Mad Cow in the United States?...Holy Cow!

By Rob Nagle
Opinions Editor

Illustration by Tracy Held

Put down that steak burrito! Throw out that double cheeseburger! (Unless of cou-rse you want your brain to turn to sponge) Surprisingly, that's not the reaction the media had to the recent discovery of mad cow di sease in Washington state. (The infected cow was conveniently found to have come from Canada.) Instead, the media decided to play the role of supporter for both the beef industry and President "I had beef yesterday, I had beef today and I'm going to have beef tomorrow" Bush. (Judging by his foreign policy, there's a distinct possibility the president already has new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, the final stage of which makes the brain become sponge like due to the damaging protein like prions that worm their way through the brain.)

To a large degree this makes sense. The chance of anyone contracting nvCJD, the human variant of mad cow disease, from one infected cow is slim. Since En-gland first discovered the connection between Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), better known as Mad Cow disease, and nvCJD, the Food and Drug Administra-tion, and to a lesser degree the United States Depart-ment of Agriculture has made some effort to protect livestock here in America, but has it done enough and has enforcement been consistent? Certain events would suggest otherwise.

Recently seven people from Cinnaminson, New Jersey, "died of a closely related disease after eating at the Garden State Race Track in Cherry Hill," as reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer. They were found to have died from what is called sporadic CJD, a naturally occurring disease very similar to new variant CJD. A New Jersey accountant started asking some questions when her acquaintance, one of the victims, died from the disease at the unusually young age of 29, which is reportedly very rare since sporadic CJD usually strikes the elderly and is often misdiagnosed as Alz-heimer's disease. All seven had been traced to a now closed horse racetrack where they either worked or ate when they visited. This story barely registered as a blip on the national media's radar, and as of yet its conclusions are, well, inconclusive.

However, there has been further study on the relationship between sporadic CJD and nvCJD that reinforces the belief that someone who eats contaminated beef may be diagnosed as coming down with sporadic CJD seemingly "out of the blue." According to the web-site organicconsumers.org, where this information was gleaned, "We've known about CJD for decades, since well before the first mad cow was discovered in 1985. Some ca-ses of CJD seemed to run in families; other cases seemed to just arise spontaneously in about one in a million people every year, and were hence dubbed 'sporadic.'" The web-site goes on to say "Hundreds of confirmed ca-ses of the sporadic form of CJD.... arise in the United States every year, but the beef industry is quick to point out these are cases of sporadic CJD, not the new variant known to be caused by Mad Cow disease." No one seems to know what causes sporadic CJD, but research by a Professor Collinge, head of the Uni-versity College of London lab "suggests that not hundreds but thousands of Americans die of sporadic CJD every year, and some of these CJD deaths may be caused by eating infected meats after all." The families affected by this disease are told the incidence of the disease is random, but Professor Collinge says, "I guess we can no longer say that." To back up these claims Collinge says "we are not saying that all or even most cases of sporadic CJD are as a result of BSE exposure, but some more recent cases may be-the incidence of sporadic CJD has shown an upward trend in the UK over the last de-cade...serious consideration should be given to a proportion of this being BSE-related. Switzerland, which has had a substantial BSE epidemic, has noted a sharp increase in sporadic CJD." According to organiccomsumers.org, Switzerland had the highest rate of Mad Cow disease in Europe during the 90's, "and their rate of sporadic CJD doubled."

These incidents raise doubts about the safety of our food supply that the media should look at. The biggest question is why the FDA waited until 1997 before making it illegal to feed cattle the slaughtered remains of other cattle, a big business cost-cutting measure that should have never been allowed in the first place since cattle are by nature vegetarians. This cost cutting measure is exactly how the dangerous prion that causes Mad Cow disease is spread through livestock. The prion is found mainly in the spine and brain tissue of ruminant (hoofed) animals; parts of the cow that are not sold to consumers. In an effort to get maximum output from the cow and to pad their feed they recycle these parts into the cows feed creating the conditions for Mad Cow to spread.

Certainly the beef industry has the cash and the clout to keep a lid on the idea that anything is wrong with American beef. Besides having a Texas cattleman in the White House to back them up, they're lucky enough to have one of their own as Chief of Staff to the USDA, Dale Moore who was formerly a lobbyist for the National Cattleman's Beef Association. Nothing like having friends in high places.

