Featured
Saturday essay: Where’s the beef?
I’m a meat-and-potatoes guy. Always have been. And admittedly, post-50, I probably consume more red meat than I should for my well-being.
But what’s suggested by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian economist, is all bun and no burger.
The chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is advising people to set aside a meat-free day once a week. Then they should reduce their consumption further.
Memo To The Vegan Fringe: 100-Person Studies Are A Two-Edged Sword
Pity Poor Neal Barnard of the deceptive Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). The Psychiatrist-turned-tofu-evangelist seldom stops touring the country, insisting to anyone who will listen that a meat-free, egg-free, dairy-free diet is the cure for whatever ails you. We’d call it a snake-oil act, but that wouldn’t be vegan. This week Barnard is in Syracuse, New York promoting an anti-meat book that he claims can “reverse” diabetes—at a speech sponsored by Natur-Tyme, a “health and wellness” store whose other guest consultant this month is a “holistic veterinarian.” We’re not joking.
Why Should Vegetarians Define ‘Sustainable’?
Rajendra Pachauri, the chief UN expert on climate change, has declared that everyone should eat less meat to help combat climate change. Reactions so far have been mixed, ranging from a call for revolt via “a series of vast Homeric barbeques” (to be dubbed “Pachauri days”) to “What ever happened to fish stick Fridays?” But for the most part, the general response has been one of concern and honest skepticism. The sort of earnest doubt that, apparently, the anti-meat camp would rather do without.
Earlier today, the Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues hosted a well-timed panel discussion on beef production and greenhouse gas emissions. Panelists included Alex Avery, the Institute’s Director of Research; Dr. Judith Capper, author of a groundbreaking study on the environmental benefits of synthetic bovine growth hormone (more on that here); and Danielle Nierenberg of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
Cattle go green on grain
FeedIndustryNetwork.com posted an article that explains why conventionally raised beef is better for the environment than grass-fed beef.
Center for Consumer Freedom issues press release criticizing the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
The Center for Consumer Freedom has issued a press release criticizing the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and the anti-meat ad it is sponsoring through “The Cancer Project.” The release noted that “less than four percent” of PCRM members “are actual physicians” and concluded, “It is clear that this phony physicians committee should leave the dietary advice to some real doctors.”
http://sev.prnewswire.com/food-beverages/20080724/DC2853324072008-1.html
Sitting On A Story
Center for Consumer FreedomFebruary 28, 2008We’re not the only ones asking why the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sat on its explosive slaughterhouse video for several months, while possibly tainted beef made its way into school lunchrooms. (To be fair, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer started the ball rolling.) Tuesday on Capitol Hill, members of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations had some hard questions for HSUS’s top vegan doctor, Michael Greger. And yesterday The New York Times, usually very friendly to HSUS, took notice in a not-too-flattering way.HSUS’s well-deserved Congressional grilling left us with the distinct impression that the group was less interested in protecting the public’s health (or with the welfare of actual animals) than in timing its hit-job on meat producers for maximum political effect. This is hardly surprising, coming from a PETA-style organization whose lead farm-animal campaigner, Paul Shapiro, is on record saying that “nothing is more important than promoting veganism.”HSUS sued the Agriculture Department over the slaughter conditions depicted in its video. This is another outcome which wouldn’t have been as media-friendly had the animal rights group done the right thing and reported its findings on Day One.To listen to Tuesday’s hearing, click here — and cue up a few places (listed below) for the relevant bits.Read more…
The Elephants In HSUS’s Living Room
Center for Consumer Freedom
February 19, 2008
As fallout from the nation’s largest beef recall continues to float through newsrooms and school districts, Americans have begun to ask hard questions about the safety of our beef supply and the character of the people who bring it to market. We have a few questions of our own.
First, why did the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sit on its shock-value video for several months? The group has claimed that it spent six weeks “investigating” a Chino, California slaughterhouse and two more weeks looking at the videotapes before giving authorities “extra time” to weigh their options. HSUS also insists that it “is the last entity that would ever want to sit on the results; we had no incentive to do so. We were methodical in how we handled the investigation, and how we publicized it, too.”
