392 replies to this topic

[Jensen]

I think it's irresponsible of any producer who knows he has a sick cow on his hands, whether he knows why it's sick or not, to sell it as a downer knowing it's going to enter the food supply - as dog food or whatever.

Apparently, a Seattle TV station has been producing an ongoing investigative report into the use of downer cows in the food supply:

KIRO TV

Check out all the links to the stories they've done on it, starting in October of 2002!

[hannnah]

The KIRO reports sound pretty accurate as far as inspection goes. In my experience, the vet generally gives cull animals a visual once-over, and it would have to be something pretty egregious to get it pulled from the queue - and if they're doing inspections on the trailer, they're not going to see much of the cow.

This site gives an idea of some of the conditions that don't necessarily get cows pulled from the food supply - ironically, it's on a university ag extension site recommending better producer management of cull cows to improve prices. They also recommend not taking downers to market. I'd dispute that 15-20% of a producer's revenue comes from cull cows, but that may be dairy-farm specific; it's certainly not that high for beef producers.

[Arey]

It's beginning to look a lot like Lent,
Everywhere I go.
The local Steak Fifty-Eight
Is pushing Tuna carpaccio.

[torakris]

I was just checking out the homepage of Yoshinoya (a gyuniku or beef bowl chain that uses 99% American beef, the other 1% is Australian) curious to see what they have to say about the import ban of American beef.
They didn't have any mention of it on the main part of their homepage but in the general section where they discuss the products used at their restaurants, they make a mention of the saftey of their products, I ahve no idea when this was written however.
But they mention that they only use beef belly (called short plate in Japanese, not sure what this cut is referred to in English) because this was rated as class IV as the WHO, meaning that is is BSE free even in an infected cow.

I had never heard of theses "rankings", does anyone know more about these, obviously the worst part to eat are the brains/nervous system, but how is the rest of the meat ranked.

The information from Yoshinoya (Japanese only)
http://www.yoshinoya...eef/safety.html

[torakris]

found what I was looking for at the WHO site, the whole article is here:
http://www.who.int/e...oemczoo973.html



CATEGORIES OF INFECTIVITY IN BOVINE TISSUES AND BODY FLUID

(Based on relative scrapie infectivity of tissues and body fluids from naturally infected suffolk sheep and goats with clinical scrapie)

CATEGORY I High infectivity

Brain, spinal cord, (eye)*

CATEGORY II Medium infectivity

Spleen, tonsil, lymph nodes, ileum, proximal colon, cerebrospinal fluid, pituitary gland, adrenal gland, (dura mater, pineal gland, placenta, distal colon)

CATEGORY III Low infectivity

Peripheral nerves, nasal mucosa, thymus, bone marrow, liver, lung, pancreas

CATEGORY IV No detectable infectivity

Skeletal muscle, heart, mammary gland,milk, blood clot, serum, faeces, kidney, thyroid, salivary gland, saliva, ovary, uterus, testis, seminal testis, foetal tissue, (colostrum, bile, bone, cartilaginous tissue, connective tissue, hair, skin, urine).

*Tissues in brackets were not titrated in the original studies (8,9) but relative infectivity is indicated by other data on spongiform encephalopathies.

[hannnah]

But they mention that they only use beef belly (called short plate in Japanese, not sure what this cut is referred to in English) because this was rated as class IV as the WHO, meaning that is is BSE free even in an infected cow.

Short plate in English as well - here's a chart that shows location.

Extrapolating from some of the carcass testing specifics on WHO's site, short plate would be least likely to come in contact with brain or spinal column tissue since it's located farthest from the spinal column.

[Pan]

My parents told me on the phone tonight that they will be avoiding beef. They also recommended that I avoid beef. I probably won't, but may wait a while to see how this story develops. I don't really want to say goodbye to that spicy beef tendon Shanghainese cold dish. (Is tendon a connective tissue under WHO definitions?)

[Kenk]

The question of what part of the animal is safe if that animal has BSE is not a valid argument. The mechanism of how this disease is manifested is not really known or understood. The only way to test for the disease is to take the subject brain and slice it up for inspection. There is no way to diagnose BSE in live subjects.

One of the things that is happening in Canada is that animals over a certain age are not being put in the food system. This begs the question of; Are the younger animal disease free or just not developed symptoms.

Fooling around in the food supply is a very large gamble. All vegetarian animals should never be fed meat byproducts. No animals should ever be fed manure. No cannibalistic feeding practices should be ever practiced.

