Tag Archives: Beef

March 15, 2025 · 04:58

Next butcher in line

Yup, that happens. So what do you do when the customers is looking at the boss of the butcher and that customer is just sick of their treatment of the surrounding the they poison? What would you do? I have my ‘go to’ guy in my corner. The name is Jimmy and he is all about chickens and has been for years. His chickens (drumsticks) are the greatest and I have them nearly every day. So what would you do if you are saddened and sickened of his dealings, by hime or his staff with to his customers? Would you take that hit and keep on serving him business? So here is ABC with the news. At https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-14/3-billion-united-states-meat-trade-to-china-at-risk/105052220 we are given a mere 12 hours ago ‘US meat trade days away from getting ‘kicked out’ of China’, that is the situation and even if we consider the impact on America, consider that China now has three eager supply points. You see Canada sets the sitting with “$9.5 billion in red meat products, including pork, beef, lamb, and horse, with the United States being a major destination.” Then there is Australia with “the USA is Australia’s largest beef export destination accounting for 27.5% of total beef export flows this year, which is up from 22.7% in 2023.” This represents 27.5% of 17 billion dollars a year, as such America is now on a slanty side of bad news. Last there is New Zealand with “In 2024, the United States was the leading beef export market for New Zealand, with an export value of approximately 1.74 billion New Zealand dollars.” Now when we add the numbers we get the setting that America is about to lose close to 16 billion dollars in beef import. So what happens when America gets that much of a drain of revenue? Lets be clear, that is the obvious danger and China is about to get several happy moments by sticking it to America and add the UK, who is a ‘mere’ £1.77 billion last year (2024) with a small part going to North America and that puts us deep into the 16 billion dollars. The one small side step is that the population tends to go mad when the daily requirements fall away and that is what America enabled to itself; alongside with the notion that the people in the Commonwealth are done with President Trumps barbaric setting of attacking Canada, as such we are nearly all willing to become China’s new supply agent for meat. As ABC gives us “Hundreds of abattoirs in the United States are at risk of being banned from exporting meat to China, because their China export licenses are due to expire this weekend.” So, what happens when the American population, being a mere 340,123,988 people (roughly) will not get access to their hamburgers? Did the American Capitol and White House ever hear of a stampede? That is what taking away their daily needs away amounts to and as I see it, the people surrounding President Xi Jinping are ready for and that is what (I expect) the bad news that people in the White House are in a presented stage of telling the man who ‘elevated’ the term ‘you’re fired’ to, which is a new low for that person who has to bring the bad news. And it also shifts the larger premise. You can only hold something over anyone’s head when you are the billion dollar customer they tended to push around. The Commonwealth might be in line for a new delivery address. It opens up a few doors for the inhabitants of 174 Chang’an Avenue, Xicheng District, Beijing. A stage that falls in our lap because beyond ABC news, there weren’t too many sources and this news is 12 hours old. So where was the media? The Google search term “meat import America” gives us a mere two pages and no items from the BBC, the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times, the Boston Globe, the LA Times or the SF Courier. The Australian had it behind a pay wall, so it is not interesting what they have to say. But as ABC gives us ““The expiry date for several hundred more US establishments is in March and April and [China Customs] has not responded to US government facility registration renewal requests,” it said in statement.” With the added “So what we’re looking at right now in America, is waking up Monday morning and having $US3 billion ($A4.77B) worth of beef, pork and poultry no longer eligible to export to China”, as that being said, I would like to add “Well, Brett Stuart, the news is a lot worse. There is now also the chance you will lose 17 billion in imports because they found a new butcher. As such they could mostly be out of a job and the supermarket isles of meat might be rather empty. So how is your day going now?”

Of course this is not a given, but that is the effects of a trade war, so how are these numbers spiking up? By the way, the liquor importer Dan Murphy (Australian) is still eagerly selling ‘American Whiskey’, as such the brotherly love for Canada is a little missing, but we will get there. As such there is space for improvement. America forgot that with export, there is also import of other goods and a 25% tariff will be having a deadly impact and now China has itself a new ball game. I reckon that it will (for them) be a decent level of revenge for the setting Huawei was put under. But not to fret, Americans could all become vegetarians and start working their obesity stages by getting used to coleslaw sandwiches.

