Skip to comments.
New Agriculture bill would allow sale of uninspected chickens
Times Argus ^
| 05/04/07
| Times Argus
Posted on 05/04/2007 1:06:30 PM PDT by TheBethsterNH
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: Calvin Locke
Welcome to Peoples Rep. of China, Calvin...tis’ a strange set of things happening...diseases and food-borne illness stuff that was irradicated centuries ago are becoming “new” again. And where are the food police? Still bickering over Oreo’s and soda?
21
posted on
05/04/2007 2:05:39 PM PDT
by
TheBethsterNH
(...in Northern Massachusetts, formerly known as New Hampshire.)
To: kinoxi
In this modern world we live in there are virtually no natural selection processes left. Perhaps, for the sake of humanity, we should let the stupid die.
I'm not saying food producers should be able to just produce dirty ill prepared food. I just have very little faith in gov't inspectors.
22
posted on
05/04/2007 2:06:33 PM PDT
by
chaos_5
To: chaos_5
I don’t have a lot of faith in them either. I have people that I care about who eat. I want as much of a buffer as I can get.
23
posted on
05/04/2007 2:09:24 PM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: TheBethsterNH
Still bickering over Oreos and soda? Don't forget the popcorn made in coconut oil.
To: kinoxi
You misunderstand how chickens are produced. Large factory operations are rarely inspected. See the threads on how few inspectors there are and how few inspections are done.
Small family farmers may not be chicken producers solely. Instead it may be one component of a diversified farm. With no anonymity his operation depends on his ability to produce a good product.
If Pilgrims Pride recalls 4 million pounds of turkey around thanksgiving it is a temporary drop in the quarterly profits. But, nothing changes as there is no specific identity as to where the problem arose. Same for spinach and peanut butter etc.
BUT, if farmer John brings a tainted chicken to market the grocer will never buy from him again. He is out of business.
I would, and do, eat chicken from just such sources as they are far better tasting to begin with. Also, there is a infinitely smaller chance of contamination than a factory operation.
Don’t trust a label. Also, under WTO rules there is the regulation of ‘equivalency’. That means if another country has an inspection process it must be recognized as the same as our USDA. So, the chicken you bought at Wal Mart might have come from China but still gets the USDA seal even though no US inspector has ever seen the package.
Bon Apetit.
25
posted on
05/04/2007 3:07:45 PM PDT
by
IrishCatholic
(No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
To: IrishCatholic
I read and understand what you are saying. I don’t agree with setting an arbitrary threshold below which no inspection takes place.
26
posted on
05/04/2007 3:10:25 PM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: kinoxi
That is the point. There is a false sense of security in the label. The number is moot. The smaller local producer has more incentive to provide safe food than the international conglomerate that will hide the problem. When the famous turkey recall at Thanksgiving happened it was released as 400,000 pounds. Two weeks later it was reissued at 4 MILLION pounds. But by then the news had dropped the story. The corporation made the decision to do this to save money and PR. Those are the people you prefer handling your food safety? The Feds knew before hand about the problems with the spinach and the peanut butter. They also knew the limited number of actual inspections taking place.
If you want a buffer it is time to break the USDA inspections altogether and reform it with simplified inspection laws and a BOATLOAD more inspectors- Starting with imports.
27
posted on
05/04/2007 4:01:07 PM PDT
by
IrishCatholic
(No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
To: IrishCatholic
I don’t see the alternative to inspectors for the US food supply. Your assertion that small businesses do it better is questionable.
28
posted on
05/04/2007 4:07:21 PM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: kinoxi
No, read it again.
I didn’t call for the elimination of inspections but the reform of inspections by breaking the system and rebuilding it with many MORE inspectors. I want MORE inspections.
As for the local small businesses can do it better what is your question? I already indicated if a small business provides a tainted product they will go out of business. If a large one does then it simply is a dip in profits. Schwans Ice Cream is a good example. So was Pilgrim’s Pride turkey I used as an example. If you think it is questionable support your statement and we can discuss the point.
29
posted on
05/04/2007 4:27:02 PM PDT
by
IrishCatholic
(No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
To: IrishCatholic
I think we agree on the concept. Neither of us will dictate the details though.
30
posted on
05/04/2007 4:30:28 PM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: kinoxi
You got that right. It is strictly big money and lobbyists.
31
posted on
05/04/2007 5:05:04 PM PDT
by
IrishCatholic
(No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson