Roasters Choice Tasting Competition Results
1st Place RC102 – Carribou Coffee – Ethiopian Organic Yirgacheffe
2nd Place RC 106 – Sweet Maria’s – Rwanda Gkongoro Nyarusiza
3rd Place RC109 – The Roasterie – Kenya
4th Place RC104 – Berres Brothers Coffee Roasters – Tanzania Peaberry – Songea
5th Place RC105 – Dolce Gourmet Gelateria & Café – Panama – City Roast
6th Place RC103 – Tony’s Coffees and Teas – Colombia – Tolima Microlot – Gaitania Cyerposo
7th Place RC108 – Lexington Coffee Roasting Company – Rwanda Bufcafe
8th Place RC107 – Bear Creek Coffee – Papau New Guinea
9th Place RC110 – Vermont Artisan Coffee & Tea – Ethiopian Sidamo – Organic Fairtrade
10th Place RC111 – Cuvee Coffee Roasting Company – Rwanda - Bucafe
Woooooo Hoooooo!!!!!!!
Ignorance is Bliss......
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Blame
"All blame is a waste of time. No matter how much fault you find with another, and regardless of how much you blame him, it will not change you."
~Wayne Dyer
~Wayne Dyer
Friday, January 18, 2008
Vegan is looking better and better...
Meat and milk from cloned animals is as safe as that from their counterparts bred the old-fashioned way, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday.
How long have they been cloning animals? Let's see, Dolly was cloned in 1997 - I believe the first "successful" clone, although Dolly has since died of lung cancer. Ok, so they've been cloning sheep for 10 years, pigs and cows for less than that. Is meat from cloned animals really safe for consumption? Some research and long-term side effect would be nice. And isn't LONG-TERM 20 years? Maybe 10-15 - it hasn't even been 1 year since humans have been consuming cloned meat. Medications go through years of study (on animals & humans) before they are approved for mainstream consumption. Why isn't our food? It's strange...when bovine growth hormone was initially approved for use in beef and dairy cattle the FDA said this was "safe." Europe and Canada have sinced banned the use of rBGH (stating consumption health risks, most significantly cancer), the US has not. How do you explain increased growth rates in children, early menstruation (as early as six)? I don't think we can chalk this all up to the evolution of man.
By its very definition, a successfully cloned animal should be no different from the original animal whose DNA was used to create it. But the technology hasn't been perfected - and many attempts at livestock cloning still end in fatal birth defects or with deformed fetuses dying in the womb.
The FDA's report acknowledges that, "Currently, it is not possible to draw any conclusions regarding the longevity of livestock clones or possible long-term health consequences" for the animal. But the agency concluded that cloned animals that are born healthy are no different from their non-cloned counterparts, and go on to reproduce normally as well. I think this paragraph contradicts itself.....cloned animals are no different than their non-cloned counterparts but they don't know about their long-term health consequences but they reproduce normally???? I'm confused.....
SSSSSSCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRRRRYYYYYYY!!!!!!
"The FDA says, 'We assume all the unhealthy animals will be taken out of the food supply,"' said Joseph Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety, a consumer advocacy group that opposes FDA's ruling. I think this is basically an admission that cloned animals are not the same ans their non-cloned counterparts..."They're only looking at the small slice of cloned animals that appear to be healthy. ... It needs a lot further study." KEY PHRASE: It needs a lot further study. (so just release it into the market and don't require labeling of this meat for the consumer to make the decision themselves as to whether they want to eat cloned meat - is that how you are going to study it further? Just let us americans be the guinnea pig - more cancer - oh well - at least the FDA will have their research...) "a small slice of cloned animals that APPEAR to be healthy". "We assume unhealthy animals will be taken out of the food supply..." SSSCCCAAARRRYYYY!!!!!
100% organic here I come...Let's hope they don't start cloning fish - at least I could eat that. Although research shows a negative impact on fish (death, disease and malformation) from runoff from farms using bRGH.
