Nose to Tail in Practice

[blue_dolphin]

2 hours ago, Anna N said:

It is too bad that there is a slip up in the article suggesting that the ban  proposed in 1969 was based on studies in 1970! 
 

"When the Department of Agriculture proposed the rule in 1969, it purported to protect people from eating things like dust, flower pollen and fungal spores that animals (including humans) inhale.

The rule was based on studies conducted around 1970..."

That threw me off,  

 

 

I agree that sounds confusing.  Especially since the author's formal petition to rescind the guidance uses "around the year 1969," rather than, "around 1970."  

 

 

I wasn't able to find a formal report of the lung pathology findings but stepping through the Federal Register notices on the matter, the proposal for this regulation was initially entered on December 31, 1969 based on examination of cattle lungs.  After publication of the proposal, questions were raised about its applicability to all livestock since neither calf nor sheep lungs were examined.  A study of calf and sheep lungs was subsequently conducted, apparently in 1970.  

 

 

Edited February 15 by blue_dolphin
to correct species (log)

[liuzhou]

49 minutes ago, Raw/Cooked said:

I think this is more an issue of writing than an actual slip up. The rule was proposed in 1969, but not implemented until 1971, which the author mentions in the first paragraph. It would have been much clearer had he kept things in sequence!

Either way, the rule's proposal preceded the study which, according to the article, prompted the rule.

[blue_dolphin]

9 minutes ago, liuzhou said:

Either way, the rule's proposal preceded the study which, according to the article, prompted the rule.

 

How so?  The rule was proposed in December 1969, based on a study of bovine lungs collected from various slaughterhouses. It was submitted on Dec 22 and published on Dec 31. 

Based on feedback, a subsequent study was performed on calf and sheep lungs, presumably in 1970, and the 1971 rule says that subsequent study substantiated the results of the first one and justified the inclusion of calf and sheep lungs. 

[liuzhou]

29 minutes ago, blue_dolphin said:

 

How so?  The rule was proposed in December 1969, based on a study of bovine lungs collected from various slaughterhouses. It was submitted on Dec 22 and published on Dec 31. 

Based on feedback, a subsequent study was performed on calf and sheep lungs, presumably in 1970, and the 1971 rule says that subsequent study substantiated the results of the first one and justified the inclusion of calf and sheep lungs. 

 

I am only going by what the article you linked to as quoted by @Anna Nsays. Of course I know it couldn't have happened the way they describe. When an article is so badly written, I tend to dismiss anything and everything it says.

Edited February 15 by liuzhou (log)

[Anna N]

3 minutes ago, liuzhou said:

When an article is so badly written, I tend to dismiss anything and everything it says.

And that is exactly why I found it necessary to remark upon it. Once I hit that roadblock I questioned the accuracy of everything even though I believed it was a simple slip up. 

[liuzhou]

3 minutes ago, Anna N said:

And that is exactly why I found it necessary to remark upon it. Once I hit that roadblock I questioned the accuracy of everything even though I believed it was a simple slip up. 

 

I had read the article before I did the post on lungs, but didn't mention it for exactly that reason.

[Anna N]

17 minutes ago, liuzhou said:

 

I had read the article before I did the post on lungs, but didn't mention it for exactly that reason.

In a way I find this all very amusing. Even if lungs appeared today on my online grocery store listing there is not an ice cube's chance in hell that I'm going to buy them. 

[Duvel]

4 hours ago, Anna N said:

In a way I find this all very amusing. Even if lungs appeared today on my online grocery store listing there is not an ice cube's chance in hell that I'm going to buy them. 

In Germany (Frankonia), they are available pickled & canned (with some heart thrown in for good measure) …

 

[rotuts]

@Duvel 

 

looking forward 

 

to your Take

 

and Results .

 

neither one of us

 

is in any big hurry 

 

Id think 

 

but ....

[Annie_H]

We had a late brunch/early dinner Sunday. A hometown scrapple. DelMarVa peninsula. 

A houseguest from Baltimore did back-flips when he woke--so happy...his girlfriend from Alabama had to leave the building gagging. 

My parents always considered it junk food. Really just polenta/paté. (as a young one we had to use our babysitter/lawn mowing money to purchase). Or a birthday treat. 

50/50 divided who likes it. DH grew up in the PNWest. Loves it. 

*Pork stock, pork livers, pork fat, pork snouts, corn meal, pork hearts, wheat four, salt, spices. 1924 this company began. 

Creamy like a paté and gets a pan seared crispy exterior. Not at all salty, lots of sage.

Nothing like Italian American pork sausages so often full of scrap fat chunks and way too salty. 

[rotuts]

@Annie_H 

 

Scrapple !

 

I grew up , having it from time to time

 

in CA

 

I enjoyed , possibly 3-4 fresh versions 

 

and a few more refrigerated 

 

for over 3 months 

 

in Philadelphia  , PA

 

every night

 

crusty slices please 

 

fine stuff , crispy , w contrasting textures inside.

[Margaret Pilgrim]

 Hold the sage, please!     Sage is, for us, the deal breaker on so much commercial sausage.   A kiss is delicious, a sledgehammer is off-putting.

[heidih]

I was reminded of this topic when I read Cathy Chaplin's recent blog post. She is an editor at Eater L.A. and of Vietnamese ancestry. Quote:  "… the sweetbreads with sunchokes, roasted grapes, mustard frills, and oxtail jus ($24) were so good that I am hereby declaring 2023 to be the year of the thymus gland."   The post link about a weekend in Santa Ynez -some good eats overall..  https://gastronomyblog.com/2023/03/10/inn-at-matteis-tavern-los-olivos-bar-le-cote-priedite-barbecue-los-alamos/#more-32280