Monstrous

Apocalypse Soon => Conspiracies => Topic started by: Devious Viper on July 03, 2006, 11:37:47 AM

Title: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Devious Viper on July 03, 2006, 11:37:47 AM
Alarm over beef link to breast cancer
By SEAN POULTER, Daily Mail 22:01pm 2nd July 2006


Fears about eating beef from cattle pumped up with growth hormones have been raised by a government expert. John Verrall said there is alarming evidence it can trigger breast and other cancers, bring forward puberty in girls and increase the risk of genital abnormalities in boys.

Mr Verrall, a member of a Government advisory committee, is so concerned that he has defied an official attempt to gag him. He points to a rise in rates of breast and prostate cancer in the U.S.A., where two-thirds of cattle are treated with hormones.

The EU currently bans the use of growth or sex hormones to fatten up cattle and speed their maturity. It also forbids imports of American beef from the U.S. which is produced using an array of hormones.

But there are serious doubts whether the ban is being enforced, as there is no testing of imports for tell-tale hormone residue. In any case, the U.S. government, with the support of Tony Blair's administration, is trying to have the embargo lifted. The Government's Veterinary Products Committee is due to publish a report in the next few days which will declare that beef produced with hormones is safe.

This could clear the way for farmers in this country to use growth hormone injections and speed the lifting of the ban on imports of 'super-size' beef from the U.S. But Mr Verrall, a pharmaceutical chemist who was appointed to the VPC to represent consumer interests, has refused to sanction the all-clear. He wanted to publish a minority report to highlight the dangers, but the committee, supported by the food and farming department DEFRA headed by David Miliband, refused to allow it.

Despite this, Mr Verrall has decided to go public.

The suspect hormones are oestradiol, testosterone, progesterone, zeranol, trenbolone and melegesterol acetate.

Mr Verrall said: 'There is clear evidence of the risk to human health posed by these hormones.' He cited research showing that oestradiol is a cancer risk. Work by a highly-respected Danish university found that residues of oestradiol in treated beef were up to five times higher than the levels in other cattle.

The hormones can disrupt the natural balance in the body, with the danger of multiple biological effects. It has been claimed that eating treated beef may cause girls to reach puberty earlier, thus making them more susceptible to breast and other cancers in later life. For boys, there may be an increased risk of prostate cancer. The presence of powerful female hormones in the diet of pregnant women could effect the development of the genital organs of boys.

Mr Verrall said there is evidence of higher breast and prostate cancer rates in the U.S., where most consumers regularly eat beef from cattle injected with growth hormones. The rate of breast cancer among women in the U.S. is put at 97 per 100,000 (against 67 in Europe.)

Similarly the rate of prostate cancer in men is 96 in America and only 37 in Europe.

Mr Verrall said: 'Recent studies show that children are extremely sensitive to some hormones which can cause sudden growth or breast development, even at levels which are difficult to detect in the laboratory. It is now clear that very much smaller amounts of sex hormones in food than previously thought can cause genital abnormalities in baby boys, premature puberty in girls and increase the risk of some cancers later in life.

The British Veterinary Association also opposes the lifting of a ban on the use of growth hormones in this country.

It said last night that, given the health uncertainties, 'the European ban seems the safer route to follow, particularly as there is no need, other than economic gain, to use these hormones.'

The Food Standards Agency has also made clear that it would want a full safety review before the current ban on the use of such hormones by British farmers and others in Europe is removed.

The Soil Association last night condemned the VPC's attempts to gag Mr. Verrall as 'totally unacceptable.' Richard Young, policy adviser at the Soil Association, which supports organic farming, said the government's VPC had failed consumers by not properly assessing the latest research on hormone effects. He called for the resumption of testing of beef imports for hormone residues in order to ensure consumers are not eating potentially harmful meat.

Mr Young said: 'We are particularly concerned that no imported beef has been tested for oestradiol - or its metabolites. This serious failing must be addressed as a matter of urgency.'

