Has anyone heard anything about mad cow disease in Canada? - page 4

A couple of months ago the Red Cross sent me away because I had spent time in the UK. I just heard on the radio that MCD's been found in Canada. Is this true?... Read More

  1. by   epaminondas
    HoJo,


    I have been enjoying your posts.


    << You post looks interesting but I don't have one hour to read it. >>

    Not a problem. I am pleased to oblige with an abridged version:

    (1) << It is the position of The American Dietetic Association (ADA) that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. >>

    The American Dietetic Association
    http://www.eatright.org/adap1197.html


    (2) << Vegetarian diets can be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and meet Recommended Dietary Allowances for nutrients. >>

    Fifth Edition of the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans (2000)
    http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2000


    (3) << High intake of red meat appears to increase the risk of colon cancer. Someone who eats seven or more servings a week has a 50 percent greater risk of colon cancer than someone who eats less than one serving a month, according to the report. In addition, the report says those who consume five or more servings a day of vegetables and fruit cut their colon cancer risk by 30 percent. The ACS recommends choosing most of the foods you eat from plant sources, including five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day. >>

    The American Cancer Society
    What You Can Do to Reduce Colon Cancer Risk
    http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co...ancer_Risk.asp


    There - that's it.

    That should get you started.

    If you need any more help - just let me know.

    Always happy to oblige.

    __________________________________________________ ___

    Oh - you wrote:

    << Please take you post and post it elsewhere, I in no way see how your post is related to MCD. I stated this earlier >>

    Yes. You did.

    2ndCareerRN and Caroladybelle have already dealt with this issue far better than I can.

    To their points, I would like to add the following minor notes:

    (1) This forum is a "Discussion Board" - the intent is to encourage discussion of different people with different views, not to cut off discussion with those with whom one disagrees. Such is the etiquette of this board. It is how we learn from each other.

    Your attempt to cut off discussion on this board is inappropriate.

    But don't worry - no harm has been done.

    We all make mistakes.

    And we learn from them.


    (2) You might want to review the title of this particular discussion. It is << Has anyone heard anything about mad cow disease in Canada? >> not <<The Opinions of a South Dakota Cattle Rancher >>.

    If you wish to start a thread with the latter title, however, I will be most happy to contribute. ;-)

    Closing the border to Canadian beef is one issue - your one issue - but it is actually one issue out of many.

    As humans are exposed to Mad Cow Disease through eating infected beef, educating one another in regard to the food chain is also a legitimate topic of interest.

    That includes discussion of organic beef, Kosher beef, eliminating higher risk cuts of beef (hamburger, T-bone steaks, rib-eye steaks and short ribs), eliminating beef from the diet entirely in favour of chicken and fish, and/or of course, Vegetarianism and Veganism.

    There is a whole smorgasbord of dietary options from which one might choose.

    That you do not favour many of these optioins is open to discussion - but it is not closed to discussion.

    Not by you. Not by anyone.

    _______________________

    You wrote:

    << Sorry this post had to turn ugly but I guess some people around here thought they had to turn a legitimate concern about MCD into a post on vegetarianism. >>

    Oh - I don't think anyone thinks you have been all that ugly.

    A little clumsy, perhaps. But I don't think that you meant any real harm.

    Your apology is accepted.

    No problem.


    It is clear that your posts have been written from the vantage of your own economic self- interest.

    And that the posts of the six (6) people who have posted here in regard to not eating beef and/or to organics, Kosher foods, buying Manitoban beef, Vegetarianism and Vegansim - are motivated not out of economic self-interest, but out of health concerns.

    This has lead to interesting contrasts.

    ______________________

    << I have seen people who smoke drink eat bacon every morning live well into their 90's and I have seen a lady who exercised EVERY day ate NO red meat and she died from a AAA, she was in her mid 50's. So you can take yer vegetarianism elsewhere. >>

    LOL!


    HoJo -

    Arguing the health benefits of smoking anecdotally to a sophisticated health care audience will not take you very far.

