Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
The Oppression of the Meat Industry
"Deborah Terreson" > wrote in message ... > In article > , "Scott Hedrick" > > wrote: > > > > > "Deborah Terreson" > wrote in message > > ... > >> This is what business is afraid of: They don't want the wider general > > public > >> to know the score on how they make what they do - it might actually mean > > the > >> value of their real product - their stock - may go down in price. > >> > >> Turning cows into meat is just a means to the end - the real thing that > >> these corporations make to sell IS the stock. > > > > Business shouldn't be concerned with anything else except as an > > afterthought. The primary reason for a business of any kind to exist, > > including your friendly organic farmer, is to make money. Regardless of > > success in other areas, if a profit is not made, then the business will > > cease to exist. This is elementary school economics. Pride in producing a > > clean product does not buy feed or pay the electric bill. Giving the public > > what it wants, as shown by what they are willing to pay for, does. If the > > public is unconcerned about the quality of the product, there's no reason > > why a business should concern itself with quality. It's not enough to pay > > lip service- if someone talks about wanting quality but still buys crap, > > then their dollars prove that they don't really care about quality. The only > > time a business should concern itself with quality is when the buying public > > makes it clear that they *will not* buy anymore until the quality is > > improved. > > Well there you have it. When the public does not know, how can any producer > say they do not care? *You* know. *I* know. The national news media has shown it. The USDA records talk about it. It isn't the responsibility of the industry or government to throw people to the floor and shove it in people's faces. There's nothing at all being hidden. > Most DO care. *Obviously not*, because they still buy. >They do not know what their options are, Because they choose to be ignorant. or they believe they > cannot change what business does. Then they accept the consequences of their actions. Government and industry are not your mommie. I'm amazed that boycotting a product is > such a novel idea, that it gets overlooked as an option. And *thus* a light bulb appears over your head, as you finally understand what I've been saying. > > > > It's simple- if a business does not concern itself first and foremost with > > making a profit, it will cease to exist and then it cannot provide the > > product. Every product, without exception, follows this rule. *Even > > non-profit organzations do*. After all, if the customers of a non-profit, > > which are the people providing the money, NOT the population intended to be > > served, are not happy to the point where they provide more money than the > > non-profit spends, the non-profit will cease to exist as well. > > > > Try reading Adam Smith. > > I do. I particularly like the part where he mentions that business itself > must be regulated in order for it to not become corrupted by greed. How about the part about profits? How about the part where businesses *should not* engage in charity? > > If the public is buying the product and the company is making a profit, it > > *is* doing its job correctly. > > Until someone gets poisoned. Pay attention: if the public is buying the product and the company is making a profit, the company is doing its job. After all, people are poisoned with tobacco and alcohol, yet the public continues to buy it, which means that the public is willfully buying poison. > > When the public shows that it wants high standards, then that is what they > > will get. The public has shown through its actions that it prefers cheap > > meat over quality meat. Talk is irrelevant- expenditure of food dollars > > counts. > > Expenditures of food dollars is roughly 10% of total costs - half of what it > was 50 years ago and the health situation hasn't been more grim. Obesity and > diabetes skyrocketing. Too much cheap food, and too little education on > nutrition. What's your point? That doesn't have anything to do with *industry*, it has to do with the public being a bunch of lazy, tubby *******s. Once again, your placing your blame on the wrong party. If someone is fat, it's not because of industry, it's because he eats too much and exercises too little. > >> Guess that is too much effort, eh? > > > > A business would be irresponsible to do things that its customers have not > > shown that they want. > > Business doesn't ask. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha! Clearly, you were just looking at the pretty pictures when you were reading Adam Smith. The public tells business that it doesn't want something by not buying it. Let me tell you something. I am in the Nielsen > Homescan Consumer Shopping panel - have been now for over five years. You too? I did that for about a year. >I have recieved communications back from Nielsen, that > they did not want to know what I was purchasing, unless it was something > that was scanned with the hand scanner. Bar codes only. Which is understandable, since that is what their data collection system is designed to collect, since that sort of data is what Nielsen's customers want. *Once again* you are helping me prove my point by providing an example of a company wanting to provide what its customers want. *You* are not a customer of Nielsen. >I do, yet > I cannot even add my purchases to a national tally of what consumers DO > want. You've just clearly demonstrated that you don't have a clue as to what Nielsen does. Nielsen isn't in the business of "showing what people want"- Nielsen is in the business of providing specific types of data to its customers. >You cannot say that most don't ca Yes I can, and I have, and the data shows it. >Most don't know they have better > options. Most are too lazy to expend the effort to find out. It's easier to sit back and take it. It's not *words* that show what the public wants with their food dollars, it's *expenditures*, and the actual purchases show that the public is happy with what it's getting. All of your whining doesn't change that. *Deeds, not words* show that you are wrong. > >> This is selling to the lowest common denominator and it says much that > > they > >> do so. > > > > It says that the company recognizes its customers wants and provides it at a > > price the public is willing to pay. That means the company is behaving > > exactly as it should. > > > >> Oh yeah, that's real decent. > > > > It sure it. It means the public gets what it shows through its food dollars > > it wants, and it means the company will remain in business to continue to > > serve the public because it makes a profit. This means that, not only will > > the company continue to employ people, but will help others indirectly > > because of all the middlemen and service people that remain employed. It's > > real decent that the business makes money by giving the public what it > > wants. > > So what's the problem with saying that the meat they choose to buy for dirt > cheap, is covered in the shit that is an inevitable result in wanting it > inexpensively? There's no problem at all, since the public has demonstrated through its purchases that crappy meat is acceptable. > > > >> > >> What a bunch of paragons of virtue and SUCH high Christian values > > > > Exactly. Why would a business want to screw the public or its owners by > > doing something other than what the public shows it wants? Providing the > > product demanded at the price demanded is the height of virtue. You seem to > > be under the impression that making a profit and serving the public is evil. > > Hiding behing ignorance is no virtue. What a shame the public insists on doing so. Why do these businesses scream bloody > blue murder when someone points out the result of the cheap meat? Because the industry is getting blamed instead of the correct party. > > > > - isn't > >> that what America is all about now > > > > Actually, it's what America's *always* been about. The business of America > > *is* business. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in history class. > > Oh no! We have a mandate to be more Christian! What, you and the mouse in your pocket? Our Founding Fathers were > Christian! And Jewish, and Deist, and atheist... >It's not enough to beat up on homosexuals. Enjoy your hobby. > > > >> Oh, but I forgot, somehow business is exempt from behaving as if they are > > a > >> part of this society and practicising it's values. > > > > What business are you talking about? The meat business in this country is > > clearly practicing this country's values, since the society it is a part of > > continues to patronize it. > > So why the problem about letting people know what it's end result, > qualitatively, is? Nothing, and the information is readily available to the public. *Get off your ass and look*. > > Yes it is, and clearly acceptable to the public. It's also on the food *you* > > buy. What's your point? > > I don't eat shit laden meat. If you eat meat, then you eat shit. > Do explain how the two largest beef recalls in US history have come > from such a cleanly and carefully run system? Note what you said- there were *recalls*, which clearly shows that the system *does* work. > > You've been using scare tactics thus far, you might consider the truth in > > the future. > > It's not a scare tactic to tell the public what they are getting is the > inevitable end result of wanting cheap beef: Shit laden meat, that is > irradiated to cover for the fact that it's slaughtered at top speed and > there is a higher risk of fecal contamination because of how fast the lines > move. OK, you *and lots of other people have told them*. What's your point? > It's a scare tactic because someone, usually a business concern, stands to > lose money. It's only money, after all. Certainly less important than a > human life. How kind of you to think so. The industry certainly has done nothing to promote that viewpoint. THe industry cares about providing