This is topic Massive beef recall comes amidst charges of animal cruelty and broken inspection laws in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Well, that ought to suppress fast food and beef in general sales for a few weeks. I find it amazing that that much meat can make it past inspectors and onto the market. But I'm glad they caught it and announced it at all.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I'm glad once again that I've gone vegetarian...
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:...is roughly enough for two hamburgers for each man, woman and child in the United States...
Well today I've eaten enough meat for a small family. My community service is done... You're welcome! Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:The federal agency said the recall will affect beef products dating to February 1, 2006, that came from Chino-based Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., which supplies meat to the federal school lunch program and to some major fast-food chains.
2006?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I'm glad once again that I've gone vegetarian...
And I'm glad I keep kosher.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I know.
Considering where I live, I think I've probably consumed an awful lot of this in the last 2 years.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I'm glad once again that I've gone vegetarian...
*High five*
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I had beef for the first time today in months. What timing.
It was delicious, too. Prime Rib sub from Quizno's.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, it's possibly more relevant that I rarely use ground beef. I prefer ground turkey.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Keep in mind that there has been no tainted beef found.
This is purely a precautionary move because the cows in question were weak and/or sick. And generally the weaker sicker cows are more prone to having e coli and what not because they have weaker immune systems and tend to spend more time in their own wastes because they can't move, which is why they're supposed to be kept out of the food supply.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I'm going to go save another family and eat a triple.
Saving humanity, one burger at a time!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Keep in mind that there has been no tainted beef found.
This is purely a precautionary move because the cows in question were weak and/or sick. And generally the weaker sicker cows are more prone to having e coli and what not because they have weaker immune systems and tend to spend more time in their own wastes because they can't move, which is why they're supposed to be kept out of the food supply.
Also good to note that as long as ground beef is cooked to the proper temperature and proper food-handling measures are used (washing hands, wearing gloves, sanitizing surfaces, etc.), e. coli and salmonella are dead, so not much to worry about.
What's squicking me out is the idea of eating cow that had been pushed with a forklift. *wince*
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'm sorry, but this seems to me to be a huge waste of animal life. And as Lyrhawn pointed out, there has been no actual evidence of tainted meat.
What bothers me about all these beef recalls is that we're used to dealing with trichinosis, and no one would think of recalling this much pork even though we know for a fact that if it's improperly cooked it will make people sick.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Have some more MadCows, anyone?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I buy meat from a local rancher, who free ranges his cows. There's very little fat in the meat, and it's such high quality we love it.
Definitely the way to buy beef.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What are the arguments against all beef being free range? It's far more sustainable, good for the land, produces higher yields, and the quality is better as well.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I always bought free-range in TX. Alas, here it is less readily available and WAAAAY more expensive, and that is one of the sacrifices we make to live here-- no more free-range beef. Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
I eat organic and free range, so it doesn't affect me, but I'm SO glad and surprised this is happening. Great thread.
Lyrnhawn - Does it produce higher yields? I always thought the awful way was the one getting more beef out there.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm betting that the real concern in this case is Mad Cow and not e-coli. I think that the FDA isn't saying Mad Cow because of concerns it would cause a panic that would devastate the US beef industry.
Proper cooking doesn't destroy preons, thats part of what makes Mad Cow/bovine spongiform encephalopathy/Creutzfeldt-Jakob such a scary disease.
I just hope that the FDA is being overly cautious with this recall and not covering up a more serious problem. Many people think the FDA has been too lax in its regulation of Mad Cow because of pressure from the beef industry. If in a few years there are cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob among people who ate this beef as school children -- it will be a tragedy and a scandal of major proportion.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I guess the thing that appalls me the most is the cruelty. How can the human species treat other species as though they have no feelings, no terror or agony, when we know they do?
To me that is the gravest sin that we, as a species, commit, and among the gravest sins that we as individuals commit. We spread the responsibility around among us but that doesn't make it go away.
