Meat consumption ban is mandatory - necessary temperatures to eliminate BSE pathogens

originally posted by: supermilkman

By the way, I don't know if you actually read my entire thread but symptoms to an infection sometimes doesn't show up to decades later. Disease causing prions have long incubation periods. You may already be a carrier to something harmful.

In my life, what I've done, where I've been, what I've ingested, what's been given to me in vaccinations. . . . .

I'm lucky to be alive.

Carpe Diem

originally posted by: GreyScale
a reply to: supermilkman

Any meat I eat I've shot or hooked or raised myself. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's pretty organic... no commercial farms here within 300 miles.

Getting that out of the way, if you are one of those who craves governmental regulation to take care of everything, just remember that you are meat as well and have a carbon footprint that is killing KILLING the planet, according to your government.

So maybe you're the one that needs to be recalled. You know, for the good of the planet.

The system is a process. All you're trying to do is improve it.

Do you know what natural selection means?

It means you keep the good, throw away the bad.

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: supermilkman

Funny how they make a lot of this when in recent times they also attack the flatulence of cattle as a mentionable cause of CO2 emissions.

Take into account the aims of Agenda 21 and the depopulation agenda, one cannot help but wonder if there is a series of dots to be connected here?

Depending how one might connect such dots, it might suggest that due to the depopulation agenda, CO2 emissions and agenda 21, it might appear that the masses should be restricted in the amount of meat they eat. They will then be forced to source alternative sources of protein or suffer from nutrition deficiency induced illness that may lead to ill heath and eventually, early death. Such a thing might be regarded a good thing, it would seem, as far a the the people behind these respective matters might muse.

The more I research Agenda 21 the more I realize some of it's provisions are necessary. Some of them, not all of them. Facts aren't feelings.

And there isn't going to be any nutrition deficiency illnesses or anything. Last time I checked western countries are overweight. They're not malnourished, they eat too much. Having them cut back on calories isn't going to be life threatening.

Funny how Japan has a metabo law which requires a certain waistline length. They do it to prevent hypoactive diseases and to also not strain the medical field with unhealthy patients.

I live in Nebraska . We eat our vegetables as a side dish next to a pound of meat.

originally posted by: c2oden
I live in Nebraska . We eat our vegetables as a side dish next to a pound of meat.

Is the food government regulated or do you cultivate it on your own?

a reply to: supermilkman

Both.

a reply to: supermilkman

You just help yourself. I'll continue to eat my chicken. My fish. Pork. Along with my veggies.

Have at it.

originally posted by: supermilkman

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: supermilkman

Funny how they make a lot of this when in recent times they also attack the flatulence of cattle as a mentionable cause of CO2 emissions.

Take into account the aims of Agenda 21 and the depopulation agenda, one cannot help but wonder if there is a series of dots to be connected here?

Depending how one might connect such dots, it might suggest that due to the depopulation agenda, CO2 emissions and agenda 21, it might appear that the masses should be restricted in the amount of meat they eat. They will then be forced to source alternative sources of protein or suffer from nutrition deficiency induced illness that may lead to ill heath and eventually, early death. Such a thing might be regarded a good thing, it would seem, as far a the the people behind these respective matters might muse.

And there isn't going to be any nutrition deficiency illnesses or anything. Last time I checked western countries are overweight. They're not malnourished, they eat too much. Having them cut back on calories isn't going to be life threatening.

thanks

Being over weight does not mean they are over nutritioned, there is no such thing as "over nutritioned." How much fat a person has does not necessarily have any relationship to nutrition but it does have a relationship to health.
thanks

Life is not about the mileage you can put on a "car".

It's about the passengers and where you visit.

Just some "food" for thought.

a reply to: supermilkman

From my point of view.

You are pushing for a ban based on selective choice of data to show there is a greater danger with meat than the substitutes.

This is not about the danger, but about the suffering meat production causes on aware beings and that suffering should be limited. You have a point on the moral justification on limiting of unnecessary suffering and going over to vat built meat instead of mass produced meat.

But on the other side when the meat production stops the need for domesticated meat animals will no longer be needed and will probably go close to extinct since they have no real place in nature. After living meat mass production end you will still need some hunting to keep the worst of the animal population explosions at bay so that the animals do not starve from over population.