I wonder what happens when the America media sounds the alarm bells on this premise. How much is the value of meat advertising in America? You see, that is the third stage. When two sides impact, the third side is a given. What is that worth? Do they still think that their ‘51st state’ aspirations was a good idea?

So at what point will America decide that these billboards will be about coleslaw grazing?

The one danger no one saw coming, what happens when the meat industry will have to vie for new import addresses. How much will the price of meat options increase? Simple questions really. I wonder what news we will see from Washington DC and other places. I reckon the rice wine will flow richly at a certain address in Beijing this weekend.

So you all have a great day and try to enjoy the alfalfa sandwich you might want to try this weekend (just for the feeling). And Canadians, have a great day too, some of the Commonwealth people do consider your options first as well.

Danger Winnie Robinson. Danger, danger.

A weird reference to an even weirder situation. Are we making ourself weak and optionally on route to extinction? That is a serious question, it is not for some script, or some story. Let me explain. There are two settings. The first is the one the wife of Wil Smith has, it was the first time I heard of alopecia areata. I now indirectly know of three more cases. My acquaintance ring did not grow, it decreased a little. The second issue is around mastectomy. I had heard of it and the event is around for a long time, but in the last 5 years I have become indirectly aware of 5 women who have faced it. Both issues are decently rare, so to see these numbers makes me wonder if we (both man and woman) have weakened ourselves to a degree that is beyond normal. Food and other stuff are eaten, but are we checking what we eat? I saw a case about a decade go where a dietician (I wrote about it a long time ago) made the claim that we eat beef, but is the beef we eat today the same beef we ate 50-75 years ago? Hormonal and all kind of treatments to keep milk up might have an impact on the DNA of beef. That was what I would call a wild claim, but is it wrong? Have we indirectly poisoned our bodies? I am not a young man and I wake up with more and more hairs in my bed, so I am growing bald. It doesn’t worry me, it comes with age and at least I will not be wielding the hair of Stephen Mangan any day soon (looks to pubic anyway), and it seems soon I will be wielding a lot less than ever. This is a natural event, it does not bother me. But those who see the numbers of alopecia areata and mastectomy rising should be worried. Man have their own issues and I wonder how many see the bowel cancer results? About 300 a week in Australia alone get the postal card with ‘Bullseye, you’ve got it”. Now I might be trivialising this (defence mechanism), but I wonder why it is growing and it seems to be growing fast. When we see “third most common type of newly diagnosed cancer” and I have a bit of a problem with the word ‘newly’. We need to take heed of so many things Realtors (story coming soon), captains of industry (story coming soon too) and now food? We pay institutions a truckload of cash and they seemingly come up short. You see, before the Oscars 2022 I had never heard of alopecia areata and now I am aware of three (4 if I include Jada Pinkett Smith) cases?

So this story is not for fun, for entertainment or for anything else than to make sure you check your corner. I am no one, I know people, some are important, others are not. But 4 and 5 is a larger setting especially when these numbers up to 10 years ago was zero on both counts. So am I calling wolf whilst there is none, or are we all ignoring a larger stage? I honestly do not know, but I felt it was important to write this down. As statistics go we see that alopecia areata has approximately 1 in 1000 people, with a lifetime risk of approximately 2 percent. Now on those numbers my awareness of 4 seems rather large. Well, basically 3 as Jada Pinkett Smith is a global celebrity, but that means I should know well over 3000 and I do not, so the math (OK, my view is debatable) does not hold up. The fact that this is all since Oscar 2022 makes it even worse. And in the case of alopecia areata there is a lot we do not know. That is not on anyone, but the stage that our food or environment is optionally a cause worries me and it should worry you as well. And lets be clear this is not about gender. We have all kinds of issues and they re hitting both genders, the question is whether this is properly being looked at. And the beef reference is also apt. It is now a decade since the horse meat scandal and if that one got by for such a long time, what else have we been eating and that is before we get to the consideration that the beef our grandparents ate was not the same beef we eat. That is pure speculation, so do not think this is true, but is testing this premise wrong or a stretch? The dietician had decently convincing data. Data I could not check but someone perhaps should have. So be careful to give support and faith in this. It is in some parts speculation, the numbers I gave were not. The question becomes, have you experience the same thing? Do you have numbers you did not have 5-10 years ago? I am asking, not telling.