its customers with what they want. > >>There's shit in industrially slaughtered beef, > > > > There's shit in *all* slaughtered beef. What's your point? > > There's fecal contamination only when the GI tract is nicked as it is being > gutted. Sorry, I don't seem to see your verifiable lab results to support your claim. Cows make shit, walk in shit, eat and drink shit. > > Which *still* gets shit in your food, and also does a disservice to the vast > > majority of the public, since it would improperly raise the cost of meat, > > and the public has shown *with its food dollars* that they don't care. > > > They don't KNOW. They don't want to know. The ignorance is willful, since the information is freely available. I won't blame industry because the public *refuses* to find out. For example, folks who thought the government should act as mommy and daddy decided that patients need to know more about their medicines. Thus, the Patient Package Insert was born. Sounds like a great idea- but empirical data shows that the vast majority of the public, especially those taking a drug for the first time, *throw them away*. Millions of dollars spent on something the public *said* it wanted, but which accomplished little more than raising the price of medicine. You can talk all you want, but reality does not match what you say. > > Doing what you suggest would require a business to provide a *disservice* to > the > > public. What do you have against your fellow man, that you would force > > *your* choices on them? > > No forcing them to NOT buy shit laden beef Why would you want the industry to start using force on the public? What have you got against the public? Nobody is *forced* to buy meat by the industry. , just letting them know that the > cheap stuff, produced in factories at top speed, has a higher likelyhood of > fecal contamination, as a by-product of the process of making it. All they have to do is watch the news. > > > >> If business is doing something that scares people when they find out, > > maybe > >> it should stop. > > > > Or not. Maybe it should stop when enough people have shown, through their > > actual purchasing habits and not a lot of handwaving rhetoric, that it's > > important to the customers that the business change. Unless and until the > > buying public shows that failure to change will affect profits, a business > > *should* continue to do what it's been doing. Otherwise, it's a disservice > > to the public. > > Again, how is the public going to know *They get off their asses and find out*. The data is freely available. > Again, the attitude of 'well, this is what they want' is as much of a 'don't > bother you can't make a change anyways..' Nonsense. That you can't tell the difference says a whole lot about *you* and your agenda. > Sorry, I'm not going to back down. I haven't asked you to do so. Watching you try to avoid the truth has become entertaining. > >> Too bad if their stocks lose value. > > > > Which clearly isn't happening, since the public is still buying what the > > company is providing. *Clearly* the meat industry is providing what the > > general public wants, since they keep buying it, and thus the industry would > > be *wrong* to change what it does. > > Again, does the public know? The data is available. Unlike yourself, I believe in freedom, and I don't believe the public should be hit over the head. If people prefer being willfully ignorant, then so be it. For myself, I prefer to do my homework. Unlike yourself, I choose not to force my beliefs on others. > When I did not know, I did not care. After I > did, How did you find out? Did some meat industry turncoat slip you documents out the back door of the slaughterhouse? Or did you avail yourself of the freely available public information? I just did a search of Google using the phrase "bad meat" and 4,950,000 results appeared. Number 2 seems to be about a movie by that name. >I changed and found better, safer, local sources - and I pay less. *Good for you*. Why are you trying to force your choice on others? > > > >>It's only money, after all. > > > > Which shows that the industry is doing *exactly what the people want*. You > > clearly don't have a clue that *businesses do what the public demand with > > their dollars*. You seem to be under the impression that the meat-eating > > public is some poor victim, forced to jump when the industry tells them. If > > that were the case, then what has the meat industry done to *you personally* > > for failure to comply? Has someone from the Beef Council threatened to beat > > you up because you choose not to buy what you claim is their tainted meat? > > This is in the Bush Administration's Department of Agriculture's own > guidelines. That's nice- now how about answering the questions I *asked*, which was, what has the meat industry done to *you personally* for not complying with what you seem to think are their orders? > Fecal contamination is permissible, as long as there aren't chunks of fibre > visible. Sounds like a realistic plan. >The gamma ray irridation, the 'cold pasteurization' is SUPPOSED to > take care of e-coli or listeria. Usually it does. >Hence we had the largest beef recalls in > history on Dubya's watch. Once again, you show the industry is working safely. > How long do you tolerate such on the edge practices before they really screw > up and kill folks? *As long as the public shows that it DOES NOT CARE about those practices by buying their meat.