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: supermilkman

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: supermilkman

Funny how they make a lot of this when in recent times they also attack the flatulence of cattle as a mentionable cause of CO2 emissions.

Take into account the aims of Agenda 21 and the depopulation agenda, one cannot help but wonder if there is a series of dots to be connected here?

Depending how one might connect such dots, it might suggest that due to the depopulation agenda, CO2 emissions and agenda 21, it might appear that the masses should be restricted in the amount of meat they eat. They will then be forced to source alternative sources of protein or suffer from nutrition deficiency induced illness that may lead to ill heath and eventually, early death. Such a thing might be regarded a good thing, it would seem, as far a the the people behind these respective matters might muse.

And there isn't going to be any nutrition deficiency illnesses or anything. Last time I checked western countries are overweight. They're not malnourished, they eat too much. Having them cut back on calories isn't going to be life threatening.

thanks

Being over weight does not mean they are over nutritioned, there is no such thing as "over nutritioned." How much fat a person has does not necessarily have any relationship to nutrition but it does have a relationship to health.
thanks

Obesity and hypoactive lifestyle leads to things like cancer, high blood pressure. You can actually get diabetes if you don't have a healthy diet.

Too much plaque build-up and cholestrol is a breeding ground for cysts and tumors. Some types of cancer, contrary to what some might say, is actually a form of fungus.

Food for thought.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: supermilkman

From my point of view.

You are pushing for a ban based on selective choice of data to show there is a greater danger with meat than the substitutes.

This is not about the danger, but about the suffering meat production causes on aware beings and that suffering should be limited. You have a point on the moral justification on limiting of unnecessary suffering and going over to vat built meat instead of mass produced meat.

But on the other side when the meat production stops the need for domesticated meat animals will no longer be needed and will probably go close to extinct since they have no real place in nature. After living meat mass production end you will still need some hunting to keep the worst of the animal population explosions at bay so that the animals do not starve from over population.

CDC Report on e. coli
www.foodsafetynews.com...

E. coli O157:H7, the pathogen most commonly associated with ground beef, causes an estimated 96,000 illnesses, 3,200 hospitalizations and 31 deaths in the U.S. each year, adding up to $405 million in annual healthcare expenses.

CDC tracked 391 E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks in the 10 years between 2003 and 2012. Between those outbreaks, the agency confirmed 4,930 cases of illness, with 1,274 (26 percent) hospitalizations, 300 (6 percent) cases of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), and 34 deaths.

Food is by far the most common source of E. coli O157:H7, accounting for 65 percent of cases. The other major sources of E. coli are animal contact (10 percent) and person-to-person transmission (10 percent).

The most common food source for E. coli turns out to be beef, which has been implicated in 55 percent of E. coli outbreaks. The next closest commodities are leafy greens (21 percent) and dairy (11 percent). All other meats and poultry together account for 6 percent. - CDC

CDC report on salmonella
www.foodsafetynews.com...

Despite serious efforts to control Salmonella, rates of Salmonella infection have remained steady for the past 15 years. And, in recent years, industry has taken a heightened interest in finding ways to reduce Salmonella contamination in beef.

According to CDC, beef is the fourth most common cause of Salmonella outbreaks. Salmonella, however, is not considered an adulterant in beef the way several strains of E. coli are considered adulterants in ground beef.

CDC tracked at least 95 outbreaks of Salmonella from beef between 1973 and 2011, resulting in 3,643 confirmed illnesses and 318 (9 percent) hospitalizations.

While roast beef seemed to be the predominant cause of beef-related Salmonella outbreaks in the 1970s and 1980s, ground beef has become the dominant source since 1990, and the data show a sharp increase in ground beef-related Salmonella outbreaks after 2000.

With antimicrobial resistance data available in 14 outbreaks, isolates from eight of those outbreaks (57 percent) were found to be resistant to at least one class of antimicrobial agent. Ground beef was the food source in all eight of those outbreaks.

Those antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella outbreaks were also found to be more virulent: While 9 percent of patients were hospitalized in outbreaks involving strains with no resistance, antimicrobial-resistant strains hospitalized 23 percent of patients.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Life is not about the mileage you can put on a "car".

It's about the passengers and where you visit.

Just some "food" for thought.

