In article  , "Scott
Hedrick"
 wrote:

>
> "Deborah Terreson" 
wrote in message
> news:Uemdndv05e_FbLbfRVn-ow{at}comcast.com...
>> This is what business is afraid of: They don't want the wider general
> public
>> to know the score on how they make what they do - it might actually mean
> the
>> value of their real product - their stock - may go down in price.
>>
>> Turning cows into meat is just a means to the end - the real thing that
>> these corporations make to sell IS the stock.
>
> Business shouldn't be concerned with anything else except as an
> afterthought. The primary reason for a business of any kind to exist,
> including your friendly organic farmer, is to make money. Regardless of
> success in other areas, if a profit is not made, then the business will
> cease to exist. This is elementary school economics. Pride in producing a
> clean product does not buy feed or pay the electric bill. Giving the public
> what it wants, as shown by what they are willing to pay for, does. If the
> public is unconcerned about the quality of the product, there's no reason
> why a business should concern itself with quality. It's not enough to pay
> lip service- if someone talks about wanting quality but still buys crap,
> then their dollars prove that they don't really care about quality. The only
> time a business should concern itself with quality is when the buying public
> makes it clear that they *will not* buy anymore until the quality is
> improved.
>
> It's simple- if a business does not concern itself first and foremost with
> making a profit, it will cease to exist and then it cannot provide the
> product. Every product, without exception, follows this rule. *Even
> non-profit organzations do*. After all, if the customers of a non-profit,
> which are the people providing the money, NOT the population intended to be
> served, are not happy to the point where they provide more money than the
> non-profit spends, the non-profit will cease to exist as well.
>
> Try reading Adam Smith.
>
>>
>> >
>> >  and I notice
>> >> you have removed the part where I actually *EXPLAINED* that cold
>> >> pasteurization is gamma ray irradiation of meat and the WHY of it
>> > occurring.
>> >
>> > Because it wasn't relevant.
>> >
>> >> If you cannot allow a full discourse of what is the
reason behind the
>> >> process
>> >
>> > The method of process was not the issue- the use of meat was. Pay
> attention.
>> > I have to wonder why you want to go on an irrelevant tangent.
>>
>> I specifically MADE the process a tangent, remember?
>
> Yes, and I changed it back. Start a new thread if you want to discuss the
> process. In this thread, I'll keep trimming it out because it isn't
> relevant.
>
>> >
>> >> I note you haven't said this processing isn't real or you haven't
> denied
>> >> that it is done so because of business money concerns.
>> >
>> > Again, the method of processing isn't relevant to the discussion. As to
> the
>> > money, there is *no other reason* why the industry should be concerned.
>>
>> I'd have though that any decent person or group of people would be
> concerned
>> about doing a job correctly
>
> If the public is buying the product and the company is making a profit, it
> *is* doing its job correctly.
>
> and letting the money come from the naturally
>> occurring high standards that it brings.
>
> When the public shows that it wants high standards, then that is what they
> will get. The public has shown through its actions that it prefers cheap
> meat over quality meat. Talk is irrelevant- expenditure of food dollars
> counts.
>
>> Guess that is too much effort, eh?
>
> A business would be irresponsible to do things that its customers have not
> shown that they want.
>
>> This is selling to the lowest common denominator and it says much that
> they
>> do so.
>
> It says that the company recognizes its customers wants and provides it at a
> price the public is willing to pay. That means the company is behaving
> exactly as it should.
>
>> Oh yeah, that's real decent.
>
> It sure it. It means the public gets what it shows through its food dollars
> it wants, and it means the company will remain in business to continue to
> serve the public because it makes a profit. This means that, not only will
> the company continue to employ people, but will help others indirectly
> because of all the middlemen and service people that remain employed. It's
> real decent that the business makes money by giving the public what it
> wants.
>
>>
>> What a bunch of paragons of virtue and SUCH high Christian values
>
> Exactly. Why would a business want to screw the public or its owners by
> doing something other than what the public shows it wants? Providing the
> product demanded at the price demanded is the height of virtue. You seem to
> be under the impression that making a profit and serving the public is evil.
>
>  - isn't
>> that what America is all about now
>
> Actually, it's what America's *always* been about. The business of America
> *is* business. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in history class.
>
>
>> Oh, but I forgot, somehow business is exempt from behaving as if they are
> a
>> part of this society and practicising it's values.
>
> What business are you talking about? The meat business in this country is
> clearly practicing this country's values, since the society it is a part of
> continues to patronize it.
>
>>
>> >The industry exists to provide the public what it wants- *cheap food*.
