VICTORY against 'Pink slime' beef...for now

'Pink slime' beef company suspends operations at three of four plants

The three plants used to produce 900,000 lbs of pink slime per day

DAILY MAIL
March 26, 2012

The company that makes 'pink slime' suspended operations Monday at three of four plants where the beef ingredient is made, saying officials would work to address recent public concern about the product.

Beef Products Inc. will suspend operations at plants in Amarillo, Texas; Garden City, Kansas; and Waterloo, Iowa, according to Craig Letch, the company's director of food safety and quality assurance.

The company's plant at its Dakota Dunes, South Dakota, headquarters will continue operations.

Beef Products, Inc has decided to suspend operations at three of is four plants after an uproar over the use of 'pink slime', the nickname for boneless beef trimmings that are treated with ammonia and used as filler, Image Reuters.

'We feel like when people can start to understand the truth and reality then our business will come back,' Letch said.

'It's 100 percent beef.'

Federal regulators say the ammonia-treated filler, known in the industry as 'lean, finely textured beef,' meets food safety standards.

But critics say the product could be unsafe and is an unappetizing example of industrialized food production.

The low-cost ingredient is made from fatty bits of meat left over from other cuts. The bits are heated and spun to remove most of the fat. The lean mix then is compressed into blocks for use in ground meat.

The product is exposed to ammonium hydroxide gas to kill bacteria, such as E. coli and salmonella.

Spot the difference? The three factories used to churn out 900,000 lbs of pink slime a day. The burger on the right uses the filler, the one on left does not, Image AP

The result is a product that is as much as 97 percent lean beef, Letch said.

The product has been used for years, but it wasn't until earlier this month that social media suddenly exploded with worry and an online petition seeking its ouster from schools garnered hundreds of thousands of supporters.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture decided to allow school districts to stop using it and some retail chains have pulled products containing it from their shelves.

About 200 employees at each of the three plants will get full salary and benefits for 60 days during the suspension, Letch said.

The plant in Amarillo produced about 200,000 pounds a day, while the Kansas and Iowa plants each produced about 350,000 pounds a day.

The ignored benefits of eating grass-fed beef

Harvard red meat study ignores health benefits of grass-fed meat

Jonathan Benson
Natural News
Wednesday, March 21, 2012

(NaturalNews) A recent study published by researchers from Harvard Medical School (HMC) claims that eating "red meat" can lead to an early death caused by heart problems or cancer. But just like most other studies conducted on meat, this one, which was published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine, does not differentiate between red meat from feedlot cattle and red meat from grass-fed cattle, which are two entirely different foods with very different effects on health.

For their study, HMC researchers evaluated more than 120,000 people, including 37,698 men between 1986 and 2008, and 83,644 women between 1980 and 2008. Among these groupings, those individuals that were given an added portion of unprocessed red meat as part of their daily dietary regimen were found to be ten percent more likely to die from cancer, 18 percent more likely to die from cardiovascular disease, and 13 percent more likely to simply die early.

Similarly, those who ate an added serving of processed meat every day were found to be 16 percent more likely to die from cancer, 21 percent more likely to die from heart problems, and 20 percent more likely to die early.

"We found that a higher intake of red meat was associated with a significantly elevated risk of total, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality," wrote the researchers in their study. "This association was observed for unprocessed and processed red meat with a relatively greater risk for processed red meat."

Grain-fed, feedlot meat kills - but grass-fed, pastured meat can help support good health

But is all red meat really the same? If you listen only to public health officials and many conventional scientists, the answer to this question is yes. But if you take a look at the science behind grass-fed meat and its clear compositional and nutritional differences compared to grain-fed, feedlot meat, you will see that making blanket statements about the dangers of "red meat" is utter foolishness.

A comprehensive study conducted by researchers from California State University (CSU) in Chico, and the University of California (UC), Davis, that was published in Nutrition Journal in 2010 is just one of many that shows the major differences between grain-fed, feedlot meat and grass-fed, pastured meat.

In this study, researchers evaluated the way feeding cattle grass, which is their natural food of choice, compares to feeding them grains, which is not their natural food of choice and is often responsible for making them sick. They found that in virtually every nutritional category evaluated, grass-fed meat was far superior to grain-fed meat.

The omega-3 fatty acid profile in grass-fed meat, for instance, was found to be similar to that of fatty fish, which is often recommended by health officials as a type of meat that promotes health. Grass-fed animals were also found to produce meat that is higher in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a healthy fat that fights obesity; carotenoids, organic antioxidant pigments that protect cells from cancer-causing free radicals and promote healthy immunity and reproductive function; and vitamin E tocopherols, which protect against cardiovascular disease and cancer.

