woolybanana Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I cannot believe the contents of this report or that it has not yet exploded in media headlines. It is horrifying:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/farmers-may-use-animal-byproducts-in-feed-again-2287441.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Yes, they should be shot and fed to the pigs, that'd show them.[6]Things like this enforce why I hate the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugsy Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I couldn't agree more Wooly, total bloody madness.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 It's simple stop eating meat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessie Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Dog - that is really not a clever response. The mere fact that this is being considered shows just how mad the EU and the Eurokrauts have become.It is a horrific idea; even worse, it is subjecting animals who would not normally eat such 'protein food' - to an abnormal, unhealthy diet. Who knows what adverse effect that could have on an animal, and the side-effcts of which could enter the food chain.I'm glad I'm a vegetarian; wouldn't want to eat Halal meat thank you very much; and I'd certainly not want to eat meat from an animal fed such an unnatural diet.If this is approved, by those insane idiots in the EU - then OH will HAVE to become a vegetarian as well. Wouldn't want to touch this meat with a barge-pole.We just don't learn do we.Chessie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loiseau Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 But hang on. Surely pigs, poultry and fish are omnivorous, and would be eating protein of their own volition if they were in a free situation?Unlike cows, sheep etc, which are herbivores, and are not the subject of the ruling.Angela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSKS Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Any of the apoplectics care to give anything other than irrational opposition to this proposal? Some evidence or science to support the implied contention that it is a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 [quote user="Loiseau"]But hang on. Surely pigs, poultry and fish are omnivorous, and would be eating protein of their own volition if they were in a free situation? Unlike cows, sheep etc, which are herbivores, and are not the subject of the ruling. Angela[/quote]You haven't been to Wales - in a touristy spot in the mountains in I saw some ramblers having their luncheon surrounded by sheep happily eating the ham sandwhiches they were given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted May 23, 2011 Author Share Posted May 23, 2011 [quote user="JK"]Any of the apoplectics care to give anything other than irrational opposition to this proposal? Some evidence or science to support the implied contention that it is a bad thing?[/quote]The risks of CJD being transmitted via this route are too great, even if, at present, there has not been an epidemic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessie Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 JK - instinct - common-sense - the feeling that this 'isn't right' - can sometimes be a much better guide to these 'bright ideas' than any kind of scientific evidence. For how many years have we been told that drinking too much coffee is bad for you; that alcohol is bad for you; that butter, cheese, eggs are bad for you; all those terrible warnings about 'don't eat this', 'don't drink that' - are now being shown to be wrong. Team A scientists and doctors disagree with Team B scientists and doctors - and then Team C comes along with a different view-point.The truth is that they don't know the truth. But because 'they' don't know - means, as far as I'm concerned, if it doesn't 'feel right', or goes against common-sense or is being promoted by big business - then I steer well clear.This idea isn't good; it's like GM, or growing bio-fuels (and destroying the rain-forest) - I'd look at who/what is behind this proposal. But if it's anything the Eurokrauts are proposing - then my response is 'no way, no thank you, not likely'.On purel;y moral and ethical grounds I don't like this - it 'feels wrong'.Sometimes scientific and medical evidence can be wrong........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 The CJD outbreak was all over french news when it 'hit' the UK. Never said anything much really about it in France, only the odd report. And that is the worry, if animals on the continent have it, will their bodies be used to put into feed that would easily be sold anywhere in the EU. One has to have a water tight 'good' system to even consider doing this again, and I do not believe that there is one at the present, or will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 From the article Wooly quotes, here is the crux of the matter:"The potential U-turn comes as concerns escalate about how the world will continue to feed itself against a backdrop of rapidly inflating food prices and a soaring population. U-turn comes as concerns escalate about how the world will continue to feed itself against a backdrop of rapidly inflating food prices and a soaring population."Answer : have fewer kids not start mucking about with the food chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSKS Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 [quote user="woolybanana"][quote user="JK"]Any of the apoplectics care to give anything other than irrational opposition to this proposal? Some evidence or science to support the implied contention that it is a bad thing?[/quote]The risks of CJD being transmitted via this route are too great, even if, at present, there has not been an epidemic.[/quote]So what exactly are the risks which you consider to be too great (bearing in mind that there is no intention to feed to cows). A figure to p=0.05 would illustrate this, I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSKS Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 [quote user="chessie"]JK - instinct - common-sense - the feeling that this 'isn't right' - can sometimes be a much better guide to these 'bright ideas' than any kind of scientific evidence......[/quote]Ah yes, the same sort of feelings that led to witches being burnt at the stake, the assurance that the solar system revolved around the earth, exceeding the sound barrier would cause the 'plane to disintegrate. I could go on. I think I will. The instinct that if a little is good a lot must be better (which really doesn't work for morphine, paracetamol, beta blockers or just about any drug you care to mention), if you sail too far you will fall off the edge of the earth etc etc.Without science you would be sitting in your cave hoping for something tasty to spear rather than sitting at home with the electrical interweb, having grown to an age made possible by the eradication of virtually all the fatal infectious diseases that science has conquered.Science really is a nuisance, isn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 [quote user="JK"][(bearing in mind that there is no intention to feed to cows). [/quote]I can't help feeling that it is rather typical of this newspaper to put a photograph of a line of cows alongside the article whilst stating in the text that they are not affected. Stirring these things up is the media's job and manipulating the facts is one of the tricks of the trade.