What She Said!

The next time some guy asks you where all the female bloggers are,
tell him What She Said!

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Brain degeneration at the Dept. of Agriculture - MSNBC.com

Brain degeneration at the Dept. of Agriculture - Hardball with Chris Matthews - MSNBC.com

Drop that Hamburger! David Shuster at MSNBC has a frightening post about what might be in that beef. As of now, there won't be any more purchased in my house.

8 Comments:

At 3:41 PM , Blogger GEA3 said...

Blaming Bush per the usual template?

 
At 10:38 PM , Blogger Morgaine said...

Paranoid much? I don't see the name "Bush" anywhere in that post. While one hardly needs a template to bash the most incomptent chief executive in the history of the United States, the Beef industry's influence on the government goes back to when he was nothing but a coke-snortin' cheerleader.

 
At 11:30 AM , Blogger GEA3 said...

First "Big Tobacco" now "Big Beef"?

 
At 3:59 PM , Blogger Morgaine said...

Yep - and of the two, Beef is doing more harm. The epidemic in obesity the media is so fond of talking about is a direct result of eating animal foods laden with growth hormone. It's also contributing to the rise in depressive disorders, postpartum depression and psychosis, acne, polycystic ovaries, tumor growth, and possibly increased aggression in kids.

Of course, the people who raise cheaper beef that way, and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies that get rich treating all of those side effects, won't tell you that. Just think of all the money the diet industry makes - not to mention the cosmetics industry's booming business in trying to cure cystic acne, which is almost always the result of eating hormones and/or foods containing sodium nitrite or certain artificial colorings.

 
At 4:00 PM , Blogger GEA3 said...

Do you consumers bear any responsibility?

 
At 4:35 PM , Blogger Riverman said...

The bottom line here is two fold:

1. Yes, the FDA and other GO's and NGO's should take this threat more seriously and take stronger steps to protect the citizenry.

2. It is still HIGHLY unlikely that you will come across BSE in any meat you buy at the store.

But to make yourselves safer, don't buy ground beef. You will ,more often than not, get parts from different individual cows. That therefore increases one's risk. Buy your meat in the cut you want and grind it yourself. It's safer, and also tastier.

Having said all that, I do believe that the BSE threat posed to Americans is overblown. But hey, that's what the media are for, to scare the bejeezus out of us.

RM

 
At 2:10 AM , Blogger Morgaine said...

The Media certainly does sometimes hype the danger of various situations. The fact that someone put this in a blog, and I haven't heard about it on any of the broadcasts, leads me to believe that this is one of the situations where the media is actually doing what it is supposed to do - let us know what the government is afraid to tell us.

Buying ground beef will increase your exposure, but even a solid piece of beef is dangerous if it came from and infected animal.

The FDA has a simple and logical course of action that they have failed to take. They need to ban the use of livestock remains in feeding cattle. Cattle are herbivores - the idea of making them cannibalize other animals is bizarre and unnatural, and that practice is precisely what seems to increase the incidence of Mad Cow infection.

They haven't acted yet for the same reason they haven't forbidden ranchers to use hormones in animal feed - the industry makes more money that way, and they have a powerful lobby in D.C. that pays big bucks to make sure they can continue these harmful practices. As usual, it's all about profit at the expense of the citizenry.

The FDA supposedly exists to protect us. They aren't doing their job.

 
At 2:19 AM , Blogger Morgaine said...

As to whether the consumer bears any responsibility, the only option available to them seems to be simply not to buy beef.

I hear the complaint from industry that people won't pay more for beef that is raised in more healthful and sanitary conditions. That's simply not true. Consumers have shown repeatedly that they'll spend more for perceived health benefits, even when such benefits cannot be proven.

The consumer usually has no education in the practices used in raising animals used for food. Yes, they should do some research, but that shouldn't be necessary, since we have a government agency charged with the responsibility of making sure that our food supply is free of toxins. The onus in this situation is for the agency to simply do the job it is paid to do.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home