Now this is really ..... interesting. Part of the whole ethanol boom is the distillers grain that is available after the ethanol is made. This distillers grain has turned into a real boom for the cattle feeding buisness. The cattle feeders might be losing some corn but they are making up for it with the distillers grain. Win, win right?
Wrong.
Early research seems to indicate that the distillers grain increases the amount of E. coli in these animals guts. The amount of E coli in animals fed distillers grain was about twice as much as those that were fed no distillers grain. Whether the E coli is from the distillers grain or the distillers grain just helps it grow better is unknown at this point. Now we are talking a food safety issue though. More E coli in the animals means a higher chance that E coli might be in the finished product. Properly handled meat shouldn't have any E coli in it from such a source but the pace meat is handled in the big meat packing plants sometimes gets contaminated whether they like it or not. So this makes ethanol a food safety issue.
I'm always talking about the food security issues that ethanol has brought up and now we are seeing food safety issues with it too. Ethanol is going to be with us for a long time. I'm not blind to that. But how important is ethanol to you? How should we as a society deal with the food security and food safety issues that ethanol seems to generate? Are the higher food prices and the increased E coli risk worth putting ethanol in your SUV? Are the higher food prices and the increased E coli risk worth subsidizing the ethanol industry with our tax dollars? All tough questions. I don't know that I have the answers to these questions.
Part of the answer might be conservation though. Do you really need that big SUV? Might you get by on a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle. I went this route with my last vehicle. It isn't the best vehicle for me and my family but the gas mileage made it well worth it to me. More people need to think about conservation. That is part of the long term answer to the energy problems. Ethanol is raising a lot of valid concerns out there in my opinion. How the American people deal with these problems will be very interesting.
Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations. Albert Einstein
Related tags
agriculture American public beef blue ear pig dise bse Canada cattle china clone congress cows distillers grain e coli E. coli ethanol fda federal oversight food borne illnes food contaminatio food security free speech Grocery Manufactu japan markets meat packers melamine nais national id organic poison priorities quality responsibility scamper trade pressure usda wisdomWednesday, December 5. 2007
Win, Lose
Posted by Sarpy Sam
in Agriculture, Cattle Buisness, Food Security
at
06:44
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Wednesday, October 31. 2007
Priorities
Tainted meat traced to Canada
This is interesting. Topps Meat went out of business because of the E. coli problem, and Rancher's Beef Ltd in Canada went out of business before the discovery, or did they. Did Rancher's Beef know of the E. Coli problem and declare bankruptcy and go out of business before the E. Coli could be traced back to them?
In a lot of ways I doubt it, but it is interesting. There is a lot of opposition out there in cattle country to Canada shipping down older cattle because of BSE risk due to the new USDA rule. The chances of somebody getting sick and dying are a lot less from BSE from live cattle, statistically so close to zero as to be unimportant, than all ready proven from E. Coli shipped in from processed meat from Canada. Where is the hue and cry about public safety about E. coli from Canada from within cattle country? I hear a lot of silence.
Truthfully myself, I would be a little more worried about the E. coli, which is a lot more common and causes more fatalities that BSE, than about live cattle bringing in BSE. I know I am in the minority though. Cattlemen are more worried about live cattle than processed beef. I call this hypocrisy. They claim the opposition to live cattle is for food safety, but if it is for food safety shouldn't we be hearing more about the E. coli issue and Canadian beef since this recent disclosure since this E. coli has killed more people than BSE will ever think of killing in the US?
I'm not trying to pick on Canada here, but I do want to highlight where our priorities should be. If it is really on food safety, lets keep our eye on the ball and not lose our way with other issues clouding us. Food safety and security is too big an issue to play politics with.
Action expresses priorities. Mohandas Gandhi
A now-closed Canadian beef company was the source of contaminated meat that sickened 45 people in eight states, U.S. Department of Agriculture officials say.
One of those states was Wyoming. A recall pulled the meat from shelves in Cheyenne in late September and early October.
A joint U.S. and Canadian investigation identified the source by matching the DNA fingerprint of E. coli O157:H7 to a sample still in storage with Rancher's Beef Ltd. of Balzac, Alberta.
It also matches samples taken from Topps Meat Co. frozen hamburger packages at the homes of food poisoning victims.
This is interesting. Topps Meat went out of business because of the E. coli problem, and Rancher's Beef Ltd in Canada went out of business before the discovery, or did they. Did Rancher's Beef know of the E. Coli problem and declare bankruptcy and go out of business before the E. Coli could be traced back to them?
In a lot of ways I doubt it, but it is interesting. There is a lot of opposition out there in cattle country to Canada shipping down older cattle because of BSE risk due to the new USDA rule. The chances of somebody getting sick and dying are a lot less from BSE from live cattle, statistically so close to zero as to be unimportant, than all ready proven from E. Coli shipped in from processed meat from Canada. Where is the hue and cry about public safety about E. coli from Canada from within cattle country? I hear a lot of silence.
Truthfully myself, I would be a little more worried about the E. coli, which is a lot more common and causes more fatalities that BSE, than about live cattle bringing in BSE. I know I am in the minority though. Cattlemen are more worried about live cattle than processed beef. I call this hypocrisy. They claim the opposition to live cattle is for food safety, but if it is for food safety shouldn't we be hearing more about the E. coli issue and Canadian beef since this recent disclosure since this E. coli has killed more people than BSE will ever think of killing in the US?
I'm not trying to pick on Canada here, but I do want to highlight where our priorities should be. If it is really on food safety, lets keep our eye on the ball and not lose our way with other issues clouding us. Food safety and security is too big an issue to play politics with.
Action expresses priorities. Mohandas Gandhi
Posted by Sarpy Sam
in Cattle Buisness, Food Security, The World
at
06:56
| Comments (2)
| Trackbacks (0)
Tuesday, September 18. 2007
Pressure
I see China is trying to pressure the US into accepting more tainted food by blocking American imports into their country.
