Welcome!


This is a membership forum. Guests can view 5 pages for free. To participate, please join.

[ Pitmaster Club Information | Join Now | Login | Contact Us ]

Only 4 free page views remaining.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Beware Of The Marketers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Murdy First, let me again acknowledge your listing of Spam as an unusual meat you've eaten. I still chuckle about it--it was brilliant!

    On this thread https://pitmaster.amazingribs.com/fo...80-woe-is-kale You wrote:

    ""They are funded by many of the big players in the organic market"

    The other side is bigger (ADM, Monsanto, Kraft, etc), has an even bigger financial interest and is capable of pushing back hard. Meanwhile, government watchdog agencies are lobbied and hamstrung by Congressional directives imposed at the behest of industry lobbyists.

    Consumers are left wondering who to trust. Nevertheless, common sense would seem to dictate that one should avoid eating things used to poison other things."

    I think that it is not correct to assert that "Big Ag" has a bigger financial stake in any practical sense. Both "sides" have their financial interest and their bottom lines as an all important concern to themselves. Whole Foods is every bit as financially involved as is ADM, as are Ma 'n' Pa businesses for that matter. Also, I'm unaware of "Big Ag" "pushing back" hard in any dishonest sense.

    Also, we consume TONS of "poisons" everyday day. Almost anything is a poison if taken in a large enough dose, including water, salt, and Vitamin D. Copper is necessary for human health, as is chromium. It doesn't take too much of an excess of either to make one seriously ill or even to kill. Arsenic isn't required for human health and it's deadly, but you consume some every day, in water and in food. It's a cliche, but it's true--the dose makes the poison.

    As to whom to trust? I think any food sold in the US today is 100% safe, whether organic or conventional--the occasional food poisoning scare aside--and I'd note that both organic and conventional foods both suffer contamination problems. I'd also note, imo, that "Big Organic" takes many more pot shots at "Big AG' than the other way around. When is last time you saw ADM or Monsanto claim their products were more nutritional than the equivalent organic products? I think, in that sense, "Big Organic" is the more dishonest of the two. Anyway, Meathead entitled his article: "Beware of the Marketeers". It's probably good advice to ignore any extravagant claims about any product.

    I don't worry about whom to trust, neither will hurt you at all, 'ceptin' organic will hurt more in the pocketbook as a rule. I do think the point in the Forbes article (linked below) is interesting--organic produce is not free from conventional pesticides contrary to what they say (and regardless of how that "contamination" occurred), so the question posed by Forbes--will you still eat organic or will you now refuse to because of the presence of pesticides?) is a good one and is worth pondering.


    The kale report that sparked the other thread is here: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/20/kale...egetables.html

    The Forbes article is here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevens.../#7a9e342d683b

    Thanks again to ComfortablyNumb for providing the two links.

    That's my take--feel free to disagree.

    Comment


    • Murdy
      Murdy commented
      Editing a comment
      Briefly, and off the top of my head, I'd note that I said "capable of pushing back hard" -- I think there's a bit of a Coke/Pepsi thing going on. Coke never used to compare itself to Pepsi in commercials when it was number one, because it did not want to imply an equivalence with number 2 (while Pepsi, seeking to elevate itself, was targeting Coke with things like the Pepsi Challenge). I suspect if the organic industry significantly cuts into Big Ag's profit, you will see that pushback.

    • Murdy
      Murdy commented
      Editing a comment
      Further, limiting the comparison between organic and non-organic to the presence of chemicals ignores other salient differences between the two.

    • Willy
      Willy commented
      Editing a comment
      @Murdy

      What other "salient differences" are there?

    #47
    So far ive refrained from posting in this thread and just been following with keen interest. I have loved the discussion. Nutrition (and everythig it encompasses) is a fascinating subject IMO because it is pretty much impossible to study. The level of investment from studiers and participants to properly control for variables over a long period of time is probably impossible. Eggs and cholesterol are my favorite theme to highlight the futility. As im sure many of you have probably seen, a recent study just said eggs are bad again.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2728487

    of course it really helps that the full text is not available to the general public. I have access but i cant share the article because that would violate multiple laws.

    what is great about studies like this is that they do not control for how the eggs were cooked. Just like studies that say potatoes are bad but when you dig into it you find out most people "potato" consumption was via french fries.

