Justice for Pink Slime
Mar 05, 2013
Justice for pink slime
This looks like a good report on ABC’s slimy reporting on "pink slime" and BPI’s efforts to sue reporters and sources involved. (Nasty language warning.)
Defamation suits against media are hard to win—and aren’t we reporters glad?—but in this case, there is more to be gained than any financial reward.
Some have compared this to the mad cow suit against Oprah. Bad simile, that. I respect the men who filed that suit, and understood their rage at Oprah, but at that time, the last thing the industry needed was a war of words with the queen of daytime TV.
This is different. The last time the general public heard about lean finely textured beef, it was still "slime." Stories like this one from Reuters—based on the suit—might help a few people understand the facts. Or, at least, next time some over-zealous reporter stumbles onto one of the renamed products, he should find it hard to ignore this other side of the story.
Meat’s stake in sequestration
Secretary Vilsack continues to defend his decision to furlough meat inspectors, saying it’s out of his hands. But the GOP wants to give him more leaway (or less cover) on the matter.
Please invent this
Look here how they caught those meat thieves. Isn’t there somewhere in a cow we could implant a GPS device like that?
Sorghum gets a boost
The local dealers say that they’ve had a run on grain sorghum seed this year. Much of the acreage around here will apparently come from cotton, and that bodes well (a little bit, given the fact that sorghum remains a small crop) for feedgrain prices this fall. ("Well" for livestock producers, that is; not so well for corn farmers. But you guys ought to be to afford it.)
And, apparently, there is some interest in using sorghum in the ethanol business.
For some areas of the U.S., sorghum is today’s version of tomorrow’s drought-tolerant corn.
Most good sandwiches have beef
Spending lots of time reading news and opinion on the internet could give you the idea that beef is doomed. Anti-beef campaigns by animal rights, anti-technology and environmental crusaders have a big impact on what the nutrition writers say.
But what’s politically correct doesn’t always have the impact crusaders hope for and the Washington Post’s list of good D.C. sandwiches reminds us that beef is good enough to withstand a ton of criticism.
Public support for a nanny state
It’s obvious that a lot of politicians are leaning toward more control of what people eat. This report indicates the public is behind them. (You’ve got to remember, cowboy, that most Americans don’t think like you. Remember that red state/blue state thing.)
Good or bad, more government intervention is probably coming. "Your" lifestyle affects "my" health care costs, and that’s all the cover government needs to take a bit more control.
Beef’s role in nutrition is strong enough to withstand fair scrutiny. If it’s fair. But there are so many other political forces at work, you’ve got to wonder how it will all work out.
Let ‘em loose
This writer at Businessweek thinks it’s smart to release the undocumented.
Secretary Vilsack has been adamant about getting more diversity on things like the Beef Board and other official panels. Now he’s looking for volunteers he can appoint to the local county FSA boards.
Assuming he can find some folks, it sure might take the boredom out of some of those meetings.
An EPA "battle?"
Most of what you read indicates the new EPA secretary will be noisy. Fox thinks there will be a big fight. She’s apparently pretty stout on the global warming thing. We’ll have to see how strongly she feels about agriculture.
More beef from 7-11
Some folks don’t associate convenience stores with your mouth-watering cuisine, but 7-11 is aiming to change that with its new beef sandwiches.