Government fights to prevent testing slaughtered cattle for mad cow

Byoliveridley

Imagine a country where the government will go to great lengths to prevent you, a small business, from holding your products to high safety standards because it is concerned that big business will be hurt. Well, if you live in the US of A, it is your government! Yes, it sounds anti-competitive to me, and it is, but the USDA is in the hands of big business, and the plutocracy protectionary principle is in full force here, I can only laugh! Wouldn’t you like it if you’re suspected of a crime and try to argue that you don’t want to be fingerprinted because there might be a false positive identification on you? I suspect you would not get very far with that argument!

That being said, it would be interesting to compare the incidence rate of mad cow disease with the incidence rate of false positives, would settle this question…

U.S. government fights to keep meatpackers from testing all slaughtered cattle for mad cow – International Herald Tribune

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well.

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

Similar Posts

|

Snake Oil Comes a Full Circle

Byoliveridley

Ah, back to the good old days of snake oil..

ScienceDaily: Snake Venom As Therapeutic Treatment Of Cancer?

This certainly sounds unusual, but Dr. Son and colleagues report on the effectiveness of the snake venom toxin (SVT) Vipera lebetina turanica in the inhibition of androgen-independent prostate cancer (AICAP) in the journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.

These novel findings suggest that SVT can inhibit the growth of AICAP through the induction of cell death.

I am glad they put the question mark at the end, lest people extrapolate from a few cells in a petri dish (or a small animal study) to a cancer cure, as happened recently with dichloroacetate! Health reporting is very tricky because the average reader cannot understand much more than the headline. It almost seems like every health article should have the following things clearly labeled:

  1. Human, animal or cell?
  2. Clinically tested, or anecdotal?
  3. Double blinded, controlled, etc, or not?
  4. Any chance that this result applies to people?
  5. How far away are we from a real cure?
  6. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!

At least viper venom is hard to find! The Madras crocodile bank helped start a venom extraction cooperative run by the Irula Tribe, so I’ve seen viper venom being extracted, pretty cool. India is home to two vipers, the Russell’s and the Saw Scaled vipers.

Russell's
Russell’s viper

saw scaled
Saw scaled viper.

The Russell’s is 3-5 feet long, and slow, but a big hisser! The saw scaled viper is tiny, a feet or two, but aggressive and very venomous. One of my favorite wild snake sightings was a saw scaled viper, looked very innocuous curled up in a parking lot in Pondicherry.

Cool, snake oil and venom for all…

Smoking bans

Byoliveridley

If you followed the failed attempt in North Carolina this year to ban smoking in indoor public spaces, one of the so called arguments was the famous slippery slope one, that this was only a prelude to banning smoking “in the comfort of your own home”, and other attendant property rights arguments. Well, it turns out that there is an impromptu smoking ban in place in most homes already!

Study: Smoking forbidden in most U.S. households – CNN.com

Smoking is forbidden in nearly three out of four U.S. households, a dramatic increase from the 43 percent of homes that prohibited smoking a decade ago, the federal government reported Thursday.

Before anyone makes the property rights argument that this “ban” is by choice, and not by government fiat, let me make it, and break it. Smoking falls into the category of occupational and reccreational exposure to pollution that harms and kills. It’s no different from lead in the water or smog as far as the non-smoker is concerned. So, property rights are not polluter rights, sorry.

It’s only a matter of time before smoking indoors is considered completely and utterly unacceptable, kinda like smoking in airplanes!

Technorati Tags:

U.K Hospitals – Get that filthy tie out of here!

Byoliveridley

It may be no surprise to some that doctors frequently transmit diseases amongst patients in hospitals. And bugs in hospitals, raised on a steady diet of antibiotics, tend to be hardy, drug resistant and deadly. Among the many sensible things doctors need to do (ahem, wash your hands doc!), turns out that the clothes you wear make a difference. So, in the U.K, where they worry about these things, doctors are being issued a dress code. Read on for some biting criticism of that most pointless of neck appendages.

U.K. hospitals issue doctors’ dress code – Yahoo! News

“British hospitals are banning neckties, long sleeves and jewelry for doctors — and their traditional white coats — in an effort to stop the spread of deadly hospital-borne infections, according to new rules published Monday.

Hospital dress codes typically urge doctors to look professional, which, for male practitioners, has usually meant wearing a tie. But as concern over hospital-borne infections has intensified, doctors are taking a closer look at their clothing.

‘Ties are rarely laundered but worn daily,’ the Department of Health said in a statement. ‘They perform no beneficial function in patient care and have been shown to be colonized by pathogens.’

Please frame that statement, ties are pointless, ties perform no beneficial functions, down with ties!

|

NC smoking bill extinguished?

Byoliveridley

Laura Leslie has the scoop…

Monday: Snuffed Out? — North Carolina Public Radio WUNC

Looks like House Maj. Leader Hugh Holliman’s smoking ban may be in trouble. The first sign of trouble was that it didn’t come up for a floor vote in the few days following its 9-4 approval in J1 committee. Today, Holliman told NCNN’s Matt Willoughby he’s planning to pull the bill off the calendar when it comes up tomorrow.

It’s only a matter of time, they can fight it all they want, the smoking bans will pass throughout the country in a a decade or less, that’s a bold prediction!