    I have had the honour of being involved with placing more chest tubes and sclerosing more lungs than I can count - into the pleural cavities of lung cancer patients.

    90-95% smokers. Typically 60-120 pack years.

    Five year survival: less than five (5) percent.

    Sclerosing lungs is - in health care terms - "uncomfortable."

    That means that grown men do what they can not to scream.


    I have always respected them for that.

    Whether or not they succeed or fail.

    It is the trying that is so important.


    Arguing the health benefits of smoking anecdotally to a sophisticated health care audience will not take you very far.

    ______________________


    HoJo.

    If there is anything more we can help you with, just let us know.


    All the best -

    Epaminondas
  2. by   caroladybelle
    Epaminondas,

    I beg to disagree - my discussion of these matters had little to do health concerns or financial concerns.

    My spiritual beliefs motivate me to follow a kosher/organic diet.

    Just wanted to clear that up.

    Carolina in the South (on loan to Philly)
  3. by   HoJo
    epaminondas, Since you ask if there's anything you can do for me I'm going to take you up on it.

    How about a study on pre-albumin and albumin levels in

    A. vegans
    B. red-meat eaters
    C. control group (demographic sample)

    Also the same study in Hgb/Hct would be nice too, one with meat eaters and vegans this time. I realize though epam that you didn't point out the 1st study but since you are offering to help then feel free (cause the 1st study was on ONLY vegan canadian women, mean hgb was 13.1 +/- 1.0 = 12.1-14.1 hgb in a healthy Canadian woman)

    Who may already even have an increased hgb due to higher elevations increase the hgb. The demographics and research techniques are vital in lab studies like these. Which the orig one completely ignored demograhics and control groups.

    I have no problem eating any of our beef can't get much better than $1.41/lb for burger/T-bones/Ribeyes/roasts/ribs etc. I know exactly what the animal has been fed from birth to slaughter and its entire background sire/dam.

    So if you guys would like to save a little bit of $$ instead of paying $3-$5/lb for kosher/organic beef and $8-$11/lb for ribeyes/t-bones then I might make the suggestion that you go talk to your local farmer they are always down to earth and honest and will tell you exactly where your beef comes from. Because quite honestly I've stood on the kill floor of a beef plant next to a Jewish Rabbi and talked with and watched while he blessed 100's of beef animals, that's why I don't think kosher is regulated how you guys are led to believe. Because honestly have you ever STOOD on a kill floor at a beef packing plant next to a Rabbi who is pronouncing everything he blesses kosher? I didn't think so. Well I have and if you think kosher is any different than regular beef then you are in for a big surprise if you ever tour a beef packing plant.

    But honestly $1.41/lb for locally raised homegrown beef compared to $5-$11 at the supermarket for beef that you still have NO IDEA where it came from seems like a smart choice to me. And if you don't, well then we'll just look at that option as an ALTERNATIVE.

    Really though I don't the criticism, this is honestly one of the best topics on this forum right now. Its turned out to be quite interesting.
  4. by   HoJo
    I have seen people who smoke drink eat bacon every morning live well into their 90's and I have seen a lady who exercised EVERY day ate NO red meat and she died from a AAA, she was in her mid 50's. So you can take yer vegetarianism elsewhere.
    FYI too I never advocated smoking as a healthy lifestyle, I was just comparing two EXTREMES for reference. Give me a break man, lol. The point is you can lead whatever lifestyle you choose and still end up on the short stick when your judgement day rolls around.
  5. by   caroladybelle
    Sigh,

    Hojo,
    Please reread post #26.
  6. by   epaminondas
    Caroladybelle,


    Thank you for the correction. Much appreciated.

    As to yourself - and to any others whose dietary motivations I may have misattributed as health-oriented when the actual motivations may be spiritual, religious, philosophical, moral, ethical, traditional, esthetic - or something else I may be missing - you have my sincere apologies.

    I can assure you that there was no ill intent.


