Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Discussion of Skeptic magazine and Letters to the Editor
User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:33 pm

ForestDweller wrote:It would seem that, if elastin and collagen are subcomponents of the BPI product, then their relative indigestibility further suggests that, pound for pound, this material would be less nutritious than ground beef without the BPI product. It seems reasonable to presume that the human digestive system would not pull nutrients from these indigestible subcomponents.

EDITed for palatability.

Elastin and collagen are also subcomponents of regular beef. Even in the finest cuts. You'd need to show that the relative levels are different in the lean beef trimmings vs regular beef.

Are there any sources that might provide this analysis?

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:37 pm

ForestDweller wrote:I continue to suggest that the BPI product in question, pound for pound, is less nutritious than organic ground beef.

Based on what? You've still not provided anything to suggest your suggestion is in fact true.

We've already examined the nutrition labels and there's no nutritional difference. Are you suggesting that the analysis is flawed? If so, on what grounds?

If you have no evidence then your suggestion is worthless. It holds no more weight than the suggestion that invisible pink unicorns live in your butt.
ForestDweller wrote:I will use the distinction "organic," to avoid the potential misdirection of an argument toward the FDA's still classifying the BPI product to be "ground beef."

Well yeah. It IS ground beef. Its beef. Its is ground. Hence, ground beef.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:44 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/the-lunch-tray-responds-to-beef-industry-defenses-of-pink-slime/

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/05 ... -slime-1-3

These links don't provide any evidence. They only repeat the message "Pink slime is bad!"
You continue to insist that I have provided no evidence despite the evidence that I have provided, and yet you continue to post links that contain no evidence.
I'm asking for evidence that it is less nutritious or in any way dangerous to eat. Show me where someone became ill, or where testing demonstrates that it is unsafe.
This "dangerous to eat" thing is a new argument for you. This is the first that you have asserted anything regading "unsafe." I stated earlier, that I did not consider the product to be unsafe (though I do consider it unpalatable and less nutritious).

ForestDweller wrote:As an aside, you do realize that the BPI product processing method is born of the necessity of negating E.Coli in the beef production chain, E.Coli that is the result of processing cow crap-caked carcasses of cows that "live" knee-deep in cow crap up until they are slaughtered, right?

Sure. But do you have much experience with cows living in open fields where they are NOT knee deep in crap? You'll note that they are still often covered in their own excrement.

Animals poop. Poop contains dangerous bacteria. Slaughter has always involved risk of contamination. Even if the animal is pristine on the outside as soon as you split them open there's the risk of contamination from the microbes within their digestive tract. Organic beef isn't any less risky in this regard.


I sure do have that experience and I'm here to tell you, that I do not know of one cow of any local farmer, dairy or otherwise, that is knee deep in crap. I have never seen that before and I live in rural NH. Have you ever seen a commercial beef feed lot? The particularly dangerous E. Coli strain, comes from feeding cows corn, not grass. You would not see the same E. Coli in the same levels, in a grass-fed cow.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:52 pm

ForestDweller wrote:EDIT - did you review the labels that you posted? The BPI product, which you do not provide a source link for, has for a 4 ounce serving, 160 calories and 70 calories from fat. The Beef ground/lean tag reports for a 4 ounce serving, 200 calories, with 100 from fat. Therefore, obviously there is more nutritive value in the latter product. Though, I see no evidence here to substantiate the BPI product tag, in the first place.

So the BPI product has a higher ratio of protein to calories and a higher ratio of protein to fat and fat calories, right? Wouldn't that make it MORE nutritious than the ground beef?

The nutritional information for the lean beef trimmings is determined through the same process as the information for the regular ground beef. They're both covered by the same regulations for accuracy and content. If either contained false information they'd be in violation of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Are you suggesting that BPI is in violation of this act with their labeling? What evidence would you cite to support this suggestion?

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:57 pm

ForestDweller wrote:I sure do have that experience and I'm here to tell you, that I do not know of one cow of any local farmer, dairy or otherwise, that is knee deep in crap.