>> >
>> >> > The mushrooms on your pizza are the same way- they
might be rinsed,
> but
>> >> > there's still a lot of shit on them. Ten minutes at
550 degrees
> later,
>> > it's
>> >> > just recycled protein.
>> >>
>> >> Meat is not rinsed.
>> >
>> > Depends on how you cook it, and *rinsed or unrinsed*, properly cooked
> that
>> > fecal contamination becomes recycled protein.
>>
>> It's still shit. Cooked shit.
>
> Yes it is, and clearly acceptable to the public. It's also on the food *you*
> buy. What's your point?
>
>> >> > Only someone who thinks with their fecal matter
would have a problem
>> > with
>> >> > eating beef.
>> >>
>> >> Are you a Beef Industry Shill?
>> >
>> > Just someone who does his homework, and doesn't hide behind handwaving
> or
>> > irrational scare tactics. Try using relevant facts in the future.
>>
>> Scare tactics or the truth?
>
> You've been using scare tactics thus far, you might consider the truth in
> the future.
>
>>There's shit in industrially slaughtered beef,
>
> There's shit in *all* slaughtered beef. What's your point?
>
>> and the industry nukes it to kill the bacteria
>
> Good for them! It does the job and is relatively inexpensive. It should be
> used more often.
>
> , instead of cleanly and
>> carefully slaughtering.
>
> Which *still* gets shit in your food, and also does a disservice to the vast
> majority of the public, since it would improperly raise the cost of meat,
> and the public has shown *with its food dollars* that they don't care. Doing
> what you suggest would require a business to provide a *disservice* to the
> public. What do you have against your fellow man, that you would force
> *your* choices on them?
>
>> If business is doing something that scares people when they find out,
> maybe
>> it should stop.
>
> Or not. Maybe it should stop when enough people have shown, through their
> actual purchasing habits and not a lot of handwaving rhetoric, that it's
> important to the customers that the business change. Unless and until the
> buying public shows that failure to change will affect profits, a business
> *should* continue to do what it's been doing. Otherwise, it's a disservice
> to the public.
>
>> Too bad if their stocks lose value.
>
> Which clearly isn't happening, since the public is still buying what the
> company is providing. *Clearly* the meat industry is providing what the
> general public wants, since they keep buying it, and thus the industry would
> be *wrong* to change what it does.
>
>>It's only money, after all.
>
> Which shows that the industry is doing *exactly what the people want*. You
> clearly don't have a clue that *businesses do what the public demand with
> their dollars*. You seem to be under the impression that the meat-eating
> public is some poor victim, forced to jump when the industry tells them. If
> that were the case, then what has the meat industry done to *you personally*
> for failure to comply? Has someone from the Beef Council threatened to beat
> you up because you choose not to buy what you claim is their tainted meat?
> Did Winn-Dixie sue you for not buying their meat special of the week? What
> has the industry done to you, personally, for not complying with what you
> seem to think is the industry's orders? Please provide verifiable details,
> such as a medical or police report or a court order.
>
> Clearly, then, if the meat industry has done nothing to you for failure to
> comply, it has no power to do anything, and is entirely dependent on the
> buying public. You would insist that the industry tail is wagging the public
> dog, yet you can't provide any verifiable evidence of that.
>
>> >
>> >> > As to a recall, that just shows the system is
working. Imagine what
>> > would
>> >> > have happened if there hadn't been a recall.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not eating meat for health reasons is fine, and
there's no problem
>> > passing
>> >> > that on to kids, under the proper supervision of a qualified
> physician
>> > and
>> >> > nutritionist. As to moral reasons, that's a load of
crap. Cows exist
> to
>> > be
>> >> > eaten and to provide leather. Prove to me, with verifiable,
> scientific
>> >> > evidence, that nonexistence is better for the cow
than even a crappy
>> > life.
>> >> > Otherwise, "animals are our friends, so we
can't eat them" is just so
>> > much
>> >> > crap.
>> >>
>> >> Bubba, I'm looking at buying a half a black angus this year from a
> local
>> >> farm that raises about 12 head each year. Organic.
>> >
>> > *All food, without exception, is organic*.
>>
>> Want to bet?
>
> Sure. I'll take a sample of *your* meat and a sample grabbed off the local
> supermarket shelf and take them both to a chemist. Bet they both come back
> organic.
>
>>Tell me where partially hydrogenated vegetable >shortening
occurs naturally
> in the environment. How >about Olestra? Got any Sucrylose?
>
> *All of which are organic compounds*.
>
>> Perhaps propylene glycol grows in trees?
>
> Perhaps it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an organic
> compound.
>
>> This is all considered food.
>
> Yes, it is, and it's clear the buying public *wants* to eat it, because they
> willingly buy it and eat it. What's your point?