People really need to pay attention to this. While blocking American imports might hurt some companies, Tyson chicken being the biggest, we as Americans need to keep the pressure up on our Government to keep these potentially tainted products out of the US and to heighten our scrutiny of them. I don't like to see American products piling up on Chinese docks because of this but we can't relent.
Hell, even the Grocery Manufacturers Association agrees that the government needs to strengthen regulation of food imports to catch tainted foods mainly from China.
Hopefully this Chinese pressure will not work. It's going to hurt China more than us. The hog disease Sarpy Sam in Agriculture, Food Security, The World at 06:50 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)
China has sharply increased inspections of imported U.S. food, escalating its spat with Washington over product safety and leaving American beef piling up in warehouses and delaying shipments of black pepper and other goods.
Authorities who used to inspect as little as 5 percent of imported goods now check every shipment of American poultry, snack foods and other products, companies and trade groups say.
"I suspect they are doing this to keep the pressure on the United States to relent on some of these (food safety disputes), because the U.S. is taking a very tough stand on Chinese products," said James Rice, the China country manager for Tyson Foods Inc., the world's largest meat processor.
People really need to pay attention to this. While blocking American imports might hurt some companies, Tyson chicken being the biggest, we as Americans need to keep the pressure up on our Government to keep these potentially tainted products out of the US and to heighten our scrutiny of them. I don't like to see American products piling up on Chinese docks because of this but we can't relent.
Hell, even the Grocery Manufacturers Association agrees that the government needs to strengthen regulation of food imports to catch tainted foods mainly from China.
Hopefully this Chinese pressure will not work. It's going to hurt China more than us. The hog disease Sarpy Sam in Agriculture, Food Security, The World at 06:50 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: China, federal oversight, food safety, food security, Grocery Manufactu, trade pressure
Monday, September 17. 2007
Troublesome
I found this article about pig disease in China very troublesome. I read it yesterday morning and had to let it run around my pea sized brain for a while but it struck me as a problem.
What's so troublesome about it? China is so worried about making money off the vaccine for this disease, blue ear pig disease, that they won't share samples of it with the world community at large. That's really troublesome. This disease has now cropped up in Vietnam and Burma and who knows how far it might spread.
China says they don't need to share samples because they have an effective vaccine. What's the problem with sharing the samples so the whole world can protect themselves? What really troubles me about this is when does this philosophy ratchet up to the human level. Some disease comes along in China like SARS and they don't want to share samples because they want to develop the vaccine and human death and misery is the result. It hasn't happened yet but that is the philosophy we appear to be seeing here. Is such a philosophy right? Should the economic interests of making money trump out human and animal disease concerns? No, they shouldn't, that is why this is so troublesome.
Then lets go really far afield with this idea. I am a reader of science fiction so looking beyond the trends to the outlandish appeals to me. What happens when biotech companies make viruses so they can sell vaccines to the public. That seems to be where China is leading this. The profit is more important than life, why not manufacture disease so that you can reap the profit selling the vaccine.
Bad disease precedent that China is setting here. Free and open flow of information is the only weapon we have when it comes to battling disease and saving lives and China is taking some steps to obliterate that weapon. What can be done about it is beyond me, but it is sad to see.
Saving lives is not a top priority in the halls of power. Being compassionate and concerned about human life can cause a man to lose his job. It can cause a woman not to get the job to begin with. Myriam Miedzian
What's so troublesome about it? China is so worried about making money off the vaccine for this disease, blue ear pig disease, that they won't share samples of it with the world community at large. That's really troublesome. This disease has now cropped up in Vietnam and Burma and who knows how far it might spread.
China says they don't need to share samples because they have an effective vaccine. What's the problem with sharing the samples so the whole world can protect themselves? What really troubles me about this is when does this philosophy ratchet up to the human level. Some disease comes along in China like SARS and they don't want to share samples because they want to develop the vaccine and human death and misery is the result. It hasn't happened yet but that is the philosophy we appear to be seeing here. Is such a philosophy right? Should the economic interests of making money trump out human and animal disease concerns? No, they shouldn't, that is why this is so troublesome.
Then lets go really far afield with this idea. I am a reader of science fiction so looking beyond the trends to the outlandish appeals to me. What happens when biotech companies make viruses so they can sell vaccines to the public. That seems to be where China is leading this. The profit is more important than life, why not manufacture disease so that you can reap the profit selling the vaccine.
Bad disease precedent that China is setting here. Free and open flow of information is the only weapon we have when it comes to battling disease and saving lives and China is taking some steps to obliterate that weapon. What can be done about it is beyond me, but it is sad to see.
Saving lives is not a top priority in the halls of power. Being compassionate and concerned about human life can cause a man to lose his job. It can cause a woman not to get the job to begin with. Myriam Miedzian
Posted by Sarpy Sam
in Agriculture, Education, Food Security, The World
at
06:33
| Comments (2)
| Trackbacks (0)
Thursday, May 31. 2007
Brain Dead
You want to talk about people who can't think, I have found an example. Here recently, as I am sure you are aware, There was a big problem with melamine contamination from some ingredients from China. It now appears an American company that manufactures feed for livestock and fish also uses melamine in its feed.
Don't you think the people of this company would be smart enough to quit using melamine after the fiasco with melamine from China was in the news? No they weren't, how stupid can you be. I guess only Chinese melamine can hurt critters and not American melamine in their pea sized brains. I just can't believe these people were this brain dead.
So again, the USDA blesses this use of melamine in livestock feed because there is nothing they can do about it. The company has stopped using it now that the government has told them to. Why do these companies think they can use toxic chemicals in our food supply and think they can get away with it? How utterly stupid.
Man becomes man only by his intelligence, but he is man only by his heart. Henri Frederic Amiel
Don't you think the people of this company would be smart enough to quit using melamine after the fiasco with melamine from China was in the news? No they weren't, how stupid can you be. I guess only Chinese melamine can hurt critters and not American melamine in their pea sized brains. I just can't believe these people were this brain dead.
So again, the USDA blesses this use of melamine in livestock feed because there is nothing they can do about it. The company has stopped using it now that the government has told them to. Why do these companies think they can use toxic chemicals in our food supply and think they can get away with it? How utterly stupid.
Man becomes man only by his intelligence, but he is man only by his heart. Henri Frederic Amiel
Tuesday, May 8. 2007
Where Does The Problem Begin
We have all heard about the pet food recalls and contaminated wheat gluten from China that has caused it. The story has continued since some of this contaminated gluten has been fed to hogs and chickens and now raises questions about these animals.
The hogs and chickens that have all ready made it into the human food chain that ate this contaminated gluten have been given the blessing by the USDA and the FDA. What else could they do? The real funny thing about this is that the animals that haven't been slaughtered yet are being held off the market and more than likely are going to be destroyed rather than allow them into the human food system. Why are the ones all ready slaughtered okay but the ones still alive are not? Simply because the USDA and FDA fumbled the ball and are trying to cover their ass now. They couldn't do anything about the ones all ready slaughtered but they can stop more from being slaughtered to contain the potential problem.
So let's do something I normally don't like to do here. Play the blame game. Where does the blame lie for this problem. Lets start with the producers in China who supplied this product to the US. I've talked about the food safety system in China and how it is non-existent. They put their own people in jeopardy and, as shown by this episode and others, people across the world. Definitely there is blame to be laid here. Can we as Americans do anything about it? Not directly, but more about that later.
Who's next to blame, the business that imported the product into the US? They imported it because it was cheaper than can be produced in the US and there is a demand for it so they can make money on it. By shopping around for the cheapest product in China, they opened the door for this contamination. There is an old saw, you get what you pay for and by buying the cheapest product, the probability there is a problem with it is greater. Should the company have demanded stricter checking and tracking of items used in the manufacturer in China? Should they have tested the product more thoroughly when they got it? In hindsight we could say yes to both these questions. So the importer shares some of the blame for this problem.
Next in line would have to be the US Government. The USDA and the FDA have not been inspecting imported food at the levels necessary to prevent this. Are they to blame? Truthfully, the blame does not fall on the USDA and the FDA for this. Congress has never tasked these agency, nor given them the funding to do this task, so it has remained undone. Congress needs to shoulder some of the blame for this for not providing sufficient funding for this task and also the president for not asking for the money to inspect the food stuffs that are coming into the US. Would the wheat gluten that caused this whole problem been caught by sufficient inspection? A question I can't answer, the gluten was destined for animal feed and not human consumption so would it have been inspected as close as human food stuff should be? I doubt it, so even with increased inspections this might have slipped through.
Last but not least in the blame game would have to be the American consumer. Their desire for the cheapest food stuff for themselves and their pets led this to happen. This caused the company to import the cheapest items they could which undercut American producers driving them out of business. American companies have to put up with the USDA and FDA watching what they are doing so they can't provide products as cheap as China can. So Wally World and similar places drive businesses to import unsafe or substandard products to feed to the American public and critters all because THAT IS WHAT THE AMERICAN CONSUMER WANTS AND DEMANDS. In my opinion this is where most of the blame lies.
How many of you out there buy the cheapest pet food you can buy for your animals? You say it's good enough and feed them the crap because you delude yourself into thinking its all the same. This shows that it is not. In all the pet food that was recalled in this, how many of the high end, more expensive products were there on the list. Not many I noticed. So there is a difference. Hell, even my barn cats get name brand food instead of the cheap stuff. I can't stand the thought of feeding even my barn cats that cheap crap. I've never been able to prove it till now but I've always known it wasn't as good and acted that way.
The same thing goes for the food you eat, how many of you buy the cheapest stuff available or even worse,Wally World brand stuff? I will tell you a little something My Darling Wife and I discovered about food and the quality of it. We have to be very careful with the quality of food we feed our boy. It has nothing to do with the sugar content or anything else in the food, it has everything to do with the quality of it. The higher priced it is the better. If we feed anything that is a store brand/generic food, he becomes uncontrollable. He literally starts spinning and bouncing off the walls. The cheaper the food item is, the worse he gets. People never believe me when I tell them this but it's the truth. As an example, if you feed him a cake from a store brand cake mix, he will be uncontrollable. If you use a name brand such as Betty Crockers, he will spin up some, but not as bad the no name mix. The best is to use high quality flour, Wheat Montana, and make the cake from scratch. Then it has absolutely no affect on him. This is just one example of many I could name about the foods that affect the boy. The cheaper the food, the more it affects him.
There is a difference in the quality of the food you buy. When you demand the cheapest food you can buy, that is what you get. A cheap, unappealing product. American's desire for the cheapest food has opened the door for the contamination problem we have experienced and that is who I blame mostly for the problems we are experiencing now with the contaminated wheat gluten. Think about this when you are in the grocery store buying your food. Is price or quality your primary concern? For my boy's health and happiness I choose quality. Should you short your family on quality just so you could afford another Starbucks coffee? You need to think about this so your not part of the problem, you can be part of the solution.
Quality means doing it right when no one is looking. Henry Ford
The hogs and chickens that have all ready made it into the human food chain that ate this contaminated gluten have been given the blessing by the USDA and the FDA. What else could they do? The real funny thing about this is that the animals that haven't been slaughtered yet are being held off the market and more than likely are going to be destroyed rather than allow them into the human food system. Why are the ones all ready slaughtered okay but the ones still alive are not? Simply because the USDA and FDA fumbled the ball and are trying to cover their ass now. They couldn't do anything about the ones all ready slaughtered but they can stop more from being slaughtered to contain the potential problem.