What does it matter whether they are standing in it or they thrash it all over themselves with their tails? Poop is poop.
ForestDweller wrote:I have never seen that before and I live in rural NH. Have you ever seen a commercial beef feed lot? The particularly dangerous E. Coli strain, comes from feeding cows corn, not grass. You would not see the same E. Coli in the same levels, in a grass-fed cow.

And? How does this provide any evidence regarding the relative nutrition of lean beef trimmings and regular ground beef?

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:01 pm

ForestDweller wrote:Thanks to Slee for encouraging us to view the movie Food, Inc.

"Schlosser: In the 1970s, there were literally thousands of slaughterhouses in the United States. Today we have 13 slaughterhouses that process the majority of beef that is sold in the United States. The hamburger of today, it has pieces of thousands of different cattle ground up in that one hamburger patty. The odds increase exponentially that one of those animals was carrying a dangerous pathogen."

"Pollan: So you feed corn to cattle and E. coli, which is a very common bug, evolves, a certain mutation occurs and a strain called the "E. coli 0157:h7" appears on the world stage. And it's a product of the diet we're feeding cattle on feedlots and it's a product of feedlot life. The animals stand ankle deep in their manure all day long. So if one cow has it, the other cows will get it. When they get to the slaughterhouse, their hides are caked with manure. And if the slaughterhouse is slaughtering 400 animals an hour, how do you keep that manure from getting onto those carcasses? And that's how the manure gets in the meat. And now this thing that wasn't in the world is in the food system."

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scri ... cript.html

E. coli 0157:h7 occurs naturally in a small number of cattle whether they are in the feed lot or not. Organically raised cattle with the bug present a serious risk to human health if not processed correctly just like non-organic cattle.

Of course the non-organic cattle can be treated with a vaccine against the bug and therefor may actually be safer in regards to this particular bacteria.

Let's also not forget that ground meet must be tested for this bug before being sold and if it is present, the meet cannot be sold as raw product. These rules have been in effect since 1994.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:19 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:I continue to suggest that the BPI product in question, pound for pound, is less nutritious than organic ground beef.

Based on what? You've still not provided anything to suggest your suggestion is in fact true.

We've already examined the nutrition labels and there's no nutritional difference. Are you suggesting that the analysis is flawed? If so, on what grounds?
There are more calories in the ground beef than in the BPI product. Per 4 ounces, there are 90 calories in the BPI product, according to your unsubstantiated label. There are 100 in the ground beef. How does this equate to "no nutritional difference?" I am not following you here, can you clarify?
If you have no evidence then your suggestion is worthless. It holds no more weight than the suggestion that invisible pink unicorns live in your butt.
ForestDweller wrote:I will use the distinction "organic," to avoid the potential misdirection of an argument toward the FDA's still classifying the BPI product to be "ground beef."

Well yeah. It IS ground beef. Its beef. Its is ground. Hence, ground beef.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:24 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:Thanks to Slee for encouraging us to view the movie Food, Inc.

"Schlosser: In the 1970s, there were literally thousands of slaughterhouses in the United States. Today we have 13 slaughterhouses that process the majority of beef that is sold in the United States. The hamburger of today, it has pieces of thousands of different cattle ground up in that one hamburger patty. The odds increase exponentially that one of those animals was carrying a dangerous pathogen."

"Pollan: So you feed corn to cattle and E. coli, which is a very common bug, evolves, a certain mutation occurs and a strain called the "E. coli 0157:h7" appears on the world stage. And it's a product of the diet we're feeding cattle on feedlots and it's a product of feedlot life. The animals stand ankle deep in their manure all day long. So if one cow has it, the other cows will get it. When they get to the slaughterhouse, their hides are caked with manure. And if the slaughterhouse is slaughtering 400 animals an hour, how do you keep that manure from getting onto those carcasses? And that's how the manure gets in the meat. And now this thing that wasn't in the world is in the food system."

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scri ... cript.html

E. coli 0157:h7 occurs naturally in a small number of cattle whether they are in the feed lot or not. Organically raised cattle with the bug present a serious risk to human health if not processed correctly just like non-organic cattle.

