And more than often that stuff fails horribly, like feeding cattle with beef. I want the natural not the artificial crap that people put in my food. That is why I garden and preserve as much natural food as I can. That is why I have my own grass fed only cow and chickens.
Go ahead and enjoy those sawdust products from fast food joints. I won't stop you.
It's not s much the sawdust I mind as it is the "pink slime" , AKA ammonia-treated waste products they add back to the ground beef . Google it ...
To reiterate, the USDA isn't there to protect consumers. The USDA is there to help market agricultural(?) products.
I can't imagine this kind of disease laden crap being sold in Germany, or France.
...
the FDA should be there to protect consumers but i don't think it has the teeth to do much.
the sad thing is that all that stuff will make people sick and thus increase health-care costs for the entire society.
if we really are serious in the USoA of getting health care costs under control we need to deal much more with preventable stuff. food borne diseases are one that must be costing billions a year.
songbird
The FDA is supposed to help consumers, but they are under-funded. The USDA has congressional support because agricultural association make campaign donations (bribes). All the politicians have to do is to come up with plausible deniability, for votes for cash.
A tripling of food born diseases since
They are sweeping up remnants from the slaughter houses, treat it with ammonia to kill the pathological bacteria (but often don't use enough because it imparts an "off" flavor), it then has it fat separated from the protein, and then they blend it into hamburger, all to save about 3 cents a pound for a pound of ground beef.
"Officials at the United States Department of Agriculture endorsed the company¹s ammonia treatment, and have said it destroys E. coli ³to an undetectable level.² They decided it was so effective that in 2007, when the department began routine testing of meat used in hamburger sold to the general public, they exempted Beef Products."
"School lunch officials said that in some years Beef Products Inc. testing results were worse than many of the program¹s two dozen other suppliers, which use traditional meat processing methods. From 2005 to
2009, Beef Products had a rate of 36 positive results for salmonella per 1,000 tests, compared to a rate of nine positive results per 1,000 tests for the other suppliers, according to statistics from the program."The above report was published in December 30, 2009. I guess if you don't read the New York Times, you'll never hear about these FUBARs.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.