Dancer Left Paralyzed by Contaminated Hamburger

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) A onetime professional dancer is suing food giant Cargill, Inc., claiming that she was paralyzed by a contaminated hamburger produced by the company.

Twenty-two-year-old Stephanie Smith first became sick three years ago, after eating a hamburger contaminated with E. coli. Her illness progressed from simple food poisoning into constant seizures, and doctors were forced to put her into an induced coma for three months. She had suffered so much brain and kidney damage that she had to be kept alive on a ventilator and dialysis.

Smith stayed in the hospital for nine months and has undergone two years of rehabilitative therapy since then. Even so, she still requires constant care and can only move around by wheelchair.

"I have handled food borne illness cases since the Jack in the Box outbreak nearly seventeen years ago, and I have never seen someone so severely injured survive," Smith's attorney Bill Marler said. "She has lost the ability to walk, to dance, to have a family, to work or care for herself. I don't think it's possible to adequately convey in a sentence or two the massive challenges Stephanie has faced and continues to face."

Smith's medical bills to date add up to more than $2 million. When the hamburger that made her ill was traced back to Cargill, she approached the company for financial assistance. A Cargill representative claims that the company has "advanced" her funds, but Smith and the company have been unable to reach a mediated settlement to her claim.

A front-page New York Times story about Smith in October sparked U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLaura, chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, to demand that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) make big slaughterhouses more accountable for the safety of their meat.

"I am writing to strongly urge the [USDA] and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to investigate the disturbing allegations that were revealed in [the] New York Times article about the beef inspection process," she wrote in a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. (Originally published June 12, 2010).

Sources for this story include: www.foodsafetynews.com.

Suzanne

The high cost of cheap meat

by Sherry L. Ackerman, Ph.D.

(NaturalNews) When interviewed, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore responded to a question about whether every American was entitled to healthcare. His reply was, "We have to decide what kind of people we are." He was referring to our national character. Who are we? What kind of society do we want to become? Are we interested in creating a world that works for everyone . . . or one that only works for an elite few?

Americans' love affair with cheap stuff - all the way to education and airfares - has been one of the biggest roadblocks standing in the way of sustainability. In the same way that consumer culture has moved toward valuing profit over people, it has put profit before nature. The U.S. agricultural industry, for example, can now produce unlimited quantities of meat and grains at remarkably cheap prices. But it does so at a high cost to the environment, animals, and humans. Though Americans might like to imagine their food being produced the way their grandfathers did it, it's more likely that their burger began where 1,000 or more head of livestock were kept in overcrowded, unventilated, infected, and infested indoor feedlots, where they were fattened up for slaughter as fast as possible. Today's factory farms are large industrial facilities, a far cry from the green pastures and red barns that most Americans imagine. The animals in these facilities are not considered animals at all; they are food-producing machines. The problem is that animals aren't widgets with legs. They are living creatures and there are consequences to packing them in prison-like conditions.

Doesn't anyone ever wonder where all of that manure goes? To survive and grow in that much sludge, factory-farmed animals need antibiotics - which then leads, inevitably, to antibiotic resistant bacteria. "These antibiotics are not given to sick animals," says Representative Louise Slaughter, who is sponsoring a bill to limit antibiotic use on CAFOs. "It's a preventative measure because they are kept in pretty unspeakable conditions."

Something has gone terribly wrong with the relationship between human beings and the animals they rely upon for food. And whatever is wrong is wrong on a huge scale, as traditional animal husbandry has given way to industrialization. But Americans want cheap burgers, and Big Agriculture is good at hushing up what they do to keep the costs down. As one commentator stated in Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture, an agribusiness textbook: "One of the best things agriculture has going for it is that most people in the developed countries . . . haven't a clue how animals are raised and processed. For modern animal agriculture, the less the consumer knows, the better."

And consumers don't know. There's a lot of distance between the CAFO and their dinner table. They buy beef all neatly arranged on a styrofoam tray, shrink wrapped in plastic, from a squeaky clean refrigerator case. It's a commodity, not an animal. And they are certainly not aware that it was an animal that was badly treated - objectified - like a mere cog in the industrial wheel. Is this the best that humans are capable of?