Of course the non-organic cattle can be treated with a vaccine against the bug and therefor may actually be safer in regards to this particular bacteria.

Let's also not forget that ground meet must be tested for this bug before being sold and if it is present, the meet cannot be sold as raw product. These rules have been in effect since 1994.


If you have evidence of this specific E. coli as a problem in grass-fed organic cattle, I would like to see it.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:26 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:I sure do have that experience and I'm here to tell you, that I do not know of one cow of any local farmer, dairy or otherwise, that is knee deep in crap.

What does it matter whether they are standing in it or they thrash it all over themselves with their tails? Poop is poop.
ForestDweller wrote:I have never seen that before and I live in rural NH. Have you ever seen a commercial beef feed lot? The particularly dangerous E. Coli strain, comes from feeding cows corn, not grass. You would not see the same E. Coli in the same levels, in a grass-fed cow.

And? How does this provide any evidence regarding the relative nutrition of lean beef trimmings and regular ground beef?


This was a continuance of an aside, and was originally stated to be an aside. Why are you asking for it to equate to evidence regarding relative nutritional value?

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:28 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:EDIT - did you review the labels that you posted? The BPI product, which you do not provide a source link for, has for a 4 ounce serving, 160 calories and 70 calories from fat. The Beef ground/lean tag reports for a 4 ounce serving, 200 calories, with 100 from fat. Therefore, obviously there is more nutritive value in the latter product. Though, I see no evidence here to substantiate the BPI product tag, in the first place.

So the BPI product has a higher ratio of protein to calories and a higher ratio of protein to fat and fat calories, right? Wouldn't that make it MORE nutritious than the ground beef?

No, it would not, as there is more protein in 4 ounces of ground beef than there is in 4 ounces of Soylent Pink, according to your reference.

The nutritional information for the lean beef trimmings is determined through the same process as the information for the regular ground beef. They're both covered by the same regulations for accuracy and content. If either contained false information they'd be in violation of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Are you suggesting that BPI is in violation of this act with their labeling? What evidence would you cite to support this suggestion?


EDITed for protein content.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:43 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:It would seem that, if elastin and collagen are subcomponents of the BPI product, then their relative indigestibility further suggests that, pound for pound, this material would be less nutritious than ground beef without the BPI product. It seems reasonable to presume that the human digestive system would not pull nutrients from these indigestible subcomponents.

EDITed for palatability.

Elastin and collagen are also subcomponents of regular beef. Even in the finest cuts. You'd need to show that the relative levels are different in the lean beef trimmings vs regular beef.

Are there any sources that might provide this analysis?


My best source so far, is your posting

http://beefproductsinc.files.wordpress. ... _chart.jpg

As I can think of no other reason why there would be 10 fewer calories in the BPI product, as compared to the ground beef. Do you think that there is a more likely explanation for the discrepancy?

It would appear as though the ground beef is clearly more nutritious, pound for pound, than the BPI product.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:25 pm

ForestDweller wrote:There are more calories in the ground beef than in the BPI product. Per 4 ounces, there are 90 calories in the BPI product, according to your unsubstantiated label. There are 100 in the ground beef. How does this equate to "no nutritional difference?" I am not following you here, can you clarify?

Normally calories are not counted as "nutrients".

However, in a country where obesity is an issue, having a lower fat content and lower calorie content for the same nutrients and protein would generally count as a good thing.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:28 pm

ForestDweller wrote:If you have evidence of this specific E. coli as a problem in grass-fed organic cattle, I would like to see it.

Check the sources cited at the wikipedia article on E. coli 0157:h7.

It is naturally occurring. It didn't suddenly come into existence the first time a cow ate corn.

It apparently came into existence when one of the bugs was infected by a virus and had new genes introduced that cause it to produce some nasty toxins.

Here's a study where they discuss testing that shows that young cattle have it more than older cows. The testing wasn't specific to feed lots vs open pasture but since cattle aren't taken to feed lots until they are old enough to fatten and slaughter it would suggest the bug is present in the field cattle. It also mentions other animal populations where it exists and those animals never spend time in feed lots.

