Reason for New Mad Cow Tests Still Unknown

[struggle4progress]

By LIBBY QUAID
The Associated Press
Monday, June 13, 2005; 7:48 PM

WASHINGTON -- Senior congressional Democrats on food and farm issues asked Monday why the Agriculture Department suddenly ordered new tests on tissue from a cow declared free of mad cow disease seven months ago.

Now, a brain sample from the cow is being sent to England for further study because a third round of tests came back positive late Friday. The Agriculture Department's inspector general suddenly ordered those tests last week.

The department has not explained why the new tests were ordered. The inspector general's office, an independent arm of the agency, would not comment Monday, saying a brief statement would be issued Tuesday.

"That's absurd," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the House Appropriations Committee's senior Democrat on farm issues. "What we're doing by delaying this information is that you put the public health at risk, and you put the industry at risk. Who's going to feel comfortable with our products?" <snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061301299.html

[evolvenow]

1. WHAT will it take for people to STOP EATING ANIMALS? It is not SAFE, it

is inhumane and will lead to death, either from poisoning, obesity, or clogging the arteries/heart disease or cancer.

BUt that is just my opinion.

Protect yourself, your children, your family, GO Veg!

[flvegan]

2. Sort of like smoking, eh?

Know better, choose not to. Some will argue that while smoking is addictive (and I do feel for those addicted to tobacco), meat is not. Just comes down to "want" I guess.

[evolvenow]

4. It is addictive, for some. Studies showed, and like smoking, people either

cannot stop, or are so used to eating dead animals, that they cannot shift away.
I was lucky, since a child I always found meat revolting, but then I love animals, alive, not as dinner.

[Trillo]

13. I was a vegetarian for 5 years,

no beef, fish, or chicken, no animal flesh.

During those 5 years, I gained 50 lbs, and was ALWAYS hungry (all my friends said I'd become skin and bones lol): I presume this was because I didn't get something my body needed that it got from eating flesh.

I gave vegetarianism up, because for me it was a unhealthy diet.

[flvegan]

15. It's possible.

Nobody ever said that one couldn't gain weight going veg. However, following a balanced and nutritious diet, one would be hard pressed to gain a lot of weight as a vegetarian. Junk food veg folk do exist, and they're just as unhealthy as a junk food meat eater.

[Trillo]

17. Thanks: "junk food veg folk"

No matter what I ate, there was constant hunger, it was just like starving while there was enough food. Is that normal on a vegetarian diet? Everyone I knew that was vegetarian said no, but I couldn't afford a program that allowed a complete amino acid profie to be analyzed, at the time, they cost over $600 per single user, and I didn't have that kind of money.

Do you know why regional cuisines developed?

In any case, I will likely never voluntarily try it again. At the time, 5 years seemed like an eternity.

[livinginphotographs]

3. Even before I went totally veg, I didn't eat beef.

Makes me feel a lot better.

Of course, the study that someone posted here a few days ago about how many Alzheimers patients are misdiagnosed, and actually have CJ disease makes me worry about my beef-eating family members.

Then there's the effect of rBGH on young girls. :eyes:

The ethical reasons for eating meat and dairy aside, the impact on health is impossible to ignore.

[evolvenow]

5. Yes, being veg feels best. Have you ever tried serving a delicious veggie

meal/meals to your family. it took years of suggesting, explaining, sharing, educating, but almost my whole family is veggie.

[evolvenow]

6. kick for the Animals

[livinginphotographs]

7. Actually, my mom and brother flirted with it for a while.

My brother was totally vegan for several years, but isn't anymore.

Of course, my stepdad's body is 90% sausage, so he's a lost cause. But I worry about my mom especially, because of the age thing.

That said, my mom is a great vegan cook. I never have any problems when I visit her.

[Eloriel]

9. Yeah, and your opinion isn't confirmed by the science

My own research on the subjects of obesity, cholesterol, triglycerides, high blood pressure, heart disease, and (tangentially) even cancer targets all the sugars in our food.

And by sugars I mean regular table sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, maltose, sucrose, etc., etc. (for some people even the artificial sweeteners), as well as all the processed grains (wheat flour, typicaly) which turn into the equivalent of sugar very quickly once consumed. It's actually quite difficult to find foods in the grocery store (other than completely unprocessed foods like fresh produce and meat) which do NOT have some form of sugar (or wheat flour) added.

What happens is that these sugars raise the blood sugar level which causes insulin to be poured into the system. Getting so much sugar in any given day (with every meal and often in-between) causes more and more insulin to be produced and released. Then there's TOO much insulin and the blood sugar drops precipitously and causes hunger -- for the very high-sugar (to raise the too-low blood sugar) that caused the problems in the first place. Over a period of time (years?), eventually the cells become insulin resistant, which means that even MORE insulin (which is fairly caustic to the body) is required to off-set the too-high blood sugar levels, and even more sugar-containing foods will be required to bring blood sugar up when the crash occurs. MEANWHILE, the body stores all the excess sugars as fat, usually especially around one's middle ("central obesity").