Suzanne

Processed red meat consumption doubles the risk of developing diabetes

by John Phillip

(NaturalNews) Health-minded adults have been wary of excessive red meat consumption, and most avoid any type of processed meats due to the highly carcinogenic nitrite content. Additives used to add taste, cure and prolong shelf life of classic foods such as hot dogs, bologna and sausage not only cause cancer, but are also now shown to more than double the risk of developing diabetes. Publishing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers found that a 50 gram daily serving of processed meat (equivalent to one hot dog or two strips of bacon) was associated with doubled risk of developing diabetes. They also found that protein from other sources such as nuts, seeds and whole grains will have the reverse effect.

Researchers followed 37,083 men in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, 79,570 women in the Nurses` Health Study, and 87,504 women in the Nurses` Health Study II. Diet was assessed by validated food-frequency questionnaires, and data were updated every four years. Type II diabetes diagnosis was confirmed by a validated supplementary questionnaire. In addition the study included data from a total cohort of more than 442,000 participants to make this the largest study to examine the effect of specific food types on diabetes development and progression.

After all collected data was analyzed with adjustments for age, body mass index (BMI), and other lifestyle and dietary risk factors, researchers found that consumption of 100 grams of unprocessed red meat (about the size of a deck of cards) increased the risk of developing Type II diabetes by 19%. A diet that included only half that amount of processed meats was associated with a 51% increase in diabetes incidence.

Most health professionals believe that diabetes risk is linked to increased intake of refined carbohydrates and sugars. While this may be true, it is important to understand that red and processed meats play a significant role in development of the metabolic disorder, likely due to the increased digestive load placed on the pancreas.

Study authors also found that troubling risk factors can be neutralized or even reversed by substituting healthy protein from nuts, seeds, fish and beans for red and processed meats. Senior research author Dr. An Pan found that "for an individual who eats one daily serving of red meat, substituting one serving of nuts per day was associated with a 21% lower risk of type 2 diabetes; substituting low-fat dairy, a 17% lower risk; and substituting whole grains, a 23% lower risk."

Many health-minded individuals already limit consumption of red and processed meats. The conclusion of this meta-study drives home the importance of severely restricting red meat and totally eliminating processed meats in favor of healthy proteins to lower diabetes risk factors.

Article References:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...


Suzanne

I always learn a lot by reading these posts. Thank you again, Suzanne.

I also appreciate her contribution here at Maritime.

All Red Meat is Risky

Eating any amount or type increased the chances of early death among adults tracked more than 20 years.

Eating red meat--any amount and any type--appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 105,000 adults for more than 20 years.

Adding just one 3-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat--[picture a piece of steak no bigger than a deck of cards--to one's daily diet was associated with a 13% greater chance of dying during the course of the study.

Even worse, adding an extra daily serving of processed red meat, such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon, was linked to a 20% higher risk of death during the study.

Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk," said An Pan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and lead author of the study, published online March 12, 2012 in the Archives of Internal Medicihne.

Gathering data from thousands of questionnaires that asked people how frequently they ate a variety of foods, the researchers also discovered that replacing red meat with other foods seemed to reduce mortality risk for study participants.

Eating a serving of nuts instead of beef or pork was associated with a 19% lower risk of dying during the study. The team said choosing poultry or whole grains as a substitute was linked with a 14% reductionh in mortality risk; low-fat dairy or legumes, 10%, and fish, 7%.

Previous studies had associated red meat consumption with diabetes, heart disease and cancer, all of which can be fatal. Scientists are not sure exactly what makes red meat so dangerous, but the suspects include the iron and saturated fat in beef, pork and lamb, the nitrates used to preserve them, and the chemicals created by high-temperature cooking.

The Harvard researchers hypothesized that eating red meat would also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause, Pan noted. And the results suggest they were right: Among the over 37,000 men and 83,000 women who were tracked, as meat consumption increased so did mortality risk.

In separate analyses of processed and unprocessed meats, the group found that both types appear to hasten death. Pan said that at the outset, he and his colleagues had thought it likely that only processed meat posed a health danger.

Pan noted that the bottom line is that there was no amount of red meat that's good for you.

UC San Francisco researcher and vegetarian diet advocate Dr. Dean Ornish said he gleaned a hopeful message from the study.

"Something as simple as a meatless Monday can help," he said. "Even small changes can make a difference."

Additionally, Ornish said, "What's good for you is also good for the planet." In an editorial that accompanied the study, Ornish wrote that a plant-based diet could help cut annual healthcare costs from chronic diseases in the U.S., which exceed $1 trillion. Shrinking the livestock industry could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt destruction of forests for pastures, he wrote. --Los Angeles Times, March 13, 2012.