This particular bug is not a problem for the cows as they don't have receptors for the toxins and don't get sick from them. It is only a problem for us if they get into the meat as a result of processing. That would be an issue for both organic and non-organic cattle.
Last edited by Blacksamwell on Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:29 pm

ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:I sure do have that experience and I'm here to tell you, that I do not know of one cow of any local farmer, dairy or otherwise, that is knee deep in crap.

What does it matter whether they are standing in it or they thrash it all over themselves with their tails? Poop is poop.
ForestDweller wrote:I have never seen that before and I live in rural NH. Have you ever seen a commercial beef feed lot? The particularly dangerous E. Coli strain, comes from feeding cows corn, not grass. You would not see the same E. Coli in the same levels, in a grass-fed cow.

And? How does this provide any evidence regarding the relative nutrition of lean beef trimmings and regular ground beef?


This was a continuance of an aside, and was originally stated to be an aside. Why are you asking for it to equate to evidence regarding relative nutritional value?

I'd love for you to present the evidence you keep claiming you have. Any chance you can delay the asides until after the evidence is presented?

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:39 pm

ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:It would seem that, if elastin and collagen are subcomponents of the BPI product, then their relative indigestibility further suggests that, pound for pound, this material would be less nutritious than ground beef without the BPI product. It seems reasonable to presume that the human digestive system would not pull nutrients from these indigestible subcomponents.

EDITed for palatability.

Elastin and collagen are also subcomponents of regular beef. Even in the finest cuts. You'd need to show that the relative levels are different in the lean beef trimmings vs regular beef.

Are there any sources that might provide this analysis?


My best source so far, is your posting

http://beefproductsinc.files.wordpress. ... _chart.jpg

As I can think of no other reason why there would be 10 fewer calories in the BPI product, as compared to the ground beef. Do you think that there is a more likely explanation for the discrepancy?

Did you notice the different fat contents? Also different protein contents. Both will contribute to different calorie contents.
ForestDweller wrote:It would appear as though the ground beef is clearly more nutritious, pound for pound, than the BPI product.

Clearly? By what measure?

The ground beef is higher in fat and in saturated fat. It has more calories and a greater proportion of calories come from fat. All of these measures would make it less nutritious.

The ground beef has a little more protein and less sodium. These would generally qualify it as better.

Otherwise they have the name iron content. Other sources also note that they have the same level of minerals and vitamins.

So the question is whether the differences noted are meaningful and if there's a net difference in nutritional value.

The differences in protein and sodium are rather small and might be similar to differences found between one cut of meat and the next. Let's call them negligible.

That leaves the differences in fat content and calories. The lean beef trimmings gets 43% of its calories from fat, the ground beef gets 50%. That's pretty close too.

So I guess you can say that they are "different", but maybe not meaningfully. The same differences are likely found in the same grade of cut from different cows. But since the differences don't all stack in the same direction, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that one is better than the other.

But I would guess that this won't stop you from trying.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:24 am

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:It would seem that, if elastin and collagen are subcomponents of the BPI product, then their relative indigestibility further suggests that, pound for pound, this material would be less nutritious than ground beef without the BPI product. It seems reasonable to presume that the human digestive system would not pull nutrients from these indigestible subcomponents.

EDITed for palatability.

Elastin and collagen are also subcomponents of regular beef. Even in the finest cuts. You'd need to show that the relative levels are different in the lean beef trimmings vs regular beef.

Are there any sources that might provide this analysis?


My best source so far, is your posting

http://beefproductsinc.files.wordpress. ... _chart.jpg

As I can think of no other reason why there would be 10 fewer calories in the BPI product, as compared to the ground beef. Do you think that there is a more likely explanation for the discrepancy?

