I like to think of spam as the modern version of eating nose-to-tail. Ignorant foodies and "locavores" (an altogether bullshit concept, but that's another conversation) like to harp on AMR meat, pink slime, and spam, but those products help us get as close to 100% utilization of a dead animal as possible. That meat is still good and edible. Also, ethically, I have more of a problem with killing an animal and not using every possible bit (hoof gelatin, glue, spam, blood, intestinal sausage casings) than I do with making sure a cow or pig has a beautiful pasture and organic feed-- and then only eating the "nice" bits. When you kill an animal, you have a responsibility to use every possible part of it. Processed meat is just one part of that.
Also, spam is fucking delicious. Musubi, spamwiches, spamwaffles with a drizzle of maple syrup. It's a tin of tasty responsibility, the best kind of responsibility!
The parts you don't use are still going back to the ecosystem, so I'm not sure 100% utilization is morally or environmentally necessary.
I remain unconvinced that pink slime and other highly processed products are free of health concerns or that we're qualified technologically to state that unequivocally at this point, call me a skeptic.
The parts you don't use are still going back to the ecosystem, so I'm not sure 100% utilization is morally or environmentally necessary.
Wrong. The carbon investment in feeding or transporting an animal means that any component that you do not productively use is essentially carbon you have wastefully inserted into the environment. Wasting animal products is a big contributor to global warming. Furthermore, the methods of industrial animal waste disposal (incinerators, cesspools) are either carbon net positive (producing CO2 at a rate greater than natural digestion or decomposition), pollute the environment, or both.
Futhermore, the "dangers" or spam and pink slime are nitrate curing and ammonia, respectively. We know nitrates are heart-healthy, so use them sparingly. It's not like anyone here is living on a diet of hot dogs, spam, and cured bacon. Your body itself produces literally tremendous amounts of ammonia during normal liver processes and aminase activity, and we are equipped with the Urea Cycle to handle it. Digestive ammonia is a natural part of being alive--it's concentrated ammonia or gaseous ammonia that are a hazard. And for that, we have the FDA, dedicated to making sure that no one is putting enough ammonia in your meat to etch the enamel off of your teeth.
You can feel free to be a skeptic, but I'd largely say that your skepticism is due to either willful ignorance or a larger misunderstanding of the science behind our food.
I remain unconvinced that pink slime and other highly processed products are free of health concerns or that we're qualified technologically to state that unequivocally at this point, call me a skeptic.
So "natural," "unprocessed" foods are free of health concerns? Or have a significantly different rate of concern?
The parts you don't use are still going back to the ecosystem, so I'm not sure 100% utilization is morally or environmentally necessary.
Wrong. The carbon investment in feeding or transporting an animal means that any component that you do not productively use is essentially carbon you have wastefully inserted into the environment. Wasting animal products is a big contributor to global warming. Furthermore, the methods of industrial animal waste disposal (incinerators, cesspools) are either carbon net positive (producing CO2 at a rate greater than natural digestion or decomposition), pollute the environment, or both.
Futhermore, the "dangers" or spam and pink slime are nitrate curing and ammonia, respectively. We know nitrates are heart-healthy, so use them sparingly. It's not like anyone here is living on a diet of hot dogs, spam, and cured bacon. Your body itself produces literally tremendous amounts of ammonia during normal liver processes and aminase activity, and we are equipped with the Urea Cycle to handle it. Digestive ammonia is a natural part of being alive--it's concentrated ammonia or gaseous ammonia that are a hazard. And for that, we have the FDA, dedicated to making sure that no one is putting enough ammonia in your meat to etch the enamel off of your teeth.
You can feel free to be a skeptic, but I'd largely say that your skepticism is due to either willful ignorance or a larger misunderstanding of the science behind our food.
I take it you work in the industry or a related industry.
I remain unconvinced that pink slime and other highly processed products are free of health concerns or that we're qualified technologically to state that unequivocally at this point, call me a skeptic.
So "natural," "unprocessed" foods are free of health concerns? Or have a significantly different rate of concern?
I'm not a biologist nor an organic chemist, but given my track record with unintended side effects of pharmaceuticals (my daughter and I have both almost died from drug side effects within the past 5 years) I tend to be super conservative about what I consider safe to put in my body. Manmade compounds get a much hairier eyeball than naturally occuring foodstuffs.