* > > Did Winn-Dixie sue you for not buying their meat special of the week? What > > has the industry done to you, personally, for not complying with what you > > seem to think is the industry's orders? Please provide verifiable details, > > such as a medical or police report or a court order. > > I hear Winn Dixie ain't doing so hot. Which is nice, but I see that you didn't answer my question. It's pretty obvious that the meat industry has *no power whatsoever* to force to public to buy anything. *Obviously* the public buys what it does because *the public* wants to. >Maybe if they sold organic only I have never seen Winn-Dixie or any other grocery store sell any food that was not organic. > > Clearly, then, if the meat industry has done nothing to you for failure to > > comply, it has no power to do anything, and is entirely dependent on the > > buying public. You would insist that the industry tail is wagging the public > > dog, yet you can't provide any verifiable evidence of that. > > The dog doesn't know it's tail is sitting on the railroad tracks and the > train's coming. Why do you insist on blaming the industry for the public's behavior? > >> > *All food, without exception, is organic*. > >> > >> Want to bet? > > > > Sure. I'll take a sample of *your* meat and a sample grabbed off the local > > supermarket shelf and take them both to a chemist. Bet they both come back > > organic. > > > >>Tell me where partially hydrogenated vegetable >shortening occurs naturally > > in the environment. How >about Olestra? Got any Sucrylose? > > > > *All of which are organic compounds*. > > In inorganic combinations that the human body Please show me a verifiable, peer-reviewed chemistry book or periodical that uses the phrase "inorganic combinations". Your handwaving and disinformation doesn't change the verifiable *fact* that *all* food is organic. The human body can only digest organic materials. > >> Perhaps propylene glycol grows in trees? > > > > Perhaps it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an organic > > compound. > > It's a man made compound, processed from petrochemicals. Which are *also* organic compounds. If you're going to discuss chemistry, do your homework. I've taken my chemistry sequence, and aced the American Chemical Society exam given in my class. > Does that mean that gasoline is safe to drink? Enjoy. Try a spritz of lime. >It's an organic compound. Yes, it is. What's your point? Are you suggesting that the meat industry wants people to drink gasoline? Please provide your independently verifiable evidence. > Volatile even, but hey, so's Bacardi 151. Which is also a poison. > >> This is all considered food. > > > > Yes, it is, and it's clear the buying public *wants* to eat it, because they > > willingly buy it and eat it. What's your point? > > Again, does the public *want* to eat it Unless you can provide evidence that industry thugs are physically holding people down and forcing it in their mouths, the *verifiable evidence* is YES. > or do they not KNOW they are eating > it? Perhaps if they are eating it in their sleep. > > *If they still buy it, then they do not care.* > > They do not KNOW. They do not CARE. Why does business get all like a bunch of shrinking > violets when their processes and practices are pointed out? In some cases, the processes are proprietary, and exposing them would be theft. However, I can't think of any specific to the meat industry. What have they > got to hide? As far as the quality of the public, not only is nothing being hidden, it's freely available. Even my podunk public library has material on the meat industry. > > Feel free to provide *verifiable* laboratory tests. Without such verifiable > > information, you're just *assuming* there's no contamination. Willful > > ignorance and handwaving won't change the facts. > > You find me a kosher abbatoir or a small slaughterhouse No- *you* are claiming that your meat is shit-free. Let's see those lab results from *your* source! You complain about others not knowing, why do you insist on being *willfully* ignorant? Why are you hiding from the truth? > > But not shit-free. > > The shit is when you slit the throat and the blood shoots out the neck. In > the case of the pigs, they'd start to barrel-roll across the ground So, then, the industry lets its pigs roll around on the ground? Or are you saying that the industry intentionally brings dirt into some floor space to allow the pigs to roll around? > > And I've personally *done it* with pigs, so I have > > personal experience whereof I speak. > > Ummmmm.... Done it with pigs? What it? Slaughtered them, of course. Once again, it's clear you're having difficulty following the