Glued-Together Meats?

Your Meat Might Be Made From Glued-Together Scraps

Feb 06 2013

meat-scraps---pigeon

photo credit: hdlions

By Pauli PoisuoCracked

Unless you’re one of those people who substitute a lump of tofu for a real turkey on Thanksgiving, meat is meat. And don’t worry, we’re not about to tell you that the juicy slab of rib eye that you brought home from the shady discount butcher isn’t a real steak. In fact, it could be half a dozen steaks… as well as whatever else they swept off the slaughterhouse floor.

The Horror:

There’s a substance in the meat industry’s bag of tricks called transglutaminase.” That’s an awful lot of syllables, so most people just call it by its nickname: meat glue. It’s exactly what it sounds like. Its intended purpose is for fancy chefs who sometimes need to stick different parts of a meal together after preparation (to make crab cakes and such), but it has another, shadier purpose among renegade butchers.

It goes like this: During the heavily industrialized process of turning animals into delicious food, there tends to be a lot of pieces left over that aren’t good for much but pet food. Transglutaminase can be used to glue these tiny bits together into a sort of patchwork slab, which looks a lot like one consistent cut of meat.

Since the process doesn’t leave a trace, and transglutaminase isn’t among the substances required to be mentioned in the table of ingredients, you have fat chance of knowing it’s there unless you’re an expert at interpreting the seams in your meat. This process not only sells you scraps for the price of prime meat, but it also leaves you with a “steak” that might well be made from a dozen different cows, making it next to impossible to trace the source for your food poisoning, the chances for which are incidentally now tenfold, thanks to the uneven consistency of what you’re trying to fry up.

Meat glue works its magic just as well on chicken and seafood, which is bad news once again for our Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu readers — transglutaminase comes from pig and cow blood. Well, at least that tofu turkey is pretty kosher.

This article excerpt was written by Pauli Poisuo and published in Cracked on June 18, 2012. Photo by hdlions/Flickr.

Survival: Whose Gonna Feed You?

Farmers Told To Buy Insurance If They Don’t Want To Get Sued By Corporations | ThinkProgress

November 22, 2012

Every year for the past 13 years, biotechnology giant Monsanto Company has sued about 11 farmers per year for patent infringement of their genetically modified corn and soybean seeds. Many of these farmers have had to pay a settlement to the corporation even when their fields were accidentally contaminated with GM seeds from a neighboring farm. Monsanto simply outspends the defendants, dedicating $10 million a year and 75 staffers for the sole purpose of investigating and prosecuting farmers. Farmers who have sued Monsanto back have been soundly defeated.

Monsanto is likely to continue this winning streak with an assist from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which released a final report Monday absolving the biotech industry of contamination of non-GM seeds with their products from other fields. The USDA report concludes that organic and other non-GM farmers should simply buy insurance to protect against GMO contamination.

Essentially, Monsanto can sue these farmers all they want for patent infringement, but they are immune to challenges from organic farmers whose products are contaminated by GMOs. As one dissenting committee member commented:

Any farmer/seed grower contaminated will not want to disclose the contamination because they are illegally in possession of a patented material and could be subject to legal action for theft of intellectual property. The committee refused to ever recognize this fact.

The report is just the latest example of the USDA’s cozy relationship with the biotech industry. In fact, the agency has never denied a single application for GM crop approval. Monsanto’s power extends beyond the USDA — also on Monday, the Department of Justice dropped their antitrust investigation into Monsanto’s near monopoly on the nation’s seeds. The stalled Farm Bill in Congress also contains a so-called “Monsanto rider” that would entirely deregulate GM crops and allow Monsanto to basically approve its own product.

There is a slim chance Monsanto’s fortunes could change with a Supreme Court case on this term’s docket. In an unprecedented move, the high court agreed to take on an Indiana farmer’s appeal after he was ordered to pay Monsanto $80,000 for patent infringement. Though the current Supreme Court is quite openly sympathetic to corporate interests, their decision to hear the case at all bodes well for farmers grappling with the agricultural giant all over the country.

Link:  http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/21/1224761/farmers-insurance-sued-by-corporations/

Tags:

Who Owns Organic

Who Owns Organic
October 17, 2012

The latest update of major corporate ownership and involvement in the organic food sector is now out. The chart graphically focuses on the organic brands with ties to the top 25 food processors in North America. You can view a full-size version of the latest chart by clicking here.

Dr. Phil Howard, an Assistant Professor at Michigan State, is responsible for the creation and updating of the organic food business chart. He teaches in the University’s Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies program.

