We havent talked about MEAT in a while. Check this website...

DHracer1067 · Jun 9, 2004

mmmmmm. i love meat. Ribs and chicken is my favorite food besides jersey mikes. could never be a vegiterian

stevew · Jun 9, 2004

DHracer1067 said:
mmmmmm. i love meat. Ribs and chicken is my favorite food besides jersey mikes. could never be a vegiterian

Jersey Mikes. Funny, my dad has a store in NC.

golgiaparatus · Jun 9, 2004

ink:

drtbikrr · Jun 9, 2004

My sister is starting to get intoall that ****, it's stupid we were ment to eat meat, and it tastes good. mmmmmmmm meat and leather........ :thumb:

zod · Jun 9, 2004

stevew said:
Jersey Mikes. Funny, my dad has a store in NC.

I demand a RideMonkey discount at your father's Jersy Mikes!!!!! :nuts:

syadasti · Jun 9, 2004

Meat is fine as long as it isn't loaded with hormones, mad cow's, or any other hidden big industry unhappy meal surprises.

Chicken is one of the dirtiest commercial animals - it would be good to avoid it unless its free range...

syadasti · Jun 9, 2004

I never said chicken was bad. I said chickens from commercial chicken farms are bad and they are unless you like eating various chemicals, hormones, and other non-chicken additives. The same thing goes for produce. I guess you don't mind if big agro businesses poison your food or use the general public as their lab animals for their new cost-cutting, poorly tested, food technology :rolleyes:

Most people don't, feel helpless to do anything about it (how hard it is to get organic food/cost/etc), or are just too ignorant to think about it...

DHracer1067 · Jun 9, 2004

zod said:
I demand a RideMonkey discount at your father's Jersy Mikes!!!!! :nuts:

hell yeah. id love to get a discount. or coupons for free subs. where is this jersey mikes that he owns. maybe ive been to it.

i demand a discounts

syadasti · Jun 9, 2004

I got it from the owner of various resturants and resturant chain who has been dealing with food for his whole life - he is over 60 years old and has had resturants all over the country (BTW his resturants do not serve organic certified food or focus on health food, but he hasn't eaten chicken in 8 years personally). I've also taken courses related to food and food science at Cornell University which does world class research and development in the food science field. You seem very astute, I assume you went to community college with the solid arguements and logic you use throughout RM :rolleyes:

You can just rolling around in your ignorance cause I wouldn't want you to live longer anyways

syadasti · Jun 9, 2004

I don't have time to dig up info how inadequate the FDA is at regulating food, but here is an example of how effective the government is at protecting the people from toxic chemicals:

rachel.org
It may come as a surprise to some people, but even a huge bureaucracy like our federal government has a very limited capacity to conduct studies of chemical safety. For example, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) --a consortium of eight federal agencies --studies ONLY the cancer effects of chemicals, and manages to test ONLY a couple of dozen new chemicals each year. (Effects on the nervous system, the reproductive system, the immune system, the endocrine system, and major organs such as kidney, liver, heart and brain are simply not considered by the NTP.) During a typical year, while the NTP is studying the cancer effects of one or two dozen chemicals, about 1000 new chemicals enter commercial markets. Our federal government is simply swamped by new chemicals and cannot keep up. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that this situation will change. No one believes that our government --or anyone else --will ever have the capacity to fully evaluate the dangers of 1000 new chemicals each year, especially not in combination with the 70,000 chemicals already in use.

syadasti · Jun 9, 2004

Business sell what the consumers want even if its not good for them they are not going to judge for the consumer cause theyll go out of business. Fast food is bad for you, this is universally accepted among nutritionists but it is a huge business that makes billions of dollars every year and causes health problems among millions of Americans (and profit for healthcare providers).

One of the sons of Baskins Robbins Ice Cream publically admitted too much ice cream in the founders diets directly lead to their early deaths. Of course ice cream isn't deadly if eaten in moderation as a treat only, but still - they'll sell in extra large unhealthy portions, cause that what people want.

BTW - Pete - the restaurateur said he wouldn't eat chicken cause of the way they are raised in commercial farms - improper diet, improper housing, hormones, etc... There are many proven effects such as almost all commericial chicken carry salmonella bacteria. He said the only chicken you could eat without higher risk of food poisoning (from improper cooking or cross contamination) would be fried... He also said the pork industry on the other hand raised their product OK and he does eat pork.

syadasti · Jun 9, 2004

I am not morally obliged and never mentioned I was. Humans are omnivores and naturally eat meat as a portion of their diet. To think otherwise would be to deny millions of years of evolution and would be foolish. Americans in general eat too much protein in their diet though and it shouldn't comprise a majority of our diet, but that is another matter.