conversation. Perhaps you should stop being rude and start properly trimming your quotes. >Now you're making me nervous here. The facts tend to do that. > >> This is what business doesn't do. Take. The. Time. > > > > Because. The. Public. Shows. It. Doesn't. Care. > > Again, the public does not know. Again, the public is willfully ignorant, since the data is freely available. > > > I can use lots of periods > > and capital letters like a netkook as well. > > Don't lose it here with namecalling. Stop using poor punctuation to fill in the gaps in your facts. > >> What store is this, selling filet mignon less than 4 bucks per .lb? > > > > My local store is Hitchcock's Foodway, a small local chain. They don't often > > carry filet mignon, but I've seen it there occasionally at less than $4 per > > pound. Gosh, it's amazing what can happen when you work with *facts* instead > > of scare tactics. > > Is that in the South? Yes. >What you > bought would be over 14 bucks a pound if you bought it in northern New > England. Kinda pricey up here.. That also is a fact. The fact that it sells shows that the public buys. > > Had goat BBQ once- roadside vendor. He missed a chunk of bone, but otherwise > > it was pretty good stuff. > > I've never had goat that didn't have bones in it - I've tried it Jamaican, > with the hot jerk sauces and Somalian style, with spices - it's somewhat > like Indian food. Haven't found any good Somalian recipes, but I did speak to someone who served there and liked the food. > >> Try and run a New Zealand spring lamb past her. It's very sweet and > > tender. > > > > Might try that- after hiding the label, first > > Homemade mint chutney's best. I believe I will look for a recipe for that. She's on her latest diet, "Volumetrics". There's a constant turnover of diet books at our yard sales. She's looking for the magic comfy word instead of doing what it takes- which makes her an ideal example of the meat-buying public. > >> Ermmm... nope. > > > > Let's see the verifiable lab results. > > Okay, let's! > > The largest recalls in US history of industrial beef are all the lab results > I need to see. Please provide a verifiable reference, showing where *your prefered source* is listed. Otherwise, you haven't provided the data showing that your meat is shit-free. Why are you hiding from the truth? > Small slaughterhouses and abbatoirs, esp. the kosher ones, don't produce > fecally contaminated meat that needs to be irradiated to make it safe. Let's see your verifiable data to that effect. > > > > I used to work in a 7-11. Night shift. Had this magnificent young specimen > > of vegan womanhood come in several times a night to buy a Double Gulp of > > coffee. I mean, 3-4 times a night she'd buy the HALF GALLON cup. Since she > > was sooooo easy on the eyes, I watched her often enough to notice that she > > always put exactly 24 non-dairy creamers. > > Shouldn't it have been that she got a huge cup of creamer and put coffee in > it? The coffee gods must have liked her, because the Double Gulp cup wasn't intended for coffee, but it never spilled on her. > I know only 1 vegan who's not ever used an animal by-product. One of the > radical vegan girls I ran into ate lots of Jello. Ermmm. She was so > obnoxious, I didn't bother to inform her where it came from. There's alot of > faddisness in it. I have a book on revenge that suggests inviting a militant vegan over for dinner. After they've eaten the vegan dinner you prepared, you show them the can of tuna that you put in the food. > > Anyone who says you cannot be healthy on a vegan diet has not met this young > > woman. She was clearly in *very good* health, if you know what I mean. > > Yeah, I do.. > Last time > my husband cooked for a bunch of vegan kids, they all but faceplanted when > they shut down as their bodies digested dinner. Damndest thing I've seen. > These hyperactive Berkshire granola munchers who'd been like shaken BB's in > a tin can all day, stopped for about an hour and a half. Hmmm...gotta try that on my own rugrats. > Had another > one, a customer, whose four year old son, who she was feeding the same, was > chewing the woodwork - windowsills - in their house. Hmmm. I chewed my crib- not for the fiber, but because I wanted out! > Ahhh. the beauty... of beauty. Back in the early days of Fox, there was a show called "Key West". One of the best scenes in television history occured when the lead character, recently from New Jersey, saw everyone gathered on the beach at sunset. "What are you looking at?" "The sunset." "Well, yeah, but what are you *looking* at?" "The sunset." Took the guy a while to understand that the crowd was, in fact, looking at the *sunset*, just because it was there. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NPR: "Meat Industry Turns Florida's Feral Hogs Into Prime Pork" | General Cooking | |||
Beer Industry | Beer | |||
The woman's an industry | General Cooking | |||
Vegan Diet did NOT Kill Florida Child - a Bizarre Case of Oppression | Vegan | |||
Future of Canadian Meat Industry Hangs On Paternity Test | General Cooking |