Recent Food Recalls - First the Canteloupe, now ground beef

Grokette

Here we are with another round of food re-calls. When are these food recalls going to be wake up calls for us to demand local and sustainable food sources?

Better yet, seek out sources of local meats, eggs, raw dairy and produce. Eat what is in season and local to you. The factory farming system is ruining our food supply.

Not only is shopping for local and sustainable foods safer, it is cheaper too. We as a nation need to start demanding better of the people that are supposed to supply us with safe foods.



Here is the ground beef re-call from Tyson Foods:

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/safety/story/2011-09-28/E-coli-scare-prompts-Tyson-to-recall-ground-beef/50587346/1

http://home.lifegoesstrong.com/cantaloupe-recall

dls06

And it's only going to get worse. dun dun dun......................

XFitMojoMom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7x_7La0xCc&feature=related

:flowerforyou:

Nanadena

I SO agree. We are a small private farm and ranch. It is tough. Our animals are all natural as are our birds, but we cannot make money at this. We do it for us.

farrellb2

If you cook you meat all the way through you generally cook the Ecoli out, or so I was told

CharlieLopez2005

If you cook you meat all the way through you generally cook the Ecoli out, or so I was told

I don't have my references handy, but I think eColi (at least some strains of it, like 157) can survive high cooking temperatures.

mea9

It is about to get so much worse with the impeding approval of the GMO salmon to name but one. Here local, free range, organic chicken (as well as other meats) is 3x the price of the factory stuff but reflects the real cost of the food. Safer, healthier and tastes better – a really different food. It means having chicken once a week instead of 3x and being creative with beans and other protein sources but you have to stay healthy and so do the animals.

spacecase76

seek out sources of local meats, eggs, raw dairy and produce. Eat what is in season and local to you. The factory farming system is ruining our food supply.

Not only is shopping for local and sustainable foods safer, it is cheaper too. We as a nation need to start demanding better of the people that are supposed to supply us with safe foods.

I have been fortunate to find local sources of beef. chicken, eggs, *WINE!!* veggies, diary, and pork (though, I don't eat pork). I LOVE the local farmer's markets we have here. Add to it that I don't eat much meat. I have not felt "threatened" or in fear of a food recall in a very long time.

catwrangler

I don't eat red meat or pork so that's OK. I buy eggs from local backyard producers and this morning I happily ate my locally grown farmer's market cantelope with no fear :happy:

I have a few sources to look into for locally grown chicken meat although ideally I would like to cut that out of my diet as well. Baby steps!

I am trying to do this but it is hard and expensive. Except for the eggs, they are only $1 a dozen and delicious!

SeasideOasis

I AGREE!!

Being able to sustain your local areas OFF your local areas is the BIG picture people are not wanting to look at. The perks COMPLETELY out weigh the cons.

Granted, some climates can grow certain things, but I know my garden (which is organic) produced tomatoes, peppers (of all sorts), eggplants, butternut squash, zucchini (you get the picture) enough for my household and then some.

My better half would LOVE to get a big plot of land we he (we) can also have a larger garden (so we can have more for canning), area for chickens, fruit trees, etc. At the end of the day, we should not be relying on other nations to feed our own people. It's bad business.

Plus, the more we do locally, the better off local economies will be.

rossi02

At the end of the day, we should not be relying on other nations to feed our own people. It's bad business.

Plus, the more we do locally, the better off local economies will be.

This.. so very true!
It reminds me of when I was younger and a lot of my family was employed by sewing mills and such. They complained about their plants closing, but would always be the first to say, they go to wal-mart and get the cheapest socks and undershirts sold... have we not learned our lesson from that?? What's really surprising.. when you buy local food, it's usually cheaper, fresher and not pre-treated with a load of chemicals, so it's a win-win all the way around.

BrewerGeorge

I'll say this once, then leave it because I don't want to get into a political argument...

You guys realize that organic methods are incapable of producing enough food to feed the world, right? Organic food is for rich westerners. If not for chemical pest control and fertilization of staple grains, large numbers of poor people in poor countries simply would not have enough food to eat.

Nevermind.

rossi02

I'll say this once, then leave it because I don't want to get into a political argument...

You guys realize that organic methods are incapable of producing enough food to feed the world, right? Organic food is for rich westerners. If not for chemical pest control and fertilization of staple grains, large numbers of poor people in poor countries simply would not have enough food to eat.

Nevermind.

