Attention University Biologists!!! Call me paranoid, but

[theophilus]

lately I have been a little fearful of our meat supply.....you know the mad cow thing? Anyway, might some of our University biology departments make a project out of independently testing meat for mad cow?
Would this be easy or possible? If independent reports came out saying that there was mad cow in the supply I think something would be done. Does anyone know if this is already being done? Are Universities afraid to do this for fear of losing funding from the Fed? Comments please.

[NeedleCast]

1. You're paranoid

n/t

[theophilus]

2. . n/t

:rofl:

[woodsprite]

3. Can't do that. Our bio dept. is working on Avian flu in Romania. n/t

[htuttle]

14. Ours is too busy cloning sheep...

..and dogs, and cats, and...

[Warpy]

4. You're paranoid

You're likelier to win Powerball five times than you are to get v-CJD.

If you want to reduce your risk, eat only muscle meats, make your own hamburger in a food processor, grinder or with 2 cleavers, and avoid gnawing on the bones. Avoid wild meat, especially out west. There's an epidemic of a similar disease in elk herds out here.

Living involves risk. Everything we do has the potential to injure us in some way. Mad Cow is one of the lowest risks out there, though. It's certainly not worth going nuts trying to protect yourself.

[Avalux]

5. Such an undertaking would need major funding.

It really wouldn't be financially possible to do what you're suggesting independently unless someone with a lot of cash funded it. Sample size would come from cattle on their way to slaughter. The FDA does monitor cattle and has identified two cases in the US - one in 2003 and one in 2004.

Harvard Uninversity did a risk assessment in 2001 - worth reading:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press11302001.html

In the scheme of things, there are other diseases worth more worry than bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). :hi:

[theophilus]

6. I was thinking that processed hamburger would be the thing to test.

And that study, although reassuring, was published back in the "old days". A lot of stuff has sort of fallen apart since then. I have a feeling only a tiny fraction is being tested. I may be wrong and I hope I am.

[Avalux]

8. Did you read article at the link I provided?

It's very informative. A comprehensive, statistically sound protocol to test hamburger meat would be next to impossible, and I can't think of a researcher who would try to do it. The risk isn't great enough to provoke necessity.

[Warpy]

16. A batch of hamburger can come from hundreds of

beef animals.

Back tracking to the infected animal would be prohibitively expensive.

Brain tissue is what needs to be tested.

[theophilus]

17. That is correct. Maybe even from thousands of animals. But

I am afraid the USDA is not testing didley. If they were testing the cattle prior to processing that would be best. For a private source to get hold of brains would be problematic. I am just saying that if hamburger could be tested it might point out the danger. Then, hopefully, all animals would be tested in a proper manner and laws would be enforced that would keep the problem from becoming a catastrophe. Good points, though, for sure.

[Horse with no Name]

13. Except for the fact that the head of the Dept of Agriculture

(a Bush croney) reprimanded the agents who tested the meat.
they don't want it tested. Period.
Lawsuit Against USDA Blocking Universal Testing of Cattle for Mad Cow Disease Continues
http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_1813.cfm
U.S. Continues to Violate World Health Organization Guidelines for BSE
http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/greger12304.cfm
USDA Misleading American Public about Beef Safety
http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/Greger122403.cfm
USDA Still Preventing One of Nation's Largest Meatpackers from Testing its Cattle for Mad Cow Disease
http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_2395.cfm
Meatpacker sues feds for the right to test its own herd for mad cow disease
http://www.unknownnews.org/060324f0322madcow.html

When you consider the clout the beef industry has in this country (think of all the trouble Oprah got into), then you have to consider that our government of the profit, by the profit, and for the profit is not going to shut it down. The only way they can keep from telling the truth is to continue to plead ignorance.


>>>>snip
Commentary by Helen & Harry Highwater:

I'm almost speechless at the sheer enormity of the lies told by USDA Secretary Mike Johanns. Almost.

"There is no significant BSE problem in the United States, and after all of this surveillance, I am able to say there never was." Says the Secretary of USDA.

In testing 1% of cattle, two cases of mad cow disease turned up. Doesn't it sort of logically follow, then, that a lot more than two cases of mad cow disease escaped notice in the 99% of cattle that were butchered, sold, and eaten by Americans without testing?

"Those who are trying to convince their consumers that universal testing or 100 percent testing somehow solves the problem really are misleading you." Says the Secretary of USDA.

Well, it's hard to feel reassured, knowing cattle are still fed slaughterhouse waste.

"Consumers should feel better than ever about the meat that they are buying." Says the Secretary of USDA.

I'd feel better about eating beef if a meatpacker didn't have to sue the USDA to get past rules that block testing all its cattle.

Like all Bush-Cheney appointees, the Secretary of Agriculture's first priority is profits. He's more concerned about the health of the beef industry, than the health of people eating beef.

We'd love to be wrong, of course, but having spent many hours reading sources more reliable that the Secretary of USDA, we believe the nation's beef supply is unsafe.

There will be future mad cow outbreaks, because the USDA has done very little to prevent it, and what little has been done was driven more by public relations than by concerns about safety. Under Johanns, USDA has done the absolute minimum mad cow testing it could get away with, to avoid being criticized for doing literally nothing.

People will die, because Mike Johanns has worked hard to protect the beef industry, but he hasn't done diddlysquat to protect people who eat beef.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:6zHHDv0jQuAJ:www.unknownnews.org/060720madcow.html+%22secretary+of+agriculture%22%22mad+cow+disease%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=25&client=firefox-a

[NeedleCast]

7. In all seriousness...

I travel frequnetly for work. I remember, several months after 9/11 lots of my friends asking me why I'd "risk" flying.