Every day we read one thing or another about our food. We're told we should eat as much fish as possible because of its healthy fatty acids, only to be told later to be careful of fish because of possible mercury contamination. We read about mad cow, and we're concerned but continually told how safe beef still is (forget for a moment its effect on blood pressure, cholesterol and colon cancer). Which brings us to the media's role in this story. Based on the amount of time the media wastes telling us what is good for us one day, and what's bad the next, you'd really wonder why most of the Mad Cow story is being swept under the rug. It seems there is at least enough evidence to ask some pertinent questions of the beef industry and the government's role in protecting America's food supply. A possible answer to that could be when you open up your newspaper to the story bu-ried on page 10 about the latest casualties in Iraq, and look over to page 11 and see "Beef, it's what's for dinner." That's a big ad worth big money. One thing you would never see is a story about Mad Cow on the same page as a beef ad, that paper would never get a beef ad again. So as far as the media is concerned, there are many things we do have to worry about eating, but one thing we don't have to worry about is our brain turning to sponge as a result of eating beef. Instead we'll leave that to the constant reassurances of the cattle industry, the present administration and its able-bodied lap dog and messenger of goodwill, the national news media.

From the Mouth of Miles

By Miles Harwell
Guardsman Staff Writer

It's no secret that a large percentage of people in America are overweight. Who is to blame for this besides the American people themselves? You could say fast food restaurants for putting out irresistible commercials ad-vertising their mouth-watering food, but I don't think so. Nobody shoved grease-covered food down overweight people's throats; they did that on their own. But who can dub them "unhealthy" for doing so when eating food that they enjoy could be living healthy by their own standards?

Which brings me to my question, what is the true meaning of healthy? Is eating small portions of food that is difficult for some people to digest without gagging technically healthy? Or is it taking a chance on eating mouth-watering, fattening food and risking becoming overweight healthy? Ult-imately the decision rests on the person. People should naturally eat accordingly to their body types, but as companies create new food products and more fast food chains open, dieting becomes even more difficult for the average overweight person.

The media likes to get in people's heads about what's healthy and what isn't, but who are these people to criticize others' eating habits? Sure, advice can be somewhat helpful in situations like this, but some of it makes people feel bad about themselves, which can cause overweight people to eat even more.

Overweight people are in some ways beyond dieting. If they jump right into a diet and change their eating habits completely, there can be side effects, including light-headedness and low blood pressure, because the change is so drastic. People who overeat get a bad rap, but what is overlooked is the fact that they are satisfying their own hunger, which I believe is healthy. Sure, they could eat diet foods and vegetables, which are certified as "healthy", but it may not be enough for overweight people. If hunger is not satisfied, then a person's body can't function properly.

The most effective diets are eased into. Some fatty food is kept and healthy food is gradually injected into one's diet. Even though a diet is never forced upon anyone, the media inadvertently manipulates us into believing that being skinny is good and healthy while being big is bad and un-healthy.

At least you know overweight people are eating. The media barely covers people who are anorexic. It comes down to the question of what is healthier: eating or not eating? Both can end up harming you in the long run, but what is worse visually? Someone with a large stomach or being able to see someone's rib cage through his or her skin. Think about it.

The bottom line is people should be able to make choices based on what they be-lieve is healthy for them, regardless of the media's perception of what is or is not healthy. If someone wants to eat fatty foods, then that's their business and no one else's.

You know you can take it to the bank if you hear it from the Mouth of Miles.

Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor:

Before George W. Bush's father became President, one invulnerable submarine could destroy any country on Earth.

The Cold War ended over 10 years ago. The former Soviet Union split into 15 co-untries. There are about 300 million pe-ople in the U.S. For each of the past 10 years, the U.S. has been spending over $300 billion for defense. In other words, the U.S. has been spending over $1000 per person per year for the last 10 years.

It would take about 17,000 New York City sized terrorist attacks to
equal the deaths of World War II. About 3,000 people died in New York on September 11, 2001; WWII killed about 50,000,000. One U.S. submarine now has more firepower than all of WWII.

According to page 207 of the 2003 World Almanac, the U.S. defense budget is 5 times larger than the Russian budget. All western European nations are allies of the U.S.

Still, George W. Bush has obtained large increases in non-terrorist related defense spending.

Sincerely,
Chris Collins
Albuquerque, NM