He warned that the hormone testing regime for beef imports is probably no better in most of the other EU countries than it is in the UK.

Around 39 per cent of the beef eaten in Britain is imported. The bulk is from Ireland, but substantial quantities also come from Brazil and Argentina, where controls over drugs and hormones are not as strict.

Concerns over hormone residues

The imported meat is sold both fresh and processed into corned beef. Some supermarkets have been stocking fresh Brazilian beef and it is used widely in the catering and restaurant trade. There is also a concern that British consumers could be at risk from eating beef when taking holidays in the U.S. or other countries with comparatively lax controls.

*Hormones have been used extensively in the production of both beef and milk in the U.S. since the 1970s.

*They are essentially the male and female sex hormones - oestrogen (oestradiol), testosterone and progesterone - plus their synthetic equivalents.

*As many as two-thirds of cattle raised in the U.S are treated with these hormones, through either injections or implants.

*The effect of the drugs is to speed the animals' development and maturity.

*But there are concerns that hormone residues in the meat are having the same effect on people who eat it, with potentially disastrous consequences. American researchers have noticed that the onset of puberty in young girls has been moving forward in recent decades.

Carlos Sonnenschein, from Tufts University School of Medicine, in Boston, Massachusetts, said hormone residues appear to be the most likely cause. He warned: 'Early onset of puberty with its raging hormones translates into higher risk of breast cancer.'

An expert scientific panel to the US National Toxicology Program has also concluded that all forms of oestrogen should be listed as 'known cancer-causing agents'.
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Shadowborn on August 03, 2006, 03:18:56 PM
If they don't want that steak just pass it this way, please. There are plenty of things you can add to your diet that reduce your risk of cancer which should help balance the equation; you can't say the same about mad cow disease...

Plus, it just tastes so damned good...

Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: DeadHead on August 03, 2006, 04:08:32 PM
In recent yrs I've begin to notice things in younger people The kids are maturing faster than 10 yrs ago. Its kind of freaky. But dam% if I don't love some beef,chicken, and other products derived from the before mentioned! :@0
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Weirdelicious on August 03, 2006, 04:13:05 PM
I don't know if it's the same for Canadian beef...I hope not!  :cry:
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: DeadHead on August 03, 2006, 04:17:04 PM
Bovine goodness! You know what makes me mad. The fact that you have to pay double or triple the amount for natural or organicly grown products. :doh:
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Weirdelicious on August 03, 2006, 04:25:54 PM
Bovine goodness! You know what makes me mad. The fact that you have to pay double or triple the amount for natural or organicly grown products. :doh:

Tell me about it!  :x
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Devious Viper on August 04, 2006, 03:08:21 AM
you can't say the same about mad cow disease

Which is fortunately something we don't have in our beef herds anymore. I find it a little amusing though, when I hear other nationalities mention it in association with Britain - the thing is, we were the first nation to recognise it and own up to it existing in our herds. Most of Europe covered up their problems, and it is rife in American herds still, but the powerful US cattle ranchers lobby keeps it from being made public...
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Shadowborn on August 04, 2006, 09:47:06 AM
you can't say the same about mad cow disease

Which is fortunately something we don't have in our beef herds anymore. I find it a little amusing though, when I hear other nationalities mention it in association with Britain - the thing is, we were the first nation to recognise it and own up to it existing in our herds. Most of Europe covered up their problems, and it is rife in American herds still, but the powerful US cattle ranchers lobby keeps it from being made public...

"Rife" is hardly the term I'd use. The disease only affects cattle which are genitically susceptible to it; it's not like you'll have an epidemic of BSE wiping out entire herds...if that were the case, all the lobbying in the world couldn't cover it up. There have been two reported cases in the last year and a half, one of which was in my own state, last winter. There was no lobby blocking my right to know, despite what you may think.

