Mad Cow Facts

Boston Herald
April 7, 2008

Have you ever heard that McDonald’s vanilla shakes have plastic in them, or that their hamburgers contain worm meat?

McDonald’s has heard those stories and others, and it’s launched a new advertising and marketing campaign to dispel misconceptions and myths about its menu items and their ingredients.

“We want to get the facts out about our food quality story so that we can bust some of those myths,” said Molly Starmann, McDonald’s director of U.S. marketing.

In an age where food recalls appear more prevalent, more consumers are asking questions about what they’re eating, and more books are launching assaults on the fast-food industry, McDonald’s is inviting customers and critics to “See What We’re Made Of.”

The fast-food giant’s campaign, which doesn’t focus on the oft-criticized nutritional value of its products, has launched new television commercials and created a new food-quality Web site to spread its message. Billboard advertising will begin soon. McDonald’s also has changed its food packaging, right down to its straw wrappers, to incorporate facts about its food.

All of the advertising components direct consumers to McDonald’s new site, where the company answers apparently commonly asked questions, such as “I’ve heard McDonald’s uses leftover parts of the cow in its beef. Is this true?” McDonald’s answer: “Absolutely not. McDonald’s uses well-known cuts of meat that you might buy at the grocery store, such as chuck and round.”

Read more…

Center for Consumer Freedom
February 28, 2008

We’re not the only ones asking why the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sat on its explosive slaughterhouse video for several months, while possibly tainted beef made its way into school lunchrooms. (To be fair, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer started the ball rolling.) Tuesday on Capitol Hill, members of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations had some hard questions for HSUS’s top vegan doctor, Michael Greger. And yesterday The New York Times, usually very friendly to HSUS, took notice in a not-too-flattering way.

HSUS’s well-deserved Congressional grilling left us with the distinct impression that the group was less interested in protecting the public’s health (or with the welfare of actual animals) than in timing its hit-job on meat producers for maximum political effect. This is hardly surprising, coming from a PETA-style organization whose lead farm-animal campaigner, Paul Shapiro, is on record saying that “nothing is more important than promoting veganism.”

HSUS sued the Agriculture Department over the slaughter conditions depicted in its video. This is another outcome which wouldn’t have been as media-friendly had the animal rights group done the right thing and reported its findings on Day One.

To listen to Tuesday’s hearing, click here — and cue up a few places (listed below) for the relevant bits.

Read more…

New York Times
February 27, 2008

WASHINGTON — As the meat industry scrambles to recover from a public-relations disaster over an undercover video of abused cattle, the secretary of agriculture and at least one congressman have picked an unlikely target to share in the blame: the Humane Society of the United States.

The Humane Society shot the video of what appear to be sick or lame cattle being forced to their feet with forklifts, hoses and electric prods at the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company in Chino, Calif., in October and November.

Released publicly in late January, the video touched off criticism of the Department of Agriculture’s inspection of the meat supply and led to the biggest beef recall in history, 143 million pounds.

At a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas, assailed the Humane Society for waiting to inform the federal government.

“Why wait until February to release the video?” Mr. Burgess demanded of a Humane Society representative. “Why wait until now to bring this to our attention?”

His criticism echoed a point made last week by Ed Schafer, the secretary of agriculture, who said he was “extremely disappointed” in the Humane Society. He complained that “for four months, theoretically, animals were not being properly treated, and the Humane Society stood by and allowed it to happen.”

Humane Society representatives said Tuesday that the criticism was misplaced. They said the primary concern of their organization is animal welfare, not food safety, and as soon as they had the tape they took it to local prosecutors in California.

Read more…

Center for Consumer Freedom
February 19, 2008

As fallout from the nation’s largest beef recall continues to float through newsrooms and school districts, Americans have begun to ask hard questions about the safety of our beef supply and the character of the people who bring it to market. We have a few questions of our own.