"Research spanning three decades supports the argument that grass-fed beef has a more desirable SFA (saturated fatty acids) lipid profile as compared to grain-fed beef," write the authors in their conclusion. "This results in a better n-6:n-3 (omega-6 to omega-3) ratio that is preferred by the nutritional community" (http://www.nutritionj.com/content/9/1/10).

To learn more about the health benefits of grass-fed meats, visit:
http://www.eatwild.com/basics.html

Sources for this article include:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17345967

Want hamburgers, take your pick from - 'bovine concentration camps' or 'test-tube meat'?

Artificial hamburger meat successfully grown in vat of bovine fetal cells; You want some fries with that?
NaturalNews
Monday, February 20, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) I'm not sure which is the more offensive way to create meat. There's the current "factory farm" method where masses of hormone-jacked, antibiotics-injected cows are kept confined in what can only be called bovine concentration camps while they're fed genetically modified corn, then slaughtered without compassion and subjected to diabolical meat-harvesting machinery that turns a cow carcass into corporate profits. On the other hand, there's the new method being touted across the media: Test tube hamburgers made from thin strips of meat grown in a nutrient vat laced with bovine fetus stem cells. Yumm!

The test tube meat strips actually pulsate and twitch during their laboratory growth phase, by the way, and they're ultimately ground up with strips of test tube fat grown in a similar way to produce a fatty hamburger-like substance. This has been accomplished by Professor Mark Post of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, who announced his team's results at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) yesterday.

Test tube meat is here to save the world!

"In October we are going to provide a proof of concept showing out of stem cells we can make a product that looks, feels and hopefully tastes like meat," says Mark Post at the announcement (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9091628/Test-tube-ham...). Of course, what does processed meat actually taste like anyway? MSG, sodium nitrite and processed salt, for the most part. So making lab-grown meat taste like today's factory-processed meat only requires the injection of a few additives into the growth culture. Imagine growing meat patties with MSG inside every cell!

Creating one hamburger will require 3,000 strips of meat, each just half a millimeter thick and grown in laboratory vats. Unlike a cow, which requires roughly two years to grow to the point of slaughter, a test tube burger can be produced in just six weeks.

The "benefits" of test tube hamburger production are being touted as substantial, including:

• More efficient conversion of plants to meat.
• Less environmental damage.
• More humane than killing animals.
• Is the only feasible way to feed more meat to the world.

Of course, they also said that GMOs would "feed the world." Bill Gates calls genetically modified foods "high-tech agriculture" now, with the strong implication that technology is always superior to Mother Nature (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=1EE22C52BA26FA296CFC8A0361571555). But I'm not so sure about that. In fact, this whole thing sounds more than a little creepy to me.

Test tube meat to feed the masses? Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

I'm skeptical any time technology claims to out-perform nature. Look what they've done with GMOs, chemical pesticides, vaccines, or nuclear power. In almost every case where "scientific progress" is touted as the solution for humankind, it ends up creating a nightmare that's far worse than the problem it was trying to solve.

For the record, I choose not to eat cow meat. I'm not a vegetarian, but I've been around lots of cows on farms, and I see cows as conscious, aware mammals who have memories, emotions, families and social structure. They are every bit as intelligent as horses, and most people would cringe at the idea of eating a horse burger.

However, in a survival situation, I would have no hesitation eating grass-fed beef if it were from a healthy farm source. In fact, my personal supply of preparedness foods consists of several bags of USDA organic grass-fed beef jerky made without MSG or sodium nitrite.

But when it comes to growing hamburgers out of stem cells in a petri dish, the whole thing just smacks a little too much of soylent green. How are we to know what they really put in the nutrient solution? Maybe it contains growth hormones to speed production. Maybe it's loaded with synthetic chemical vitamins instead of natural vitamins. Maybe it's contaminated with Prozac or fluoride to make us all feel happy and oblivious while we eat synthetic meat. How are we to know what they do with it?

Artificial meat monstrosity

And then, of course, it's only a matter of time before they start to genetically modify the test tube meat, perhaps using selected genes from the human genetic code to make the end product is more compatible with human biology while avoiding any risk of allergies. So then what do we have? Hybrid bovine / human meat.

...and a world full of cannibals who are eating something that's partially human flesh.