So let's do something I normally don't like to do here. Play the blame game. Where does the blame lie for this problem. Lets start with the producers in China who supplied this product to the US. I've talked about the food safety system in China and how it is non-existent. They put their own people in jeopardy and, as shown by this episode and others, people across the world. Definitely there is blame to be laid here. Can we as Americans do anything about it? Not directly, but more about that later.
Who's next to blame, the business that imported the product into the US? They imported it because it was cheaper than can be produced in the US and there is a demand for it so they can make money on it. By shopping around for the cheapest product in China, they opened the door for this contamination. There is an old saw, you get what you pay for and by buying the cheapest product, the probability there is a problem with it is greater. Should the company have demanded stricter checking and tracking of items used in the manufacturer in China? Should they have tested the product more thoroughly when they got it? In hindsight we could say yes to both these questions. So the importer shares some of the blame for this problem.
Next in line would have to be the US Government. The USDA and the FDA have not been inspecting imported food at the levels necessary to prevent this. Are they to blame? Truthfully, the blame does not fall on the USDA and the FDA for this. Congress has never tasked these agency, nor given them the funding to do this task, so it has remained undone. Congress needs to shoulder some of the blame for this for not providing sufficient funding for this task and also the president for not asking for the money to inspect the food stuffs that are coming into the US. Would the wheat gluten that caused this whole problem been caught by sufficient inspection? A question I can't answer, the gluten was destined for animal feed and not human consumption so would it have been inspected as close as human food stuff should be? I doubt it, so even with increased inspections this might have slipped through.
Last but not least in the blame game would have to be the American consumer. Their desire for the cheapest food stuff for themselves and their pets led this to happen. This caused the company to import the cheapest items they could which undercut American producers driving them out of business. American companies have to put up with the USDA and FDA watching what they are doing so they can't provide products as cheap as China can. So Wally World and similar places drive businesses to import unsafe or substandard products to feed to the American public and critters all because THAT IS WHAT THE AMERICAN CONSUMER WANTS AND DEMANDS. In my opinion this is where most of the blame lies.
How many of you out there buy the cheapest pet food you can buy for your animals? You say it's good enough and feed them the crap because you delude yourself into thinking its all the same. This shows that it is not. In all the pet food that was recalled in this, how many of the high end, more expensive products were there on the list. Not many I noticed. So there is a difference. Hell, even my barn cats get name brand food instead of the cheap stuff. I can't stand the thought of feeding even my barn cats that cheap crap. I've never been able to prove it till now but I've always known it wasn't as good and acted that way.
The same thing goes for the food you eat, how many of you buy the cheapest stuff available or even worse,Wally World brand stuff? I will tell you a little something My Darling Wife and I discovered about food and the quality of it. We have to be very careful with the quality of food we feed our boy. It has nothing to do with the sugar content or anything else in the food, it has everything to do with the quality of it. The higher priced it is the better. If we feed anything that is a store brand/generic food, he becomes uncontrollable. He literally starts spinning and bouncing off the walls. The cheaper the food item is, the worse he gets. People never believe me when I tell them this but it's the truth. As an example, if you feed him a cake from a store brand cake mix, he will be uncontrollable. If you use a name brand such as Betty Crockers, he will spin up some, but not as bad the no name mix. The best is to use high quality flour, Wheat Montana, and make the cake from scratch. Then it has absolutely no affect on him. This is just one example of many I could name about the foods that affect the boy. The cheaper the food, the more it affects him.
There is a difference in the quality of the food you buy. When you demand the cheapest food you can buy, that is what you get. A cheap, unappealing product. American's desire for the cheapest food has opened the door for the contamination problem we have experienced and that is who I blame mostly for the problems we are experiencing now with the contaminated wheat gluten. Think about this when you are in the grocery store buying your food. Is price or quality your primary concern? For my boy's health and happiness I choose quality. Should you short your family on quality just so you could afford another Starbucks coffee? You need to think about this so your not part of the problem, you can be part of the solution.
Quality means doing it right when no one is looking. Henry Ford
Posted by
in Food Security
at
06:23
| Comments (5)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: American public, congress, FDA, food contaminatio, food safety, food security, quality, USDA
Saturday, April 14. 2007
Food Safety
Activist always talk about American farmers and ranchers producing unsafe food. There is always something wrong with it according to them. You want to read about unsafe food, read this story about food safety and China.
Hell, American farmers and ranchers are saints compared to this. Reading the story really makes you worry about any food you buy coming from China.
Read about the food safety problems in China then think about this.
How much bad food is getting in to the US from China. With $2.26 billion worth last year coming in, I bet you a lot. This also shows my contention that American people don't care where there food comes from, as long as it is cheap. If China can undercut American producers price wise the American buying public is all for it.
If people pay attention to this and the recent pet food problems, maybe China can fix its food safety problems because of consumer demands. The problem is Americans won't remember about it or care about the problem. They more worry about Don Imus's screwup or who is the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby, not important stuff like the safety of the food they shove in their mouths. Damned short sighted of them, but its the truth.
Our obligation is to give meaning to life and in doing so to overcome the passive, indifferent life. Elie Wiesel
Worried about losing access to foreign markets and stung by tainted food products scandals at home, China has in recent years tried to improve inspections, with limited success.
The problems the government faces are legion. Pesticides and chemical fertilizers are used in excess to boost yields while harmful antibiotics are widely administered to control disease in seafood and livestock. Rampant industrial pollution risks introducing heavy metals into the food chain.
Farmers have used cancer-causing industrial dye Sudan Red to boost the value of their eggs and fed an asthma medication to pigs to produce leaner meat. In a case that galvanized the public's and government's attention, shoddy infant formula with little or no nutritional value has been blamed for causing severe malnutrition in hundreds of babies and killing at least 12.
Hell, American farmers and ranchers are saints compared to this. Reading the story really makes you worry about any food you buy coming from China.
Read about the food safety problems in China then think about this.
Over the past 25 years, Chinese agricultural exports to the U.S. surged nearly 20-fold to $2.26 billion last year, led by poultry products, sausage casings, shellfish, spices and apple juice.
