DescentBB

It seems that Tyson Food Corp has been experimenting with a "growth hormone" called Zilmax and has been wreaking havoc on their herds.

Article

Epic palmface

This isn't very far from home for me. Yeah.. "eat more chicken" ...er.. Tyson grows chickens too.

My daughter has gotten me used to buying free range and hormone free meat. Not sure how much good it is doing me other than I seem to be having more morning erections than I used to...

I stopped after reading "profit-enhancing".

don't you just hate loaded articles?

So that's why beef has gotten so bad lately and why I won't touch store-bought pre-made hamburger. The Law of Unintended Consequences, or what happens when you mess with Mother Nature, especially for profit. Between the pink slime additive and antibiotics, beef is just hazardous for your health. That's why I try to buy local, hormone free, antibiotic free and free range raised beef and chicken. Fortunately, several of our local stores sell it and there are many local farmers who supply it.

Solution: eat less meat.

This isn't GMO, this is straight doping.

vision wrote:Solution: eat less meat.

This. Would also reduce the incentive for farmers to use such products.

woodchip wrote:My daughter has gotten me used to buying free range and hormone free meat. Not sure how much good it is doing me other than I seem to be having more morning erections than I used to...

I'm sold!

Krom wrote:This isn't GMO, this is straight doping.

vision wrote:Solution: eat less meat.

This. Would also reduce the incentive for farmers to use such products.

That's just as good a solution as not voting to change the political candidate line-up... If everyone who eats meat regularly takes their business to producers with more acceptable practices, it will incentivize the big producers to steer clear of things like that. Better yet, buy meat locally from more responsible producers and effect your local economy, the practices of the big companies, and your health all in one.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That's just as good a solution as not voting to change the political candidate line-up...

Terrible analogy.

Not really, I think the point he makes is that being pro active is the better choice…because…

If you choose not to consume beef, it will still be consumed by someone else, and although you will reduce the demand for beef, there will always be beef production…only you will have nothing to say about what is produced.

End result…all the beef produced is crap.

Same basic thing when applied to politics.

But choosing not to consume beef is still a valid choice, just not the correct one to bend the curve. (if you are a beef consumer in the first place)

Staying out of the political arena is always the wrong choice.