Knowing Your Local Farmers

Photo by Watershed Post

Meat recalls... I get bulletins almost every day from FSIS (the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service) about meat recalls. It's disgusting. This month, Cargill recalled 29,000 pounds, (more than 14 tons) of ground beef as a salmonella outbreak sickened dozens of people in seven US states. 

I follow a blog about permaculture written by a medical doctor serving in the US military, and he also writes for AgriTrue.com, where he posted some interesting comments about beef recalls.

"First, this is a lot of meat. I wondered how many steers (or old dairy cows) it takes to make 14 tons of ground beef. This is not such a simple question to answer. Was the beef made from mostly old dairy cows, which would be used almost entirely for ground beef, or was the beef from large-breed, healthy steers, which would be used for steaks, roasts, and other cuts, with a much smaller portion going into ground beef production? Let’s for arguments sake pick a weight number somewhere in the middle of the two realms… 500 lbs. This would mean that it would take 56 animals to produce 14 tons of ground meat.

Unfortunately, this recall pales in comparison to the 71,500 tons of beef recalled in 2008. Using our math, that would be over 280,000 animals “wasted”.  

 

I also thought about how these types of recalls are really a product of large scale agriculture. Is there anything inherently wrong with large scale agriculture? Well, I don’t know. I do know that there are a lot of problems that arise from the practices associated with it. I know that there is a lot of waste. I know that there is a lot of environmental damage. I know that the product being produced is typically far inferior in flavor and nutrition. I know that when a mistake is made, that mistake is proportionately as large as the corporation behind it. So, yeah, maybe there is something inherently wrong with large scale agriculture.

Now, I also had to admit that there can be contamination and illness issues from small, local producers. However, these issues are going to be significantly smaller. They will affect substantially fewer people. In addition, when it is a smaller operation, fewer mistakes are made. This is just logical. When you are only processing five animals from your farm, you will have much greater attention to detail. Your mind won’t start to drift and daydream because you are doing something new the whole time. You will not be lulled into autopilot as you do the same thing over and over again. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens on the factory floors of the large animal processing facilities. Of course I understand that the small scale beef producer rarely processes his own meat, but the point is that smaller is usually safer."

His point is well taken by me. I buy beef from a man who slaughters only half a dozen beef a year. I know how he raises them, and I know how he amends the soil that grows the grasses they eat. I don't much like the processing facility he uses, but it's the only one for many, many miles around. (The USDA inspector has a permanent office there.) They make as much money from the non-meaty parts (offal, hides, hooves, etc.) sold to outside buyers as they do processing the meats for local farmers.

This leads me into our drought conditions and the price of feed for CAFO beef, which are mostly grain-fed, but that's for another post. 

Indentured Politicians - What's in it for Them??

I came across an interesting term recently, new to me but maybe not to you. It really explains a LOT! The term is "Indentured Politicians". Does that need any explanation? LOL.

But just in case it needs explanation, "indentured politicians" are those who "owe favors" to the big contributors to their election campaigns, and the politicians return the "favor" by voting in favor those contributors when new laws (and other regulatory federal legislation) come up for votes, rather than voting the requirements of the population they are charged to represent. I'm posting my thoughts about this here because I believe it explains why the regulatory agencies for our food systems have gone bonkers.

When it takes millions of dollars (or sometimes billions of dollars depending on the office sought) to be successful in a political campaign, is it any wonder why big corporations see an advantage to finance a candidate who will favor the corporation's interests in future legislation?

One interesting question I have, is why a candidate will spend millions of dollars campaigning for a position that pays far less than they spend to get there? What else is in it for them? The current salary (2011-2012) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. House Representatives are elected for a 2 year term, and Senate representatives for 6 years.

In order for a member of the House of Congress to qualify for a pension, they would have to be elected 3 times, for a total 6 year payout of $1,044,000, which is far less total salary than what they spent to get it. A Senator only has to serve 1 term (6 years) to qualify for a pension; same pay for 1 Senate term of 6 years that a Congressional Representative gets for 3 terms (6 years, $1,044,000), far less than either spent to get there.

