"meat" without any sort of snarky vaguely scatological aside. :)
- Jim
Ben Braver wrote:
>Scary. Very scary.
>Reminds me of the old Heinlein short story about the USSR "Pravda Means Truth".
>
>Think it's wierd that an ad on the right side of the H.O.F. page with 'Gel's post was:
>Jackson Hole Choice Meats
>Offering premium gourmet foods, steaks, seafoods, & wild game.
>www.jacksonholechoicemeats.com
>
><oy>
>-Ben
>
>
>
>
>>"The Cow Jumped Over the U.S.D.A.
>>
>>
>>
>>*http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/02SCHL.html?ei=1&en=187e49a57
>>1ff993a&ex=1074084856&pagewanted=print&position
>>
>>
>>
>>><HYPERLINK
>>>
>>>
>>"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/02SCHL.html?ei=1&en=187e49a57
>>1ff993a&ex=1074084856&pagewanted=print&position"http://www.nytimes.com/2
>>004/01/02/opinion/02SCHL.html?ei=1&en=187e49a571ff993a&ex=1074084856&pag
>>ewanted=print&position>=*
>>
>>
>>
>>>**
>>>
>>>
>>>*By ERIC SCHLOSSER*
>>>
>>>
>>>Alisa Harrison has worked tirelessly the last two weeks to spread the
>>>
>>>
>>>message that bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, is
>>>
>>>
>>>not a risk to American consumers. As spokeswoman for Agriculture
>>>
>>>
>>>Secretary Ann M. Veneman, Ms. Harrison has helped guide news coverage
>>>
>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>
>>>the mad cow crisis, issuing statements, managing press conferences and
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>reassuring the world that American beef is safe.
>>>
>>>
>>>For her, it's a familiar message. Before joining the department, Ms.
>>>
>>>
>>>Harrison was director of public relations for the National Cattlemen's
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Beef Association, the beef industry's largest trade group, where she
>>>
>>>
>>>battled government food safety efforts, criticized Oprah Winfrey for
>>>
>>>
>>>raising health questions about American hamburgers, and sent out press
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>releases with titles like "Mad Cow Disease Not a Problem in the U.S."
>>>
>>>
>>>Ms. Harrison may well be a decent and sincere person who feels she has
>>>
>>>
>>>the public's best interest at heart. Nonetheless, her effortless
>>>
>>>
>>>transition from the cattlemen's lobby to the Agriculture Department is
>>>
>>>
>>a
>>
>>
>>
>>>fine symbol of all that is wrong with America's food safety system.
>>>
>>>
>>>Right now you'd have a hard time finding a federal agency more
>>>
>>>
>>>completely dominated by the industry it was created to regulate. Dale
>>>
>>>
>>>Moore, Ms. Veneman's chief of staff, was previously the chief lobbyist
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>for the cattlemen's association. Other veterans of that group have
>>>
>>>
>>>high-ranking jobs at the department, as do former meat-packing
>>>
>>>
>>>executives and a former president of the National Pork Producers
>>>
>>>
>>Council.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The Agriculture Department has a dual, often contradictory mandate: to
>>>
>>>
>>>promote the sale of meat on behalf of American producers and to
>>>
>>>
>>>guarantee that American meat is safe on behalf of consumers. For too
>>>
>>>
>>>long the emphasis has been on commerce, at the expense of safety. The
>>>
>>>
>>>safeguards against mad cow that Ms. Veneman announced on Tuesday --
>>>
>>>
>>>including the elimination of "downer cattle" (cows that cannot walk)
>>>
>>>
>>>from the food chain, the removal of high-risk material like spinal
>>>
>>>
>>cords
>>
>>
>>
>>>from meat processing, the promise to introduce a system to trace
>>>
>>>
>>cattle
>>
>>
>>
>>>back to the ranch -- have long been demanded by consumer groups. Their
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>belated introduction seems to have been largely motivated by the
>>>
>>>
>>desire
>>
>>
>>
>>>to have foreign countries lift restrictions on American beef imports.