Sin is wrong not because it turns our stomachs or because God says it's wrong, but because it's a terrible mistake. It's doing things that seem like a good idea at the time that are actually bad for you in the long run. Our attitude of treating living creatures as though they are some sort of industrial machinery that we must maximize the profits from is also the same attitude that has us destroying the only planet that sustains human life. If we don't change this, and that means working out our repentance with fear and trembling, we will go extinct.
What will it take to make us see and change?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm betting that the real concern in this case is Mad Cow and not e-coli. I think that the FDA isn't saying Mad Cow because of concerns it would cause a panic that would devastate the US beef industry.
I wondered if that were the real story too.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If the issue were just animal cruelty: The individuals directly involved would have faced investigation and possibly prosecution. Midlands-Hollands would have been required to submit a list of new operating procedures to correct the problem, and possibly pay a small fine without ever having to admit guilt about their degree of complicity.
The deal breaker is forklifting downed cattle to facilitate slaughter&processing for human consumption. Legally, all downed cattle are supposed to be examined by veterinarians for MadCows and other diseases. Legally, all downed cattle are supposed to be taken out of the human food chain, irrespective of cause. Midland-Holland chose not to comply. And drew the hammer down upon themselves.
The US exports LOTS of beef. And import bans by other nations due to the appearance that the US doesn't care about shipping out diseased beef would have harmed many individual beef producers and the beef industry as a whole. And thus the strong political incentive to impose the most stringent of corrective actions.
[ February 18, 2008, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Weak cow is tasty cow. That's just an evolutionary fact Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair: I eat organic and free range, so it doesn't affect me, but I'm SO glad and surprised this is happening. Great thread.
Lyrnhawn - Does it produce higher yields? I always thought the awful way was the one getting more beef out there.
Not if you only count beef. But, integrated farming techniques would use the land to feed multiple forms of animal and the land would be left extremely fertile afterwards, meaning it would be extremely good farmland. If you used a big plot and rotated crops AND animals around the plot, you'd have huge crop yields and a lot of free range poultry and beef. I'll have to look up the numbers. I think the profit margin for current cattle farming methods are higher, I'm not sure, but it's a system that all feeds into itself. America has an extreme overabundance of corn, so we've artificially created a need for it by feeding it to cows, making fake sugar out of it, turning it into fuel, whatever. I think in part if you ended expensive farm subsidies to major corn growers, stopped growing so much, we stop feeding cows with it and it becomes more feasible to free range them and make money off it. It's not just one problem, it's a dozen problems all up and down the distribution chain that keep our current methods employed.
I'm not 100% now that I think about it that yields are higher per acre, but I do know that studies have been done, and that we could easily feed ourselves and export just as much, if not more, by free ranging all the cattle we usually corn feed, and that we have the land to do it on. I'll look into it, but, browse the last page or two of the Green Energy Thread, there was a post a few days ago about this very subject.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It is against the law to use as food for humans meat from cows that are infirm and have collapsed. There are sound reasons why these laws were enacted, even if we do not always find that the suspect beef introduced into stores is tainted. It is MORE LIKELY to be tainted, and that is the point.
And joke about Mad Cow Disease as some will, it is still a deadly danger that has not gone away. The human form may have a multiple-year incubation period. But then, so does HIV. That really just makes it worse. It can spread more widely, if people do not drop dead from it instantly.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm surprised so many people are giving credence to mad cow these days. It used to just be my in-laws.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, Mad Cow is definitely a concern, especially in our lax system.
However, only a certain percentage of the population is vulnerable to it. I think it was something like 10-30% of British? Though I'm not sure on that.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
quote:"If we don't change this, and that means working out our repentance with fear and trembling, we will go extinct."
Tatiana, you certainly have a flair for the dramatic. Why the "fear and trembling." Couldn't improvements be made without necessarily going to such theatrical lengths?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The continuing and growing danger of mad cow disease (Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans) is being vastly underestimated, entirely as a result of wishful thinking. Reality is going to come crashing in, sooner or later. Do we have to have it emblazoned on the sky, before the warning signs will be clear enough?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer:
quote:"If we don't change this, and that means working out our repentance with fear and trembling, we will go extinct."