>
>> Friend, I'm married to a chef. I know food. I know it's chemistry, it's
>> nutritive values and it's manufacture.
>
> Then you should well know that everything you mentioned above is an organic
> compound.
>
>> >>And believe me, they don't get slaughtered in some
corporate bottom-line
>> >> run, shit laden, meat-factory.
>> >
>> > Good for you. Most people don't care.
>>
>> That's not what I have found when they know the full score.
>
> *If they still buy it, then they do not care.*
>
>> > Do be certain to have your beef
>> > laboratory tested to see how much fecal contamination occurs- it *will
> be*
>> > greater than zero, and anyone that says otherwise is lying.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> And pigs shit, and chickens shit, and even fish shit. What's your point?
>
>>I grew up on a farm, where we raised poultry and pork and
>> slaughtered on premises. Pigs and cows go pretty much the same, but with a
>> hog, you scald the skin with boiling water and use a draw blade to get the
>> hairs off. If done carefully and adroitly, there is NO contamination.
>
> Feel free to provide *verifiable* laboratory tests. Without such verifiable
> information, you're just *assuming* there's no contamination. Willful
> ignorance and handwaving won't change the facts.
>
>  It is
>> possible to gut an animal without cutting into the GI tract. The last two
>> cuts to excise the innards are at the throat - where the trachea splits
> and
>> when you ring cut around the anus. Then you run up across with a clean
> blade
>> and make the cuts to peel the hide back and then it's hung and split with
> a
>> saw.
>>
>> If you take time and do it correctly, it's clean.
>
> But not shit-free. And I've personally *done it* with pigs, so I have
> personal experience whereof I speak.
>
>> This is what business doesn't do. Take. The. Time.
>
> Because. The. Public. Shows. It. Doesn't. Care. I can use lots of periods
> and capital letters like a netkook as well.
>
>> >
>> >>The cost runs to less than $4.00 a lb, for
>> >> the whole half and that includes the good cuts. Can YOU get a filet
> mignon
>> >> for 4 bucks a pound?
>> >
>> > Actually, yes, my local chain grocery store often has it (and I don't
> have
>> > to buy half a cow), but I usually eat cuts that cost less than $1.50 a
>> > pound. I know how to cook meat, and the cheaper cuts make better jerky.
>>
>> What store is this, selling filet mignon less than 4 bucks per .lb?
>
> My local store is Hitchcock's Foodway, a small local chain. They don't often
> carry filet mignon, but I've seen it there occasionally at less than $4 per
> pound. Gosh, it's amazing what can happen when you work with *facts* instead
> of scare tactics.
>
>> >> I love to eat dead cows, bison, chickens, ostriches,
haddocks, lambs
> ..but
>> >> not deer - Blecch - no venison.
>> >
>> > I haven't tried venison, yet.
>>
>> It's kind of like aged beef - not in the texture but in that gamey, funky
>> taste - some say it's the forest - it's definitely NOT sweet like buffalo
> or
>> beef. It's somewhat like goat.
>
> Had goat BBQ once- roadside vendor. He missed a chunk of bone, but otherwise
> it was pretty good stuff.
>
>> >My wife is a city girl, and I can't get her to
>> > try rabbit, lamb, snake, or quail.
>>
>> Try and run a New Zealand spring lamb past her. It's very sweet and
> tender.
>
> Might try that- after hiding the label, first :)
>
>> >
>> >> Where did I say don't eat beef?
>> >
>> > I never claimed you did. If you were paying attention to the subject
> line,
>> > you'd see the words "vegan diet", and since you
don't seem to know what
> that
>> > means (since if you did AND you were paying attention to the subject,
> you
>> > wouldn't have posted the above), a vegan is someone who not
only doesn't
> eat
>> > meat, but tries not to use any animal products at all. Some still use
>> > leather, but don't eat animal products.
>>
>> I did mention this as an aside.
>>
>> I know veganism. My husband who's a chef and occasionally deals with them
> in
>> the restaurants he's worked in, calls them 'macro-neurotics' because of
> the
>> limitations they place on themselves. Cooking for them is fairly limited.
> I
>> tried a near-vegan diet (ovo-lacto vegetarian?) five years ago, no meat of
>> any kind and a very small amount of dairy, and an occasional egg. I was so
>> constantly hungry I gained 20 lbs. that I haven't been able to shed in the
>> time since. Go figure.
>> >
>> >> I said be careful of the industrial beef, it's got shit on it.
>> >
>> > And I'm saying be careful of the beef *you* buy, because it's got shit
> on
>> > it, too.
>>
>> Ermmm... nope.
>

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100