VeeshanVault

Tyek wrote:You keep saying we are not designed as meat eaters, here is a video that clearly shows that we can and have been hunting for centuries this way. We have developed a system where this need to hunt is no longer required, nor frankly could the planet's wildlife sustain the hunting shown here. There are too many people. I understand your not liking the system that has been developed, but it beats wiping out the entire animal kingdom and eventually ourselves.

No one cared that you went vegan. Most even wished you well on your journey. Things changed when you became a pretentious douchebag and started preaching your fake science and ideology, We accepted your lifestyle, accept ours. I would even wager that if you lived your lifestyle, did well with it that people might ask you how you like being a vegan and how it works, then you could have shared your experience. Instead you chose this hamfisted approach and now you are making yourself look like a moron and a lunatic.

I wish you well on your journey, but fuck off on your preaching and bullshit made up scientific facts.

Tyek wrote:We accepted your lifestyle, accept ours.

Spang wrote:

Tyek wrote:We accepted your lifestyle, accept ours.

Accepting your lifestyle would be akin to accepting the lifestyle of a rapist and/or murderer.

Spang wrote:

Tyek wrote:We accepted your lifestyle, accept ours.

Accepting your lifestyle would be akin to accepting the lifestyle of a rapist and/or murderer.

Canelek wrote:Can vegans eat chicken that had previously been frozen? I figure the 20lb bags of chicken breasts are safe since the freezer section of Costco isn't "sentient".

miir wrote:

Canelek wrote:Can vegans eat chicken that had previously been frozen? I figure the 20lb bags of chicken breasts are safe since the freezer section of Costco isn't "sentient".

That's not really chicken...

miir wrote:trollin, trollin, trollin....

Boogahz wrote:

miir wrote:

Canelek wrote:Can vegans eat chicken that had previously been frozen? I figure the 20lb bags of chicken breasts are safe since the freezer section of Costco isn't "sentient".

That's not really chicken...

soylent green?

Spang wrote:Free-range animals are tortured and slaughtered, too. Of course, you people don't care about animals, otherwise you wouldn't be eating them.

Canelek wrote:Have fun eating your mixed-can-food goulash.

Canelek wrote:I am going to hazard a guess that you take in more sodium and preservatives from canned food than most people with balanced diets.

Canelek wrote:Just from what I see on VV. I'll summarize:

A) You generally make posts or comments with only links or quotes (or both), leaving out your own commentary or thought process.

B) You have such I high regard for liberalism, you disregard the other sides, thus leaving out reality. Much like the nuances of politics and real-world pragmatism. Black and white is not a good platform for rational discourse, etc...

C) You tend to isolate yourself as a means of attention, thereby eliminating the need for debate and explanation.

Meh, that's all I have time for...such is the majesty of the Internet...that, and this post was brought to you by too much iPhone typing.

Winnow wrote:Canelek needs to write up profiles for each member of Veeshanvault!

Sueven wrote:Part of my reason for generally avoiding cooking meat is practical. Good meat is expensive (at least if you have no car and the only walkable grocery store is Whole Foods, like me) and it's a pain in the ass. You have to use separate cutting boards, you have to be careful about handwashing, all that crap. I don't have time for that. I can get my protein through tofu and quinoa and the delicious tuna sandwiches that I frequently eat for lunch.

Our research was first intended to develop means of disinfecting wooden cutting surfaces at home, so that they would be almost as safe as plastics. Our safety concern was that bacteria such as Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella, which might contaminate a work surface when raw meat was being prepared, ought not remain on the surface to contaminate other foods that might be eaten without further cooking. We soon found that disease bacteria such as these were not recoverable from wooden surfaces in a short time after they were applied, unless very large numbers were used. New plastic surfaces allowed the bacteria to persist, but were easily cleaned and disinfected. However, wooden boards that had been used and had many knife cuts acted almost the same as new wood, whereas plastic surfaces that were knife-scarred were impossible to clean and disinfect manually, especially when food residues such as chicken fat were present. Scanning electron micrographs revealed highly significant damage to plastic surfaces from knife cuts.

Fairweather Pure wrote:I use a marble cutting board. I had 2 made with the leftovers from our counter tops. Works good!

I use a marble cutting board. I had 2 made with the leftovers from our counter tops. Works good!

miir wrote:

I use a marble cutting board. I had 2 made with the leftovers from our counter tops. Works good!

Marble is fucking terrible to use as a cutting board.

It ruins knives and it wears and dissolves if you cut acidic fruits or vegetables on it.
The only thing a marble 'cutting board' should ever be used for is making pastries or rolling dough.

Canelek wrote:I think it was Food Detectives testing that showed plastic boards being more prone to retaining bacteria.

Aabidano wrote:

Canelek wrote:I think it was Food Detectives testing that showed plastic boards being more prone to retaining bacteria.

Yep, but only if you hand wash & dry them. Same with wooden spoons and cutting boards. Plastic bowls that have been heated to high and hand bubbles are worse.

Aabidano wrote:The problem with the plastic boards was the scratches they invariably get from use harboring moisture & bacteria. Granite, marble, etc... are porous enough to have the same issue though at a lesser level.

Air dried wood? You might as well be sucking on a toilet brush from a truck stop

I don't recall the type, one of the wood boards was antibacterial by nature. At least until it got really scarred up.

Aabidano wrote:Air dried wood? You might as well be sucking on a toilet brush from a truck stop

I don't recall the type, one of the wood boards was antibacterial by nature. At least until it got really scarred up.

PLASTIC AND WOODEN CUTTING BOARDS

Dean O. Cliver, Ph.D.