Tatiana, you certainly have a flair for the dramatic. Why the "fear and trembling." Couldn't improvements be made without necessarily going to such theatrical lengths?
Fear and trembling is a common religious terminology used to describe the attitude held by the truly repentant person. By it, I understood Tatiana to mean that we must change more than just our practices but also the basic attitudes that allow people to justify such treatment of other living things for the sake of improving their profit margin.
I agree fully with Tatiana. I have been reading a history of the slavery which has heighten my awareness of the depths of depravity that people will justify for the sake of poverty. I sincerely hope that we will one day come to view the cruelty of industrial meat production in the same way we now view slavery.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Mad cow? HA! I laugh at that made up disease! I mean, I eat meat every day and... and... MOOOOOO!
Uh... was I saying something? No you weren't... Yes I was... SHUT UP!
Must... have... more... burgers!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Isn't it sad how low Captain Kirk has fallen on Boston Legal?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Isn't it sad that some people can't tell the difference between an actor and a role they have played?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I keep watching Boston Legal waiting for the phone number to come up so I can buy plane tickets.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I like his WoW commercials. Though none of them are as good as the Mr. T WoW commercial. I crack up every time I see it.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I think Animal Cruelty is the least of our concerns. Literally. Also, it's kinda redundant to even mention it in regards to a Meat Processing Plant where they're about to be slaughtered.
Personally, I'm thankful that people are, for the most part, focusing on the objective matters of public safety rather than the (IMO, False) moral implications of 'mistreating' our food prior to slaughter.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Um... There's a difference between giving an animal a quick death as humanely as possible so that we may have nourishment from it, and torturing it before we eat it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think Animal Cruelty is the least of our concerns. Literally. Also, it's kinda redundant to even mention it in regards to a Meat Processing Plant where they're about to be slaughtered.
Slaughtering cattle does concern me nearly as much and the cruelty and torture.
I don't know whether or not cattle fear death, I do know they are capable of both happiness and suffering. I have little problem with eating a cow that has lead a healthy, pleasurable life eating grass in a pleasant pasture. But I have a big problem with the hideous life cattle lead in industrial feed lots.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Not as far as I can see. If someone came up to me and said "I'm going to kill you", I would be approximately the exact same amount of upset as if they had said "I'm going to torture and kill you".
Who knows, maybe by being tortured, I'm helping to alleviate some poor person of their passive aggressive, sadistic tendencies. Maybe some other person will live because of me! (that's about 90% joke, and 10% "Hmmm...")
In order to win me over to the "Animal Rights" camp, you would have to convince me that the process has any objective consequences aside from a waste of time (which is enough to keep ME from doing it, but not enough to make me CARE about it). This is in regards to non-endangered species of course. The consequences of potentially extincting a species are far more logical.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If someone came up to me and said "I'm going to kill you", I would be approximately the exact same amount of upset as if they had said "I'm going to torture and kill you".
If this were true, all torture would take the form of death threats. It does not.
quote:In order to win me over to the "Animal Rights" camp, you would have to convince me that the process has any objective consequences aside from a waste of time...
I'm almost certain that this is a primary symptom of psychopathy.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Lack of empathy?
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:I'm almost certain that this is a primary symptom of psychopathy.
For every symptom of Psychopathy that I fit, I completely miss another. I'm not a liar or manipulator. My "Political Correctness" is relative to my anonymity and company. I have no criminal predilections that I can tell (clean record). I'm not particularly unreliable and DEFINITELY not untrustworthy. I tend to avoid counter-productive decisions (don't smoke, drink, do drugs, or have sex).
I DO believe, however, that I'm ADD, passive aggressive, and possibly depressed. Add Cynical and Intelligent to the mix and I'll admit that it can look a lot like psychopathy. Of course, I'm not educated to make a REAL diagnosis, but I'm also not predisposed to seeking counsel, so I may never know.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Some of the people I live with have heard about this and commented that if they ever went to the States they'd avoid beef entirely, due to the laxer standards. (And the same for cosmetics.) I don't know so much about the comparative standards for monitoring and such, but in that light I'm glad the US is taking active steps on this case. If the home of mad cow disease is leery about US beef, that's not a comfortable thought.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Not as far as I can see. If someone came up to me and said "I'm going to kill you", I would be approximately the exact same amount of upset as if they had said "I'm going to torture and kill you".
