I am concerned...not hysterical or in panic. The health of Americans should not be compromised by an exaggerated concern about the relatively trivial cost of testing cattle for a disease as awful as Mad Cow.
posted on January 1, 2004 02:05:26 PM new
KD - I do feel you are reacting hysterically. Not because we don't have ALL the answers, about many of our food concerns, but only because of your proposal to totally ban beef until ALL are tested. That's very much an overreaction, imo. Your country had ONE case of MCD...then no more for almost another 10 years. That ONLY produced ONE more case.
I'm trying to get you to put things into prospective. For helen to suggest all beef should be tested when reports have shown, as I've already posted, that:
"(BSE tests) are not perfect by any means and they lack sensitivity throughout the average five-year incubation period of the disease, but these tests certainly pick up serious disease in the last year of the incubation period," he said.
The current testing will not guarantee 100% of the cases being eliminated anyway....and look at the HUGE cost you're going to incur. When only 10 people worldwide have died from this is 20 years.
It's never hysterical to question. It's never hysterical to worry and ask for more safe guards to our whole good system, but things have to be done in a reasonable way. And reasonable is not totally banning beef, nor testing every cow in your country and ours.
Look at Stuci's post where that herb is being discontinued. Why? Because 1000 people have died. We only have ONE case of MCD...YOUR country only had one case of MCD....neither has had any deaths from MCD contacted by humans.....but you want to spend billions/trillions of dollars each year to lower that number until meat can be proven to be 100% safe???? It's just never going to happen, KD.
People have to weigh the odds in everything they do in life. Driving a car, giving birth to a child, walking across the street. ALL take chances by doing something every single day. But we don't ask them to stop until they can be 100% certain not one single person is going to die from doing so.
posted on January 1, 2004 03:38:48 PM new
Linda, I always thought that being hysterical meant that you're yelling, your arms are flailing, and the jugular veins are sticking out on your neck. I have none of those symptoms.
Of course you're right about making your own meat-eating decisions and that anything could kill a person. My point is that this disease could be in the food chain without anyone knowing it because it's been shown that animals don't have to look or act sick to have the disease. If it's not in the food chain, there's nothing to worry about, but how can the government say it's safe, without knowing what the effects are? Do small amounts taken over a period of time, cause damage? Do small amounts cause death? Memory loss perhaps?
Meat is something that would be easy to cut from your diet until more is known. In my humble opinion, it's not worth it.
posted on January 1, 2004 04:08:00 PM new"When only 10 people worldwide have died from this is 20 years."
I don't think your numbers are correct Linda. This is from 1998-99. I heard it was like 247 deaths worldwide, but I could be wrong.
Monday, 22 March 1999
Researchers from London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine report in this week's issue of The Lancet a surge in the number of deaths related to mad cow disease in Britain in the last quarter of 1998.
From 1996 through September 1998, the number of deaths was around four every three months. Last quarter, however, nine people were reported dead because of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), which is assumed to be caused by digesting meat of mad cows. The Prion Disease Group of the Department of Neurogenetics, at Imperial College in London discovered last year that vCJD-patients had the infectious form of the prion protein in their nervous and lymphatic system, among which are the tonsils.
The prion protein is responsible for both Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and mad cow disease.
It is not clear whether the rise is coincidental or the possible onset of an epidemic. This may take another six or nine months, the researchers said.
posted on January 1, 2004 04:35:08 PM new
KD- Well....helen's called me that before and I don't believe she could see if my arms were frailing, and my blood vessels protruding.
I have stated more than once that most all sites report there have only been 153 deaths, worldwide, attributed to the cross over disease from cows. All EXCEPT 10 were people from the UK. [143 were from the UK] So...I've said OTHER than the UK there have only been 10 deaths reported from this disease worldwide.
If one reads a few of the links on MCD under a google search, one will find many reports such as this one I'm posting the link to.
There are many diseases that all animals, in our food chain could be tested for. They too have the potential of having a negative effect on our health.
Right now the US tests a very small portion of our herds for TB. When areas are found to contain herds that have high incidents of TB they find out why. They haven't chosen to test each at every cow for TB at that additional cost.
Then dairy cows have many diseases too. Johne's is one. Testing for that costs $22.00 a head too. I could go on. We COULD spend hundreds of dollars PER COW testing for everything they could possibly have. We don't. They take the odds, they have small groups that are tested, etc. When problems present themselves, they are investigated and studied.