Chickens don't naturally get injected with hormones to grow faster in the wild or eat meat naturally. The fact is that almost all commericial chicken carry salmonella bacteria never the less - raised in boxes or free range - why do you think Pete hasn't had chicken in 8 years - he could eat some free range ones if he want to too?

Meat byproducts constitute up to 5 percent of the poultry diet in the United States, said Christopher Bailey, a professor of poultry science and nutrition at Texas A&M University.

Most of the meat byproduct in poultry feed consists of poultry, said Dr. Charles Beard, vice president of research and technical programs for the United States Poultry & Egg Association, a trade group based in Georgia. But a smaller percentage is composed of byproduct from hogs and cattle.

Yeah it would be great to eat some chicken and get BSE (mad cow's disease) to save a few bucks. Of course you would know for a decade or so if there was a problem, oh well. Glad some jackass saved a few dollars for short term gain while other pay for it several times over.

I am going to believe you over Pete cause you are a successful food expert and have worked with meats to supply you livehood all your life...yeah and Bush is a great president :rolleyes:

syadasti · Jun 9, 2004

How about this - you can eat preservative filled beef jerky made with the finest high-tech preservatives, flavor enchancers, fillers, and whatever new cost cutting technology they have. I am sure you'll be better off and you'll enjoy your meals. You can also trade your decent mountain bike for a huffy or pacific cause it will still sorta work and save you a lot of money.

I'll stick with some plain old beef from some smaller farmers who don't cut corners at my expensive down the road.

This is one of the rare times I've ever seen you post an sort of revelant factual data in a thread (one response at that). Most other case you are just calling the kettle black and keep these going for your own trollish entertainment.

60% of processed food contains GMO, so basically there is little one can do from partaking in human experimentation with long terms effects. I eat some of these foods cause its hard not too, it doesn't mean I should think its ok cause nobody fully investigated the product yet and there hasn't been a detected short term effect.

syadasti · Jun 10, 2004

Also, please explain to me the logic the government will protect use from big agriculture industries.

We know without a doubt that DDT is bad for example (and its banned for usage here in the US) and yet we are the biggest producer in the world. Who do we sell the DDT to - we sell it to countries that grow produce for us and ship right back to us - now there is some safety for you. Or why do the milk brands clearly state on the products no hormones if there is no advantage - why is it banned in most of Europe? Ignorance, greed, and denial are bliss...

spincrazy · Jun 10, 2004

Damn the ignorance is thick in here. That, and the constant need for some to argue for arguings sake.

Everything syadasti said is true and he's only just scratched the surface in his postings.

Do your damn research before spouting nonsense and ignorance.

Sheep.

stevew · Jun 10, 2004

zod said:
I demand a RideMonkey discount at your father's Jersy Mikes!!!!! :nuts:

It is in Gastonia, NC.

zod · Jun 10, 2004

stevew said:
It is in Gastonia, NC.

Oh snap! That's my local Jersey Mikes, I live in Gaston County!! Get me the hook up Steve'O'reno :drool:

syadasti · Jun 10, 2004

BurlySurly said:
Here is my logic for your question: "Also, please explain to me the logic the government will protect use from big agriculture industries."
Um...they created the FDA for this very reason.

The FDA has approved various dangerous food additives - aspatame/nutrasweet for example:

By the federal Food and Drug Administration's own admission, 73 percent of all food complaints are aspartame-related--most commonly headaches, memory loss, depression, heart palpitations, and vision problems. Some contend that prolonged use of aspartame is the root cause of their permanent nerve damage, their brain lesions and tumors, and even the untimely deaths of family members.

Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi's medical center, explains in his book Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills that though aspartate (and glutamate in the chemically related substance MSG) is a neurotransmitter normally found in the brain and spinal cord, when aspartate reaches certain levels it causes the death of brain neurons.

The risks to infants, children, and pregnant women are higher because the blood/brain barrier, which normally protects the brain, is not fully developed until adulthood. Dr. Blaylock and numerous other experts believe that long-term exposure to excitotoxins may play a part in diseases such as early-onset Alzheimer's, Parkinson's (Michael Fox, coincidentally the former spokesperson for Diet Pepsi, may be an example), lupus, brain lesions and tumors, epilepsy, memory loss, multiple sclerosis, and some hearing problems.