Try to have a nice day today.

Cancer for everyone?

Something set me off today. It was not Melissa Doyle, she looked lovely as ever. Perhaps it was her casual report on how red meat seemed to be linked to cancer. Actually, it was not her at all. It was another research with data linking red meat to cancer. There were two parts that seemed to be an issue. The first one is “People who eat a lot of these meats” the second one I will get to later.

From this I decided to take a trip into US data. The first place we get is Hereford, Texas, which is the beef capital of the world, or so they say. I am not stating that this is not true and it is true that Texas is one of the 5 states responsible for over 50% of all produced beef from cattle and calves. Yet, my mother was from Buenos Aires and you have not tasted true beef until you have tasted a steak from an Argentinian charcoal grill. I am not leaving the subject here, because we have two places were beef rules supremely.

So how is their health?

Dr Karen Humphries seems to know what she was doing and the approach sounded well enough, so what is the issue? Well, when I take an initial look at the statistics the CDC has for Colorectal (Colon) Cancer (at http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/), the data (as incomplete as it is), shows no spike for these 5 states, because there is a valid thought, that outside the metropolitan area’s the home state might be the cheapest place to get steaks, consider that these places are not in possession of a vegetarian explosion (or is it a population explosion of vegetarians?), the overall spike of cancer, should stand out there (read slightly spike).

So, what is the other option?

Perhaps these people do not eat loads of red meat? Are you kidding me? Have you seen the sizes of steaks in them states, they are huge! I can eat a lot but I need to bring my A-game of hunger to these places to finish my plate. So is Dr Humphries wrong?

No, I do not believe this to be the case. She is by the way not the only one on this meaty horse. A 2008 article form Harvard Medical School (at http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml) shows a similar conclusion on the data that they have. So why am I questioning this?

I am not questioning these issues perse. Perhaps there is another factor that is not being considered. So am I just on a windmill chase, like a Don Quixote seeking the next windmill? I am not arguing that those who think this are wrong, but consider the next piece of information, which was found at http://authoritynutrition.com/is-red-meat-bad-for-you-or-good/.

The title ‘Is Red Meat Bad For You, or Good? An Objective Look‘ seems appealing enough, however is it therefor true?

They are giving us the following thoughts which some had considered a long time ago. The thought is set in the following quote “However, the meat we eat today is vastly different from the meat our ancestors ate. Back in the day, animals roamed free and ate grass, insects or whatever was natural to them. Picture a wild cow on a field 10.000 years ago, roaming free and chewing on grass and various other edible plants. The meat from this animal is completely different from the meat derived from a cow that was born and raised in a factory, fed grain-based feed, then pumped full of antibiotics and hormones to make it grow faster“.

Here is the question that is raised within me: “Is this research the first evidence of antibiotics and hormones on consumption beef?”

That is not really the question people seem to be looking at. So is this a windmill I am chasing, or are we asked to look away? This is not against Dr Karen Humphries, who was investigating the red meat on the people. To be honest, with the amount of red meat offered, I would have loved to have been a volunteer there (I could never refuse a good steak). The information and ‘evidence’ as well as my train of thought took less than 5 minutes to clear, then about 25 minutes to get through the readings and the CDC data tables. If we look at the Guardian article (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops). The issue here is that Cancer is seen in a generic term, which means all kinds of cancer and still Argentina, a massive beef consumer (and yummy it is too) is only on the 46^th position, so have I made a case that it is not just about red beef, but are there other elements in play? Which is the second part to all this.