Dr. Howard has now created a new graphically animated version of consolidation occurring in the organic food sector between 1995 and 2007. You can view this by clicking on this link:
http://www.msu.edu/~howardp/OrganicIndustry.mov

Dr. Howard’s first organic food sector chart, from 2002 (the date the USDA’s organic standards were implemented), offers an interesting comparison of the dramatic changes that have taken place with organics over the past 4 years. You can view the 2008 organic food sector chart by clicking here.

Two other revealing presentations of organic business have also been prepared by Dr. Howard. These are a chart of major independent organic companies and a chart of private label organic brands, including supermarket chains, specialty chains and distributors.

All of the charts are in a pdf format and may take a few moments to load, depending on your connection speed.

Dr. Howard has other interesting information on the structure of the organic industry at his site

FYI: Take Action!

Tell the USDA to Stop Rubberstamping GMO Crops!
Once again, the USD

A and their friends at Monsanto and Dow Chemical are back at it – frantically working behind the scenes to rubberstamp new genetically engineered crops that are potentially damaging to human health and the environment with little or no serious scientific review to vouch for their long-term safety.

Earlier this summer, the USDA posted 12 new genetically engineered crops for public comment. In what can only be a perverse irony, public comments are due on September 11th. Even more alarming is the fact that 9 of the 12 new GMO crops are under a new fast-tracked process. That means USDA scientists will have even less time to properly review the shoddy corporate science that these corporations are allowed to submit to support

their new untested products for approval.  Join us in calling for more rigorous peer-reviewed scientific testing before approving more GMOs.

TAKE ACTION: Tell the USDA it’s time to stop rubberstamping approval of untested GMO crops!

FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW!

EPA To Allow More Toxins in Food!

EPA changes rules to allow more toxic cleaning chemicals in mainstream food
September 4, 2012

(NaturalNews) Just in case you’ve forgotten, EPA stands for Environmental Protection Agency. That was sarcasm. You haven’t forgotten. But it appears the EPA has.

Reading alphabet soup can be confusing. The FDA, USDA and EPA all seem to cross over each other when it comes to what happens with food.

Recently, the EPA made a ruling on the use of a chemical that’s used for a variety of products, including sanitizing cleaners for facilities of food industry providers and restaurants. The chemical will show up in processed foods.
Government safety agencies safeguard industry profits, not health and safety

An August 22, 2012 Courthouse News edition contained a short article entitled “More Ammonia Now Allowed in Processed Food.” It was a reference to the EPA’s latest revision for limits using Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium in the carbonate or bicarbonate form (DDACB). Focus on ammonia.

The former limit of 240 ppm (parts per million) was raised to 400 ppm. A petition to raise the allowed limit was issued to the EPA by a principle provider of the chemical, Lonza, according to the Courthouse News press release.

The reason for limiting DDACB is residual amounts of highly toxic ammonia used in food facilities are carried by the foods and consumed. (Read Full Article)

12 NEW GM CROPS

12 New GM Crops Up For USDA Approval

August 30, 2012
Earlier this summer, the USDA posted twelve new GE crops for public comment with a September 11 deadline, and nine are under the new fast-tracked process. That’s twelve new GMOs to review and issue comments on in two months!

Here’s the lowdown. Three of the new crops are under the old petition process. Under the old process there is only one 60-day public comment period. Here are the three crops under the old process:

— Dow 2,4-D and Glufosinate Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0019)

Since the introduction of GM crops, the US has seen herbicide use increase by over 300 million pounds.  Big Biotech originally claimed that weeds would not develop resistance to glyphosate (RoundUp), but they have and these new “superweeds” have become the driving force behind new crops engineered for stacked, or multiple, herbicide tolerances. Adoption of these new crops will lead to dramatic increases in the use of higher risk herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba, perpetuating the herbicide treadmill that is already in place.

2,4-D is already the third-most-used US herbicide, after glyphosate and atrazine, and as a leading source of dioxin pollution, it’s one of the most deadly.  As of yet, however, it’s hardly used on soy at all. Just 3 percent of total US soybean acres were treated with 2,4-D in 2006. Not only will this percentage skyrocket once Agent Orange Soy hits the market, the amount used per acre may triple, according to the USDA.

—Bayer Glyphosate and Isoxaflutole Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0029)

—Syngenta Corn Rootworm Resistant Corn (APHIS-2012-0024)

Under the new process, USDA has also opened nine additional new crops for public comment. This initial comment period applies to the petitions for nonregulated status which include information submitted by the petitioning company. Once USDA has the completed their environmental analyses they will open a final 30-day comment period for the decision-making documents.