I personally no longer see obesity as a disease but a symptom along with all the other physical symptoms -- high blood pressure, high bad cholesterol and low good cholesterol, high triglycerides, etc. I don't think obesity CAUSES these other things but is a key indicator/symptom of the underlying problem of insulin resistance (and one author, a metabolic specialist, talked also of leptin resistance, leptin being a "master hormone").

Now, eating saturated fats -- especially GRAIN fed beef, etc. -- doesn't HELP, that's for sure. But it's not quite the culprit you believe.

[evolvenow]

14. Very true. Also cancer has been linked to the loss of pancreatic enzymes,

which get used up far to rapidly digesting animal flesh and fats. Sugar is a huge problem, particularly all of the corn syrups that are in just about any product in fast foods, and major grocery store chains, from cereals, to breads, to juices, you know, they stick it in everything as it is addictive.

Eating fried foods, deep fried, meats, heated oils actually make arteries contract ,clog and harden and are also very unlikely to be utilized properly by the body. So many Americans eat this type of diet, and it is so hard on the kidneys, heart, pancreas, liver.

Not everyone can adapt to a plant based diet, but most people, if they do it correctly, and that can be different for each person, is much better off with lots of vegetables, fruit, whole grains and exercise. How many Americans eat well? Particularly people with few options and less money?

The way the animals are treated in the food industry is atrocious. These horrors are chemical, hormonal and are passed into humans by consumption. There are so many reasons not to eat beef, and so many healthy options.

http://www.foodrisk.org/beef_other.cfm





Saturated Fat and Beef Fat as Related to Human Health: A Review of the Scientific Literature
http://www.wisc.edu/fri/briefs/satfat.pdf
Source: Food Research Institute, Department of Food Microbiology and Toxicology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Author: Doyle, Ellin
Summary: Review of scientific literature on saturated fat and beef fat and human health, including such topics as fat structure and function, cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, and Parkinson's Disease
Resource type: literature review, tables
Publication Date: February 2004
ID: 5030





Annex 5: The Beef Hormone Dispute between the
United States and The EU<1>

http://web.aces.uiuc.edu/wf/tutorials/GMOs/Annex%205.htm


The beef hormone conflict has established itself as the mother of all food safety trade disputes. In the 1970s, European consumers became alarmed about the human health effects of hormones in livestock production. A ban on the use of certain growth hormones in livestock followed in the 1980s, and this ban was eventually extended to include imports of meat from animals that had been given hormones. Protests from the United States and other exporters were to no avail. By the 1990s, the issue became a test case for the new SPS Agreement, and eventually a test (in the eyes of many) of the willingness of the European Union to abide by an adverse ruling under the strengthened legal architecture of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the WTO. The amount of trade originally involved was only about $100 million, a small fraction of the billions of dollars of trade that flow across the Atlantic in each direction. Compared to agricultural trade flows, the sum is very small, but the conflict over hormone-treated beef has had a major impact on trade relations far beyond the confines of the beef sector.

The events leading up to the ban on EU use of hormones in cattle raising and on imports of hormone-treated beef are important in explaining the political longevity of the issue in Europe. In many ways, the story begins with the emergence of nongovernmental institutions such as consumer and environmental groups, together with the rise of the European Parliament, each cutting their political teeth on issues that appeared to resonate with public opinion. The beef hormone controversy was an ideal issue for these organizations. Trade concerns were not dominant in the early years, and the disciplines applied by trade rules were in any case weak. European livestock producers were searching for ways to stimulate growth in cattle and took eagerly to the use of hormones, sometimes with inadequate knowledge of the consequences of misuse of such chemicals. Regulatory control sometimes slipped between the cracks, as coordination and harmonization of national regulations progressed haltingly in the European Union. And, as the GMO debate later demonstrated, the media could not resist a good story of commercial greed, administrative incompetence, and consumer vulnerability.

The European ban on the use of hormones arose out of the DES scare of the 1970s. The illegal use of dethylstilboestrol (DES) in veal production in France was, at least in the public mind, linked to incidents of adolescents in Italy reportedly displaying hormonal irregularities. In addition, DES was found in baby food made from veal, and cases of children born with birth defects due apparently to exposure to DES were reported from other places in Europe. European consumers became alarmed over the possible negative health effects of using hormones in livestock production. European consumer organizations called for a boycott of veal. This had a significant adverse effect on the market and incidentally on the administration of the agricultural market policy which, at that time, supported veal as well as beef prices.

http://docket.epa.gov/edkpub/do/EDKStaffItemDetailView?objectId=090007d4802d8b0…
Source: EPA Dockets, OPP-2004-0048, Environmental Protection Agency
Author: Health Effects Division, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency
Summary: Human health risk assessment for the pesticide amitraz. Dietary exposure sources considered include beef, pork, and milk, and drinking water was also considered. Revised tolerances for certain beef, pork, and milk products and for dried hops are suggested. Supporting documents are also available
Resource type: memorandum, report, tables
Publication Date: April 29, 2004
ID: 4394



