Creating Prion-Free Cows

Dead sheeps by Per+Abrahamsen · 2007-01-01 22:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is great! Now we can go back to feeding the cows a healthy diet of dead sheep, which was how the whole "mad cow" thing started.

Re:Dead sheeps by WindBourne · 2007-01-01 22:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, that is not proven. It it THOGUGHT that scrapies is the same as Madcow ( and MC CWD CJD), but they are not certain. But even with that, I want to know how accurate is the test these days? It is great that they did not have any positive in what was suppose to be negative cattle. But will they get a good positive in an infected animal?

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Dead sheeps by MightyYar · 2007-01-01 23:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, Chronic Wasting Disease has managed to do a number on deer without anyone feeding sheep to deer - so don't be so certain about the origin of mad cow. It might have spontaneously occurred in cattle populations, or there might be some other vector.

For what it's worth, soybean meal is the primary protein source for cattle in the US, and it has been for a long time. IIRC, Europe was the only place where they had to grind up sheep and cows for protein because soybeans don't grow very well there in general.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Dead sheeps by AndroidCat · 2007-01-02 00:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Why yes, they should have been feeding live sheep to cows...

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Dead sheeps by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 01:20 · Score: 0

Either that, or someone disliked india and made up a story.
Re:Dead sheeps by slashbob22 · 2007-01-02 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

But will they get a good positive in an infected animal? As far as I understand with MC, CWD, Scrapies, CJD and Varient CJD the only way to ensure accuracy of tests is through a biopsy of the brain tissue of a dead subject. While there are tests for live subjects (clinical observations) they are not definitive.

--
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
Re:Dead sheeps by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 02:39 · Score: 0

Have account to busy to create another: wasn't it Ferrets that were fed to ferrets then feed to sheep that were feed to cows. the whole thing is that it is unhealth for s species to eat a member of its own species. Hence made cow disease.

Que No?
Re:Dead sheeps by Citizen+of+Earth · 2007-01-02 03:57 · Score: 1

Why yes, they should have been feeding live sheep to cows...

It occurs to me that all of the animals we commonly eat are herbivores. I guess this is good for disease prevention (in addition to the animals being easier to handle).
Re:Dead sheeps by Roger_Wilco · 2007-01-02 04:10 · Score: 1

But cows don't need to eat protein; they're ruminants, and can live very nearly solely on grass. (Or newspapers, orange peels, or other cellulose sources.) Feeding grain to cows is a way of dealing with grain surplus and allowing animals to be raised at higher density.
Re:Dead sheeps by AndroidCat · 2007-01-02 04:18 · Score: 1

Ummm... I think there are a few more practical problems with trying to keep herds of carnivores. :)

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Dead sheeps by bigberk · 2007-01-02 05:16 · Score: 1

We didn't have any of these madcow/BSE problems when these animals were fed a natural diet. In western countries, we have been force feeding these animals materials which they are not designed to handle - like tissue and blood from other animals.

As the parent said, yes cows can live entirely on grain and grass and they taste damned good after wandering around eating that stuff all day.

But in the name of cost effective feed, the industry continues to pursue this kind of garbage input instead of grains/grass. It's all about cost and the throughput.

I am concerned about my own health and I am eating less meat because I don't think the animals are given appropriate feed. If I encounter a smaller meat shoppe who can assure me the animals have been fed on a natural diet, I would still buy that meat in a heartbeat.
Re:Dead sheeps by SatanicPuppy · 2007-01-02 05:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Carnivores are more expensive to raise in terms of calories than herbivores...Those cows that you have to feed and water then get fed to the tigers or whatever that you're raising for meat.

Most efficient food is vegetable mass. Second most efficient is things that live on vegetable mass. Last comes things that eat things that live on vegetable mass.

On top of that, even if you could solve the problem of food efficiency, it would be extremely difficult to raise them efficiently, as carnivores are usually solitary or semi-solitary in organization. You'd have to keep them isolated from each other or they'd kill each other in response to territorial instincts.

Finally, raising food that would think of you as food is problematic. If a cow escapes from a cattle farm, it's probably not going to be a threat to nearby people, while a farm-raised carnivore is bound to be seriously feral and potentially very aggressive.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Re:Dead sheeps by dosquatch · 2007-01-02 05:36 · Score: 1

It occurs to me that all of the animals we commonly eat are herbivores. I guess this is good for disease prevention (in addition to the animals being easier to handle).
Swine are omnivores. Chickens eat bugs. Fish are typically omnivores or carnivores, and cannibals if the opportunity presents itself. Beef is the only thing we commonly eat that is exclusively an herbivore, and to hear a dietician tell it, probably the worst choice health-wise compared to pork, chicken, or seafood.

--
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
Re:Dead sheeps by NegativeFX · 2007-01-02 05:45 · Score: 0

That's fine, but I still dont understand how changing their diets will make them pr0n-free
Re:Dead sheeps by MightyYar · 2007-01-02 05:53 · Score: 1

I happen to agree that grass-fed beef tastes better, though some find it to be "gamey".

However, while prion disease in cows was apparently not widespread until the Europeans started feeding animal parts to cows, there are other prion diseases that have become widespread without any human intervention. While everyone would now agree that it will spread BSE if you grind up cows and feed it to cows, the actual origins of the disease are probably natural.

I'd be a lot more worried about being hit by a car than I would about eating a mad cow! Steak is too good to skip :)

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Dead sheeps by Seraphim1982 · 2007-01-02 05:57 · Score: 1

People commonly eat animals that arn't herbivors.

Chickens will eat insects. Turkeys eat insects and occasionaly small animals. Pigs will eat almost anything including other pigs.
Re:Dead sheeps by Millenniumman · 2007-01-02 06:54 · Score: 1

You've got a point, but there are some interesting observations to be made.

Pigs will eat most things. They can also carry some diseases (Trichinosis), not as prevalent in other meats.

Chickens will eat bugs, but they do not make up much of a domestic chicken's diet.

Fish are generally carnivores, but those that eat other fish (rather than just bugs) have been known to contain mercury, and be dangerous if eaten too much.

You're right on both counts about beef, but they are not related. Beef is unhealthy because it has more intramuscular fat (which is sadly much of what makes it so good). Bison, which are herbivores but whose fat and meat is more separated, are healthy.

--
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Re:Dead sheeps by drinkypoo · 2007-01-02 07:29 · Score: 2, Informative

If a cow escapes from a cattle farm, it's probably not going to be a threat to nearby people, while a farm-raised carnivore is bound to be seriously feral and potentially very aggressive.

Cows are as docile as they are today because they have been bred for about as long as any animal we today have. It's true they were taken from relatively docile herbivores but not all are that way.

Llamas for example have been known to run people down and kick them for no apparent reason - presumably just because they don't like them. And Ostriches and Emus are both extremely hazardous to raise. A friend told me a story about some friends who got an obscenely expensive pair of breeding Emus (something like $50,000 in value) as a wedding present from a wealthy relative. Feeling that they couldn't just get rid of them, they began raising Emus. They learned quickly that when they put their head down, you run like hell, because they're coming after you. And you'd better be far away, because they run a hell of a lot faster than you do with those reverse-articulated legs.

You could probably raise carnivores to be more docile, though I doubt you could ever take it out of them entirely through breeding. But why? That would be a lot less efficient than just raising tastier herbivores.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Dead sheeps by Dahamma · 2007-01-02 08:35 · Score: 1

But even with that, I want to know how accurate is the test these days? It is great that they did not have any positive in what was suppose to be negative cattle. But will they get a good positive in an infected animal?

I think you misunderstood the study...

Prions are proteins produced in all cattle (and all mammals?) The problem comes in when the tertiary structure of the prion changes, leading to the diseases you mention. The study was actually to stop production of normal prions in cows, so that they would of course be unable to change structure to the dangerous form. Their test was whether the cattle expressed prions at ALL, not whether they found abnormal prions.
Re:Dead sheeps by Ced_Ex · 2007-01-02 08:45 · Score: 1

Most efficient food is vegetable mass. Second most efficient is things that live on vegetable mass. Last comes things that eat things that live on vegetable mass.

That does make a whole lot of sense, and certainly explains why we don't eat babies. Otherwise, if it were cost and time efficient, we'd eat babies for breakfast, lunch and dinner! YUM!

--
Live forever, or die trying.
Re:Dead sheeps by brre · 2007-01-02 08:56 · Score: 1

Yes, thanks to genetic engineering, now we can have our cannibal cows, and eat them, too!
Re:Dead sheeps by dosquatch · 2007-01-02 09:16 · Score: 1

Indeed. My answer was incomplete, perhaps misleading (re: implied cause & effect of a cow's diet vs. a diet of cows), but it did serve the purpose of illustrating that Citizen was flat wrong on both counts (that most of what we eat are herbivores, and that eating herbivores is somehow inherently healthier).

--
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
Re:Dead sheeps by jacem · 2007-01-02 09:40 · Score: 1

The problem is that people don't eat Holsteins we milk them. So is this entire experiment to produce a cow that can be safely fed to other cows when it no longer produces milk?

JACEM

--
DOC Disinformation Obfuscation and Confusion
The carrot to FUD's stick
Re:Dead sheeps by TubeSteak · 2007-01-02 10:03 · Score: 1

Cows are as docile as they are today because they have been bred for about as long as any animal we today have.
...
You could probably raise carnivores to be more docile, though I doubt you could ever take it out of them entirely through breeding.
Dogs are (AFAIK) the first domesticated animal and they originated from wolves aka carnivores.

Dogs were not just kept around for companionship, they were a handy source of food when meat couldn't be found.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Dead sheeps by drinkypoo · 2007-01-02 10:11 · Score: 1

Dogs are (AFAIK) the first domesticated animal and they originated from wolves aka carnivores.

You might notice that excited dogs have been known to bite quite a bit harder than they intend, although some breeds are definitely more prone to this than others. Also that injured dogs have often been known to behave in ways that we're not used to - when cows fall back on instinct, they might charge but they're more likely to run away (save for bulls) whereas when dogs fall back on instinct, they might jump in any direction, and that direction is as likely to be for your throat as some other way.

I'm not saying that inside every Dog lies a secret killer or anything. I'm just saying that if Dogs were the size of Cows they probably wouldn't be too fucking tolerant of us. :D But seriously, no matter how much you domesticate dogs, they're not going to be as docile as a well-domesticated herbivore. Carnivores have hunting instincts. Herbivores don't need to be much of a badass to sneak up on a blade of grass. Sometimes they need to be pretty badassed for defense, but frankly those instincts don't tend to come on until it's too late and their neck is already pinned and the hydraulic hammer is about to fire.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Dead sheeps by spun · 2007-01-02 10:57 · Score: 1

if a cow escapes from a cattle farm, it's probably not going to be a threat to nearby people,

"Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!"
--Troy McClure

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Dead sheeps by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 12:19 · Score: 0

There is a very strong correlation between CJD cases and moose country. Cattle grown in moose country aren't feed anything but grass and a small amount of grain (sometimes when they are fattened) but mostly feed off open plains. The scary part is the CJD cases weren't being properly reported by governments but the NIH now claims about 200 cases in the US per year.
Re:Dead sheeps by AndroidCat · 2007-01-02 12:37 · Score: 1

Carnivores are more expensive to raise in terms of calories than herbivores.
And it costs a bit more in farmhands too!

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Dead sheeps by VirusEqualsVeryYes · 2007-01-02 16:04 · Score: 1

biopsy of the brain tissue of a dead subject
I believe the word you are looking for is autopsy. Biopsies are performed on the living, autopsies on the dead.

Grammar^W Vocab Nazi, I know. I'll craw back under my rock now.
Re:Dead sheeps by slashbob22 · 2007-01-02 17:29 · Score: 1

I believe the word you are looking for is autopsy. Biopsies are performed on the living, autopsies on the dead. You are correct. I believe, however, the word you are looking for is necropsy. An autopsy is performed on one's own species, a necropsy is performed on an animal or inanimate object.

Grammar^W Vocab Nazi, I know. I'll craw back under my rock now. Speak for yourself. I'll crawl out, from under my rock, now.

--
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
Re:Dead sheeps by cthulhu11 · 2007-01-02 18:37 · Score: 0

The only way to win is not to play.

Go vegan!
Re:Dead sheeps by thegnu · 2007-01-03 03:04 · Score: 1

Speak for yourself. I'll crawl out, from under my rock, now.

Must...refrain...from mentioning...gratuitous....aaGGHHH!!!....commas.

*breathes heavily* ...too late...

--
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Re:Dead sheeps by gstoddart · 2007-01-03 07:19 · Score: 1

You could probably raise carnivores to be more docile, though I doubt you could ever take it out of them entirely through breeding. But why? That would be a lot less efficient than just raising tastier herbivores.

Well, sometimes you need Kzinti around, but you need them to be far less volatile than they started out. =)

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

That is one solution... by abscissa · 2007-01-01 22:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

... or you could just not feed them parts of their dead relatives?

Re:That is one solution... by Oswald · 2007-01-01 22:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Isn't it encouraging to know that, while your solution works in theory, it's not good enough in practice because you can't trust people not to do that.
Doesn't seem that hard, really, but people are pretty stupid.
Re:That is one solution... by Miksu77 · 2007-01-01 22:58 · Score: 5, Informative

Or you could take the road us Finns have taken: Nowadays each and every cow that dies here is tested and not a single piece of a particular animal may be used to produce food unless that animal has been tested.
Re:That is one solution... by Futurepower(R) · 2007-01-01 23:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, but the Finns have a government that serves the people.
Re:That is one solution... by markdavis · 2007-01-02 00:44 · Score: 1

>... or you could just not feed them parts of their dead relatives?

Yep, that would be pretty logical, considering that cows are vegetarians and should never be eating other animals, anyway. You could come up with some interesting sayings:

"People don't let cows eat people"
"Cows don't let cows eat cows"
"People don't let cows eat cows"
"Cows don't let people let cows eat people or cows"

It is kinda humorous- cows eating people! My solution is that I just don't eat cows or pigs :)
Re:That is one solution... by Vellmont · 2007-01-02 01:04 · Score: 1

it's not good enough in practice because you can't trust people not to do that.

Farmers don't just cut up some cow and feed it to another cow. They buy feed from the local distributor, and often times don't even know what's in the feed. The distributor gets it from a large manufacturer. It's pretty hard for the large manufacturers to hide it if they're putting cow into cow feed.

The current small number of mad cow incidents results from old feed fed to cows years ago (or at least it can be traced to old feed). Manufacturers were too cheap and probbably weren't required to destroy all the old potentially contaminated feed. The point is that bans DO work, they just should have been more complete and might even now have some holes in them. (I seem to remember someone complaining about not enough restrictions).

There is good news though. It's quite hard to get the human form of BSE from eating infected cow meat. In the UK during the 80s there were hundreds of thousands of infected cattle, and only 160 recorded cases of vJCD (the human form of mad cow).

--
AccountKiller
Re:That is one solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 01:10 · Score: 0

...or you could just not feed them parts of their dead relatives?

I see your point... Eating cows does seem rather vile.

It might be in better taste to let the material go to waste, even if a protien is just a protien. Cows ought to go vegetarian: A healthy diet of fresh vegetation and soy meat-substitutes. Yeah.. That should keep costs down.
Re:That is one solution... by RvLeshrac · 2007-01-02 01:27 · Score: 1

IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!

--
This signature does not exist. It has never existed. It is all a figment of your imagination.
Re:That is one solution... by poser101 · 2007-01-02 02:10 · Score: 1

Good point. So, when your mother dies, maybe you can just eat her remains after the funeral. After all, a protein is just a protein. Better not let her go to waste. ;-)

--
Vegetarian

--
The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.
Re:That is one solution... by elrous0 · 2007-01-02 02:35 · Score: 1

Or you could just not feed them at all. Aside from nuking them from space, it's the only way to be sure.
-Eric

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:That is one solution... by Frangible · 2007-01-02 03:10 · Score: 2, Informative

No kidding. All cows are already created "prion free" naturally... it is our feeding them unnatural shit they should never eat that's the problem. You don't need to have a pharma company engineer a fucking cow to fix that problem. I like my steak as much as the next guy, but it's pretty messed up what we do to farm animals.
Re:That is one solution... by poser101 · 2007-01-02 03:21 · Score: 1

Actually, I'm not saying it's wrong. It's just very disgusting and neanderthalistic in my opinion. We are evolved creatures; we are at the point with all of our technology (being able to synthesize proteins, the multitude of vitamins at our disposal, etc.) that we no longer NEED to feed on flesh to survive. Yet, we choose to eat other sentient beings because of their taste. The thought of eating meat brings to my mind a caveman ripping the leg off of some pre-historic cow and ripping into it with his razor-sharp teeth. Just unnecessary and anti-evolutionary, that's all.

--
The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.
Re:That is one solution... by RexRhino · 2007-01-02 03:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yes, but the Finns have a government that serves the people.