Then there are those who have forced studies on concerns about methane emissions from beef or dairy cows.
Knowing how you feel about eating meat, I would never expect to change your mind on this subject. But we also could spend, and probably have spent, fortunes on testing for pesticides, herbicides, greenhouse emissions and how bad they are. But they too are used in the growning process of our vegetables, fruits, nuts, etc.
There is mostly likely nothing we eat that doesn't have something that can cause some sort of damage to humans.
It's all about evaluating the risk we are willing to take if we want to eat ANYTHING.
posted on January 1, 2004 05:19:34 PM new
Just to clarify something:
My point is that this disease could be in the food chain without anyone knowing it because it's been shown that animals don't have to look or act sick to have the disease. I understand that.
Yes, and some are suggesting it could now be in our blood supply too. So, those people will have to make a decision about whether to refuse a blood transfusion or not, should they ever need blood. They'll have to decide if they think the risk is too high, because the blood tracking system has been compromised by the ONE reported case of a person who had this disease passing it to another who received that blood during surgery.
From what I've read, the majority of cows in the US are slaughtered before they reach 30 months of age. And the curent BSE tests aren't reliable for confirming the disease UNTIL the cow is in it's 'latter stages' of this disease, which it wouldn't be, testing will not help one way or the other...but will cost millions of dollars.
posted on January 1, 2004 05:23:03 PM new
:: From 1996 through September 1998, the number of deaths was around four every three months. Last quarter, however, nine people were reported dead because of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), which is assumed to be caused by digesting meat of mad cows. ::
Coincidentally I was talking to someone in the health field about CJD a couple days ago and from what I learned, I think you may be mistaken that CJD is caused by MCD.
Blood banks were inquiring about CJD for years and it is not believed to be caused by MCD but is rather believed to be the human equivalent, much as AIDS is to Feline Lukemia. CJD is a rare disease but has been more frequently diagnosed (often misdiagnosed due to its rarity) in recent years despite no previous cases of MCD in the US.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 1, 2004 05:46:58 PM new
Let's don't worry about Mad Cow Disease. It's probably just a disease that some Noble Laureat scientist imagined. The majority of Americans who listen carefully to the tee vee and watch the nice pictures that the cattle association have provided aren't worried. Now if we can get the bans lifted the industry will be back in business until the next crazy cow or human pops up. No need to spend any money to protect the purity of the nation's food supply. We need that money to pay Halliburton to rebuild Iraq.
(irony if any idiot is in doubt.)
posted on January 1, 2004 05:47:40 PM new
Linda, you seem stuck on the number of deaths related to this disease, as somehow being how you monitor whether it's harmful or not. Im just say wait it out a bit until more information is available.
posted on January 1, 2004 05:47:49 PM new
I think all of this: links, opining, blaming this one and that one.....ok its overreacting to it all.
This thread is on the 6th page now.
You could and can die from one of any million ways. Living is a path to dying. If anyone is going to obsess (no I am not saying anyone here is obessing on this) about MCD or whatever it is that MC's can give humans, you might as well obsess about not cooking your pork or chicken long enough, or getting hit by a semi truck.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on January 1, 2004 05:59:58 PM new
KD - Im just say wait it out a bit until more information is available.
Yes, we all will have to wait until we have more information on this subject. Doubt there are few who aren't considering the risk factor for themself.
But meanwhile, there are those of us who think it's just plain silly to *ban all beef* UNTIL years worth of studies show us the risk is, or isn't, more than we currently think it is. But don't think it's silly to possibly choose to avoid the recommend meats we are being told have a higher degree of risk at the present time.
posted on January 1, 2004 06:22:41 PM new"Let's don't worry about Mad Cow Disease. It's probably just a disease that some Noble Laureat scientist imagined."
Obviously Helen, nobody read it. I do find it amusing though, just because we don't agree with what our governments are telling us and choose to question the information, that we're both viewed as being hysterical or panicing or overreacting, or all of the above. To be honest with you, I don't think my blood pressure has EVER been as low as it is now. How about you?
posted on January 1, 2004 06:36:54 PM new
:: We need that money to pay Halliburton to rebuild Iraq. ::
Yesterdays USA Today Page 4 - Pentagon has canceled Halibutons contract to oversee oil imports following nearly 61 million in overcharges.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 1, 2004 06:40:14 PM new
Krafty - I have one question - how long is one supposed to wait until there is "more info available". It isn't as though this is a new disease or that no one has done studies. It's been a decade.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 1, 2004 06:47:58 PM new
I'm cool too, KD...even after I'm told that Halliburton got away with 61 million in overcharges and will be denied the contract to oversee oil charges. Poor guys...
posted on January 1, 2004 06:55:15 PM new
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...........and stumbling......
