Author Topic: Beefmonia  (Read 2400 times)

Loundry

  • Guest
Beefmonia
« on: December 31, 2009, 12:21:23 PM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

It was the segment of "Food, Inc." that disturbed Steve the most: beef made safe through soaking it in ammonia.

Gross.  Just gross.  Reading through this article makes me think of Beefmonia as Soylent Yellow.

Offline Jmolinari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1717
    • Email
Re: Beefmonia
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2009, 01:22:09 PM »
I wonder if irradiation would be better than ammonia. Not that i want to eat that crap, but i wonder if it would be safer.

Offline AndyBoy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 788
    • Email
Re: Beefmonia
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2009, 02:37:21 PM »
That reminds me of the Food Lion episode a few years ago that 60 Minutes did where one of their stores soaked their past expiration date chickens in clorine or amonia to get another couple of days on them and then when they were beyond that they barbequed them so no one would notice the smell. Haven't shopped at a Food Lion since that story although they never were my favorite place to shop for food anyway.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 04:45:17 PM by AndyBoy »

Offline The_Scientist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 531
  • $750 as is, you pay the towing
    • Email
Re: Beefmonia
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2009, 03:33:38 PM »
Irradiation would make a lot of sense in that it is fast, effective and safe.  Unfortunately the public is phobic about anything associated with radiation.  Europeans have lumped it into the "frankenfood" catch-all. 

It all goes back to the contradictions of our food supply.  We demand food that is both cheap and safe.  It is already cheaper and safer than ever, but no one is satisfied, and all it takes for public outcry is one incident like an E. coli outbreak.  Producers will go out of business if they set their standards too high and drive up costs, but they risk getting sued into oblivion if they cut too many corners.  Government is supposed to ensure safety, but God help anyone who suggests hiring more bureaucrats and raising taxes to pay them.
"Crayons taste like purple" - Tardy the Turtle

Offline Jmolinari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1717
    • Email
Re: Beefmonia
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2009, 04:03:29 PM »
Yeah, i never understood the phobia against irradiated meat. I wish all chicken were irradiated so i wouldn't have to be paranoid about it touching anything while i cook.

geonuc

  • Guest
Re: Beefmonia
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2009, 04:58:39 PM »
Irradiation is the way to go. Ammonia? Ewww.

Offline Jmolinari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1717
    • Email
Re: Beefmonia
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2009, 05:08:37 PM »
I can't imagine that if people KNEW about the ammonia they would be OK with it, rather than irradiation.

Loundry

  • Guest
Re: Beefmonia
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2010, 10:33:34 AM »
It all goes back to the contradictions of our food supply.  We demand food that is both cheap and safe.  It is already cheaper and safer than ever, but no one is satisfied, and all it takes for public outcry is one incident like an E. coli outbreak.  Producers will go out of business if they set their standards too high and drive up costs, but they risk getting sued into oblivion if they cut too many corners.

I'm very ambivalent on the issue.  The notion of "real" food that isn't made with factories and ammonia and irradiation is chock full of feel-goods, and the industrialized food system, on the other side, feels wrong.  But moving our food system to one just like that is the functional equivalent of a holocaust through starvation, which is (duh) wrong.  This is why the notion of "real" food will lie solely in the realm of moneyed, snobby foodies and the isolated rural poor of the third world (who are consistently romanticized by moneyed, snobby foodies).

I have had complete strangers walk up to be in Publix and declare, with outrage, their discovery of a different price on meat which will save them ten cents.  It's always said under the assumed premise that the grocery store is actively conniving to rook people out of their money.  It blows my mind because it's so far outside of the way I think about food.  I don't mind paying for quality if I have the money and the price/performance ratio scales up proportionally.  I especially don't mind paying more if it comes from a feel-good farm.  Other people say, "chicken is chicken" and dig for the lowest price.  I'm not saying one way is better than the other -- I'm just commenting on the difference in preference.

Happy New Year!

 

Powered by EzPortal
anything
anything
anything
anything