<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nothing New</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/</link>
	<description>Vegan and Vegetarian in Nashville &#38; Middle Tennessee</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:21:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sandra</title>
		<link>http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/comment-page-1/#comment-198</link>
		<dc:creator>Sandra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:03:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/#comment-198</guid>
		<description>I must side with Nashveggie on this one.  In an attempt to dispell your suspicions that the downer cows were not used in food productions he presented you with a news report which stated that they in fact were.  You then seemed to discount that and move on to other arguments against the story.  I also seem to think the feed of information can sometimes get tricky to navigate in deciding truths and half-truths but from the way you come across it is hard to dispell as to whether you believe anything you hear or read at all!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must side with Nashveggie on this one.  In an attempt to dispell your suspicions that the downer cows were not used in food productions he presented you with a news report which stated that they in fact were.  You then seemed to discount that and move on to other arguments against the story.  I also seem to think the feed of information can sometimes get tricky to navigate in deciding truths and half-truths but from the way you come across it is hard to dispell as to whether you believe anything you hear or read at all!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NashVeggie</title>
		<link>http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/comment-page-1/#comment-196</link>
		<dc:creator>NashVeggie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:54:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/#comment-196</guid>
		<description>I was not being argumentative.  I just pointed out a statement which addressed your concern as to whether the animals in question had actually been processed as food.  As I did so, you decided to discount it, in a sense attempting to make my point of discussion moot as well as my own post.  As it apparently is not I cannot understand why you continued to do so.  If you saw me as being argumentative then please, rethink your stance on such.  If you choose to not post, your decision, but thick skin will get you far.

Thanks for the time and the visit!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was not being argumentative.  I just pointed out a statement which addressed your concern as to whether the animals in question had actually been processed as food.  As I did so, you decided to discount it, in a sense attempting to make my point of discussion moot as well as my own post.  As it apparently is not I cannot understand why you continued to do so.  If you saw me as being argumentative then please, rethink your stance on such.  If you choose to not post, your decision, but thick skin will get you far.</p>
<p>Thanks for the time and the visit!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: n. ayisha</title>
		<link>http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/comment-page-1/#comment-195</link>
		<dc:creator>n. ayisha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:47:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/#comment-195</guid>
		<description>it was not my intention to engage in an argument with you.  i started by asking a question of clarification.  i am a scientist.  we function on evidence-based statements.  simply writing or implying something does not make it fact.  

i was born outside of the US and raised there on a self-sustaining farm.  we grew all of our own food and raised animals the old-fashioned way.  i am a meat eater, but i happen to be a conscientious meat eater.  i alter my food habits based on what is on the market, and i avoid products processed according to methods i do not approve of.  i buy local, i buy organic, i even avoid purchasing produce out-of-season as a general rule because i greatly respect the concept of growth cycles (did i mention that i worked for several years in the environmental education world and taught organic gardening classes in NYC for more than 7 years?).  

my statements were not meant to be an attack.  to the contrary, if you want to win someone to your position, you present the facts in a transparent manner, then make conjecture based on those facts.  it&#039;s the best foundation for a well-reasoned argument.  i don&#039;t agree with most report of science-related news for the very reason that there is not often a clear distinction between what the facts are and what these facts may suggest.  

i appreciate what you are doing with your blog, but don&#039;t be so defensive when a question is posed.  i am not disagreeing with your ideas or trying to dismiss them.  i very rarely comment on people&#039;s blogs because i usually don&#039;t think what they have to say is worth even validating.  if you&#039;re not willing to engage in meaningful give and take, you will alienate potential listeners...in which case, you&#039;re just preaching to the choir.

i promise this is the absolute last comment i will leave!  take care.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it was not my intention to engage in an argument with you.  i started by asking a question of clarification.  i am a scientist.  we function on evidence-based statements.  simply writing or implying something does not make it fact.  </p>
<p>i was born outside of the US and raised there on a self-sustaining farm.  we grew all of our own food and raised animals the old-fashioned way.  i am a meat eater, but i happen to be a conscientious meat eater.  i alter my food habits based on what is on the market, and i avoid products processed according to methods i do not approve of.  i buy local, i buy organic, i even avoid purchasing produce out-of-season as a general rule because i greatly respect the concept of growth cycles (did i mention that i worked for several years in the environmental education world and taught organic gardening classes in NYC for more than 7 years?).  </p>
<p>my statements were not meant to be an attack.  to the contrary, if you want to win someone to your position, you present the facts in a transparent manner, then make conjecture based on those facts.  it&#8217;s the best foundation for a well-reasoned argument.  i don&#8217;t agree with most report of science-related news for the very reason that there is not often a clear distinction between what the facts are and what these facts may suggest.  </p>
<p>i appreciate what you are doing with your blog, but don&#8217;t be so defensive when a question is posed.  i am not disagreeing with your ideas or trying to dismiss them.  i very rarely comment on people&#8217;s blogs because i usually don&#8217;t think what they have to say is worth even validating.  if you&#8217;re not willing to engage in meaningful give and take, you will alienate potential listeners&#8230;in which case, you&#8217;re just preaching to the choir.</p>
<p>i promise this is the absolute last comment i will leave!  take care.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NashVeggie</title>
		<link>http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/comment-page-1/#comment-193</link>
		<dc:creator>NashVeggie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/#comment-193</guid>
		<description>You can tip-toe around the line in the article all you want, but the statement that I quoted above from the latest recall article says exactly what you said you could not find.  