I am not a granola crunching all things must be organic freak! When you have to try to convince anyone of these principles why would you be surprised major problems might be in the food supply.

Do you want to by any animal that is fed manure?????????(Why does this question have to be asked??????)

[Pan]

Kenk, when I lived in Malaysia in the 70s, almost all the village chickens were free range. If a chicken decided to eat a kid's crap or someone's snot that they spat out, who was going to stop them? Did it make the chicken meat dangerous or untasty? Not on your life!

[Fat Guy]

Kenk, speaking of begging the question . . . there are not major problems in the US beef supply. By every measure I've seen, the US beef supply is either the safest in the world or among the safest.

It certainly sounds unpleasant to be feeding meat to ruminants. However, especially if there is no evidence of human health costs associated with doing it, we have to ask what the costs and benefits are of increased regulation.

We know the costs. They're easy to document. And we know that we'd be putting many struggling farmers out of business if we pushed their costs higher. Ultimately, pushing people into bankruptcy or out of their traditional lines of work can be devastating in terms of both mental and physical health. Poverty can easily lead to premature death, not to mention reduced quality of life.

What about the benefits? If there is no statistically significant threat to human health from current practices, what do we gain by implementing new restrictions on feed, mandatory testing of every animal, etc.? We're talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's money; I don't think we should be doing that unless we get something for it.

[Pan]

From Ha'aretz:

The Agriculture Ministry yesterday banned beef liver imports from the United States, following the discovery of a case of mad cow disease at a farm in Washington state. Dr. Oded Nir, head of the ministry veterinary service, announced the ban.

See the rest of the article here:

Israel bans American beef liver in mad cow scare

[Pan]

Fat Guy, I think that meat should be prohibited from feed for herbivores because I don't think there's a good reason to feed meat to herbivores. There are certain things that just seem like common sense to me. Another is not to routinely give out antibiotics when bacterial infection isn't reasonably suspected, because routine administration of antibiotics weakens them and encourges the evolution of multi-resistant bacteria, which are a danger to us all.

[Nick]

The whole thing doesn't bother me at all, except for the effect on small beef producers. I've been leaving beef for some time now and getting more into lamb, goat, and duck. Don't tell anybody... the prices are already too high, at least for lamb and goat.

[Fat Guy]

Fat Guy, I think that meat should be prohibited from feed for herbivores because I don't think there's a good reason to feed meat to herbivores. There are certain things that just seem like common sense to me. Another is not to routinely give out antibiotics when bacterial infection isn't reasonably suspected, because routine administration of antibiotics weakens them and encourges the evolution of multi-resistant bacteria, which are a danger to us all.

I guess it depends on what we mean by "a good reason." The reason isn't elusive: all these practices serve to reduce the price of beef, which in turn drives beef sales. This is how poor people in America can afford to eat beef, and how working-class people can afford to eat steak even though they're financially stretched.

Now, of course, there are plenty of people who will argue that cheap beef isn't a good reason to do anything. They'd be perfectly happy to see the price of beef double, triple, or quadruple, so that it could all conform to higher standards. Some would also like to see beef consumption reduced for (questionable) health/obesity/cholesterol reasons, or on account of vegetarianism or animal-rights or environmental arguments. And of course the very low prices, super-efficient production, and razor-thin margins on so many of our agricultural products are probably creating an unsustainable situation. I see that as a totally different species of argument, though.

So I think the only missing piece of the argument, in terms of "a good reason," is to ask what the downside is to these various industrial agricultural practices that supply us with so much beef at such low prices. And that's where, to me, the argument falls apart, because I don't believe any significant effects on human health have been documented from feeding meat to cows. While feeding meat to cows strikes at the cannibalism taboo, it doesn't seem to be a problem in terms of any sort of practical reality. So to ban it would, it seems to me, increase the price of beef solely in order to satisfy the feeling some people have that cows shouldn't eat meat.

I also think there's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too problem here. As long as Americans -- and I don't mean just the poor ones -- buy the cheapest food instead of focusing on quality, they can't also be taken seriously when they complain about industrial agriculture.

[Pan]

Fat Guy, can't BSE be explained by reference to the Law of Unintended Consequences, and shouldn't people fool with Mother Nature with caution, knowing that the results of doing things like feeding meat to cows are unpredictable?

[srhcb]

one sick cow

the whole world

6.3 billion people

All I can say is, WOW!

And we call the cows "mad"?

[MHesse]

Many businesses are regulated in one form or another in the name of increasing public safety or global preservation, from agriculture to dry cleaners to wood stove makers to swordfisherman to hedge trimmer makers. Sometimes the benefits are obvious, sometimes they are much less. Often these decisions are politically based rather than scientifically based. In all cases, the marginal producers are the ones who suffer and are forced out of business. That is too bad when the decision is political. It's better when the decision is really scientific. How do you draw the line for safety vs economics? A tough question.

[Singapore]

:::looks glumly at his Christmas beef roast sitting in the pan:::

Let's see. MCD in beef. Salmonella in poultry. Parasites in pork. Amoebas in the veggies. Acid in my rain, and carbon monoxide in my air. Oh the hell with it!

:::digs in!:::

Merry Christmas, y'all!

[phaelon56]

Not surprising that Wegman's, a progressive (in marketing terms) upscale grocery chain here in the Northeast is ahead of the curve as usual. For well over five years, possibly longer, they've had a separate line of beef available in their stores that is labeled and supposedly inspected to ensure that it is "beef you can feel good about". No growth hormones, no animal based feeds etc. It's pricier but looks to be better quality than comparable cuts of their standard beef.

I find it interesting that when my mother was a child (the early and mid 1930's) and was sent a few times each week to the butcher to buy ground beefe for the meatloaf, my grandmother ensured that she buy only beef that she watched them grind - she felt way back then that prepackaged ground beef was not to be trusted - you needed to pick your cut of chuck and watch the butcher grind it.

[=Mark]

It's interesting that the US was quick to ban all beef imports from Canada and Europe following the finding of infected animals, devastating the agricultural economies of many countries. Now when there is a confirmed case in the US we hear, "Move along, nothing to see here. Carry on. We have everything under control. Nothing to worry about".

[Jason Perlow]

The lab in the UK testing the tissue samples has Confirmed the Findings.

[tan319]

It's interesting that the US was quick to ban all beef imports from Canada and Europe following the finding of infected animals, devastating the agricultural economies of many countries.  Now when there is a confirmed case in the US we hear, "Move along, nothing to see here.  Carry on.  We have everything under control.  Nothing to worry about".

That's because, even though I love my country, we are SOOOOOO messed up!
Just full of hypocrisy.
You would think we would have learned something.
Why don't we start by not not feeding animals on their own .
If we don't eat humans, why should cows eat themselves, albeit in their feed?
Just a thought.

edited to show this gem from Jasons post above, lest everyone start jumping on me about us already banning the feed practice.

Cattle get sick by eating feed that contains tissue from the brain and spine of infected animals. The United States has banned such feed since 1997.


"Here's the problem, the feed ban has been grossly violated by feed mills," Stauber said in a telephone interview from his home in Madison, Wis.


In one such case, X-Cel Feeds Inc., of Tacoma, Wash., admitted in a consent decree in July that it violated FDA regulations designed to prevent the possible spread of the disease.


Agriculture officials said that only two out of some 1,800 firms are not in compliance with the ban, a significant improvement since 1997.

Edited by tan319, 25 December 2003 - 12:58 PM.

[bloviatrix]

That's because, even though I love my country, we are SOOOOOO messed up!
Just full of hypocrisy.
You would think we would have learned something.
Why don't we start by not not feeding animals on their own .
If we don't eat humans, why should cows eat themselves, albeit in their feed?
Just a thought.

I agree with you completely. I was reading the articles in the NY Times this morning and it's interesting to learn about the processes put in place in the UK, Europe, and Japan to monitor the health of cattle. And yet, there seems to be an arrogance in the US that we somehow know better.

There are some interesting articles in the Times, particulary this one about Dr. Stanley Prusiner, the Nobel prize winning scientist who identified the casue of BSE and his attempts to alert the administration about the dangers our food supply face.

[Fat Guy]

"Here's the problem, the feed ban has been grossly violated by feed mills," Stauber said in a telephone interview from his home in Madison, Wis.

Just to keep statements like this in perspective, the Mad Cow Scaremongers page prepared by The Center for Consumer Freedom (to be clear, they are an industry lobbying group) is helpful. Stauber is number one on the list of scaremongers, and has a long history of making wildly unsupported statements about mad cow disease. Folks like Stauber do nothing to help serious debate among serious people. I certainly intend to ignore pretty much anything he says as the distraction that it is. Far more reasonable sounding, to me, is the statement from the USDA that "Agriculture officials said that only two out of some 1,800 firms are not in compliance with the ban." To me, that's a high level of compliance. I'm not sure how that squares with "the feed ban has been grossly violated by feed mills" unless you want to make it "the feed ban has been grossly violated by 2 out of 1,800 feed mills."

[Fat Guy]

There are some interesting articles in the Times, particulary this one about Dr. Stanley Prusiner, the Nobel prize winning scientist who identified the casue of BSE and his attempts to alert the administration about the dangers our food supply face.

"Fast, accurate and inexpensive tests are available, Dr. Prusiner said, including one that he has patented through his university." I love how this is said without a trace of irony.

[mb7o]

Why irony? If he's developed a test which is inexpensive and has competitors, he may not be in it for the money. Edit: especially since Dr. Prusiner is (most promintely cited as) the one who figured out what caused wasting dieseases in the first place (assuming that prions are the cause).

Anyway, I'll propose (completely in jest) that this is all to drive down the recent high price of beef.

Really, what is going to happen? Wasn't the theory that the canadian case was from a cow (or steer) originally from the USA? Isn't the current system set up to reward those who keep this under wraps?

Edited by mb7o, 25 December 2003 - 03:40 PM.

[Katherine]

...it's interesting to learn about the processes put in place in the UK, Europe, and Japan to monitor the health of cattle.  And yet, there seems to be an arrogance in the US that we somehow know better.

I've followed the BSE crises from the beginning, in both Europe and Japan, and I assure you that the processes that were installed in those places were in response to media revelations about head-in-the-sand regulations.

[Fat Guy]

Why irony? If he's developed a test which is inexpensive and has competitors, he may not be in it for the money. Edit: especially since Dr. Prusiner is (most promintely cited as) the one  who figured out what caused wasting dieseases in the first place (assuming that prions are the cause).

"Good science, not just Nobel Prize-caliber science, depends on hypothesis and test, and then the rigorous demonstration that the preferred interpretation of the data was the only interpretation. In other words, remarkable results demand remarkable evidence. In the case of Prusiner's prize, the Nobel Committee has settled for enthusiasm and single-mindedness." --Gary Taubes, writing in Slate, in 1997

"In 2001, UCSF licensed the technology for CDI, developed in the Prusiner lab, to InPro Biotechnology Inc., of South San Francisco, California, which Prusiner founded. Prusiner, Safar and some other members of the Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases are scientific advisors to, or own stock in, the company." --UCSF press release, Oct. 2002

[mb7o]

1. He has done testing from my understanding. At this point (5 years beyond the article you cite), very few people disagree with what was heretical 20 years ago, though the exact mechanism remains unproven. Actually research on scrapie predates the discovery of DNA.

1a. and testing the entire population of cattle would seem to provide a wealth of data to do further study, though europe or japan should be good data sets now that they do it. probably too much data to handle, really, since you'd need more than just the results from a single test.

2. it's clear from your original quote that you think he'll profit from this testing. my assumption (perhaps false) is that there are other tests too, and profit is not his primary goal. it's like someone saying "foie gras is tasty, and i happen to sell it." getting paid for your work is not neccesarily evil.


Some links for those interested:
http://www.cjdinsigh...na/history.html - on the history of research into this subject.
http://www.mad-cow.org/griff.html - also on the history of research into this subject.

http://groups.google.....23636@wingate - on this particular article.

Edited by mb7o, 25 December 2003 - 08:18 PM.

[Fat Guy]

getting paid for your work is not neccesarily evil.

Getting paid for your work is never evil, unless the work itself is evil.

However, Prusiner's attempt to position himself as a selfless advocate of cows and humans, which is swallowed in its entirety by the New York Times, does not necessarily square with his long history of opportunism and self-promotion as documented by Taubes and others. Prusiner long ago decided to be an advocate rather than a truth-seeker, and should be treated as such in news reports.

The story of the prion isn't a story of science as a layman might expect it to function. It's not so much a story of rogue proteins and obscure diseases as of how a single set of results can be interpreted by different scientists in antithetical ways, and how one scientist with a flair for public relations can overcome seemingly valid criticism and dominate his field. It's also a story of how the traditional checks and balances of science--peer review and experimental replication--can be rendered impotent in the name of progress. This isn't a new phenomenon in science; the story of the prion is merely an extreme example.

--The big Taubes expose on Prusiner, from Discover in 1986.