Inspectors from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are able to inspect only a tiny percentage of the millions of shipments that enter the U.S. each year.
Even so, shipments from China were rejected at the rate of about 200 per month this year, the largest from any country, compared to about 18 for Thailand, and 35 for Italy, also big exporters to the U.S., according to data posted on the FDA's Web site.
How much bad food is getting in to the US from China. With $2.26 billion worth last year coming in, I bet you a lot. This also shows my contention that American people don't care where there food comes from, as long as it is cheap. If China can undercut American producers price wise the American buying public is all for it.
If people pay attention to this and the recent pet food problems, maybe China can fix its food safety problems because of consumer demands. The problem is Americans won't remember about it or care about the problem. They more worry about Don Imus's screwup or who is the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby, not important stuff like the safety of the food they shove in their mouths. Damned short sighted of them, but its the truth.
Our obligation is to give meaning to life and in doing so to overcome the passive, indifferent life. Elie Wiesel
Thursday, January 4. 2007
Food Borne Illness
Rates Of Foodborne Illness Are Decreasing
These numbers are through 2005 so won't include any outbreaks in 2006 like the spinach and lettuce E-coli problems that were so in the news, but it sure is looking good. People complain a lot about food in America but the safety of it appears to be on the rise, I like to see that.
Enjoy your own life without comparing it with that of another. Marquis de Condorcet
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that rates of foodborne illness and the incidence of pathogens in food declined significantly between the late 1990s and 2005. The incidence rates of infection for major pathogens declined by the following rates: Listeria, 32% Campylobacter, 30% E. coli 0157:H7, 29% and Salmonella, 9%.
The decline in the incidence of pathogens found in beef and other meats have been especially dramatic. E. coli 0157:H7 in ground beef has declined by 80% since 1999, and Salmonella in ground beef has declined 75% since 1998 (SOURCE: CDC Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network).
These numbers are through 2005 so won't include any outbreaks in 2006 like the spinach and lettuce E-coli problems that were so in the news, but it sure is looking good. People complain a lot about food in America but the safety of it appears to be on the rise, I like to see that.
Enjoy your own life without comparing it with that of another. Marquis de Condorcet
Saturday, December 30. 2006
Wisdom of Cloning
FDA Says Clones Are Safe To Eat
To start with let me say I agree with the FDA on this one. If you study how cloning is done, once you get the cell division going in the egg, the processes are no different than what we are used to in normal reproduction so the meat and milk from cloned animals would be indistinguishable from meat and milk from non-cloned animals. I know, some people will yell and scream at me at this point but it's the truth. Sometimes we have to deal with the truth whether we like it or not. There is no underlying genetic manipulation at this point with a clone so the meat is fine. There is a lot bigger question here if you ask me than whether the meat is safe to eat or not. That question is, are we wise to use cloning in our agricultural system? Will it help or hurt our animals that are entrusted to us to care for? These are the questions that should be asked, not if the meat is safe or not, I don't see that as a factor.
So, I am sure you are asking, what does he mean about the wisdom of using clones in our agricultural system? Simple, there is no such thing as the perfect animal that meets all requirements. If we find a genetically superior cow that raises large calves for a rancher to sell, what are the trade offs for this cow to be able to perform this function? The cow might not be healthy over a long term basis, or might not breed back reliably, or the calf might not grow later in life well, or something else. There are always tradeoffs in these things and they might not always be known right off the bat.
An example of what I'm talking about can be gleaned from Liz's comment on my post about Scamper being cloned. She pointed out that using AI techniques a dangerous and sometimes fatal condition known as HYPP was spread through the Quarter Horse community all through one sire that everybody thought at the time was a genetically superior creature. Is there a possibility the same thing could happen with a clone? There definitely is that possibility. Picking a genetically superior creature doesn't mean the critter isn't with out it's faults, whether they are know or unknown at the time. With the Impressive line and HYPP it was a fault that wasn't known and got spread through the gene pool to the detriment of the Quarter Horse community and is still causing problems. The same thing could happen with cloning and it could happen in an accelerated manner if cloning were to become very widespread.
I can give another less documented, more personal example of what I am talking about. When I got out of the Navy, my father was using all bulls from one particular breeder. They were not cheap bulls and it was a breeder with a very good reputation and raised very nice bulls. Dad was using these particular bulls to add length and muscle to the cattle at the time and they were doing this very well. The trade off? It turned out they also had what I call pin-asses. They threw cows that had such a small pelvic area we started having trouble with the cows calving. I finally got us away from these bulls and after awhile the problem went away. It got so bad before it turned around that I was pulling almost 100% of the calves off of our two-year old heifers because the heifers had such pin-asses bred into them. Now I pull very few calves and the problem has gone away. This is what I mean though by trade offs though. You push certain traits and there is a good chance some other trait will suffer and it might not be readily noticed at the time or the short comings might be overlooked because of the trait being pushed.
Holstein cows in the dairy industry are suffering from the trait being overlooked in my opinion. They have used breeding techniques like AI to push so hard for milk production that Holsteins now are not as healthy or hardy as they were at one time. The dairy industry has decided that milk production is more important than other considerations and have breed their cattle that way. Since I'm not in the dairy industry my viewpoint on this might be wrong but that is the way it seems to me. Overall Holsteins are not as healthy or hardy as they used to be. This has been done on purpose, but is it appropriate that we have done this and can accelerating the process with cloning cause this and other problems in our domesticated animals?
Mankind has domesticated the animals we are talking about for over 2000 years now and it is our ethical responsibility to take care of them properly. Is cloning these animals instead of using natural reproduction an ethical way to take care of these animals that we are responsible for? Is pushing one genetic characteristic at the expense of other characteristics, the breed they belong to or the whole genus of the animal the way we should be taking care of our responsibility? Awful tough question to answer if you ask me. We've changed the animals over time with selective breeding but with reproduction technologies available today we are accelerating the changes we are making to our animals faster than ever and there is no guarantee that what we are doing won't have bad consequences in the long run. By our reliance on just certain breeds for production agriculture there are even domesticated animal breeds going extinct and we are losing valuable genetic diversity in our animals every day.