Given the fact that Finns pay (on average) 22% more for food than the EU average ( http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Food+still+expens ive+in+Finland+by+European+standards/1076153030941 ), and given the fact that 'Mad Cow' disease is so astronomically unlikely to infect anyone when absolutly no precautions are being taken, any reasonable person has to question the cost/value of food paranoia.

I would say Finns requiring test for Mad Cow to be more about protectionism (it is against trade rules to outright ban foriegn beef, but if you require very specific and expensive testing on beef that isn't harmonized with other countries, and then subsidize the testing for domestic producers, you can essentially sidestep trade rules).
Re:That is one solution... by Slightly+Askew · 2007-01-02 03:34 · Score: 1

Well, I am feeling a bit peckish.

--
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
Re:That is one solution... by bberens · 2007-01-02 03:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Agriculturalism leads to overpopulation, disease, and eventually famine. Technically speaking, we'd be more in balance with nature as hunter/gatherer. I suppose that's too anti-evolution for you though.

--
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Re:That is one solution... by ceoyoyo · 2007-01-02 03:52 · Score: 1

Actually, we're pretty bad at synthetic food. Well, no, more like really, really bad. If you tried to go all synthetic food you'd die pretty quickly. We're even so bad at merely PROCESSING food that it tends to make us sick.

I wonder if there's any turkey left over. Gobble gobble gobble!
Re:That is one solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 04:14 · Score: 0

The cost to test a cow brain is a small fraction of the value of the meat.
Re:That is one solution... by RexRhino · 2007-01-02 04:26 · Score: 1

The cost to test a cow brain is a small fraction of the value of the meat.

It isn't just the test, it is having a specific test for Finland. If there was some sort of global harmonized testing standards, it would be easy and cheap enough to implement testing. The investment in testing would pay off right away when selling meat on the global market. But besides the cost of each test, there are the fixed costs of tooling up for the test, the cost of the associated beurocracy and liability, the cost of training, the costs of dealing with language differences (after all, this is a Finn specific law, not a globally recognized standard), the cost of local legal council. This gives domesticly produced meat a great advantage in the market, and at the same time doesn't protect anyone (as BSE is so rare as to not really be a problem... the heart disease and/or obesity caused by eating too many hamburgers or steaks is a far greater danger than BSE).
Re:That is one solution... by cayenne8 · 2007-01-02 04:29 · Score: 1

"My solution is that I just don't eat cows or pigs :)"
Hehe...I just couldn't do it..I didn't get to the top of the food chain to just eat lettuce.
I like my 'dead animal'....my smoker just wouldn't be the same without them.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:That is one solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 04:37 · Score: 0

Why wait? I ate your mother last night, and she is still alive!
Re:That is one solution... by cnettel · 2007-01-02 04:55 · Score: 1

Agriculturalism leads to technology.
Re:That is one solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 05:56 · Score: 0

given the fact that 'Mad Cow' disease is so astronomically unlikely to infect anyone when absolutly no precautions are being taken, any reasonable person has to question the cost/value of food paranoia.
A friend of mine died of it. It always pisses me off when the right-wing corporate apologists currently masquerading as pundits and politicians say things like "You don't know anybody who died of Mad Cow disease!" and if one of them ever does it in my physical presence they better hope I don't reach 'em before security brings me down.

These cost/value judgements only work when you are talking about other people's loved ones.

If your only child died of JKD that'd be 100% of the sample you cared about. Get it?
Re:That is one solution... by webfiend · 2007-01-02 06:07 · Score: 1

Silly question: does this practice affect the consumer's price (or taxes) for beef?
Re:That is one solution... by fithmo · 2007-01-02 06:21 · Score: 1

it is against trade rules to outright ban foriegn beef

Really? Does this only apply to Europe? Because Japan banned the import of American beef for two years because we didn't test to their standards.
Re:That is one solution... by bunions · 2007-01-02 06:33 · Score: 1

> Does this only apply to Europe?

Yes, obviously. America also banned import of Canadian beef a while back.

--
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Re:That is one solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 06:41 · Score: 0

Or you could take the road us Finns have taken

Finns eat beef? I find that surprising. What about PETA? How are you managing to keep the animal rights people happy while fostering the meat business? I guess I'd assumed all the EU nordic states would have banned beef if only the spare vegitarians the ignominity of living among meat eaters. What do you use it for? Some sort of Finnish McDonalds?
Re:That is one solution... by RexRhino · 2007-01-02 06:42 · Score: 1

So what if your friend died. People die of all sorts of things... heart attacks, car accidents, cancer, murder, airplane crashes. Life carries a certain amount of risk. Just because your friend died of something completly unlikely to happen, doesn't excuse your rabid right-wing totalitarian police state mentality. I don't want to ban cars, or restrict people from driving just because a friend of mine died in a car accident... so just because your friend died of something that has killed orders of magnitude less people, doesn't mean we should immediatly implement costly testing, of dubious effectiveness, to prevent an illness less dangerous than ball lightening.

If I said "If only your child died of terrorism, then that is all you would care about - Therefore you are a right wing terrorist apologist for not supporting warrentless wiretapping of suspected terrorists", you would be incredulous. Your arguement is just as insane, except for the fact that your chances of getting mad cow disease are even more astronomically unlikely than being killed by a terrorist.

If you are worried about mad cow disease (as opposed to something much more likely, such as meteorites, lightening strikes, or anthrax in the mail), the answer is simple - Don't eat beef. That reduces the risk of a healthy person from contracting BSE to zero. If you are too weak to give up beef, purchase beef from organic producers who only feed their cows plant products and who strictly test their beef. If you are too damn lazy to do that, and insist on purchasing your beef for the lowest effort possible from a drive-through window, don't punish the rest of society for your laziness by making beef more expensive for them.
Re:That is one solution... by RexRhino · 2007-01-02 06:53 · Score: 1

Really? Does this only apply to Europe? Because Japan banned the import of American beef for two years because we didn't test to their standards.

Duh! That is what I am saying. They can't ban beef and say "We are banning beef because we are trying to protect domestic markets", because that would be against trade agreements. So you implement costly and difficult testing standards (offering subsidies and tax breaks to compensate local producers), knowing that a lot of beef producers will not be able to afford to meet the standards, and that it will take many more a long time to purchase the equipment and implement the standards, and then there is also the difficulty of implementing 20 or 30 different standards for 20 or 30 different meat importing countries, and you have effectively limited the import of beef without actually having to use quotas or tariffs or other things that would get you in trouble with the WTO.

Beef is far more likely to give you a heart attack, or to cause obesity or obesity related illness, and kill you that way - than the extremly small chance of mad cow disease. Heart disease is the #1 killer in most industrialized countries, and beef consumption is directly related to heart disease. If governments were truly interested in protecting the health of their populations, instead of just protecting local beef producers from competition, they would ban beef, period.
Re:That is one solution... by drinkypoo · 2007-01-02 07:33 · Score: 1

There are lots of other options. You could eat Buffalo; Buffalo won't stand for being kept in feedlots and all that shit, so you really can't raise them in such crap conditions as we usually raise pigs and cows. Likewise emu and ostrich. A lot of wild venison is available in some markets in season. And of course there's all kinds of free range and organic meat (as in they are raised organically, and their feed is also organic.) It costs more, but it's arguably worth it. As my friend Rodent says, "You are NOT what you don't eat... you're what you don't poop." And lots of the nasty shit that we spray around so liberally is bioaccumulative - you definitely don't poop it. Do you want to be made of toxic wastes?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:That is one solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 08:07 · Score: 0

Given the fact that Finns pay (on average) 22% more for food than the EU average

Though interesting, a single number, taken out of context like that, means little. But I'd suspect that any elevation in food prices might also be related to geography. Due to remoteness, food is generally more expensive in Northern Europe since more items need to be imported, and economies of scale are less frequent. It may be hard to find a "factory farm" in Scandanavia, but this is a very good thing. One need not duplicate the American way in tedious detail. Quality always comes at a price.

One can't simply say, "high price = bad; low price = good."
Re:That is one solution... by EtherMonkey · 2007-01-02 08:27 · Score: 2
Was that:
- pharma company engineer a fucking cow
or
- pharma company engineer fucking a cow?
it's pretty messed up what we do to farm animals.
Indeed!
--
--- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
Re:That is one solution... by RexRhino · 2007-01-02 11:08 · Score: 1

One can't simply say, "high price = bad; low price = good."

One CAN say "high price = bad" and "low price = good" when people aren't given the decision for themselves. I have no problem if people want to purchase high quality food that has been extensively tested. But I also don't have a problem if people don't want to pay the premium to have their food tested. Our society can and should accomidate people's choice to consume whatever they want. When the government decides on "The One True and Proper Way People Should Live", it is always wrong, because there is no "One Proper Way". Diversity and choice are always more desirable than a government enforced monoculture.

As for the "factory farm" comment, there is pretty much no way to provide food to millions of urban dwellers in the way people are accustomed to without technology and mass production. Every nation without a starvation problem has what could be called "factory farming". The false belief that foriegn goods are somehow worse than domestic goods are perpetuated by domestic agribuisness in order to protect markets from foriegn competitors. You will find only minute differences between farming in most industrialized nations... despite the FUD exploited to force you to purchase domestic goods. Most food regulations are not about protecting citizens (because like I said before, heart disease is the #1 killer in the industrialized world - if they were really concerned about health risks, they would ban ALL beef, instead of worring about a statisticly insignificant health risk)... food regulations are about power and control.

The FUD, protectionism, tariffs, and subsidies are used to keep developing countries (which often have a natural advantage when it comes to agriculture because of climate and cheap labor) from competing with industrialized countries. It wouldn't be so bad if countries like, say Findland, were to say "We don't want our agribuisness to have to compete with developing countries - so we are restricting the choice of our citizens in order that our agribuisness can continue - screw the people in the 3rd world"... but it is falsly being represented as an issue of "food safety" (like you somehow aren't more likely to choke on your steak than catch mad cow disease from it). Don't tell me it is about safety, because eating beef in the first place is a vastly greater health risk than BSE ever was or ever will be!
Re:That is one solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 11:30 · Score: 0

While compassion does not excuse a poor argument your complete lack of regard for someones death shows, not a keen intellect as I suspect you believe, but rather a profound lack of the nobility that we as a species are capable of. We as a whole are better than "so what if your friend died" As to the parents argument while not exactly something a polymath would spout it does bring to mind other questions when paired with your bile. questions like If everyone trivialized the danger of a prion based illness by comparing it with the proverbial lightning strike then why wouldn't this person have felt safe? By the way is a lightning strike preventable via a different means of meat production or the inspection of some object like say.. meat? If so no one need fear the wrath of the gods anymore rejoice. Forcing manufacturers of consumables to take steps to avoid selling things that kill the people that ingest them is not totalitarian government it is merely common sense and all the straw men your long winded hyperbole contains won't change that. Terrorism and a medical problem caused by the meat industries rather disgusting cattle feeding process, are not capable of being equated, unless you are simply looking to press buttons in the neocon vein . I can only hope that you are shown more ruth when you must inevitably deal with a tragedy.
Re:That is one solution... by RexRhino · 2007-01-02 12:50 · Score: 1

Why are you such a heartless, ruthless Dubya worshiping neocon? The number one killer in the industrialized world is heart disease, and the number one cause is the saturated fats found in our meat based diets. Obviously, millions of innocent lives would be saved by banning beef outright. How can you be so cruel, and heartless as to say the government shouldn't ban beef? If a disease that has killed maybe 20 people is a threat that needs national action, clearly a disease that kills almost half of all it's population needs extreme national action! How can you spit in the face of all those people who lost loved ones to heart attacks like that?

If you aren't going to support a ban of beef, a product which carries far greater health risks inherent in it's consumption, then why do you think regulation over a disease that is so astronomically unlikely that it will only effect a handful of people is any more reasonable?

Hopefully when you are dealt a tragedy, you will be dealt far more ruth than you are showing for all the innocent victims of heart disease that you are helping to murder! Given the millions killed by heart disease, I would say you should be convicted of hate crimes for your speech because you are actually advocating the death of an entire class of people (those with heart disease) by not supporting a total beef ban!

It is time for you to get of G. W. Bush's dick, stop voting Republican and hating gays, and abandon your support for FUD based fearmongering based knee-jerk solutions to non-problems like Mad Cow Disease!
Re:That is one solution... by Syrrh · 2007-01-02 13:17 · Score: 1

Don't forget how many billions of square miles of planet surface could be reclaimed if agriculture didn't need to expand over every moderately-fertile lump of dirt.

Artifical farming hasn't taken off because there's no incentive yet, hydroponic factories are just outrageously expensive toys. I'd gladly pay a bit more for tank-grown food if it could be done, but it'd require abundant, cheap energy to be possible to even come *close* to matching the cost/output of agriculture, and that's not happening any time soon either.
Re:That is one solution... by StikyPad · 2007-01-02 15:08 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that paying more for food is necessarily a bad thing, especially considering the epidemic of obesity. Killing, or at least wounding, two birds with one stone might be good for us in the long run, much the way people believe higher pump prices would help wean us from oil. Getting the added value of safe food seems like a win-win.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:That is one solution... by RexRhino · 2007-01-02 15:25 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that paying more for food is necessarily a bad thing, especially considering the epidemic of obesity. Killing, or at least wounding, two birds with one stone might be good for us in the long run, much the way people believe higher pump prices would help wean us from oil. Getting the added value of safe food seems like a win-win.

I don't think higher food costs would nessicarily result in less obesity, as obesity isn't caused by over eating so much as eating really bad things. In theory, maybe some sort of tax on unhealthy food that would make unhealthy food more expensive, and fresh fruits and veggies and stuff cheap, might effect behavior... the trouble with that is that the political process is likely to declare domestic produced food healthy, or the food for companies that employes a lot of union workers healthy (so not to lost votes from the union), or foods from a company that donates a lot of money to political campaigns as healthy... and likely to declare imports unhealthy, or foods from a person who has politically unpopular ideas as unhealthful, or foods that are associated with percieved "lower classes" as unhealthy (lots of places want to ban fast food, but none seem to be banning foie gras which is just as bad... somehow the fact that rich people like it makes it less unhealthy :) ) The political process is really to manipulatable by special interests to be trusted with that kind of thing. (And I am ignoring the whole arguement that personal lifestyle choices should be managed by the government).
Re:That is one solution... by name*censored* · 2007-01-02 23:01 · Score: 1

Uh... making a satire of the other point of view by replying to your own post only really works if you post AC in one... otherwise you just look sort of insane for arguing with yourself. Your second post is insane enough that any moderately intelligent person could tell it's satire, without you having to spell it out.

--
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
Re:That is one solution... by name*censored* · 2007-01-02 23:30 · Score: 1

I've always been intrigued to see that the vegetarians are often part of the same mob as those who buy "organic" food - for humans who have evolved as omnivores (thats why we have both molars in incissors, because we eat meat AND vegetables), manufacturing the proteins/vitamis/nutritional value only naturally derived from meat that our bodies require is quite unnatural/inorganic. Ironically, the moral quandry of vegetarians (who are typically left-winged) compliments the moral quandry of anti-cloning pundits (typically right-winged), which is that "no sentient being should have to involuntarily die to help the life of another sentient being". Stories like this are a sort of curveball between the two arguments...
PS.
The thought of eating meat brings to my mind a caveman ripping the leg off of some pre-historic cow and ripping into it with his razor-sharp teeth. Just unnecessary and anti-evolutionary
You do realise that monkeys/apes (which we evolved FROM) are vegetarian?

--
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
Re:That is one solution... by poser101 · 2007-01-03 01:07 · Score: 0, Troll

I would eat the food described in the story you linked to. I've actually known about that for quite a while. I like organic food: It tastes better (fresher), it doesn't have unnecessary additives, and it's better for the environment. I'm also not opposed to eating non-organic food; actually, 75+% of what I eat is probably not organic. I don't really care much about cloning. As long as the host and clone are not harmed in any way, I don't see why it's wrong. I like stem cell research. And oh yeah, PS.

You do realise that monkeys/apes (which we evolved FROM) are vegetarian?
No, I didn't realize that... neither did Wikipedia apparently: [Apes] are best described as omnivorous, their diet consisting of fruit, grass seeds, and in most cases some quantities of meat and invertebrates--either hunted or scavenged--along with anything else available and easily digested.

--
The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=d by M0b1u5 · 2007-01-01 22:34 · Score: 2, Informative

I confess; I had to look up what a prion is.
I'm so embarrassed.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3A +prions%3F&btnG=Search

--
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"

Had to look it up by antic · 2007-01-01 22:36 · Score: 2, Informative

From Wikipedia: "a type of infectious agent made only of protein."

"Mad cow disease" is a prion disease.