So, where's the payoff for election to federal office, when you consider cost to get there versus salary once there? It certainly IS NOT in the salary, and probably not even in Employee Benefits, although the overall "esteem" of the Office no doubt strokes their ego. That STILL doesn't cut it in the money balance.

• In a complex system of calculations, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.
• During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
• From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year. ($3,000 of 1855 dollars would be worth: $78,947.37 in 2012)

Please note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. (80% of the current pay of $174,000 is $139,200. I could live on that!)

President's Salary
Effective January 1, 2001, the annual salary of the president of the United States was increased to $400,000 per year, including a $50,000 expense allowance. Please note that the Presidential salary doubled in 2001.

The increase was approved as part of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-58), passed in the closing days of the 106th Congress.

"Sec. 644. (a) Increase in Annual Compensation.--Section 102 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking '$200,000' and inserting '$400,000'. (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect at noon on January 20, 2001."

Vice President's Salary
The salary of the vice president is currently (for 2011) $230,700. (BTW, who IS our VP [yes, I do know his name] and what does he do? I never see his name in the news.)

Presidential Retirement and Maintenance
Under the Former Presidents Act, each former president is paid a lifetime, taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive federal department -- $199,700 in 2011 -- the same annual salary paid to secretaries of the Cabinet agencies.

Each former president and vice president may also take advantage of funds allocated by Congress to help facilitate their transition to private life. These funds are used to provide suitable office space, staff compensation, communications services, and printing and postage associated with the transition. As an example, Congress authorized a total of $1.5 million for the transition expenses of outgoing president George H.W. Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle.

So, where IS the payoff? It sure doesn't appear to favor Joe Citizen who voted for Representation in Congress.

"Pink Slime" in Hamburger, what about Chicken???

This is mechanically separated chicken, an invention of the late 20th century. This particular paste, chicken -- is the main ingredient in chicken nuggets, chicken hot dogs, chicken bologna, and an ingredient in things like pepperoni, salami, jerky etc, etc. Mechanically separated chicken is also treated with ammonia for sterilization purposes, just as is Pink Slime. If you see the words 'finely textured' before the name of the meat, this is what you are eating...

Someone figured out in the 1960′s that meat processors can eke out a few more percent of profit from chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows by scraping the bones 100% clean of meat. This is done by machines, not humans, by passing bones leftover after the initial cutting through a high pressure sieve. The paste you see in the picture above is the result.

The industry calls this method AMR – Advanced Meat Recovery.

The definition of "meat" was amended in December 1994 to include any "meat" product that is produced by advanced meat/bone separation machinery. "This meat is comparable in appearance, texture, and composition to meat trimmings and similar meat products derived by hand." This machinery separates meat from bone by scraping, shaving, or pressing the meat from the bone without breaking or grinding the bone. Product produced by advanced meat recovery (AMR) machinery can be labeled using terms associated with hand-deboned product (e.g., "pork trimmings" and "ground pork").

Mechanically Separated Meat (MSM)
Mechanically separated meat is a paste-like and batter-like meat product produced by forcing bones, with attached edible meat, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue.

Mechanically Separated Poultry (MSP)
Mechanically separated poultry is a paste-like and batter-like poultry product produced by forcing bones, with attached edible tissue, through a sieve or similar device under high pressure to separate bone from the edible tissue. Mechanically separated poultry has been used in poultry products since the late 1960's. In 1995, a final rule on mechanically separated poultry said it was safe and could be used without restrictions. However, it must be labeled as "mechanically separated chicken or turkey" in the product's ingredients statement. 

The final rule became effective November 4, 1996. Hot dogs can contain any amount of mechanically separated chicken or turkey.
Source

Are you really comfortable now with the meats the supermarkets are selling, or those in the fast food drive-throughs? Actually I do not blame them in general... they just buy a product they are told is edible (and aren't we all gullible?), and sell it to us. I blame the USDA and FSIS for allowing the corporate pressures and financial contributions of BigAg to determine what we eat.