By cloning we are not only in danger of losing breeds, but losing all the diversity in a breed for one animal that the experts believe to be superior. What happens to our genetic diversity when all the animals in one "breed" are all just one animal? We will then have no diversity and no fall back if there is a problem with the animal. It will also speed the extinction of the genetic diversity available in all the breeds that are now in the world that are endangered. Cloning may be a valuable tool for agriculture like they claim since it will allow us to use superior genetics to increase the production of our herds, but I don't think so. I think it is an abrogation of our responsibility for the ethical care of the animals we are entrusted with and just another example of man's belief that he knows better than God/Mother Nature. The meat of cloned animals might be indistinguishable from the meat of non-cloned animals but that doesn't mean that this is the road we need to go down. There are too many potholes in this road and is not the way mankind needs to take his animals. This road will just be too rough on them and us.
Compassion, in which all ethics must take root, can only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does not limit itself to mankind. Albert Schweitzer
Taking a long-awaited stand in an emotionally fraught food fight, the Food and Drug Administration yesterday released a 678-page analysis concluding that milk and meat from cloned animals pose no unique risks to consumers.
The decision, subject to change after a period of public comment, stops short of approving the sale of food from clones and leaves in place for now a long-standing government request that farmers keep their clones off the market.
To start with let me say I agree with the FDA on this one. If you study how cloning is done, once you get the cell division going in the egg, the processes are no different than what we are used to in normal reproduction so the meat and milk from cloned animals would be indistinguishable from meat and milk from non-cloned animals. I know, some people will yell and scream at me at this point but it's the truth. Sometimes we have to deal with the truth whether we like it or not. There is no underlying genetic manipulation at this point with a clone so the meat is fine. There is a lot bigger question here if you ask me than whether the meat is safe to eat or not. That question is, are we wise to use cloning in our agricultural system? Will it help or hurt our animals that are entrusted to us to care for? These are the questions that should be asked, not if the meat is safe or not, I don't see that as a factor.
So, I am sure you are asking, what does he mean about the wisdom of using clones in our agricultural system? Simple, there is no such thing as the perfect animal that meets all requirements. If we find a genetically superior cow that raises large calves for a rancher to sell, what are the trade offs for this cow to be able to perform this function? The cow might not be healthy over a long term basis, or might not breed back reliably, or the calf might not grow later in life well, or something else. There are always tradeoffs in these things and they might not always be known right off the bat.
An example of what I'm talking about can be gleaned from Liz's comment on my post about Scamper being cloned. She pointed out that using AI techniques a dangerous and sometimes fatal condition known as HYPP was spread through the Quarter Horse community all through one sire that everybody thought at the time was a genetically superior creature. Is there a possibility the same thing could happen with a clone? There definitely is that possibility. Picking a genetically superior creature doesn't mean the critter isn't with out it's faults, whether they are know or unknown at the time. With the Impressive line and HYPP it was a fault that wasn't known and got spread through the gene pool to the detriment of the Quarter Horse community and is still causing problems. The same thing could happen with cloning and it could happen in an accelerated manner if cloning were to become very widespread.
I can give another less documented, more personal example of what I am talking about. When I got out of the Navy, my father was using all bulls from one particular breeder. They were not cheap bulls and it was a breeder with a very good reputation and raised very nice bulls. Dad was using these particular bulls to add length and muscle to the cattle at the time and they were doing this very well. The trade off? It turned out they also had what I call pin-asses. They threw cows that had such a small pelvic area we started having trouble with the cows calving. I finally got us away from these bulls and after awhile the problem went away. It got so bad before it turned around that I was pulling almost 100% of the calves off of our two-year old heifers because the heifers had such pin-asses bred into them. Now I pull very few calves and the problem has gone away. This is what I mean though by trade offs though. You push certain traits and there is a good chance some other trait will suffer and it might not be readily noticed at the time or the short comings might be overlooked because of the trait being pushed.
Holstein cows in the dairy industry are suffering from the trait being overlooked in my opinion. They have used breeding techniques like AI to push so hard for milk production that Holsteins now are not as healthy or hardy as they were at one time. The dairy industry has decided that milk production is more important than other considerations and have breed their cattle that way. Since I'm not in the dairy industry my viewpoint on this might be wrong but that is the way it seems to me. Overall Holsteins are not as healthy or hardy as they used to be. This has been done on purpose, but is it appropriate that we have done this and can accelerating the process with cloning cause this and other problems in our domesticated animals?
Mankind has domesticated the animals we are talking about for over 2000 years now and it is our ethical responsibility to take care of them properly. Is cloning these animals instead of using natural reproduction an ethical way to take care of these animals that we are responsible for? Is pushing one genetic characteristic at the expense of other characteristics, the breed they belong to or the whole genus of the animal the way we should be taking care of our responsibility? Awful tough question to answer if you ask me. We've changed the animals over time with selective breeding but with reproduction technologies available today we are accelerating the changes we are making to our animals faster than ever and there is no guarantee that what we are doing won't have bad consequences in the long run. By our reliance on just certain breeds for production agriculture there are even domesticated animal breeds going extinct and we are losing valuable genetic diversity in our animals every day.
By cloning we are not only in danger of losing breeds, but losing all the diversity in a breed for one animal that the experts believe to be superior. What happens to our genetic diversity when all the animals in one "breed" are all just one animal? We will then have no diversity and no fall back if there is a problem with the animal. It will also speed the extinction of the genetic diversity available in all the breeds that are now in the world that are endangered. Cloning may be a valuable tool for agriculture like they claim since it will allow us to use superior genetics to increase the production of our herds, but I don't think so. I think it is an abrogation of our responsibility for the ethical care of the animals we are entrusted with and just another example of man's belief that he knows better than God/Mother Nature. The meat of cloned animals might be indistinguishable from the meat of non-cloned animals but that doesn't mean that this is the road we need to go down. There are too many potholes in this road and is not the way mankind needs to take his animals. This road will just be too rough on them and us.
