Taco Bell, Where’s the Beef?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVmY8VFklEE

           

We have all heard that Taco Bell is known for their lower quality “beef” over the years.  Yet, millions of Americans each week continue to go and buy tacos, burritos, and nachos from Taco Bell.  In their commercials, Taco Bell claims that their seasoned beef is delicious and that their prices are low.  But what makes their prices so low?  A closer look at what their “beef” really is may show why. 

The USDA has set a standard on what can legally be called beef in the United States.  It is federally regulated that beef must be made of at least 70% beef to be legally called beef.  An Alabama law firm has filed a lawsuit against Taco Bell in California, saying that they advertise their product as beef.  The law firm says that they have done tests that have determined the Taco Bell beef to be only 35% beef and 65% filler.  Taco Bell refutes this lawsuit, claiming that their meat is 88% beef and 12% filler

Throughout this lawsuit, Taco Bell has stood by the quality of their meat. Workers state that some of the more displeasing ingredients used in their recipe seem that way only because of the name given to them by the producers, the actual content is completely harmless and can be found in most grocery stores. Finally, Taco Bell has never hidden what ingredients go into their recipe.  That information has always been available to the public; this is just the first time that the meat has been tested to reveal the actual levels of each ingredient.

We have all heard the rumors about Taco Bell, but these tests are putting actual numbers to these rumors.  After reading the article, would you still eat at Taco Bell?  Has this changed your opinion about Taco Bell and possibly other fast food restaurants?  Should Taco Bell advertise more about the types of fillers they use?  And should Taco Bell be obligated to improve the quality of their beef?   

This article may help answer the discussion questions.

http://www.naturalnews.com/031147_Taco_Bell_beef.html

Sloppy Seconds

No matter how, when or where you were raised, you learned if you picked food off the floor within 3 seconds, it would still be okay to eat. Some people edit this rule to 5 seconds, and some to however long it takes for them to pick it up. Wikipedia claims the five-second rule is a common superstition that food dropped on the ground will not be contaminated with bacteria if it is picked up within five seconds of being dropped. Is there scientific basis to this assumption? Manchester Metropolitan University tested this rule to determine how much bacteria certain foods picked up from being on the floor for several seconds. Here is the video containing their results:

The Three Second Rule

The researchers at MMU tested a variety of foods based on commonality: cooked pasta, ham, a biscuit, bread with jam and dried fruit. They also were chosen because each contains a different level of water which scientist Harold McGee of Clemson University says is “a key factor in whether items will sustain bacterial growth in the three seconds before they are picked up from the floor.” After testing each food for bacteria when being on the floor in three, five, and ten second intervals, they found that the amount of water, salt and sugar in each food was the biggest instigator to bacteria.

The dried biscuit remained the safest to eat, showing little signs of bacteria even after ten seconds of being on the ground. The ham contained lots of preserved salt and nitrates, which prevented much bacteria growth, just as the sugar did in the jam. The cooked pasta and dried fruit, however, picked up harmful bacteria that could lead to pneumonia and urinary track infections.

            Did you grow up following the three or five second rule? How does this experiment change your thoughts on the rule, if at all? How long would you let food sit on the ground before still picking it up? Are there foods you would consider picking up now that you never would have before?

To Subsidize or Not to Subsidize?

Here is the link to the video discussing farm subsidies. You can watch the whole thing, or just from 3-3:50, 4:25-5:40, and 6:47-7:20. You will get a better understanding if you watch the whole thing, and we think that it is a very interesting subject that you all will enjoy to watch and develop an opinion on. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8G1HIlRppo

Farm subsidies began in the 1930s from the New Deal during the depression and they are still in effect today. Subsidies are government supplements from taxpayers to ensure that farmers make a steady income and are able to continue their business. The amount a farm gets from subsidies depends on what they raise and how the weather was that year. In the following video, John Stossel goes onto discuss the problems within the legislation of farm subsidies. Some people think that the subsidies should be continued or reformed while others think they should be completely wiped out.

At 3-3:50 in the video, Stossel talks about Maurice Wilder who is a half billion-dollar farmer but still receives subsidies from the government. Stossel goes on to mention that only the multimillion-dollar farms are the ones to receive the large subsidy payments. However, small farms are usually neglected of these subsidies or just paid a small fraction of them when they are the ones who really need the money to continue their business. This section of the video shows that the farm bill has many loopholes that rich farmers can jump through to take advantage of taxpayers and the government. 

From 4:25-5:40 Stossel lists some of the crops that do not get any subsidies. He also states that food costs more because of the government handouts, but he doesn't clarify whether the subsidized food or unsubsidized food costs more. However, either way this still shows that the subsidies are taking taxpayers money and making their food cost more than it would without government intervention.  The rest of this clip discusses how the government pays farm subsidies to people who don't farm. One man in the video was paid $26,000 just for not farming his land. It is interesting that these people are being paid for nothing, while small farms that are actually working do not get any or much money at all. This shows that the government system for assisting farmers is flawed.

From 6:47-7:20 Stossel speaks of New Zealand abolishing farm subsidies. At the beginning there were many riots and protests, but in time farm production increased five-fold. This just goes to show that farm subsidies aren't necessary and countries are even better off without them. Farmers have come to rely on government money to maximize profit instead of improving their farming practices.

From the video, do you think farm subsidies should be completely abolished or more regulated? Can farmers thrive without these government policies? What if there was a huge drought or flood that caused major damage to the years crops, how would we survive or eat without them? How would the farm still thrive and stay in business without the subsidies?