It CAN Happen Here

There is a long history of populations saying, "It can't happen here..." and then it does. There is a new food bill pending in New Zealand that takes away the human "right" to grow food and save seeds, and instead makes it a government-authorized "privilege" that can be revoked on any pretext.

I've heard for years about the freedom hazards of adopting Codex Alimentarius, which is a world-wide attempt at regulating foods, vitamins and OTC medicines/herbal medicines, and now even water. Codex is what's behind the move to take supplements off the shelves in the US and make it necessary to get a doctor's prescription for vitamins.

The spin on Codex is food safety, but I believe it is more about control pushed by BigAg, BigPharma, and BigBusiness in general. For sure, food safety is a major concern to all of us, but that phrase is used to push the buttons on an uninformed public to get legislation passed. We'll pass almost any ridiculous Law if it guarantees food safety, even with a great but hidden expense to our freedom to choose.

I get frequent email updates from the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS), along with updates from CMS.gov and and every week we move closer to full acceptance and implementation of Codex here in the US.

Here are 2 quotes from the article I read about the New Zealand Bill: 

"I read that the bill is being brought in because of the WTO [World Trade Organisation], which of course has the US FDA behind it, and of course that is influenced by big business (Monsanto and other players). It looks like this NZ food bill will pave the way to reduce the plant diversity and small owner operations in New Zealand, for example by way of controlling the legality of seed saving and trading/barter/giving away; all will be potentially illegal. The best website to read about the problems with the new bill is http://nzfoodsecurity.org".

"- The Government has created this bill to keep in line with its World Trade Organisation obligations under an international scheme called Codex Alimentarius (“Food Book”). So it has to pass this bill in one form or another." (emphasis mine)

Already in the US, new regulations about cleaning seeds (Multi-million dollar special equipment now required for each seed type) has put many non-GMO seed sellers out of business.

I just downloaded the 252 page Codex bulletin on milk. It will take a while to read and decipher because many regs are based on mandates listed elsewhere on Codex, rather than in the brochure. Typical legalese! I suspect I will find the USDA push against raw milk has a foundation somewhere in Codex. JMHO.

Slow Cookers and the Danger Zone

My new slow cooker

I have a new slow cooker, and it is lousy. It overcooks, scorches and burns. At first I just thought I had a cheap cooker, but then I began to hear my friends voicing the same concerns. It appears the Powers That Be have decided they know more about what is right for me than I do. The old slow cooker I had for years finally died and I had to buy a new one. They are all the same except for looks and control gadgetry, right? Well the answer is Yes... and No. 

Yes, the new models all work just about the same... and No, they do NOT work like the old ones! They get much hotter, to the point of abusing the food in them.

Every person who has ever packed picnic food, or who has canned food at home, or made cured meats knows there is a DANGER ZONE in food for safety. That danger zone is between 40ºF and 140ºF,  because it is within that temperature range that the pathogens proliferate. (Bacteria that cause disease are called pathogens; not all bacteria are pathogens however. When certain pathogens enter the food supply, they can cause foodborne illness.) That's why our refrigerators are designed to keep foods chilled below 40ºF (or frozen to 0ºF or below). Pathogens will still grow at low temps, just very slowly. Cooked foods need to reach at least 140ºF to kill any pathogens in them, and kept at 140ºF or warmer after being cooked, OR chilled to below 40ºF.

Water is pasteurized at ~150ºF and food is pasteurized at ~160ºF. Note that pasteurized means the destruction of all bacteria that may be harmful to health (pathogens). There are two primary methods of pasteurization: the liquid can be heated to 145ºF and held there for at least thirty minutes, or the liquid can be flash pasteurized at 161ºF  for a minimum of 16 seconds. After pasteurization, bacteria can still appear. It is important that foods be safely handled and stored at every step of the supply process from animal, fruit or vegetable to stomach. In most cases, after food is pasteurized it should be refrigerated.