Did you notice the different fat contents? Also different protein contents. Both will contribute to different calorie contents.
Yes I noticed these differences, but they are accounted for in the overall caloric measure, and they do contribute to different calorie contents. In this case, for instance, there are 10 more calories in the non-fat content of the regular ground beef, than in BPI/Soylent.
ForestDweller wrote:It would appear as though the ground beef is clearly more nutritious, pound for pound, than the BPI product.

Clearly? By what measure?
Yes. The measure, is non-fat calories per 4 oz.

The ground beef is higher in fat and in saturated fat. It has more calories and a greater proportion of calories come from fat. All of these measures would make it less nutritious.
The way that I see it, even though there is more fat in ground beef than in the BPI product, the additional caloric content from non-fat in the ground beef, makes it more nutritious.

The ground beef has a little more protein and less sodium. These would generally qualify it as better.
I agree.
Otherwise they have the name iron content. Other sources also note that they have the same level of minerals and vitamins.
"Other sources," you would never let me get away with such a statement. Then again, I am the learner and I do not doubt that you can substantiate this claim. It is not necessary.

So the question is whether the differences noted are meaningful and if there's a net difference in nutritional value.
Okay. The net difference in 4 oz. is 10 calories, and that is 10 calories beyond meaningless.

The differences in protein and sodium are rather small and might be similar to differences found between one cut of meat and the next. Let's call them negligible.
We can agree to disagree on calling this difference negligible. It is 40 calories per pound that we are talking about, here. These are not cuts of meat, they are the conglomerated remains of thousands of cattle carcasses. Cuts of meat implies a butchering process and I think that we are talking about a different process here. I would expect the output to be sufficiently uniform as to meet the caloric content indication on the nutritional content label, in every instance.

That leaves the differences in fat content and calories. The lean beef trimmings gets 43% of its calories from fat, the ground beef gets 50%. That's pretty close too.
Yes it is pretty close.

So I guess you can say that they are "different", but maybe not meaningfully. The same differences are likely found in the same grade of cut from different cows. But since the differences don't all stack in the same direction, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that one is better than the other.
We were speaking toward relative nutritive value. I am comfortable at this point stating that ground beef without the BPI product, is both better than, and more nutritious, than the BPI product. I think that the relative proportion of the mix of BPI product to ground beef, in a final product, would be the determining factor as to whether there was a considerable overall difference in nutritive value.

But I would guess that this won't stop you from trying.


I can let this one go as it is evidently clear, which of the beef products in question holds more nutritive value.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:15 am

Help yourself to whatever conclusion you like.

I don't agree with you and neither do many nutrition experts who have provided their analysis. I believe your reasoning is flawed and that you've failed to present any evidence to support your claims.

Not that there's anything particularly wrong with that. It doesn't make you a bad person. It just means that there's no reason to agree with your claims.
Last edited by Blacksamwell on Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:18 am

ForestDweller wrote:The way that I see it, even though there is more fat in ground beef than in the BPI product, the additional caloric content from non-fat in the ground beef, makes it more nutritious.

Like I said before, you're welcome to any conclusion you like.

However I don't see how or why "more caloric" automatically equals "more nutritious". According to that logic a pound of ground beef with a cup of sugar added would be more nutritious than a pound of ground beef sans sugar. That's absurd.

Although that would be convenient as I do enjoy food items like ice-cream and beer. Unfortunately their high caloric content makes them bad for my health and physique.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:17 am

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:The way that I see it, even though there is more fat in ground beef than in the BPI product, the additional caloric content from non-fat in the ground beef, makes it more nutritious.

Like I said before, you're welcome to any conclusion you like.

However I don't see how or why "more caloric" automatically equals "more nutritious". According to that logic a pound of ground beef with a cup of sugar added would be more nutritious than a pound of ground beef sans sugar. That's absurd.
Well, I won't address the analogy that you have put forward here, but Wikipedia defines nutrition thusly:

"Nutrition (also called nourishment or aliment) is the provision, to cells and organisms, of the materials necessary (in the form of food) to support life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition

If you have a different definition of nutrition, then I would have to re-think my position in terms of that in order to effectively respond to your perspective on this. I am not simply stating "more caloric" - I am stating "more protein caloric." I am willing to review information you may have that speaks toward more protein-caloric content per pound not equating to more "materials necessary to support life" per pound.

