Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: avalon on November 19, 2008, 10:06:25 pm
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774614
An Arizona researcher found 40 percent of meat products tested from three national chain stores were contaminated with bacteria normally associated with severe hospital infections. Federal health officials, however, say more study is needed to determine whether C. diff is transmitted through food.
Best wishes,
Avalon
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774614
Best wishes,
Avalon
This is why it is important to learn how to do the wet marketing yourself. Ever since I got into raw foods beginning with vegan, I always brought along our cook with me so I can learn from her discerning eyes. With fruits, I bring along our maids who grew up in provincial farms... they grew up with an eye for what is fresh... many times I would get caught buying un-fresh produce or sea food. But that's okay. Learn from your mistakes.
Some of us, like me were born and raised as city slickers and were not taught basic marketing skills. But we can learn. It also pays to befriend your butcher or the fish vendor. He will teach you what you need to know to be able to buy the good stuff. And feel free to taste before you buy.
As for buying frozen produce. This is a matter of trust and taste. And complain if you feel the meat is bad. I live in the big city and there are big markets with lots of choices, so sometimes being in the big city has its advantages.
I have no experience with mail order shopping for meats.
-
Look, all raw meat is "contaminated with bacteria", as with all living things, objects etc. It's silly to get worked up about it. Aajonus has pointed out that the environment is more important than the so-called "pathogen". This fits in with my own experience:- for example, I used to have very severe stomach-aches/food-poisoning on a number of occasions when I ate cooked shellfish. I can only recall one instance where I up-chucked some aged raw shellfish(raw fish eggs), early on in the diet, and that was basically because I wasn't used to the stuff, and, unlike with the cooked shellfish-experiences, this didn't give me any digestive pain, as such.
As regards contaminated meats, the real problem occurs when one cooks the meat, destroying all the bacteria, and then storing it for long periods. While in storage, other kinds of bacteria are then able to enter the meats, of a different kind to the natural ones found in meat, and that's when the problem occurs - indeed, it's unsurprising that the most serious food-poisoning cases occur after eating canned, preheated foods. I wouldn't be surprised, too, if the combination of bacteria and the toxins in cooked-meats makes for far more serious problems, over time.
Lastly, this sort of discussion should really go into the Hot Topics forum, even if it isn't as controversial as some past subjects. I'll do that now.
-
Why controversial?
I would think if there were any dangers, cooking would kill the bacteria. Sure storing wrong and all of the above can contribute, but I feel it's always good to know what's going on. It's quite possible, with the way things work, that meat might become more and more contaminated, so choosing to eat raw could pose more health risks.
I'm familiar with Wai's, AV's and RawPaleo takes on 'RAW' - Bacteria good- and I do continue to eat raw eggs and Sushi but it's always good to know what's going on.
Those lucky enough to live off the land and eat fresh kill, that's a different story...
Meat aint what it used to be.
-
The point I made is that the combination of bacteria and the toxins in cooked-meats makes things worse. Eating aged, raw meat is fine, by comparison, and certainly the Eskimos had no problems with it, nor did the Chinese with their century eggs etc. I'll grant that there are well-known issues with grainfed,intensively-farmed meats causing problems(increasein e-coli strains in grainfed meats?) but that has nothing to do with the bacteria but far more to do with the fact that the animals in question have been fed on an unhealthy diet, no more than that.
-
Yeah, I seriously doubt the study included grass-fed meat, so it really doesn't apply because people here for the most part only eat grass-fed. I would never eat commercial meat raw, gross -v
-
That study was done using commercially farmed meats and commercial supermarkets. Absolutely non-paleo stuff.
This afternoon I was a the wet market buying my freshly killed beef which I had missed for almost 1 week. I make sure to tell the butcher that I would like a clean plastic bag on the weighing scale so he can put the beef slice there because I do not bother washing it after he slices it.
-
The point I made is that the combination of bacteria and the toxins in cooked-meats makes things worse. Eating aged, raw meat is fine, by comparison, and certainly the Eskimos had no problems with it, nor did the Chinese with their century eggs etc.
I'm not sure I agree but perhaps I just don't understand. The Eskimos cook quite a bit- traditionally eating their meats in soups. I'm not sure I've ever heard that cooking makes toxins and bacteria worse. I do know about HCAs and that eating well done meats increases stomach cancer risk x3.
Can you point me to a study or page that talks about what you mean? I'd like to know.
Xeta
-
I seriously doubt there's a study done on this, given that food-science is so new. It's partly based on logic and my own experience:- (ie if you feed an organism with garbage(such as cattle being fed on grain or bacteria feeding on the toxins created by cooking/heat) then that organism is going to be unhealthy and diseased with negative consequencs for anyone eating that organism. For example, I've found that the sweat I exude after being on rawpalaeo is less smelly than in pre-raw diet days, which would indicate that the bacteria are producing less toxic, less smelly byproducts than in previous, pre-raw times. Plus, obviously heat kills the natural bacteria originally within the meats, allowing "dangerous/inappropriate" bacteria to enter the meat from elsewhere - that's a common point made in raw circles.
