Mad Cow Facts

Cattle Network
June 12, 2006

Excerpt…

WASHINGTON –The U.S. Department of Agriculture now believes the only two native-born U.S. cows to contract mad-cow disease were infected with a little understood and rare “atypical” strain that throws into question how the animals were infected.

The USDA’s chief veterinarian, John Clifford, said the latest two cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in the U.S. – found in Alabama and Texas – are abnormal, differing from the common form of the disease found in Canada and the U.K.

Mr. Clifford said the USDA has no plans to change the way it safeguards the U.S. beef supply. An internal USDA memo stated, “There is no evidence to justify any changes in surveillance methods, disease control or public-health measures already taken in the United States.”

Mr. Clifford agreed, saying, “Until the science proves otherwise, we’ll be treating all of these cases as BSE and the normal, typical BSE, and we still feel confident that the safeguards we have in place are effective.” USDA regulations ban beef from nonambulatory, or “downer,” animals from the human food supply and require that certain bovine tissue, such as brain and spinal-cord material, considered to be risky for carrying the BSE infection be removed before processing.

The U.S. also guards against cattle infection by prohibiting the feeding of bovine material to cattle because of the belief that BSE is spread solely through contaminated feed. But this “atypical” form of BSE found in the U.S. might not be spread through feed. Mr. Clifford said he didn’t know if the two U.S. cows were infected through contaminated feed – as most normal cases are – or whether they simply developed the disease spontaneously or by some other way.

Linda Detwiler, a consultant to major food companies and former Agriculture Department veterinary-disease specialist, said, “There is so much that is unknown about the cases now.” There are several theories as to how cattle could develop an atypical form of BSE, if it even is BSE that the Alabama and Texas cows contracted, she said.

Kenneth P. Green
The Wisconsin State Journal
Sunday, June 4, 2006

Excerpt…

Breeding fears of a changing climate and food raised “unnaturally,” promoters of vegetarianism and organic foods argue that we should go vegan, or eat “organic” to save the planet…

…First, let’s look at whether going vegan would stabilize the climate. Two vegetarian researchers recently published an article estimating that the typical American with a mixed diet puts out 1.5 tons more carbon dioxide each year than do people who consume only plants, which adds up to about 6 percent of U.S. emissions, but only 1.6 percent of worldwide emissions.

Yet U.S. greenhouse emissions are a shrinking part of the world’s inventory, as China and India are growing quickly. Whatever benefit that might come of American’s going vegan would barely be noticeable, and quickly erased by emissions of developing countries.

Now, let’s look at the argument that eating organic food will help save the climate. Organic food sellers claim that organic farming is better than traditional farming because it uses less energy and chemicals to grow food. Some even claim that research published in Science showed organic farming was 50 percent more efficient than traditional farming. But what organic food purveyors don’t talk about is that the same study showed crop yields were 20 percent lower.

When you factor that into the equation, organic farming was found to be about 19 percent more energy efficient per unit produced than traditional farming. Or is it?

As science writer Ron Bailey points out, the comparison wasn’t really apples to apples. State-of-the-art organic farms were compared to older methods of traditional farming, not modern systems.

Traditional farming has become much more energy efficient than it was 20 years ago. And whatever gain organic farming produces has to be seen in a holistic context.

The same Science study found that after 21 years of organic farming, nutrients in the soil were being depleted badly: they were 34 percent to 51 percent lower than the nutrient levels found in traditionally farmed soils.

As chemist John Emsley observes in Nature, “Humans have a stark choice to make: do we farm four hectares of land organically’ to feed 40 souls, or do we farm one hectare artificially’ — thereby leaving the other three to natural woodland and wildlife?”

Finally, let’s ask whether organic food is healthier. While the purveyors of organics claim that organic foods are more nutrient rich, or lower in pesticide contamination, the data doesn’t back them up.

The Institute of Food Technologists, an international, not-for-profit scientific society points out, “Organic foods are not superior in nutritional quality or safety when compared against conventional foods, yet organics do have the potential for greater pathogen contamination, and therefore greater risk of food poisoning.”

Mark McLellan, an agricultural expert at Texas A&M University and former IFT president concluded, “Conventionally grown foods that utilize well-researched techniques including biotechnology benefit all consumers worldwide with a more abundant and economical food supply, foods of enhanced nutritional quality, and fresh fruits and vegetables with improved shelf life.”

Another analysis looked at 100 studies claiming organic foods were healthier, but found they were mostly bogus. As researcher Diane Bourn observed, “To date, I feel there’s no evidence that organic food is nutritionally superior,” and, she explained, “When you look at those studies in detail, they’re actually pretty awful. …. They’re not really strong enough to be able to say that convincingly.”

So, are vegetarianism and organic foods going to save the planet? I don’t think so. They’ll do virtually nothing for the climate, they’ll deplete the soil, they’ll require us to use more land area to grow the same amount of food, and we’ll be exposed to equal or greater amounts of pathogenic bacteria and viruses.

Waiter? I’ll have the steak, please.

USDA’s Economic Research Service
May, 2006

Excerpt…

Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-12) 51 pp, May 2006Most farms in the United States—98 percent in 2003—are family farms. They are organized as proprietorships, partnerships, or family corporations. Even the largest farms tend to be family farms. Very large family farms account for a small share of farms but a large—and growing—share of farm sales. Small family farms account for most farms but produce a modest share of farm output. Median income for farm households is 10 percent greater than the median for all U.S. households. Small-farm households also receive substantial off-farm income.

Newswire
May 31, 2006

Excerpt…

WASHINGTON, DC, May 31, 2006 (ENS) – Member countries of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) last week voted unanimously to revise the three definitions of risk categories for countries affected by mad cow disease, formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

The three definitions are – negligible risk, controlled risk, and undetermined risk of cattle being infected with the fatal brain-wasting disease.

