) and choose varieties that produce greater bulk. However, nature is ironic in this respect. The most nutritious food is always lower yielding. The very soil management practices that maximize production simultaneously reduce nutrition.
The real problem we are having about our health is not that there are residues of pesticides in our food. The real problem is that there are only residues of nutrition left in our foods. Until our culture comes to understand this and realizes that the health costs of accepting less than optimum food far exceeds the profits made by growing bulk, it will not be possible to frequently find the ultimate of food quality in the marketplace, organically grown or not. It will not be possible to find food that is labeled or identified according to its real nutritional value. The best I can say about Organic food these days is that it probably is no less nutritious than chemically-grown food while at least it is free of pesticide residues."