I think the problem is that people aren't informed of the disease themselves, and therefore reaction to it is overblown. Yes, it's a terrible disease, but you can't get mad cow from eating a steak. Ingestion of spinal or brain tissue is required to contract it, and large amounts at that. Here's some info:

Quote
In 1997 the United States banned materials that can possibly contain prions from cattle feed, while also eliminating these specified risk materials from the human food supply. This firewall feed ban, in place now for nearly seven years, ensures that BSE cannot spread through American herds the way it did in Europe, where such a feed ban did not occur until after mad cow disease had reached epidemic proportions.

Last December a dairy cow in Washington state was diagnosed with BSE, causing a flurry of media coverage and activity from groups trying to take advantage of what they saw as potential opportunity. Yet domestic beef consumption did not decrease in the wake of the discovery because American consumers seem to understand the truth about mad cow disease: there is no tangible risk of being infected from beef.

Only one animal, out of the 35 million slaughtered in the United States every year, has been infected with BSE. Even if more cases were to be discovered, the prions which cause BSE reside only in the central nervous system--the brain, spinal cord and other nervous tissue--which are not eaten by humans.

 The Washington State Holstein infected with mad cow disease was born in Canada, before the 1997 firewall feed ban implemented to block the spread of the disease. In Europe there were hundreds of thousands of infected animals, yet only 153 people have ever contracted the related form of the disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). The European experience with BSE provides ample evidence that the disease is not readily transmissible to humans. In the United States only one case of BSE has ever been found, largely because of the quick response of government and industry to the threat of the disease.

That response grew even stronger when it was discovered that mad cow disease had entered the U.S.
The Department of Agriculture banned the slaughter of "downed" cattle for human consumption, as the infected animal was not able to walk when it was sent to slaughter.
 

USDA will test more than five times more cattle for BSE in 2004 than it did in 2003. Meanwhile the Food and Drug Administration imposed even more stringent restrictions on livestock feed composition to reinforce already strong barriers against mad cow disease.
While American consumers continue to remain confident that the U.S. food supply is the safest in the world, several important export markets banned imports of U.S. beef immediately following the discovery of a single case of mad cow disease. Some of these countries, namely Japan, demand that every cow be tested for BSE. In a country that consumes as much beef as the United States, this would not only be a logistical nightmare, but largely unnecessary for several reasons.

Source: http://www.mad-cow-facts.com/about.htm
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Devious Viper on August 04, 2006, 03:33:43 PM
Ah. So soon?   

A Fox news watcher.

Right.

Sad to think I was misled to believe you knew what you were talking about.
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Shadowborn on August 08, 2006, 07:19:19 AM
Ah. So soon?   

A Fox news watcher.

Right.

Sad to think I was misled to believe you knew what you were talking about.

Was this a feeble attempt at ridicule and insult? Sounds like it to me...

Fox news? Please, give me a little credit. I'm no bleeding heart, but I'm much too free-thinking to believe that the tripe they grind out on Fox is actually "fair and balanced" reporting.

If you've any research or credible information to disprove my posting, then by all means, please present your counter-argument. Otherwise, I'm simply presenting my view and you're just sticking out your bottom lip and saying "Uh-uh!" That's not exactly a stellar counterpoint...  8-)
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Devious Viper on August 08, 2006, 07:47:36 AM
 :-D  :-D
You bit! It worked!  :lol:

Thin-skinned Yanks.  :lol:

First, from John Stauber, Executive Director, Center for Media and Democracy
520 University Avenue #227, Madison, WI 53703
Phone(608)260-9713 Fax260-9714 http://www.prwatch.org/

Quote
The idea that we have tested 80 million cattle, for instance, is ludicrous. The US testing system is pathetic, inadequate and secretive. We should be demanding that the USDA testing be opened to independent review, be massively expanded, and that information on all suspect animals including where they are from be made public and open to examination by independent scientists. Right now there is one word that best describes testing in the US: cover-up. We need to fight for the same standards of testing and animal feeding that are working in the UK, Europe and Japan. Anything else won't work anyway.

The industry and government PR/lobby campaign to manage public perceptions via the media and to keep the public believing that mad cow is not a problem in the US is succeeding, and is the main reason why we aren't making progress.

We need to constantly and loudly point out the failure of the US regulatory system, not mislead the public about false successes. BSE is spread throughout North America. Mad cow has been amplifying and spreading in North America for a decade. Allowing private testing and establishing the sort of government testing regimes that are working in other countries (UK, EU, Japan) would find the extent of the problem. The continued weaning of calves on cattle blood and fat, the continued feeding of cattle with blood, meat, bonemeal and fat from pigs, these are the issues we should be highlighting and addressing.

Your quote refers to "only one animal in 35 million" etc...

Quote from: Michael Gregor M.D.
It is not surprising that the U.S. has mad cow disease given our flaunting of World Health Organization recommendations. What is surprising, however, is that we actually found a case given the inadequacy of our surveillance program, a level of testing that Nobel laureate Stanley Prusiner, probably the world's leading expert on these diseases, calls simply "appalling." Europe and Japan follow World Health Organization guidelines and test every downer cow for mad cow disease; the U.S. has tested less than 2% of downers over the last decade! Most of the U.S. downer cows, too sick or injured to even walk, end up on our dinner plates.

In Canada, authorities were able to reassure the public that at least the downer cow they discovered infected with BSE--Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or mad cow disease--was excluded from the human food chain and only rendered into animal feed. U.S. officials don't seem to be able to offer the same reassurance, as the mad cow we discovered may very well have been ground into hamburger. How then, can the USDA and the beef industry insist that the American beef supply is still safe? They argue that the infectious prions that cause the disease are only found in the brain and nervous tissue, not the muscles, not the meat.

For example, on NBC's Today, USDA Secretary Veneman insisted "the fact of the matter is that all scientific evidence would show, based upon what we know about this disease, that muscle cuts -- that is, the meat of the animal itself -- should not cause any risk to human health. " The National Cattlemen's Beef Association echoed "Consumers should continue to eat beef with confidence. All scientific studies show that the BSE infectious agent has never been found in beef muscle meat or milk and U.S. beef remains safe to eat. " This can be viewed as misleading and irresponsible on two counts.

First, American do eat bovine central nervous system tissue. The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) is the investigative watchdog arm of Congress. In 2002, the GAO released their report on the weaknesses present in the U.S. defense against mad cow disease. Quoting from that congressional report, "In terms of the public health risk, consumers do not always know when foods and other products they use may contain central nervous system tissue... Many edible products, such as beef stock, beef extract, and beef flavoring, are frequently made by boiling the skeletal remains (including the vertebral column) of the carcass..." According to the consumer advocacy organization Center for Science in the Public Interest, spinal cord contamination may also be found in U.S. hot dogs, hamburgers, pizza toppings, and taco fillings. In fact, a 2002 USDA survey showed that approximately 35 percent of high risk meat products tested positive for central nervous system tissues.

The GAO report continues: "In light of the experiences in Japan and other countries that were thought to be BSE free, we believe that it would be prudent for USDA to consider taking some action to inform consumers when products may contain central nervous system or other tissue that could pose a risk if taken from a BSE-infected animal. This effort would allow American consumers to make more informed choices about the products they consume." The USDA, however, did not follow those recommendations, deciding such foods need not be labeled.

Even if Americans just stick to steak, they may not be shielded from risk. The "T" in a T-bone steak is a vertebra from the animal's spinal column, and as such may contain a section of the actual spinal cord. Other potentially contaminated cuts include porterhouse, standing rib roast, prime rib with bone, bone-in rib steak, and (if they contain bone) chuck blade roast and loin. These cuts may include spinal cord tissue and/or so-called dorsal root ganglia, swellings of nerve roots coming into the meat from the spinal cord which have been proven to be infectious as well. This concern has led the FDA to consider banning the incorporation of "plate waste" from restaurants into cattle feed. The American Feed Industry Association defends the current exemption of plate scrapings from the 1997 feed regulations: "How can you tell the consumer 'Hey, you've just eaten a T-bone steak and it's fine for you, but you can't feed it to animals'? " ...