--
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'

Re:Had to look it up by Rosyna · 2007-01-01 23:09 · Score: 1

A "common" form of prion disease in humans is due to Cannibalism. I can't wait until they do an episode of House where that's the cause. I so nailed the Chimerism in that one episode as soon as the bleeding disorder had completely different results.
Re:Had to look it up by cliffski · 2007-01-02 00:24 · Score: 1

That sounds very certain. I was told that BSE is 'probably' a prion disease. I thought they aren't 100% certain about that yet. This is what my missus told me, and she is doing research into BSE in the UK. Interestingly, she said she wouldn't eat these animals (with the prions removed). I wouldn't either. Until a scientist can explain with 100% certainty and accuracy exactly what something does, I'm not happy with them artificially adding it or removing it from stuff I eat. By all means research the stuff more, and by all means use some cutting edge science for stuff like laptops, mp3 players and cars, but I'd rather *not* be an 'early adopter' tech-wise, when it relates to stuff I actually put inside my body and absorb.

--
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games

Re:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& by wantobe · 2007-01-01 22:37 · Score: 4, Funny

Oh, that was "prion"? I was trying to figure out how cows were getting "pron", and why we'd want to take it away from them anyway.

Abnormal prions cause BSE by Timesprout · 2007-01-01 22:39 · Score: 4, Funny

or Mad Cow Disease for those of you like myself who had no idea what the headline was about.

The actual article headline "Mad Cow Breakthrough?" really should have been followed by a story about mad cow scientists were developing a doomsday weapon to destroy humanity, or that mad cow armies were breaking through our outer defense perimeter or some such. Would have been much more interesting.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe

Re:Abnormal prions cause BSE by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 07:05 · Score: 0

Here is the song http://cdbaby.com/mp3lofi/lyonsdana5-01.m3u
and the lyrics http://www.danalyons.com/lyrics/lyrics_for_public/ cows_with_guns_lyrics.html

I, for one... by MaineCoon · 2007-01-01 22:43 · Score: 0, Redundant

... welcome our not-so-mad cow overlords.

--
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000

Re:I, for one... by erlehmann · 2007-01-01 22:56 · Score: 0, Redundant

... am waiting for stories on slashdot about genetically altered humans, who cannot get a common cold or something like that.

"I for one, welcome our human immune-to-common-cold overlords."

[x] Downright scary.
[ ] Funny.

New cows? by jackharrer · 2007-01-01 22:48 · Score: 2, Funny

What is so new in those cows? Two heads? Fallout style?

--

"an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain

Re:New cows? by Simon+Garlick · 2007-01-01 22:54 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it be better to just, y'know, get to work on creating prion-free PEOPLE?

--

-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Re:New cows? by aussie_a · 2007-01-02 00:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not until we know the full effects it has in animals.

Dead cows as well by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-01 22:54 · Score: 0

Not only dead sheep, but also dead cows! Another hypothesis was the spontaneous appearance of the new variant in a cow that went into the food chain of the cattle. Actually cattle was just doing cannibalism...

What about the positive effects of the prions? by tade · 2007-01-01 22:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion mentions this article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=159 31169&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_DocSum that mentions the prions in relation with long term memory. I wonder how well they tested the cows without the prions. (Abstract below)

Changes in protein conformation drive most biological processes, but none have seized the imagination of scientists and the public alike as have the self-replicating conformations of prions. Prions transmit lethal neurodegenerative diseases by means of the food chain. However, self-replicating protein conformations can also constitute molecular memories that transmit genetic information. Here, we showcase definitive evidence for the prion hypothesis and discuss examples in which prion-encoded heritable information has been harnessed during evolution to confer selective advantages. We then describe situations in which prion-enciphered events might have essential roles in long-term memory formation, transcriptional memory and genome-wide expression patterns.

Re:What about the positive effects of the prions? by Tim+C · 2007-01-02 00:51 · Score: 1

It's not clear from the abstract (and you don't seem to be able to access the paper itself, not that I'd really understand it), but I assume that they're not talking about transmitting genetic information via the food chain, or that prion ingestion (or lack thereof) affects human long-term memory.

Assuming it's the memory of the animal itself, why would food producers care? These animals don't need to remember much more than how to mill around in a field for a while eating before being lead off to slaughter.

(Note that I don't necessarily condone that sort of an attitude; we may be breeding them specifically to eat them, but that's no reason not to make the animal's lives as comfortable as practicable)

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:What about the positive effects of the prions? by UncleTogie · 2007-01-02 02:57 · Score: 1

(Note that I don't necessarily condone that sort of an attitude; we may be breeding them specifically to eat them, but that's no reason not to make the animal's lives as comfortable as practicable)
Check the price on Kobe Beef. Those are some comfortable fraggin' cows. Next question.

--
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Re:What about the positive effects of the prions? by mapkinase · 2007-01-03 01:41 · Score: 1

From the article you cited they explain how absence of the prion protein affects yeast. Basically, there is one protein ADE1 which gene has a premature stop codon inside. For some reason, yeast needs this protein.

Without prion aggegates the termination always stops there, with it it sometimes skips the termination signal and produce mRNA of a complete protein.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.

It would be easy to fix by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-01 23:19 · Score: 1, Informative

The farmers feed the cows RENDERED cow feed made in big factories. It's very easy to stop the factories rendering down cows and sheep into protein supplements.

Even a break of feeding rendered meat for 1 complete cow generation would clear the contamination out.

The problem is the renderers have a strong lobby group and want to continue the practice, however unsafe, so they got a compromise. Instead they promise to only feed dead cows and sheep that were healthy. So they continue to feed infected meat to cows, just as long as the prion infection was at a too early stage to be detected. The US executive branch has gone along with this 'voluntary' code and practically no inspections are made to check it's being done.

It's why I don't eat US beef, because the US views the problem as something to fix in the PR dept., not something to fix on the farm.

Yet it's so trivial to fix, switch to vegetation based protein supplements for 1 generation of cattle, and poof the problems gone.

Re:It would be easy to fix by kimvette · 2007-01-01 23:52 · Score: 1

Yet it's so trivial to fix, switch to vegetation based protein supplements for 1 generation of cattle, and poof the problems gone.

The fix you propose cannot be patented; too much prior art and too obvious.

. . . or can it?

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:It would be easy to fix by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 00:27 · Score: 0

Patented??

I'm not sure what you mean, cows have always eaten grass for protein. This problem was caused by supplementing their feed with rendered protein supplement from sheep and cow. The disease crossed from sheep to cow and to man. There's almost nothing to suggest cow to baby cow contamination occurs, and if it does waiting a generation to see if the baby cow has it is enough. So it's enough to switch back to vegetable protein for 1 generation to clear it out.
Re:It would be easy to fix by Rich0 · 2007-01-02 04:02 · Score: 1

It's why I don't eat US beef, because the US views the problem as something to fix in the PR dept., not something to fix on the farm.

I heard that a US beef distributer wanted to do 100% testing of its beef so that it could market them as 100% tested mad-cow free. The USDA balked at this since it would put other distributers at a disadvantage. Although distributers pay for their own testing the USDA is somehow involved with this and were able to prevent the testing from taking place.

Gotta love the "free market" - where government watchdogs prevent industry from taking steps to improve its own safety. All in the name of lower costs. As if consumers can't decide for themselves whether they'd rather buy $1.99/lb untested beef or $2.09/lb tested beef. Just put them both on the shelf and customer decide...
Re:It would be easy to fix by Firethorn · 2007-01-02 04:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Sheeshh... And people wonder why I often point out that the US is not entirely free-market.

Still, if this part is true, I can understand why they didn't let them do it:
USDA has sole control of the testing processes in meat plants. And its
officials say they have rejected Creekstone Farms' pleas because the
company's tests don't detect mad cow disease in animals younger than 30
months. Most U.S. beef comes from 12- to 18-month-old cows.

Bad science is bad science. Let's not have 'security theator' become 'safety theator'.

From what I've read, you have a better chance of dying from the flu than catch Mad Cow.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:It would be easy to fix by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 06:24 · Score: 0

It's why I don't eat US beef, because the US views the problem as something to fix in the PR dept., not something to fix on the farm.

Is that so hard to understand? We need to accept so many other risks that are much higher than the risk of Mad Cow disease in order for society to function. Unlike Europe, the US as far as I know has never had a death from contaminated mad cow meat. But we have had deaths from E. Coli contamination and the like, so in terms of risk/benefit, even just taking food supply safety alone, there are other higher risks and less expensive things to tackle, compared to what has so far been largely a theoretical risk.
Re:It would be easy to fix by ravenshrike · 2007-01-02 07:47 · Score: 1

More like a better chance of being struck twice by lightning.
Re:It would be easy to fix by Rich0 · 2007-01-02 11:04 · Score: 1

Password expiration is likely to result in the use of weaker/written-down passwords, and rotation schemes that diminish security while not actually limiting the duration of a breach. Should it be illegal to employ them.

If the USDA wanted a disclaimer on the packaging explaining the caveat that the testing is not reliable on young cows as used in packaged meat that would be perfectly fine. Of course, the same caveat would apply to ALL distributed meat (whether they employ random spot-testing or 100% testing).

I'd still argue that 100% tested meat is better than untested meat, even if the testing isn't 100% reliable. And if there were a market for it maybe somebody would come up with a better test.

Truth in advertising is a perfectly good application of government regulation. Prevention of testing the government feels is unnecessary is not.

I happen to believe that irradiated and genetically-modified foods are perfectly safe, but I don't oppose nations that require them to be labeled. The public might consist of idiots but they still have a right to know what they're buying. They also tend to make wrong choices on election day but I'm not about to suggest naming myself as dictator either (even though this would clearly solve the world's problems).
Re:It would be easy to fix by Firethorn · 2007-01-03 05:11 · Score: 1

Password expiration is likely to result in the use of weaker/written-down passwords, and rotation schemes that diminish security while not actually limiting the duration of a breach. Should it be illegal to employ them.

Password expiration has it's uses, as you can also enforce a minimum password complexity policy and require that passwords not be written down(with penalties if you're caught). In any case, we're not playing around with people's lives with password expiration . We are with food safety, which is the purview of the FDA. And please note that I made a negative remark about security theator. I feel that many of the security requirements at the airport are a huge waste of time and manpower.

If the USDA wanted a disclaimer on the packaging explaining the caveat that the testing is not reliable on young cows as used in packaged meat that would be perfectly fine. Of course, the same caveat would apply to ALL distributed meat (whether they employ random spot-testing or 100% testing).

Please note that I was simply responding to the article posted, which seems to be on a site that's fairly anti-FDA. While my generic attitude is to let the company do testing, it's one of the FDA's founding mandate to prevent false claims(coming from the elimination of snake oil type stuff). The restriction on false claims has been extended to include misleading claims. In this case '100% BSE free' would be a false claim, as a majority of the cows would have a test performed on them that would claim BSE free even if the cow is infected, probably near 100% false negative rate. Even '100% tested negative for BSE' would be false, as the test isn't effective on animals younger than 30 months, and most are 12-18 months old.

"The tests are not designed to detect BSE in younger animals," said Andrea
McNally, a spokeswoman for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service. "So for Creekstone Farms to use the test to say its product is 100
percent BSE-free would be giving consumers a false sense of food safety, a
sense the test is not designed to give."

Now, if/when Creekstone agrees to use a new or existing test that is effective on the younger animals being slaughtered, then I'm sure the FDA will let them conduct 100% testing.

Finally, the Japanese are paranoid and a bit superstitious, and have a strong tendency to protect their local producers. You'd have a better chance at winning a lottery than catching BSE, especially if you don't eat brain products from infected cows. From what I've read you could pretty much eat all the steak and ribs you want, even from infected animals, and never catch the disease.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:It would be easy to fix by Rich0 · 2007-01-03 08:53 · Score: 1

I don't think that the FDA is concerned with any of this - the issue is with the USDA. Granted the FDA isn't a whole lot better with regard to enforcing tradition, but they at least attempt to be progressive.

How about "100% screened to reduce incidence of BSE" with a disclaimer underneath explaining the pros and cons of their approach.

Or how about no label claim at all - just brand reputation and private communications with foreign regulators (who are scientists who fully understand the ramifications of their methodology).

This isn't about truth-in-advertising. It is about setting a limit on testing to try to reduce industry-wide costs. Essentially it is quality-fixing instead of price-fixing. Similar stuff was done with airlines before prices were deregulated - there was a limit on the quality of meals served so that airlines couldn't entice customers by offering better amenities instead of lower prices.
Re:It would be easy to fix by Firethorn · 2007-01-03 18:01 · Score: 1

Dang Dyslexia. FDA->USDA. Same sort of stuff.

The article didn't say that the company wasn't allowed to conduct 100% testing, I think it was more along the lines of not allowing them to label their meat as 100% tested, which ends up being the same thing.

As for the 100% screened thing, again, this would be misleading. The .gov doesn't like fine print on the food, as there are companies that would try to take advantage of it.

And yeah, there is probably a bit of quality fixing in order to control costs. My thoughts is that this could be handled a different way, but from what I've seen articles frequently get facts wrong.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:It would be easy to fix by Rich0 · 2007-01-04 07:00 · Score: 1

The article didn't say that the company wasn't allowed to conduct 100% testing, I think it was more along the lines of not allowing them to label their meat as 100% tested, which ends up being the same thing.

Ok, how about this?

My thoughts is that this could be handled a different way, but from what I've seen articles frequently get facts wrong.

Sure, but a little googling shows that there is more to this than one article.

Think about the superheroes! by prionic6 · 2007-01-01 23:25 · Score: 1

Me and my fellow group, the PRIONIC SIX, strongly oppose this development.

-- prionic6

Mad? by maroberts · 2007-01-01 23:32 · Score: 1

ARS, with assistance from researchers at Hematech and the University of Texas, evaluated the cattle using careful observation, post-mortem examination of two of the animals ...I'd be livid!

--

Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon

Cow, are you mad? by CapitalT · 2007-01-01 23:37 · Score: 1

Answer

--
Syllable 0.62 is here at last!!!

Re:Cow, are you mad? by aussie_a · 2007-01-02 01:28 · Score: 1

Cow, are you mad? Cow: Of course not. I'm a chicken.

A better idea by OriginalArlen · 2007-01-01 23:45 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Prion-free cows have already been invented; they're called vegetables. I've been veggie for about 10 years now (since reading a study in the Lancet or BMJ - I forget which - reporting a massive 40-year longitudinal study of a very large sample, 100,000 or so IIRC, showing vegetarians lived 10-15% longer (controlling for other factors like smoking, alcohol, social-economic status etc.)

Since then I've found other reasons not to eat meat, namely a feeling that the animals would probably prefer not to be eaten, the environmental stuff, yadda yadda. But I'm basically selfish :)

--

Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven

Re:A better idea by Cederic · 2007-01-01 23:53 · Score: 2, Funny

I'd rather eat meat and die young. Pigs taste good.

As for environmental factors, the planet will do just fine all by itself. Until the sun explodes and destroys it, so I guess we'd better build some big engines.
Re:A better idea by nurmr · 2007-01-02 00:14 · Score: 0, Troll

I've been veggie for about 5 years now. I feel healthier, better, less sick, etc, etc, etc... whatever the reason. As far as I'm concerned there are more reasons to not eat meat, than there are reasons to be vegetarian.
Those meatarians out there should give life a long good look as decide how do I want to enjoy life: quick and painfull (and ignorant), or slow and healthy.
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 00:26 · Score: 0

Just try some mad cow infected meat and you too can become a vegetable!!
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 00:43 · Score: 0

Those meatarians out there should give life a long good look as decide how do I want to enjoy life: quick and painfull (and ignorant), or slow and healthy.

Perhaps it is you who are "ignorant" of the fact that the human body is built around an omnivorous diet.
Re:A better idea by Mr.+Capris · 2007-01-02 00:54 · Score: 0

Pigs taste good.
Shamelessly lifted from imdb: a Pulp Fiction quote.

Vincent: Want some bacon?
Jules: No man, I don't eat pork.
Vincent: Are you Jewish?
Jules: Nah, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all.
Vincent: Why not?
Jules: Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.
Vincent: Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.
Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker. Pigs sleep and root in shit. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got enough sense enough to disregard its own feces.
Vincent: How about a dog? Dogs eats its own feces.
Jules: I don't eat dog either.
Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charmin' motherfuckin' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?

--
Have you seen the arrow?
Re:A better idea by arkhan_jg · 2007-01-02 01:37 · Score: 1

It's somewhat of a self-selecting group though; in order to sustain being a vegetarian, you need a better overall knowledge of nutrition that your average person. It's perfectly possible to eat a balanced proper diet including meat, in fact it's probably easier to get the right amount of protein that way - but it's also a lot easier to have a fat-filled life of lard, burger and sausages than as a vegetarian. Bad nutrition does indeed lead to a shorter lifespan.

Still, as you say, there's other good reasons to be a vegetarian and i've no doubt that veggies do have much better nutrition than average.

--
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Re:A better idea by Detritus · 2007-01-02 02:01 · Score: 1

Many plants are full of "natural" toxins and pesticides. I just bought some dried beans and my cookbook warned that they would make me very sick if they were not cooked properly, which destroys the toxins.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:A better idea by aXis100 · 2007-01-02 02:19 · Score: 1

"i've no doubt that veggies do have much better nutrition than average."