What about Chickens? And the Fish? Worms in PORK......Pesticides in CORN,,,,,,,and ALL the OTHER Vegitables.....Apples,,,,,Peaches ,,,Pears.....Strawberries,,,,,,,Strawberry field Forever,,,,,,Nothing is real,,blow fish,,,,,,clams,,,,,,red tides,,,,,Salmon........Cranberries......Cancer from the late 1950's.......Strawberry problems,,5 years ago,,,,,,????? Were STILL kickin'..........WeRe ALL gonna die,,Hopefully from too MUCH SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chow down and let it BE.........Turkeys,,,,,,,,They walk in SChitt......all day,,,,,,,,
posted on January 1, 2004 06:57:05 PM new
The FDA has been dragging their feet for years while scientists try to impose some control of the feed ban, and testing. The cow, just discovered, has put their feet to the fire so to speak.
One recent development is that downer cows will no longer be used. Whether these cows will be tested is another question.
posted on January 1, 2004 07:15:34 PM new
LOL @ jacksweb.....so right you are.
--------
panicking, over-reacting, overboard reactions?
KD posted on December 27, 2003 10:52:34 AM
What a complete sham! I wonder what spin Canada will put on this. Personally, I hope it destroys the Alberta beef market, and ALL beef markets for that matter, until they decide to test every single cow.
That would not only destroy both our beef industries, cost billions upon billons of dollar in losses to the cattle industry, processing plants, people who earn their living that way, but all business who serve beef in anyway, shape or form. Over how many human illnesses? Over how many Canadian/American deaths?
posted on January 1, 2004 07:32:08 PM new
I bought beef liver today for my CATS,BBQ'ed it up,,,,,,I,,,,,,,was the ORIGINAL,,,,, taster,,,,,,NEVER would I EVER let my Cats go FIRST,,,,,hmmmmm,yummy, O.k. you guys,jump on it,,,,,,Yeah,,,,,Jack! It's GOOD!! WE like it!.........Gulp! MORE JACK! You ALL know animals know BETTER than We Humans,,,,,
posted on January 1, 2004 07:34:17 PM new
Linda, you forgot the first part of my speech where I was saying - after MCD was discovered in Alberta, Alberta beef should have been banned from being exported to the U.S. until it was proven safe. A cow with a disease, any deadly disease, isn't safe for consumption, let alone being exported while still under suspicion.
Fenix, this IS a new disease, as far as I know. One that could potentially affect the food chain. Until there's a test that can say whether an animal has this devasting disease, I think people should be leary of commercial meat. Maybe organinc meat is the answer for now.
posted on January 1, 2004 07:35:24 PM new
I DON'T accept your judgement, helen....more like being *reasonable* and allowing just a little time for them to get a handle on what, exactly, we're dealing with.
They're already stating even more changes they're going to be implimenting.
But I'll ask you the same question. Maybe you can tell me the benefit of shutting down all the above mentioned industries:
Over how many American/Canadian illnesses? Over how many Canadian/American deaths to date?
edited to add "don't accept"
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 1, 2004 07:38 PM ]
posted on January 1, 2004 07:42:21 PM new
As you all know, I eat lots of beef, and I raise it all. I do, however eat in restaurants on rare trips to town. So please spare me the "easy for you to say" comments. While Linda is correct, I'm much more concerned with poorly handled meat than I am with BSE, still, I don't think anyone's obsessed here. I think that demanding the full weight of the law be thrown at research into this disease, and protecting the American public is the absolute least the public should settle for, the beef industry be damned. If it costs 23.00 to test a cow, that's going to raise the cost of meat less than a nickel a pound on a steer that yields 500 pounds. The American beef industry has been heavily subsidized for decades at the expense of Public lands and water. The strong, independent cattleman is an old west myth. The usual large cattle operation these days, at least in the west, depends on public lands and subsidy. I call these people "Welfare Ranchers". Everytime the gov't wants to raise the price of grazing permits, the industry bitches..."the american consumer will suffer, beef prices will have to go up, oh woe, oh woe". Well, it's payback time. Test them all, and if the consumer has to bear the burden, too bad. Watch a few videos of cattle that are dying while their brains turn to goo, imagine that happening to one of your children, and then tell me testing is too expensive.If we eradicated cattle from this country, nobody would starve to death, or even go hungry.
