Pork: The Government’s Other White Meat

Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Posted in category Food Freedom

My new article is up at Mises.org,”Pork: The Government’s Other White Meat.” A history of government intervention and the resulting “white” meat.

Be Sociable, Share!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to Pork: The Government’s Other White Meat

  1. George says:

    January 8th, 2013 at 9:12 am

    A general rule of thumb: with a few exceptions, the whiter a food the less healthy it is.

  2. jeannie queenie says:

    January 8th, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    So we know that pork is the ‘other white meat’…but then we also have another white, or sometimes pinkish or red/snapper source of protein. As we were all prepping for the holidays, the FDA brought this closer to passing this one through on salmon…guaranteed to add to our gigantic healthcare bills, both as individuals and collectively…wonder if restaurants will buy this. Be alerted to what this bodes for allergies as well.


    “In a recent statement, Michael Hansen PhD, Senior Scientist with Consumers Union said:
    “The Environmental Assessment (EA) states that the FDA has found that the salmon is safe to eat. However, we are deeply concerned that the potential of these fish to cause allergic reactions has not been adequately researched. FDA has allowed this fish to move forward based on tests of allergenicity of only six engineered fish — tests that actually did show an increase in allergy-causing potential.” [Emphasis mine]

    But that’s not all. The salmon — which contains a spliced-in growth hormone gene that makes it grow up to five times faster, reaching market size in about 18 months instead of three years — poses a significant threat to the environment and natural fish stocks as well. According to a Purdue University computer model that tracked the effects of releasing just 60 “Frankenfish” into a population of 60,000, there was a complete extinction of the normal fish in just 40 fish generations. It appears the larger size, which attracted mates more easily, combined with a slight reduction in survival rates, was a killer combination. Furthermore, according to Jeffrey Smith, Canadian scientists also engineered their own set of fast growing salmon and tested their behavior in tanks with other fish.” Read the rest.

  3. Justin says:

    January 8th, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    Couldn’t one argue that the grower/producer against paying into check-offs actually benefits indirectly from the check-off programs? Would you have me believe that the increases in USDA check-off program funding and the growth of organic agriculture, are coincidence? My take away from the article, is that you favor organic farming, which is fine, but I don’t think you can conclude that the organic farmer, forced to pay into check-off funding (willingly or not), is at a disadvantage. I would counter that as demand for commidities go up, through marketing and research (funded by check-offs), demand for niche market products also go up.

Leave a Reply