If I were given the choice between being shot in the back of the head one day while walking down the street or being slowly tortured for years, there is no doubt in my mind which one I'd prefer. I'm surprised that anyone would see them as equal. In fact our society is in virtually uniform agreement that torture is a cruel and inhuman punishment which even the worst criminals do not deserve and yet most people in the US do not see capital punishment in the same way.
The comparison isn't quite fair in the first place since cattle aren't told their going to die. In fact there is no evidence that they anticipate their deaths even as they are entering the slaughter house.
Self consciousness means that humans are able to understand and therefore fear death in a way that other animals do not. While I suspect that all animals would generally prefer to live a healthy life than to die, it is unfair to transfer human fears and feelings about death to other animals.
On the other hand we can see in the behavior of animals that they experience pain and suffering in much the same way we do. We can see pleasure and contentment as well. I think that if we can look on and comprehend the suffering of any living thing and not feel compassion for it and act to stop it, it is a grave moral failing.
We all die eventually. If death is in and of itself a tragedy, then so is birth since the one leads inevitably to the other. In my mind it is how we live and not how we die which is important. Hence for me I am far more appalled at the way we treat animals while they are living than the fact that we butcher them to obtain food for ourselves.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:We all die eventually. If death is in and of itself a tragedy, then so is birth since the one leads inevitably to the other. In my mind it is how we live and not how we die which is important. Hence for me I am far more appalled at the way we treat animals while they are living than the fact that we butcher them to obtain food for ourselves.
I agree with this here Rabbit. Even PETA agrees that the main thrust of their efforts right now should be in reducing suffering that animals go through in slaughterhouses rather then trying to persuade the world at once to give up meat completely.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I think Animal Cruelty is the least of our concerns. Literally. Also, it's kinda redundant to even mention it in regards to a Meat Processing Plant where they're about to be slaughtered.
I think the recall itself is an act of animal cruelty. At 500 pounds of beef per cow, 143 MM pounds of beef equates to about 286000 cows that were slaughtered for no purpose, and an additional 286000 cows that will be slaughtered to replace them.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:We all die eventually. If death is in and of itself a tragedy, then so is birth since the one leads inevitably to the other. In my mind it is how we live and not how we die which is important. Hence for me I am far more appalled at the way we treat animals while they are living than the fact that we butcher them to obtain food for ourselves.
I agree with this here Rabbit. Even PETA agrees that the main thrust of their efforts right now should be in reducing suffering that animals go through in slaughterhouses rather then trying to persuade the world at once to give up meat completely.
That's what Temple Graundin does. She's cool.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:At 500 pounds of beef per cow, 143 MM pounds of beef equates to about 286000 cows that were slaughtered for no purpose, and an additional 286000 cows that will be slaughtered to replace them.
Considering that a lot of the meat has almost certainly already been eaten, I doubt it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Someday, in the New Earth, when we are all completely satisfied with a diet that does not include animal flesh, God is going to resurrect many of the animals that shared the earth with us during history. We may able to communicate with them at least to some extent. So imagine the fateful meetings, when the former meat eaters meet up with the animals whom they ate. Will apologies be in order?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see why there would be, at least not just for eating them. We're omnivores. Other animals in nature don't, and don't have to, apologize for eating something lower on the food chain. It's the circle of life.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Someday, in the New Earth, when we are all completely satisfied with a diet that does not include animal flesh, God is going to resurrect many of the animals that shared the earth with us during history. We may able to communicate with them at least to some extent. So imagine the fateful meetings, when the former meat eaters meet up with the animals whom they ate. Will apologies be in order?
Is this standard Christian belief?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Is this standard Christian belief?
That depends on how you define "Christian".
But its not a belief I have heard before so I doubt its widespread among Christian denominations.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Omega M.--no, this is just what I believe. I can show it is a logical extension of things stated in the Bible, but no denomination has articulated this as doctrine, as far as I know.