>>>
>>>
>>>Worse, on Wednesday Ms. Veneman ruled out the the most important step
>>>
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>protect Americans from mad cow disease: a large-scale program to test
>>>
>>>
>>>the nation's cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
>>>
>>>
>>>The beef industry has fought for nearly two decades against government
>>>
>>>
>>>testing for any dangerous pathogens, and it isn't hard to guess why:
>>>
>>>
>>>when there is no true grasp of how far and wide a food-borne pathogen
>>>
>>>
>>>has spread, there's no obligation to bear the cost of dealing with it.
>>>
>>>
>>>The United States Department of Agriculture is by no means the first
>>>
>>>
>>>such body to be captured by industry groups. In Europe and Japan the
>>>
>>>
>>>spread of disease was facilitated by the repeated failure of
>>>
>>>
>>government
>>
>>
>>
>>>ministries to act on behalf of consumers.
>>>
>>>
>>>In Britain, where mad cow disease was discovered, the ministry of
>>>
>>>
>>>agriculture misled the public about the risks of the disease from the
>>>
>>>
>>>very beginning. In December 1986, the first government memo on the new
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>pathogen warned that it might have "severe repercussions to the export
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>trade and possibly also for humans" and thus all news of it was to be
>>>
>>>
>>>kept "confidential." Ten years later, when Britons began to fall sick
>>>
>>>
>>>with a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob syndrome, thought to be the
>>>
>>>
>>>human form of mad cow, Agriculture Minister Douglas Hogg assured them
>>>
>>>
>>>that "British beef is wholly safe." It was something of a shock, three
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>months later, when the health minister, Stephen Dorrell, told
>>>
>>>
>>Parliament
>>
>>
>>
>>>that mad cow disease might indeed be able to cross the species barrier
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>and sicken human beings.
>>>
>>>
>>>In the wake of that scandal, France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Japan
>>>
>>>
>>>banned imports of British beef -- yet they denied for years there was
>>>
>>>
>>any
>>
>>
>>
>>>risk of mad cow disease among their own cattle. Those denials proved
>>>
>>>
>>>false, once widespread testing for the disease was introduced. An
>>>
>>>
>>>investigation by the French Senate in 2001 found that the Agriculture
>>>
>>>
>>>Ministry minimized the threat of mad cow and "constantly sought to
>>>
>>>
>>>prevent or delay the introduction of precautionary measures" that
>>>
>>>
>>"might
>>
>>
>>
>>>have had an adverse effect on the competitiveness of the
>>>
>>>
>>agri-foodstuffs
>>
>>
>>
>>>industry." In Tokyo, a similar mad cow investigation in 2002 accused
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>
>>>Japanese Agriculture Ministry of "serious maladministration" and
>>>
>>>
>>>concluded that it had "always considered the immediate interests of
>>>
>>>
>>>producers in its policy judgments."
>>>
>>>
>>>Instead of learning from the mistakes of other countries, America now
>>>
>>>
>>>seems to be repeating them. In the past week much has been made of the
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>"firewall" now protecting American cattle from infection with mad cow
>>>
>>>
>>>disease -- the ban on feeding rendered cattle meat or beef byproducts
>>>
>>>
>>to
>>
>>
>>
>>>cattle that was imposed by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997.
>>>
>>>
>>>That ban has been cited again and again by Agriculture Department and
>>>
>>>
>>>industry spokesmen as some sort of guarantee that mad cow has not
>>>
>>>
>>taken
>>
>>
>>
>>>hold in the United States. Unfortunately, this firewall may have gaps
>>>
>>>
>>>big enough to let a herd of steer wander through it.
>>>
>>>
>>>First, the current ban still allows the feeding of cattle blood to
>>>
>>>
>>>young
>>>
>>>
>>>calves -- a practice that Stanley Prusiner, who won the Nobel Prize in
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>medicine for his work on the proteins that cause mad cow disease,
>>>
>>>
>>calls
>>
>>
>>
>>>"a really stupid idea." More important, the ban on feed has hardly
>>>
>>>
>>been
>>
>>
>>
>>>enforced. A 2001 study by the Government Accounting Office found that
>>>
>>>
>>>one-fifth of American feed and rendering companies that handle
>>>
>>>
>>>prohibited material had no systems in place to prevent the
>>>
>>>
>>contamination
>>
>>
>>
>>>of cattle feed. According to the report, more than a quarter of feed
>>>
>>>
>>>manufacturers in Colorado, one of the top beef-producing states, were
>>>
>>>
>>>not even aware of the F.D.A. measures to prevent mad cow disease, four
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>years after their introduction.
