The meat industry

(Meghan Noecker) wrote in message ...

I really believe that most of these problems would not exist, if all
down cows were put down humanely on the spot, a sample taken for
testing, and the rest of the cow destroyed with no usage whatsoever.
Yes, it would be a loss financially, but I would rather pay higher
prices for meat and products and cover that farmers' costs of doing
bsuiness, than risk a sick animal being put into the food system. If
the animal is sick enough to warrant testing, then it should be
considered a loss. As it is, they go into the system, and end up
spreading the problem.

Meghan,
I concurr with your idea of simply destroying the downer cows. I
agree that I would be willing to pay marginally higher prices for the
beef. Unfortunately the real world situation is that a significant
percentage of the beef consumed in this country comes from outside the
borders of this country, where the use of downer cows in neither
regulated nor stopped. What you would be doing is putting the American
rancher at an increased financial disadvantage again. The American
rancher already pays significantly more for every part of the costs of
production, from wormers to fencing to labor, all these costs are much
higher here than in Bolivia or Argentina or Brazil. Neither are they
supported by government funding as they are in Canada. The average
consumer isn't going to care - if they have a choice between hamburger
at $1.00 a pound or hamburger at $1.05 per pound they will buy the
cheaper meat. While you and I may be willing to pay additional amounts
for beef, most people won't and thus the rancher once again takes an
economic loss.

The use of downer cows in pet foods poses no real danger to pets.
You have to think about the difference between "possibility" and
"probability". Yes it is possible the moon will crash into the earth,
but it is not probable anytime in the next milllion years or so,
especially since it is slowly moving away. It is extremely remotely
possible that a downer cow will escape detection as the one in Mabton
did, but it is not probable that it will cause any harm to any pets. I
find it extremely frustrating that so much "bandwidth" is being used
to discuss extremely remote possibilities as if there was any real and
present danger and yet real animal disease like renal failure is
totally ignored. Where's the outcry over excessive levels of
phosphorus in foods? Where are the screaming displays of outrage at
excessive levels of sodium in pet foods? These things are real dangers
that really cause pet deaths in this country.