View Single Post
  #53  
Old December 31st 03, 05:10 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cheryl wrote:

Joe Canuck wrote in on 30
Dec 2003:

"Outbreak" implies a sudden increase in disease. Just as a report of one
person getting the flu in a city is not considered an outbreak, a report
of one cow getting a disease is also not an outbreak.


So this is an isolated incident. Is that it? For real, how many "isolated
incidents" involving a serious condition involving food sources happen? Is
this a freak? Was the first cow with BSE in the UK an isolated incident?
When did they find out it was not? How *long* did it take before it was
decided it wasn't an isolated incident? Is our government scared this will
escalate beyond an isolated incident? I would bet they are. This isn't
the flu. You people can say how low a risk it is just because it has only
affected so much of a percent of human life but if the FDA bans a diet aid
for causing only a couple of hundred deaths, what do they do about the
possiblity of a tainted food supply? Who cares about one company that
produces a diet aid. **** with the livelyhoods of American agriculture
and exported goods, well it will just have to excalate further before it is
taken seriously. Heh. You people crack me up. The "who cares" attitude
is what makes these things escalate. You keep trusting in FDA and USDA
testing and whatever they say. The rest of us will keep making noise.


While one case *is* an isolated incident, any further discoveries will
constitute an outbreak. That is just jargon however as far as the
potential ramifications go. I also find it hard to believe that a
single case can exist in a vacuum.

I'm sure the government uses the term "damage control" in many
situations far more often than asking themselves what is the proper
thing to do. I am glad to see the quick move to ban downers from the
food chain even though it was very overdue.

-mhd