Fear sells news.
Duh. If people would pay attention, there would be no risk to any of this. Sometimes when I go to dinner parties I am shocked at the recklessness of some cooks habits. When people are too stupid to properly and safely feed themselves, the society is finished.
Why would eating the improper diet for humans become more appealing?
Wonder if it has anything to do with using illegal aliens in the low paying part of the meat industry.
I think half the food we eat is really poison.
We pay a little more for Amish or Mennonite raised chicken. They take pride in their work and my father (who was contracted to inspect their plants by the State of Minnesota) told me their standards were far cleaner than what the law required.
Thank you Obama!
Not particularly surprising. Most people have one or more antibiotic resistant bacteria already living inside them. Here is what people need to know:
1) A normal person has between 300-1000 different kinds of bacteria living in their gut. But just 30-40 different kinds occupy almost all the space as big populations. There are also a huge number of viruses that vastly outnumber the bacteria. Most of them are called “bacteriophages”, which means that they attack bacteria, not human cells. They help keep the bacteria in check.
2) When a person is sick, or exposed to radiation, or takes antibiotics, some poisonous chemicals, or other things, it can upset the balance of bacteria in the gut, with some populations reduced, and others increased.
3) When a bacteria, any bacteria, becomes resistant to antibiotics, it gives it a huge advantage when the person takes antibiotics. Vast numbers of its competitors are wiped out, so that bacteria can have a population explosion.
4) While other bacteria kept an antibiotic resistant bacteria down, it could not produce enough toxic waste to harm its human host. But with them out of the way, and its population exploding, it produces far more toxic waste than the human can deal with.
5) For many years it was thought that the way to fight infections like this was to use bacteriophages. But only recently, scientists have learned that bacteria can become resistant to bacteriophages even faster than they can to antibiotics. So though they will still use bacteriophages, they only do so under very controlled situations, and in combination with antibiotics.
6) So the bottom line is to not overuse antibiotics, with the idea of keeping a healthy and balanced intestinal flora. One alternative that is being proposed is to take a large sample of flora from a healthy person and transplant it to the gut of a person with a bad flora, to try and reestablish a balanced culture of bacteria.
keep
Nope, makes me want either raise my own beef or go hunting.
Squirrel and rabbit are good this time of year.
Freshly killed free range chicken is better than anything in the store.
If you ask around, it’s pretty easy to go in halves with a hand raised pig.
Plenty of options, no reason to do anything drastic like giving up the omnivore diet we were created to eat.
That's probably the intended outcome of the study. These studies are NEVER funded without some kind of political agenda attached. I consider ALL such studies to be worthless BS. In two months there will be another telling us how healthy 2-3 portions of meat a day are. BS. I'll eat what I want, when i want because I like it.
Does our tax money go to the “Translational Genomics Research Institute” loonies?
It sounds like it. To keep our money rolling in to them, they have to invent such crap.
So they tested a grand total of 26 stores in 5 cities and declared we now know how much of US meat has bacteria?
Anybody have a link to the actual study? If I’m doing my math right, picking 26 items out of a population of 230,000(# grocery stores in the US) gives an error of +/- 19% at a 95% confidence level.
I think my stats professor would have a fit.
As for testing 136 samples of meat it’s a little better, +/- 8.4% using a really large number for the population... but then there are other issues I have questions about, did they adjust their sample sizes based on what products are most available? I.E. take more samples of beef than pork(I’m assuming there is more beef in the US than pork)? I’m also concerned with there being only 5 cities. And how many different producers of meat are represented here?
Way too many questions about this study to believe it from a news article.
Anyways, I cook properly and wash my hands so I guess I shouldn’t really be this concerned. ;)
Sounds like the new scare-fad of the day.
http://www.infowars.com/meat-glue/
Meat Glue.. How Restaurants fabricate Fillet Mignons and Chicken Nuggets.