I'm not trying to be unhelpfull, but nearly every vegetarian I've known looks like death warmed over.
Re:A better idea by elrous0 · 2007-01-02 02:40 · Score: 4, Funny

I think vegetarians just coast on smug fumes for that last 10%-15%.
-Eric

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:A better idea by elrous0 · 2007-01-02 02:44 · Score: 0

Well nothing wins over converts like a condescending, smug-ass attitude. By the way, have you heard the good news about are Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, you fucking ignorant heathen?
-Eric

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:A better idea by Powercntrl · 2007-01-02 03:19 · Score: 1

Prion-free cows have already been invented; they're called vegetables. ...which taste absolutely nothing like beef. What's the point of living longer if you're stuck eating rabbit food?

--

---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Re:A better idea by Lord+Ender · 2007-01-02 03:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Primates (tested on monkeys, very likely true for humans) who subsist at near-starvation levels of calorie intake life significantly longer than those that eat "normal" amounts of calories. Why aren't you starving yourself?

Also, if meatless diets are so obviously better for your health, why do so few health experts choose meatless diets for themselves? Perhaps the evidence is not as clear as you think it is.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 03:53 · Score: 0

Ahh, the "HOW DARE YOU EAT MEAT!!!" crowd arrives.

There's two types of vegetarians:

1) The true vegetarians. They're the ones who either really can't eat meat due to digestive problems or that's just the way they were raised. These kind of veggies are cool. They respect you as an omnivore. They eat Fake Bacon and say "Hey, if this is how meat tastes, I can see why you like it!".

2) The political vegetarians. These are the ones that are vegetarian because its the chic thing to do or they feel like they need to fit into some social group. These are the kind of people who sit and glare at you while you calmly and quietly chow down on your 12oz-still-red-and-mooing Tbone.
Re:A better idea by TheLink · 2007-01-02 03:58 · Score: 1

The Japanese in Japan live pretty long - and most of the guys smoke, drink beer, work long hours, don't exercise that much. The Japanese americans don't fare as well so it's probably diet or environment and not genetic.

From what I see, humans can survive[1] as vegetarians (they need to be careful to eat enough of X etc etc), but they thrive on fish.

So I think I'll keep eating fish as long as it doesn't have too much mercury in it ( drinking green tea is probably good for you too).

Trouble is we are running out of fish (modern fishing is _broken_. Look up "bycatch" - throwing away _dead/crippled_ 70-90% of what we catch is immoral), and our seas are getting more and more polluted. We need to be a LOT less wasteful.

[1] Being vegetarian is not "normal" for humans. You need special diets to do well - not as silly as those vegetarian diets cats but still silly nonetheless... It's not just for fun that chimps dig out termites and eat them.

Most types of vegetation aren't that nutrient dense - so strict herbivores have to spend a lot of time eating.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:A better idea by RAMMS+EIN · 2007-01-02 03:59 · Score: 1

I ate vegan (only non-animal products) for a while. I loved how everything was low on fat; it made me feel energetic, and I lost about 5 kilos in the first couple of weeks, and stayed on my lower weight (in case you're wondering: both weights were considered good). However, now that it's dark and gloomy outside, I find I like to eat heavier food, so I'm back on cheese and meat. Still, I wanted to share some of the links I collected while cooking vegan food:

Veganism in a Nutshell -- The Vegetarian Resource Group

PCRM >> Clinical Research >> Diabetes: Can a Vegan Diet Reverse Diabetes?

Vegetarians in Paradise/ Diabetes Diet/Diabetes Prevention

Strict Vegan Diets May Be Dangerous, Especially for Expectant Mothers and Children

My general verdict about vegan cooking is that it's fun, it's healthy as long as you counter the deficiencies you'll develop (mainly vitamin B12), and it's good for the planet and the animals.

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:A better idea by Kenrod · 2007-01-02 03:59 · Score: 1

Except many of the persons infected with BSE prions in England were home gardeners who used animal fertilizer on their plants. So being a vegan doesn't prevent you from getting the disease, it just makes you a little more smug than the rest of us who don't have the will power to resist our natural appetites.

--
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 04:01 · Score: 0

Fact: 100% of all vegetarians (eventually) become anemic. The human body cannot stay healthy without animal fats/proteins.
Re:A better idea by AndroidCat · 2007-01-02 04:13 · Score: 2, Funny

In the Bible, Abel was a peaceful animal-herder, and Cain was the homicidal vegetarian. What's up with that, huh?

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:A better idea by ceoyoyo · 2007-01-02 04:13 · Score: 1

Take one for a hike sometime. It's pretty funny.

It's HARD to be a good vegetarian. You have to know a lot about nutrition and carefully manage your diet. It's quite possible to do, and I know some vegetarians who are disgustingly fit, but if you don't you'll look like death until someone does you the favour of force feeding you a burger. Which you'll eat as if it were crack because your body is screaming out for it.
Re:A better idea by IMightB · 2007-01-02 04:14 · Score: 0, Offtopic

PETA == People for the Eating of Tasty Animals
Re:A better idea by illegalcortex · 2007-01-02 04:30 · Score: 1

I'd be willing to bet more people have died from e. coli in their salad than have died from BSE.

According to wikipedia, 157 people worldwide are known to have contracted BSE. It says the following about the Sept spinach outbreak in the US: "It would lead to 199 infections, three deaths, and thirty-one kidney failures by October 6, 2006." And that's just a single outbreak in a single first world country that lasted a single month. You can say maybe we just don't know about a lot of people who died from BSE, but the same is true of e. coli.

Or how about the fact that at least 555 people contracted Hepatits A from green onions in a single outbreak in Pennsylvania in 2003? Or the 2000 outbreak of salmonella in brean sprouts? Or maybe the 3000 people who got sick from salmonella ice cream in a single outbreak in 1994? Or the 1985 outbreak of listeria in cheese in southern California that led to 47 deaths?

I pulled all of these from wikipedia. And yes, it's very true that there are plenty of outbreaks of the same thing in meat. Unlike you, I'm not posting this as a public display of smugness and condescension. I'm simply pointing out that the real danger lies in eating food that other people grow and prepare. Not that you'd be free of problems even if you ate only food that grew in your own garden.

The fact of the matter is this - living is dangerous. If you must worry, worry about getting hit by a drunk driver on your way home from a New Year's Eve party. It's several orders of magnitude more likely to happen than dying from any foodborne illness.
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 04:43 · Score: 0

There's two types of vegetarians:

... er... apart from all the other types. What a pile of shit that post was, no wonder you posted AC.
Re:A better idea by CCFreak2K · 2007-01-02 05:07 · Score: 1

You might want to see this then. Just hope that space has diesel stations...

--
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Re:A better idea by TheLink · 2007-01-02 05:20 · Score: 1

Yeah it's quite possible for cats to survive on special vegetarian diets too. That doesn't make those the best diets for them.

Have to say the Burger + Big Cola + Large Fries diet + snacks is worse ;).

Still, I suspect that a diet of burgers (minus the TFAs) and plain water won't be that bad, and it's actually the large amounts of sugar water and fries that do most of the damage.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:A better idea by Embedded2004 · 2007-01-02 05:21 · Score: 1

Question: How is it good for the animals? If everyone was a vegetarian we wouldn't have _any_ farm animals. Infact, if everyone switched to not eating meat, the only choice for farmers would be to slaughter their remaining livestock.
Re:A better idea by coredog64 · 2007-01-02 05:22 · Score: 1

Glad to know I wasn't the only one who thought of that same thing when I read the PP
Re:A better idea by Embedded2004 · 2007-01-02 05:24 · Score: 1

I'm sure many people that eat meat (like myself) just do it because it's more healthy than not eating meat -- not because we don't have the will power.

Having to come up with a vegetarian diet which is as healthy as my current diet would probably be very hard.
Re:A better idea by RAMMS+EIN · 2007-01-02 05:26 · Score: 0, Troll

I believe it's better for animals not to live than to live under cruelty and imprisonment.

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:A better idea by OriginalArlen · 2007-01-02 05:46 · Score: 1

And do you really want to spend the last ten years drooling from the side of your mouth, unable to speak or care for yourself, because you've been partially paralysed by a stroke?
If you're still thinking "hell, yeah, what the fuck!" I suggest you go speak to someone with personal experience of stroke. (Of course meat eating's a risk factor for a whole range of funky diseases; the biggies are of course cancer and heart disease. Believe me, you do not want to die from stomach or bowel cancer.
That said, (a) of course, do whatever you want; (b) bacon was far, far, far harder to stop eating than beefburgers or steak. The other problem is that I was forced to eat lots of hideously over-cooked vegetables as a child, with the result that I have a visceral (literally!) dislike of cabbage, sprouts, cauliflower etc - even the smell makes me gag - so unless I make an effort, I eat a lot of cheese and egg-based stuff.

--

Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Re:A better idea by OriginalArlen · 2007-01-02 05:49 · Score: 1

I've never made any particular effort to have a "balanced diet" - I eat what I want, I feel guilty when I eat too much chocolate or rice pudding, protein? carbs? vitamins? Never bothered me, and I don't seem to be ill or unwell. In fact in the early days when I "relapsed" many times was when I really noticed how unwell I felt for a day or two after eating meat, compared to how I felt when meat-free. The main difference being not having realised how semi-constipated I was most of the time.

--

Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Re:A better idea by OriginalArlen · 2007-01-02 05:53 · Score: 1

Yeah, so what? What's your point? Don't eat poisonous stuff. I'm allergic to new-age hippy "it's more natural" crap. Though at the time of writing I see 17 replies, overwhelming negative, & the original post is modded 1 (insightful)... and now I just pissed off the couple of people who might have modded up. Fortunately my /. karma's not that big a deal for me ;)

--

Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Re:A better idea by raygundan · 2007-01-02 06:24 · Score: 1

Also, if meatless diets are so obviously better for your health, why do so few health experts choose meatless diets for themselves? Perhaps the evidence is not as clear as you think it is.

This is a little bit silly. Doctors are people, too-- just because there's evidence for something doesn't mean they're all going to live perfect evidence-based lives. There are fat doctors, alcoholic doctors, and doctors who smoke, and the evidence for those things being unhealthy is well beyond doubt by this point.

What would be interesting to see is what percentage of doctors do all of those things compared to the general population.
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 06:32 · Score: 0

Humans are called 'big pig' or 'long pig' in cannabalistic cutures.

How about It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef.
Re:A better idea by The+Anarchist+Avenge · 2007-01-02 06:43 · Score: 0

Hell... why live on rabbit food when you can just live on rabbits? Delicious.

--
Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:A better idea by Slur · 2007-01-02 07:02 · Score: 1

More healthy? It depends on what you mean by that term.

With every diet there's a trade-off. You may be getting slightly bigger boost of available nutrients by eating meat, but coming up with a vegetarian diet that clogs your arteries, stresses your kidneys, and acidifies your blood as much as a meat-centric diet does would be very hard indeed. The fact is that (a) you don't need all that much iron, Vitamin B12, etc., and supplements abound; (b) protein should be only around 5% of your dietary intake; and (c) as a meat-eater you're probably not getting nearly enough fiber. Check out The China Study for more.

I've personally chosen to stop eating all animal products despite the extra effort required. On the one hand both my father and grandfather were avid meat-eaters, and both died in their mid-50's from heart attacks brought on by arterial congestion. So I'm partially driven by my natural wish to be around longer than another 15 years. But also, as an aware person desiring harmony I find that meat-eating is simply incompatible with my knowledge and understanding, and hinders the development of deeper compassion.

Regardless of whether or not meat can be digested by humans, I feel that since I am in an elite position to make a choice then I should choose wisely and compassionately. The more deeply I seek to understand myself and the world, and the more I understand about human physiology, the more impossible it becomes to justify eating meat or dairy. Meat production is cruel, wasteful, and polluting. Knowing this, I see meat-eating as a habit a lot like smoking: It's an unhealthy practice that supports a vile industry, and therefore fosters personal denial.

I understand that very few people are apt to cease their pleasurable habits, but I like the challenge, and I feel clearer in every way - intestinally, spiritually, mentally.

From my personal experience I believe that will-power is a central issue, but in your case your beliefs are the blocker - not willpower. For the moment your will is short-circuited by the belief that meat-eating is necessary and good. If you knew or felt differently about meat-eating, or were more invested in animal welfare and environmental issues, your willpower would presumably be directed differently. Your belief that meat-eating is "more healthy" - likely augmented by cultural conditioning, sentimental attachment to the familiar, and the sensual pleasure associated with meat-eating - trumps will altogether.

If people understood what their bodies needed, were more capable of denying themselves the pleasurable sensations associated with meat and dairy consumption, and were more aware of the devastation and suffering caused by meat-production... well, it would be a much kinder and more viable world. Sustainability is a big issue facing the world, and one of the most straightforward solutions -- reducing meat consumption -- isn't all that easy! Humans are easily hooked, and the industry is hooking more of them all the time.

I wasn't born with a vegan spoon in my hand. I've been on a totally vegan diet now for only 14 months, but I've considered myself a "vegetarian" (if dairy, eggs, and fish are vegetables) for 20 years. As recently as 20 months ago, I would sometimes backslide and eat meat every so often. But at this point I'm developmentally beyond all chance of recidivism. What happened? I've been spending time at Farm Sanctuary working with animals, giving technical assistance to environmental organizations, and practicing meditation. All these experiences have helped me to understand the issue more directly, more deeply, and more broadly. The extra effort required to cook thoroughly nutritious vegan meals is more than made-up-for by the benefits of clarity, energy, and well-being that I feel every day.

I should disclaim that I am a co-host of Vegan Radio, and webmaster of both Vegani

--
-- thinkyhead software and media
Re:A better idea by OriginalArlen · 2007-01-02 07:21 · Score: 1

Calorific restriction has been demonstrated in mice but not, as far as I know, in monkeys.
Your comment about "diet experts" is pretty meaningless; firstly, what's your source (and whose definition of "expert" are they using?) Secondly, it's an appeal-to-authority argument.

--

Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 07:26 · Score: 0

Sure, it'll do fine by itself, but a true environmentalist knows that, and that's not why they're an environmentalist. They're an environmentalist because environmental degradation hurts people, and usually in an unfair way that can be changed with little or no loss (and usually a technological/economic gain in the long-term) to existing human systems.

The world will live long after we're gone. Some of us, though, want to enjoy the time we're here.
Re:A better idea by OriginalArlen · 2007-01-02 07:29 · Score: 1

Re: fish: how will you know what the mercury levels are? (not saying "don't do it", just curious.) I do drink green tea, again I started doing it for health reasons and not liking it, but then a friend came back from 9 months in Beijing learning Mandarin with a couple of pots of green tea which were absolutely *delicious*. I drink a cup or two most days. The biggest health benefit there AFAIK inhibition of angiogenesis, which slows the growth of tumours as it prevents the growth factors they produce from causing new blood vessels to grow towards and around the tumour. There's stuff about antioxidents in the marketing material, I don't know yet whether that (the a/o hype) is real or junk science yet. There's a whiff of cosmetics advertising about some of that "neutralizes harmful free radicals" stuff. (Total tangent, if you want to understand the status of science in society today, pick up a copy of a major women's glossy like Cosmo and read every cosmetic ad, cover to cover. Now recoil in horror despair. Have a nice day :)

--

Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Re:A better idea by OriginalArlen · 2007-01-02 07:34 · Score: 1

Really? Source? Sounds pretty unlikely to me, how many people grow their own veg *and* use animal manure fertilizer on it? You can't exactly buy buckets of cow-shit in the local garden centre...
Anyway, (a) no-one in the UK got mad cow disease; they got Creuzfeld-Jakob Disease; (b) AFAIK the total number of cases is about 150, in 15 years, in a country with a population of 60,000,000. That's a good working definition of "statistically insignificant" ;)

--

Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Re:A better idea by OriginalArlen · 2007-01-02 07:38 · Score: 1

I'd be willing to bet more people have died from e. coli in their salad than have died from BSE. [snip]
Yeah, but so what? BSE isn't what's killing meat-eaters 10 years before the veggies. It's cancer, heart disease, and stroke.

--

Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Re:A better idea by ceoyoyo · 2007-01-02 08:05 · Score: 1

Well, the splotch of partially spoiled mayo might have something to do with it too.

I saw a vegetarian cat once. I'm pretty sure it was begging me to put it out of its misery.