Compassion, in which all ethics must take root, can only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does not limit itself to mankind. Albert Schweitzer
Posted by
in Agriculture, Education
at
07:00
| Comments (2)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: cattle, clone, cows, food safety, food security, responsibility, scamper, wisdom
Saturday, October 7. 2006
People Need To Think
'Organic' doesn't mean safer or more nutritious
The "Good Old Days." Don't you just yearn for them. People need to think, organic isn't intrinsically healthier when it comes to all food. You can blame Factory farms for the E. coli all you want, that doesn't mean it isn't a problem that needs dealt with today. People need to be careful with what they eat. It can keep you alive or kill you if your choices are wrong. Choose wisely.
It is health that is real wealth and not pieces of gold and silver. Mohandas Gandhi
It's a bad moment for believers in the mystical wonders of organic and natural foods. Deadly E. coli bacteria, lurking in spinach from one of the biggest organic farms in America, just killed one woman and hospitalized at least 29 other people with kidney failure. In all, the contaminated spinach sickened nearly 200, in at least 23 states and Canada.
Meanwhile, several California kids are on kidney dialysis with permanent organ damage from the same virulent strain of E. coli O157: H7 after consuming raw, unpasteurized milk or colostrum from the Organic Pastures Dairy of Fresno, Calif.
Tragically, the victims were all seeking greater food safety and the promised health benefits of vegetables and milk produced the "old-fashioned way."
The "Good Old Days." Don't you just yearn for them. People need to think, organic isn't intrinsically healthier when it comes to all food. You can blame Factory farms for the E. coli all you want, that doesn't mean it isn't a problem that needs dealt with today. People need to be careful with what they eat. It can keep you alive or kill you if your choices are wrong. Choose wisely.
It is health that is real wealth and not pieces of gold and silver. Mohandas Gandhi
Posted by
in Agriculture, U.S. Life
at
06:33
| Comment (1)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: food safety, organic
Saturday, March 18. 2006
Beating the Drum
Government's idea of 'tracking' animals
There is nothing particularly new here about National Animal Identification System (NAIS), just the same information hopefully reaching more and more people to help fight this plan. Just more information how NAIS is driven by the meat packers to further consolidate the market, and how they are using their money to influence the USDA and Congress to do their bidding.
Funny, I've been saying the same thing all along. The Meat packers have bought and payed for the USDA and expect it to do their bidding to the detriment of the farmers, ranchers, and consumers of the USA. Either somebody is listening to me, I'm listening to someone else, or thew facts are so obvious that everybody in the industry knows this to be true. I personally think it's the last on, it's painfully obvious what's going on, getting things changed is the next problem to solve.
Since the problem of the big Agribusiness companies taking control of the USDA first surfaced in 1993 with Mike Espy this isn't a problem that can only be laid at the feet of King George Bush. Bill Clinton was also involved in letting the big meat packers have their way in the USDA and hurting all of us. The solution is going to take an awful big broom at the USDA, along with the political will to use it, to clean out all the influence the Agribusiness companies have and to turn the agency around to helping America's agriculture, not just helping the meat packers to the detriment of us all.
Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict. Saul Alinsky
Funny, the above quote comes from a book "The Purpose," Rules for Radicals. So I guess I'm a "radical agitator" now. Scary thought.
Cross posted to No Mandatory Animal ID
Reaction to the National Animal Identification System is shining a light on a growing problem that independent producers believe is threatening the entire livestock industry. Vertical marketing practices in the meat processing industry, combined with the industry's access to and influence on the Department of Agriculture and Congress, has the small producer against the ropes. The NAIS may be the final blow that puts independent ranchers and small farmers down for the count.
There is nothing particularly new here about National Animal Identification System (NAIS), just the same information hopefully reaching more and more people to help fight this plan. Just more information how NAIS is driven by the meat packers to further consolidate the market, and how they are using their money to influence the USDA and Congress to do their bidding.
There is strong belief among producers that the NAIS has little to do with food safety and much more to do with providing data for agribusiness. One farmer says "... agribusiness giants will then have access to all of the information on the [NAIS] database. They will have knowledge about all sources and supplies of commodity animals. They will use such information to improve their ongoing practice of captive supply and market price manipulation."
He is convinced that "The USDA has become the conscript of agribusiness. All key positions at the USDA are now held by former agribusiness people or their minions."
Funny, I've been saying the same thing all along. The Meat packers have bought and payed for the USDA and expect it to do their bidding to the detriment of the farmers, ranchers, and consumers of the USA. Either somebody is listening to me, I'm listening to someone else, or thew facts are so obvious that everybody in the industry knows this to be true. I personally think it's the last on, it's painfully obvious what's going on, getting things changed is the next problem to solve.
Since the problem of the big Agribusiness companies taking control of the USDA first surfaced in 1993 with Mike Espy this isn't a problem that can only be laid at the feet of King George Bush. Bill Clinton was also involved in letting the big meat packers have their way in the USDA and hurting all of us. The solution is going to take an awful big broom at the USDA, along with the political will to use it, to clean out all the influence the Agribusiness companies have and to turn the agency around to helping America's agriculture, not just helping the meat packers to the detriment of us all.
Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict. Saul Alinsky
Funny, the above quote comes from a book "The Purpose," Rules for Radicals. So I guess I'm a "radical agitator" now. Scary thought.