    I did my undergrad in biochem then graduate in immunology. Nutrition and how we pretend to understand it will always be something that fascinates me. Give me a study that looks at people who consumed poached vs scrambled, cooked in the same salt content water or with the same amount of the same butter or oil (for example) that says both groups had the same result and ill appreciate it. But as i said, close to impossible to control for the length of time needed for a study like that.
    Last edited by grantgallagher; March 22, 2019, 01:05 AM.

    Comment


    • grantgallagher
      grantgallagher commented
      Editing a comment
      And also full disclosure at the irony of me posting in this thread. I work in pharma marketing. My job is to make sure the science is properly integrated into promotional materials and no one is telling porkies. Feel free to take that with as many pinches of salt as needed but i do take pride in making sure anything that comes out of our shop is fully supported by current science. Does that mean we will never get anything wrong...hell no. But we do try

    • Willy
      Willy commented
      Editing a comment
      Welcome to the conversation! I hope you stick around, especially given your background. I agree that nutrition is an "impossible" subject to study well. In "In Defense of Food", Michael Pollan discusses the very real, and hard to overcome, difficulties. I also think the media, in general, does a poor job of explaining the "latest study", hence the public's perception of the science is skewed unfairly. Science journalism is a specialty field and most journalists haven't the training for it.
      Last edited by Willy; March 22, 2019, 11:12 AM.

    • grantgallagher
      grantgallagher commented
      Editing a comment
      Willy the media does an absolutely terrible job of covering this topic. People writing up blogs for clicks. The potato example i gave was one that drove me nuts. The title of the post specifically called out potatos yet when you read the study they actually attributed it to french fries. Whether thats true or not its how stuff gets twisted by clicks.

    #48
    I just want to thank all of you for this. I have no background or knowledge to offer, but appreciate, SO appreciate, the information you folks are willing to share, and the respectful and thoughtful manner you share it. It’s refreshing. While I thought I was joining a BBQ community, little did I know the amazing group of thinkers I’d encounter.

    Comment


    • Willy
      Willy commented
      Editing a comment
      Ah! We're successful! We've deceived you into thinking we're "thinkers". LOL ;«)

      More seriously, do feel free to join in. It's fun and this website has successfully encouraged civil discussion, something not found on many websites

    #49
    This is a very interesting thread that I check in on from time to time. Something that often comes to mind for me is when these and many other "hot" topics become politicized, monetized, and occasionally weaponized they begin to lose credibility (at least with me). Much like what grantgallagher shared about not seeing the full context of a study, you must ask "why" or "why not". Usually a case of "follow the money". I generally quit buying "organic" because this. Just my opinion, but it seems to have devolved to simply a marketing gimmick with only anecdotal benefits that are not wholly supported. That is not to say that we shouldn't do all we can to protect our food and food sources, I just don't buy the hype. Now, off to the Farmer's Market.....

    Comment


    • Huskee
      Huskee commented
      Editing a comment
      Same! I am a skeptic and my wife believes most of what she sees on labels. We are often at odds with this sort of thing. I feel like most things are put on labels by someone with a financial interest or another agenda, she believes everyone is good and trying to help us and labels tell the whole truth.

    #50
    I love the way you have dug into this. I have made significant revisions to the original post in the book manuscript and after doing some more digging I will post the revised version. Crowd sourcing!

    Comment


      #51
      A question to be asked, to which does it matter? Some one mentioned Asians using MSG for decades ............and with what results. It all comes to man trying to take care of things, whether it be healthwise, politics, science (which with time can be questionable), money or power or all of the above. The quest for what......... History shows a poor track record, is it improving?

      Comment


      • CaptainMike
        CaptainMike commented
        Editing a comment
        Not likely, nor likely to. It's still a (mostly) fun ride though.

      • FireMan
        FireMan commented
        Editing a comment
        That’s called outlook. 👍 🕶

      • Huskee
        Huskee commented
        Editing a comment
        Ain't that the troof! Despite some good intentions from individuals or large groups, and lots of bad ones, it is not improving big picture-wise. We need to make the smartest decisions we can with the knowledge we have, and share the good knowledge we have with those who'll listen.

      #52
      Murdy I'm really not trying to be contrarian or argumentative here, so please don't read my posts that way. After I retired ten years ago, I became seriously interested in home gardening and joined a Master Gardener program. The MG program is associated with university County Extension Offices which are in every state (and likely almost every county) in the US. They are science-based organizations and work in conjunction with paid Extension Office employees and degreed university instructors. They exist to help local commercial growers and the public at large deal with ag issues--disease, poor yields, soil analysis, pests, and whatever. BTW, getting into the MG program involves only a forty hour class (followed by a test), so take the word "master" with a grain of salt. My view is it's a way to blow smoke up the skirts of unpaid volunteers. :«) Nonetheless, most MGs are serious and continue to educate themselves regularly, mostly through further study on their own.

      I began as an advocate of "organic", not rabid, but solidly pro. It just makes sense right--no "poisons" and going back to the way Mom Nature "intended" can't be wrong? Well, yes it can in some ways. Elsewhere herein I've posted about organic practices being unable to use land efficiently with respect to yields per unit of land as compared to conventional agriculture. We really have no more land to farm or raise livestock on without cultivating land that is currently wild. Also, organic ag does use pesticides, approved as "organic" because they are "natural" and some of which are quite toxic to wildlife and, in some cases, humans--copper fungicides and rotenone are two examples. I read a lot and attended agriculture conferences every year since becoming a MG. The more I learned, the more disillusioned I became with "organic". Michael Pollan's book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" was a real eye opener as regards "Big Organic" (not necessarily your farmers market organic grower, although ComfortablyNumb posted some revealing information about dishonest practices at farmers markets earlier in this thread). I think the final straw for me was when "Organic Gardening Magazine" (now called Rodale's Organic Life and now owned by Penguin Random House) came out advocating for homeopathic "medicine". Homeopathy is often perceived by most folks as some form of herbalism, which is often harmful in itself, but it isn't herbalism at all. Homeopathy is simply magic water, magic water that literally doesn't even have a single molecule of an "active" ingredient left because of successive dilutions, coupled with "succussing" between each dilution. The founder of homeopathy believed that the weaker the solution, the more potent it was, because the water "remembered" the potency. One active ingredient in a popular homeopathic "medicine" is duck liver (!!!). Succussing is slamming a container of the solution against a board. You can read about homeopathy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy and you can ponder the fact that most "health food stores" carry a wide ranges of homeopathic products. Our local store even has an employee who is a registered nurse to assist one in finding the proper remedy for you.

      I am now an active skeptic of organic as it is marketed. It was a long road for me, for, as you commented, who can argue against wanting to reduce consumption of "poisons". Well, as I noted yesterday, almost everything is a poison in some sense and at some dose. Overcoming our innate, intuitive, LAYMAN'S understandings of technical topics takes study and self-questioning. After all, do Einstein's ideas on time not being constant make intuitive sense to anyone?

      Anyway, rant over. As for your comment about needing "stricter oversight", I'd ask what it is that makes you think current oversight is lax and in what areas?
      Last edited by Willy; March 24, 2019, 01:12 PM.

      Comment


        #53
        The stricter oversight comment was more a question than a proposal. It seems to me that you are suggesting that we simply should throw up our hands and accept the Big Ag status quo. Organic is flawed (a proposition with which I agree) and the only safe alternative is impractical (limiting all purchases to a local farmer you know and trust). Whether it be stricter oversight or some other changes, I would not be willing to abandon the organic movement at this early stage.

        I read Pollan's book too, and the part I think relevant is big ag lobbying over the food pyramid and (I believe it was in Pollan's book) the lobbying around the Generally Recognized as Safe designation to food additives. There's a lot of industry interference in attempts to ensure what we consume is safe taken in the name of profit, and those folks don't have our best interests at heart. There's plenty wrong with the conventional food chain. It is efficient and cheap, both important values, but not the only ones. I think it important to try to develop a real alternative.

        As the Scientific American article points out in the beginning, criticism of how organic is regulated is not the same thing as criticizing organic itself.
        Last edited by Murdy; March 23, 2019, 06:46 AM.