It seems to me that extreme, specialized diets are the least likely to actually be healthy. Vegetarianism and veganism are pretty extreme and very specialized. So is the burger/fries/pop diet. I also notice that between soy milk, tofu, soy cheese substitute, etc. you can have soy as most of your diet... that doesn't appeal to me any more than having corn syrup in everything does.
Re:A better idea by russotto · 2007-01-02 08:06 · Score: 1

You eat mostly cheese and egg-based stuff? That ain't vegetarian, that's meat by-product-ism. Cheese is probably worse for you than yummy high-fat prime beef; it's high fat (much of it saturated) and very high in sodium.
Re:A better idea by HalfOfOne · 2007-01-02 08:21 · Score: 3, Funny

I have an educated guess regarding your findings: I think there is a correlation inbetween the "living 10-15% longer" factor and the "paying attention to what you stick in your pie hole" factor. I'm of the firm belief that all diets (vegetarian, Atkins, etc) are successful for the latter reason rather than a complex biological one.

I'm thinking of marketing a Prime diet, where you only have to pay attention to what you eat on prime-numbered days of the month. I'll call you from my yacht filled with bikini babes in a few months and let you know how it worked out.
Re:A better idea by illegalcortex · 2007-01-02 08:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, but so what? BSE isn't what's killing meat-eaters 10 years before the veggies. It's cancer, heart disease, and stroke.
And cancer, heart disease and stroke aren't caused by a diet that includes meat. It's caused by a BAD diet. I know vegetarians, so I know you can eat just as unhealthily and still be a vegetarian.

As far as relevance, the comment is directed at the PP's opener of how vegetables are good because they are prion-free.
Re:A better idea by Lord+Ender · 2007-01-02 08:28 · Score: 1

I first heard of calorific restriction as the result of a study on monkeys. It was publicized so much that there were follow-up articles about people who intended to follow such a diet. I'm surprised you missed all that publicity.

Your "appeal to authority" bit made me laugh. It is obvious to the intelligent person that if compelling information existed which demonstrates that a meatless diet significantly extended human lifespan, then a noticeable number of persons whose careers are dedicated to extending human lifespan (physicians) would practice such a diet.

I know several physicians. They all eat meat. They feed meat to their children. They recommend others eat meat.

If you think expert opinions regarding extremely complex subjects, such as human metabolism, are meaningless, you must have a hard time functioning in the world. I admire your sense of skepticism, but scoff at your lack of pragmatism.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 12:33 · Score: 0

I know stuff that tastes a *lot* better than pigs and it will kill you at even a younger age. Interested?
Re:A better idea by zenhkim · 2007-01-02 15:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

>> Those meatarians out there should give life a long good look as decide how do I want to enjoy life: quick and painfull (and ignorant), or slow and healthy.
>
> Perhaps it is you who are "ignorant" of the fact that the human body is built around an omnivorous diet.

*Sigh* Where to begin?

Humans are omnivorous largely by choice (just because we like the taste of meat) or necessity (because there aren't always enough veggies around to keep us from starving). Nature, however, gives us clues as to what our optimal diet should be.

Go to a mirror and study your teeth. Notice how most of your teeth have flat edges or large crushing surfaces? Those are the teeth of a herbivore: the teeth up front and center are suited for biting off plant matter, while the teeth in back are excellent for grinding the stuff down. The few pointed teeth we have are woefully inadequate for killing and devouring prey -- if you don't believe me, go out into the wilderness and try to take down and eat an animal with nothing but your teeth.

Next, get a reference book on human anatomy and look at the diagrams of the digestive system. Notice the extremely long and twisty intestines? That's the mark of a herbivore -- true meat-eaters have short digestive tracts in order to process food as quickly as possible. They also produce a specific acid to rapidly break down meat once it is ingested, yet humans lack that digestive acid.

Now look up 'dietary fiber' and its value for the digestive system. Nutritionists are in agreement that dietary fiber is not only beneficial, it is essential for good health. That means a diet that is rich in fruits, vegetables, breads and cereals -- all of which contain dietary fiber. By contrast, meat has absolutely *no* fiber.

"But you can't get adequate/complete protein nutrition on a vegetarian diet!" Not so: the average adult human requires only 40 to 50 grams of protein per day, and can get complete protein nutrition by eating certain foods such as

- peanuts and wheat (i.e.: peanut butter sandwich on wheat bread)
- beans and rice (the staple of Mexican food)
- chickpeas and sesame seeds (hummus, anyone?)
- soybeans

Sure, humans can sustain themselves on an omnivorous diet. However, just because we can do something doesn't mean we have to -- or that we ought to. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to finish my bowl of vegetarian chili. Mmmm... meatless chili, mmmm... :-D

--
"All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
Re:A better idea by TheLink · 2007-01-02 17:23 · Score: 1

Wow. Poor cat, was it like kept indoors all the time? If it wasn't I'd have thought it would go out for a bite or something ;).

Well, the Indian and Chinese vegetarian cuisines are pretty developed (decadent even for the latter[1]), so you can get a variety - still doesn't seem _that_ healthy though. It's still a lot easier to get your amino acids, Omega 3 and B12 from fish and other animals.

[1] Why I say decadent: example Chinese vegetarian dishes available here: mutton curry, sweet and sour pork, fried fish in soy sauce.

All vegetarian. The "fish" even had a fake fish bone made from a piece of sugar cane, presumably so you can choke on it and sue them just like the real thing I guess (doh!). Fish skin is seaweed for the taste and texture. The pork is made from mushroom stalks. Not sure what the mutton is from. I've heard of vegetarian bacon and eggs too not sure how that was done.

That sort of thing doesn't really appeal to me - I'd rather have less "modified" vegetables if I'm having a vegetarian meal, and real meat if I want meat. Given the things they do to make the soy like the "real" thing, it's probably as unhealthy as eating the real thing if not worse ;).

I've had a lasagne that used soft tofu instead of the soft cheese, and it actually tasted pretty good (I think it still had minced meat in it).
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:A better idea by TheLink · 2007-01-02 17:52 · Score: 1

Don't know.

There's this:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice. html

Let other people to eat the fishes which tend to accumulate more junk, while you eat the hopefully safer ones. When they start having problems, you stop eating fish :p.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:A better idea by ceoyoyo · 2007-01-03 02:21 · Score: 1

I'm surprised a vegetarian would have a cat anywhere near them... house cats are one of the few species (other than humans) that kill for fun.

There's a restaurant I go to when I have to make my vegetarian friends and meat eating friends happy at the same time, but am tired of Indian... I guess it's more or less Chinese. Same thing as you mentioned though: eel (mushrooms), ginger beef, pork chops, chicken... the ham cubes are just erie. Sometimes the vegetarians are unhappy because the simulation is too good.
Re:A better idea by TheLink · 2007-01-03 05:17 · Score: 1

"Sometimes the vegetarians are unhappy because the simulation is too good"

Yeah. I won't be surprised if it grossed them out.

Get some visitors from overseas sometimes, and they are't vegetarians but they can't eat the chicken/fish/etc if they see the heads on the same plate as the rest of the animal.

I still think it's a good idea for people who like eating animals to be more aware that they are actually eating some poor animal that was slaughtered. Rather than it "come from the supermarket in nice fillets".

Talking about nice fillets and "meat products"... Y'know the mechanical extraction of flesh from chickens/cows done in the US and some other western countries seems pretty unsanitary.

Over here the intact innards of chickens, cows etc (gizzards, liver etc) can be viably sold at a supermarkets, and chickens are often sold whole, all of which I think isn't such a bad thing. It means they're not just going to rip the carcass apart and spill everything everywhere and then put the pieces back together (with an "approved level" of shit + e.coli in it). I put it that people wouldn't have to cook their chicken/meat so thoroughly if it wasn't contaminated at the slaughterhouse/factory due to bad practices.

That said if almost every part and organ of a cow/chicken has a shelf price, what in the world do they have left to put into burger patties or sausages... Ick.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:A better idea by ceoyoyo · 2007-01-03 06:12 · Score: 1

I grew up in a farming community of 800 people. All my friends raised 4H cattle. Now THAT's an interesting practice. You raise the cow from a calf, brush it, teach it tricks, then sell it to the highest bidder. The pampered ones do taste good though.

We're designed to eat animals, and they don't hesitate to eat their chosen prey. I also don't blame the bear when some twit gets mauled because he thought it was a good idea to tease it. Or hunt it, for that matter.
Re:A better idea by TheLink · 2007-01-03 18:11 · Score: 1

Teach it tricks? Most people have difficulty eating an animal once they've given it a "proper name".
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:A better idea by ceoyoyo · 2007-01-03 18:36 · Score: 1

I told you it was kind of weird. Of course, farmers (and their kids) are a little more practical than most people. Bessy may be cute, but she's still food.

What is a prion-free cow? by riker1384 · 2007-01-01 23:57 · Score: 0

Don't they usually start out without prions? You have to infect them. I went cow-shopping and I remember prions were strictly an option. They should call these "prion-proof cattle."

Or dead people by giafly · 2007-01-02 00:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

In 2005 a controversial paper in The Lancet introduced a theory that BSE might have originated in British cattle when they ate imported animal feed that included infected human remains from Hindu funeral ceremonies in India.
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

This theory has some merit because scrapie from sheep does not appear to infect people, whereas BSE from cattle does.

--
Reduce, reuse, cycle

Re:Or dead people by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2007-01-02 02:14 · Score: 1

n 2005 a controversial paper in The Lancet introduced a theory that BSE might have originated in British cattle when they ate imported animal feed that included infected human remains from Hindu funeral ceremonies in India.

This is true but somewhat misleading. If people follow your link (thanks for that), they'll see that the Wikipedia article politely calls this "conjecture" and says that it needs follow up research. I'd say there's a heavy emphasis on the word might here.
Re:Or dead people by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 02:54 · Score: 0

they'll see that the Wikipedia article politely calls this "conjecture" and says that it needs follow up research.

Wikipedia articles have about the same value as Slashdot posts. Yes, including the ones that mention grits of increased temperature and petrification done whilst in an unclothed state.
Re:Or dead people by monopole · 2007-01-02 04:39 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia Cows eat Hindus!
Re:Or dead people by XchristX · 2007-01-02 12:04 · Score: 1

This is typically preposterous nonsense that one would expect from the increasingly Indophobic academia

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/11/17/panel PromotesUnderstanding
http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_040912.htm

and get reported by a leftist rag like "the Guardian" (as referenced by wikipedia), bastion of bashing all things that are Indian, and especially Hindu. They hate all things remotely related to Hinduism or Hindu culture so pardon me if I have a little trouble taking such outlandish claims seriously.

--
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand

Let the Luddite outburst begin! by Lurker2288 · 2007-01-02 00:12 · Score: 1

"Oh nos! Genetically modified aminals! What if they get into the food supply?! DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A BABY WITH TWO HEADS?!?!?! You can't predict what might happen so don't let the evil government/corporations/boogeymen use us as their GM guinea pigs!"

Re:Let the Luddite outburst begin! by pizzach · 2007-01-02 02:24 · Score: 1

Foolish person. The way to fix babies with two heads is by genetically modifying them. (Which probably IS the next step after you have playing around with fruits and veggies and then moved up to animals.)

--
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Re:Let the Luddite outburst begin! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 02:26 · Score: 0

Don't you realise that comments like that basically place you on the same level as religious whacknuts?

I mean, you obviously know so much about it all.

If you had any knowledge at all, like say a PhD in biochemistry you might show the humility of
a little scepticism. Your own disparaging, cocky little outburst of sarcasm is what gives us real
scientists a bad name.
Re:Let the Luddite outburst begin! by Lurker2288 · 2007-01-02 03:32 · Score: 1

Skepticism is always, intrinsically, and undivorcable from good science--even for those of us without biochem PhDs. However, when I read stories in the popular media about the dangers of cloned animal products and bioengineered crops, I don't see well-reasoned, scientific arguments. I see the kind of panicky diatribe I mockingly emulated above. Of course anything new we put into the food supply should be thoroughly checked out and vetted, but to do this properly, we need an open environment of unbiased inquiry that's not possible without "the humility of a little scepticism."

As for my tone, well, in 2002 Zambia refused to accept genetically modified corn from the UN's World Food Program. As it happens they were able to compensate with non-GM crops, but if they hadn't, a lot of people would have starved, based on merely the irrational fear that 'something' bad might happen. So, yeah, if you're arguing against the adoption of technologies that could safely feed lots of starving people, then you'd better have some good data backing you up.

New study! by Aladrin · 2007-01-02 00:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

So how long until we get a new study that says Prions were indeed good things, and should have been left in our meat.

From TFA: "Prions are proteins that are naturally produced in animals."

Hmm... Removing natural things... Nope, doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I just can't wait until they find out that Prions actually helped prevent cancer or something and everyone on the planet now has a timebomb in their body.

Seriously, they'd better do some SERIOUS studies on this before feeding this crap to me.

--
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM

Re:New study! by aussie_a · 2007-01-02 00:29 · Score: 1

Hmm... Removing natural things... Nope, doesn't sound like a good idea to me. You do realise tumors are natural, right?
Seriously, they'd better do some SERIOUS studies on this before feeding this crap to me. Why not simply enforce strict guidelines for packaging and informing customers (for butchers who don't package it in anything except free bags and brown paper bags)?
Re:New study! by Vellmont · 2007-01-02 01:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

Hmm... Removing natural things... Nope, doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

If you believe natural==good, I'd suggest a nice big bowl of anthrax this morning. It's 100% natural, so it must be in some way good for you, right? You could also eat some nice castor beans, which contain one of the most toxic poisons known as ricin. The feces in cows is also 100% natural, so you'll probbably get some disease from not eating that, right?

If you think that "messing with nature" is a bad thing, you should probbably stop eating entirely. We've been using selective breeding techniques on basically our entire food supply for thousands of years.

--
AccountKiller
Re:New study! by Aladrin · 2007-01-02 01:19 · Score: 1

The common cold is natural, too. In fact, everything is 'natural' if you want to define it that way.

Tumors are the body destroying itself. It may be 'natural', but it's not helpful at all to the organism.

Prions... Well, we dunno wtf they are, except that they are a protein. Proteins were good things, last I checked, and your body needs many, many different ones to function. Until they know what it does and doesn't do, they'd be fools to release prion-free beef onto the market.

--
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Re:New study! by Vellmont · 2007-01-02 01:32 · Score: 1

Prions... Well, we dunno wtf they are, except that they are a protein.

So you don't know what they are, but you're suddenly making predictions about how we shouldn't "mess with them" because they might be important?

Prions are miss-folded proteins. Your body doesn't need miss-folded proteins. In fact your body doesn't need proteins directly at all, it needs certain amino acids that it can't make on it's own. Proteins are constructed from amino acids.

--
AccountKiller
Re:New study! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 01:34 · Score: 0

Actually, we know what prions do. Prions are a class of protiens that are technically enzymes or catalysts: contact with them "breaks" other proteins and twists them into a new shape.

We have a pretty good idea that the human body kind of needed the protein that BSE prions break.
Re:New study! by Aladrin · 2007-01-02 01:39 · Score: 1

Read it again, troll. I said we need to determine what they do first. I didn't predict anything. I simply stated that they'd be fools to mess with things they don't know anything about yet. That's pretty much 'common sense'.

--
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Re:New study! by Vellmont · 2007-01-02 01:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

I simply stated that they'd be fools to mess with things they don't know anything about yet.

See, the thing is we actually DO know a lot about nutrition and proteins. At the very least we know that prions provides us nothing we need in our diet. It sounds like you're the one that knows nothing about it. In the future I'd suggest not talking about things you know nothing about.

--
AccountKiller
Re:New study! by elrous0 · 2007-01-02 02:49 · Score: 1

Well, the prion-free cows haven't complained so far. But, then again, they never really did before either.
-Eric

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:New study! by Lord+Ender · 2007-01-02 04:21 · Score: 1

You assume being natural implies being better. That is a false statement for which anyone can provide numerous counterexamples. Your reasoning based on this false assumption is, therefore, absurd.

I encourage you not to spread this errant meme to other people. Popular misconceptions, like yours, hinder social progress, especially in democracies.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:New study! by Aladrin · 2007-01-02 04:49 · Score: 1

Advocating studying something before willy-nilly removing it from our diet is absurd? What planet do you live on?

You assume that I assume that 'natural implies being better'. I said no such thing. I said that removing something that is natural doesn't sound like a good idea. Yes, I forgot to qualify that with a ton of other statements. I erroneously assumed people would know those statements without my help. I was wrong, and for that, I apologize. In the future, I will endeavor to point out every little detail so that people can follow what I'm writing.

--
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Re:New study! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 05:04 · Score: 0

While I understand your general concern, natural != good (e.g. hemlock, plague, ecoli, etc.) Natural just means natural, good and bad for you, the environment, etc. is a totally different metric.
Re:New study! by Kozz · 2007-01-02 05:15 · Score: 1

In the future I'd suggest not talking about things you know nothing about.

... you must be new here.

--
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Re:New study! by Vitriol+Angst · 2007-01-02 05:22 · Score: 1

Oh, just inform me on the packaging. Maybe a sign on the wall of a fast food restaurant.

This has worked so well in the past... ... I'll get my led testing and prion analyzer on E-Bay. Perhaps this will create a new market for products, so that I can buy 3,000 different food analyzers, and thus complete my adventure in becoming a self-sufficient American. While I'm at it, I can finally become a part-time accountant, so that I can guarantee my own retirement -- I'll do that after my two jobs and I put the kids to sleep.