I don't take it as you have to go the organic route.. just buying local is a huge help, as long as you are comfortable with the methods they use on their farm all is well. I'm more concerned with the chemicals applied to the foods to keep them fresh when shipping them half way across the country opposed to the chemicals used for pest control and fertilization. However, that may just be me.. but it's how I look at it.

mea9

I'll say this once, then leave it because I don't want to get into a political argument...

You guys realize that organic methods are incapable of producing enough food to feed the world, right? Organic food is for rich westerners. If not for chemical pest control and fertilization of staple grains, large numbers of poor people in poor countries simply would not have enough food to eat.

Nevermind.

I disagree. It has been proven many times that grain crops grow better, are more productive and healthier when planted more sparsely. They require less chemicals, use less seed and produce the same or better. Factory farms refuse to take this approach because they would have to be flexible and monitor and evaluate. Adjust.

People in those countries go hungry now even though there is enough food. It is a political issue and not a production problem. One of the keys is to use more alternative protein sources rather than strictly meat. The cost of producing meat is high. We know this. Diversity and care are the solutions.

SeasideOasis

I'll say this once, then leave it because I don't want to get into a political argument...

You guys realize that organic methods are incapable of producing enough food to feed the world, right? Organic food is for rich westerners. If not for chemical pest control and fertilization of staple grains, large numbers of poor people in poor countries simply would not have enough food to eat.

Nevermind.

I disagree. It has been proven many times that grain crops grow better, are more productive and healthier when planted more sparsely. They require less chemicals, use less seed and produce the same or better. Factory farms refuse to take this approach because they would have to be flexible and monitor and evaluate. Adjust.

People in those countries go hungry now even though there is enough food. It is a political issue and not a production problem. One of the keys is to use more alternative protein sources rather than strictly meat. The cost of producing meat is high. We know this. Diversity and care are the solutions.

Agreed. If you really look at "starving" countries, its usually based on politics, not local people not willing to work hard for themselves. My very close friend lived in a very small village in Africa. Luckily, they had a wonderful leader/chief (I forget the proper terminology) who treated his people well and their village was never without proper food to feed everyone who lived there. Obviously, due to the economics of this village, little to nothing was bought from other villages, as the "money" just was not there.

BrewerGeorge

The politics of distribution prevents available food from getting to people, yes. But if not for conventional farming practices, there wouldn't be food in the first place.

Modern food production is what has prevented the predicted Malthusian collapse. China approached it in the 60's when they had a famine in which millions and millions died because they simply could not grow enough food to feed their population.

The most important man of the 20th century that you've probably never heard of is Norman Borlaug. In case you don't read the link, he was a food scientist and Nobel laureat who was credited with saving over a billion people from starvation by introducing modern farming methods to the third world. This man was a true hero.

Here's one of his quotes,

...some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.

ETA: inline link flags don't work, apparently...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

fidgekitty

Thats what motivated me to buy chickens and raise them myself. Hopefully next year I can get a bigger batch of birds for meat. At this point I'm giving eggs away because I get more than I can eat As for red meat, I'm fortunate to live in an area of abundant deer and elk, can't get more free range and organic than that lol. What's going on in big agriculture is terrifying, some day I'd like to be at least 75% food independent, because those above are right, it's just gonna get so much worse

amycal

YES! I was just at the local Farmer's Market on Tuesday and bought meat from a local farm that is Animal Welfare approved and raises grass fed beef and pork! For more information read Omnivore's Dilemma - such an interesting book

Grokette

I'll say this once, then leave it because I don't want to get into a political argument...

You guys realize that organic methods are incapable of producing enough food to feed the world, right? Organic food is for rich westerners. If not for chemical pest control and fertilization of staple grains, large numbers of poor people in poor countries simply would not have enough food to eat.

Nevermind.

All of the food I get locally is not organic, but it is local and sustainable agriculture. If we focused back to local and sustainable agriculture for meats, eggs, produce (fruits and veggies) food would be cheaper and easier to obtain, plus it would spark the growth of local farming again in different areas of the country.

So yes, local and sustainable could feed us all.

There are soo many other countries on this earth that don't allow GMO seeds to be brought in, factory farming systems, etc and they are producing enough food for their countries population.

We need to go back to traditional farming practices. This is the only way we will survive.

Grokette

The politics of distribution prevents available food from getting to people, yes. But if not for conventional farming practices, there wouldn't be food in the first place.

Modern food production is what has prevented the predicted Malthusian collapse. China approached it in the 60's when they had a famine in which millions and millions died because they simply could not grow enough food to feed their population.

The most important man of the 20th century that you've probably never heard of is Norman Borlaug. In case you don't read the link, he was a food scientist and Nobel laureat who was credited with saving over a billion people from starvation by introducing modern farming methods to the third world. This man was a true hero.