Most critics say the legislation goes against private property rights in banning all workplace smoking, regardless of the context. But supporters point out the government has been regulating workplace safety on issues like asbestos for a long time, even on private property. Since secondhand smoke is an environmental toxin, they say, it should be regulated, too.

As I mentioned in comments on an earlier post, property rights is a catchall rhetorical tool that can defend just about anything, good bad or neutral. So, I am not surprised it is being used here. The obvious counter argument that property rights do not give you the right to pollute is apparently lost on this debate. But this is not really about property rights, is it? It is about protecting the tobacco industry, good old plut-prot-principle!

|

Monsanto Ashamed of Selling Bovine Growth Hormone

Byoliveridley

Why else do they not want people to know that their product is being used? You would think that Monsanto with its millions in profits and its monopoly in bovine growth hormone, would let the free market decide whether people want their ice cream/milk rBGH free or not. Surely, wouldn’t Monsanto’s commanding market presence, and the simple fact that conventional milk supplied by hormone injected cows tends to be cheaper than rBGH free milk be a sufficient counterweight against a simple rBGH free label?

The ice cream maker has joined a national campaign to block what critics say is an effort driven by Monsanto (MON), which markets recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST, also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH.The hormone, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to boost production in dairy cows in the early 1990s, was not approved in Canada, Japan or the European Union, largely out of concern it may be harmful to animals.A newly formed dairy producers’ group, backed by Monsanto, is pushing for labeling changes, saying hormone-free labels imply that the milk is safer than other milk, when they say it’s not.

Ben & Jerry’s in fight over hormone labeling – USATODAY.com

This is a classic strawman’s argument. I don’t know if there is sufficient evidence to show that hormone filled milk is harmful to humans, but there is sufficient evidence that it is harmful to cows. As always, I point to the Meatrix (Note, available on youtube as well, but embedding has been disabled…).

Here’s a letter from the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility summarizing the harmful effects of rBGH.

  1. Increase in IGF-1 levels – possible link to cancer in humans
  2. Mastitis in Cows – Do you want your breasts infected and painfully inflamed? That’s what RBGH does to cows
  3. Antibiotics Resistance – To combat mastitis, the cows are pumped with antibiotics, which end up in the solid waste, and water runoff.
  4. 15 other side effects in cows, bad enough that Canada and the EU do not permit this growth hormone

All right, the product is still legal here in the US and I absolutely respect Monsanto’s right to sell it, fight for it and conduct a vigorous product defense (including obligatory astroturf group rbstfacts). But stop trying to get the government to do your dirty work for you and “banning” companies from telling consumers that they did not use your product, it’s shameful and unnecessary.

Consumers have a right to pay premium for a product that they think is superior for one reason or the other. It is anti-free market and protectionist to restrict information that will help these consumers decide.

What next? We all know that cosmetics tested on animals are not more harmful to people than animal cruelty free cosmetics. Shouldn’t that label be banned as well?

Tags: ,

|

Common chemicals are linked to breast cancer

Byoliveridley

The LA Times features a study arising from the Silent Spring institute.

Common chemicals are linked to breast cancer – Los Angeles Times

More than 200 chemicals — many found in urban air and everyday consumer products — cause breast cancer in animal tests, according to a compilation of scientific reports published today.

Writing in a publication of the American Cancer Society, researchers concluded that reducing exposure to the compounds could prevent many women from developing the disease.

The research team from five institutions analyzed a growing body of evidence linking environmental contaminants to breast cancer, the leading killer of U.S. women in their late 30s to early 50s.

Experts say that family history and genes are responsible for a small percentage of breast cancer cases but that environmental or lifestyle factors such as diet are probably involved in the vast majority.

“Overall, exposure to mammary gland carcinogens is widespread,” the researchers wrote in a special supplement to the journal Cancer. “These compounds are widely detected in human tissues and in environments, such as homes, where women spend time.”

The scientists said data were too incomplete to estimate how many breast cancer cases might be linked to chemical exposures.

The resources to come out of this study include two databases, one that summarizes animal mechanistic studies, and one that summarizes human epidemiological studies. It’s a good start and I hope these databases are continually expanded. The study was essentially a big lit review and data organization project.

There are two major issues with the way carcinogenicity is studied. Firstly, animals other than humans are dosed at high levels to test for possible cancer outcomes. This leaves most researchers vulnerable to the charge that these high dose studies do not translate well to humans because the dose-response relationship at ambient levels is not well studied. So, the obvious criticism is that just because cancer endpoints were seen at high levels does not mean that the same thing will happen at low levels. This cuts both ways, though. We’re seeing with bisphenol A that low doses can cause more harm than intermediate doses. Another issue is the additivity of the interactions. Does 1 “dose” of PAH + 1 “dose” of PCB = 2 “doses” of PAH? We’re exposed to a whole host of chemicals all our lives, who knows which ones add, which ones subtract, which ones multiply, etc.

Of course, as with most diseases, some macro variables dominate. For instance, the US has seen 8-9% decline in breast cancer incidence recently due to a decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. So, as with all diseases, taking care of some of these big ticket items is very important. One discouraging story I read today reported on a four percentage point decline in mammograms (70 to 66%) in women age 40 and older. Why? decreased access to health insurance and dropping the ball on promotion.

The depressing fact of the matter is that the boring basics of good preventative healthcare, screening, good lifestyle and diet are the most important factors, and if we take care of these factors, we will make most health issues easier to deal with.