After pasteurization, bacteria can still appear. It is important that foods be safely handled and stored at every step of the supply process from animal, fruit or vegetable to stomach. In most cases, after food is pasteurized it should be refrigerated. Keep cold foods cold. Keep hot foods hot.

Fish is cooked at 125º-140ºF; beef is cooked at 145º-170ºF; pork is cooked at 160º-170ºF and chicken is cooked at 165º-180ºF. According to the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the recommended minimum temperatures, to kill off potentially harmful bacteria are:

* Beef, veal, and lamb steaks, roasts and chops: 145ºF

* All cuts of pork: 160ºF

* Ground beef, veal and lamb: 160ºF

* All poultry: 165ºF

* When reheating cooked food, heat to a minimum internal temperature of 165ºF.

My old slow-cooker

The older slow cookers generally had a temp range on the low setting of around 185ºF, which was acceptable even if a bit high for slowly cooking foods over a long time. Newer slow cookers generally heat to something over 200ºF on the low setting, and over 300ºF on the high setting. I couldn't find the average temp for the "keep warm" setting, but my new slow cooker simmers with tiny bubbles on "warm". There is a thread on one of the forums I read about the newer slow cookers. NO ONE is happy with them. They now cook with higher temps that overcook and sometimes burn the food.

I decided to check out the heat range in my new cooker by filling it 2/3 full with warm water (115ºF) and see what it actually does. I started it on HIGH, as I would do for food. Note, times are from the beginning, or from the previous change in temperature setting, NOT from the previous reading.

Initial water temp: 115ºF
Set Temp Control to HIGH
After 1 hour: 160ºF
After 1½ hours: 175ºF
After 2 hours: 200ºF

After 3 hours: Boiling, 212ºF
Reduced Temp Control to LOW
One hour later: 200ºF
Two hours later: 200ºF
Three hours later: 200ºF.
Reduced Temp Control to KEEP WARM
One hour later: 175ºF
Two hours later: 175ºF
Three hours later: 175ºF

I am going to let it cool down overnight, and start again set to WARM tomorrow. I need to know if 175ºF is the temp it will heat to initially after setting just to WARM, or if that's the temp a cooked food will cool down to and then stay there to keep warm.

My, my... how interesting (and possibly dangerous)! I started my slow cooker on KEEP WARM, with the cooled water from last night, now @ 75ºF.

One hour later: 100ºF
Two and Three hours later: 125ºF
One more hour: about 150ºF, and a bit higher (165ºF) as the heat cycled on.
Then I turned the control to LOW
In one hour, it went to 175ºF
In another hour, it went to 180ºF
In another hour, it jumped to 200ºF, and stayed there all night.

Here are my conclusions:
1. Using the HIGH setting is clearly too high, and overcooks.
2. Starting on LOW with something already lukewarm still cooks it too hot to suit me, although it takes almost 2 hours to get to 200º. It will maintain 200º as long as it is turned on.
3. Starting a refrigerator-temp meat on KEEP WARM has the meat in the DANGER ZONE (40ºF - 140ºF) for far too long, over 4 hours. But then it keeps it between 150º and 170º.

So, what seems safe to me now, is to begin with a heated liquid (over 140º) and perhaps browning any meat before putting it in the warm liquid in my slow cooker, and setting it to Keep Warm, where it will stay in the 150º-170ºF range. I will be satisfied (but not happy that it's not like my old one), and feel my foods are safe and not overcooked or burned by doing it this way.

Research shows the common causes of food poisoning in the home are generally due to unsanitary conditions, and leaving cooked foods or raw fish and meat at room temperatures too long. There are occasionally reports of food poisoning from undercooking foods, but no data linking between those undercooked foods and a slow cooker!

At any rate, the manufacturers have determined that making the slow cookers cook hotter is in our best interests. (It probably IS the best option for my sister!) However, any idiot can still turn a slow cooker OFF before food is fully cooked. What's next... a "hot" slow cooker that will not turn off in less than 8 hours, or not even allow us to unplug them??