... The discovery of a case of mad cow disease in the U.S. highlights how ineffective current safeguards are in North America. The explosive spread of mad cow disease in Europe has been blamed on the cannibalistic practice of feeding slaughterhouse waste to livestock. Both Canada and the United States banned the feeding of the muscles and bones of most animals to cows and sheep back in 1997, but unlike Europe left gaping loopholes in the law. For example, blood is currently exempted from the Canadian and the U.S. feed bans. You can still feed calves cow's blood collected at the slaughterhouse. In modern factory farming practice calves may be removed from their mothers immediately after birth, so the calves are fed milk replacer, which is often supplemented with protein rich cow serum. Weaned calves and young pigs also may have cattle blood sprayed directly on their feed to save money on feed costs. For more information on this and other risky agriculture practices please see http://organicconsumers.org/madcow/GregerBSE.cfm ...

...Despite these shortcomings, Secretary Veneman and Washington's governor both assured the public that they were still having beef for Christmas, reminiscent of the 1990 fiasco in which the British agriculture minister appeared on TV urging his 4-year-old daughter to eat a hamburger. Four years later, young people in Britain were dying from an invariably fatal neurogenerative disease called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease--the human equivalent of mad cow disease--which they contracted through the consumption of infected beef. With an incubation period up to decades long, no one knows how high the final human death toll will be.
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Devious Viper on August 08, 2006, 07:51:34 AM
Quote from: U.S. Continues to Violate World Health Organization Guidelines for BSE
The United States is violating all four concrete recommendations laid down by the World Health Organization to prevent the spread of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), or Mad Cow disease, into the human population. Inadequate testing of the brains of U.S. cattle is likely missing hundreds of cases of BSE and inadequate testing of the brains of human dementia victims is likely missing hundreds of cases of the human spongiform encephalopathy, sporadic Creutzfeldt Jakob disease. New research suggests that some of these cases of the sporadic form of CJD may be caused by eating BSE-infected meat. Until we follow the guidelines set forth by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and enact science-based safeguards proven to work in Europe-such as a total ban on the feeding of slaughterhouse waste, blood and excrement to farmed animals, and dramatically increased surveillance for both these diseases-the safety of the American food supply will remain in question.
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Devious Viper on August 08, 2006, 07:54:03 AM
Quote
The USDA misleadingly boasts they are surpassing international testing standards, when in actuality we have fallen way behind. The United States and Europe have similar cattle populations, for example, yet Europe tests almost a million cattle every month. France, which has only a fraction of the U.S. cattle population, tests more cattle in a single week then the U.S. has tested in a decade. According to Europe's latest annual report, Europe is testing cattle at a rate of almost two thousand times that of the United States. Nobel Laureate Dr. Stanley Prusiner, the world's foremost expert on prion disease, describes the number of tests done by USDA as "appalling." When asked what level of testing in the U.S. he'd be comfortable with, Prusiner replied, "I'd like to see every cow tested, just as they do in Japan."
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Devious Viper on August 08, 2006, 07:59:31 AM
Quote from: USA Today AUGUST 2006
Creekstone Farms, a Kansas beef producer, wants to reassure customers that its cattle are safe to eat by testing them all for mad cow disease. Sounds like a smart business move, but there's one problem: The federal government won't let the company do it.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture  invoking an obscure 1913 law intended to thwart con artists from peddling bogus hog cholera serum to pig farmers is blocking companies from selling the testing kits to Creekstone.

USDA is doing the bidding of large cattle barons afraid that Creekstone's marketing will force them to do the same tests to stay competitive.

Not only is USDA blocking Creekstone, the department said last month that it's reducing its mad cow testing program by 90%. The industry and its sympathetic regulators seem to believe that the problem isn't mad cow disease. It's tests that find mad cow.

The department tests only 1% of the roughly 100,000 cattle slaughtered daily. The new plan will test only 110 cows a day.