Without more data, the case I am making would only be supposition, yet is this a start? Are there other factors that reduce the dangers in the USA and Argentina? Is there now a valid case against certain hormones and antibiotics? There is no way to tell without a lot more data and more (and better) in depth research. If that is indeed the track we must walk, how should this proceed? You see, in any research there is a goal and a counter goal. You can bet your bottom dollar that pharmaceuticals would not want quick results. If you doubt that, then remember the ‘investigation’ in Syria that we saw in early 2014. The question ‘were chemical weapons used’ (which seemed like a joke) and ‘who did it’ was completely set aside. So here we face a possible approach to it in the way of ‘Could antibiotics be a cause of an increased presence of colon cancer causing bacteria?‘ and ‘Could hormones be a cause of an increased presence of colon cancer causing bacteria?‘ getting the research set up, the data collected and then the actual reporting done might be taking an intense amount of time, but should we therefore not get this done?

I do not pretend to have the answer, yet I do have the questions that were casually not asked in the Channel-7 news. Questions, which are at a first glance seemingly assumed, to some extent by Authority Nutrition, a site that is the child of Kris Gunnars, a medical student. He is also not the man just claiming and assuming issues. His site had an entire tab on evidence, filled with charts that seemed to have been made with proper analytical tools (I did not dig into that data though).

There is another side to all this. Kris voiced it really nice in his article “the meat we eat today is vastly different from the meat our ancestors ate“. We all (including me) seemed to have forgotten about that. As we go forward, what other parts had not been properly looked at? For example, the article ‘History of diethylstilbestrol use in cattle‘ (at https://www.asas.org/docs/publications/raunhist.pdf) gives several answers, but also leaves us with questions. Did anyone look at the evolution of meat as the ‘victim’ (also known as Mr or Mrs soon to be steak) had been treated by these hormones? Let us not forget that this game has been pushed through generation upon generation of hormones. Is the idea so far-fetched that we have changed to context of the BBQ target? Does this amount to poisoning the well? I truly do not know, but it seems that the latest results, in conjunction with the data that Harvard and several other sources have collected, contribute to a new train of thought that we need to take a very serious look at the meat and the cattle as well as their DNA in regards to our beefy food supply. It is the earlier mentioned paper by A. P. Raun and R. L. Preston that leads to two quotes linked to all this. In the beginning “The removal of DES from the market led to the development of a number of other growth stimulation products for cattle” and at the end “If diethylstilbestrol had not been removed, these same resources could have been directed toward the discovery, development, and approval of other technologies for the cattle industry“.

Yet, are we losing sight to the long term effects of these growth stimulants and hormones? If these bowel cancer numbers are linked in any way to these developments, what links are we yet to discover and at what price had beef profit been maximised? The last one is not a blame game moment. At some point hard choices had to be made, consider that Gartners meat in Portland Oregon gets us a Rib Eye for just under $15 (16 oz.), with this the fact that at present beef is at an all-time high according to Reuters (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/25/usa-agriculture-inflation-idUSL1N0QV0J620140825). What happens when the beef rises above the option to buy as a food source? This is not just the drought or disease which is the latest reasons for the price hike. Consider that 318 million American residents need their dinner, current statistics place the vegetarian population (those who hate plants more than animals) at roughly 10%, which means just over 280 million of meat pieces are needed EVERY DAY! Now, many do not have steak on a daily basis, so the need for beef is not at a deadly level, but…..

What did I just say?

There is the crux, have we been so into the need to get more food that eagerness was too quickly satisfied, but we now see a long term consequence.

LET ME BE CLEAR!

This last part is all conjecture, but is it being looked at? If not, why not? There is a foundation of concern and evidence that the effects of beef on our health seems to have changed, the question becomes how much? Questions I do not have answers to, but I was surprised not to see anyone in the press ask the question and deliver the results, just as is!

That itself is worth a question or two too.

Tag Archives: Beef

Next butcher in line

Danger Winnie Robinson. Danger, danger.

Cancer for everyone?

Recent Posts

Archives