I pointed out that my chance of dying in a terrorist related plane crash was the same as being struck by lightning while being eaten by a shark, and that flying was, in fact, quite a bit safer than driving.

I was at a minor league baseball game in July in Salt Lake City. A couple and their two children were sitting next to me in field-level seats. Both of their kids were wearing bicycle helmets. Mom explained to me (without me asking) that it was in case a foul ball came into the stands. Both kids spent the game sweating in their helmets and being uncomfortable.

There is such a thing as too much caution.

[hvn_nbr_2]

9. The parents weren't wearing helmets themselves because...

their brains had already been scrambled, I presume. But I guess the helmets would protect the kids from those dangerous pop fly foul balls; no need to worry about the slow-moving line drives that come in under helmet level straight at the face.

[NeedleCast]

10. That was pretty much my thought process

Why buy 10 dollar field level tickets in "foul ball ally" (right behind the third base dugout) when you can buy a 5 dollar "cheap seat" and not have to worry about it? Kids were uncomfortable and complained most of the game (justified, imo).

"Mom, it's hot, can we take these off?"

"No, it's not safe!"

Hooray for instilling more fear in our children!

[MikeDuffy]

15. I missed getting hit by a hard line-drive foul ball by inches when I was

10 years old sitting in seats out toward 1st base (minor league). The ball barely caught the top of the seat in the row just in front of me with a loud WHAM, otherwise it would have hit me in the chest. A foot higher it would have hit me in the head and I know it likely would have hospitalized me. I seldom went to baseball games after that (it was one of my first few games). The ball was moving too fast for me to even think of dodging.

[oc2002]

11. I think you could test the meat at home if you know what to look for.

And you could buy the BSE test kits.

But the government has made it illegal to sell the kits to anyone but to the government.

Dont you trust your government?

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/(PE)USDAnotest2Rev2.pdf#search=%22U.S.%20is%20prohibiting%20the%20sale%20of%20test%20kits%20that%20detect%20BSE%22

Too Much of a Good Thing? USDA Blocks Private Efforts to Test For Mad Cow
Disease
By Phyllis Griffin Epps, J.D.
The disruption in trade that followed the discovery of a single case of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States last December prompted changes
in government policy regarding the regulation of cattle. The frequency of testing has
proven central to negotiation to resumption of beef exportation to such trade partners as
Japan. A surveillance program effective since June employs a rapid test screening
method on approximately 268,000 of the 35 million cattle slaughtered in the US each
year. A number of smaller American producers wish to use the rapid BSE test kit to
screen cattle in greater numbers than American government would require, but the USDA
has rejected requests for a license to use the testing technology.
Each year, the USDA will collect samples from approximately 268,000 cattle at
high-risk for the disease. The immunohistochemistry test is the official test for BSE, but
the USDA will use rapid immunologic test kits to detect any presence of abnormal prion
protein or other marker for BSE. A network of approximately 12 state and federal
laboratories will assist the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
conduct testing for BSE. The surveillance program went into effect on June 1. The
policy has yielded at least two “false positives,” or cattle flagged in preliminary
screenings but cleared after further testing.
Last spring, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef LLC and Gateway Beef
Cooperative each sought permission to test all of the cattle processed at company
facilities for the purpose of meeting the demands of the foreign market. Creekstone,
which processes younger cattle that fall outside of the categories identified as high risk by
1
the USDA, reported losses of $1 million revenue in foreign sales each week since
December. Neither Creekstone nor Gateway asserts that the existing science regarding
BSE dictates a need for universal testing. Each wishes to spend the money necessary to
conduct additional, perhaps superfluous, testing because doing so would increase the
value of their product on the foreign market without endangering public safety.

The USDA nevertheless has restricted the sale of rapid BSE test kits to
government laboratories and blocked efforts by companies in the private sector to
conduct rapid BSE testing on cattle outside of the agency’s surveillance plan. Regarding
Creekstone, the agency objected to the company’s plan to test all of its cattle as neither
warranted nor justified by science. The agency further objected to the use of the rapid
BSE test as a test for food safety rather than a tool for disease surveillance.
According to agency spokespersons, the USDA must limit testing to avoid a
public perception of problems with consumer safety.1 The USDA does not wish to lend
credence to the perception that meat not tested for BSE is, by definition, less safe or
poorer in quality. The damage caused by the announcement of the “false positive” test
results, though difficult to measure, diminishes the argument for private testing.
Critics of the agency’s position blame the undue influence of lobbyists for the
beef industry for what is viewed as unfair government interference with market forces.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, for example, opposes universal testing.
According to other news reports, industry representatives worry that Japan will have no
incentive to import American beef if it can procure meat from smaller slaughterhouses
that test every animal.2
2

[canetoad]

12. It's worth reading what Mark Purdey has discovered

http://www.markpurdey.com/
My technique of " total ecosystem analyses " has identified several environmental prerequisites which could be involved in the origins of some diseases , most particularly my discovery of high levels of silver or manganese in combination with low levels of copper in spongiform diseases. I have also observed molybdenum and serotonergic toxicity in multiple sclerosis, silver toxicity in glioma tumours, a high manganese/ low magnesium induced mutation in Machado-Josephs disease, etc. The political perspectives of my work first came into the news in 1984, when I successfully quashed the UK government's compulsory warble fly eradication scheme in the high courts; thus exempting my farming business from treating my organic cattle with high doses of "systemic" organo-phosphate insecticides. Driving cattle through an English village
The chemicals derived from military nerves gases, which, amongst a myriad of toxicological effects, disturb the crucial balance of metals in the brain. I believed that BSE reared its ugly head in the UK cattle herd as a direct legacy of this exclusive "high dose" UK government.

He deals with BSE here: http://www.markpurdey.com/the_bse_theory.htm