Oh why not, regarding your cup of sugar analogy, I would be willing to wager that if you and I were both of equal weight, pushing our equal stones up the same hill, with my having the meat and the cup of sugar as fuel and you with only the meat, well I am afraid that you would be all done in that challenge. I would get the stone further as I would have the benefit of more fuel. It is literally that simple.

I submit that your health and physique are probably not the fault of your ice cream or beer. You are likely already consuming sufficient calories to support your body system whether they come from twinkies, donuts, mosquitoes, poontang or whatever else - the ice cream and beer, are simply over the top and serve your body no further purpose. I struggled with this for awhile until it occurred to me that the take-out lunches that I was buying, simply contained more food than I needed for lunch. In my aversion to wasting the food, I was consuming it all, then I found myself spending hours on the elliptical, wasting my time and losing ground, working off all of these extra calories forced on me by the too-large lunch portions. I began counting calories, an exercise in self-control, using the FDA food pyramid site, while continuing the elliptical work, and very quickly the extra weight dropped away, my back stopped hurting, and my feet stopped hurting. I took in less calories, my body continued to burn calories, and I became lighter as a result of elimination of that fuel. I want my body to last longer. This is not a goal particularly valued in western society, but it is important to me.

This is an aside, but from my personal experience I would not be surprised to find that nothing apart from calories consumed and calories burned matters, in terms of weight loss. Nothing else. It is all about fuel taken in and fuel burned. Work is work. Fuel is fuel. Takes X amount of calories to get that stone up the hill and 1 calorie less, just isn't going to cut it, no matter who you are, or where your calories came from. I quit drinking beer something like 9 months ago. I had arrived at the question, if I wanted to stop drinking, could I? I arbitrarily stopped, as a test of will. It was no issue, though there are downsides (I miss hanging with my drunken friends).


Although that would be convenient as I do enjoy food items like ice-cream and beer. Unfortunately their high caloric content makes them bad for my health and physique.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:32 am

Blacksamwell wrote:Help yourself to whatever conclusion you like.

I don't agree with you and neither do many nutrition experts who have provided their analysis. I believe your reasoning is flawed and that you've failed to present any evidence to support your claims.
What nutrition experts? What analysis? What reasoning, for my math seems correct. These nutrition experts have not provided their analysis here, nor have you. The evidence is the extra 10 non-fat calories in the ground beef, not present in the Soylent Pink. The extra fat also counts, by the way.
Not that there's anything particularly wrong with that. It doesn't make you a bad person. It just means that there's no reason to agree with your claims.

In stating this, you are stating also that there is no reason to agree with the FDA's claim that there are more calories in 4 ounces of ground beef, than there are in the BPA product.

Thank you for pointing out that this does not make me a bad person. You are of course welcome to any opinion of me.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11441
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Major Malfunction » Sat Mar 17, 2012 7:39 am

I like organic food. Sure tastes better than that inorganic stuff.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:24 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:I like organic food. Sure tastes better than that inorganic stuff.


it's all organic chemistry. Of course that does not negate the positive traits of so-called "Organic Food." It is though, absurd to use a general classification to differentiate between foods of that same classification, agreed.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:59 pm

"Meaning and origin of the term

In 1939, Lord Northbourne coined the term organic farming in his book Look to the Land (1940), out of his conception of "the farm as organism," to describe a holistic, ecologically-balanced approach to farming—in contrast to what he called chemical farming, which relied on "imported fertility" and "cannot be self-sufficient nor an organic whole."[12] This is different from the scientific use of the term "organic," to refer to a class of molecules that contain carbon, especially those involved in the chemistry of life. This class of molecules includes many chemicals that would not be used in organic farming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_fo ... f_the_term

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4854
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Austin Harper » Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:17 pm

The Daily Show aired a segment on pink slime last night. I was a bit disappointed that they seemed to just repeat the same stuff as the rest of the news without pointing out that the "pink slime" isn't bad for you, but at least the last line of the piece was, "Pink slime: face it, it's really no worse than the {!#%@} you probably already eat."
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:35 pm

It is edible, but it seems to have lost much of whatever appeal it had, if it ever had any conscious appeal. Last I checked, 3 of 4 BPI plants had shut down. I wonder if the controversy over Pink Slime, has negatively affected red meat sales across the board.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:05 am

Following find another reason why, generally speaking and if one can afford it, organic food is the better choice over conventional.