Suzanne

'Pink Slime' (beef parts paste with ammonia) good for kids, says Beef Products, Inc

by Scott Morefield

(NaturalNews) In perhaps the most amazing display of unmitigated gall since the Journal of Pediatrics declared mercury 'good for kids,' (1) Beef Products Inc. (BPI) told The Daily that its "lean finely textured beef," treated with ammonia, is good for America's schoolchildren. Last week The Daily broke the news that the federal government plans to buy beef containing over 7 million pounds of 'pink slime' over the next year.

"Including LFTB in the national school lunch program's beef products accomplishes three important goals on behalf of 32 million kids," BPI spokesman Rich Jochum told The Daily. "It 1) improves the nutritional profile, 2) increases the safety of the products and 3) meets the budget parameters that allow the school lunch program to feed kids nationwide every day." (2)

So what's the real reason?

With their first and second stated reasons being patently absurd, it really just comes down to the third, the almighty dollar. By adding the beef fat and trimmings, known to contain higher levels of E. Coli, salmonella, and other pathogens, then adding ammonia to kill said pathogens, they are able to save 3 cents off the cost of making a pound of beef. (2)

So by adding ammonia to a product that was previously only sold to dog food and cooking oil suppliers, (3) BPI is able to decrease their costs by mixing it with beef and feeding it to children.

Want to vote with your wallet and forgo the 'pink slime' infested meat? It might be difficult. Janet Riley, senior vice president of public affairs for the American Meat Institute recently made her case against labeling, telling ABC News, "What you are asking me to put on the label, its beef, it's on the label, it's a beef product, it's says beef so we are declaring ... it's beef." (3)

By Ms. Riley's logic, dog food is 'beef' too. Perhaps she is using the same standards McDonalds uses when it calls its chicken nuggets 'chicken.' (4)

Consumers do have a choice!

ABC recently did a report on, "Where you can get 'pink-slime' free beef." In it, Costco, Publix, H-E-B, Kroger, Whole Foods, and Tops Markets all adamantly stated they do not use beef laced with 'pink slime,' while several major national chains just as adamantly defended it. (3) Former USDA scientist and current whistleblower Gerald Zirnstein, the man who coined the phrase 'pink slime,' recently told ABC News that 70% of ground beef sold at supermarkets contains the filler. (5)

What can we do? The best way to know for sure that your meat is 'slime-free' is to buy fresh, locally grown meat from someone you know or buy meat that is certified 'USDA Organic.' Consumers should absolutely vote with their feet and their wallets. A grocery store that wants to defend the practice of calling dog food laced with ammonia 'good for kids' is certainly not worthy of trust or patronage. Additionally, parents should contact the administrator of their child's school lunch program to make them aware, if they are not already, of this outrage. Meanwhile, a sack-lunch is always a good idea!

Sign the petition, "Tell USDA to STOP Using Pink Slime in School Food!"
http://www.change.org#

Sources for this article include:
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGT24sY2yM
2 http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/12/031212-news-pink-slime-1-2/
3 http://abcnews.go.com
4 http://www.dailymail.co.uk
5 http://supermarketnews.com

Comment: All the more reason to follow our health message!

Suzanne

USDA plans to keep feeding 'pink slime' to your kids

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) After garnering nationwide attention for being secretly added to processed hamburgers and beef products, including those served in school lunchrooms, "lean finely textured beef," aka "pink slime," is reportedly on its way out from the menu offerings of McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Burger King. But according to Mother Jones, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) plans to keep ordering this imitation, ammonia-laced product for use in its National School Lunch Program (NSLP), a taxpayer-funded government food program that serves low-income students.

Pink slime gained much notoriety after being featured in the acclaimed 2008 documentary Food Inc.. Robert Kenner, the film's director, revealed an inside look into Beef Products International (BPI), a South Sioux City, Neb.-based processing plant that produces most of the nation's supply of pink slime. The product, which is composed of bovine connective tissue and random beef scraps doused in ammonia and formed into a paste, is commonly used as a beef filler because it is low-cost and supposedly less risky compared to conventional ground beef.

