If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   FDA really outdoes itself, proposes "food safety" regulation that'll make it harder on both brewers AND ranchers while making food roughly 0% safer. Your dog wants steak. You want beer. You will both be disappointed   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 107
    More: Asinine, FDA, food safety, idea, spent grains, Santa Rosa, food processing, Food Safety Modernization Act, dogs  
•       •       •

1884 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Apr 2014 at 1:11 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-15 11:05:27 AM
Keep government out of my Budweiser.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-15 11:10:13 AM
The only ones who claim that it won't make food safer are the people with money at stake.
 
2014-04-15 11:10:44 AM
Can't they just move their cattle to public land and feed there? I hear it's free.

Oh, and the breweries can dump their grain there too. Ta da!
 
2014-04-15 11:55:11 AM

vpb: The only ones who claim that it won't make food safer are the people with money at stake.


Those monsters. How dare they have a livelihood?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-15 12:08:26 PM

Gulper Eel: vpb: The only ones who claim that it won't make food safer are the people with money at stake.

Those monsters. How dare they have a livelihood?


Yes, who cares if other people don't have food that's safe to eat.
 
2014-04-15 12:17:59 PM

vpb: Yes, who cares if other people don't have food that's safe to eat.


That's not remotely the concern here. It's a big-business giveaway dressed up as a safety regulation. The swillmongers like Anheuser Busch can afford to comply, but it's a big hoop to jump through for smaller brewers, and another cost for small ranchers.

Is there any documentation that cattle who've been eating the spent grain have been worse off?

I'd worry a shiatload more about the overuse of antibiotics.
 
2014-04-15 12:26:44 PM

vpb: Gulper Eel: vpb: The only ones who claim that it won't make food safer are the people with money at stake.

Those monsters. How dare they have a livelihood?

Yes, who cares if other people don't have food that's safe to eat.


Because there have been so many stories in the news lately linking food-borne illnesses to brewing grain
 
2014-04-15 12:28:38 PM

vpb: Gulper Eel: vpb: The only ones who claim that it won't make food safer are the people with money at stake.

Those monsters. How dare they have a livelihood?

Yes, who cares if other people don't have food that's safe to eat.


This looks more like a solution in search of a problem, though.
 
2014-04-15 12:33:29 PM

Gulper Eel: That's not remotely the concern here. It's a big-business giveaway dressed up as a safety regulation. The swillmongers like Anheuser Busch can afford to comply, but it's a big hoop to jump through for smaller brewers, and another cost for small ranchers.

Is there any documentation that cattle who've been eating the spent grain have been worse off?


Just shut up already! vpb is looking out for YOU and you should be grateful for him and people like him that will make your life better and safer regardless of cost or necessity. You should be thanking him!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-15 01:11:25 PM
Gulper Eel:

Is there any documentation that cattle who've been eating the spent grain have been worse off?

Is there any documentation either way?  The article has nothing in it other than what the critics say.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-15 01:12:33 PM
Dancin_In_Anson:

Just shut up already! vpb is looking out for YOU and you should be grateful for him and people like him that will make your life better and safer regardless of cost or necessity. You should be thanking him!

Yep.  Obviously the fact that someone with an ax to grind says so is all the proof you need that it is unnecessary.
 
2014-04-15 01:16:37 PM

themindiswatching: Keep government out of my Budweiser.


This thread is about beer. Your efforts to threadjack by bringing Budweiser into the conversation are inappropriate.
 
2014-04-15 01:17:07 PM
If a farmer had cows that regularly got sick from a specific grain source, I imagine he would stop taking grain from them.  Also if a cow gets food poisoning, does it infect the meat?
 
2014-04-15 01:18:04 PM
I had absolutely no knowledge of any part of those processes going into that article and, thanks to Huffington Post's typically crack reporting, I'm no better informed coming out.

How many people are affected by this? What's the cost involved with the change? How often are contaminated grains found now? Is this a rule that has a much wider benefit and this is just a niche group that's negatively affected?
 
2014-04-15 01:18:58 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: This looks more like a solution in search of a problem, though.


More like unintended consequences.

Given that Bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("Mad Cow Disease") is a thing with serious consequences that's transmitted through animal feed, there are genuine issues to be addressed. And besides that obvious issue I'm sure meat producers don't want to feed their livestock any spoiled shiat that would make them sick, so a good rule regarding animal feed ought to serve their interests well.