[Www] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSKS Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 [quote user="cooperlola"][quote user="JK"][(bearing in mind that there is no intention to feed to cows). [/quote]I can't help feeling that it is rather typical of this newspaper to put a photograph of a line of cows alongside the article whilst stating in the text that they are not affected. Stirring these things up is the media's job and manipulating the facts is one of the tricks of the trade.[Www][/quote] Sadly, there is a monumental history of press manipulation of medical matters usually through misquotation, misrepresentation or just plain ignorance. Just look at the MMR nonsense which would never have come to pass without the intervention of the fourth estate - they are responsible, directly responsible, for the increase in child mortality and morbidity due to the resurgence of measles.The press are venal. The unfortunate thing is that, for whatever reason, many people would rather take their opinions from poorly researched and editorially biased articles than take the trouble to research the underlying facts which may be partially quoted. So while there may or may not be some health risks to the actions outlined in the article, I thinnk it wiser to listen to the researchers in the subject rather than the ignorant, mis-quoted and ill-informed speculations in an organ whose prime purpose is to sell newspapers and advertising copy (although the Grauniad and Indy are far less guilty than such gutter press as the DM or the Sun/The Times). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 JK, when I want to drag myself away from the media's normal view of science and scientists then I treat myself to a dose of Ben Goldacre. [:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted May 23, 2011 Author Share Posted May 23, 2011 If the science is good, that doesn't mean it is acceptable, JK. At this moment in time, when the emphasis is on healthy eating and bio, it is not acceptable to suggest feeding animal remains to any farmed animals.Even if it is done, there is the question of creep, which means that there would be pressure to feed these things to a wider range of animals. And given that many, many cases of BSE were not declared, the carcasses being disappeared at night, and that illegal hormone use still goes on, then the current status quo is a better bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessie Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 JK - funnily enough this was NOT reported in the papers that you love to hate.It was reported in The INDEPENDENT - and the Gaurdian.Secondly - to put worries about this - which concerns our FOOD - in the same category as the belief in burning witches is really just rude, offensive and patronising.There are risks concerned with this; there is a distrust of the big business behind this - and for good reason.Tell me JK - just why do you seem to be so in favour of this ? Why do you think that feeding PAP - an abnormal type of food - is morally responsible when, eventually, it will end up in our food chain ?What reasons do you have to support this 'new', 'improved' version of animal food ?Why do you think it will be safe? Why do you think there could be no nasty side-effects (to the animals or humans) ?Why are you so certain the scientists have got it right ?Remember - it was reported in The Independent......Chessie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSKS Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 [quote user="cooperlola"]JK, when I want to drag myself away from the media's normal view of science and scientists then I treat myself to a dose of Ben Goldacre. [:)][/quote]Unfortunately, you are in a minority. People would rather be scared then well-informed - it makes them feel they have some say in something they are not prepared to take the time and effort to analyze fully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSKS Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 [quote user="chessie"]JK - funnily enough this was NOT reported in the papers that you love to hate.It was reported in The INDEPENDENT - and the Gaurdian.[/quote]I think you'll find that I acknowledeged both of those papers in my post. [quote]Secondly - to put worries about this - which concerns our FOOD - in the same category as the belief in burning witches is really just rude, offensive and patronising.There are risks concerned with this; there is a distrust of the big business behind this - and for good reason.Tell me JK - just why do you seem to be so in favour of this ? Why do you think that feeding PAP - an abnormal type of food - is morally responsible when, eventually, it will end up in our food chain ?[/quote]Can you quote where I have supported this? I am trying to point out that making judgements based on a few column inches is hardly taking a considered view in the matter.[quote]What reasons do you have to support this 'new', 'improved' version of animal food ?[/quote]I have no information to either support or not - same as everyone else on this thread[quote]Why do you think it will be safe? Why do you think there could be no nasty side-effects (to the animals or humans) ?Why are you so certain the scientists have got it right ?[/quote]I have not read the original research - have you? I wouldn't make a judgement one way or the other. However as a retired surgeon who was practising during the initial vCJD scare and being fairly conversant with prion protein disease transmission, i might suggest that the story is a little more complex then a few column inches in the Grauniad or indy. My experience of medical reporting in [i]any[/i] of the papers is that they are usuallly ill-informed, sensationalist and written with an editorial bias[quote]Remember - it was reported in The Independent......[/quote]And that is relevant why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSKS Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 [quote user="woolybanana"]If the science is good, that doesn't mean it is acceptable, JK. [/quote]Of course not. However, I contest that a few column inches in the liberal left press is somewhat less than good science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted May 23, 2011 Author Share Posted May 23, 2011 The reports in the liberal left press were not particularly rabid, but my reaction was as would be that of most consumers I think. Given the failure of trust in government, one instinctively feels that this type of measure might be slipped through on a bad news day, though it seems that the EU parliament is to vote on it.As a retired medical professional, do you trust the research these days, given the pressures on researchers from funders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSKS Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Woolybanana:I trust independent medical research much more than I trust a biased and ignorant press. But then I suppose I have had over 30 years of sorting the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, so I can analyze reports and gauge their independence.Whether or not feeding dead animals to other animals is potentially putting human health at risk is really a matter for microbiologists rather than politicians or editors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 [quote user="woolybanana"]If the science is good, that doesn't mean it is acceptable, JK. At this moment in time, when the emphasis is on healthy eating and bio, it is not acceptable to suggest feeding animal remains to any farmed animals.[/quote]Does this mean that it alright to feed animal remains to my dog, my cat, myself and my (non-vegetarian) guests but not to my pig even though pigs are naturally omnivores? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now