Thread: USDA changes definitions of "Natural" and "Minimally Processed"

On Feb 5, 5:33*pm, Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> The USDA used to define "minimally processed" as, "has only been
> handled as necessary to slaughter, clean, and make it ready for
> cooking."
>
> But on the package of "Tyson Natural Chicken Wings, Minimally
> processed"" I purchased, it says it has been injected with a 12% of
> chicken broth including salt.
>
> Sure enough, looking at the USDA site, they have removed that clause
> from "Minimally processed" and now it just reads," Minimal processing
> means that the product was processed in a manner that does not
> fundamentally alter the product.". *Which is pretty vague.
>
> And furthermore, the term "Natural" USED TO BE defined as: a ´natural¡
> product has no artificial ingredients, coloring ingredients, or
> chemical preservatives, and is minimally processed, just enough to get
> it ready to be cooked. Most ready-to-cook chicken can be labeled
> ´natural,¡ if processors choose to do so.
>
> The term "chemical preservative" has now been removed. *Hence, salting
> and brining is now allowed in minimally processed, "natural" chicken.
> I'm sorry, but chicken don't naturally inject themselves with the
> broth of the brethren.
>
> Whoever it was that suggested that the USDA should be disbanded to
> save money, I'm tending to agree with them. *What good are they if any
> manufacturer/producer can bribe them into reversing all the laws and
> standards they established in the last 10 years. *Why pay them money
> to do this?
>
> -sw

Agree completely. Big Agriculture is killing us with their greed and
additives, and the govt is helping by promoting the grains so heavily
that many of us have found detrimental to our health. We have been so
much healthier since we quit all grains, and are losing weight. This
move could help so many diabetics, but the govt continues to support
big business & big Pharma. BTW, neither of us is or was diabetic, just
eating the SAD(standard American Diet) crap this made us fat and
feeling crummy.
Nan in DE

Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The term "chemical preservative" has now been removed.

It's worth noting that there are some very benign preservatives, other than
the fact that they often have a taste component which has to be taken into
account.

>Hence, salting
> and brining is now allowed in minimally processed, "natural" chicken.
> I'm sorry, but chicken don't naturally inject themselves with the
> broth of the brethren.

That's only because they don't have fingers.

> Whoever it was that suggested that the USDA should be disbanded to
> save money, I'm tending to agree with them. What good are they if any
> manufacturer/producer can bribe them into reversing all the laws and
> standards they established in the last 10 years. Why pay them money
> to do this?

As if big corporate food processors can be trusted to voluntarily maintain
safe and healthy standards? There have been lots of product recalls which
certainly saved lives and prevented serious illnesses. When you talk about
getting rid of the USDA, I get visions of 19th century stinkhouses
processing my food.

But I agree they need to be working for the consumer rather than the
processor.

Did you see anything from the USDA about the change in standards? Usually
they have press releases and site articles when they make major changes,
such as the pork cooking temp change, for example.

MartyB

On Feb 5, 4:33*pm, Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> The USDA used to define "minimally processed" as, "has only been
> handled as necessary to slaughter, clean, and make it ready for
> cooking."
>
> But on the package of "Tyson Natural Chicken Wings, Minimally
> processed"" I purchased, it says it has been injected with a 12% of
> chicken broth including salt.
....

Well, maybe Tyson believes "...has been injected with a 12% of
chicken broth including salt." means "...and make it ready for
cooking." ;-)

John Kuthe...

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:31:26 -0600, Nunya Bidnits wrote:

> Sqwertz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Whoever it was that suggested that the USDA should be disbanded to
>> save money, I'm tending to agree with them. What good are they if any
>> manufacturer/producer can bribe them into reversing all the laws and
>> standards they established in the last 10 years. Why pay them money
>> to do this?
>
> As if big corporate food processors can be trusted to voluntarily maintain
> safe and healthy standards? There have been lots of product recalls which
> certainly saved lives and prevented serious illnesses. When you talk about
> getting rid of the USDA, I get visions of 19th century stinkhouses
> processing my food.

Name one major (or minor) USDA-instigated food recall that has taken
place BEFORE the product(s) had been consumed.

It can't be done.

(I know you know this but I'm just making a point)

> But I agree they need to be working for the consumer rather than the
> processor.

Which is my point.

While the producers do need to be in check somehow, It's just not
happening until well after the public had been compromised. And they
damn well know it.

90% of all packaged raw chicken distributed today have salmonella
and/or campylobacter. And the USDA knows it and chooses fluff it and
pass along the burden of making the food supply "safe" to the
counties, retailers, restaurants, and home cooks - when it SHOULD be
stoped at the source and cost _much_ less.

Tyson and their lobbyists need a few holes in their heads. Instead of
paying taxes we should be hiring mercenaries. Then they might take
notice.

<http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/january/food/chicken-safety/overview/chicken-safety-ov.htm>

(This is whole chickens. Extrapolate "packaged pieced chicken" to get
90+%)

-sw (where's my rootbeer schnapps)