Cross posted to No Mandatory Animal ID
Posted by
in HIS/NAIS
at
06:33
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: congress, food safety, food security, free speech, meat packers, nais, usda
Tuesday, February 28. 2006
The Need For Nais
Walter at NoNAIS.org brings us some interesting information about the need for NAIS. All along the government has proclaimed that Nais is necessary to control diseases like BSE. According to the US Food and Drug Administration;
So, it seems that all measures are all ready in affect to protect the consumers from BSE. Why does the Government want the NAIS then? As a prelude to numbering all people in the US maybe. It's not as far fetched as you think.
Instead of generating either unnecessary alarm or a false sense of security regarding these fundamental issues, the best course is to empower people with the truth. Dick Thornburgh
Are the protective measures in place sufficient to ensure the safety of the human food supply in light of the June 2005 BSE positive cow?
Yes, the protective measures put into place in July 2004 by FDA ensure that cattle materials that carry the highest risk of transmitting the agent that causes BSE are excluded from human food, including dietary supplements, and cosmetics. These measures, along with similar measures established by USDA, provide a uniform national BSE policy and ensure the safety of human food.
Is the food in the U.S. likely to be a BSE risk to consumers?
FDA and other federal agencies have had preventive measures in place to reduce the U.S. consumer's risk of exposure to any BSE-contaminated meat and food products. Since 1989, USDA has prohibited the importation of live animals and animal products from BSE-positive countries. Subsequently, USDA expanded the ban to include both countries with BSE and countries at risk for BSE. Since 1997, FDA has prohibited the use of most mammalian protein in the manufacture of ruminant feed. In 2004, FDA issued a rule prohibiting the use of certain cattle materials in human food and cosmetics, and USDA issued a rule prohibiting certain cattle materials from use as human food.
So, it seems that all measures are all ready in affect to protect the consumers from BSE. Why does the Government want the NAIS then? As a prelude to numbering all people in the US maybe. It's not as far fetched as you think.
Instead of generating either unnecessary alarm or a false sense of security regarding these fundamental issues, the best course is to empower people with the truth. Dick Thornburgh
Wednesday, February 22. 2006
Japan Demands More Yet Again
Japan Needs More Assurances Before Resuming U.S. Beef Imports
Yes, there is a big difference in safety of the meat supplies. Japan has had over 20 cases of BSE in a much smaller total cow herd where the US has had only one native case. Japan waited much longer to ban suspected feeds than the US did and wonders about the safety off US beef. One would think they would jump at the chance for US beef which has a better track record on safety than their native herd does.
This is just simply obstructionism rearing it's ugly head again. The USDA is not surprised by these demands and neither is anybody else involved in the beef industry. If the USDA would have simply done its job right the first time this would have never happened in the first place. Who has to pay for this Government foul-up? Cattle producers. Thanks for nothing.
Help the man-in-the-street make sense of the bewildering. Owen Arthur
Japan needs more assurances over the safety of U.S. cattle before resuming beef imports, government officials said.
The government is still studying a U.S. report released last week over how banned cattle parts were shipped to Japan in January, and there are likely to be different opinions between the two countries on safety measures, agriculture minister Shoichi Nakagawa said.
Yes, there is a big difference in safety of the meat supplies. Japan has had over 20 cases of BSE in a much smaller total cow herd where the US has had only one native case. Japan waited much longer to ban suspected feeds than the US did and wonders about the safety off US beef. One would think they would jump at the chance for US beef which has a better track record on safety than their native herd does.
This is just simply obstructionism rearing it's ugly head again. The USDA is not surprised by these demands and neither is anybody else involved in the beef industry. If the USDA would have simply done its job right the first time this would have never happened in the first place. Who has to pay for this Government foul-up? Cattle producers. Thanks for nothing.
Help the man-in-the-street make sense of the bewildering. Owen Arthur
Wednesday, January 11. 2006
Simply Criminal
Report: Canadian meat imports continued despite bad inspections
So, Canadian meat processors don't meet the standards as required yet the USDA continues to let them ship cattle into the US.
The meat packers in Canada are the same meat packers in the US and since the USDA does whatever the meat packers want, of course they allow Canada to continue to ship meat in. It's good for the meat packers and to hell with food safety. The meat packers don't care.
It's one of those things that I have never been afraid of the competition from Canadian cattle. I can handle that as long as the playing field is level. When the playing field is skewed in Canada's favor, especially when it comes to food safety, I am opposed to such things and this is one of those times.
This is criminal. Continue to ship in potentially unsafe food and the USDA/meat packers will wait until 2007 to make a decision whether it will be "okey-dokie" or not. Flat criminal, where's my noose.
Two years ago, U.S. food safety officials warned that Canadian meat and poultry inspections were lacking, yet the Agriculture Department refused to stop the flow of imports from Canada, a department investigation found.
So, Canadian meat processors don't meet the standards as required yet the USDA continues to let them ship cattle into the US.
The inspector general identified three big concerns with Canadian inspections:
# Inspections were not done daily at Canadian food processing plants.
# Canada lacked adequate sanitation controls.
# Inspectors didn't sample ready-to-eat products for listeria, which can cause deadly food poisoning.
Daily inspections are required at U.S. processing plants, and the law requires foreign countries to have equivalent inspections.
U.S. officials halted imports from Australia in June 2004 and Belgium in 2003 because those countries didn't have daily inspections, the report says.
The meat packers in Canada are the same meat packers in the US and since the USDA does whatever the meat packers want, of course they allow Canada to continue to ship meat in. It's good for the meat packers and to hell with food safety. The meat packers don't care.
It's one of those things that I have never been afraid of the competition from Canadian cattle. I can handle that as long as the playing field is level. When the playing field is skewed in Canada's favor, especially when it comes to food safety, I am opposed to such things and this is one of those times.
The Agriculture Department said it will take until 2007 to make a final decision on whether Canada's system is equivalent to the U.S. system.
This is criminal. Continue to ship in potentially unsafe food and the USDA/meat packers will wait until 2007 to make a decision whether it will be "okey-dokie" or not. Flat criminal, where's my noose.
(Page 1 of 1, totaling 14 entries)