By cutting back on testing, USDA will save about $35 million a year. That's a pittance compared with the devastation the cattle industry could face if just one human case of mad cow disease is linked to domestic beef.

The brain-wasting disease  known formally as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE  is extremely rare but extremely deadly.

Scientists don't know the exact cause of BSE but think it's spread when cows are fed ground-up parts of cattle and other cud-chewing animals. The government has tightened cattle-feed rules, but loopholes still permit cattle blood as a milk substitute and chicken waste as a protein supplement.

Canada has found four cows with BSE this year, and at least one was born after similar cattle feed rules were imposed that should have prevented the animal from being infected. Acting out of an abundance of caution, U.S. plans to increase Canadian beef and cattle imports have been put on hold until the new cases are investigated. That makes sense, but it's hard to justify cutbacks on U.S. testing at the same time we demand other nations provide greater assurances.

Sixty-five nations have full or partial restrictions on importing U.S. beef products because of fears that the testing isn't rigorous enough. As a result, U.S. beef product exports declined from $3.8 billion in 2003, before the first mad cow was detected in the USA, to $1.4 billion last year. Foreign buyers are demanding that USDA do more.

"In a nation dedicated to free market competition," says John Stewart, CEO of Creekstone, which is suing USDA, "a company that wants to do more than is required to ensure the quality of its product and to satisfy customer demand should be allowed to do so."

When regulators disagree with reasoning like that, you know the game is rigged.
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Devious Viper on August 08, 2006, 08:01:01 AM
 :-P Too much Fox, I think  :lol: 

 :wink:
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Weirdelicious on August 08, 2006, 08:15:25 AM
You little devil!  :wink:
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Shadowborn on August 08, 2006, 08:33:56 AM
Good lord, man, don't blow your wad all at once. You can always save a couple of posts for point/counterpoint...  :-D

Thin-skinned? I was just pointing out obvious baiting...if that's what you feel you need to do to draw people into a discussion, then your forum has some serious problems.

If you want to see thin-skinned, Limey, let's get you into a discussion about gun control.  :wink:

Now concerning the quote from Dr. Gregor, he makes some valid points. I hadn't thought of beef broth as a possible source of infection...forest for the trees problem, I guess. I'm questioning his assertion that the incubation period is up to "decades long" for variant CJ disease, however. Every other listing I've seen for it (CDC among others) lists it as "years," with decades only referring to classic CJ disease, which is not related to BSE.

Also, the Washington State cow was destroyed, it never made it to the market.

As for the rest, yes, it seems pretty clear that the USDA needs to step up and deliver on safety testing, both for health issues and market reasons. If we're lucky, Creekstone Farms will win its suit, and more companies will follow suit, even if USDA regulation does not require it.

Despite this, the current situation at hand tends to support the idea that BSE isn't currently a major problem (I'm not saying that this justifies USDA balking at more prevalent testing.) I say this simply because the amount of beef and beef products consumed by the American public is staggering. If BSE were prevelant, one would think that we'd be seeing cases of variant CJD in the population by now. Since the disease is triggered by prions (abnormal proteins) in the brain tissue, and these prions enter the system by eating infected beef, one would think that greater consumption would lead to a faster onset time.

And I'll still take that steak, thank you very much.
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Morticia on September 03, 2006, 08:55:39 AM
Good lord, man, don't blow your wad all at once. You can always save a couple of posts for point/counterpoint...  :-D

Thin-skinned? I was just pointing out obvious baiting...if that's what you feel you need to do to draw people into a discussion, then your forum has some serious problems.

If you want to see thin-skinned, Limey, let's get you into a discussion about gun control.  :wink:

Awww, ain't this cute.  Shadowborn and DV are bonding.....  *<:)


And I'll still take that steak, thank you very much.

I hardly ever buy beef; when I do I look to see if I can afford a brand called Laura's Lean Beef.  This woman started the company herself with only a few cattle that were fed high quality feed, and have had no hormone shots or whatever to make them fatter so that the meat weighs more.