Here's Aajonus with some interesting points re the whole theory of food-poisoning:-
http://www.karlloren.com/Diabetes/p78.htm
-
Plus, obviously heat kills the natural bacteria originally within the meats, allowing "dangerous/inappropriate" bacteria to enter the meat from elsewhere - that's a common point made in raw circles.
Okay, I buy that cooking kills natural, possibly beneficial bacteria. No argument there. But if you eat the food say as the inuit have in stews and soups- I don't see that as allowing "dangerous/inappropriate" bacteria to enter the meat/stew/soup. If you're talking cooked food that hasn't been eaten and is left in the fridge I get that the original bacteria is no longer there and new bacteria from say 'elsewhere', may come home to play. But still ehh I don't know... -\
Best wishes,
Avalon ;D
-
Okay, I buy that cooking kills natural, possibly beneficial bacteria. No argument there. But if you eat the food say as the inuit have in stews and soups- I don't see that as allowing "dangerous/inappropriate" bacteria to enter the meat/stew/soup. If you're talking cooked food that hasn't been eaten and is left in the fridge I get that the original bacteria is no longer there and new bacteria from say 'elsewhere', may come home to play. But still ehh I don't know... -\
Best wishes,
Avalon ;D
That was my point, cooked-food that's been stored after cooking, instead of being eaten immediately, deteriorates very quickly, producing oxidised cholesterol etc., plus there's the danger of inapropriate (rather than harmful per se) bacteria getting into the meat and causing side-effects. And the trouble is that it's very common for people to store foods for long periods after they've been cooked(eg:- reheated meals etc.)
And even the stewed meats that the Inuit eat are problematic in that they contain toxins from cooking(even light cooking produces such toxins). Plus, if one believes in the so-called "conventional wisdom", then eating any meats that haven't been thoroughly cooked(Eskimo-style boiling wouldn't count) is a dead-cert for food-poisoning.
-
"The Eskimos cook quite a bit- traditionally eating their meats in soups."
This refers to modern Inuit, who are a sickly and suicidal group compared to their pre-contact ancestors.
The model used is of the pre-contact Eskimos, who never cooked anything. I've lived in their land, and the only fuel in sight was the diesel, jet fuel and propane that came on the supply aircraft.
-
I've seen the original "Nanook of the North;" though it's somewhat contrived, it shows how the Inuit ate their kill right there on the spot - probably so it didn't freeze solid. Netflix has the movie.
-
I've seen the original "Nanook of the North;" though it's somewhat contrived, it shows how the Inuit ate their kill right there on the spot - probably so it didn't freeze solid. Netflix has the movie.
Those are Hollywood Eskimos - any resemblance to Inuit living or dead is mostly coincidental.
If you want a better view, read anything by Vilhjalmur Stefansson, a Yankee who spent years in the same country I knew, but about 70 years before me.
They ate their food frozen pre-contact at home. Super good teeth and powerful jaws.
-
No, Allakariallak ("Nanook") was a real Inuit. The film was made in 1922. Despite some legitimate criticism of the film, it does portray many truly native habits, including the killing and eating of actual wild animals.
-
Tricky language - 3 or more is Inuit, 1 or 2 is Inuk.
The actor would have done what was in the script, but if they ate their food on the spot (the original fast food?), what did their wives and children eat?
-
No actor, no script (it's a silent movie anyway). It's just some "white guy explorer" showing up in Quebec with a huge chunk of a camera (cutting edge technology then) telling the locals "go out hunting & I'll film you," "build an igloo & I'll film you" etc, then it's edited into a rough story. It's considered to be the first "documentary" ever made.
Many quibbles with the movie are that the whole family was out hunting together (improbable), that Nanook's "movie wife" wasn't just another local girl and not really his wife, etc. It's obviously contrived, but I remember being fascinated watching them haul up a seal & eat it. There was no revulsion or hesitation at all - just an ordinary occurrence.
Watching them build an igloo was pretty cool. It's mostly sub-surface with an ice-block roof, not the big dome typically depicted. And they wore only thick furs with no undergarments at all...
I do recommend it as an interesting way to spend an hour.
-
Hm. I wasn't aware that it was a documentary.
Still, it's easy to suspect that some of the behaviour was inspired by the movie-maker's preconceptions. The Inuit have always been willing to please, without criticism.
You might be interested in the Narrative of Lieutenant Frederick Schwatka, U.S.A.
Title is "The Long Arctic Search" - IIRC I got it from abebooks.com.
He noted why they used no underwear - never changed their clothing until it wore out, and the stench, he wrote, was appalling.
His time there was 1878-1880.