I know, I know meat from cloned animals won't be available for a long time and it is very expensive to clone an animal ($20-30,000) so it's not like they will be cloning animals for human consumption but just the thought and the approval from the FDA without significant research on the consequences and not requiring labeling. They say they are not under proper jurisdiction to require this but they are allowed to approve labeling for health claims. On July 10, 2003, the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to permit the manufacturers of food products sold in the United States to make health claims on food labels which are supported by less than conclusive evidence.
The current rule requires "significant scientific consensus" before a claim can be made.
"Significant scientific consensus" required to make a health claim but not to sell cloned meat...
THIS IS CRAZY!!
my soap box has ended....
How long have they been cloning animals? Let's see, Dolly was cloned in 1997 - I believe the first "successful" clone, although Dolly has since died of lung cancer. Ok, so they've been cloning sheep for 10 years, pigs and cows for less than that. Is meat from cloned animals really safe for consumption? Some research and long-term side effect would be nice. And isn't LONG-TERM 20 years? Maybe 10-15 - it hasn't even been 1 year since humans have been consuming cloned meat. Medications go through years of study (on animals & humans) before they are approved for mainstream consumption. Why isn't our food? It's strange...when bovine growth hormone was initially approved for use in beef and dairy cattle the FDA said this was "safe." Europe and Canada have sinced banned the use of rBGH (stating consumption health risks, most significantly cancer), the US has not. How do you explain increased growth rates in children, early menstruation (as early as six)? I don't think we can chalk this all up to the evolution of man.
By its very definition, a successfully cloned animal should be no different from the original animal whose DNA was used to create it. But the technology hasn't been perfected - and many attempts at livestock cloning still end in fatal birth defects or with deformed fetuses dying in the womb.
The FDA's report acknowledges that, "Currently, it is not possible to draw any conclusions regarding the longevity of livestock clones or possible long-term health consequences" for the animal. But the agency concluded that cloned animals that are born healthy are no different from their non-cloned counterparts, and go on to reproduce normally as well. I think this paragraph contradicts itself.....cloned animals are no different than their non-cloned counterparts but they don't know about their long-term health consequences but they reproduce normally???? I'm confused.....
SSSSSSCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRRRRYYYYYYY!!!!!!
"The FDA says, 'We assume all the unhealthy animals will be taken out of the food supply,"' said Joseph Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety, a consumer advocacy group that opposes FDA's ruling. I think this is basically an admission that cloned animals are not the same ans their non-cloned counterparts..."They're only looking at the small slice of cloned animals that appear to be healthy. ... It needs a lot further study." KEY PHRASE: It needs a lot further study. (so just release it into the market and don't require labeling of this meat for the consumer to make the decision themselves as to whether they want to eat cloned meat - is that how you are going to study it further? Just let us americans be the guinnea pig - more cancer - oh well - at least the FDA will have their research...) "a small slice of cloned animals that APPEAR to be healthy". "We assume unhealthy animals will be taken out of the food supply..." SSSCCCAAARRRYYYY!!!!!
100% organic here I come...Let's hope they don't start cloning fish - at least I could eat that. Although research shows a negative impact on fish (death, disease and malformation) from runoff from farms using bRGH.
I know, I know meat from cloned animals won't be available for a long time and it is very expensive to clone an animal ($20-30,000) so it's not like they will be cloning animals for human consumption but just the thought and the approval from the FDA without significant research on the consequences and not requiring labeling. They say they are not under proper jurisdiction to require this but they are allowed to approve labeling for health claims. On July 10, 2003, the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to permit the manufacturers of food products sold in the United States to make health claims on food labels which are supported by less than conclusive evidence.
The current rule requires "significant scientific consensus" before a claim can be made.
"Significant scientific consensus" required to make a health claim but not to sell cloned meat...
THIS IS CRAZY!!
my soap box has ended....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)