I take it you work in the industry or a related industry.
Actually, I'm a molecular biology student with an eye on healthcare or synthetic biology as a career. Nice strawman, though!
I remain unconvinced that pink slime and other highly processed products are free of health concerns or that we're qualified technologically to state that unequivocally at this point, call me a skeptic.
So "natural," "unprocessed" foods are free of health concerns? Or have a significantly different rate of concern?
I'm not a biologist nor an organic chemist, but given my track record with unintended side effects of pharmaceuticals (my daughter and I have both almost died from drug side effects within the past 5 years) I tend to be super conservative about what I consider safe to put in my body. Manmade compounds get a much hairier eyeball than naturally occuring foodstuffs.
The parts you don't use are still going back to the ecosystem, so I'm not sure 100% utilization is morally or environmentally necessary.
Wrong. The carbon investment in feeding or transporting an animal means that any component that you do not productively use is essentially carbon you have wastefully inserted into the environment. Wasting animal products is a big contributor to global warming. Furthermore, the methods of industrial animal waste disposal (incinerators, cesspools) are either carbon net positive (producing CO2 at a rate greater than natural digestion or decomposition), pollute the environment, or both.
Futhermore, the "dangers" or spam and pink slime are nitrate curing and ammonia, respectively. We know nitrates are heart-healthy, so use them sparingly. It's not like anyone here is living on a diet of hot dogs, spam, and cured bacon. Your body itself produces literally tremendous amounts of ammonia during normal liver processes and aminase activity, and we are equipped with the Urea Cycle to handle it. Digestive ammonia is a natural part of being alive--it's concentrated ammonia or gaseous ammonia that are a hazard. And for that, we have the FDA, dedicated to making sure that no one is putting enough ammonia in your meat to etch the enamel off of your teeth.
You can feel free to be a skeptic, but I'd largely say that your skepticism is due to either willful ignorance or a larger misunderstanding of the science behind our food.
I take it you work in the industry or a related industry.
WuB and I are both Real Life Scientist Types - specifically biologists. I am food safety microbiologist, and have been for the past 7 years. I also cure meat as a hobby, an endeavor to which I apply my scientific knowledge.
I work with food chemists, regularly attend professional conferences on food science and technology, and know lots and lots of people in the industry. My job is as a regulatory scientist, so I know the rules and standards that the FDA and USDA apply to food. Ensuring compliance is part of my job.
On top of that, food safety and the "natural" food industry is a pet topic of mine, one where I've done extensive research of peer-reviewed publications. I sometimes engage in public awareness campaigns. I make a habit of debunking food safety myths using well-researched publications and my own expertise.
One of the primary reasons I am interested in taking the "natural" food industry to task is that there is a widespread public perception that "natural" food is somehow safer, better, or more nutritious. That giant corporate factory food is full of evil things that will kill your children.
What most people don't know is that the "natural" food industry is every bit the money-grubbing anti-regulation organization that any other large group is. They manufacture a product, and want to make money off of you. They do so by indirectly making unsupported and specious claims that create that perception in your mind. Then they fight any and all attempts to legislate or regulate their product and quash the collection and dissemination of valuable information related to the safety of their product.
Fresh produce is the primary vector of foodborne illness in the US. You're safer eating raw ground beef. This is literally true.
There is no valid scientific evidence indicating that "natural" food is significantly different from a public health perspective than is "conventional" food - except that "natural" food is slightly more often associated with bacterial contamination.
And since you talked about nitrates specifically, check this shit out:
Which makes perfect sense. Ever look closely at a package of "uncured" bacon? And it says "no added nitrite or nitrate except for that occurring naturally in sea salt and celery powder?" Yeah, celery is the single food source with the largest dietary nitrate content. In fact, all leafy greens are heavy in nitrates.
Uncured products are cured - but because they're not using an actual nitrate or nitrite salt, they don't have to regulate the amount they use, or even declare it on the label. It can be called "natural flavor." You can be eating a higher dose of residual nitrate in so-called "uncured" bacon than you could in conventionally-cured bacon. The label might not even declare it.