Take Action @ http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26072.cfm

USDA Will Investigate Unapproved Antibiotics Labels

 

USDA will investigate unapproved antibiotics labels

Posted by Meg Bohne in Uncategorized

Just two weeks after Consumer Reports issued our Meat on Drugs report criticizing, among other things, USDA’s system for overseeing labels on meat and poultry products that are raised without antibiotics, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack sent a letter to Consumers Union indicating that the agency plans to establish a new standard and investigate the use of unapproved antibiotics claims currently made by some companies .

In March, as part of the research for Meat on Drugs, Consumer Reports deployed ‘secret shoppers’ to grocery stores around the country to look for meat raised without antibiotics, and take note of the wording on packages. Little did we expect to find over 20 variations in ‘no antibiotics’-type labels, several of which were unapproved for use by the USDA. (Read Full Article)

 

Food Hubs

Food Hubs: The Next Evolution in Local Markets?

 

July 19, 2012
GrowFood Carolina and SweetGrass Garden Coop

If you think the local foods movement is just a fad, think again.

For the first time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has included restaurants and grocery store sales in its local food markets survey, and the sales are hard to ignore: nearly $5 billion a year in fruits and vegetables from local farmers.

That link connecting area farmers to local businesses is the food hub, and it could very well be the next evolution in local markets.

The USDA has identified over 20 food hubs throughout the Southern region in such states as Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma.

The latest addition to the food hub family is GrowFood Carolina, based in Charleston, S.C. With the assistance of a Southern SARE Sustainable Community Innovation Grant, the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League launched the food hub in September 2011. It’s the first food hub in the state.

“Less than 10 percent of what is grown in South Carolina is consumed in the state,” said Sara Clow, GrowFood Carolina general manager. “We hope to change that with GrowFood Carolina. The interest was there for local foods, but the one thing missing for the chefs, grocery stores, and farmers in bringing it all together was an actual physical location where local produce could be delivered by the farmer and distributed to area businesses.”

Clow feels that GrowFood Carolina can make an economic impact on the Charleston community by keeping local small to mid-sized farmers profitable and competitive. Indeed, in the short time the food hub has been operating, it has helped bridge sales and marketing of local produce between a growing number of farmers – some located over 120 miles away — and nearly a dozen local restaurants and grocery stores.

In addition, GrowFood Carolina serves local residents by providing fruits and vegetables to food banks. The 10,000 square foot building, complete with a 6,500 square foot warehouse and an 800 square foot cooler, sits in an ideal location – right in the middle of Charleston’s food deserts, yet less than a mile from the vibrant downtown waterfront and restaurant scene and easy access to major highways and interstates that connect the city to the state’s coastal islands.

“We are witnessing a 300-year revolution in South Carolina,” said Dana Beach, executive director of the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League. “There has been more excitement surrounding local foods and healthy eating than any environmental issue we’ve ever worked with. There has been an avalanche of commerce activity and as long as we have that infrastructure in place, I think there’s nothing that can stop it.”

Food hubs may also be the next evolution in Georgia’s agricultural industry, turning the state’s largest economic sector into an even larger engine of job creation and rural community revitalization.

With the aid of a Southern SARE Planning Grant, key agricultural stakeholders in the state have joined forces to create the Georgia Sustainable Agriculture Consortium.

“The goals of the group are to support sustainable agriculture systems and improve rural economies and communities by collaborating to create and deliver science-based information to current and future farmers, students, policymakers and the general public,” said Julia Gaskin, who coordinates extension programming in sustainable agriculture at the University of Georgia.

One of those goals is to launch two food hubs in the state within the next five years.

“Georgia is the 4th largest fruit and vegetable state in the nation, and is well positioned to take advantages of the opportunities afforded to us,” said Alice Rolls with Georgia Organics, during a recent kick-off event.

Key partners of the consortium include University of Georgia, Fort Valley State University, Georgia Department of Agriculture, Georgia Farm Bureau, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Georgia Organics, and Community Health Works.

“The demand for local foods is rising in Georgia, and with 80 percent of our purchased food coming from out-of-state, conditions are right for us to take advantage of local food opportunities,” said Harald Scherm, a professor in plant pathology at the University of Georgia. “With so many people interested in where their food comes from, we have an opportunity to reconnect with agriculture. And with 40 percent of consumers indicating not knowing much about sustainability of food production, we have an educational opportunity, specifically in food hubs.”

Jim Barham, with the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, agreed that the local food movement is not a trend.

“It’s here to say,” said Barham.” But the challenge for farmers in bringing those local foods to area businesses is the lack of distribution.” He said that food hubs are intended to provide that distribution, among other services, such as educational programming and food safety training.

Want more information? See the related SARE grant CS10-078, GrowFood Carolina. For more information on the Georgia Sustainable Ag Consortium, visit http://www.sustainagga.org.