-
"I always brought along our cook with me so I can learn from her discerning eyes"
good!
iow, you have yet to reach the point in your life at which your body feels spontaneously attracted to certain things & not to others
in the meantime, you're taking help from someone else's body & senses
it would be interesting, perhaps, to take the children to the market & see what they feel attracted to
-
This refers to modern Inuit, who are a sickly and suicidal group compared to their pre-contact ancestors.
The model used is of the pre-contact Eskimos, who never cooked anything. I've lived in their land, and the only fuel in sight was the diesel, jet fuel and propane that came on the supply aircraft.
I thought Stefannson pointed out that they mostly ate raw, but did there share of cooking (seal fat), too. Regarding fuel, i thought the blubber and fat served these purposes?
Also, regarding Tyler's post early in the thread, Aajonus did point out that the bacteria were less of a concern than the environment they were in, but he was kind of lazy in siting that he got that from Antoine Bechamp, who many know as Pasteur's arch-rival. Actually, Bechamp's theory of disease is very interesting and the ongoing controversy of whether or not microscopic organisms are pleomorphic is too.
-
Tricky language - 3 or more is Inuit, 1 or 2 is Inuk.
The actor would have done what was in the script, but if they ate their food on the spot (the original fast food?), what did their wives and children eat?
My understanding, as little as that may be, the hunters, who were mostly the men, at the site of the kill may have drank the blood, eaten the heart, the liver, some fat, whatever they needed after a tough hunt, but then brought (or dragged) the bulk home to the families.
-
My understanding, as little as that may be, the hunters, who were mostly the men, at the site of the kill may have drank the blood, eaten the heart, the liver, some fat, whatever they needed after a tough hunt, but then brought (or dragged) the bulk home to the families.
I don't know how to embed videos yet on this forum, or maybe I do, we'll see how this comes out.
click here to view video (http://www.youtube.com/v/Kxdqjn1sFM8&hl=en&fs=1)
It's a fourteen and a half minute video movie preview referring to the same 1922 expedition I believe. In it, the shaman refers to some particular hunting taboos and eating.
-
I thought Stefannson pointed out that they mostly ate raw, but did there share of cooking (seal fat), too. Regarding fuel, i thought the blubber and fat served these purposes?
Also, regarding Tyler's post early in the thread, Aajonus did point out that the bacteria were less of a concern than the environment they were in, but he was kind of lazy in siting that he got that from Antoine Bechamp, who many know as Pasteur's arch-rival. Actually, Bechamp's theory of disease is very interesting and the ongoing controversy of whether or not microscopic organisms are pleomorphic is too.
Stefansson was there in the early years of the last century - post-contact, and the Inuit already were corrupted. Cooking pots.
And IIRC they cooked for him because they thought white men could not live on raw. We know people like that. ;)
I like the pleomorphic theory, odd that we know so little of what's really happening in our own bodies.
William
-
My personal meter for this is that no one I know that eats raw animal foods ever complains of food poisoning, and that many times I've heard of non raw foodists complaining of it. Also there is science behind the idea that grain fed animals have a lower pH in their stomachs which then naturally selects for stomach and intestinal bacteria that survive at a lower pH, which then, if pathogenic, have a better ability to survive the human stomach environment and multiply to cause illness.
-
Good Evening ;D
What fun it is to talk about Nutrition and History! I wish School had been this exciting. No lie.
The Inuit prove a wonderful example of early excellent health. And I know many debate just how long a life span they lived, before being corrupted by 'the man'.
I'm sure, ehh or I make a good guess that the Inuit didn't need Metal pots in order to cook soups and broths.
http://www.inuitgallery.com/history.shtml
The Pre-Dorset Period
Circa 2500 to 900/800 B.C.
Sporadic evidence of cooking hearths appears: heat-shattered, blackened stones, where the people cooked fish, meat or bones.
The Dorset Period
Circa 900/800 B.C. to 1300 A.D.
The Dorset people are also accredited with the introduction of a very important tool. a portable fireplace called a kudluk. The kudluk as we know it today is a shallow, half-moon shaped dish made of stone. In it, lumps of blubber or fat were beaten down with a bone hammer to release the oil, and a wick was made of caribou moss. This was the only source of light and heat with which to partially cook fish or meat in stone pots, to give some heat in the house and to dry clothing. It was, along with stone cooking pots, the biggest and heaviest item of the family, and of course was taken along on all journeys.
Best wishes,
Avalon
-
I'm not so sure that they did have excellent health(maybe by comparison to SAD-eaters, but, as you've pointed out they did eat partially-raw/partially-cooked) and I've read anthropological journals which suggest that they died like flies from various diseases pre-contact. In short, I tend to be dismissive of the whole Weston-Price notion of the healthy, happy savage.
-
Various disease meaning Cancer and CVD? I'm very interested in this because I think that's what most people use as examples, don't they? I'll Google this also.
Best wishes,
Avalon ;D
-
Various disease meaning Cancer and CVD? I'm very interested in this because I think that's what most people use as examples, don't they? I'll Google this also.
Best wishes,
Avalon ;D
No, transmittable diseases.