|
all over Iowa | +1
If you want to convince me of something, show me the peer reviewed research with proper statistical analysis as published in a scientific journal - peer review is what keeps the process honest and accurate because the peer review is not only done by scientists that are highly qualified, but also by scientists the researcher doesn't even know. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to be skeptical - if it has passed peer review, you can have a very high confidence that it is accurate and repeatable. I have read the safety testing data submitted to the FDA on OptaFlexx and it passes this criteria; I'm confident the Zilmax would be the same.
This article is just opinion and innuendo - if it was serious it would give us the exact Journal reference so anyone could go and read the actual data for themselves. Based on other reading I've done I strongly suspect the problem reported in Sichuan was caused by clenbuterol, which was commonly and illegally used in Asia and which definitely causes human health problems. The very fact the article uses the word Ractopamine in a generic way tells me they don't know what they are talking about - Ractopamine is a very specific product and was not used in China in that time period. I got an article similar to this about how bad implants are from a concerned city friend; it properly referenced a study that I was able to find. What I found was the research that "proved" implants were a problem was a study on DES, which hasn't been used in livestock production for over 30 years, and which was never fed at anywhere near the rates that showed problems in the research. | |
|
|
A couple more reasons beef is so high priced