Article Link:  http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/From-the-Field/Southern-SARE-From-the-Field/Food-Hubs-The-Next-Evolution-in-Local-Markets

New Government Proposal Threatens Food Safety

New Government Proposal Threatens Food Safety

Posted By Nourishing the Planet On April 11, 2012

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) plans to fully implement a high-speed poultry production model that allows industry and private companies to take over inspection at poultry production plants. The model includes cutting 1,000 USDA poultry inspection employees and replacing them with plant inspectors who have to examine 165–200 birds per minute (bpm), from the original 140 bpm. That’s the inspection of more than three chickens per second.

Poultry inspectors protest inspection proposal at USDA (Photo credit: Food Safety News)

The proposal, formally known as the HACCP Based Inspection Models Project, or BIMP, will improve food safety and save taxpayer dollars, according to the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). But under the proposed rule, the USDA would shift federal inspectors away from quality inspection tasks, allowing slaughter lines to speed up production.

The FSIS is responsible for ensuring public health and food safety by examining all poultry for feces, blemishes, or visible defects before they are further processed.

About 1.2 million cases of food poisoning are caused by salmonella each year from contaminated chicken, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The program could pose a serious health risk by allowing a greater chance for contaminated meat to reach consumers. In affidavits given to the Government Accountability Project, current inspectors say the proposal speeds up assembly lines so much so that it hampers any effort to fully examine birds for defects.

“It’s tough enough when you are trying to examine 140 birds per minute with professional inspectors,” said Stan Painter, a federal inspector in Crossville, Alabama. “This proposal makes it impossible.”

“Cutting the budget does not justify putting the health and safety of consumers and workers in the balance,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch.

This week, food inspection workers (members of the American Federation of Government Employees) rallied outside the USDA to oppose the proposal. At the protest rally, inspectors held signs that read: “Chicken Inspection Isn’t a Speed Sport,” “Don’t Play Chicken with Safety,” and “Speed Kills.”

We count on USDA inspectors to help us keep our families safe and healthy.

Tell the USDA you won’t settle for unclean chicken. Sign the petition today!

To purchase State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

———————————————————————————————————–

Article printed from Nourishing the Planet: http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet

URL to article: http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/new-government-proposal-threatens-food-safety/

USA: How Safe Is Our Food?

How Safe is Our Food? | The Alliance for Natural Health USA

May 20, 2012

American beefMore and more countries are banning imports of American food products for safety reasons.

Last week, Indonesia became the first country to halt imports of US beef following the discovery of an American dairy cow infected with mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The disease is fatal to cows and can cause a deadly brain disease in people who eat tainted beef.

“We will lift the ban as soon as the US can assure us its dairy cows are free of mad cow disease,” said Rusman Heriawan, Indonesia’s vice agriculture minister. “It could be one month or one year. It depends on how long it takes to resolve this case.”

One would think the US government would immediately test beef to make sure it’s safe. But the USDA, which regulates the test, administers it to less than 1% of slaughtered cows. Worse, until 2007 it was illegal for private beef producers to test their own cows for the disease! Larger meat companies feared that if smaller producers tested their meat and advertised it as safe from mad cow disease, they too might be forced to test all their cows—so they persuaded USDA to block individual producers from doing the test. In 2007 a federal judge said this practice could no longer stand.

The highest risk occurs if animals or humans eat infected brain or nerve tissue. Meat unconnected to bone, milk, and hooves are supposed to be safe, but who knows for sure? The ultimate source of mad cow, of course, is the filthy and disease-ridden (not to mention inhumane) conditions in CAFOs, or concentrated animal feedlot operations.

In February, Taiwan began refusing meat products from the US because they contain ractopamine, a leanness- and growth-promoting drug used widely in pork and beef production in the United States. Taiwan has a zero-tolerance policy for the drug.

Ractopamine is banned in 160 nations including Europe because it is responsible for hyperactivity and muscle breakdown in pigs, and a 10% increase in their mortality rate. It was banned in China after more than 1700 people were “poisoned” from eating American pigs that had been given ractopamine. The drug bears the warning label, “Not for use in humans. Individuals with cardiovascular disease should exercise special caution to avoid exposure. Use protective clothing, impervious gloves, protective eye wear, and a NIOSH-approved dust mask’’—yet somehow it is considered safe in human food. How is this possible?

Most of the world’s developed countries ban, or have at least placed limits on, genetically modified organisms. The European Union and its member states, as well as Switzerland, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Brazil, and Paraguay all have restrictions or outright bans on the use or importation of genetically engineered seeds, plants, or foods. A detailed map with the specific products banned in Europe is available here.

Article Link:  http://www.anh-usa.org/how-safe-is-our-food/

« Older entries