Here's one of his quotes,

...some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.

ETA: inline link flags don't work, apparently...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

Please don't try and say that Companies like Monsanto and Cargill are hero's....................I will get banned from this site. After all, they employee a bunch of food scientists and such.

Food and scientist don't belong in the same sentence. I would not call him a hero.

BrewerGeorge

...
So yes, local and sustainable could feed us all.

That depends on your definition of "us" Certainly, it could feed all of us rich Westerners who only spend 2-5% of our income on food. Asia, Africa, South American would starve - were starving - before modern agriculture was introduced. This isn't conjecture or some pie-in-the-sky idealism. People, children, were dying because they didn't have enough to eat... then they weren't because they STOPPED using traditional agriculture and doubled or tripled their food output from one year to the next.

Read the wiki article I linked.

MIMITIME

Thanks BrewerGeorge. I was too wimpy to say what you are saying but it is true. We would not need MFP because most of us would be starving. Organic is a nice concept but it just isn't possible if you want everyone to have food.

Adrenaline_Queen

Organic....... I grow some of my own, but now with smaller gardens people dont, I also get my veg from the fruit and veg market, where farms and shops all get theirs! And regarding meat, I do try and only get organic, yes it is more expensive, but I would rather put my money in my childrens stomaches not for, drinking and smoking or clothes.... It can be done and you also use less packaging....

Supermarkets are the worst places to shop... But that is just my oppinion.... xx

I am looking for some youtube fims about battery animals... To show my children... I know mean huh... xx

Grokette

...
So yes, local and sustainable could feed us all.

That depends on your definition of "us" Certainly, it could feed all of us rich Westerners who only spend 2-5% of our income on food. Asia, Africa, South American would starve - were starving - before modern agriculture was introduced. This isn't conjecture or some pie-in-the-sky idealism. People, children, were dying because they didn't have enough to eat... then they weren't because they STOPPED using traditional agriculture and doubled or tripled their food output from one year to the next.

Read the wiki article I linked.

Wiki articles are not credible.

Besides, as someone else has stated, most of the people that are starving in other countries is due to political reasons, not because there is no food.

If everyone started buy meats locally and buying into CSA memberships, more of these farms would pop up in the area and this would happen all over the country and we would not be relying on these factory farms that are supposed to be supplying us with safe foods and thus food borne illnesses would dramatically cut out and go down.

Grokette

Thanks BrewerGeorge. I was too wimpy to say what you are saying but it is true. We would not need MFP because most of us would be starving. Organic is a nice concept but it just isn't possible if you want everyone to have food.

No one is saying Organic. I did not say that. I said Local and Sustainable agriculture. It may be organic or not, but it is local, doesn't have to be shipped all over the place and is grown to its ripened and most nutritious potential.

I belong to 2 CSA's. One is organic and the other one is not. Both have supplied me with fabulous fresh vegetables and some meats and eggs.

BrewerGeorge

...
Wiki articles are not credible.

Seriously? You're just burying your head in the sand now.

Besides, as someone else has stated, most of the people that are starving in other countries is due to political reasons, not because there is no food.

You're just flat-out wrong about this, but if you're not willing to even consider evidence that conflicts with your beliefs, I don't know what else to say. Political problems prevent trade and relief food from relieving hardships. They prevent food produced here in American's midwest (with modern agriculture) from getting where it's needed. Politics (excepting actual war) isn't stopping people from growing their own food. They're still doing that; they're just not producing enough to feed themselves until modern ag techniques are introduced. That scientist I linked (who you refuse to read about) helped stop the Ethiopian famine in the 80's. Remember "We Are the World?" They did nothing compared to Norman's foundation which helped TRIPLE local food production.

If everyone started buy meats locally and buying into CSA memberships, more of these farms would pop up in the area and this would happen all over the country and we would not be relying on these factory farms that are supposed to be supplying us with safe foods and thus food borne illnesses would dramatically cut out and go down.

Fantasyland.

I bet you think you're "close" to your food, but it's obvious that you have no real idea how much acreage is required to feed a person for a year. As an example, if you ate nothing all year but corn the average Iowa acre could feed 30 people using modern techniques. In 1930, with tractors and inorganic fertilzers that same acre fed about 5 people. Take those away to simulate the 3rd world and we're down to 2 people per acre. Fresh vegetables and meats take a lot more space than that. With almost 7 billion people in the world now, there's barely enough arable land physically on the surface of the planet to feed everyone - even using modern methods. Going back to traditional methods would force us to cull about half the world's population.