When someone asks me if their beloved pets will be with them in the New Earth, I tell them yes, and can give Scriptural reasons for saying that.
See, this world at present is four-fifths covered with water, and even the land area has large regions that are virtually uninhabitable--like the whole continent of Antarctica, deserts, the rugged heights of mountain ranges, etc. When Paradise is restored, all the earth's land will be inhabitable, and there will be no more large seas, only smaller bodies of water. This means there will be plenty of room for all the people of all ages whom God chooses to raise from the dead, and there will be room for a vast number of animals as well. Why not resurrect animals that have lived formerly, in a world of corruption and pain that was not their fault?
I can go into the Bible texts if anyone wants--such as Jesus' statements that not a sparrow falls, but God knows it, and that in the New Earth, He will grant any request that we make. What reason would He have for not restoring to us our beloved pets, who have been faithful companions to us in this age? And why not bring back the very animals that have suffered on our account, so they can enjoy life as God originally intended for them to have?
This, as I said, is not a point of doctrine, just something I believe, based on Scripure. But I think it may have some value, to those who care about such things. If you do not have faith in God, and believe the Bible is God's Word, then this and my previous post about this are not for you.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It is LDS doctrine that the Resurrection will apply to animals. Or if not doctrine, at least common teaching.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... This means there will be plenty of room for all the people of all ages whom God chooses to raise from the dead, and there will be room for a vast number of animals as well. Why not resurrect animals that have lived formerly, in a world of corruption and pain that was not their fault?
Depends on your definition of "vast":
quote: They are divided up into 32 orders, or groups of insects. The largest order is the beetles (Coleoptera) with 125 different families and around 500,000 different species. In fact, one out of every four animals on earth is a beetle. Scientists estimate that 10% of the animal biomass of the world is ants, and another 10% is termites. This means that 'social insects' probably make up an incredible 20% of the total animal biomass of this planet!
So doing a rough calculation if we assume a lifespan of a year for an ant, then roughly ten years of ants forms the entire animal biomass of the planet.
Even using the most conservative figure for the lifespan of the Earth (6000 years), that would be what, 600 times the space that we currently use for all animals on Earth, just for ants.
Obviously, we're going to need to pick and choose our animals Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
ketchupqueen, thanks for letting me know that. I had not been aware LDS believe in the resurrection of animals. I think the main reason many Christians and Jews suppose that resurrection is only for humans is the way Ecclesiastes 3:21 is rendered in the old KJV: "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" This gives the impression that since God does not receive the spirits of animals back into His hand, therefore they cannot be resurrected. But the text apparently is mistranslated in the KJV. Here is how the text is rendered in the NASB: "Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth?" This suggests we don't actually know which is the case. It is even clearer in the NRSV: "Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?" And here is how The Living Bible renders it: "For who can prove that the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward into dust?" And of course the NIV rendering: "Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"
According to the Bible, God can resurrect the dead because He "remembers" them. Jesus made it clear that God remembers the animals. Luke 10:29 says: "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father." (NASB) And Luke 12:6 says in part: "Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? And yet not one of them is forgotten before God." (NASB)
And Jesus made this promise to all those who love Him: "And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14, 13, 14; NASB)
So in the New Earth, if I am privileged to be there, and I ask Jesus to resurrect my beloved pets, who have been faithful and affectionate companions to me during lonely times and all times in this world, why would He refuse?
Mucus--I don't care about insects. Insects were not preserved on Noah's Ark. I doubt there will be any blood-sucking mosquitoes in the New Earth. But there may be dinosaurs in the New Earth.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
One of our LDS Prophets is quoted as saying that what he looks forward to most in the Resurrection is meeting dinosaurs. Or somethign like that. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Insects were not preserved on Noah's Ark.
You know this how?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Didn't you know he was there? Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:At 500 pounds of beef per cow, 143 MM pounds of beef equates to about 286000 cows that were slaughtered for no purpose, and an additional 286000 cows that will be slaughtered to replace them.
Considering that a lot of the meat has almost certainly already been eaten, I doubt it.