Wild guess is the spent grains policy won't make it through the review process. Just skimming the first bit of the proposed rule (see tfa for link) it looks like there's provisions for exemptions based on the size of businesses and riskiness of a particular source of feed. Further wild guess is the rule will just force the generators of all kinds of waste that goes to feed animals to produce some more annoying pro forma paperwork once in a while. We'll see.

So nothing's being shoved down anybody's throats, here. Not yet.
 
2014-04-15 01:19:15 PM
Lots of stuff gets proposed. I'll get upset when it appears stuff is going to be implemented.
 
2014-04-15 01:20:03 PM

vpb: Gulper Eel: vpb: The only ones who claim that it won't make food safer are the people with money at stake.

Those monsters. How dare they have a livelihood?

Yes, who cares if other people don't have food that's safe to eat.


Banning all internal combustion vehicles would reduce pollution and car accident deaths to near zero in the short term. Should we do that?
 
2014-04-15 01:21:14 PM
It's the brewers' and ranchers' faults for not bribing FDA members for decades to ensure that anything they create will hit the market in no time. You know, like with the pharmaceutical companies.
 
2014-04-15 01:21:49 PM
Isn't spent grain compostable? I know that not every community has a well-operated large scale public composting program like the one here in Seattle, but composting seems like a much better use for spent grain than feeding it to livestock which likely are unable to digest it properly in many cases.
 
2014-04-15 01:23:03 PM
Thanks Obama!
 
2014-04-15 01:23:17 PM

phaseolus: ecmoRandomNumbers: This looks more like a solution in search of a problem, though.

More like unintended consequences.

Given that Bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("Mad Cow Disease") is a thing with serious consequences that's transmitted through animal feed, there are genuine issues to be addressed. And besides that obvious issue I'm sure meat producers don't want to feed their livestock any spoiled shiat that would make them sick, so a good rule regarding animal feed ought to serve their interests well.

Wild guess is the spent grains policy won't make it through the review process. Just skimming the first bit of the proposed rule (see tfa for link) it looks like there's provisions for exemptions based on the size of businesses and riskiness of a particular source of feed. Further wild guess is the rule will just force the generators of all kinds of waste that goes to feed animals to produce some more annoying pro forma paperwork once in a while. We'll see.

So nothing's being shoved down anybody's throats, here. Not yet.


BSE is only transmitted through contact (generally ingestion) of infected tissue (mostly brain and nerve tissue). Unless these brewers are grinding up infected cows and sheep to put in the beer, there is absolutely no risk to this.
 
2014-04-15 01:25:14 PM

phaseolus: ecmoRandomNumbers: This looks more like a solution in search of a problem, though.

More like unintended consequences.

Given that Bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("Mad Cow Disease") is a thing with serious consequences that's transmitted through animal feed, there are genuine issues to be addressed. And besides that obvious issue I'm sure meat producers don't want to feed their livestock any spoiled shiat that would make them sick, so a good rule regarding animal feed ought to serve their interests well.

Wild guess is the spent grains policy won't make it through the review process. Just skimming the first bit of the proposed rule (see tfa for link) it looks like there's provisions for exemptions based on the size of businesses and riskiness of a particular source of feed. Further wild guess is the rule will just force the generators of all kinds of waste that goes to feed animals to produce some more annoying pro forma paperwork once in a while. We'll see.

So nothing's being shoved down anybody's throats, here. Not yet.


Unless the brewers and distillers are using cows infected with mad cow disease as part of their mash bill, then it's not going to happen.
 
2014-04-15 01:25:22 PM
This is a farking dumb move by the FDA. I usually eat a bowl of the grains after I'm done brewing. They're tasty, it's similar to oatmeal (especially if you used oats in the mash). Why those grains belong in a landfill though, not feeding some organic farmers hippie cows is beyond me.
 
2014-04-15 01:26:04 PM
Therefore, the FDA should be abolished.
 
2014-04-15 01:26:32 PM

Gulper Eel: I'd worry a shiatload more about the overuse of antibiotics.


You do realize that one reason for widespread antibiotic use in cattle is because they are fed grain, right? Their digestive systems don't deal with grain well, and it leads to ulcers. The antibiotics help prevent those ulcers from becoming abscessed.
 
2014-04-15 01:26:43 PM

vpb: The only ones who claim that it won't make food safer are the people with money at stake.



