Ben,
> While I most certainly appreciate your sentiment in bringing such
> information to light, I also feel that it is perhaps a bit of a
> generalization to say that _all_ US Chickens are unfit to consume raw.
Well, not all, but a huge percentage.
> -lack of living space/exercise
> -poor diet
> -high use of hormones/antibiotics
> -commercial processing, for example irradiation
> These factors obviously contribute to much unhealthier animals who are much
> more prone to wide-spread bacterial infections.
Agreed--
> So, regardless of one's views on "germ theory," is it not agreeable that
> most of this "bacteria/contamination scare" would be mostly geared towards
> commercially produced meats? Granted, there is much more to this issue than
> my simplistic assessment, but I genuinely feel that healthy, free-range
> animals are not given to the high amount of contamination and disease that
> commercially raised animals are.
I had hoped so, but the sample was supposed to include the free range as
well - that part is disturbing.
> I have never had any contamination problems whatsoever with fresh, raw meats
> that have come from reliable, natural sources. I am afraid that I would
> have to experience something for myself before I would buy in to the idea
> that all chicken is not fit to consume.
Ditto. I believe also that if you eat all or mostly raw, one also has a
little different digestion. And tolerance or less likely to have severe
symptoms with many types of disease and infection. I don't eat all raw,
but eat a very large portion of my foods raw and have for the majority
of the past several months. I have also never had problems with
symptoms of bacterial infection or parasites, which is a big concern
w/RAF for me. My immunity or tolerance to the "flu" or whatever is
going around is higher than average, and of course, I like to think it's
the food, not a quirk or genetics. I don't know if that would be true if
the average person ate my diet immediately.
regards,
roberta
[log in to unmask]
|