When I cook meat, the choice is usually chicken, although I have my doubts about the safety of this meat too.  The "handle with care" label and instructions make me feel as though I'm carrying something in my grocery cart that came from a toxic waste dump. 

No meat seems to be the same as it was when I was a child.  Of course, I've said before I was raised on a farm and we butchered and preserved all of our own meat.

Chickens used to be soooo much better.  Sometimes in cleaning out a chicken, my grandmother would find a little egg yolk that was in the process of forming.  She would stew the hen along with the little eggs and my mother and grandfather would playfully argue over which of them would get this delicacy.

I also use a lot of fish.  I can buy it frozen in bulk at Sam's Club and it's very affordable for us.  But with the oceans so full of nasty chemicals, who knows what we're ingesting.

When I was younger I loved to go fishing.  I was good at it, too.  This day and time I don't believe it would be safe to eat any fish taken from the Kentucky River.  It's a shame - catfish are so good.  Perhaps if someone was serious about clean meat and wanted to fish they could bring the fish home alive and keep them in a tank of clean water for a few days, changing the water every day.  I don't know if that would be long enough to get a lot of toxins out of them or not.  It would certainly be a lot of trouble for a fish dinner.

We lassoed a snapping turtle once (literally saw it walking from the spring to a pond) and tied it to a tree.  My ex-husband butchered it and I cooked it.  It was pretty good, but I wouldn't want to do it again.  I didn't enjoy eating something that was still trying to walk away after it was dead.

~Morticia
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: jordyn on September 03, 2006, 07:52:03 PM
actually through a few, comparisons my own husband has been considering this, problem...and discussing it with some of his buddies, others are beginning to consider there may be something to it...

*shrugs*  i'm not giving up a nice steak or offer of barbecue yet, but i am adjusting to eating more chicken and slowly working on tolerating fish...salmon isn't so bad slathered in lemon and pepper...grilled slightly.  ;)

Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Morticia on September 04, 2006, 07:04:32 AM

but i am adjusting to eating more chicken and slowly working on tolerating fish...salmon isn't so bad slathered in lemon and pepper...grilled slightly.  ;)
My son loves salmon.  I put 'lemon pepper' dry seasoning on it and bake it.  That's one of the few things he prefers home cooked to some kind of convenience quick food. 

We have so much chicken sometimes I think I'm going to start clucking.  Twenty-five years ago beef was outrageously priced and chicken was a good option.   Now it's all pretty expensive, but usually chicken is a little better value for the money.

~Morticia
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: jordyn on September 04, 2006, 08:27:49 AM

but i am adjusting to eating more chicken and slowly working on tolerating fish...salmon isn't so bad slathered in lemon and pepper...grilled slightly.  ;)
My son loves salmon.  I put 'lemon pepper' dry seasoning on it and bake it.  That's one of the few things he prefers home cooked to some kind of convenience quick food. 

We have so much chicken sometimes I think I'm going to start clucking.  Twenty-five years ago beef was outrageously priced and chicken was a good option.   Now it's all pretty expensive, but usually chicken is a little better value for the money.

~Morticia

it's the hamburger i get sick of, around here that's usually the cheapest meat, my husband buys a box of frozen meat patties....too bad boca burger is so expensive, :( i liked it, but it's the same with frozen chicken, several pounds for seven dollars that last a month, i ate a vegen indian restraunt and they had this excellent cheese that cooked into the texture and slight flavor of chicken.

if you buy bulk around here, beefwise it's a pretty good deal to just find a farmer, they sell half cows for a hundred or so and then it's about the same price to have it prepared...if you have the freezer, i'm sure that would be a healthy beef, the little farmer down the road can't afford hormones and other additives that the big meat houses can.   
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Shadowborn on September 05, 2006, 08:23:24 AM
I'm a big fan of just about all meat products. Being from Hawaii, I love fish, though my access to it here in Spokane is obviously a lot more limited. Of course, with all the warnings these days about rising mercury levels in ocean fish, I suppose it's a good thing I don't eat as much any more.