Previously, a country that discovered a case of BSE had to wait seven years from the date of its latest discovery before being eligible to be classified as a “negligible risk” country, the category for countries with the least amount of risk from the disease.

Under these guidelines, the United States would have had to wait until the year 2013 to be classified as a negligible risk country after a veterinarian discovered a cow infected with the disease in Alabama in March, the third infected U.S. cow to be found.

Now, as a result of OIE’s decision, countries work from the date of birth of the animal discovered to be infected with the BSE agent – misfolded proteins called prions.

The decision was made at the OIE’s Annual General Session held in Paris from May 21 to 26.

The General Session notably brings together representatives appointed by the governments of the 167 OIE member countries. Some 600 participants representing member countries and intergovernmental organizations such as the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization took part in the event.

Many U.S. cattlemen support the change because it more accurately reflects the scientific knowledge surrounding the disease.

“Scientists have determined that BSE is caused by feeding contaminated animal-based feed to cattle, and that cattle are most likely to become infected with BSE during the first year of their lives, so using the infected animal’s birth date as a reference point allows countries to determine how recently contaminated feed may have been circulating within their feed system,” said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, a cattle industry association.

In 1997 both the United States and Canada imposed bans on feeding animal protein such as meat and bone meal to cattle, but some cattlemen say the bans have been unevenly enforced.

“OIE’s decision also allows countries to determine how effective their feed bans have been in arresting the spread of BSE within their borders,” Bullard said.

OIE is now saying countries with adequate testing programs that detect no cases in cattle born within the past 11 years should be considered as a negligible risk for BSE because there is no evidence the disease has been recycling in the feed supplies of those countries.

“By applying this new reference point to the United States, which has tested over 720,000 cattle since June 2004 and detected two BSE-infected animals born more than 10 years ago, the scientific evidence suggests that while the disease may have been prevalent before the U.S. implemented its 1997 feed ban, the fact that no cases have been detected in cattle born after the feed ban suggests that the U.S. has effectively halted the continued recycling of the BSE agent,” Bullard said.

U.S. beef represents the single largest segment of American agriculture, accounting for roughly 20 cents of every agriculture dollar, and generating $3 billion a year in export business.

(more…)

By Elizabeth M. Whelan, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Washington Times
May 6, 2006

Excerpt…

Fast food is under increasing attack. It has become the perfect scapegoat for our nation’s obesity crisis. Critics argue the consumption of burgers, fries, soda, nuggets and pizza explain why Americans including kids are so fat. Never mind that obesity is the result of overconsumption of calories from all sources (and most meals daily are eaten at home, not at fast-food establishments), combined with a lack of sufficient exercise to burn those calories.

For every complex problem there is a simple solution which turns out be wrong. In the simple drama unfolding about obesity, the role of villain is currently being played by McDonald’s, Burger King and other vendors who can quickly serve up tasty, inexpensive and often calorically dense food…

…In a forthcoming book, “Chew on This” aimed at pre-teenagers Eric Schlosser, the author of “Fast Food Nation,” launches a multifaceted attack on fast food and the companies that advertise and sell it.

Mr. Schlosser hope parents will buy this book for their kids. Here is why they should not:

First, Mr. Schlosser (a journalist, not a doctor) repeatedly argues the food served at McDonald’s and other such restaurants is inherently different, less nutritious, and unsafe. This message is false. The fare served at all reputable outlets of this type is wholesome, basic food served up in a particularly tasty and appealing manner.

There is, for example, essentially no difference in terms of fat, sodium and calories between a lunch of a cheeseburger, fries and soda devoured under the golden arches versus a broiled ground chuck burger with cheese, a large baked potato with butter and salt, and a standard beverage consumed in Mom’s kitchen except that the serving size of the burger at home may be considerably larger.

The author’s repeated pejorative reference to “chemicals” in fast food (for example, harping on the “59 ingredients” in a strawberry milkshake) only takes advantage of the naivete of kids (and probably their parents, too) about the fact all food, processed or natural, is 100 percent comprised of chemicals (there are more than 150 natural chemicals in a potato). And the suggestion fast foods are unsafe in other ways flies in the face of the strictly enforced standard protocols for food handling and cooking in these establishments, which reduce the probability of food-borne disease to nearly zero. Certainly the same cannot be said about home-cooked food.

Second, the author claims fast food is so dangerous and inappropriate for kids it should not be advertised, just as “you can’t market alcohol to children, or cigarettes or guns” as if there were anything at all in common between alcohol, cigarettes, guns and food.

Third, Mr. Schlosser takes on socioeconomic issues totally inappropriate for children, and he does so in a deliberately distorted fashion. For example, he manipulates his readers into distress and anxiety with his claims McDonald’s exploits children by offering them low-paying jobs, even citing an example of a teenager who has to get up very early in the morning on frigid weekend mornings to flip burgers. He also claims, without evidence, that these restaurants both promote dangerous working conditions at slaughterhouses and promote cruelty to animals.

Eric Schlosser hates fast foods. But a careful read of his books on the subject confirms he really hates big, successful corporations, their efficiency, and, of course, their associated profits. He despises the fact kids, and adults love burgers, fries and shakes since he thinks McDonald’s should serve only fruits, vegetables and water.

“Chew on This” may do well on the talk show rounds, as critics get a chance to lament the nation’s obesity crisis and take their frustrations out on their favorite corporate punching bags. But this book should be off-limit to kids. At least it should carry a full-disclosure label: “Contains super-sized helpings of hype, opinion, misinformation and scare tactics.”

Elizabeth M. Whelan is founder and president of the American Council on Science and Health.