And that is one reason - among many - that the "natural" food market is snake oil bullshit.
I take it you work in the industry or a related industry.
Actually, I'm a molecular biology student with an eye on healthcare or synthetic biology as a career. Nice strawman, though!
Oh you're a student. That's worse.
This is the most alarmingly ignorant statement I've seen on these forums in a while. Really? "You're learning legitimate information about the topic at hand? I WILL IGNORE YOU NOW."
Believe it or not, public health scientists don't want you to die. Really. There's no conspiracy, and we have experts for a reason.
I take it you work in the industry or a related industry.
Actually, I'm a molecular biology student with an eye on healthcare or synthetic biology as a career. Nice strawman, though!
Um, how is that a strawman?
"Industry shill" is a pretty common attack on people who actually know what they're talking about. But you're right, that was probably an improper use of "strawman." He's still trying to dodge forming a logical rebuttal to my argument, though.
I take it you work in the industry or a related industry.
Actually, I'm a molecular biology student with an eye on healthcare or synthetic biology as a career. Nice strawman, though!
Oh you're a student. That's worse.
I don't see how. I know the science behind all of this stuff. Cells and systems are my dojo, son.
And anyway, what Pete said. I'm a bit startled that after I tell you that one of my life aspirations is to keep people from dying, you are going to ignore something I say on the topic of health. I might not be finished with the degree grind yet, but it's not as if a mathematics student doesn't know calculus until they finish their undergrad.
I'd say that if you are angry about a lack of credibility w.r.t. public opinion in your fields, blame Monsanto, not hippies.
No, I'll blame the parties responsible for the problems. Monsanto are dickbags. The guy who owns Stonyfield Organic? Also a dickbag. And the guy who runs Whole Foods? Dangerous dickbag.
I'd say that if you are angry about a lack of credibility w.r.t. public opinion in your fields, blame Monsanto, not hippies.
No, I'll blame the parties responsible for the problems. Monsanto are dickbags. The guy who owns Stonyfield Organic? Also a dickbag. And the guy who runs Whole Foods? Dangerous dickbag.
One party is responsible for the others having any influence.
I'd say that if you are angry about a lack of credibility w.r.t. public opinion in your fields, blame Monsanto, not hippies.
No, I'll blame the parties responsible for the problems. Monsanto are dickbags. The guy who owns Stonyfield Organic? Also a dickbag. And the guy who runs Whole Foods? Dangerous dickbag.
One party is responsible for the others having any influence.
That's not entirely true. I've found articles from ~1920 wherein purveyors of raw milk denied the necessity of pasteurization to prevent illness and decried the newly-developed Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. They claim that the raw milk is better because it's more "natural," and talk about the problems of big business farms.
There's a relevant XKCD about students, it was posted just today in another thread actually, so I won't rehash it.
You know, it feels really fucking great to have all the knowledge, work, and the three years of toil and devotion I have spent in pursuit of a science I love trivialized with a reference to a fucking stick-figure webcomic. Thanks, asshole.
Randall Munroe is a smart, cool, funny guy. He's right about quite a lot of things, but he's not the Organ Through Which The Science God Speaks. His job is making geeks laugh with smart jokes, not dictating absolute truths.
Don't care how long ago the conversation stopped, if it ever did. Saw someone mention SPAM, so just gonna pop in here and say that I love the shit out of SPAM.
There's a relevant XKCD about students, it was posted just today in another thread actually, so I won't rehash it.
You know, it feels really fucking great to have all the knowledge, work, and the three years of toil and devotion I have spent in pursuit of a science I love trivialized with a reference to a fucking stick-figure webcomic. Thanks, asshole.
Randall Munroe is a smart, cool, funny guy. He's right about quite a lot of things, but he's not the Organ Through Which The Science God Speaks. His job is making geeks laugh with smart jokes, not dictating absolute truths.
You're lending him credibility right now.
Part of science is persuasion and application. Sadly college doesn't teach you not to be smug. It'd be great if it did because a LOT of science majors need that course.
I'd say that if you are angry about a lack of credibility w.r.t. public opinion in your fields, blame Monsanto, not hippies.