    Thanks, again -

    Epaminondas
    Last edit by epaminondas on Jun 1, '03
  7. by   epaminondas
    << FYI too I never advocated smoking as a healthy lifestyle, I was just comparing two EXTREMES for reference. Give me a break man, lol. >>


    HoJo,

    Vegetarians do not take prisoners! ;-)


    << The point is you can lead whatever lifestyle you choose and still end up on the short stick when your judgement day rolls around. >>

    Of course.

    But if and when you go to Las Vegas, HoJo, it helps to deal realistically with the odds.

    Smokers and people who eat an unhealthy diet, don't exercise, and/or are overweight can win, of course - but in the long run, they are betting against the house.

    And overall, over time, for most people, for the most part - people who bet against the house are gonna lose.


    If you have never gambled, you wouldn't know the sort of thing I am talking about, I suppose.

    Oh, I forgot - you raise cattle.

    You know what gambling is. ;-)

    _______________________________________________


    << How about a study on pre-albumin and albumin levels in

    A. vegans
    B. red-meat eaters
    C. control group (demographic sample)

    Also the same study in Hgb/Hct would be nice too, one with meat eaters and vegans this time. I realize though epam that you didn't point out the 1st study but since you are offering to help then feel free (cause the 1st study was on ONLY vegan canadian women, mean hgb was 13.1 +/- 1.0 = 12.1-14.1 hgb in a healthy Canadian woman)

    Who may already even have an increased hgb due to higher elevations increase the hgb. The demographics and research techniques are vital in lab studies like these. Which the orig one completely ignored demograhics and control groups. >>


    Uh - how about it?

    It is unclear to me whether or not you are asking me to create a study on these matters or to review an existing study(s) of which you are aware.

    If you would like me to create a study - which would involve a considerable amount of work: researching material, recruiting of patients, institutional review, etc. - I would be happy do so-

    After we to discuss the matter in greater detail - assuming that you plan to provide the appropriate funding, of course. :-)


    If, on the other hand, you would like me to review an existing study or studies of which you are aware - hey, I am game, as long as this doesn't turn into a marathon. If you would like to direct my attention to specific studies - title, author(s), journal, date, volume number, etc. - or a url if the material is on-line - I'll be happy to give it a stab. I am always happy to help to a reasonable degree, but I am not at this point motivated to spend the time to do a full research project from scratch simply to satisfy your curiosity.

    Nor am I interested in playing games or in winning debating points.

    If you want knowledge, then let's go for knowledge.

    Please clarify, and we can take it from there.


    A thought for you.

    Grandfather and Uncle Quentin were both cattle farmers (not ranchers - this was South Carolina). I spent childhood time on the farm and I was also involved in raising two steers for our own family's consumption on Father's acreage, as well.

    So I know a little something about the topic.

    But if I were to argue about specifics of cattle farming with you - I probably only know enough to hang myself.


    Contrariwise - when you try your hand at arguing the significance of health studies involving specific lab values in humans, unless you are specifically trained in human health care, you are likely to find yourself in over your head in short order.


    Overall, I would suggest that I would probably fail in arguing with you the best way to raise grain for cattle, the best ways to fatten cattle, and the best time to sell cattle, the best way to herd cattle - these materials are your livelihood, and you know far more about these matters than I.

    But, again, unless you are trained in health care, when you argue health care specifics with a health care professional you are probably gonna get trampled.

    Just a respectful word to the wise.

    ______________________________________________


    WARNING: Please bypass the rest of this post if you are squeamish about animal slaughter. Even a little bit. Or even if you might be. Thank you.

    << I've stood on the kill floor of a beef plant next to a Jewish Rabbi and talked with and watched while he blessed 100's of beef animals, that's why I don't think kosher is regulated how you guys are led to believe. Because honestly have you ever STOOD on a kill floor at a beef packing plant next to a Rabbi who is pronouncing everything he blesses kosher? I didn't think so. Well I have and if you think kosher is any different than regular beef then you are in for a big surprise if you ever tour a beef packing plant. >>


    I have never had the honour.

    But I do have questions. And you are the man to ask.


    (1) I understand that in conventional cattle slaughter the steers are stunned initially via a hammer gun off-center to the forehead (22 blanks/retractable cylinder) prior to bleeding - whereas Kosher slaughter involves a quick sharp knife across the throat on a fully conscious, unstunned animal.