We began our research comparing plastic and wooden cutting boards after the U.S. Department of Agriculture told us they had no scientific evidence to support their recommendation that plastic, rather than wooden cutting boards be used in home kitchens. Then and since, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Meat and Poultry Inspection Manual (official regulations) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 1995 Food Code (recommended regulations for restaurants and retail food sales in the various states of the U.S.) permit use of cutting boards made of maple or similar close-grained hardwood. They do not specifically authorise acceptable plastic materials, nor do they specify how plastic surfaces must be maintained.

Our research was first intended to develop means of disinfecting wooden cutting surfaces, so that they would be almost as safe as plastics. Our safety concern was that bacteria such as Escherichia coli O157:H7 (commonly known as E-coli) and Salmonella, which might contaminate a work surface when raw meat was being prepared, ought not remain on the surface to contaminate other foods that might be eaten without further cooking. We soon found that disease bacteria such as these were not recoverable from wooden surfaces in a short time after they were applied, unless very large numbers were used. New plastic surfaces allowed the bacteria to persist, but were easily cleaned and disinfected. However, wooden boards that had been used and had many knife cuts acted almost the same as new wood, whereas plastic surfaces that were knife-scarred were impossible to clean and disinfect manually, especially when food residues such as chicken fat were present.

Although the bacteria that had disappeared from the wood surfaces were found alive inside the wood for some time after application, they evidently do not multiply, and they gradually die. They can be detected only by splitting or gouging the wood or by forcing water completely through from one surface to the other. If a sharp knife is used to cut into the work surfaces after used plastic or wood has been contaminated with bacteria and cleaned manually, more bacteria are recovered from a used plastic surface than from a used wood surface.

"Manual cleaning" in our experiments has been done with a sponge, hot tap-water, and liquid dishwashing detergent. Mechanical cleaning with a dishwashing machine can be done successfully with plastic surfaces (even if knife-scarred) and wooden boards especially made for this. Wooden boards, but not plastics, that are small enough to fit into a microwave oven can be disinfected rapidly, but care must be used to prevent overheating. Work surfaces that have been cleaned can be disinfected with bleach (sodium hypochlorite) solutions; this disinfecting is reliable only if cleaning has been done successfully.

The experiments described have been conducted with more than 10 species of hardwoods and with 4 plastic polymers, as well as hard rubber. Because we found essentially no differences among the tested wood species, not all combinations of bacteria and wood were tested, nor were all combinations of bacteria and plastics or hard rubber. Bacteria tested, in addition to those named above, include Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus.

We believe that the experiments were designed to be properly representative of conditions in a home kitchen. They may or may not be applicable to other plastic and wooden food contact surfaces or to cutting boards in commercial food processing or food service operations, but we have no reason to believe that they are not relevant, except that not all plastic surfaces are subject to knife-scarring. Before our first studies had been published, they were criticised incorrectly for not having included used (knife-scarred) cutting surfaces. We had been careful to include used surfaces, and so were surprised that others who did later experiments and claimed to have refuted our findings often had used only new plastic and wood. Although some established scientific laboratories say their results differ from ours, we have received multiple communications from school children who have done science projects that have reached essentially the same conclusions that we did.

We have no commercial relationships to any company making cutting boards or other food preparation utensils. We have tested boards and cleaning and disinfecting products, some of which were supplied to us gratis. We have not tested all of the products that have been sent to us, simply because there is not time. We are aware that there are other food preparation surfaces made of glass or of stainless steel; we have done very little with these because they are quite destructive of the sharp cutting edges of knives, and therefore introduce another class of hazard to the kitchen. We believe, on the basis of our published and to-be-published research, that food can be prepared safely on wooden cutting surfaces and that plastic cutting surfaces present some disadvantages that had been overlooked until we found them.

In addition to our laboratory research on this subject, we learned after arriving in California in June of 1995 that a case-control study of sporadic salmonellosis had been done in this region and included cutting boards among many risk factors assessed (Kass, P.H., et al., Disease determinants of sporadic salmonellosis in four northern California counties: a case control study of older children and adults. Ann. Epidemiol. 2:683-696, 1992.). The project had been conducted before our work began. It revealed that those using wooden cutting boards in their home kitchens were less than half as likely as average to contract salmonellosis (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.81); those using synthetic (plastic or glass) cutting boards were about twice as likely as average to contract salmonellosis (O.R. 1.99, C.I. 1.03-3.85); and the effect of cleaning the board regularly after preparing meat on it was not statistically significant (O.R. 1.20, C.I. 0.54-2.68). We know of no similar research that has been done anywhere, so we regard it as the best epidemiological evidence available to date that wooden cutting boards are not a hazard to human health, but plastic cutting boards may be.

Dean O. Cliver
Professor Emeritus

Department of Population Health & Reproduction
1019 Haring Hall
University of California
Davis, CA 95616

Current Activities
Member, National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Specifications for Foods — advisors to USDA & other Federal agencies

Member of editorial boards of International Journal of Food Microbiology and Journal of Food Protection; reviewed 45 manuscripts for 10 journals in 2008

Food Science Communicator (Institute of Food Technologists) — sharing food safety information with the media

Resource person, “Mad Scientist” — answering questions submitted (mostly by children and young people) to the Mad Scientist web site

Invited speaker, various international symposia



Service
Collaborations with other food safety programs within the SVM and the campus.
Liaison activities with food animal industries and food industries in general.

Head of the WHO Collaborating Center for Food Virology.

Aslanna wrote:I know the problem I read the article that I linked! With a scratched up board plastic did worse than wood when it came to being bacteria free. People need to read it again.

Boogahz wrote:Cutting straight from the source removes the need for any type of cutting board.