No, I'll blame the parties responsible for the problems. Monsanto are dickbags. The guy who owns Stonyfield Organic? Also a dickbag. And the guy who runs Whole Foods? Dangerous dickbag.
One party is responsible for the others having any influence.
That's not entirely true. I've found articles from ~1920 wherein purveyors of raw milk denied the necessity of pasteurization to prevent illness and decried the newly-developed Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. They claim that the raw milk is better because it's more "natural," and talk about the problems of big business farms.
In those days, Monsanto was a chemical company.
Hippie bullshit goes back a long way.
Sure but Monsanto gave them credibility they didn't have before by providing a far reaching and nebulous evil for them to rail and/or "defend" against.
I'd say that if you are angry about a lack of credibility w.r.t. public opinion in your fields, blame Monsanto, not hippies.
No, I'll blame the parties responsible for the problems. Monsanto are dickbags. The guy who owns Stonyfield Organic? Also a dickbag. And the guy who runs Whole Foods? Dangerous dickbag.
One party is responsible for the others having any influence.
That's not entirely true. I've found articles from ~1920 wherein purveyors of raw milk denied the necessity of pasteurization to prevent illness and decried the newly-developed Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. They claim that the raw milk is better because it's more "natural," and talk about the problems of big business farms.
In those days, Monsanto was a chemical company.
Hippie bullshit goes back a long way.
Sure but Monsanto gave them credibility they didn't have before by providing a far reaching and nebulous evil for them to rail and/or "defend" against.
...
The whole point is that the sentiment existed long before Monsanto did anything "evil." The whole "small farmers are heroes" rhetoric predates that. Monsanto gave them more ammo, but the market would exist today with or without their influence.
And I think you're confusing "smug" with "knowing what we're talking about." The reason scientists usually sound like they're lecturing to people is because we have to - there is often so much information underlying a point that there's no other way to convey it.
I'd say that if you are angry about a lack of credibility w.r.t. public opinion in your fields, blame Monsanto, not hippies.
No, I'll blame the parties responsible for the problems. Monsanto are dickbags. The guy who owns Stonyfield Organic? Also a dickbag. And the guy who runs Whole Foods? Dangerous dickbag.
One party is responsible for the others having any influence.
That's not entirely true. I've found articles from ~1920 wherein purveyors of raw milk denied the necessity of pasteurization to prevent illness and decried the newly-developed Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. They claim that the raw milk is better because it's more "natural," and talk about the problems of big business farms.
In those days, Monsanto was a chemical company.
Hippie bullshit goes back a long way.
Sure but Monsanto gave them credibility they didn't have before by providing a far reaching and nebulous evil for them to rail and/or "defend" against.
...
The whole point is that the sentiment existed long before Monsanto did anything "evil." The whole "small farmers are heroes" rhetoric predates that. Monsanto gave them more ammo, but the market would exist today with or without their influence.
And I think you're confusing "smug" with "knowing what we're talking about." The reason scientists usually sound like they're lecturing to people is because we have to - there is often so much information underlying a point that there's no other way to convey it.
You can convey knowledge while remaining socially aware. WUB is failing pretty hard at that in this thread. I know this is a forum full of geeks and nerds, and I'm not a social butterfly myself, but c'mon.
I'm not arguing that fear of progress didn't exist before Monsanto. I think that "gave them ammo" is a massive understatement.
Part of science is persuasion and application. Sadly college doesn't teach you not to be smug. It'd be great if it did because a LOT of science majors need that course.
Honestly, Pete and I detailed the reasons your argument was illogical and poorly reasoned, and we provided the evidence necessary to demonstrate the validity of our points. I don't see how smugness comes into it, really. Refutation and acceptance is a huge part of science, moreso than persuasion. Evolution didn't dominate creation when Charles Darwin proposed it because he was a skilled orator. It dominated because he showed the opposition that they were wrong.
Indeed. We just deconstructed your argument. Nobody's panties got wadded until you dismissed WuB's knowledge on the topic at hand - which is more extensive than yours.
And sometimes, there's no socially "nice" way to give someone the truth or deconstruct an argument. Sometimes, we have to tell someone that they're just wrong.
Part of science is persuasion and application. Sadly college doesn't teach you not to be smug. It'd be great if it did because a LOT of science majors need that course.