>>>
>>>
>>>A follow-up study by the accounting office in 2002 said that the
>>>
>>>
>>>F.D.A.'s "inspection database is so severely flawed" that "it should
>>>
>>>
>>not
>>
>>
>>
>>>be used to assess compliance" with the feed ban. Indeed, 14 years
>>>
>>>
>>after
>>
>>
>>
>>>Britain announced its ban on feeding cattle proteins to cattle, the
>>>
>>>
>>Food
>>
>>
>>
>>>and Drug Administration still did not have a complete listing of the
>>>
>>>
>>>American companies rendering cattle and manufacturing cattle feed.
>>>
>>>
>>>The Washington State Holstein at the center of the current mad cow
>>>
>>>
>>>crisis may have been born in Canada, but even that possibility offers
>>>
>>>
>>>little assurance about the state of mad cow disease in the United
>>>
>>>
>>>States. Last year 1.7 million live cattle were imported from Canada --
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>and almost a million more came from Mexico, a country whose
>>>
>>>
>>agricultural
>>
>>
>>
>>>ministry has been even slower than its American counterpart to impose
>>>
>>>
>>>strict safeguards against mad cow disease.
>>>
>>>
>>>Last year the Agriculture Department tested only 20,000 cattle for
>>>
>>>
>>>bovine spongiform encephalopathy, out of the roughly 35 million
>>>
>>>
>>>slaughtered. Belgium, with a cattle population a small fraction of
>>>
>>>
>>ours,
>>
>>
>>
>>>tested about 20 times that number for the disease. Japan tests every
>>>
>>>
>>cow
>>
>>
>>
>>>and steer that people are going to eat.
>>>
>>>
>>>Instead of testing American cattle, the government has heavily relied
>>>
>>>
>>>on
>>>
>>>
>>>work by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis to determine how much of
>>>
>>>
>>a
>>
>>
>>
>>>threat mad cow disease poses to the United States. For the past week
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>
>>>Agriculture Department has emphasized the reassuring findings of these
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Harvard studies, but a closer examination of them is not comforting.
>>>
>>>
>>>Although thorough and well intended, they are based on computer models
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>of how mad cow disease might spread. Their accuracy is dependent on
>>>
>>>
>>>their underlying assumptions. "Our model is not amenable to formal
>>>
>>>
>>>validation," says the Harvard group in its main report, "because there
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>are no controlled experiments in which the introduction and
>>>
>>>
>>consequences
>>
>>
>>
>>>of B.S.E. introduction to a country has been monitored and measured."
>>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, "formal validation" is exactly what we need. And the
>>>
>>>
>>>only
>>>
>>>
>>>way to get it is to begin widespread testing of American cattle for
>>>
>>>
>>mad
>>
>>
>>
>>>cow disease -- with particular focus on dairy cattle, the animals at
>>>
>>>
>>>highest risk for the disease and whose meat provides most of the
>>>
>>>
>>>nation's fast food hamburgers.
>>>
>>>
>>>In addition, we need to give the federal government mandatory recall
>>>
>>>
>>>powers, so that any contaminated or suspect meat can be swiftly
>>>
>>>
>>removed
>>
>>
>>
>>>from the market. As of now all meat recalls are voluntary and
>>>
>>>
>>remarkably
>>
>>
>>
>>>ineffective at getting bad meat off supermarket shelves. And most of
>>>
>>>
>>>all, we need to create an independent food safety agency whose sole
>>>
>>>
>>>responsibility is to protect the public health. Let the Agriculture
>>>
>>>
>>>Department continue to promote American meat worldwide -- but empower
>>>
>>>
>>a
>>
>>
>>
>>>new agency to ensure that meat is safe to eat.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, the threat to human health posed by mad cow remains uncertain.
>>>
>>>
>>>But
>>>
>>>
>>>testing American cattle for dangerous pathogens will increase the cost
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>of beef by just pennies per pound. Failing to do so could impose a far
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>higher price, both in dollars and in human suffering.
>>>
>>>
>>>/Eric Schlosser is author of "Fast Food Nation" and "Reefer
>>>
>>>
>>Madness."/"
>>
>>
>>
>>---
>>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/25/2003
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