Dr. John Olney, a neuroscientist at Washington University Medical Center in St. Louis, who has demonstrated the harmful effects of excitotoxins and testified before Congress, believes that both glutamate and aspartate damage areas of the brain controlling endocrine functions leading to obesity.

He posits that the 30 percent increase in obesity in America in the past decade might be related to the increased use of aspartame.

...

Because of FDA budget limitations, it is standard procedure for the bulk of initial safety tests to be financed, designed, and carried out by the company with a vested interest in the product. The reliability of their results is called into question when 74 out of 74 industry-sponsored articles attested to aspartame's safety, while 84 out of 91 of the nonindustry-sponsored articles identified problems with the chemical.

"I'll admit there's validity to these concerns, but it's not unusual for industry to fund studies, because they're expensive--and who else will?" counters a spokeswoman at Merisant Co. "It's a disservice to the fine scientists involved whose reputations are besmirched by aspartame detractors."

AND WHAT'S to keep adverse industry test results from disappearing altogether? According to a reliable source, who chose to remain unnamed but has signed a sworn affidavit, Searle in the early 1980s conducted aspartame research in five communities in Central and South America; the groups were told they were ingesting a papaya extract.

By the end of these 18-month studies, the source recalls from translating the reports from Spanish into English that many subjects experienced grand mal seizures and damage to the central nervous system, causing muscular and neural instability, hemorrhaging, brain tumors, and other maladies.

"When I finished the project, I was told to destroy all my records and copies. If those studies had reached the FDA, there's no way they could have approved aspartame," the source says.

"Imagine my surprise when I found out soon after that aspartame is being consumed en masse! I urged my family and everyone I knew not to use anything containing aspartame because, as I said, 'it would make their brains into mush.' "

The late Dr. M. Adrian Gross, former senior FDA toxicologist, stated in his testimony before Congress, "Beyond a shadow of a doubt, aspartame triggers brain tumors," and "therefore by allowing aspartame to be placed on the market, the FDA has violated the Delaney Amendment," which makes it illegal to allow any residues of cancer-causing chemicals in foods. His last words to Congress were: "And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?"

BurlySurly
As for milk...they write "No hormones" on there for people who buy faulty logic...like yourself. Just like low carb lard.

Most of the European Union banned it - scientist in various countries studied it and found it unsafe.

Keep on going with your ignorance - I guess you don't mind if you develop major health problems that severely effect the quality of life for your average American life span - cancer rates are higher - maybe you'll luck out and die early from it. The average American is also overweight and unhealthy - that must be ok with you too. If living suboptimally is ok with you, you are free to do it. Your average intelligence is ok with you too obviously...

syadasti · Jun 10, 2004

Nobody has posted anything in your defense or in agreement with what you said. I already got agreement from someone in this thread. My information was factual information related to your responses - no random personal opinions involved. You have only posted one piece of factual information with a link in this entire thread - all the rest is bull**** from naive troll. This is the Internet and not a thesis paper - have you ever seen anyone post any information in a forum that would hold up to any academic standards, nope never...

-BB- · Jun 10, 2004

BurlySurly said:
All food is organic. WTF are you talking about?

Also, I dont mind eating hormones at all apparently, Ive been doing it for years now and food is just as tasty as ever. I dont think the chemical levels in any food sold at a store are dangerous to humans, as there are standards and allowances for such things. Food technology allows us to feed millions, and is much more environmentally friendly than having vast tracts of free range anything.
Where do you get your info? It sounds like you're reading directly from a PETA pamphlet.

You are right, but you are also wrong...
I don't care about the whole "organic food" craze, but your comment about all food being organis is not correct. Many of the "non organic" foods contain detectable levels of non naturally occuring coumpounds that do not contain Carbon. Thus, they are INORGANIC.

syadasti · Jun 10, 2004

All your link said is that they both have salmonella and I said ALL commercial chickens have it also. I didn't say free range didn't have salmonella, so what is your point - my view didn't differ?

The free range chickens do lack hormones and antibiotics and that is a proven fact as they are certified to be free of those additives. Kosher meat also would qualify.

Bovine growth hormone has also been found to be unsafe and is banned in the European Union, Canada, New Zealand, and other misc. countries after their scientists found it to be unsafe. You said it was cause of fools wanting a label - well those fools are the rest of the world conducting unbiased scientific studies. You are the only fool if you think that vested interests conducting "studies" for food safety have any true scientific validity.

syadasti · Jun 10, 2004

Everything I've post so far has been factual hard data or testimony from professionals - there is little reason for me to say this professional was quoted on X. Or this fact about the NTP was found here.