First, why did the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sit on its shock-value video for several months? The group has claimed that it spent six weeks “investigating” a Chino, California slaughterhouse and two more weeks looking at the videotapes before giving authorities “extra time” to weigh their options. HSUS also insists that it “is the last entity that would ever want to sit on the results; we had no incentive to do so. We were methodical in how we handled the investigation, and how we publicized it, too.”

We’re not buying it. An organization interested in the welfare of cattle would have taken the very first example of animal abuse it found, the very day it was filmed, and showed it to the plant manager. “Clean up your act today and fire these few employees,” a responsible advocate would have said, “or the Sheriff will be our next stop.”

The drawback of this approach for HSUS, of course, is that no fundraising bonanza would result. (How’s that for an “incentive” for being “methodical” instead of acting with urgency?) And Californians wouldn’t have been politically sensitized to the issues wrapped up in a coming ballot initiative to ban farm-animal-handling practices HSUS doesn’t like. (HSUS has already put over $1.4 million into the effort).

Reacting immediately might not have helped HSUS, but the animals going through that slaughterhouse in the last few months would certainly have been much better off. Remember them, HSUS? The animals?

One other nagging question. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Associated Press yesterday that he chose this particular slaughterhouse at random. What he hasn’t said, though, is how many facilities his workers had to infiltrate before they found one with a problem worth videotaping.

Could it be that HSUS has been planting employees inside California meatpackers since June 2003, when the group first floated the idea of an animal-rights ballot initiative in the Golden State? Inquiring minds want to know. Especially since it now looks like the current problem was the exception—not the rule.

What is “Mad Cow” Disease?

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly called “mad cow” disease, is a degenerative neurological disease of cattle that is caused by misfolded proteins (called prions) that build up in the central nervous system (CNS) and eventually kill nerve cells.

BSE is spread through certain cattle feed ingredients, which have been banned since 1997.

Beef Safety from BSE

The world’s leading scientists, medical professionals and government officials agree that BSE is not a public or animal health risk in the United States:

Interlocking Safeguards

For nearly 20 years the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been developing and implementing a series of interlocking safeguards to ensure a safe, BSE-free food supply.

Tissues that could potentially carry BSE in an animal – including the brain and spinal cord – must be removed from cattle prior to processing, and therefore are not allowed into the food supply. This step along with other safeguards ensures BSE has no affect on public health.

The United States began an active BSE surveillance program in 1990 and, since its inception, more than 1 million cattle at greatest risk for BSE have been tested. USDA’s ongoing BSE surveillance program tests approximately 40,000 high-risk cattle annually. This program is rigorous and exceeds international guidelines by 10 times.

Enhanced BSE Surveillance

In June 2004, USDA instituted a one-time expanded testing program to determine the incidence of BSE in the United States. From June 1, 2004 through Aug. 20, 2006, USDA tested 787,711 cattle and found just two BSE positives.

A scientific analysis of seven years of surveillance data found the estimated prevalence of BSE in the United States to be less than one infected animal per 1 million adult cattle (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/BSEprev-estFINAL_7-20-06.pdf).

Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

BSE is in a class of rare neurological diseases called Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE), some of which affect animals while others affect humans. All TSE are associated with accumulation of prions in CNS tissue. Human TSEs include sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD or CJD), which accounts for about 85 percent of CJD cases and has an annual incidence of about one case per 1 million population worldwide.

Another human TSE is the very rare variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), which research from the United Kingdom has associated with consumption of products contaminated with CNS tissue from BSE-infected cattle. There have been about 200 cases of vCJD in the world (most of these in the U.K.) and zero cases associated with beef consumption in the United States.

Additional Information

Additional information about BSE can be found at the following Web sites:

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Q&A: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Q&A: www.fda.gov/cber/bse/bseqa.htm#a1
• USDA Overview: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/BSEbrochure12-2006.pdf
• Beef Industry BSE facts and information: http://www.BSEInfo.org