        Comment


          #54
          This has been a very interesting discussion. I’m no expert and have read few studies on the subject...mostly because I don’t really trust the studies so I don’t bother wasting my time. I like the reference ComfortablyNumb made to soylent green. I feel that we can’t just blindly accept that food enhanced in a lab will be good for us. Maybe our bodies won’t be able to process the nutrients in them, even if they have no long term health risks. I know the term natural on labeling is completely unregulated, but I would prefer that the majority of what I eat has not been "enhanced" in a lab.

          I don’t really agree with the comments Meathead made about refusing to buy products labeled as natural or organic or cage free. I buy Costco maple syrup. It’s not fantastic, but it’s reasonably priced and it’s pure maple syrup. It’s labeled as organic. I like other syrup more, and buy it occasionally, but it’s way more expensive. I buy chicken that’s labeled free range because it’s also air chilled and raised without antibiotics. My other option is labeled as "southern chicken". It’s cheap and doesn’t taste good.

          I do refrigeration work and work on many farms and food processing plants. I buy my bacon, hams, sausage, etc from a local company whose refrigeration I work on. I’ve been in the plant. I’ve seen how they produce the food. It’s a high quality product and I trust them. Same for a lot of fruits and vegetables. I like to support local farms when possible and the product is superior. Most produce is better when local because it was picked when ripe, not picked early to ripen in transit. I do buy bananas year round. No bananas are grown any where near me. They taste fine. I’ve had bananas in the Caribbean where they were picked ripe and can hardly be compared to the bananas I get here.

          I guess what I'm getting at is, I like to buy organic, natural, cage free, etc sometimes. I also like to buy things without those labels sometimes. I don’t like to buy things like Tyson chicken strips, farmed salmon, cheap pork, chicken, and beef sausages. I look for products that are made or produced with quality and care. Sometimes they have misleading labels and sometimes they don’t.

          Comment


            #55
            Just read this. Something to chew on...
            Global reliance on just a handful of crops for calories is hurting the environment — and wildlife, a new report says. It urges the world to diversify its diet to save plant and animal species alike.

            Comment


              #56
              Murdy I am most definitely not suggesting we just "throw up our hands". There are indeed issues with "Big Ag" and I mentioned some of them elsewhere herein. They include fertilizer run-off (water contamination), mono-cropping (leading to increased pesticide use), and antibiotic overuse among them I don't think there are issues with the food produced by Big Ag as regards nutrition or safety. Smart people, people in positions to make changes, are aware of and working on all of these issues, none of which have simple, economical answers. I want to emphasize the economic issue. Conventional agriculture has succeeded because it produces an economical product. Its excesses have become apparent and they are being addressed--GMOs are likely to be an important part of solving some of the problems.

              I will say that the controversy between conventional and organic agriculture isn't really an issue, imo, that is of any consequential concern. I think it's all but irrelevant. Both systems produce nutritious food that is safe to eat. As consumers, we can vote with our dollars if we do have concerns. That and growing some of own food are about the only important impacts individuals can make.

              The human condition is fraught with problems everywhere one turns--rather than provide a partial list, I'll leave up to people to think of their own issues. We must just keep doing what we've done for millennia--moving forward and solving problems as they arise--hopefully on a stomach full of tasty food.

              Comment


                #57
                Red Man, I agree with most of your observations. Re: farmed or wild salmon, however, my thoughts have evolved. Yes, nothing in the world tastes better than Alaskan line caught Chinook (King salmon). However, just like the world can't feed itself by hunting wild animals and foraging for wild grains and roots, so can't the world consume fish only by catching wild seafood. We'll completely strip the oceans (and have been close in many instances.) So, I have resigned myself to also enjoying farmed seafood, and hope that we can improve 'best practices' so as to avoid problems like the recent broken pens in WA. (Sorry for the delayed response, we were out of country for a while.)

                Comment


                • EdF
                  EdF commented
                  Editing a comment
                  As an aside, I've had Scottish farmed salmon that rivals the wild catch. Worth trying if you get a chance.

                • Willard
                  Willard commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Where did you get it?

                #58
                Meathead, are you being paid by the industrial food lobby? Your defense of modern processed foods make it sound like you are. Look at science and reality. We humans are animals. We evolved eating food that was not adulterated with preservatives, flavor enhancers, and other unnatural additives. It is best to realize those facts and try to eat organic/natural foods whenever we can.