We’re not buying it. An organization interested in the welfare of cattle would have taken the very first example of animal abuse it found, the very day it was filmed, and showed it to the plant manager. “Clean up your act today and fire these few employees,” a responsible advocate would have said, “or the Sheriff will be our next stop.”
The drawback of this approach for HSUS, of course, is that no fundraising bonanza would result. (How’s that for an “incentive” for being “methodical” instead of acting with urgency?) And Californians wouldn’t have been politically sensitized to the issues wrapped up in a coming ballot initiative to ban farm-animal-handling practices HSUS doesn’t like. (HSUS has already put over $1.4 million into the effort).
Reacting immediately might not have helped HSUS, but the animals going through that slaughterhouse in the last few months would certainly have been much better off. Remember them, HSUS? The animals?
One other nagging question. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Associated Press yesterday that he chose this particular slaughterhouse at random. What he hasn’t said, though, is how many facilities his workers had to infiltrate before they found one with a problem worth videotaping.
Could it be that HSUS has been planting employees inside California meatpackers since June 2003, when the group first floated the idea of an animal-rights ballot initiative in the Golden State? Inquiring minds want to know. Especially since it now looks like the current problem was the exception—not the rule.
NCBA FACT SHEET: Beef Safety from “Mad Cow” Disease
What is “Mad Cow” Disease?Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly called “mad cow” disease, is a degenerative neurological disease of cattle that is caused by misfolded proteins (called prions) that build up in the central nervous system (CNS) and eventually kill nerve cells.BSE is spread through certain cattle feed ingredients, which have been banned since 1997.Beef Safety from BSE The world’s leading scientists, medical professionals and government officials agree that BSE is not a public or animal health risk in the United States:
- In 2007, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) classified the United States as a controlled risk country in regard to BSE, meaning U.S. regulatory controls are effective and fresh beef and products from cattle of all ages is safe.
- The modeling experts at Harvard’s Center for Risk Analysis reported in 2003 that a detailed analysis shows the food safety measures in place reduce an already very small potential for human exposure to BSE infectivity.
- The results of a 2005 study published in the journal Lancet also provided scientific evidence about the effectiveness of current measures to protect against BSE.According to the study’s lead researcher, “Our results provide reassurance that BSE screening procedures combined with CNS (central nervous system – brain and spinal tissue) removal are effective measures to protect the human food chain.”
Interlocking SafeguardsFor nearly 20 years the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been developing and implementing a series of interlocking safeguards to ensure a safe, BSE-free food supply.Tissues that could potentially carry BSE in an animal – including the brain and spinal cord – must be removed from cattle prior to processing, and therefore are not allowed into the food supply. This step along with other safeguards ensures BSE has no affect on public health.The United States began an active BSE surveillance program in 1990 and, since its inception, more than 1 million cattle at greatest risk for BSE have been tested. USDA’s ongoing BSE surveillance program tests approximately 40,000 high-risk cattle annually. This program is rigorous and exceeds international guidelines by 10 times.Enhanced BSE SurveillanceIn June 2004, USDA instituted a one-time expanded testing program to determine the incidence of BSE in the United States. From June 1, 2004 through Aug. 20, 2006, USDA tested 787,711 cattle and found just two BSE positives.A scientific analysis of seven years of surveillance data found the estimated prevalence of BSE in the United States to be less than one infected animal per 1 million adult cattle (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/BSEprev-estFINAL_7-20-06.pdf).Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob diseaseBSE is in a class of rare neurological diseases called Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE), some of which affect animals while others affect humans. All TSE are associated with accumulation of prions in CNS tissue. Human TSEs include sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD or CJD), which accounts for about 85 percent of CJD cases and has an annual incidence of about one case per 1 million population worldwide.Another human TSE is the very rare variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), which research from the United Kingdom has associated with consumption of products contaminated with CNS tissue from BSE-infected cattle. There have been about 200 cases of vCJD in the world (most of these in the U.K.) and zero cases associated with beef consumption in the United States.Additional InformationAdditional information about BSE can be found at the following Web sites:
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Q&A: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Q&A: www.fda.gov/cber/bse/bseqa.htm#a1
- USDA Overview: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/BSEbrochure12-2006.pdf
- Beef Industry BSE facts and information: http://www.BSEInfo.org