I'm really insulted by the "Libertarian Impulse" that so many on slashdot think that everyone is dumb and lazy, and it is simple to just put up a web server, or to figure out the correct path on every technical hurdle in capitalism. Where any one of us might make great, informed decisions -- there are a thousand other areas where we don't have the time, resources, intelligence or inclination to figure out. The reason we have society and government in this complex world, is because this allows people to specialize. Where there is no financial incentive for the common good -- that's a damn good place for regulation and oversight. We don't have full employment -- so what does it hurt to add more food inspectors, rather than to try a dangerous experiment in removing a whole class of Prions from Cows. For example, my hypothesis for years has been that 99.99% of all Viruses are benign -- they are a natural "genetic messages" that get re-transmitted by the body and have lost their "delete me after X copies" message. Most people are not dying from Viruses and most people are not dying from Prions. There is a reason these things are so common. It makes sense to attack and remove "bad viruses and prions" but not the entire Viral or Prion system in an organism -- until we know better what is actually going on. You may create a system where organisms cannot adapt and change. You can refer to are recent "discovery" that Genetics get "trained" throughout life. Such that, a person who weight lifts, may pass on faster muscle building and greater muscle potential to offspring (though I wrote a paper on it decades a go -- but I was taking Art as my major -- just an example that common sense can get you pretty far).

So, it is now known, that "survival of the fittest" is only one mechanism of Evolution. Evolution is fact -- but how this happens is theory. The Western Capitalist theory of; "what does not kill a rat, is safe to sell" is not a great "long term" strategy. What does not kill us could make people infertile in 3 generations -- we don't know. We are just getting a handle on diabetes. We don't really know why cancer has become more and more common. We don't know that if we remove Prions, that it might have side effects that take a 100 years to show up. We -- and scientists, don't know these things. There are pretty safe changes we can make, that we can assume on a cost benefit analysis are OK. But the benefit to removing Prions is a few $ -- the costs are incalculable.

It's the same issue with Global Warming ... but that is another discussion.

I'm agreeing with parent -- don't do this unless you study it for 40 years! This is absolute Hubris, and you are trying to fix a rare problem, that could be solved by good farming practices that would produce healthier animals and quality food.
No, to preserve profits so that they can continue to feed cattle to cattle, they are going to experiment and second-guess a few billion years of nature.

--
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Re:New study! by drinkypoo · 2007-01-02 07:44 · Score: 1

I just had a conversation like this about drugs with my girlfriend. She asserts that it's healthier to take the whole plant because of co-evolution; our use of the plant caused the most desirable species to flourish, so that the plants that have medicinal value may have compounds which are undesirable, but she believes they are there in useful quantities.

For example, a plant might have one compound with medical value, and another compound that makes you throw it up, but only if you eat too much of it - the concept being that it protects you. Another plant without that compound might lead to death via overingestion. A plant with too much won't allow you to consume enough to OD.

However, there are several problems with this argument. One is that everyone reacts differently to alien chemical compounds dumped into their system. In some people that secondary ingredient might always or never make them vomit, in which case they would always OD or never receive benefit. Another is that what we're trying to do is cause an unnatural response in the body - something it would normally not have reason to do - because we're deliberately altering the way it behaves and reacts.

With that said, I am concerned about the potential results of tampering with nature directly, through bioengineering as opposed to simply breeding. I am especially concerned about the issue of inserting genes from animals into plants, or vice versa. It has been shown that a retrovirus is capable of taking genetic material from one organism and inserting it into another, but this mechanism is very unlikely to change any macroorganism and is especially unlikely to transfer genes between kingdoms.

I am also, of course, concerned about the legal issues. It is simply fucking ridiculous that a farmer can be forced to throw away his crop and reseed because some patented pollen blew onto his land. In fact we know that pollen can propagate immense distances because of its amazing durability - viable pollen has been found in ancient Egyptian tombs. Seeds can also be propagated across any distance which birds can carry poop, which is not as far as you might think (flying tends to cause shitting) but still pretty far. Of course, that won't help propagate a plant with the killer gene.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:New study! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 09:15 · Score: 0

"Advocating studying something before willy-nilly removing it from our diet is absurd? What planet do you live on?"

And what planet do you live on that you think that won't happen?
Re:New study! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 11:21 · Score: 0

Yeah, because nothing natural could possibly be harmful.
Re:New study! by Vellmont · 2007-01-02 11:32 · Score: 1

She asserts that it's healthier to take the whole plant because of co-evolution; our use of the plant caused the most desirable species to flourish, so that the plants that have medicinal value may have compounds which are undesirable, but she believes they are there in useful quantities.

It sure sounds nice, but without any evidence to back it up, it's just nonsense. Science isn't about convinving sounding arguments, those are a dime a dozen. Science is about testing different arguments and seperating the garbage from the truth. I'd be very wary of basing your medical decisions on arguments that sound convincing, but are completely untested and unsupported by evidence.

I am especially concerned about the issue of inserting genes from animals into plants, or vice versa.

That's because you think there's such a thing as a "plant gene" or an "animal gene". Genes are just building blocks, they don't express "animalness" or "plantness" individually. There's tons of genes that both animals and plants both have. Are those"plant genes" or an "animal genes"? It sure sounds scary though when you make it sound like plants are going to become animals, and animals become plants because you put "plantness" in an animal, or vice versa.

--
AccountKiller
Re:New study! by StikyPad · 2007-01-02 15:29 · Score: 1

Hmm... Removing natural things... Nope, doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Exactly! Leave the sacs in the blowfish, I say! Heck, why bother cooking things? The bacteria are 100% all natural goodness! Let's have some Potatoes!

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Re:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& by aussie_a · 2007-01-02 00:23 · Score: 2, Funny

A google search will tell you, but so will the fucking article.

*sigh*

Its posts like these that make me consider moving to digg.

*Puts on tin-foil hat* by bky1701 · 2007-01-02 00:28 · Score: 1

As some other posters noted, these prions improve/allow memory. One must wonder, if they can do this with cattle, how long it is until they figure out how to do it to humans...

/tinfoilhat

--
Great Intellect...

Re:*Puts on tin-foil hat* by _Shorty-dammit · 2007-01-02 00:44 · Score: 0

figure out how to do what? And what's the tin-foil hat for?
Re:*Puts on tin-foil hat* by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 00:55 · Score: 0

The 04 US presidential elections prove they already have developed this.
Re:*Puts on tin-foil hat* by Mike89 · 2007-01-02 01:48 · Score: 1

figure out how to do what?
Remove our prions, I think he means.

and what's the tin-foil hat for?
We MIGHT be without memory! Wait, there's already alcohol for that. Happy New Years
Re:*Puts on tin-foil hat* by _Shorty-dammit · 2007-01-02 01:57 · Score: 0, Offtopic

yes, my post was a bad joke about losing memory :P
Re:*Puts on tin-foil hat* by KDR_11k · 2007-01-02 02:07 · Score: 2, Informative

That means data encoded in the prions, not the memory of the organism containing them. PrPSc is not conductive to your long-term memory since it causes brain death.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.

Soylent Green... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 00:28 · Score: 4, Informative

...is tasty!

In all seriousness, you make a good point. BSE was first spotted among the cannibals of Papua New Guinea (where eating of the dead was a sign of respect).

http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/art icleEEF238D9C90E4B2989F5E473D3145A16.asp

Here are a ton of articles on BSE & vCJD:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/bse

Re:Soylent Green... by smellsofbikes · 2007-01-02 16:30 · Score: 1

The human form is called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and it occurs *spontaneously* in about 1 in a million people. It has been observed throughout the world, although until recently the disease wasn't recognized as such.
The problem in New Guinea, where it's called kuru (and might/might not be exactly the same as CJD) was that it was much, much higher than that because people were eating other people, which is an effective transmission tactic, where casual contact probably isn't. (As opposed to a similar disease that strikes elk and deer in the Rocky Mountains, where saliva sharing appears to be sufficient to cause infection.)
Wikipedia, of course, has more details.

--
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.

mmm, prions by _Shorty-dammit · 2007-01-02 00:38 · Score: 0, Offtopic

erggggghlglghgallgglhgggl

Was vegan but got tied of green piss by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 00:42 · Score: 0

Green piss.That ain't right.I always say,if god didn't want me to eat meat,he wouldn't have made it taste so good.

You've been eating too much beef by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 00:44 · Score: 1, Informative

That's the PRIONs 'memory' you're talking about. It has a good memory that replicates whether its Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) prion or a Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). Not our memory!

I think you've been eating too much beef.

Re:You've been eating too much beef by dgatwood · 2007-01-02 03:30 · Score: 1

You're full of shit. Prions are naturally occurring in all animals. They are part of the brain's normal function (including the formation of long-term memory). The prions that cause vCJD and other such diseases are malformed prions that fold incorrectly. Removing all prions in cows might solve the problem, but it is anything but humane....

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:You've been eating too much beef by CTachyon · 2007-01-02 15:44 · Score: 1

They're not removing all prions. The cows probably wouldn't function at all if they did that. They're removing the one particular protein whose abnormal prion form causes BSE.

--
Range Voting: preference intensity matters

Tube Steak Precursor by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 00:54 · Score: 2, Informative

An important point is that a lot of work on artificial/cultured muscle research is dependent on using fluids derived from cows as a growth medium, both from a compatibility and cost standpoint. However, a large barrier to commercial artificial meat research/production is keeping that fluid free of prions both in a small lab setting as well as in industrial quantities. This is the reason why when those scientists cultured meat and cooked it, they weren't allowed to eat it due to prion safety.

If they can sucessfully remove prion issues, then commercial artificial meat is a real possibility (though those issues dissappear once the culture medium fluid can be reliably and cost effectively made through wholely artificial means).

I for one welcome our vat-grown meat progenitors.

Re:Tube Steak Precursor by KDR_11k · 2007-01-02 02:09 · Score: 1

Wouldn't cooking at sufficient temperatures denature the prions and thereby render them harmless? Just don't eat your steak rare.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Tube Steak Precursor by GestaltPhoenix · 2007-01-02 02:40 · Score: 1

No.

The laymens version of the Mad Cow issue:

Proteins, in their normal course, "fold". When they fold wrong, they cause nearby proteins to also fold wrong, and the protein (in this case the brain) tends to form in bunches. This goes on long enough, you brain will begin to show these clusters, leaving empty space and resulting in (eventually) fatal neurological effects.

Skip ahead to the cows. Cows used to be slaughtered and the good bits sold. What couldn't be sold was put through a process called "rendering", which basically means incinerated until the remains (brain & bone, usually) become a fine "nutritious and protein rich" powder. They would then feed all this cannibalistic protein back to cows to make them fatter and more muscular. So what do you think happens when you render a cow that has BSE? Affected protein (called prions) get passed back into the food supply which humans eventually eat. Prions, like regular protein, survive the cooking process intact. After a very long gestation period, symptoms begin to manifest, and a CAT scan reveals your brain resembles a nicely aged swiss cheese.

Once discovered, governments in Europe and the Americas began to ban the rendering process (cows are no longer fed to cows). One might suppose that these new genetically engineered cows might be the entryway to reinstate the rendering process (a financial boon to the slaughter industry). I for one, will not buy meat I suspect coming from a ranch that supports this practice.
Re:Tube Steak Precursor by BuildMonkey · 2007-01-02 02:51 · Score: 1

No, cooking temperatures do not destroy prions. From Wikipedia article

The scientific consensus is that infectious BSE prion material is not destroyed through normal cooking procedures, meaning that contaminated beef foodstuffs prepared "well done" may remain infectious.

No more mad cow disease! by blankoboy · 2007-01-02 00:55 · Score: 1

....but in it's place will despressed and miserable cow disease.

Mmmm, Mmmmm. The General's Fried Chicken! by Overzeetop · 2007-01-02 00:56 · Score: 1

Didn't they make a movie about that?

No, I guess that was mind control. Black power, Brother!

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Beautiful! by superswede · 2007-01-02 01:09 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Beautiful!

Let the patent outburst begin! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 01:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

A bigger worry is the fact that a company (read capitalism) will be holding the patents on our food supply. Much like what big agra has on corn, soybeans, etc.

Two reactions - 1 cynical, 1 wistful by punterjoe · 2007-01-02 01:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

I too wondered why "big science" would try to come up with a way to create cattle that can still be fed 'cannibal chow' without getting sick, instead of just changing the feed to something healthy, when I realised there are no IP licensing rights for natural, healthy cattle. This 'super cow' is surely patentable :(
My other disappointment is that so much time & resourcefulness was spent on this rather than a way to prevent prion diease from taking it's toll on the untold people who have eaten infected 'industrial-beef' through fast food & other sources but won't show symptoms for many years.

Re:Two reactions - 1 cynical, 1 wistful by phorm · 2007-01-02 04:43 · Score: 1

My other disappointment is that so much time & resourcefulness was spent on this rather than a way to prevent prion diease from taking it's toll on the untold people who have eaten infected 'industrial-beef' through fast food & other sources but won't show symptoms for many years.

Oh, but there would be a lot of money in this too. Sure, a cure can be worth bucks at first but then loses momentum when the disease becomes mostly a historical footnote, but a vaccine or preventative antidote is a wonderful thing for medical moneybags, as you can keep selling it to many generations in the future.

That's great, but... by Gordonjcp · 2007-01-02 01:22 · Score: 1

... it doesn't work everywhere. I'd rather eat a certain amount of meat which I can produce locally, than buy in lots of vegetables that I can't. Not all farmland is arable.

Oh, I don't know about that... by Gordonjcp · 2007-01-02 01:27 · Score: 1

I can't help but think it's more than a coincidence that most of the vegetarians and all of the vegans I know always look skinny and underfed, and seem to be allergic to lots of things. They also seem to be ill with something nearly all the time. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but vegans tend to have a particularly unhealthy pallor, a kind of pale shiny skin thing going on.

Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Vellmont · 2007-01-02 01:44 · Score: 1

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but vegans tend to have a particularly unhealthy pallor, a kind of pale shiny skin thing going on.

They probbably aren't getting all the amino acids their body requires. If you don't eat meat it's a bit more difficult to make sure you're getting all the essential amino acids your body can't manufacture on it's own. Most vegetarians or vegans are ignorant when it comes to understanding nutrition, they just up and decide that they're not going to eat meat but don't change their diets to make sure they're getting the right nutrition to replace what they're missing in their diet.

--
AccountKiller
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Mike89 · 2007-01-02 01:45 · Score: 1

I can't help but think it's more than a coincidence that most of the vegetarians and all of the vegans I know always look skinny and underfed, and seem to be allergic to lots of things. They also seem to be ill with something nearly all the time. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but vegans tend to have a particularly unhealthy pallor, a kind of pale shiny skin thing going on.
It could also be that they chose to be vegan because they were already sick quite a lot and found that meat didn't help their situation. I mean, I eat meat (I could REALLY go some bacon right now ;)), but I also have a strange digestive system that so far has failed to be fixed. If eating no meat would help, I'd probably give it a shot too. But, for now *goes to find some bacon*.
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by ElleyKitten · 2007-01-02 02:02 · Score: 1

I can't help but think it's more than a coincidence that most of the vegetarians and all of the vegans I know always look skinny and underfed, and seem to be allergic to lots of things.
I wish vegetarianism made me skinny. I've been a vegetarian since I was 13, and I've had to fight with my weight ever since I graduated high school (same with every woman in my family, damn genetics). Everyone always thinks of vegetarians/vegans as being really skinny, but I've meet a lot of vegetarians and vegans and we're no skinnier than anyone else.

--
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by ElleyKitten · 2007-01-02 02:10 · Score: 1

They probbably aren't getting all the amino acids their body requires. If you don't eat meat it's a bit more difficult to make sure you're getting all the essential amino acids your body can't manufacture on it's own.
Flaxseed has several times the amino acids of any animal product. Soy foods are also usually fortified with any nuitrients a vegan can't get from fresh vegetables. It's not all that difficult to find what you need without eating meat.

Most vegetarians or vegans are ignorant when it comes to understanding nutrition, they just up and decide that they're not going to eat meat but don't change their diets to make sure they're getting the right nutrition to replace what they're missing in their diet.
Change that to most people are ignorant when it comes to understanding nutrition, they just up and eat whatever's in front of them without thinking. As for vegetarians, unless their idea of going vegetarian is going from hamburger and fries and soda to more fries and soda, it's not hard for them to eat healthier than their omnivore peers.

--
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by benzapp · 2007-01-02 02:18 · Score: 1

In the case of vegans, this is almost always due to zinc deficiency. They actually given injections of zinc to cattle to make their skin shine and the meat have a healthier glow. Does the same thing to people.

Zinc is only really abundant in certain nuts - hazelnuts and brazil nuts in particular.

So if you're a vegan, eat them nuts.