Besides, if you want to eat the beef even though you fail to see any evidence of the factory farm being in the wrong then that&#039;s you, but do you really want chances taken??  From your posts it seems you don&#039;t really care and are all for taking those chances.

As far as you &quot;misinformation&quot; statement, the USDA has been selling us on the fact that the US beef supply is safe for consumption although each cow is pumped with BGH before slaughter.  

Carcinogens and gene-damaging hormones have been found in U.S. meat products leading the ban of its sale in Europe.

http://www.preventcancer.com/press/editorials/march24_97.htm

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You can tip-toe around the line in the article all you want, but the statement that I quoted above from the latest recall article says exactly what you said you could not find.  </p>
<p>Besides, if you want to eat the beef even though you fail to see any evidence of the factory farm being in the wrong then that&#8217;s you, but do you really want chances taken??  From your posts it seems you don&#8217;t really care and are all for taking those chances.</p>
<p>As far as you &#8220;misinformation&#8221; statement, the USDA has been selling us on the fact that the US beef supply is safe for consumption although each cow is pumped with BGH before slaughter.  </p>
<p>Carcinogens and gene-damaging hormones have been found in U.S. meat products leading the ban of its sale in Europe.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.preventcancer.com/press/editorials/march24_97.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.preventcancer.com/press/editorials/march24_97.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: n. ayisha</title>
		<link>http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/comment-page-1/#comment-192</link>
		<dc:creator>n. ayisha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:23:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/#comment-192</guid>
		<description>i read the articles you suggested, but i still stand by my original comment.  please understand, my intent is not to belittle the significance of this issue, but to determine where the line is between fact and conjecture.  if those articles are accurate, then it appears to be the case that there is an allowance for the inclusion of animals that were initially well, but later became ill...providing that the meat is inspected and deemed acceptable for consumption.  

according to the second article you linked to:

 &quot;Over two years, the department said, the company had killed cattle that had passed an initial inspection but then became disabled.
Hallmark/Westland &quot;did not consistently contact&quot; the veterinarian at the USDA&#039;s food-safety arm in situations in which cattle passed inspection but then became unable to walk before they were killed, the department said. The company was thus not compliant with government rules.&quot;

it therefore appears that the &quot;wrong&quot; committed, according to USDA guidelines, was not contacting the proper channels in a timely fashion.

also according to that article, &quot;The Humane Society&#039;s president and chief executive, Wayne Pacelle, in a statement, called the recall &quot;a prudent decision.&quot; But he said that Congress and the USDA must strengthen laws to ensure humane treatment of animals at slaughter plants.&quot;

Mr. Pacelle&#039;s statements suggestion that the crux of this current issue was the cruelty to the animals.  the article even makes a point of stating that the potential health risk related to consuming this meat was &quot;remote.&quot;

i am appalled (again) that animals are allowed to be treated in this manner, and that the USDA makes allowances for the inclusion of questionable material into the food supply.  however, as this current investigation was reported by most press sources, it is implied that these sick animals were tortured then dumped into the food supply.

many Americans still believe we are at war with Iraq because they are responsible for 9/11, as has been implied many times by the current administration.  knowledge is good, but mis-information can be dangerous.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i read the articles you suggested, but i still stand by my original comment.  please understand, my intent is not to belittle the significance of this issue, but to determine where the line is between fact and conjecture.  if those articles are accurate, then it appears to be the case that there is an allowance for the inclusion of animals that were initially well, but later became ill&#8230;providing that the meat is inspected and deemed acceptable for consumption.  </p>
<p>according to the second article you linked to:</p>
<p> &#8220;Over two years, the department said, the company had killed cattle that had passed an initial inspection but then became disabled.<br />
Hallmark/Westland &#8220;did not consistently contact&#8221; the veterinarian at the USDA&#8217;s food-safety arm in situations in which cattle passed inspection but then became unable to walk before they were killed, the department said. The company was thus not compliant with government rules.&#8221;</p>
<p>it therefore appears that the &#8220;wrong&#8221; committed, according to USDA guidelines, was not contacting the proper channels in a timely fashion.</p>
<p>also according to that article, &#8220;The Humane Society&#8217;s president and chief executive, Wayne Pacelle, in a statement, called the recall &#8220;a prudent decision.&#8221; But he said that Congress and the USDA must strengthen laws to ensure humane treatment of animals at slaughter plants.&#8221;</p>
<p>Mr. Pacelle&#8217;s statements suggestion that the crux of this current issue was the cruelty to the animals.  the article even makes a point of stating that the potential health risk related to consuming this meat was &#8220;remote.&#8221;</p>
<p>i am appalled (again) that animals are allowed to be treated in this manner, and that the USDA makes allowances for the inclusion of questionable material into the food supply.  however, as this current investigation was reported by most press sources, it is implied that these sick animals were tortured then dumped into the food supply.</p>
<p>many Americans still believe we are at war with Iraq because they are responsible for 9/11, as has been implied many times by the current administration.  knowledge is good, but mis-information can be dangerous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NashVeggie</title>
		<link>http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/comment-page-1/#comment-191</link>
		<dc:creator>NashVeggie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:05:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/#comment-191</guid>
		<description>n. aiyisha...