It is looking like neonicotinoids, pesticides not allowed in organic farming, are what is killing all the bees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/scien ... -find.html

Is there something to this new research? Has anyone got a good look at it, I haven't been able to yet. It was looking like this was the case though, before this French & British research.

One can actively avoid supporting this bee-killing industry With the simple and beautiful act of hand-choosing an organic vegetable over a conventional one, one can affect this situation in a positive way and on a personal level. Sure, that passed-over conventional vegetable might be adequately nutritious, and it might not have been exposed to neonicotinoids at all - it is not so easy to tell. One way to be sure, is to not choose that vegetable, and instead, go for the organic choice. It is less likely that the organic vegetable has been produced using neonicotinoids, therefore it is less likely that your organic food dollars are supporting agricultural practices that research suggests may be negatively affecting bee populations and the subsequent pollination of our food supply.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:51 am

ForestDweller wrote:I wonder if the controversy over Pink Slime, has negatively affected red meat sales across the board.

The prices have gone up.

The lean trimmings product represents a whole lot of cows. I've read figures saying that removing lean beef trimmings from the food supply is the equivalent of removing 1.5 million cattle. All at a time when beef cattle herds are down due to drought.

Seems a shame to see prices increase as a result of hysteria and misinformation. Ultimately the consumer looses out.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29411
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Gord » Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:22 am

Shouldn't hysteria and misinformation make the price drop?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:41 am

Gord wrote:Shouldn't hysteria and misinformation make the price drop?


When Obama was elected, ammo prices went way up, and everyone was still clearing the shelves. So, no, not necessarily.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29411
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Gord » Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:59 am

fromthehills wrote:
Gord wrote:Shouldn't hysteria and misinformation make the price drop?

When Obama was elected, ammo prices went way up, and everyone was still clearing the shelves. So, no, not necessarily.

That's because the hysteria wasn't about ammo, it was about a black man in the white house. I'll bet the price of black men went down.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:22 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:Seems a shame to see prices increase as a result of hysteria and misinformation. Ultimately the consumer looses out.


Still plenty of other uses for that material, as the industry re-tooled to recover these scraps as human food so it can re-tool to identify new markets for it. High end dog food, perhaps.

Perhaps if the true nature of "lean beef trimmings" had been advertised more widely in the first place, then consumers would have voiced greater objection and those initial objections would have been addressed before now. As it is, it seems that fewer consumers are able to accept the product as food, now that they do know what it is. That's just freedom of choice.

I see BPI as a victim of its' own disingenuousness.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4854
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Austin Harper » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:35 pm

What disingenuousness?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:10 pm

Austin Harper wrote:What disingenuousness?


The inference here is that the public has been buying into a product that they weren't fully informed about in the first place. If they had learned more about the origin and processing of the product from someone familiar (such as, BPI), then the current public outcry might have occurred much earlier in the history of this product. Was this due to BPI's deliberately glossing over, or under-advertising certain aspects of the product's production that the public might not find palatable, or that might make the product a tough sell to consumers? That is an open question that one can decide or research for themselves. The fact that it is new information to many, suggests that BPI has been disingenuous with consumers in its' manner of presentation (or lack thereof) of the product to consumers.

Many people find themselves uncomfortable with the Pink Slime product, at this point, though they were okay with it before. Even though it is edible. Many people dislike eating dog as well, even though it is edible. Edible, is only one aspect of palatable.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4854
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Austin Harper » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:35 pm

So you would be fine with lean beef trimmings being used in ground beef as long as the packaging said "contains up to 15% lean beef trimmings" like chicken is often labeled "contains up to 15% chicken broth"?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:46 pm

Austin Harper wrote:So you would be fine with lean beef trimmings being used in ground beef as long as the packaging said "contains up to 15% lean beef trimmings" like chicken is often labeled "contains up to 15% chicken broth"?


