Count 'Bility Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Their security isn't much different than any other technology industry. I have been to that facility a number of times and actually know the manager out there. They have the right to protect their investment and I wouldn't expect anything less. maybe for their plant. But this was as under contstruction. These guys have done work for hospitals to prisons. When they claim what went on their as pretty rare, I'll believe it. But you are right. They have every right to protect however they see fit. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 The discussion thus far has been interesting and I do not desire to sidetrack the thread but a couple things have stuck out to me. The first being that if this had been a bill signed by Bush protecting Monsanto, I am quite certain the tone from some commentators would be vastly different. I am not against GMO's or Monsanto and I think they are and will be mostly a good thing. But it is not a good situation at all for the consumer to not have the information or to provide such broad relief from any liability. Some people are missing the OP's point; this is bad legislation. It doesn't matter what your feelings are about GMO's, the issue is customer awareness and not providing manufacturers with excessive protections. The 2nd issue is "pink slime". I know quite a bit about this beef product. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The problem is that some in the media began calling it pink slime and it put a whole bunch of people out of work. Ever eat Taco Bell ground beef? That's your pink slime. Link to comment
carlfense Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 The first being that if this had been a bill signed by Bush protecting Monsanto, I am quite certain the tone from some commentators would be vastly different. I am not against GMO's or Monsanto and I think they are and will be mostly a good thing. I'm OK with GMOs. Not a huge fan of Monsanto. I'm not a fan of this rider to the appropriations bill either. If I'm reading it correctly only one Senator objected. But it is not a good situation at all for the consumer to not have the information or to provide such broad relief from any liability. Some people are missing the OP's point; this is bad legislation. It doesn't matter what your feelings are about GMO's, the issue is customer awareness and not providing manufacturers with excessive protections. Bad legislation for the end consumer? Probably. I'd oppose it based on those grounds. Good legislation for farmers. Good legislation for seed companies. "Section 733 provides certainty to growers with respect to their planting decisions. If enacted, growers would be assured that the crops they plant could continue to be grown, subject to appropriate interim conditions, even after a judicial ruling against USDA," continued the groups. "The inclusion of Section 733 is a positive step to ensure that U.S. farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops. This legislative solution ensures that national agricultural policy is not being decided by the court system while providing a level of certainty that is critical to ensure that our agricultural producers continue to lead the world." http://www.soygrower...es/r061412b.htm The 2nd issue is "pink slime". I know quite a bit about this beef product. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The problem is that some in the media began calling it pink slime and it put a whole bunch of people out of work. Ever eat Taco Bell ground beef? That's your pink slime. The consumer should be able to read on the package if a product contains pink slime . . . right? (see the bolded section above.) Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Higher yield isn't that great if the nutrition is lower. I've read lots of stuff in the past about bigger produce and faster-growing produce having less nutrition, but I'm way too lazy to look it up again so feel free to ignore all of that. Onto the corn... I don't get the obsession with corn. 95% of it goes to cows or fuel that isn't that great or to crappy sugary food with no nutrition. And cows taste great but there are a lot of foods that are way more nutritious and take way less energy and land area to produce. Unfortunately changing the way people eat is a lot harder than just increasing corn production Link to comment
carlfense Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 From my (admittedly limited) understanding, the new provisions were meant to protect the product in the market when a lawsuit is filed. Meaning, that a judge can't simply block the sale of a product, it has to go through FDA review. Additionally, it disappears in 6 months unless passed by Congress again. If it's as bad as some fear we won't have to live with it for long. Link to comment
beanman Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 The discussion thus far has been interesting and I do not desire to sidetrack the thread but a couple things have stuck out to me. The first being that if this had been a bill signed by Bush protecting Monsanto, I am quite certain the tone from some commentators would be vastly different. I am not against GMO's or Monsanto and I think they are and will be mostly a good thing. But it is not a good situation at all for the consumer to not have the information or to provide such broad relief from any liability. Some people are missing the OP's point; this is bad legislation. It doesn't matter what your feelings are about GMO's, the issue is customer awareness and not providing manufacturers with excessive protections. The 2nd issue is "pink slime". I know quite a bit about this beef product. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The problem is that some in the media began calling it pink slime and it put a whole bunch of people out of work. Ever eat Taco Bell ground beef? That's your pink slime. Taco Bell's meat tastes like sh#t. How do you know there's nothing with the way the meat is processed? I certainly am not comfortable eating beef that is exposed to ammonia. Show me a study that conclusively shows that I'm not going to get cancer from eating it in 15 years and maybe I'll change my mind. It still tastes like sh#t. As does the other fast food burger places that use it(which is pretty much all of them as I understand it) Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 I did not mean to imply it was necessarily any better than traditional ground beef or that it tastes great. They simply came up with a way to reclaim small bits of beef from fat trimmings. I can't promise you it won't possibly cause any health problems but, I also have seen no proof whatsoever that it is any worse for you than any other beef product. The dichotomy is that this administration helped burn that industry to the ground but is apparently ok with doing the opposite for Monsanto. They use a process, that among other things, utilizes some compounds that are not that foreign in food products or human consumption. I'm pretty familiar with the beef processing industry and I would have no hesitation in consuming that product except that there are better tasting options and "better" options. I just happen to feel they got a raw deal in the media and from the government mainly on the basis that pink slime just doesn't sound appetizing. The principals are suing abc news and I hope they win. I just think if you're going to destroy a company and an industry, you should have some scientific facts instead of an inflammatory name. Link to comment
carlfense Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 The principals are suing abc news and I hope they win. On what grounds? Link to comment
beanman Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 The principals are suing abc news and I hope they win. On what grounds? BPI lawsuit On September 13, 2012, Beef Products Inc. (BPI) announced that it filed a $1.2 billion lawsuit against ABC News, three reporters (Diane Sawyer, Jim Avila and David Kerley) and others, claiming damages as a result of their reports on pink slime. "ABC News was just one of many media outlets reporting on the controversial product earlier this year, but BPI has focused in on the media giant for what it calls a 'concerted disinformation campaign' against LFTB."[115] It was reported that BPI will seek over $1 billion in compensatory and statutory damages, along with punitive damages for "defamation, product and food disparagement, and tortious interference with business relationships."[115] BPI said that ABC News made nearly "200 false, misleading and defamatory statements, repeated continuously during a month-long disinformation campaign..."[115] ABC News denied BPI's claims. "The lawsuit is without merit," Jeffrey W. Schneider, the news station's senior vice president, said in a brief statement. "We will contest it vigorously."[116] ABC News sought to have the case removed from state to federal court.[117] Link to comment
strigori Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 The principals are suing abc news and I hope they win. On what grounds? BPI lawsuit On September 13, 2012, Beef Products Inc. (BPI) announced that it filed a $1.2 billion lawsuit against ABC News, three reporters (Diane Sawyer, Jim Avila and David Kerley) and others, claiming damages as a result of their reports on pink slime. "ABC News was just one of many media outlets reporting on the controversial product earlier this year, but BPI has focused in on the media giant for what it calls a 'concerted disinformation campaign' against LFTB."[115] It was reported that BPI will seek over $1 billion in compensatory and statutory damages, along with punitive damages for "defamation, product and food disparagement, and tortious interference with business relationships."[115] BPI said that ABC News made nearly "200 false, misleading and defamatory statements, repeated continuously during a month-long disinformation campaign..."[115] ABC News denied BPI's claims. "The lawsuit is without merit," Jeffrey W. Schneider, the news station's senior vice president, said in a brief statement. "We will contest it vigorously."[116] ABC News sought to have the case removed from state to federal court.[117] They are largely suing for using the words 'Pink Slime' which if memory serves came from and internal memo from BPI. Is BPI going to sue Twitter next for letting the public strong arm companies into removing, or labeling the product? Link to comment
carlfense Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Oh. A SLAPP case. Well, good luck. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Not commenting on the lawsuit, but the whole "pink slime" scare was nonsense. I use most of the "pink slime" parts (the gristle, the connective tissue, the cast-off stuff) to make sauce, and it tastes damned good. What sucks is, you used to be able to get bones from the butcher back in the day so you could roast them at home and make an Espagnole, from which you could make your demi-glace or Lyonnaise. But today that stuff gets put into "pink slime" and people think it's nasty. Third-world countries eat this stuff, and in the less-impoverished places in those countries those people eat very well - if not the same quantity as Americans eat, it's often better quality. It's squeamish Americans who don't know how to cook, who think meat comes from the grocery store, who think reheating chicken fingers from the frozen food aisle is "cooking dinner" who believe it's bad food. It's not. It's from the cow - just a different part than you're used to. 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 A SLAPP case. McDonald's got screwed. Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Not commenting on the lawsuit, but the whole "pink slime" scare was nonsense. I use most of the "pink slime" parts (the gristle, the connective tissue, the cast-off stuff) to make sauce, and it tastes damned good. What sucks is, you used to be able to get bones from the butcher back in the day so you could roast them at home and make an Espagnole, from which you could make your demi-glace or Lyonnaise. But today that stuff gets put into "pink slime" and people think it's nasty. Third-world countries eat this stuff, and in the less-impoverished places in those countries those people eat very well - if not the same quantity as Americans eat, it's often better quality. It's squeamish Americans who don't know how to cook, who think meat comes from the grocery store, who think reheating chicken fingers from the frozen food aisle is "cooking dinner" who believe it's bad food. It's not. It's from the cow - just a different part than you're used to. Very nice rant Knapp. I use my grill year round. Couldntve said it better myself. Link to comment
carlfense Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 A SLAPP case. McDonald's got screwed. That wasn't a SLAPP . . . and they made a very poor business decision. Link to comment
Recommended Posts