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on January 1, 2004 07:48:35 PM new"But I'll ask you the same question. Maybe you can tell me the benefit of shutting down all the above mentioned industries: Over how many American/Canadian illnesses? Over how many Canadian/American deaths to date?"
You are getting hysterical and assuming that "everything" will be shut down. We are advocating testing all cows, especially imported cows and downer cows. Self regualtion of the cattle industry will not and has not worked for the past decade. There is no enforcement of the ban on adulterated feed, for example. Correcting these problems will not shut everything down. Testing all animals will not shut everything down. We are talking about reasonable responses to a potential disaster in this country. And believe me, the money to finance these procedures is available.
posted on January 1, 2004 07:51:00 PM newFor Cattle Industry, a Swift Response Years in the Making
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 — When word flashed to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association last week that the first case of mad cow disease in the United States had been found on the West Coast, it was a red alert for an industry that had spent years playing down the threat.
The association and its allies have spent millions in recent years to deploy lobbyists defending its interests on meat regulations, inheritance taxes and other issues. So when a crisis surfaced that struck directly at beef sales, it had a plan.
Washington lobbyists began tracking down members of Congress, who were home for the holidays, and discussing the response with officials at the Agriculture Department. Teams of experts in all 50 states were made available to the news media to get out the group's message. And the association posted a Web page, created years ago but held in reserve, to educate the public.
"We were trying to get to the American consumer, where all our money comes from," said Chandler Keys, the association's vice president for government affairs.
The initial response was the first line of defense for an industry facing the largest test of its clout in years. It then embraced regulations imposed by the Agriculture Department on Tuesday, including an about-face on a provision the industry had long opposed and had defeated in the House earlier this year.
"Their barn is burning down," said Howard Lyman, a former rancher and lobbyist for the National Farm Union who is now an advocate for tighter regulations and a critic of the industry. "They are trying to put the best face on it."
The crisis began two days before Christmas, when the cattlemen's association got the much-feared news that a cow in Washington State had tested positive in early laboratory work for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.
Most of the association's 20-person capital staff was gone for the holidays and many had to be recalled. Some drove through the night to get back. What followed in the next few days was a whirlwind of conversations with officials at the Agriculture Department, including Secretary Ann M. Veneman, and Congress as the industry sought to gather and disseminate information.
"They are on the run now," said Marion Nestle, who will step down as chairman of the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University in 2004 after 15 years. "Countries all over the world are saying they will not buy their meat. That's serious."
The association, which is more than 100 years old, represents most American cattle producers, as well as others associated with the beef industry, including restaurants and grocers. It has a long history of opposition to what it calls excessive government regulation.
Cattle and livestock interests have given almost $22 million to political campaigns since the 1990 elections, with three-quarters going to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign finance.
Many say the relationship improved with the election of President Bush, who is the former governor of Texas, the top cattle-producing state, and owns a ranch there. Mr. Bush was the top recipient of campaign money from the industry in his 2000 election and again this year, as well as from allies like the dairy and meat processing industries.
posted on January 1, 2004 08:13:16 PM new
Over 36,000 people in the United States Die of the Flu each year. It is our 5th leading cause of deaths. I worry more about this than 1 Mad Cow.
posted on January 1, 2004 08:13:32 PM new
No where have I said we should not spent money to learn more about this disease. No where have I stated that we shouldn't put more funding behind enforcing the laws that are there to protect our beef.
I'm saying that adding a system of full testing at a cost of $23.00 per head times *36 million cows a year*, plus adding the additional cost of personnel and storage space while the testing process is being completed is un-necessary *at this time*. Their has been ONE case of MCD reported. Our first one ever. If we end up finding as many as the UK found, I'd feel differently.
And profe - without going back over a hundred links or so that I've read...I'm pretty sure that the majority of cattle farmers/ranchers in the US make up 79% of those who raise cattle. Most with herds under 240-250. And I do agree, MUCH more needs to be done as far as testing contaminated meat goes. We are suffering the consequences of those problems.
This topic is 8 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new