--
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Lord+Bitman · 2007-01-02 02:26 · Score: 1

Sick a lot, "Meat probably isn't helping" -> Eat no meat, "Still sick a lot, but at least now I get to feel superior and call people ignorant, I'll stick with it!"

--
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by BKX · 2007-01-02 02:37 · Score: 1

Do you exercise? Trust me, it's more important than you think. Since you're probably nerdy (reading Slashdot and all), try DDR. It's more fun than running. I lost 30 lbs on DDR, and now am going to attempt to lose another 70 with jogging. And, of course, diet.
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Gordonjcp · 2007-01-02 02:46 · Score: 1

Actually it's funny, now I think of it a lot of the vegetarians I know *are* skinny, but nearly all the *vegans* I know are fat. If not actually obese, they are at least a good bit heavier than they should be (though I shouldn't talk, especially after Christmas over-indulgence). I don't know why. They don't seem to eat traditionally high-fat foods - obviously dairy is right out, so that's cream and cheese off the suspect list. Pasta? Got eggs in, although I imagine there's a vegan equivalent. Fats? Well, vegetable oils I suppose, but even at that they don't seem to go for fatty or fried foods. Maybe it's a lack of fat causing their body to hang onto what fat they *do* get?
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Gordonjcp · 2007-01-02 02:48 · Score: 1

I didn't know that. Makes sense though. We tend not to inject our animals with stuff we don't need to, although if we're giving "hard feed" - sugar beet, draff, pelleted grass etc - then quite often we'll mix in some mineral supplements that include copper, manganese and - you guessed it - zinc. Pasture isn't exactly heavy on zinc either, at least not around here. Plenty iron though.
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by multipartmixed · 2007-01-02 02:49 · Score: 1

DDR?

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Please, tell me of other ways we can lose weight with computer parts. I have a lot of Socket 370 at the moment.

--

Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by oliverthered · 2007-01-02 02:50 · Score: 1

pasta contains a lot of starch, which is more or less the same as eating a lot of sugar.

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Gordonjcp · 2007-01-02 02:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

As for vegetarians, unless their idea of going vegetarian is going from hamburger and fries and soda to more fries and soda, it's not hard for them to eat healthier than their omnivore peers.

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure. While I agree that our western diet (I'm in the UK, so not so very far west compared to probably most of the /. readership) probably has too much meat in it at the moment, I'd urge people to be cautious if they are only going to eat vegetables. Intensively-farmed vegetables may have all kinds of nasty chemicals on them. Extensively farmed and organic vegetables won't be free of them either, and with organic farming comes "organic fertiliser". You really want to make sure you clean and cook those organic veggies *very* thoroughly. Faecal bacteria will make a mess of you.

I'd say that my meat is probably safer by far than most shop-bought vegetables. The problem that most people run into is they want to eat as cheaply as possible, and this is fundamentally incompatible with having good-quality food. Most people put more attention into the kind of oil and petrol they use in their car than the fuel and lubricants they use in their body. You can't cut out fat, your joints will fail. You need to get the right kind of fats. You don't get these from a Big Mac and Fries. It costs roughly three times as much for an organic free-range chicken than an el-cheapo battery hen. Is it worth it? Well, yes - the hen has had a better life, a better diet, and has probably been slaughtered and prepared a bit more carefully. Once you've had *real* meat instead of factory-farmed crap, you'll never ever go back. Spend the money, eat a little less of something better, and the environment, your wallet and your waistline will thank you.
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 03:09 · Score: 0

A lot of people who have food issues in the first place are attracted to vegetarianism, because it is one extra food restriction to make their life that much more difficult. But it isn't the vegetarianism making them skinny and feeble, it is their food paranoid lifestyle. When you combine vegetarian diet, with a gluten free diet, peanut free diet, with only eating organic locally produced produce (I.E. not a lot of fresh veggies in the winter time), and with a lactos free diet... you are talking about some serious restrictions.

You can't compare a totally normal person, who happens to be a vegetarian, with someone who's lifestyle-identity is a food restriction.
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by TheLink · 2007-01-02 03:19 · Score: 1

And if you're not keep eating those nutty animals? ;)
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by UncleTogie · 2007-01-02 03:27 · Score: 1

You can't compare a totally normal person, who happens to be a vegetarian, with someone who's lifestyle-identity is a food restriction.

Normal people aren't vegetarians.

--
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Cthefuture · 2007-01-02 03:33 · Score: 1

Depends on the kind of pasta. No intelligent healthy eater uses regular white pasta. It's not good for you. Like you said, you might as well be eating sugar.

100% whole wheat durum pasta is the only way to go. Lots of fiber and protein in there. Look for pasta where the ingredients are: "Whole wheat durum" and nothing else. Good stuff.

--
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 03:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

Another example of humans fighting Darwinism. People like that would have been weeded out a long time ago, but now they're breeding and producing offspring who can only eat hydroponically grown organic grass and drink triple reverse-osmosis'd & ozonated water.
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 04:08 · Score: 0

damn genetics
It's called exercise and self-control. My mom weighed over 200 pounds for most of her life, but she finally decided to do something about it, went to Weight Watchers and lost 80 pounds. Of course she stopped exercising, lost her self-control and she put it all back on a year later, but that's besides the point. Anyone can loose weight, don't make up excuses for yourself like "it's genetics". I believe anyone can loose weight if they put their mind too it, genetics be damned. (I'm trying to be encouraging here, not put you down, though it may have come out wrong).
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by coredog64 · 2007-01-02 05:25 · Score: 1

The latest CR mentions that they found no significant improvement in "boutique" chicken vs. "factory" chicken when it comes to the harmful bacteria present...
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by russotto · 2007-01-02 08:19 · Score: 1

Zinc is abundant in pennies too. They're about as tasty as most vegan food. The main problem is removing the copper shell to get at the zinc goodness inside.
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by mcostas · 2007-01-02 08:39 · Score: 1

The vegans I know eat far healthier food, know far more about food production, food safety and nutrition, and even eat a wider variety of food than the average American. Sure the meat industry would love to paint vegans as crazy and unhealthy, but reason and science clearly favor veganism.
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Gordonjcp · 2007-01-02 09:40 · Score: 1

That's only because the average American knows nothing about food. Saying "reason and science clearly favour veganism" is a bit vague - care to back either of your claims up?
Re:Oh, I don't know about that... by Vellmont · 2007-01-02 11:48 · Score: 1

Flaxseed has several times the amino acids of any animal product.

Sure.. and how many vegetarians sit around and eat flax seed? Not many.

It's not all that difficult to find what you need without eating meat.

I didn't say it was difficult, I just said there's a lot of vegetarians that don't do it.

Change that to most people are ignorant when it comes to understanding nutrition

True, but when you eat meat you really don't have to understand the concept of a complete protein or amino acids. Not the same thing at all for vegetarians, even more so for vegans since the last I checked they only eat rocks and dirt.

As for vegetarians, unless their idea of going vegetarian is going from hamburger and fries and soda to more fries and soda,

Actually I knew one Vegan who's idea of nutrition was frying everything. Also you seem to think all vegetarians/vegans don't eat meat for health reasons. That's simply not the case. The majority I've known have are all political/religious vegetarians that do so for ideological reasons.

--
AccountKiller

That is one solution...Namecalling. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 01:31 · Score: 0

"Doesn't seem that hard, really, but people are pretty stupid."

Do you exclude yourself from that statement, as a matter of habit?

CJD a friend by zakeria · 2007-01-02 01:38 · Score: 1

my friend died a few years ago with this terrible disease, did it stop me from eating beef ... only until i reliesed i cant avoid the stuff..

Re:CJD a friend by ElleyKitten · 2007-01-02 02:50 · Score: 1

Why can't you avoid beef?

--
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Re:CJD a friend by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 02:56 · Score: 0

because in the UK they have beef products in almost everything from sweets to oatmeal read the contents on UK packaging you'll get a big surprise.
Re:CJD a friend by ElleyKitten · 2007-01-02 03:17 · Score: 1

because in the UK they have beef products in almost everything from sweets to oatmeal read the contents on UK packaging you'll get a big surprise.
Eww. Though now I understand why mad cow has been so epidemic over there....

--
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Re:CJD a friend by Traxia · 2007-01-02 05:06 · Score: 1

because in the UK they have beef products in almost everything from sweets to oatmeal read the contents on UK packaging you'll get a big surprise. That is complete and utter rubbish. I am a lactose intolerant vegetarian in the UK and manage very well. I look nothing like death warmed up (unless I choose to). While it is true that there is a lot of gelatine in sweets, most healthy foods that don't have meat as a primary feature are gelatine free and vegetarian friendly, there's even little helpful labels that tell you it is vegetarian and in some cases vegan. Every year you get more and more choice with culinary delights and there is plenty to eat at our local supermarket, I don't even have to go to speciality food shops even though I can't eat cheese or milk of any kind. It is really easy to avoid beef if you are willing to look for it, it's not even in my soap. My main problems arise when I go out to restaurants and even then it's because of the lactose intolerance, not the meat issue. Once upon a time it was difficult to be a vegetarian, now it is much easier. With any luck veganism will follow suit as companies realise that it is popular not to eat any animal products.

"no apparent developmental abnormalities" by gweihir · 2007-01-02 01:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

If that does not sound like wishful thinking, I don't know what does. Also keep in mind that they have a really strong interest in not finding anything....

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:"no apparent developmental abnormalities" by ebuck · 2007-01-02 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

To a real scientist, "no apparent developmental abnormalities" means that they're hedging their bets. They haven't seen any developmental abnormalities, but as scientists, they know that it is impossible to observe every detail in their lifetime, so they're just saying that they haven't discovered one yet.

A scientist doesn't have a strong interest in not finding things, finding things is what makes a scientist's career successful.

Business sponsored research isn't science. Business sponsored research usually employs people called scientists who then don't use (or misrepresent) the scientific procedure, producing results which were probably dictated before the experiment was started.

A popular misconception is that if a scientist says it, it's science. Science is about the procedure, not the person. If a scientist says he can save 15 minutes to picking up his dry cleaning, it's not science. But if an experiment is performed which accurately measures dry cleaning pickup times, and by changing how dry cleaning is picked up the times decrease by 15 minutes, then that's science.

Remember, appeal to authority only works in authoritarian systems. In law, (authoritarian system) the judge is an authoratative figure, what he says and does has a real impact on the case. In science, a scientist isn't an authoritarian figure. Sure, a scientist may become famous, but that's celebrity. A famous scientist can still be wrong, but the procedure eventually aligns the "model of how things work" with the "world in which things happen".

So trust your science, but don't get it from Newsweek, FOX, CNN, etc. Any findings without a description of the procedure and the control is a fluff piece that might totally misrepresent the discovered facts, the observations, the deductions based from the observations, and the findings of the experiment. The reason U.S. Citizens have such a cynical view of scientists is partially due to sloppy "BIG HEADLINES" reporting that takes the least consequential detail out of context for the biggest impact.

The end result? by callistra.moonshadow · 2007-01-02 01:54 · Score: 1

What is concerning is that it's great that they have removed the coding for the cows to create Prions. It's even amazing that thus far they are healthy and alive. What is a bit worrisome is that we do not know what potential for other diseases or impacts may result from modifying the genetic code of a creature that evolved that code over tens of thousands of years. We cannot see this as a panacea. Prions may have been there at some point for a reason. Perhaps not. I'm not trying to be a Luddite, but I would be cautious before jumping for joy.

Cally

--
--Cally

Sort-of a wash... by Civil_Disobedient · 2007-01-02 01:55 · Score: 2, Funny

showing vegetarians lived 10-15% longer

Yeah, but smug self-satisfaction knocks about 10% off the lifespan, provided you're not punched by an offended meat-eater beforehand. So it's basically a wash.

Re:Sort-of a wash... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 02:33 · Score: 0

Exactly, proper abuse of statistics can show anything. For example one could argue that in WW2 you wanted your bombers to have as much opposition as possible as otherwise their bombing runs weren't as accurate. In actuality both were due to clodu cover, thus less cloud cover meant more enemy fighters and better accuracy for the bombers.

More MPG? by Kennon · 2007-01-02 02:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Isn't Prion the name of that hybrid fuel car from Toyota? I didn't think it was big enough to drive cows around in anyway...

--
"All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."

Re:More MPG? by pizzach · 2007-01-02 04:31 · Score: 1

No no no. They mispelled Freon as Prion in typical slashdot fashion. We all know all the problems cows create with global warming and this is just a premptive step. I just wish they would stop farting it out all of the time. Maybe we can connect a refrigorator to their butts to harness this unused resource?

--
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.

to ensure a creature has no prions... by jimstapleton · 2007-01-02 02:05 · Score: 1

wouldn't you have to ensure it has no proteins of any type.

Now, if the article title/blurb said "no mad-cow prions", I wouldn't be so picky, but this said no prions, without qualifier.

"Aye, the cow aint got no prions! 'course 'ees dead, but thar be no prions in that thar cow!"

(yes, I read TFA, I know they meant mad-cow prions, not prions in general).

--
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"

A challenge to you by Aero · 2007-01-02 02:09 · Score: 1

My fiancee and I would like to reduce the amount of meat in our diet. However, she has a severe allergy to nutritionally significant amounts of soy protein (especially tofu), and a serious (but not as severe) allergy to most other legumes (peanuts being least serious, but even then, she could not subsist on peanut protein alone). How would she go about getting the proper amounts and kinds of protein into her diet without soy or legumes?

She has asked this question of vegans and vegetarians in the past. The usual response has been on the lines of "go away, troll", as they think that she's just presenting them with an impossible situation in order to justify her eating of meat. If there is a reasonable answer, we would genuinely love to hear it.

--
We can believe in you for 3 minutes, but beyond that, even the King of All Cosmos can't be expected to wait.

Re:A challenge to you by ElleyKitten · 2007-01-02 02:33 · Score: 1

Sorry to hear about her allergies. My friend was recently diagnosed as diabetic, and between that an her food allergies she decided that maintaining her vegetarianism was too much. Not that it's impossible, but some things are just too much.

I don't think your fiancee could ever go completely vegetarian or vegan, as you've probably figured, but she can reduce her meat intake. Whole grains and vegetables such as spinach have protein, and you don't need to have a lot of protein every day. She can also go semi-vegetarian and get her protein from eggs and fish. I'd recommend trying a lot of different foods, and seeing what works for her. There's an organization in my area that does free vegan dinners once a month and have nuitritionists talk about veganism (and other things). Try and see if there's something like that in your area. I imagine you're less likely to get "go away, troll" if you ask questions in person instead of on a message board.

--
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Re:A challenge to you by tempest69 · 2007-01-02 02:35 · Score: 1

The next obvious source of protien is eggs and dairy... much to the dismay of the vegans out there.
Re:A challenge to you by Rob+the+Bold · 2007-01-02 02:46 · Score: 1

My fiancee and I would like to reduce the amount of meat in our diet. However, she has a severe allergy to nutritionally significant amounts of soy protein (especially tofu), and a serious (but not as severe) allergy to most other legumes (peanuts being least serious, but even then, she could not subsist on peanut protein alone). How would she go about getting the proper amounts and kinds of protein into her diet without soy or legumes?

I guess she could try Seitan, if she's not allergic to wheat as well. There are also some mycoprotein-based meat substitues available now (sold in US as "Quorn").
But she may not be a very good candidate for vegetarianism with the legume allergy. The traditional vegetarian method of getting a "complete" protein (all the essential amino acids) in one dish usually involves a legume, e.g. rice & beans, beans & tortilla, hummus & pita, etc. You try to combine a grain protein and bean protein source in a single food to be eaten together. If that's not possible due to allergies it could really be tough for her to go veggie. Good luck.

--
I am not a crackpot.
Re:A challenge to you by OriginalArlen · 2007-01-02 07:05 · Score: 1

Sorry, I don't know; does cheese contain protein? Is she allergic to other nuts? There's also Quorn which is widely available here in the UK (any typical supermarket will have a few Quorn lines). That's mycoprotein which I believe is a fungus of some sort. It's by far the closest in taste & texture to real meat of any of the meat-alike type stuff I've sampled, and I eat it on regular basis... I still love a good fry-up, so Quorn sausages are a must for me :)
There's a Wikipedia article, here. Hope this is of some use to you both, good luck!

--

Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven

Prions & Scientologist by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 02:17 · Score: 1, Funny

Prions are those things Scientologist have been warning us about.

If we flush them all out, we are much healthier.

All prions are proteins .... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 02:19 · Score: 0

but not all proteins are prions.

So no, you would not have to eliminate all proteins to eliminate all priors. New prions are very very rarely created, there are only a few known ones.

Re:All prions are proteins .... by jimstapleton · 2007-01-02 02:25 · Score: 1

only a few /known/.

That's the key factor here. With out current knowledge/tech, prions are still a challange to verify. Additionally, we are not sure which proteins would have stable conformations that would make them prions. Therefore, with our tech as it is now, we would have to eliminate all proteins.

