On 18 Jul 2003 10:20:23 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:

"James Curts" wrote in message news:vcFRa.83470$N7.11293@sccrnsc03...
The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the typical
consumer. Many people believe that the meat is somehow internally
infected with e.coli. But the bacterium exists in the steer's
digestive system and only contacts the meat through unhygenic
processes during slaughter. So when I buy a roast the only place
possibly contaminated would be the surface, and that can be washed off
or will be killed in the cooking. The problem arises when commercial
butchers pool and grind large quantities of beef into hamburger
several days before it is ever used, distributing the bacterium and
giving it a window to proliferate. A solution is to have one's beef
ground at the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did,
purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.

--Hua Kul



I'm sure you feel much better about yourself

How is it possible that you're "sure" of this? You don't know
anything about me, and you've made no effort to contact me.

now that you have typified the US consumer as ignorant.

Ignorance does not imply indifference, stupidity, or lack of
intelligence.

Your understanding of steer guts is commendable also.

The extremely simple concept of e. coli. not being present internally
in uncut meat is NOT common knowledge among many consumers with whom I
have discussed the issue. I draw my conclusions from my admittedly
small (compared to national population) sample.

I've not actually discussed this with anyone but I would be almost
certain that Australians would have the same ignorance.

The typical US consumer is probably as cognizant of food quality, purity and
nutritional value as any in modern nations today.

Then why do I get so many blank stares when I discuss the FFA content
of animal fats or vegatable oils?

I hope you used another term from FFA

The vast majority of folks simply
DON'T know how dangerous to their health a high omega6mega3 ratio
is.

You mean they eat too much fatty meat, dairy, and manufactured foods?
They are certainly told to avoid these.

They don't know that most farm raised fish are fed on a grain
based diet and therefore they are not getting the health benefit
claimed for fish oil intake.

Surely this depends on species and water temperature.

They don't understand the safety and
need for some saturated fats in their diets.

This need would be?

They don't understand
that dietary cholesterol intake doesn't much influence their serum
cholesterol levels.

I think that fact is being more widely understood. Most folks now
realise how good eggs are for them.

The don't understand the HUGE increase in
vitamins in meat from grass fed livestock versus grain fed.

Evidence? Grain has more micronutrients than grass. Grain is grass
seed -- a concentrated capsule of micronutrients.

They have
no clue how dangerous fructose is to our health,

In wholefoods (fruit) and as a sweetener in moderation, it is fine

especially to those
who have a genetic deficiency that inhibits their production of
Insulin Receptor Substrate-1.

Being what proportion of the population?

I could go on and on.

Well please do so, and we can ask questions and pose alternative
views.

With the properly written and implemented laws we have today regulating food
products there is little need for the person purchasing the family meal to
be knowledgeable about any particular health shortcomings of their choices.

This is one of the most elitest things you have yet said.

I read it as being pragmatic. You (and a few here) are interested in
nutrition science. The vast majority of folk are interested in many
other things. They need to learn the principles of maintaining optimal
health and then they can forget it and get on with their lives. That
is why the old advice to strive for a varied, wholefood, eucaloric
diet with regular moderate exercise is so valid.

First you
say that the typical consumer is not ignorant, then you say there is
no need for him to be educated.

I think it's just a matter of degree. Some are obsessed with their
diets, some just want to get on with other more worthwhile pursuits.

If you are putting your trust in "Big
Brother" your walking on a dangerous path.

It depends on how you come to get your "big brother" Apparently
America is not ideal in this regard. Many other places are much
better.

One of the most dangerous
foods on the market, man made trans fats, are not even required by the
government to be listed on food product labels.

So why are they doing it here? A little is no problem. Eating a
variety of wholefoods will cause you NO problems with trans fats.

My livelihood is food products which must satisfy the most exacting needs
and wants of consumers. This includes the demand for the best health
safeguards we have available today.

In my particular instance it concerns fresh produce and the vast majority of
the retail consumers are a very discerning and critical lot. The continual
barrage of information and disinformation displayed for public benefit has
the buying populace taking even more notice of what is in/on and part of a
given product. This is in large part due to the ambiguous claims of the
organic growers regarding pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

I don't believe that organic always means better, but I know that
environmental poisons can damage health, such as the increase in
breast cancer among women who work around pesticides.

Which ones? Many substances "disrupt" oestrogen. Some pesticides being
among them.

I don't believe
basic fertilizers are dangerous, but I also know that geographic
location has much more to do with nutritional quality of foods than
any fertilizers we might use. We apply three elements,

Who does? Farmers I know apply whatever is deficient, and much is
deficient where I live.

but many other
nutrients, such as selenium, are more deficient in some soils than
others.

And any passable farmer will remedy this, or be advised to by his Ag
dept.

If there were a fertilizer that would increase all the
beneficiel but lacking nutrients I would be in favor of applying that
to anything that grows.

You don't have to go that far. Analyse your plants and soils and
remedy any deficiency. Most micronutrients only need a top up about
once a decade (depending on soil and climate)

But only if the grower wants to use it.

Well, as the yield will decline with most deficiencies, he will
eventually go broke, but if he is selling less than healthy produce
the authorities should either bar his produce, or at least inform the
market of his deficiency.

If
people want to purchase "organic" produce it shouldn't be kept off the
market.

Of course not. Much organic produce is fine, if overpriced. Organic
farmers inevitably cheat (usually unwittingly) or go out of business
coz of an inexorable dive in output.

One of the outbreaks of e. coli. that got national attention
was in bottled apple juice. This could be eliminated if people would
press their own juices.

Well we could go back to subsistence agriculture, and give up much of
our cultural acticvities. I for one would not like that.

BTW, are you advocating apple juice with its 50% more fructose than
soda pop?

The organic faction has quite a following until tests show what is really in
the produce. One of our larger retail food chains in the area has ceased
selling organic labeled produce because of non-conformance to advertised
standards. The GM issue has even more folks taking notice and becoming more
aware of what they put into the shopping cart.

Starlink GM corn is now in about 70% of all corn products in the US,
but I'll bet you a couple of doughnuts that most people don't know
this.

What is the value in knowing? Most Americans were fine with GM foods
until the rabid greens from Europe introduced the scare term
Frankenfoods"
Afterall, you don't know when a random mutation has occurred in the
corn field -- bloody cosmic rays

The US consumer ignorant??

They certainly are not so ignorant as to buy/use products whose producers
deliberately circumvent the laws and regulations on which we rely to insure
the food we consume is wholesome.

Here's one small example of how the food industries in general
couldn't care less about consumer health if it affects their bottom
lines. It has been know for a long time that man made trans fats are
quite dangerous for our health, yet bakery producers keep using it
because it provides a good product texture that doesn't get soggy, and
it's cheap.

But as most forlks spread grease (butter, marg) on the bread, the
little bit of fat already in it matters little. You are claiming a
problem is much greater than it really is to make a point.
Manufacturers are there to make a profit for their shareholders, pure
and simple. The regulator that you elect is there to control the
manufacturers from doing harm

If they wanted to do the best for us they would switch to
coconut or palm oils, which also stay hard at room temperature.

For such a small constituent in wholegrain bread, it hardly matters,
IMHO Of course, cakes and pastries should be avoided, unless made from
wholefoods.

It
was only lies from the grain oil industry that convinced US consumers
that the tropical oils are bad for us.

All refined oils/fats should be avoided. The tiny amount in wholegrain
breads is not worth worrying about.

In reality they're much more
healthy than vegetable oil-based trans fats.

In quantity, but again, this should be avoided