Mad Cow Facts

Business & Media Institute
By Jeff Poor
May 14, 2008

It’s not enough for the media to try to brainwash the public the Earth is in peril due to global warming. Now they’re telling you what to eat.

This is something you might expect to hear at a PETA rally, but instead it was ABC’s May 13 “World News with Charles Gibson” telling you to curb your beef consumption to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

“You are staring into the face of one thing scientists say you can do to fight climate change,” ABC correspondent Dan Harris said as the face of a cow filled the screen. “Leave this cow alone and eat less beef. According to the United Nations, 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from sending beef and dairy products to your kitchen table.”

The beef industry is a huge part of U.S. agriculture. According to Dan Otto and John D. Lawrence, two professors at Iowa State University, the beef industry represents $188.4 billion of direct and indirect economic activity throughout the U.S. economy. However, Harris rationalized that all this economic activity is a threat to the environment.

“Here’s why – cows are fed corn and soy, which are grown using fertilizers made from fossil fuels,” Harris said. “The food then has to be transported to the cows, which requires loads of fuel. And those cows, um, pass a lot of gas, which may sound funny, but the methane they release is 23 times more harmful than carbon dioxide. And, then there’s even more fossil fuel burned while slaughtering the cows, which involves heavy machinery and getting the food to the supermarket and then to you.”

Read more..

Texas A&M AgriLIFE
April 29, 2008

COLLEGE STATION – The beef brisket, treasured by most Texas barbecue connoisseurs and a common staple found inside smoking pits throughout the Lone Star State, contains ‘depots’ or tiny reservoirs of healthy monounsaturated fatty acids, according to new research.

Oils like olive or canola are the best sources of monounsaturated fatty acids since they contain 70 percent to 80 percent oleic acid, according to experts.

“However, the fat in beef brisket from corn-fed steers contains nearly 50 percent oleic acid, and oleic acid increases the longer cattle are fed a corn-based diet,” said Dr. Stephen Smith, a Texas AgriLife Research meat scientist and professor in the department of animal science at Texas A&M University.

Smith chaired a thesis study conducted by Stacey Turk, a Texas A&M animal science graduate student. Turk’s study could trigger a change in how meat processors view the brisket by offering a ground product that’s more nutritious than those found in retail grocery outlets today.

“We found the brisket to be the most healthful area of the carcass,” she said.

“The brisket in the southern parts of the U.S. is a well-known product. However in the midwestern and eastern parts, briskets might be used for corned beef products and the rest is shipped to the southern states. Processors could use this idea to utilize the brisket for a healthier ground product.”

Read more…

Wall Street Journal
By PATRICK MOORE
April 22, 2008

In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.

But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.

At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.

The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.

My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.

(more…)

Consumer Freedom
April 11, 2008

If you subscribe to Newsweek and you enjoy reading creative fiction, check out page 71 in this week’s issue (dated April 14th). It’s a full-page ad from the Humane Farming Association. This group really doesn’t like veal, and it’s not above lying to make a point (and raise money). Yesterday our Director of Research FedExed a letter to Newsweek’s top brass, demanding to know how such a clearly false and misleading advocacy ad made it past the due diligence of the magazine’s lawyers. We documented a half-dozen glaring falsehoods—and that was just the “low hanging fruit.”

I would be keenly interested in learning whether Newsweek ever asked the Humane Farming Association to substantiate [its] claims—and if so, what sort of evidence the group provided that could have satisfied the attorneys performing due diligence prior to publication. The only explanation I can imagine is that perhaps someone on your central advertising staff is so blindly sympathetic to the cause of animal “rights” that he or she was willfully blind to an obviously false and deceptive ad.

In the many years I have been studying the animal protection movement, I have never encountered a more baseless, dishonest, and disingenuous advertisement than the one you published this week. Newsweek owes a sincere apology (or at least a proper explanation) to veal farmers, to members of the public who choose to eat veal, and to its readers in general.

Click here to read the rest of our letter to Newsweek with all the details.

Read more…

Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy
April 10, 2008

Apr 10, 2008 (CIDRAP News) – The rates of the most common foodborne illnesses in the United States have remained about the same since 2004, pointing to a need for increased efforts to ensure food safety, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported today.

In 2007, rates of infection with Campylobacter, Listeria, Salmonella, Shigella, E coli O157, and Yersinia did not decline significantly compared with the previous 3 years, according to data from the CDC’s 10-state FoodNet surveillance system, the agency said.

The one exception to the static picture was the parasite Cryptosporidium, for which the estimated incidence of infections was up 44% compared with the 2004-06 period, the CDC said. Officials said the reason may be that a new treatment for the infection is spurring more testing for it.

Although some foodborne infections have declined significantly since surveillance began in 1996, the declines all occurred before 2004, the CDC said in a news release.

“The results show that prevention efforts have been partly successful, but there has been little further progress in the most recent years,” Dr. Robert Tauxe, deputy director of the CDC’s Division of Foodborne, Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, said in the release.

“That indicates that further measures are needed to keep prevention on a downward track,” Tauxe said at a news teleconference today. “The incidence of Salmonella actually has changed very little since those early years.”

The FoodNet system compiles data on laboratory-confirmed foodborne illness cases from Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and Tennessee, plus parts of California, Colorado, and New York. The system’s coverage area includes 45 million people, or about 15% of the US population.

Read more…