If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:42:42 GMT, Gothmog wrote:
On 30 Dec 2003 16:11:08 GMT, (GAUBSTER2) wrote: Then how do they explain downer cows being used in Western Washington? They can't walk. How can they be approved? Until today, there was no rule to prohibit downer cows from being processed for human consumption. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ws/7601342.htm Exactly. Um, maybe somebody didn't follow the rules? Just because a piece of paper says something, doesn't mean it is always followed. North Korea Nuke Treaty advocated by Clinton? Your local speed limits? The Bush Administration are not interested in safe beef, but have been forced to take some of the measures long implemented in Europe to protect beef industry profits. Too little, too late, but that seems to be the motto of the Bush administration. I'm completely reassured by the statements of the Bush regime concerning the safety of our dead animal supply. After all, they wouldn't lie to us. Well, maybe about the air around the World Trade Center being healthy to breathe. And maybe about needing to start a war. I'm sure they aren't just worried about corporate profits though. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:42:42 GMT, Gothmog wrote:
On 30 Dec 2003 16:11:08 GMT, (GAUBSTER2) wrote: Then how do they explain downer cows being used in Western Washington? They can't walk. How can they be approved? Until today, there was no rule to prohibit downer cows from being processed for human consumption. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ws/7601342.htm Exactly. Um, maybe somebody didn't follow the rules? Just because a piece of paper says something, doesn't mean it is always followed. North Korea Nuke Treaty advocated by Clinton? Your local speed limits? The Bush Administration are not interested in safe beef, but have been forced to take some of the measures long implemented in Europe to protect beef industry profits. Too little, too late, but that seems to be the motto of the Bush administration. I'm completely reassured by the statements of the Bush regime concerning the safety of our dead animal supply. After all, they wouldn't lie to us. Well, maybe about the air around the World Trade Center being healthy to breathe. And maybe about needing to start a war. I'm sure they aren't just worried about corporate profits though. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
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. Agreed. At least some good came out of all of this. This really should have been done a long time ago. It's amazing how fast things move when they really want something accomplished, isn't it! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Before commercial cat food..... | Kitten M | Cat health & behaviour | 716 | October 18th 03 02:04 AM |