Like consumers.
 
2014-04-15 01:28:04 PM

BMulligan: Isn't spent grain compostable? I know that not every community has a well-operated large scale public composting program like the one here in Seattle, but composting seems like a much better use for spent grain than feeding it to livestock which likely are unable to digest it properly in many cases.


Think of the amount of waste grain that would nee/d to be composted. The one rancher uses almost 1000 tons a year and it's like this near every brewery. And if you don't feed it to cows, the cows still need some other source of food, taking that out of the human food supply
 
2014-04-15 01:28:15 PM
Considering the grain is sterilized in the brewing process, it doesn't seem like it would take much effort to ensure the grain does not get contaminated after it leaves the lauter tun. Breweries already have to keep all the fermentation and bottle/kegging equipment sterilized, how much effort would it really be to sterilize whatever containers they put the grain in to be held until farmer Bob comes and picks it up?
 
2014-04-15 01:32:19 PM

Gulper Eel: vpb: Yes, who cares if other people don't have food that's safe to eat.

That's not remotely the concern here. It's a big-business giveaway dressed up as a safety regulation. The swillmongers like Anheuser Busch can afford to comply, but it's a big hoop to jump through for smaller brewers, and another cost for small ranchers.

Is there any documentation that cattle who've been eating the spent grain have been worse off?

I'd worry a shiatload more about the overuse of antibiotics.


How the fark do you get the proof if its always "too expensive" to find out? You know nothing about the process, nothing about the cost of the process, nothing about the comparitive costs of disposing the grain...but here you are. The beer industry isn't looking for a hero.


/Company man
 
2014-04-15 01:33:11 PM

ArkAngel: BMulligan: Isn't spent grain compostable? I know that not every community has a well-operated large scale public composting program like the one here in Seattle, but composting seems like a much better use for spent grain than feeding it to livestock which likely are unable to digest it properly in many cases.

Think of the amount of waste grain that would nee/d to be composted. The one rancher uses almost 1000 tons a year and it's like this near every brewery. And if you don't feed it to cows, the cows still need some other source of food, taking that out of the human food supply


I don't eat grass. I just don't like the taste or texture and some varieties cut the inside of your mouth up as bad as captain crunch.
 
2014-04-15 01:33:20 PM
We should not question our regulating overlords.
 
2014-04-15 01:33:41 PM
hmmmm... what did i pay for a Pliny last time, had to be about $7.99 to $9 bucks for a pint (that's not a pint glass poured from a tap, but a smaller pint size glass bottle sold at a retail store)


I love beer (Russian River has excellent beer IMO) so i have a personal interest to keep that stuff coming (on their schedule of course, we get what we can when it's available). At first I though this was the FDA overreaching, just trying to muster up some potential revenue or were they really concerned about the well being of the animals that would consume the spent grain product?

I still don't know BUT if you are saving tons of money having local farmers remove your spent grains, you're already winning & saving money (that you would have spent otherwise). I don't think it would be asking too much for brewers to systematically process a safe product for the farmers livestock. It can't be that difficult to create a process that would satisfy the proposed FDA regulations (i read through their pdf's).

long story short, RR is making a killing on their product, it's good but IMO overpriced (i will still buy it). it's time to put some of that revenue into ensuring what you are giving farmers for free is a safe product.
prove me wrong & perform your own study (testing for contamination at your facility & the drop of of your product) if you find no contamination, i would support your efforts to deny the proposed FDA regulations.
 
2014-04-15 01:33:48 PM
This regulation is about not crossing the streams in various food supply chains, so that one problem doesn't destroy the entire food supply of the entire country.
 
2014-04-15 01:34:19 PM

max_pooper: Considering the grain is sterilized in the brewing process, it doesn't seem like it would take much effort to ensure the grain does not get contaminated after it leaves the lauter tun. Breweries already have to keep all the fermentation and bottle/kegging equipment sterilized, how much effort would it really be to sterilize whatever containers they put the grain in to be held until farmer Bob comes and picks it up?


Uh its fermented not sterilized.
Pasteurization happens after the spent grain is removed from the brew.
 
2014-04-15 01:34:20 PM

skozlaw: How many people are affected by this? What's the cost involved with the change?