Honestly, Pete and I detailed the reasons your argument was illogical and poorly reasoned, and we provided the evidence necessary to demonstrate the validity of our points. I don't see how smugness comes into it, really. Refutation and acceptance is a huge part of science, moreso than persuasion. Evolution didn't dominate creation when Charles Darwin proposed it because he was a skilled orator. It dominated because he showed the opposition that they were wrong.
So your argument is that being a dick is irrelevant to the scientific process, including publishing and peer review? Good luck with that.
I don't think there was much to deconstruct, which you can use to indict my argument, sure. I said I'm not confident that the fields of molecular biology and organic chemistry are mature enough that we can state unequivocally that pink slime is perfectly safe for consumption.
You can in turn argue for what current evidence demonstrates. I can't refute it.
That doesn't mean I have to agree to eat it. I wasn't trying to dismiss your knowledge. I was only arguing that it's not persuasive enough for me to consume chemically treated meat.
I also admitted my bias. I was almost killed by a rare complication of medication. A handful of years later, my daughter was almost killed by a separate rare complication of a different medication (practically undocumented at the time.) That sort of thing drives my skepticism. We don't know what we don't know.
And yes, that's so open ended that it's useless for debate.
I'd say that if you are angry about a lack of credibility w.r.t. public opinion in your fields, blame Monsanto, not hippies.
No, I'll blame the parties responsible for the problems. Monsanto are dickbags. The guy who owns Stonyfield Organic? Also a dickbag. And the guy who runs Whole Foods? Dangerous dickbag.
One party is responsible for the others having any influence.
That's not entirely true. I've found articles from ~1920 wherein purveyors of raw milk denied the necessity of pasteurization to prevent illness and decried the newly-developed Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. They claim that the raw milk is better because it's more "natural," and talk about the problems of big business farms.
In those days, Monsanto was a chemical company.
Hippie bullshit goes back a long way.
Sure but Monsanto gave them credibility they didn't have before by providing a far reaching and nebulous evil for them to rail and/or "defend" against.
...
The whole point is that the sentiment existed long before Monsanto did anything "evil." The whole "small farmers are heroes" rhetoric predates that. Monsanto gave them more ammo, but the market would exist today with or without their influence.
And I think you're confusing "smug" with "knowing what we're talking about." The reason scientists usually sound like they're lecturing to people is because we have to - there is often so much information underlying a point that there's no other way to convey it.
You can convey knowledge while remaining socially aware. WUB is failing pretty hard at that in this thread. I know this is a forum full of geeks and nerds, and I'm not a social butterfly myself, but c'mon.
I'm not arguing that fear of progress didn't exist before Monsanto. I think that "gave them ammo" is a massive understatement.
A conveyance of knowledge dos not have to be covered with side-notes on the social importance of tangentially related issues. People with social skills just say what they want to say without timid wording and qualifying statements. If you want to talk about something else, talk about it, but don't pretend to be arguing science.
Comments
Also, spam is fucking delicious. Musubi, spamwiches, spamwaffles with a drizzle of maple syrup. It's a tin of tasty responsibility, the best kind of responsibility!
I remain unconvinced that pink slime and other highly processed products are free of health concerns or that we're qualified technologically to state that unequivocally at this point, call me a skeptic.
Futhermore, the "dangers" or spam and pink slime are nitrate curing and ammonia, respectively. We know nitrates are heart-healthy, so use them sparingly. It's not like anyone here is living on a diet of hot dogs, spam, and cured bacon. Your body itself produces literally tremendous amounts of ammonia during normal liver processes and aminase activity, and we are equipped with the Urea Cycle to handle it. Digestive ammonia is a natural part of being alive--it's concentrated ammonia or gaseous ammonia that are a hazard. And for that, we have the FDA, dedicated to making sure that no one is putting enough ammonia in your meat to etch the enamel off of your teeth.
You can feel free to be a skeptic, but I'd largely say that your skepticism is due to either willful ignorance or a larger misunderstanding of the science behind our food.
I work with food chemists, regularly attend professional conferences on food science and technology, and know lots and lots of people in the industry. My job is as a regulatory scientist, so I know the rules and standards that the FDA and USDA apply to food. Ensuring compliance is part of my job.