You can watch a disturbing clip from Food Inc. featuring footage from the BPI plant and commentary by BPI founder Eldon Roth at the following link:
http://youtu.be/RHQHPNoyO7c

FDA, USDA say ammonia-laced 'pink slime' is safe for children

Though BPI claims that pink slime is safer than conventional ground beef because of the ammonia treatment, tests conducted by NSLP between 2005 and 2009 have revealed that the meat-like matter routinely tests positive for salmonella at four times the rate of conventional beef. Ammonia is also a highly-corrosive poison that is known to cause respiratory illness and lung damage, liver problems, and cancer. The Chemical Encyclopedia says ammonia is "highly toxic" if swallowed (http://healthychild.org/issues/chemical-pop/ammonia/).

And yet both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the USDA insist that pink slime is safe, even though there is absolutely no evidence to prove this. And now the USDA's NSLP is reportedly ordering seven million pounds of pink slime to serve to students, a shocking move that even the nation's most notoriously unhealthy fast-food chains are unwilling to make.

Reports indicate that top USDA officials have routinely ignored all data showing that pink slime is a "high risk product," and have instead continued to endorse the product as safe for human consumption. And the worst part about the situation is that, just like with genetically-modified (GM) products, pink slime is secretly added into raw ground beef without being properly labeled.

"They've taken a processed product (ammonia), without labeling it, and added it to raw ground beef," said microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein recently to The Daily. "Science is the truth, and pink slime at this point in time is a fraudulent lie" (http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/03/05/pink-slime-still-menu).

Sources for this article include:

http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/03/pink-slime-school-lunch

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/035241_pink_slime_beef_ammonia.html

Suzanne

Glad to see Suzanne picked it up. I had thought I posted a link, but don't see it. Kind of reminds me of feeding ground up cows to cows, but in this case, it's to people!

Just make sure if you are going to eat meat, to get the high quality stuff and from a rancher and cow you know personally.

Red meat and processed meat raise colon cancer risk, while fiber lowers it

by Mary West

(NaturalNews) An international research team has issued a report stating there is convincing evidence that consuming too much red meat and processed meat can dramatically increase colorectal cancer risk, while consuming lots of fiber from plant-based foods can lower it. Researchers from Imperial College London proclaim the review to be the most authoritative and thorough information on this disease risk published to date: Medical News Today notes.

Elisa Bandera, MD, PhD, author of the treatise, states the review of scientific studies proves that colorectal cancer is one of the most preventable varieties of cancer. The report estimates that approximately 45% of cases of this disease could be prevented by following the recommended dietary and lifestyle practices. These advisories consist of eating plenty of high-fiber plant foods, eating less meat, drinking less alcohol, exercising and staying slender.

Researchers evaluated the influence of diet, physical activity and body weight on colorectal cancer incidence. They added 263 new research papers to the 749 that were analyzed in the previous 2007 report. The authors determined that the evidence linking red meat consumption with a greater colorectal cancer risk is compelling. They recommended limiting meat consumption to 18 oz per week and completely avoiding processed meat consumption. Processed meat was found to increase the risk twice as much as red meat.

In addition to the findings regarding meat, researches found equally compelling determinations concerning the benefit of fiber. The new evidence showed fiber to be more protective against colorectal cancer than was previously surmised. While the 2007 report found fiber's protective property to be probable, today's treatise determined it to be convincing.

Red meats refer to beef, lamb and pork, while processed meats refer to ham, bacon, sausages, frankfurters and cold cuts, which contain smoke and curing agents. Food sources of fiber include fruit, vegetables, whole-grain products, nuts and beans.

These dietary guidelines found to affect risk were based on strong evidence. In addition to these recommendations, according to the Washington Post, garlic will likely lower colorectal cancer risk.

Aside from dietary considerations, researchers discovered certain lifestyle practices play a prominent role. Maintaining a healthy weight and participating in regular exercise proved to be protective against the disease. Drinking alcohol was found to increase colorectal cancer incidence in both men and women.

Dr. Alan Jackson, chair of the research panel, emphasizes that the review determined many cases of colorectal cancer are not inevitable, and that dietary and lifestyle alterations can markedly lower the risk. Much debate has transpired over the past few years about the possible increased risk associated with red and processed meat. Dr. Jackson hopes that this report will dissipate confusion and provide clarity, based on the strength of the evidence.

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/2/Cancer/red_meat_processed_meat_...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/226217.php

http://www.thespec.com/news/world/article/536158--red-meat-raises-fib...

Suzanne