Potentially a LOT of food production facilities in the USA. It's always in the facility's interest to find a way to get rid of food waste that's not fit for reworking and eventual consumption by humans, so it'll go to whichever animals whose stomachs can handle it. Even fish farms, though I'm not sure if fish food is in the scope of this proposed rule. It's really tl; and I dr more than a little of it.

The alternative, landfilling, costs money.

What it'll cost -- I suppose they'll have to generate some HACCP guidelines and maybe buy another color of plastic bins for this waste to start, and fill out a little more paperwork for someone to review once in a while. Long term, I bet it's still cheaper than landfilling.
 
2014-04-15 01:38:16 PM

theknuckler_33: Lots of stuff gets proposed. I'll get upset when it appears stuff is going to be implemented.


But if the proposal is public, one would think they're close to implementing it. And I don't see anything good about it.
 
2014-04-15 01:40:27 PM
From the proposed rule:

img.fark.net

Doesn't appear to onerous to me, but any new FDA rule is sure to have the affected industries bleating out the end of the world. I give it a solid meh.

/That article really sucked as far as containing any worthwhile information
//thanks Huffpo
 
2014-04-15 01:41:34 PM

Cataholic: phaseolus: ecmoRandomNumbers: This looks more like a solution in search of a problem, though.

More like unintended consequences.

Given that Bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("Mad Cow Disease") is a thing with serious consequences that's transmitted through animal feed, there are genuine issues to be addressed. And besides that obvious issue I'm sure meat producers don't want to feed their livestock any spoiled shiat that would make them sick, so a good rule regarding animal feed ought to serve their interests well.

Wild guess is the spent grains policy won't make it through the review process. Just skimming the first bit of the proposed rule (see tfa for link) it looks like there's provisions for exemptions based on the size of businesses and riskiness of a particular source of feed. Further wild guess is the rule will just force the generators of all kinds of waste that goes to feed animals to produce some more annoying pro forma paperwork once in a while. We'll see.

So nothing's being shoved down anybody's throats, here. Not yet.

Unless the brewers and distillers are using cows infected with mad cow disease as part of their mash bill, then it's not going to happen.


revbrew.com

Don't give away my secret ingredient.
 
2014-04-15 01:43:11 PM
I know what the one brewer said.  They won't just dump it in landfills.  A lot of people would like it for composting.

Compost that stuff down, it'd probably make a decent soil amendment.  If they were giving it out for free, you'll probably find a landscaping materials company that will take it for you.

It'll suck for the farmers though that have been getting feed for free.

There are other problems with the Food Safety Modernization Act, namely protecting big business while putting restrictions on smaller operations and not actually making the food any safer.
 
2014-04-15 01:43:20 PM
Working in a brewery, I've been keeping up on this. I've submitted comments and had all the ranchers that pick up our spent grain send in comments, too. Paul Gatza, Director of the Brewer's Association, had this to say on the private Brewer's Associaiton Forum on Paril 3rd:

"On a preliminary basis at this time, FDA anticipates that the smaller brewers will need to use clean, food-grade containers and verify through paperwork (some of which will not entail new recordkeeping, but will rely on existing records) the spent grain handling procedures and the annual dollar amount of animal feed sold (to qualify as a "very small business" or "small business" in the area of animal feed). FDA stated that their intent is not to see spent grain go to landfills or for there to be onerous regulatory burdens on small brewers. "

Little more paperwork, not a big deal.
 
2014-04-15 01:43:39 PM
HOLY farkING GOD

THEY PROPOSED A NEW RULE AND ARE NOW DISCUSSING IT TO GET FEEDBACK

HOLY shiat fark STICKS

OMG, GOVERNMENT OUTRAGE

HOW DARE THEY EVEN DISCUSS THIS OMGBBQ, GOVERMENT OVERREACH STICKS OMG

Jesus, chill people.  This is a proposed regulation.  That's it.  They're discussing it.  It's not set in stone.  They're doing this TO GET industry feedback.
 
2014-04-15 01:44:14 PM
FTFA: "If I were to purchase feed, it would be an extra $300-400 per day," said Rick Olufs"

www.monsanto.com

That is OUR $300-$400 per day
 
2014-04-15 01:44:46 PM

Triple Oak: theknuckler_33: Lots of stuff gets proposed. I'll get upset when it appears stuff is going to be implemented.

But if the proposal is public, one would think they're close to implementing it. And I don't see anything good about it.