I'll throw you a bone though:

My NTP information I updated at 5 yesterday with source.

Here is confirmation from the government's website (note the numbers are actually larger - twice as many a year as rachel.org reported):

NTP Mission
More than 80,000 chemicals are registered for use in commerce in the United States, and an estimated 2,000 new ones are introduced annually for use in everyday items such as foods, personal care products, prescription drugs, household cleaners, and lawn care products. The effects of many of these chemicals on human health are unknown, yet people and our environment may be exposed to them during the manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal or as pollutants in our air, water, or soil. Although relatively few chemicals are thought to pose a significant risk to human health, safeguarding public health depends on identifying the effects of these chemicals and the levels of exposure at which they may become hazardous to humans.

http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/main_pages/about_NTP.html

syadasti · Jun 10, 2004

Oh yeah man, now there is a solid opinions - the final word man!

"Beverly Corey is a member of FDA's speechwriting staff. "

"Organization:
Johnson & Johnson
The Domains
One Johnson & Johnson Plaza
New Brunswick, NJ 08933
US
Phone: 732 524 2845
Fax..: 732 524 6341
Email: domains@corus.jnj.com

Registrar Name....: Register.com
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com

Domain Name: BABYCENTER.COM

Created on..............: Tue, Aug 11, 1998
Expires on..............: Wed, Aug 10, 2005
Record last updated on..: Fri, May 14, 2004"

Woah, if an english major and pharm/biotech company's website says so, it must be truth. Sorry I ever doubted you - thats some really convincing evidence. I got a good overview study of the dozens of valid independent scientific studies and their results so I could make an informed decision, NOT!

Now please provide me with some real valid factual information cause you don't understand what that is...

Monsanto performed the study that lead to the FDA approval. Using biased or vest interests in studies complete invalidates them - this is a basic principle of research.

In December 1998, CFS filed suit challenging the approval of the GE hormone recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH. The suit demands that the agency reverse its 1993 approval of the hormone. Newly discovered evidence, the plaintiff says, shows that the original evaluation of rBGH by its manufacturer, Monsanto, was flawed. CFS alleges that the FDA's approval was based on Monsanto's conclusions that rBGH was safe, rather than on raw data from the study itself. One study apparently missed by the FDA was revealed during a Canadian review of rBGH. A 90-day rat study showed that between 20 and 30 percent of the rats had immunological reactions after being fed rBGH, suggesting the drug triggered toxicological effects. Other research has also indicated there may be human health risks and that the use of rBGH in dairies damages the health of the cows.

Oh and please try to tell me that the scientists in all of the European Union (15 countries), Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries around the world are wrong. Yeah their independent results are less valid than those from the company that makes the product, mmmhmm, sure...

You sure are smart, asking the company that makes the product in question whether it works. Damn I shouldn't changed the channel when those informercials come on - I've been missing out on all those incredible and effective inventions all this time!

P.S. Rachel.org has nothing to do with meat at all - good evidence of your trolling intentions since you didn't even bother to look....

syadasti · Jun 10, 2004

Its banned as unsafe in all those countries - there is nothing to quote - its a fact...

syadasti · Jun 10, 2004

Let us look at the staff while the FDA was evaluating BGH

From rff.org (his current employer):

"Taylor was the administrator of the U.S. Department of Agricultures Food Safety and Inspection Service, deputy commissioner for policy at the Food and Drug Administration, and executive assistant to the FDA commissioner. He also has practiced food and drug law as a partner in King & Spalding and was vice-president for public policy at Monsanto Company. Currently, Taylor is a member of two National Academy of Sciences committees. One is identifying the science-based concerns associated with animal biotechnology, and the other is considering the options for managing the risks of dioxin in the food supply. Taylor is a member of the board of trustees of Resolve, Inc., and an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University.

Education
J.D., University of Virginia, 1976.
B.A. in political science, Davidson College, 1971. "

Wow, that's is a not conflict of interest or anything. He served Monsanto (creator of BGH) before he came to the FDA...

We havent talked about MEAT in a while. Check this website...

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Turbo Monkey

resident influencer

Out of my element

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

i heart mac

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

i heart mac

Turbo Monkey

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

i heart mac

i heart mac

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

i heart mac

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

i heart mac

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

i heart mac

i heart mac

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

I love to climb

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

resident influencer

Turbo Monkey

i heart mac

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

i heart mac

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo

i heart mac

i heart mac

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

i heart mac

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

i heart mac

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

i heart mac