    Is that correct?

    (We always just used a 22 at home - but we were small scale)

    Is the hammer-gun stunning largely effective? I have heard stories of multiple attempts being needed at times - apparently not every animal feels the need to stand quietly while this is happening, at times making the process difficult for the operator.

    If the stunning effort is unsuccessful - what then?

    Which do you find more humane - conventional slaughter or Kosher slaughter? (no disrespect to Kosher slaughter intended - I have just long been curious - E.)

    Thank you.


    (2) There is some concern that some slaughterhouses are not as well run as others (true of all things), and that economic pressures for ever greater efficiency may be placing considerable strain on the U.S. slaughterhouse system.

    Do you feel that slaughterhouse quality in the U.S. is much of a problem, or do you think that, by and large, the U.S. public is well-served?

    How does one judge a good slaughterhouse?


    << Really though I don't the criticism, this is honestly one of the best topics on this forum right now. Its turned out to be quite interesting >>

    More fun than an auto accident . . .


    HoJo.


    Looking forward -

    Epaminondas

    __________________________________________________ ______

    Guidelines for Humane Handling, Transport and Slaughter of Livestock
    FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
    Chapter 7
    http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6909E...of%20livestock
  8. by   Nurse Ratched
    I hadn't paid too much attention to this thread because all I had heard was that there was a single case of mad cow in Canada. But since it's wound it's way around to being a little bit about vegetarianism, I'll weigh in. I don't eat meat, but not for morality reasons. And it's not a fear of mad cow (altho certainly were I in other countries, it would factor into the decision.) I subscribe to the complex carb/low fat/moderate protein diet that has been traditionally espoused as a healthy way of eating. (I won't get into the high protein diets that have re-emerged in recent years as popular lifestyles, as that is even further off the beaten path of this thread .

    Based on what we consider risk factor for disease, I am doing fine - cholesterol 120, BP generally 90/60, and yes, hgb just fine. One might attribute my numebrs to my age and femaleness given what we know about the protective effects of estrogen for such things, but I know based on my daily experiences with females a decade younger than I that if you abuse your body sufficiently with poor intake and lifestyle choices, that is not enough protection.

    I will also say that I also donate blood every 8 weeks, and had problems initially maintaining an appropriate hgb level to be able to donate. It took a simple modification of consciously adding sources of vitamin C to my non-meat iron intake to increase the iron absorption sufficiently. I now sink like a stone on my iron test when donating and happily continue what I feel is a healthier life choice than eating meat, which while chock full of many good things, is also almost invarably higher in fat, cholesterol and calories than I choose to put into my body. The good things that meat provides can be found in other sources.

    I am not going to argue with someone whose livelihood is dependent upon the issue. Can't possibly win as I am not similarly motivated on this topic. But I will say unequivocally that vegetarian diets, properly planned, can be much healthier (definition of "healthier" for my purposes: promoting well-being rather than disease) than meat-based ones. I find it hard to imagine that that point can be seriously argued.
  9. by   HoJo
    epaminondas,

    Interesting conversation we have here, and yes I do agree this is one of the most interesting topics I have seen on here in a while.

    Anyways onto the good stuff.

    (1) I understand that in conventional cattle slaughter the steers are stunned initially via a hammer gun off-center to the forehead (22 blanks/retractable cylinder) prior to bleeding - whereas Kosher slaughter involves a quick sharp knife across the throat on a fully conscious, unstunned animal.

    Is that correct?

    (We always just used a 22 at home - but we were small scale)

    Is the hammer-gun stunning largely effective? I have heard stories of multiple attempts being needed at times - apparently not every animal feels the need to stand quietly while this is happening, at times making the process difficult for the operator.

    If the stunning effort is unsuccessful - what then?

    Which do you find more humane - conventional slaughter or Kosher slaughter? (no disrespect to Kosher slaughter intended - I have just long been curious - E.)