The status of the beef doesn't make my point any less valid.
I don't believe in wasting food of any kind, but with meat in particular, you are killing an animal in order to eat it, so we shouldn't be cavalier about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with eating meat. It's the natural order of things and all that, but if you're going to kill an animal you should make good use of everything, so as not to have wasted it's life.
Every time there's a recall like this it makes me sick.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Insects were not preserved on Noah's Ark.
You know this how?
Don't you know anything? Their DNA was preserved in amber.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug*
I'm literally going by the definition of "animals." But sure, let's try this out.
1) What animals were preserved on the ark? 2) Why is resurrection reserved for those on the ark? 3) You mentioned beloved pets. What if someone has an ant farm or a pet dolphin/whale? 4) How did we get today's insects if they did not make it onto the ark?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:The status of the beef doesn't make my point any less valid.
I don't believe in wasting food of any kind, but with meat in particular, you are killing an animal in order to eat it, so we shouldn't be cavalier about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with eating meat. It's the natural order of things and all that, but if you're going to kill an animal you should make good use of everything, so as not to have wasted it's life.
Oh, I agree with you on the importance of not wasting meat. However, since a lot of the meat was already eaten, there's no reason that what has been eaten will be replaced by killing more cows. KWIM?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:KWIM?
I don't know what this means, but if you say it out loud it sounds obscene.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Know what I mean?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My suspicion is that the recalled meat will be used to make pet food, which has to meet lower safety standards.
Rover with mad cow! woohoo! Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The problem with the theory of "mad-cow is already rampant here" is that the humans who died of in in Great Britain died within a year or two, if I understand correctly. Where are all the people here dying of it?
Edit: I just read the wiki, which seems to imply that the humans in the UK who have died of it were exposed years before. However, I still doubt it's widespread here. AFAIK, our cattle-raising practices here have been just as bad for just as long, but we've had no outbreaks yet. Why not?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Funny, ketchupqueen--no, I wasn't there with Noah on the Ark. (Just call me "Japeth!") Insects were not on the ark, rivka, because they did not need to be. They survived by their own means--eggs floating in debris in water, etc. Some insects can also go dormant and live in virtual suspended animation for years.
steven, I have read a few medical experts who say that a surprisingly large percentage of patients who died of what was diagnosed as "senile dementia," and even Alzheimer's, when autopsied, were discovered to have the spongiform encephalopathy (brains that look like sponges with holes in them) characteristic of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (Mad Cow Disease in humans). They have called for more such patients to be autopsied, to provide a larger data sample. But there seems to be determined resistance to do this, as if many people just don't want to know.
Also it is widely reported that a Mad Cow-like illness has been observed in wild deer and elk herds, especially in Colorado. Some people think it may derive somehow from scrapie in sheep and goats. Scrapie also produces spongiform encephalopathy similar to Mad Cow Disease. It has been known to exist in this country since the 18th century. It is common enough that the U.S. is not allowed to export meat from sheep or goats to any other country. It has been assumed (perhaps wishful thinking) that scrapie cannot be communicated to humans. But perhaps it can be communicated to deer and elk, which often mingle with cattle on ranches. And cattle can transmit Mad Cow Disease to humans. So far, the only reaction has been to cling to the belief that they are not the same disease, even though it is admitted that they are all caused by "prions."
The bad thing about prions is there is no cure for them, and they are more resilient than bacteria or viruses. Cooking has no effect on them.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I have read a few medical experts who say that a surprisingly large percentage of patients who died of what was diagnosed as "senile dementia," and even Alzheimer's, when autopsied, were discovered to have the spongiform encephalopathy (brains that look like sponges with holes in them) characteristic of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (Mad Cow Disease in humans).
It's funny how this hasn't been found in anybody in their 20s, 30s, or 40s here. I realize the disease supposedly has a long incubation period, but still...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
We knew a man whose wife lived across the street who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in his late 20's. It was very tragic. He died after just a few years of very bizarre behavior. I doubt that his brain was autopsied. It should have been. People have been getting Alzheimer's at astonishingly young ages these days. No one is quite sure why.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
2006?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)