They put out a request for public comment on the rule, and the public commented.
 
2014-04-15 01:45:26 PM

ArkAngel: BSE is only transmitted through contact (generally ingestion) of infected tissue (mostly brain and nerve tissue). Unless these brewers are grinding up infected cows and sheep to put in the beer, there is absolutely no risk to this.


Cataholic: Unless the brewers and distillers are using cows infected with mad cow disease as part of their mash bill, then it's not going to happen.


I'm aware of that, but here's the proposed rule -- http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2011-N-0922-0002 . It's really long, you don't really need to read it. Just note that the title reads "Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals". It's scope encompasses "Food for Animals", it's not a bill specifically mandating what to do with spent brewers' grains.

The whole putting-craft-brewers-and-ranchers-out-of-business thing is only a possible unintended consequence of a proposed rule that's still in the review process.
 
2014-04-15 01:51:02 PM
It's almost as if there are no hearings about proposed regulations where flaws in the proposed regulations can be heard.
 
2014-04-15 01:52:14 PM

mitEj: max_pooper: Considering the grain is sterilized in the brewing process, it doesn't seem like it would take much effort to ensure the grain does not get contaminated after it leaves the lauter tun. Breweries already have to keep all the fermentation and bottle/kegging equipment sterilized, how much effort would it really be to sterilize whatever containers they put the grain in to be held until farmer Bob comes and picks it up?

Uh its fermented not sterilized.
Pasteurization happens after the spent grain is removed from the brew.


No not fermented.

How beer is made.

The grains are initially soaked and then dried.  Once dried they may or may not  be roasted.  Once the grains have been flavored, they are ground up and placed in water in the 165-175f range for about an hour.  The water pulls out starches and an enzyme caused from the earlier soaking.  The enzyme changes the starch into sugars.  The water is then pulled off leaving the grains behind, this liquid is called wart.  The wart is then boiled with hopps for about an hour.  Filter/seperate out the hop.  Cool and then pitch yeast, start of fermentation.  A week later test gravity, and the rate of fermentation.  Pull off trub and 2nd ferment/clearification.  A week later bottle.
 
2014-04-15 01:52:53 PM

Gulper Eel: Is there any documentation that cattle who've been eating the spent grain have been worse off?

I'd worry a shiatload more about the overuse of antibiotics.


You realize, of course, that antibiotics are used far more frequently for grain-fed cows than for grass-fed cows?
 
2014-04-15 01:54:17 PM

kkinnison: FTFA: "If I were to purchase feed, it would be an extra $300-400 per day," said Rick Olufs"

[www.monsanto.com image 800x268]

That is OUR $300-$400 per day


Monsanto already got paid when the seed seller bought the barley seeds the farmer purchased to grow his barley.

Monsanto also doesn't grow feed.  They grow seed and produce agrochemicals.

If a farmer can't support himself growing animal feed (or barley), why the fark is he growing animal feed (or barley)?

I bet the feed providers are liking this rule though.
 
2014-04-15 01:54:43 PM

mitEj: max_pooper: Considering the grain is sterilized in the brewing process, it doesn't seem like it would take much effort to ensure the grain does not get contaminated after it leaves the lauter tun. Breweries already have to keep all the fermentation and bottle/kegging equipment sterilized, how much effort would it really be to sterilize whatever containers they put the grain in to be held until farmer Bob comes and picks it up?

Uh its fermented not sterilized.
Pasteurization happens after the spent grain is removed from the brew.


You know nothing about the brewing process. The mash/sparge processes bring the grain to high enough temperatures for long enough to sterilize them.
 
2014-04-15 01:56:42 PM

max_pooper: mitEj: max_pooper: Considering the grain is sterilized in the brewing process, it doesn't seem like it would take much effort to ensure the grain does not get contaminated after it leaves the lauter tun. Breweries already have to keep all the fermentation and bottle/kegging equipment sterilized, how much effort would it really be to sterilize whatever containers they put the grain in to be held until farmer Bob comes and picks it up?

Uh its fermented not sterilized.
Pasteurization happens after the spent grain is removed from the brew.

You know nothing about the brewing process. The mash/sparge processes bring the grain to high enough temperatures for long enough to sterilize them.


And as soon as they sparged off and cool, bacteria and wild yeasts colonize the spent grains.

I give a portion of my spent grains to the chickens, the rest goes in the composter.
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report