    Thank you.
    At the meat packing plant, (they haven't been called slaughter houses for a while, no prob though) they killed all the animals the same way. With the stun gun first which is usually 22 blanks/retractable cylinder or highly pressurized air. From what I saw that day all the animals were knocked unconscious before they even knew what was going on. And then the Rabbi blessed them before they were bled out. So thats the reality of Kosher beef at least it was 10 yrs ago, it might have changed but I don't see why it would.

    So I can't really answer your question because that is the only method that I know that meat packing plants use. So to give you the answer you want yes all animals that I have seen are killed the most humane way possible, stunned then bled out.

    As for the part about the study, you seemed like the person to go to because you found that Hgb vegan study right away. However as I have pointed it is a flawed and inaccurate study as it has no control group to compare to. I just simply thought you might be able to find a more complete study.

    I assure you epaminondas, some people may not like me debating or disagree but when I was getting my BSN in Nursing 5yrs ago, I was trained to evaluate studies such as the one you presented and I find it flawed, but that's the only one I've looked at so far. I haven't had much time to look into the others that you posted a while ago as my PC is on the fritz and this is someone elses PC I'm using. Anyways 4yrs ago when I signed up for this board I had just completed nursing school, its nice to get some interesting posts on here. I can discuss lab values, health issues, whatever it is on your mind because I am an ICU nurse who also farms (raise cattle and crops).

    Anyways this is some good discussion going on here. I have met a few vegetarians in my time and believe it or not I get along with them just fine. As long as they don't try and tell me how to live my life, so just keep that in mind.

    Also I thought I'd throw in this little article South Dakota State University. Most cattle producing states have what is called a Beef Quality Assurance program (BQA). This program is set up by the producers to establish a set of guidlines for what is required to achieve the highest quality product possible. I think the South Dakota Cattlemen's website is down right now but this link does work
    http://www.sdbeef.org/newsRelease/Oc...%20dollars.htm
    What is the South Dakota BQA/CMP Program?
    South Dakota Beef Quality Assurance/Critical Management Plan (SDBQA/CMP) is a program to ensure cattle are maintained in a proper manner which will result in a safe and wholesome beef product for the consumer. Specifically, the SDBQA/CMP program is designed to prevent residues, pathogen contamination and carcass blemishes, such as injection sites and bruises
    After each cattle producer completes their training at a South Dakota BQA/CMP training sessions. This program oversees a vast area of interest to not only cattle producers but the general public/consumers as well to ensure a quality product that we are proud to market. However it does not stop there. Last year alone South Dakota Beef Industry Council spent $190,000 in research.
    http://www.sdbeef.org/newsRelease/Oc...%20dollars.htm
    The board also authorized $190,000 in funding to assist national promotion and research efforts, including advertising, BSE research, and a long-term study of beef nutrient sand their effect on human development, function, and health.

    The SDBIC is a producer-directed and funded organization representing all segments of the South Dakota beef industry. It is responsible for programs of promotion and research on behalf of the the South Dakota beef industry.
    So anyways just showing you that cattle producers are regular people just like you and me, some of them even nurses such as myself. As farmers/ranchers we are doing everything that we can to assure that the consumers are getting a quality product free from disease, treated humanely, free from drug residues, pathogens and carcass blemishes (bruises on steaks, etc.)

    Anyways this has been an interesting discussion.
  10. by   gwenith
    I haven't read through this thread and I only dropped in to let enyone who is interested know that the lastes new Scientist has a very good article not only about mad cow disease in Canada but it evaluates and discussed the risk to the USA.
  11. by   HoJo
    Do you have a url gwenith?
  12. by   NotReady4PrimeTime
    The URL for The New Scientist's collection of BSE articles is:

    http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/bse/bse.jsp

    There has been a great deal of research into the origins and transmission of BSE by scientists the world over. The main mode of transmission is though the ingestion of bovine nervous tissue. Britons developed the human form of BSE, variant Creutzfeld-Jakob disease because their sausages contained offal such as brain and spinal cord tissue in addition to scraps from other parts of the cow. In North America, nobody eats offal, it's too disgusting to consider. Prions are not found in muscle tissue or organ meats such as liver, therefore the risk of developing vCJD from eating Alberta beef is non-existent.