I am not seeing how the label that you suggest, is reflective of the Ammonium Hydroxide treatment. Or the internal organs hoof scrapings and connective tissue that are among the product ingredients.

I thought of an excellent use for the Pink Slime - feed it to the cows! It is my working understanding that FDA approves the feeding of cow meat and parts to cows. To conventional cows, of course - not those other, organic cows. So, feeding it to the cows, it would not go completely to waste.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4854
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Austin Harper » Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:09 pm

The ammonium hydroxide treatment is used (and has been used for quite some time) on a wide variety of foods and is entirely safe. The product is not, as you claim, made of internal organs and hooves but in fact is muscle tissue that has been separated from fat and connective tissues. Since the mad cow problems in the '90s, it has been illegal to feed cow products to cattle.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:38 pm

Austin Harper wrote:The ammonium hydroxide treatment is used (and has been used for quite some time) on a wide variety of foods and is entirely safe. The product is not, as you claim, made of internal organs and hooves but in fact is muscle tissue that has been separated from fat and connective tissues. Since the mad cow problems in the '90s, it has been illegal to feed cow products to cattle.


What you say about Ammonium Hydroxide, is true, and I am not suggesting that it is not safe. I am suggesting that people find it objectionable. The BPI product, is, as I claim, made up of parts of internal organs, and hoof flesh of hooves, which I referred to as "hoof scrapings". I would be interested in evidence you may have which suggests that these parts of cows, are not found in the BPI product.

I see that in 2009, the feeding of cow products to cows was finally efffectively banned in the USA - good point. I suppose then, that I have no idea as to what BPI might do now with their product.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:10 pm

Gord wrote:Shouldn't hysteria and misinformation make the price drop?

The hysteria and misinformation removed the equivalent of 1.5 million cows from the food supply (per year). The supply of beef was reduced and therefore the price increased.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:12 pm

ForestDweller wrote:The BPI product, is, as I claim, made up of parts of internal organs, and hoof flesh of hooves, which I referred to as "hoof scrapings".

Please provide a citation for this claim. What's your supporting evidence?

Travis Arp, a graduate student at Colorado State has personally watched the process and according to him...

So lets beset some of the fallacies here:

First: the trimmings are not those suited for pet food. They are the lean trimmings that are removed during the normal fabrication process. Beef subprimals (e.g. strip loins, top butts or sirloins, chuck rolls) have a specification to how much external fat can be present…since not all animals are created equal, some fat must be removed. And when it is, occasionally small pieces of lean are cut off with it. Those small pieces of lean is what this company wants. So they are utilizing trim that is upwards of 80% fat to start the process. This trim is put into large ‘combo’s’ of trim (just like regular highly lean trimmings used for ground beef production).

Second: from the sounds of it, you would think we are picking up scraps off the floor…CRAWLING WITH BACTERIA! Not so much. These combos of fat trimmings must be sampled for E.Coli O157:H7, and fall under USDA-FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service) rules for ZERO tolerance of detection (and after May, that will also include non-O157 stecs). So in actuality, those trimmings used for the process are pretty darn clean.


You can read his blog post, You put WHAT in my burger?
Last edited by Blacksamwell on Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:24 pm

Study shows ‘lean finely textured beef’ improves burger quality

I'm not afraid of lean beef trimmings.

One huge step backwards for mankind
The real issue is not how it will impact one company and their need to shut down three food plants and lay off hundreds of workers. The real loser in this situation is the millions of working Americans who will now be forced to spend more of their hard-earned money to feed themselves and their families. The revolt should come from working people who take to the streets and tell these elitists among us to take their sensationalism to another country. We don’t have time for it here in the good, old United States of America. We are busy producing food to feed a hungry world!


Return to “SKEPTIC Magazine: Letters & Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest