Mad Cow threat

[pam claughton]

I am. I guess I read too much, but some of the <a href= "http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050117/full/050117-11.html">articles</a> are frightening. Especially the ones that say that prions that spread the disease have been found in mice muscles. A test was run, where the mice were exposed to the disease, and unlike earlier assumptions, where it was thought that the disease was limited to the brain and spinal cord, that may not be the case.

It is especially alarming because the muscles have been thought to be safe, and since that is the part we generally eat, it has also been assumed that there isn't much of a threat.

But this new information could prove otherwise. And the worst part is the incubation period is so long, potentially even decades before symptoms show up.

And then you have to wonder <a href= "http://www.newstarget.com/000733.html"> how aggressive the USDA is </a>with testing for Mad Cow. If they don't test, they won't discover the disease, and if there is no discovery, beef sales stay steady, and the public thinks they're safe.

But, what if we're not?

And here's my main question, that I'm very unsure on. What about Lamb, have there been cases discovered in that meat too? Or is this generally a Cow disease?

I love beef, and hate the idea of giving it up, but I'm seriously and sadly, considering it.

<a href= "http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/television/oprah_transcript.html">Oprah's article, from 1996,</a> is interesting as well, it's when the beef industry got quite upset with her.

What do others think of this?

Pam

Edited February 19, 2005 by pam claughton (log)

[NulloModo]

Well, mice are a lot different from cows. What will effect a cow in one way may easily effect a mouse a completely other way.

Personally, I love beef. Beef is by far my favorite meat, and I will gladly risk mad-cow in order to enjoy it. I engage in behaviours far riskier than eating beef, heck, even driving to work in the morning has a greater chance of ending in tragedy than you have of contracting mad-cow. I personally am extremely wary of any type of mass hysteria. It seems some people will not be happy until we are all living on a diet of organic sprouts and flax seed.

Mercury in fish, salmonella in chicken, trichinosis in pork, mad cow in beef, who knows what in shellfish, heck, if I bought into all of that crap I would end up a vegetarian. Eat beef, enjoy life, and don't worry about it, that is my take on it.

[culinary bear]

I'm happy to eat beef - of course I am, I'm a penguin.

Seriously though, I'm with NulloModo on this one - I think the small potential risk is worth it.

Sheep do suffer from Ovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, called 'scrapie' - it's hypothesised that this might have been the origin of the disease in cattle.

If you're worried, insist on the proper husbandry of your meat - organic herds and flocks are far less likely to pose a risk.

[Pan]

[...]

Mercury in fish, salmonella in chicken, trichinosis in pork, mad cow in beef, who knows what in shellfish, heck, if I bought into all of that crap I would end up a vegetarian.[...]

←

Vegetables aren't free of risk, either.

I think over time, I've reduced my intake of beef slightly, but not that much.

[Luckylies]

nope nooot scrrad aart aal befffffff goooooooooodddddddddddd.

[Timh]

If you eat organic, or naturally raised beef, this isn't a problem. The beef industry deserves this affliction as far as I'm concerned.

Edited February 19, 2005 by Timh (log)

[peppyre]

I'm not concerned at all. I eat beef at least 3 times a week, but I figure why stop now. I spent quite a bit of time in Britain in 84 and because of this I can never give blood, yet I just joined the Unrelated Bone Marrow Donors list. Go figure. Life is too damn short to be scared of your food. Eat! Live! Enjoy!!!

[jamiemaw]

Re: Mad Cow Threat--Are You Nervous About Eating Beef?

No. Perhaps that's because if it were a real threat we'd be nervous after eating beef. And as for those mice--I always found them a little skittish to begin with. And besides, they're just not that popular up here any more.

[CompassRose]

Frankly, yes, I won't eat beef. I've added back chicken, fish, occasional other meats, but not beef, and mad cow is why.

Why? Because I do think there's an effort to sweep the whole possibility of BSE right under the rug in order to preserve international trade, and I think it's going to backfire. And already is. "We have no BSE here in North America." "Oh, woop, we have some BSE in Canada. But only one or two little cases. And it's not in the US, nope, even though we're on the same continent." "Oh, woop, we have some in the US. But we can blame Canada. And that's all, that's it, and we're not going to test unless we have to, in case we find more that didn't come from up North."

Yeah. Anyone Canadian remember the tainted blood scandal? "Our blood donations are clean, absolutely clean -- oh. You and dozens of your fellow transfusion recipients got hepatitis? Woop."

I do think that the vast majority of herds and cattle are probably fine, at this point. But I don't think enough is being done to first, test on a broad scale, and second, get the recycled animal bits out of the feed supply. And until that happens, I am not gonna be adding steak to my menu.

[Bux]

I think I'm going to die from what I eat. As Pan says, "Vegetables aren't free of risk, either." I trust you're all familiar with ecoli related deaths from scallions. Nothing is dealier than raw vegetation in my book. Everytime I sit down to dinner I ask myself if maybe I'd live longer if I'd just stop eating. Worse yet, everytime I pick up the newspaper, I worry about scaring myself to death before I starve. Even the medicines my doctor prescribes to prolong my life, seems to be killing other people.

[helenjp]

Hmmm...I notice that nobody so far has said "I eat U.S. supermarket beef because I have evidence that the production system produces healthy animals which are killed, butchered, packaged, transported, and retailed according to high standards and documented processes."

[browniebaker]

Having lived in England for a year in 1987-88, I figure I may have gotten mad-cow disease already, or maybe not. But life is too short not to enjoy, and I must have a Cornish pasty once in a while!

[NulloModo]

Hmmm...I notice that nobody so far has said "I eat U.S. supermarket beef because I have evidence that the production system produces healthy animals which are killed, butchered, packaged, transported, and retailed according to high standards and documented processes."

←

That's true. I eat US supermarket beef because it is cheap (comparitively) and tastes good.

I don't think the beef industry is in a position where it needs to prove anything itself though. The mad cow cases have been isolated and few in number, and there is no hard evidence of a widespread epidemic of infected animals. The activisits have no place putting the beef industry into a defensive position until they can prove that there is a serious health risk associated with the current state of beef. As of now all they have are theories and suspicions.

[helenjp]

I hear what you're saying, but as somebody who is a potential consumer of imported US beef, the US beef industry *does*have to prove to me that I should walk past the domestic beef, the Australian and New Zealand beef, the Canadian beef, etc., and buy untested US beef processed by an industry which in Japan has a reputation for being behind the times and unwilling to modernize.

Of course, I don't get a lot of information, especially up to date information on the US beef packing industry, and I would be extremely interested to read more from informed sources.

[Pan]

[...]The activisits have no place putting the beef industry into a defensive position until they can prove that there is a serious health risk associated with the current state of beef.[...]

←

I think the only organization that probably has enough spending power (though it's way in the red) to pay for the kind of widespread testing that could prove or refute this is the Federal government or at least some state governments, so I don't see the logic in blaming activists for the fact that widespread testing isn't being done.

[ghostrider]

I have stopped eating hamburger, unless I'm damned sure of the source.

I'm supposed to eat only filet mignon when I have beef anyway due to fat content, & I pretty much stick to that. I will occasionally eat other cuts when I know the source.

There's a lot of info out there from folks with axes to grind who have a vested interest in scaring you.

OTOH, the way mad cow unfolded in the UK should make everyone leary of trusting in gov't pronouncements from authority.

There are scientists who experienced the UK debacle & now say that US testing is severely inadequate. That's what worries me the most. Does it scare me? Nah, that's putting it too strongly. But it worries me enough to cut out the cheap supermarket hamburger.

[Pan]

My father got his own meat-grinder a few years ago, after the first case of mad cow in the US was reported. He's happy to grind his own meat and does feel that's safer, because he knows he's not including any spinal cord tissue and so forth in it.

[srhcb]

You're about eight hundred times more likely to be killed by a lightning strike, if that's any help.

[NulloModo]

I think the only organization that probably has enough spending power (though it's way in the red) to pay for the kind of widespread testing that could prove or refute this is the Federal government or at least some state governments, so I don't see the logic in blaming activists for the fact that widespread testing isn't being done.

←

I'm not blaming tha actvists for no testing. It just seems that a major overhaul of our beef testing procedures is uncalled for at this point.

How many cars have to have a critical flaw before a major investigation is prompted of Ford, how many people have to have complications before the FDA intiates a major investigation into a drug on the market, and how many sweaters need to easily catch on fire before the Gap comes under scrutiny? The beef industry is first and foremost just that: an industry, out to make a profit, which they are already apparently having a problem doing. I'm not saying it is morally or ethically right, or that one can justifiably put a dollar value or set of statistics to potential human lives effected, but there is no reason we should force the beef people to play by different rules than any other corporation.

[cstuart]

I'm not blaming tha actvists for no testing.  It just seems that a major overhaul of our beef testing procedures is uncalled for at this point. 

How many cars have to have a critical flaw before a major investigation is prompted of Ford, how many people have to have complications before the FDA intiates a major investigation into a drug on the market, and how many sweaters need to easily catch on fire before the Gap comes under scrutiny?  The beef industry is first and foremost just that: an industry, out to make a profit, which they are already apparently having a problem doing.  I'm not saying it is morally or ethically right, or that one can justifiably put a dollar value or set of statistics to potential human lives effected, but there is no reason we should force the beef people to play by different rules than any other corporation.

←

I rarely eat red meat and when I do it's usually lamb, but I think the "beef people" should look at better testing, and practices in general, as a sort of investment. Imagine what the media would do with a large mad cow outbreak in the US; that little hysteria alert might even hit red, and everyone would be caught up in the don't eat US beef nightly headlines.

[pam claughton]

I think the only organization that probably has enough spending power (though it's way in the red) to pay for the kind of widespread testing that could prove or refute this is the Federal government or at least some state governments, so I don't see the logic in blaming activists for the fact that widespread testing isn't being done.

←

I'm not blaming tha actvists for no testing. It just seems that a major overhaul of our beef testing procedures is uncalled for at this point.

How many cars have to have a critical flaw before a major investigation is prompted of Ford, how many people have to have complications before the FDA intiates a major investigation into a drug on the market, and how many sweaters need to easily catch on fire before the Gap comes under scrutiny? The beef industry is first and foremost just that: an industry, out to make a profit, which they are already apparently having a problem doing. I'm not saying it is morally or ethically right, or that one can justifiably put a dollar value or set of statistics to potential human lives effected, but there is no reason we should force the beef people to play by different rules than any other corporation.

←

I'm not sure that just improving testing will solve the problem. The way the animals are fed and slaughtered also needs to be addressed. Feeding cows other cows, possibly even diseased cows, could potentially spread the disease, and may have already done so.

So, it's not just about testing.

But, I am not ready to give up meat!!!! I think the answer, for me anyway, is to just buy organic. I'll pay more, but won't have to worry about meat by-products in feed, as organic cows are grass fed, so it's not an issue.

In fact, my day of no meat started a mad craving for it! Just polished off a delicious braised veal ragu over pasta.

:) Pam

[ghostrider]

You're about eight hundred times more likely to be killed by a lightning strike, if that's any help.

←

I have a good friend who's been struck twice by lightning, so I'm not sure how much comfort this is. He wasn't killed either time, though, so maybe he's not relevant.

My wiseacre tendencies aside, the statistical perspective is useful.

[LurkerLoo]

I've been off of beef products (but not dairy) for over a year, and what little news trickling into the main media about mad cow in the U.S. haven't allayed any of my concerns about practices in the beef industry.

For example, the fact that private testing of beef is not being allowed strikes me as very suspicious:

However, Bill Hawks, the USDA's undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, said in a statement Friday that the government's public testing program is intended only to check for other cases and that "use of the test as proposed by Creekstone would have implied a consumer safety aspect that is not scientifically warranted."

(from an article at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4702216/ on MSNBC)

Huh?

There's been previous discussions on eGullet about mad cow:

mad cow discussion

and

another mad cow discussion

...to highlight just a couple.

[edited to make verb tenses agree]

Edited February 21, 2005 by LurkerLoo (log)

[srhcb]

I have a good friend who's been struck twice by lightning,

←

Yes, but were they "in the same place" both times?

SB (lightning harbors no personal grudges)

[srhcb]

I have a good friend who's been struck twice by lightning,

←

Yes, but were they "in the same place" both times?

SB (lightning harbors no personal grudges)