On top of that, food safety and the "natural" food industry is a pet topic of mine, one where I've done extensive research of peer-reviewed publications. I sometimes engage in public awareness campaigns. I make a habit of debunking food safety myths using well-researched publications and my own expertise.
One of the primary reasons I am interested in taking the "natural" food industry to task is that there is a widespread public perception that "natural" food is somehow safer, better, or more nutritious. That giant corporate factory food is full of evil things that will kill your children.
What most people don't know is that the "natural" food industry is every bit the money-grubbing anti-regulation organization that any other large group is. They manufacture a product, and want to make money off of you. They do so by indirectly making unsupported and specious claims that create that perception in your mind. Then they fight any and all attempts to legislate or regulate their product and quash the collection and dissemination of valuable information related to the safety of their product.
Fresh produce is the primary vector of foodborne illness in the US. You're safer eating raw ground beef. This is literally true.
There is no valid scientific evidence indicating that "natural" food is significantly different from a public health perspective than is "conventional" food - except that "natural" food is slightly more often associated with bacterial contamination.
And since you talked about nitrates specifically, check this shit out:
There is generally no significant difference in the residual nitrate and nitrite contents of so-called "uncured" meat products and conventionally cured meat products.
Which makes perfect sense. Ever look closely at a package of "uncured" bacon? And it says "no added nitrite or nitrate except for that occurring naturally in sea salt and celery powder?" Yeah, celery is the single food source with the largest dietary nitrate content. In fact, all leafy greens are heavy in nitrates.
Uncured products are cured - but because they're not using an actual nitrate or nitrite salt, they don't have to regulate the amount they use, or even declare it on the label. It can be called "natural flavor." You can be eating a higher dose of residual nitrate in so-called "uncured" bacon than you could in conventionally-cured bacon. The label might not even declare it.
And that is one reason - among many - that the "natural" food market is snake oil bullshit. This is the most alarmingly ignorant statement I've seen on these forums in a while. Really? "You're learning legitimate information about the topic at hand? I WILL IGNORE YOU NOW."
Believe it or not, public health scientists don't want you to die. Really. There's no conspiracy, and we have experts for a reason.
And anyway, what Pete said. I'm a bit startled that after I tell you that one of my life aspirations is to keep people from dying, you are going to ignore something I say on the topic of health. I might not be finished with the degree grind yet, but it's not as if a mathematics student doesn't know calculus until they finish their undergrad.
I don't have any illusions that "Organic" food is the pinnacle of food safety.
I'm really not interested in an earnest debate on this topic today. I'm debated out this week.
In those days, Monsanto was a chemical company.
Hippie bullshit goes back a long way.
Randall Munroe is a smart, cool, funny guy. He's right about quite a lot of things, but he's not the Organ Through Which The Science God Speaks. His job is making geeks laugh with smart jokes, not dictating absolute truths.
Part of science is persuasion and application. Sadly college doesn't teach you not to be smug. It'd be great if it did because a LOT of science majors need that course.
The whole point is that the sentiment existed long before Monsanto did anything "evil." The whole "small farmers are heroes" rhetoric predates that. Monsanto gave them more ammo, but the market would exist today with or without their influence.
And I think you're confusing "smug" with "knowing what we're talking about." The reason scientists usually sound like they're lecturing to people is because we have to - there is often so much information underlying a point that there's no other way to convey it.
I'm not arguing that fear of progress didn't exist before Monsanto. I think that "gave them ammo" is a massive understatement.
And sometimes, there's no socially "nice" way to give someone the truth or deconstruct an argument. Sometimes, we have to tell someone that they're just wrong.
You can in turn argue for what current evidence demonstrates. I can't refute it.
That doesn't mean I have to agree to eat it. I wasn't trying to dismiss your knowledge. I was only arguing that it's not persuasive enough for me to consume chemically treated meat.
I also admitted my bias. I was almost killed by a rare complication of medication. A handful of years later, my daughter was almost killed by a separate rare complication of a different medication (practically undocumented at the time.) That sort of thing drives my skepticism. We don't know what we don't know.
And yes, that's so open ended that it's useless for debate.