As for chicken, I should be clucking. I've had chicken for three meals the last six days running. Still, I'm a creative cook, so it's never the same twice.
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: jordyn on September 05, 2006, 08:53:59 PM
I'm a big fan of just about all meat products. Being from Hawaii, I love fish, though my access to it here in Spokane is obviously a lot more limited. Of course, with all the warnings these days about rising mercury levels in ocean fish, I suppose it's a good thing I don't eat as much any more.

As for chicken, I should be clucking. I've had chicken for three meals the last six days running. Still, I'm a creative cook, so it's never the same twice.

i roasted one the other day in our crockpot, with honey and barbeque sauce...i think that's my favorite way to prepare chicken.

tomarrow we're having steak though, it was a nice, thick large piece of angus meat on salel...i'm still not sure what i'm going to make with it, we had pepper steak last week.
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Devious Viper on September 09, 2006, 11:15:04 AM
Related topic...

More 'intersex fish' found in Potomac


Some species of male fish in the Potomac River and its tributaries are developing female sexual traits at a frequency higher than scientists have seen before, raising concerns about pollutants in a waterway that provides drinking water for millions of people. The so-called "intersex fish," which produce immature eggs in their testes, were discovered in the Potomac rivershed in 2003 and have also been found in other parts of the country. But the frequency that the U.S. Geological Surveys found last year is much higher than what has been found elsewhere, said fish pathologist Vicki Blazer.

In some Potomac tributaries, nearly all of the male smallmouth bass caught in last year's survey were the abnormal fish. In the Potomac itself, 60% of male largemouth bass exhibited female characteristics, with 25% producing eggs. Female fish caught in the survey did not develop any unusual sex traits, though fish of both sexes exhibited lesions and other pollution-related problems, said Blazer, who coordinated the survey.

Smallmouth bass appear to be more susceptible to intersex development than largemouth bass, Blazer said.

Blazer said researchers are still waiting on data that would help them determine the water quality at the time the fish were caught, but preliminary data taken from the Potomac found a variety of chemical pollutants. It is not exactly clear what is causing the changes, though it is likely a combination of pollutants.

Certain chemicals and pesticides are believed to stimulate estrogen production. Also, estrogen from birth control pills and human waste can make its way from sewage treatment plants to the waterways.

The Environmental Protection Agency has been studying the issue of so-called "endocrine disruptors" since 1996, but currently does not issue guidelines to water treatment plants for allowable levels of estrogenic compounds.

Jeanne Bailey, a spokeswoman for Fairfax Water, said the findings are a concern.

Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: jordyn on September 09, 2006, 11:18:49 AM
that is concerning, especially those who do not buy their water,

on the bright side, it may be a feasible and easily enacted way for population control?   <^>

Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Shadowborn on September 11, 2006, 09:39:54 AM
The health department here in Spokane has issued warnings about our own river. Due to the contamination of the water, they advise that people who fish in the river eat no more than one serving of fish caught there per month in order to maintain current health standards. Yet there are Ukranian immigrants who fish in that river almost daily in order to supplement what they make to support their families. Kids swim in that river all summer long. Me, I wouldn't jump in that river if I were on fire...
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: jordyn on September 16, 2006, 08:56:41 PM
montana's going the same way...the water's always the first to go.
Title: Re: American Steak? No thanks...
Post by: Devious Viper on September 17, 2006, 02:37:18 AM
it may be a feasible and easily enacted way for population control?

The scary thing is that it would do that, but it wouldn't work in an unnoticeable way like birth control pills - the excess estrogen would instead cause women to develop male characteristics - hairy bodies, atrophied breasts and external genitalia (except for the clitoris which would become like a thumb) and infertility as the ovaries atrophied and failed. In men, we would see shrinking genitalia, development of breasts, obesity and infertility as the testes shrank and failed.

An excess of estrogen in women causes their endocrine system to massively overcompensate by producing testosterone...

Also, in female children we would expect to see menstruation beginning much much earlier and precocious sexuality.