I'm going to stop giving factual arguments because I don't really think you're listening to them anyway..maybe somebody else is.

Look, I'm not saying it's not better for you or me to eat the way you've been talking about if you prefer it. It tastes better, it's fresher, cleaner, lower carbon footprint, whatever you like about it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that traditionally farmed food is somehow morally "better" or in fact even possible for the majority of the planet. A too-large percentage of the world is still worrying about going to bed hungry to be bothered about where or how some food was produced. Being able to indulge preferences like yours for local, traditional foods is one of the benefits of living in a wealthy society. Accept and embrace that and stop trying to assign a moral superiority to what is nothing more than personal preference . Most of the world can't afford that preference.

HMonsterX

George, i feel you could use this emoticon right about now...

Espressocycle

Organic methods CAN feed the world, but to do so would require much higher labor costs and more complicated economics because the best way to grow orgainc is by planting a variety of crops in the same area, utilizing integrated pest managment and producing compost from waste and crop residue. Ironically, these methods are better suited to poor countries with limited capital and low labor costs than they are in industrialized countries.

Espressocycle

Also, organic or not, grind your own meat and it won't be a problem.

Grokette

...
Wiki articles are not credible.

Seriously? You're just burying your head in the sand now.

Besides, as someone else has stated, most of the people that are starving in other countries is due to political reasons, not because there is no food.

You're just flat-out wrong about this, but if you're not willing to even consider evidence that conflicts with your beliefs, I don't know what else to say. Political problems prevent trade and relief food from relieving hardships. They prevent food produced here in American's midwest (with modern agriculture) from getting where it's needed. Politics (excepting actual war) isn't stopping people from growing their own food. They're still doing that; they're just not producing enough to feed themselves until modern ag techniques are introduced. That scientist I linked (who you refuse to read about) helped stop the Ethiopian famine in the 80's. Remember "We Are the World?" They did nothing compared to Norman's foundation which helped TRIPLE local food production.

If everyone started buy meats locally and buying into CSA memberships, more of these farms would pop up in the area and this would happen all over the country and we would not be relying on these factory farms that are supposed to be supplying us with safe foods and thus food borne illnesses would dramatically cut out and go down.

Fantasyland.

I bet you think you're "close" to your food, but it's obvious that you have no real idea how much acreage is required to feed a person for a year. As an example, if you ate nothing all year but corn the average Iowa acre could feed 30 people using modern techniques. In 1930, with tractors and inorganic fertilzers that same acre fed about 5 people. Take those away to simulate the 3rd world and we're down to 2 people per acre. Fresh vegetables and meats take a lot more space than that. With almost 7 billion people in the world now, there's barely enough arable land physically on the surface of the planet to feed everyone - even using modern methods. Going back to traditional methods would force us to cull about half the world's population.

I'm going to stop giving factual arguments because I don't really think you're listening to them anyway..maybe somebody else is.

Look, I'm not saying it's not better for you or me to eat the way you've been talking about if you prefer it. It tastes better, it's fresher, cleaner, lower carbon footprint, whatever you like about it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that traditionally farmed food is somehow morally "better" or in fact even possible for the majority of the planet. A too-large percentage of the world is still worrying about going to bed hungry to be bothered about where or how some food was produced. Being able to indulge preferences like yours for local, traditional foods is one of the benefits of living in a wealthy society. Accept and embrace that and stop trying to assign a moral superiority to what is nothing more than personal preference . Most of the world can't afford that preference.

I am not wrong in my thinking and I am not the only one that feels this way. Most of the hunger in this world is due to political conflicts.

These governmental organizations will have you believe that there is just not enough food in the world so they can continue to push their factory and GMO farming on you and others.

I am not buying it and YES, I know where my food comes from as I help to go pick it and harvest it in exchange for having 1/2 price CSA memberships.

And as for those Wicki articles, ANYONE can write and submit Wicki articles, so they are of barely any fact to me and most others.

Grokette

Armed conflicts frequently lead to the destruction of food systems. Often, warring parties manipulate starvation as a deliberate tactic, using their control over access to food to attract and reward friends and humble and punish enemies. Such conflicts are “food wars,” not only because hunger is used as a weapon but also because food insecurity is both an effect and cause of conflict. In February 2004, United Nations agencies calculated that over 45 million people in developing countries experiencing or recovering from conflict were in need of food and other emergency humanitarian assistance (see table). More than 80 percent
of those affected lived in Sub-Saharan Africa.

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ib26.pdf