If you were to follow along on this story and read the latest news included in the post here:

http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/02/18/more-beefy-news/

as well as the news article here:

http://tinyurl.com/yrmxer

you will find that, quoting the first paragraph of the article:

&quot;An investigation by the group found the company processed cows that were too sick or injured to walk, in violation of the agriculture department&#039;s rules.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>n. aiyisha&#8230;</p>
<p>If you were to follow along on this story and read the latest news included in the post here:</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/02/18/more-beefy-news/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/02/18/more-beefy-news/</a></p>
<p>as well as the news article here:</p>
<p><a href="http://tinyurl.com/yrmxer" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/yrmxer</a></p>
<p>you will find that, quoting the first paragraph of the article:</p>
<p>&#8220;An investigation by the group found the company processed cows that were too sick or injured to walk, in violation of the agriculture department&#8217;s rules.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: n. ayisha</title>
		<link>http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/comment-page-1/#comment-190</link>
		<dc:creator>n. ayisha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/#comment-190</guid>
		<description>i appreciate the presentation of this article, but i am concerned about potential ambiguity in some of the statements made.  is it the case that the &quot;secret footage&quot; shows the injured animals being slaughtered and then processed into products that potentially are fed to children OR does the video simply show workers using disturbing methods to get the animals to stand (so that the &quot;walking in&quot; rule will be upheld)?  i am by no means condoning their actions, but the press tends to misrepresent facts for the purpose of creating sensationalism.  i see evidence of animal abuse (and i am appalled at that), but i do not see clear indication that the animals that failed to &quot;walk in&quot; to the slaughterhouse were still processed for food.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i appreciate the presentation of this article, but i am concerned about potential ambiguity in some of the statements made.  is it the case that the &#8220;secret footage&#8221; shows the injured animals being slaughtered and then processed into products that potentially are fed to children OR does the video simply show workers using disturbing methods to get the animals to stand (so that the &#8220;walking in&#8221; rule will be upheld)?  i am by no means condoning their actions, but the press tends to misrepresent facts for the purpose of creating sensationalism.  i see evidence of animal abuse (and i am appalled at that), but i do not see clear indication that the animals that failed to &#8220;walk in&#8221; to the slaughterhouse were still processed for food.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Music City Bloggers &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Nation&#8217;s largest beef recall includes food intended for Tennessee schoolchildren</title>
		<link>http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/comment-page-1/#comment-188</link>
		<dc:creator>Music City Bloggers &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Nation&#8217;s largest beef recall includes food intended for Tennessee schoolchildren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:59:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/#comment-188</guid>
		<description>[...] Just over three weeks ago, a hidden camera recording from a meatpacking plant in California was released showing workers abusing cattle that was notÂ in government-regulated condition to be processed for human consumption (short story: if an animal is too sick to walk into a slaughterhouse, it is deemed unfit for slaughter because it is assumed to have wallowed in waste matter that creates risk of e. Coli andÂ salmonella and that their immune systems are too weak to combat other diseases such as mad cow disease). Nashveggie published a good synopsis of the original CNN story and video here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Just over three weeks ago, a hidden camera recording from a meatpacking plant in California was released showing workers abusing cattle that was notÂ in government-regulated condition to be processed for human consumption (short story: if an animal is too sick to walk into a slaughterhouse, it is deemed unfit for slaughter because it is assumed to have wallowed in waste matter that creates risk of e. Coli andÂ salmonella and that their immune systems are too weak to combat other diseases such as mad cow disease). Nashveggie published a good synopsis of the original CNN story and video here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nashveggie &#187; Hold the Beef</title>
		<link>http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/comment-page-1/#comment-159</link>
		<dc:creator>Nashveggie &#187; Hold the Beef</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/#comment-159</guid>
		<description>[...] wrote a few days ago about a slaughterhouse in California that was using downer cows in their meat production.Â  It [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] wrote a few days ago about a slaughterhouse in California that was using downer cows in their meat production.Â  It [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nashveggie</title>
		<link>http://nashveggie.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/comment-page-1/#comment-98</link>
		<dc:creator>Nashveggie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 04:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nashveggie.com/index.php/2008/01/31/nothing-new/#comment-98</guid>
		<description>Valerie...

Wow!  Thanks for the amazing comment!  I appreciate your compliments and your visits!

Thanks much!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Valerie&#8230;</p>
<p>Wow!  Thanks for the amazing comment!  I appreciate your compliments and your visits!</p>
<p>Thanks much!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

