Fast Food Nation (Movie) -- Scare Tactic or Eye Opener?

[Pangloss]

I haven't read this book or seen this movie, and I haven't decided yet if I will. So I thought maybe I'd just ask the question here. Has anybody read it, and if so what do you think?

 

ABC News ran a story tonight on the fictionalized film version, which is in competition at Cannes:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1985724

(It's a video clip -- they have a print story on the site but it doesn't cover the counterpoint from the beef industry spokesperson or some other interesting aspects of the story.)

 

The best part of this, and to me the most compelling reason to read it, was this quote from the author: "I still eat meat, but I think if you're going to eat meat then you should understand something about the industry." (I may not have that exactly right.)

 

After watching the video story I linked above, I can't help but wonder if the movie makers are a bit at odds with the book author. It seems AWFULLY sensationalist, implying that all beef has large amounts of fecal matter in it -- surely an exaggeration. Hello, can we make a decision based on science instead of scare tactics? Please?

 

An industry spokesperson (so take this with a grain of salt) said something along the lines of "this movie represents our industry about as well as Poseidon represents the cruise industry". (chuckle) Cute turn of phrase, but I'm gonna need a little more than that, just like I'm gonna need more than scare tactics from the vegetistas.

 

But the reporter says the bacteria counts are going down, which seems a bit more compelling. Beef sure SEEMS safe these days.

 

(This is the kind of thing that chafes my hide -- I can't get good info because it's just one side versus the other. How can I find out the TRUTH?)

 

Anyway, what do you all think?

[zyncod]

Well, there's all kinds of tests that the USDA does, and I would be suprised if a test for fecal coliform bacteria wasn't one of them. Beef, in this country, for the most part is safe.

 

That being said, one of the nice things about being a vegetarian is that you almost never have to worry about your food making you sick. I mean, yes, there's the occasional thing like salmonella on Mexican strawberries. But it's very unlikely that you're going to get food poisoning. That's not the best reason to be a vegetarian, but it is one of them.

[Pangloss]

That's an interesting point and raises another question that I've wondered about -- is non-cooked food (vegetables that haven't been cooked) actually safer in general than cooked food (meat/poultry/etc)?

 

I have a kind of resistance to thinking so, because, well, it's not cooked, so it's, like, you know.... dirty! But I guess I'm smart enough to know that that may be a perception problem rather than a reality.

[padren]

I think that food safety risks boil down to two types: risk of infection, and risk of toxins.

 

Cooking anything sufficiently, destroys the risk of bacterial infection, and stops the production of toxins that the bacteria are producing. Toxins are not generally destroyed by heat, which is why it is not advised to try to use high heat to salvage food that has been left at room tempurature too long.

 

Uncooked vegitables are generally less likely to be exposed to bacteria and when they are, are (iirc) can't support bacterial growth nearly as well as meat. This means its more of a risk of transferring bacteria to the consumer than causing a toxic reaction.

They still have issues of mold, but that takes a lot longer than bacteria to become a problem.

 

As far as meat/dairy goes, it is a lot more likely to be contaminated, but because we habitually cook it and never store it in warm enough conditions for the bacteria to produce toxins, it is probably "cleaner" at the point of consumption than raw foods.

Its hard to directly compare though, since how you handle raw veggies and meats is really where the risks lay.

 

 

As for the video and the fecal quantities being "through the roof" I really wonder what amount of fecal matter would be "just the right amount" all in all.

They could easily be talking about such small amounts that there is no risk of toxins (in the fecal matter itself from before being introduced to the meat), and at the same time (since its cooked) no risk of bacteria.

 

Honestly, I am more concerned with the flies that eat off the dog's 3 day old business outside, then land on your food and vomit on it to digest part of your steak.

[Pangloss]

Egad. That was fascinating, thanks Padren. I've been operating under the "the more you cook, it the better" philosophy, but what you said makes perfect sense. The fly thing was maybe just a bit TMI. (grin)

 

I'm definitely getting the sense that perhaps a little reading along these general subject lines might benefit me after all, which was part of the point of the thread (for me anyway), so I feel like it's been productive even if the discussion doesn't go any further.

[bascule]

That's an interesting point and raises another question that I've wondered about -- is non-cooked food (vegetables that haven't been cooked) actually safer in general than cooked food (meat/poultry/etc)?

 

I'll say this at least, fresh, raw fish certainly tastes better than cooked fish. Yum! But, of course, eating raw fish is also much more likely to make you sick than if you cook it (unless it's gravlax). I've heard it argued that raw foods are healthier, however. Not really sure how much truth there is to that.

 

There's a considerable amount of evidence which shows that our early ancestors went through a period of being primarily fish eaters (at least in terms of the animal flesh we consumed). [SOURCE!] Fish were our primary source of the DHA needed to develop and maintain our brains before we evolved the ability to produce DHA ourselves. Our bodies seem naturally tuned to consume fish more than any other type of meat.