    Vertical transmission from mother to offspring is theoretically possible.

    However, it has also been learned that BSE may also occur as a spontaneous random mutation, which it appears may be the source of Canada's lone mad cow case. Over 2000 cattle thought to have a connection, however tenuous, with the sentinel case have been slaughtered and their brains examined. Thus far, more than 1400 have been negative, with results on the remaining 600 expected to be available in the next day or two. In light of the possibility of spontaneous mutation and the lengthy incubation period, to state categorically that the US is BSE-free is premature and potentially untrue.

    In recent years there has been a large increase in chronic wasting disease in other ungulates, especially elk, but also in deer and the occasional moose, all across North America. CWD is similar to BSE in its effects on the brains of infected animals. The single mad cow in Canada was not priority tested for BSE because it was thought to have pneumonia. The interval between slaughter and testing relates to the high numbers of elk and deer brains being tested, not some sinister plot on the part of Canadian cattle producers to endanger the livelihoods of thousands of cattle ranchers all over North America.

    The US ban on importing Canadian beef was a knee-jerk reaction. If there truly was an epidemic of BSE in Canada, it should have turned up in the US by now.

    The North American Free Trade Agreement should be repealed. It was written in such a way that the only party to benefit in any and all ways is the United States. It was designed to allow the US access to the best that Canada and Mexico have to offer, without requiring any similar exchange in return. Our natural resources are being plundered by the US and then sold back to us as manufactured goods at highly inflated prices, with taxes and duties slapped on them at every point along the way. One merely needs look at the trade deficits that exist to see this is true. The North American economy is in the toilet and alarmist, protectionist, isolationist Americans are jumping on the handle.

    Well, off to grill me up some Alberta beef for lunch!
  13. by   HoJo
    Well first of all I went to the url you posted however I could not find the info Gwenith posted
    I haven't read through this thread and I only dropped in to let enyone who is interested know that the lastes new Scientist has a very good article not only about mad cow disease in Canada but it evaluates and discussed the risk to the USA.
    Anyways onto to the good stuff, yes its possible the U.S. could have BSE.

    . In light of the possibility of spontaneous mutation and the lengthy incubation period, to state categorically that the US is BSE-free is premature and potentially untrue.
    However NO group has EVER discovered BSE in any cattle herd in the U.S. thats a fact that everyone seems to fail to mention. Sure we could have it, but then why has it not been discovered. Simple because as we already know BSE can take anywhere from 3-10 yrs to manifest signs and symptoms. And we also know that for 2yrs cattle in both Canada and U.S. could possibly have been exposed to bone/blood meal as I already pointed out in an earlier post.

    The use of such treated grain has been banned in Canada and the United States since 1997, but there are still many animals alive that were reared on such treated grain - and some might only now be succumbing to a disease they actually contracted in the mid-1990s.
    However the U.S. has not discovered any BSE in their herds at any point in its existence as a nation. The FDA is one of the most scrutinizing divisions of the U.S. government and I can assure you 100% that if a case were to ever come up then the whole nation/world would know about it. Unlike Canada who slaughtered the cow we are talking about on Jan 31, 2003. So the Canadian officials leave a cow head lying in a refridgerator for 4 months? Hmm, boy that sure doesn't sound fishy now does it? Why would they leave a dead cow's head in a refridgerator they suspected of pneumonia for god's sake?

    Needless to say Canada has a lot of questions to answer. Sure this may be a random mutation but the cow was already in poor shape, they thought it had pneumonia.

    Regardless though I doubt the U.S. will reopen its borders to Candadian cattle anytime soon. U.S. already requires a 7 yr BSE free period on all other countries so why should Canada be any different? Plus considering this cow was born in '95 and the case pops up in '03 they are right on the $$. And that is why the U.S. has no cases of BSE discovered, its called strict regulations and Canada should be no different.

    I'll move onto to NAFTA later on don't have time right now, lunch break.

close