See, modern science has already proven itself to be a pathetic collection of truly insane megalomaniacs who will gladly splice the genes of animals and insects into crops so that they can create vaccine crops, or vaccine-carrying mosquitoes, or goats that produce spider silk, or some other kind of monstrosity that serves the power-tripping globalists.

And the marvel of modern-day fast food has already proven that people will eat anything marketed to them as food. Case in point? Chicken McNuggets. That's a hodge podge of industrial chemicals and so-called mechanically-separated chicken, which itself is a meat processing freak show. (http://www.naturalnews.com/032820_Chicken_McNuggets_ingredients.html)

So I guess if you set up a test tube meat lab, splice together a bunch of genes from various species (humans, cows, dogs, insects, ogres, possums and Janet Napolitano) and then grow a vat of some sort of convulsing fibrous tissue that can be made into a 99-cent hamburger, then the great masses will eat it! Who cares what the tissues are floating in, right? As long as it's offered with a combo meal that includes French fries and an aspartame-laced Diet Coke, people will chug it straight down while watching NBA games and declaring, "We're winning!"

No doubt test tube hamburger makers will tout their meat as being "Cruelty Free" by saying "No animals were killed in the harvesting of this meat." Maybe not, but how many humans will be killed in the consumption of it?

A mysterious financial supporter backs the entire thing

By the way, this whole freak show of artificial meat production is being financed by an "...anonymous and extremely wealthy benefactor who Prof Post claims is a household name with a reputation for 'turning everything into gold'."

I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that Bill Gates was behind it -- or someone similarly motivated by a global depopulation agenda.

Bottom line: Artificial meat may be an extraordinary idea, but given the total lack of ethics found in the scientific community today, I wouldn't trust these people any farther than I could hurl a cow chip.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035020_artificial_meat_test_tube_hamburger.html#ixzz1mxFpOJRv

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health author and award-winning journalist with a strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of nature to help us all heal He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2010, Adams created NaturalNews.TV, a natural living video sharing sitefeaturing thousands of user videos on foods, fitness, green living and more. He also launched anonline retailer of environmentally-friendly products(BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also the CEO of a highly successful email newsletter software companythat develops software used to send permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and pursues hobbies such as martial arts, Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening. Known by his callsign, the 'Health Ranger,' Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics and health photos at www.HealthRanger.org

Great, the government 'pats' you down in the airport and now does it to your children`s homemade lunches

U.S. schoolchildren now subjected to sack lunch searches by government agents who enforce nutritional insanity
Natural News
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

credit: NaturalNews

(NaturalNews) First it was the TSA searching your underpants at the airport, claiming to be protecting you from "terrorists." Now a local elementary school in North Carolina is searching the homemade lunches of schoolchildren with the goal of forcing children to ditch their nutritious, home-made meals and learn to consume pasteurized, homogenized USDA-approved cow's milk and chemically-laced processed meats that promote cancer.

This is what happened, as reported in the Carolina Journal yesterday:

"A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious." (http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/homemade-lunch-replaced-with-cafeteria-nuggets.html)

The paper goes on to report:

"The girl's turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day."

Hold on a sec there, partner. There are AGENTS inspecting lunch boxes of schoolchildren?

You thought the TSA was bad? Get ready for school lunch pat-downs!

That's the first highly disturbing part of this entire story. See, the corrupt state is trying to take over everything, including the American family. Telling little Johnny that his mom packed an "inferior" lunch is one way of teaching children that they should worship the state instead of their parents. It's entirely consistent with the actions of pathetic child health sellouts such as California Governor Jerry Brown who recently signed a law giving 12-year-old children the right to "consent" to being injected with Gardasil vaccines as long as they don't tell their parents. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033831_Jerry_Brown_Gardasil.html)

Parents are useless. The state is God. Write that down, boys and girls, as you'll be tested on it later. And please don't tell all the TSA perverts that new jobs are opening up involving searching the sacks of elementary schoolchildren, or they'll quit the TSA in droves and line up to be part of anything that might involve touching little children (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=979D7B9F44BA6EAE0DF65B3DE6E4EE33).

In North Carolina, the homemade school lunches that don't meet USDA guidelines are then "enhanced" with what the state calls the "missing items" (the processed meat laced with chemicals, or the dead, pasteurized milk, produced with Bovine Growth Hormones). Parents are then billed (fined) for the additional cost of these "missing" items.

In other words, the state is forcing parents to buy cancer-causing processed foods and feed them to their children!...

(Click here to read more and rest of the article)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034979_food_police_sack_lunches_schoolchildren.html#ixzz1mTx8n800