Chemical-Specific Toxicity Values
http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/tox/tox_values.shtml
Source: Risk Assessment Program, Toxicology and Risk Analysis Section, Life Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Department of Energy
Summary: Database of chemical-specific toxicity values derived from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), and other sources. You may retrieve data for oral, inhalation, or dermal pathways on reference dose, reference concentration, unit risk, and slope factor. You may also retrieve a variety of other chemical-specific factors, including beef transfer coefficient, fish bioaccumulation coefficient, and milk transfer coefficient. You can format the output as an onscreen table, a tab delimited file, or a comma delimited file
Resource type: database/datasets, database/documentation, tables
ID: 1624





Cyhexatin; Risk Assessments and Preliminary Risk Reduction Options (Phase 3 of 4-Phase Process); Notice of Availability
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2004_register&docid=f…
Source: Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 217, Nov. 10, 2004, p. 65178-65181/GPO Access, U.S. Government Printing Office
Author: Environmental Protection Agency
Summary: Notice regarding the availability of risk assessments, preliminary risk reduction options, and other related documents for cyhexatin. It also opens a public comment period on the documents
Resource type: notice
Publication Date: November 10, 2004
ID: 5178





Human Safety of Hormone Implants Used to Promote Growth in Cattle: A Review of the Scientific Literature
http://www.wisc.edu/fri/briefs/hormone.pdf
Source: Food Research Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Author: Doyle, Ellin
Summary: Review of the literature on the effects on human safety from hormone implants used to promote growth in cattle. Sections include "Introduction and Historical Background," "Hormone Metabolism and Toxicity in Humans," "Toxicity Studies in Animals and Cell Cultures," "Hormone Concentrations in Cattle Tissues," "Assays for Determination of Hormone Levels," and "Hormone Concentrations in Other Foods"
Resource type: literature review
Publication Date: July 2000
ID: 2430





Irradiation of Beef Products
http://www.beef.org/documents/ACF9A4.pdf
Source: National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Summary: This document provides an overview of beef product irradiation, including its history, the FDAs position on irradiated beef products, food safety and nutrition issues, health effects, and more
Resource type: report
ID: 2592





Irradiation: Consumer Perceptions
http://www.beefboard.org/documents/irradiation.pdf
Source: Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board
Author: Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board/National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Summary: Report on four studies on beef irradiation and consumer perception regarding beef irradiation
Resource type: report, charts, tables
Publication Date: 2002
ID: 2764





Release of Free Amino-Acids During Ageing in Bovine Meat
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00088-5
Source: Meat Science, Vol. 44, Issues 1-2, Sep.-Oct. 1996, p. 19-25/ScienceDirect
Author: Feidt, C.; Petit, A.; Bruas-Reignier, F.; Brun-Bellut, J.
Summary: Report of a study of free amino-acids in stored bovine meat. Access to the full text may require subscription or purchase
Resource type: report
Publication Date: September 1996
ID: 3967





The Role of Creatine in the Generation of N-Methylacrylamide: A New Toxicant in Cooked Meat
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/2004/52/i17/abs/jf049421g.html
Source: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol. 52, No. 17, 2004, p. 5559-5565/American Chemical Society
Author: Yaylayan, Varoujan A.; Locas, Carolina Perez; Wnorowski, Andrzej; O'Brien, John
Summary: Report of a study on the formation of acrylamide from B-alanine, aspartic acid, and carnosine and on the formation of N-methylacrylamide in carnosine/creatine model systems. Subscription or purchase may be required to access the full text
Resource type: report, tables
Publication Date: 2004
ID: 4732

[flvegan]

16. Actually, while what you've stated about sugar is somewhat accurate,

you've left wide open the "your opinion isn't confirmed by the science" which it is, has been, and likely will be again. It may not be any one thing, but the science is there to back up the post you refer to.

[K-W]

8. According to John Stauber...

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0613-28.htm

The US government’s elaborate cover-up of mad cow dangers in the United States has begun to unravel. Twenty-four hours after our successful protest (with Organic Consumers Association) of the US Department of Agriculture’s mad cow dog-and-pony show in St. Paul, USDA Secretary Johanns was forced to admit that a cow tested last year and declared safe in fact DID have mad cow disease, or at least has tested positive on the definitive Western Blot test recently administered by USDA and considered the 'gold standard' for BSE testing.

I’ve often charged that the USDA is hiding US cases of mad cow by using the wrong testing procedures and by failing to conduct food safety tests on millions of animals and this announcement proves it. USDA finally used the correct test — the Western Blot test — on this suspect animal and it has proven to be a case of mad cow disease.

[pandemic_1918]

12. Positive TWICE in November

Anyone paying attention knew that TWO positive ELISA tests indicated the steer was positive in November. The confirmatory Western blot leaves no doubt. If its negative in England its because of how the material was stored.

THREE positives beats 2 negatives all of the time.

[Lori Price CLG]

10. LOL, the Department of Agribusiness n/t

[Robb]

18. Well, it's only a $175 billion industry

Can't blame them. :)

[HeeBGBz]

11. Suspect animal born prior to 1997 feed ban

USDA SAYS SUSPECT U.S. MADCOW ANIMAL BORN PRIOR TO 1997 FEED BAN


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WAT003251.htm

[malaise]

19. Heard on local radio this morning

that there was another death from Mad Cow disease in the US.
Thankfully I don't eat that stuff.