US Beef

Rosecarmel -you may do all those things, but many of us, , me included, would never.

OMG! Please let's return to planet Earth!

Maw, the print in the image is legible- The concerns expressed are valid- Animal and human welfare are intertwined- Plant life also included-

We all know that the way anything becomes "cheap" or less expensive to buy comes with a higher price to pay over time-

Once cheap goods are introduced, the pineal gland itself goes to sleep and dopamine levels spike- Oh, I can now get 20 burgers instead of 2- And at that price I might as well get 40- While cooking one up the cheap spatula breaks and plastic gets into the meat- But that's ok, you have 39 more burgers and a reason to go shopping for another crappy spatula- So you get into your car and drive to the store, using up however much gas (which aint cheap) it takes to get to your destination - You walk into the store and while heading to the spatula isle you spot another item you might could use, so you grab 3, because they're cheap- And 2 spatulas- One with a lady bug on it and the other a tomato- At the check out you realize it isn't a tomato but a wad of chewed gum, so you hold up the line to run back and get another, grabbing a pack of cute paper plates with daisies on them that you have no use for but it's Autumn and their on clearance- You get home and pull your loot out of your reusable tote that you crocheted out of plastic grocery store bags because you're into saving the planet- You turn on the stove, using up more energy, that isn't cheap, to cook yet another burger- 6 months later, the bulk of the burgers that didn't get eaten by you got eaten up with freezer burn and wind up getting tossed in the trash- But it doesn't matter, because they were cheap ..

It's all about corporations and government getting into bed with one another-

Despite all that- You can eat US meat and live to be 100-

Reaching the great age of 100 is entirely due to chance and possibly genetics.
Whether poor or wealthy, it has probably not influenced those statistics one iota.

know of 3 people age 100 and up- They aren't wealthy- They're poor- By poor I don't mean out on the street homeless- I mean low income

What has this to do with anything
Why the stress on centenarians as if that proved anything.

A big red herring methinks

We are not talking about environmental contaminants . Our farmers will be undercut at every turn and understandably many will abandon dairy farming as well as beef, lamb, pork, poultry production.
Supermarkets want cheap food - most consumers want cheap food, quality does not come cheap and it will not be a question of discerning shoppers going to farm shops or organic butchers, the produce will not exist.
Read this - it makes sound sense
Just hope it is legible I saved it as an “image”

How many people go on holiday to USA and other countries and eat beef?

I expect a lot, other than the vegan/vegetarians.

How many of your AC buy your GC a burger on holiday and stop and think of the origins of the meat in the burger?

The reasons why people don't want to eat US meat, or strongly caution against it, are many- The most significant reason for meat eaters is that if eaten it could impact their health- And if it impacts their health, it could make them sick- And if it makes them sick, they could die-

Management of the animals life, birth to market, is secondary- But significant-

Third- There is no good reason to instill fear- Especially if it's the only beef people can afford to eat- There is good reason to inform those reading that cannot afford locally sourced, humanely raised beef but not only provide information pertaining to the raising of animal but the people who eat it-

Fourth- The people who eat US beef, wealthy or making due financially, survive the consumption of it- And remain alive, many to the ripe old age of 100- Or more-

Why is the number of centenarians important or relevant?

You can't extrapolate statistically significant data from a handful of people. What about all the other people (most of whom you didn't know) who didn't make it to 100 (or 90 or 80 for that matter)?

One of my great grandfathers died when he was 99 after a life of excessive smoking and drinking. One of his sons died at 61 from lung cancer and emphysema, after smoking 60 cigs a day.

What do you conclude from that? You can't conclude that smoking doesn't have detrimental health effects, because whole population studies prove otherwise.

Callistemon, I know of 3 people age 100 and up- They aren't wealthy- They're poor- By poor I don't mean out on the street homeless- I mean low income-

Monica, proof that the majority of one group lives longer than the other on average doesn't prove there are more centenarians in that group- That's a fact-

Alexa, are you are saying that centenarians as a group are too small to matter?

Perhaps the point I'm driving at is that people from all walks of life eat US beef and live a long, long time-

The animals that contribute to human longevity deserve to be treated kindly, like the sentient being that they are-

rosecarmel I know someone who is over 100 and, whilst not poor, is definitely not from a wealthy background.

However, knowing that one person but not knowing anyone age 100+ from a wealthy background proves nothing.

rosecarmel you seem to be suffering from a bad attack of I have made up my mind, do not confuse me with facts.

Callistemon, thank you- It doesn't indicate that they live to 100 or more, only that they live longer- There doesn't seem to be much evidence to prove what financial group does-

If the average life expectancy of lower socio economic groups is shorter than that of people who are better off, then the proportion of them reaching their 80s, 90s and 100 plus, will also be lower than the proportion reaching those ages in higher social groups. The law of averages makes that so.

The only way the proportion of people from lower socio-economic groups living to be 100 can exceed that of those from higher social groups is if lots of them die, say in their 50s, 60 and 70s, but when they hit 80 their death rate falls dramatically below that of higher social groups and, quite frankly, that is so improbable at to be unbelieveable. Their health is generally worse than more advantaged social groups and their access to health care, even in the UK, is at a lower rate than more affluent groups. One or two will make it through, but not as many as those from groups where more people survive into their 80s and 90s.

Sorry, rosecarmel its the math that proves you wrong.

Rosecarmel there are so few people who live to be 100 that the sample is too small to be much use to draw conclusions from.

It does not say that they live to 100 or more - rather that they live longer.

There is no evidence that I can find that indicates that the wealthier live to 100 or more, more often than those with less
rosecarmel
I posted a link up-thread.
If that doesn't convince you, then perhaps a more up-to-date one from the Imperial College London‘s School of Public Health may:
collegeofmedicine.org.uk/life-expectancy-disparity-poor-people-living-in-england-die-around-ten-years-before-the-rich/

Worldwide figures may show an even greater disparity. These from America, where I believe you may live, are even starker:
newrepublic.com/article/153870/inequality-death-america-life-expectancy-gap

rosecarmel Our census returns show clearly that the higher your socio-economic class, the longer you live - whether you are looking at figures for 1841 when the first census was taken or 2011, the most recent census. What more proof do you want?

'wealth' doesn't mean stinking rich, it merely means a life without privation and poverty where you can live in a decent house, afford to make the most of educational opportunities, be able to afford, or receive free, healthcare . be in reasonably paid employment for most of your working life and have an adequate income in old age. Those in better economic circumstances are also less likely to smoke, drink excessively or be overweight.

What are you on about? Why are you taking 100 as your baseline. There is plenty of evidence that wealthier people live longer on average.

We seem to be going round in circles. No, nobody's forcing anybody to eat the stuff. However, it's likely that it will undercut UK beef on price, which will force British farmers out of business. It will also mean that those who can't afford to pay premium prices for better quality home-produced beef will end up eating antibiotics and growth hormone.

Personally, I would rather stick with minimum standards for raising livestock, but America has made it very clear that we would need to ditch our current standards, if we want a trade agreement.

It's not only individuals who would be affected, but the whole eco-system is affected by excessive antibiotics.

Seems to me you pays your money and you make your choice, no one is forcing you to eat USA beef or chicken.

There is no evidence that I can find that indicates that the wealthier live to 100 or more, more often than those with less-

Who's talking about living to be 100? There's all sorts of evidence that people in richer areas of the UK live longer and healthier lives than those in poorer areas.