                Comment


                • Meathead
                  Meathead commented
                  Editing a comment
                  That is an insult and I take it as a psersonal attack and as such it is a violation of the Pitmaster Club terms of Service. Argue against my statements but you have NO right to falsely accuse me. Anyone who spends any time on AmazingRibs.com should know that I am on nobody's payroll.

                • FireMan
                  FireMan commented
                  Editing a comment
                  A good deal of science is not reality!
                  Evolved huh?

                • Dr. Pepper
                  Dr. Pepper commented
                  Editing a comment
                  We evolved eating raw meat, foraged uncooked roots and seeds, living till an average age of early 20s, dying if we got appendicitis, pneumonia, cellulitis, in childbirth, etc. Sounds great! (Oh, and I forgot to mention no running warm water, soap, and baby wipes. And no Toto toilettes!)

                #59
                ComfortablyNumb Thank you for explaining to Ron Wilson what I thought I explained. He would do himself a favor by re-reading my post more carefully and with an open mind, as well as the comments by you and other members who have come to understand that natural has no legal meaning. "Natural" products include poop and arsenic. Organic is another misleading term. Its legal definition has strayed so far from the mission of the founding fathers that it now allows pesticides in some cases. These are marketing words. Meaningless when it comes to health or quality. Sad.

                Comment


                • FireMan
                  FireMan commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Don’t forget that not only hasn’t he fully read all of yours and anybody else’s material, he hasn’t been around long enough to know that you aren’t bought just as the rest of us are not.
                  It’s called being a rookie.
                  Last edited by FireMan; August 3, 2019, 08:03 PM.

                #60
                I totally agree. What is natural, eating what you catch in the wild or forage for. Farmers have for centuries going back o the Incas and the Mesopotamian's have been creating better breeds of stock and better grains. Would you call that GMO why not that was the beginning of it. They just didn't do it in test tubes. They would have if they had the technology. They had a very advanced society.

                Ron Wilson you owe Meathead an apology. You can keep your opinions but to attack another person is not ok. What qualifications do you have. So far there are no proven facts that show that an organic diet is any better than any other. Show me an article from a UMass medical journal showing it that it is better and I will believe it.
                Last edited by mountainsmoker; August 3, 2019, 07:24 PM.

                Comment


                • FireMan
                  FireMan commented
                  Editing a comment
                  It matters not of the qualifications! What is accomplished by attacking anyone here in the Pit?

              Announcement

              Collapse
              No announcement yet.
              Working...
              X
              false
              0
              Guest
              Guest
              500
              ["pitmaster-my-membership","login","join-pitmaster","lostpw","reset-password","special-offers","help","nojs","meat-ups","gifts","authaau-alpha","ebooklogin-start","alpha","start"]
              false
              false
              {"count":0,"link":"/forum/announcements/","debug":""}
              Yes
              ["\/forum\/free-deep-dive-guide-ebook-downloads","\/forum\/free-deep-dive-guide-ebook-downloads\/1157845-paid-members-download-your-6-deep-dive-guide-ebooks-for-free-here","\/forum\/the-pitcast","\/forum\/national-barbecue-news-magazine","\/forum\/national-barbecue-news-magazine\/national-barbecue-news-magazine-aa","\/forum\/national-barbecue-news-magazine\/national-barbecue-news-magazine-aa\/bbq-news-magazine-2019-issues","\/forum\/national-barbecue-news-magazine\/national-barbecue-news-magazine-aa\/bbq-news-magazine-2020-issues","\/forum\/national-barbecue-news-magazine\/national-barbecue-news-magazine-aa\/bbq-news-magazine-2021-issues","\/forum\/national-barbecue-news-magazine\/national-barbecue-news-magazine-aa\/bbq-news-magazine-2022-issues","\/forum\/national-barbecue-news-magazine\/national-barbecue-news-magazine-aa\/current-2023-issues","\/forum\/national-barbecue-news-magazine\/national-barbecue-news-magazine-aa\/current-2024-issues","\/forum\/free-deep-dive-guide-ebook-downloads\/1165909-trial-members-download-your-free-deep-dive-guide-ebook-here"]
              /forum/free-deep-dive-guide-ebook-downloads/1165909-trial-members-download-your-free-deep-dive-guide-ebook-here