Yeah, I get the whole it's about the ride not the destination thing. Sorry but I don't really chase butterflies.

a reply to: supermilkman

Maybe when you get a little older, you'll find the value in chasing butterflies.

originally posted by: supermilkman
High risk of food borne illnesses from chicken...
High risk of food borne illnesses from ground beef.....
High risk of food borne illness from turkey...
Salmonella....
3. Our normal cooking temperatures are simply not hot enough to destroy these invisible life-threatening bacterium.

I was going to ask you how you boil your salad and fruit to 600 degrees but then I saw you posted this:

originally posted by: supermilkman
This is what our diet should look like.

So, according to you, our meals should be unnatural and highly processed?
That's astronaut foods which has changed a lot over they years as the processed foods had too much sodium and sugar. Nowadays astronauts eat a very similar menu to the one they eat on Earth, including ice cream and lots of meat.

"We have all kinds of meats," explains Vickie Kloeris, one of NASA's food scientists. "We have chicken, we have beef, we have fish, we have ham. We have vegetables. We've got desserts, drinks, rice, potatoes. It covers everything."

What astronauts eat in space.

I have no idea why you posted a pic of space food when it goes against your OP that promotes meat banning.

Diet is like religion: if you have one that makes you happy then good for you, but don't shove it on people's faces thinking it's better than others.

People eat too much meat. A little is good, i enjoy fish and seafood.

If your blood type is A meat doesnt go over well with them. Plant eater types.

If your blood types B or O then meat fares better for you. Meat eater types.

Over all, meat rots inside the human body if not expelled quickly, causing problems of the rancid kind.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: supermilkman
High risk of food borne illnesses from chicken...
High risk of food borne illnesses from ground beef.....
High risk of food borne illness from turkey...
Salmonella....
3. Our normal cooking temperatures are simply not hot enough to destroy these invisible life-threatening bacterium.

I was going to ask you how you boil your salad and fruit to 600 degrees but then I saw you posted this:

originally posted by: supermilkman
This is what our diet should look like.

So, according to you, our meals should be unnatural and highly processed?
That's astronaut foods which has changed a lot over they years as the processed foods had too much sodium and sugar. Nowadays astronauts eat a very similar menu to the one they eat on Earth, including ice cream and lots of meat.

"We have all kinds of meats," explains Vickie Kloeris, one of NASA's food scientists. "We have chicken, we have beef, we have fish, we have ham. We have vegetables. We've got desserts, drinks, rice, potatoes. It covers everything."

What astronauts eat in space.

I have no idea why you posted a pic of space food when it goes against your OP that promotes meat banning.

Diet is like religion: if you have one that makes you happy then good for you, but don't shove it on people's faces thinking it's better than others.

Yeah, I like processed foods. I think GMO's are good.

Did you notice that the picture I posted shows food that is vacuum sealed? Ever heard of space sticks?

Protein bars were actually invisioned by astronauts. 50 grams of protein is considered 100% daily value. Two or so protein bars is enough protein for your body to function. If I wanted to eat other foods I could too.

I still think we over-eat. That's just my opinion. If you want to be a tub of fat then that's on you. Also people find over-eating unnattractive. It makes you look desperate.

a reply to: supermilkman

Also what about the synthetic meat? It is literally the same thing as regular meat. Chemists use stem cells that comes from the tissue of animals. Instead of killing livestock all we have to do now is use their cells.

originally posted by: supermilkman
Yeah, I like processed foods. I think GMO's are good.

Did you notice that the picture I posted shows food that is vacuum sealed? Ever heard of space sticks?

Protein bars were actually invisioned by astronauts. 50 grams of protein is considered 100% daily value. Two or so protein bars is enough protein for your body to function. If I wanted to eat other foods I could too.

I still think we over-eat. That's just my opinion. If you want to be a tub of fat then that's on you. Also people find over-eating unnattractive. It makes you look desperate.

GMOs and processed are two different kinds. I'm ok with GMOs but I personally don't like processed food. I like natural things. I like cooking from scratch knowing fully what I'm using and eating. I don't enjoy eating protein bars, I rather get my proteins from fresh produce.

I also think we over eat but that's got nothing to do with banning meat. I think food is one of the pleasures of life but that doesn't mean eating until you become morbidly obese. In fact, countries that have a love affair with food (like Italy for example) have a very healthy population and less obesity than countries with lots of processed food.

a reply to: DBCowboy

No, I've had enough drama in my life. I'm done.