--
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"

WHOOOOOOSH! by Aurisor · 2007-01-02 02:20 · Score: 1

Dear AC parent:

WHOOOOOOSH!

Ever thought of changing diet? by cheros · 2007-01-02 02:23 · Score: 1

Logically it appears changing diet is the one thing you haven't tried. Maybe you're the one to discover your family is genetically of a blood group A, protein dependent stock..

Alternatively, you may be like me. I've spent the last few weeks working away at the a project, nil exercise. The result is that I'll have to work quite hard as soon as this is over, before there's no difference in width between my shoulders and my gut :-). I need exercise, even if it's just walking outside for an hour..

Happy New Year ..

--
Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.

Re:Ever thought of changing diet? by ElleyKitten · 2007-01-02 03:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Logically it appears changing diet is the one thing you haven't tried.
I've changed my diet, I just haven't tried meat. I eat a lot of protein now, and I've switched my bread and pasta to whole grain (can't give them up completely) and my weight is more under control now. What I probably need to do is stop pretending my Wii is excercising and go outside...

--
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.

This wouldn't prevent BSE by Programmer_Errant · 2007-01-02 02:35 · Score: 3, Informative

The prions that cause BSE are externally introduced through cattle feed. You'd have to have all the components of cattle feed be produced from prion free animals also. Not likely unless all cattle feed was constantly tested for the presence of any prions at all.

Re:This wouldn't prevent BSE by supertsaar · 2007-01-02 04:07 · Score: 1

Actually I think it would work: the problem is that the sickness-inducing prions are wronlgy folded. By some strange magic, these wrongly folded prions can cause normal healthy prions to become wrongly-folded prions too. => Snowball effect.
If there's no normal prions to begin with I doubt the occasional ingestion of a 'bad prion' has any effect, because there is nothing to infect....
But it has been years since I last read anything on the subject, so maybe insights have changed.

--
The Bigger The Headache The Bigger the Pill
Re:This wouldn't prevent BSE by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 07:02 · Score: 0

The prions that cause BSE are externally introduced through cattle feed.
So let's just feed them cows instead of sheep!

No. by Programmer_Errant · 2007-01-02 02:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Normal high tempurature sterialization of surgical instruments that have been used for brain surgury doesn't destroy prions. You have to use more exotic techniques that are a little rougher on surgical instruments. It's a big problem for hospitals. So mere cooking wouldn't affect prions.

Is this really an issue? by kibbled_bits · 2007-01-02 02:42 · Score: 1

In America not one person had died from MAD cow disease, this will likely only lead to more laziness so we can all have cheaper food. On another note, I guess the lactating men from Europe can eat beef again?

Re:Is this really an issue? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 08:37 · Score: 0

Actually, in America not one person has been diagnosed with Mad Cow disease, pre- or post-mortem. But around a hundred Americans die every year from suspected CJD, which is thought to occur spontaneously in some people if they live long enough. But some portion of the Americans who die from this every year are fairly young - younger than one might expect to be developing and incubating/developing and dying from this disease.

Further, the symptoms of terminal CJD (or terminal vCJD) are similar to the symptoms of regular dementia plus terminal old age. After old folk die in America while acting like their brains are going, they typically don't get their brains biopsied for CJD / vCJD testing - they just say it was "Alzheimer's".

Honda or Ford? by flyingfsck · 2007-01-02 02:45 · Score: 1, Funny

Yeah, I can't figure out whether a Prion is a Honda or a Ford. I think my grandma had one...

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!

Re:Honda or Ford? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 03:46 · Score: 0

It's a Toyota spin-off intended to attract younger buyers.
Re:Honda or Ford? by TeknoHog · 2007-01-02 04:24 · Score: 1

I thought Prion was Toyota's protein/virus hybrid ;)

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.

Creating Prion-Free Cows... by Sleepy · 2007-01-02 02:48 · Score: 1, Funny

What sort of pri0n do cows watch anyways?

Re:Creating Prion-Free Cows... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 12:13 · Score: 0

It probably involves sweet, demure Daisy getting milked hard for the first time by the big, muscular new farmhand, who wears an eyepatch. And maybe he rides a motorcycle too, unless it's set in the seventeenth century, and then he's a pirate.

Eggs by multipartmixed · 2007-01-02 02:53 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of getting your protein from eggs?

I mean, if you're morally opposed to eating chickens, why wouldn't you be opposed to eating their abortions?

--

Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?

Re:Eggs by ElleyKitten · 2007-01-02 03:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of getting your protein from eggs? I mean, if you're morally opposed to eating chickens, why wouldn't you be opposed to eating their abortions?
The eggs we eat are not abortions. They are unfertilized eggs. If you ever accidently get a fertilized egg, you'll know the difference because when you crack the fertilized egg open it will be all bloody because it has an actual embryo in it. So, we are not eating baby chickens when we have scrambled eggs. Also, I don't have a problem with abortions in general so why would I have a problem with chicken abortion?

--
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Re:Eggs by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 06:28 · Score: 0

So we're essentially eating the chicken's period? Kinda gross if you think about it....
Re:Eggs by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 07:10 · Score: 0

Although eggs aren't really a chicken's period (only the "egg", hence the name right), do we really want to start down that road?

Wouldn't eating fruit be just like eating a tree's (or plant's) genitals?
Re:Eggs by sobachatina · 2007-01-02 07:19 · Score: 1

I do not mean to refute anything you have said but I read an interesting bit on eggs recently that it is a misconception that eggs with the little blood spot have been fertilized. The occasional blood spot on an egg yolk is due to a ruptured blood vessel during the egg formation. They are usually caught during candling but some get through. http://www.all-foods-natural.com/articles/eggs.htm l

prion free but not for long by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 03:01 · Score: 0

can still be exposed to prions from external sources and continue to produce prions.

Check out protein folding and how one prion causes other proteins to fold wrong. A sort of catalytic and catastrophic effect. Use your spare CPU or GPU cycles (or even game console cycles) to help find a solution. folding.stanford.edu

Re:prion free but not for long by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2007-01-02 05:34 · Score: 1

can still be exposed to prions from external
Check out protein folding and how one prion causes other proteins to fold wrong. sources and continue to produce prions.

Prions don't just misfold ANY old protein. They cause a PARTICLUAR protien to fold wrong. These cows have been altered so they don't MAKE that protein.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Re:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& by lawpoop · 2007-01-02 03:21 · Score: 1

There is nothing shameful about learning.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso

Not quite the same disease by DrYak · 2007-01-02 03:24 · Score: 3, Informative

BSE and CJD are very similar (same mechanism) but not exactly the sane disease (not exactly the same "diseased" protein shape), which also explains the longer incubation time.

the only way to ensure accuracy of tests is through a biopsy of the brain tissue of a dead subject. While there are tests for live subjects (clinical observations) they are not definitive.

Also there *ARE* good tests to determine the ESB both faster than the biopsy and not needing to put down the cow, much better than clinical observations.
Intensive research has been done in German and Swiss laboratories. The first test working on live animal has been developped in Göttingen, Germany. Thus sadly, the information is only available in the German version of wikipedia. (Though the german article mentions a later Texan discovery).

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]

Re:Not quite the same disease by slashbob22 · 2007-01-02 04:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

BSE and CJD are very similar (same mechanism) but not exactly the sane disease (not exactly the same "diseased" protein shape), which also explains the longer incubation time. I agree since CJD occurs spontaneously (or with genetic pre-disposition), varient CJD is determined to have very similar properties to BSE and is the one which is believed to be linked to BSE.

The first test working on live animal has been developped in Göttingen, Germany. Thus sadly, the information is only available in the German version of wikipedia. (Though the german article mentions a later Texan discovery). My German is not strong, though I was able to get some information out of it (babelfish helped as well); these are interesting developments. Earlier in the wiki it states that Prionen cannot be proved until around 24-30 months of age and the test is 89% accurate with no false positives (quite good). My only concern is that in terms of the article, assuring the animals are clear of BSE could take a few years (24-30 months) and only IF they have been properly exposed to the BSE source (IE. They would have normally been infected).

--
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
Re:Not quite the same disease by dosquatch · 2007-01-02 05:18 · Score: 4, Funny

BSE and CJD are very similar (same mechanism) but not exactly the sane disease Best.
Typo.
Evar.

--
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
Re:Not quite the same disease by Syrrh · 2007-01-02 12:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Presumably the testing isn't over, the researchers just decided that 2 years is a pretty good success indicator, especially when they've been injecting BSE prions *directly into the brains* of the test animals. If the infection can't take hold in that condition, I'd say it pretty well surpasses any naturally occuring scenarios. Still too early to say with absolute certainty, but they have good reason to celebrate so far.

I'm more interested in where this heads beyond the BSE scare, since it'll be a lot harder to genetically scrub out CJD and CWD, but at least the possibility is opening up. I'm really interested to see if this manipulation ends up with no side-effects since it means that genetic cruft is seriously dangerous. With the genome mapped, will there be mumbles about getting the non-functional buffer sections tailored and zeroed out to ward off other mysterious and rare afflictions?
Re:Not quite the same disease by StikyPad · 2007-01-02 14:14 · Score: 1

Thus sadly, the information is only available in the German version of wikipedia

Though sadly, in the same post with the dullest typo ever.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

bovine byproducts in skin cream, jello, jackets by peter303 · 2007-01-02 03:24 · Score: 1

You'd be surprised how products in modern culture use bovine byproducts- many kinds of foods, cosmetics, leather clothing, medicine... I saw a list of several hundred once. To avoid such you basically have to back to the pre-20th century where people made most of their own stuff.

High Density Feedlots by Ranger · 2007-01-02 03:40 · Score: 1

It's not about creating prion-free cattle. It's about cheap meat. The meat industry is all about high density feedlots for cattle, pigs, and chickens. It's all about providing you with the cheapest meat, not necessarily the safest for you or the meat animals. The industry players want you to think that cattle spend all of their days frollicking on the range and munching on grass instead of being cooped up in their own shit and forced to eat antibiotics so they can eat corn which they did not evolve to eat. I'm a devout omnivore and won't stop eating meat, so those more rabidly zealous vegans can get stuffed. I can and will however eat safer and better raised meat.

Read Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma . It has a fascinating account of Joel Salatin and his Polyface Farms. You can have a win-win situation between raising meat animals and the enviroment. Finally, everything you ever wanted to know about high density feedlots can be found in cartoon format at The Meatrix.

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"

Re:High Density Feedlots by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 07:27 · Score: 0

I'm a devout omnivore and won't stop eating meat

Kudos! This is exactly my attitude about onanism.
Re:High Density Feedlots by Watson+Ladd · 2007-01-02 14:22 · Score: 1

That should be polyhedron farms. Face isn't greek.

--
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD

GMOs bad - listen to this & be convinced: by Szplug · 2007-01-02 03:42 · Score: 1

It's a recent piece - this lasts an hour I think, but it's worth it.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/deconstructingdinner /DD062206.mp3

A /very/ short version is (listen, really), that they can only change genes crudely, you don't know what else has changed along with the intended one. The lack of controls, and the effects, will shock you. And this is recent, say, end of 2005.

--
Someday we'll all be negroes

The technical term by Sigg3.net · 2007-01-02 03:54 · Score: 0

What we usually call 'live feeds'... *ducks*

--
Defining Statistics and Social Research

Great for research, bad for beef by Pedrito · 2007-01-02 03:59 · Score: 1

What scares me about this is that in a few years, they'll probably declare prion-free, genetically engineered cattle safe to eat, and then 20 years from now half the population is going to develop something worse than CJD. I'm fine with them doing this stuff for research, but I don't like the idea that we're feeding livestock genetically engineered food because the next step is going to be feeding people genetically engineered food. Our understanding of biochemistry is still so full of holes and we're so short-sighted, we end up killing ourselves and our planet without proper forethought and consideration.

I'm just so glad by Buskaatt · 2007-01-02 04:01 · Score: 1

... that I only eat free range bison.

Re:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& by illegalcortex · 2007-01-02 04:01 · Score: 2, Funny

Its posts like these that make me consider moving to digg.

Haven't read many digg comments, have you?

Better: Buy Locallly grown GMO-free foods by pubwvj · 2007-01-02 04:16 · Score: 1

It is wonderful how they are figuring out to do things the wrong way like making it so they can feed cows to cows without fears of the cows on either end being mad.

One might wonder what potential effects there may be hidden down the road from knocking out the at gene. There may be garbage in the DNA, but there are also a lot of important pairs and scientists don't really understand the ramifications of playing with them. I'm all for technology, I enjoy the internet, but I'm not going to be their guinea pig.

Of course, this won't help with preserving genetic diversity and heritage breeds, bio-diversity, issues with mono-culturing, plagues, etc. What it will do is give some company the ability to own the genetics of cattle so that farmers have to pay the corporation every time we breed an animal much like is being done with plant genetics.

If the corp is smart they'll copyright the genes instead of patenting them since that monopoly lasts longer. Or they can just screw around with the patent system more to extend the patents to forever minus a day.

Me, I'll continue to breed my own livestock, grown clown-free, sans-genetic modifications and raised on pasture. I would suggest consumers get to know their local farmers who can be a source of high quality foods as well as keeping dollars in the local economy.

Re:Better: Buy Locallly grown GMO-free foods by cdrguru · 2007-01-02 05:30 · Score: 1

Absolutely. Unfortunately, many people live in an environment developed in the late middle ages known as a "city". Except for a few places in the US, there are few farmers, cows or other livestock in these "cities".

While the concept of a high-density pre-packaged form of humanity may seem obsolete and unnecessary in an age of "sustainable growth", if you check down the road a piece you will discover that there are still many, many people living in these cities. They do not have the option of locally grown food from local farmers.

Are you suggesting they just sit and starve? I suspect once this becomes known to them some few will decide to take matters into their own hands and come out of the city to avoid starving. If it is only a few, your well-armed USA farmer will likely be able to drive them away, at least down the road to the next farm. If it is a great many city-dwellers, you will find that the farms have become just like the cities, only dirtier.

A pre-emptive strike is recommended before the city-dwellers know what is coming. This is the path to sustainability.
Re:Better: Buy Locallly grown GMO-free foods by Fantastic+Lad · 2007-01-02 10:44 · Score: 1

Absolutely. Unfortunately, many people live in an environment developed in the late middle ages known as a "city". Except for a few places in the US, there are few farmers, cows or other livestock in these "cities".

Cities are death traps in tough times for a reason. But you take your risks with the advantages. I prefer small towns with a large agricultural base and as few factory farms as possible. Knowing your farmer is definitely a good idea.

The Chinese had a few more people to deal with over the last millennium, and they seem to have figured out how to manage their resources and diet effectively.

People in the West haven't invested much thought or energy into sustainable resource management, and the result is Mad Cow and equally horrifying solutions. I can't even look at a McBurger these days. The smell all by itself is sickening after you've been eating clean for a while.

-FL
Re:Better: Buy Locallly grown GMO-free foods by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 12:46 · Score: 0

I'm all for clown-free foods. Seriously.
Re:Better: Buy Locallly grown GMO-free foods by pubwvj · 2007-01-02 13:00 · Score: 1

City? Down the road? I'm in Vermont. There are no cities in Vermont. The highest density populated area is Burlington with less than 40,000 people and they have ready access to local produce, meat and other healthy foods. May it ever remain that way.

I have visited a city. I would rather not repeat that experience.

However, even for city dwellers there is the option of buying locally produced raw foods from veggies to pasture raised meats. I hear they have something called a health food store and many city dwellers even have 'auto-mo-biles' that they can use to exit to the real world to make purchases. They may even find they don't want to go back to the city.
Re:Better: Buy Locallly grown GMO-free foods by nido · 2007-01-02 13:35 · Score: 1

... and the result is Mad Cow and equally horrifying solutions.

Something to consider in the Mad Cow phenomena is Mark Purdey's research. Purdey was (... just learned from the site that he's recently passed, and that's all I know) an Organic farmer in Britain, who sued to protect his right to raise his cows without synthetic pesticides. In their infinite wisdom, the British government had mandated that all cows be treated with an organophosphate pesticide in a campaign to eradicate the warble fly. The warble fly punches holes in cattle hides, making them less suitable for leather.

Purdey never had much of a problem with Mad Cows, except (iirc) in the cows that had been born outside his herd. Copper deficiency, manganese toxicity, radiation from chernobyl, etc - all play into the collection of so-called prion diseases. Purdey traveled the world to visit "hot spots" of the various neuro degenerative diseases.

...

The purpose of these journeys has been to unearth the causal riddle of various industrially induced conditions, such as Creutzfeldt Jacob disease, scrapie, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, alzheimers disease, myalgic encephalomyelitis, glioma brain tumours, cot death syndrome, psychoses, teratogenic defects etc.

Although discarded by Establishment bodies, the phenomena of the disease cluster provides an ideal research tool for identifying the true environmental causes of a given illness; which, in turn, paves the way for identifying the best means of eradicating, preventing, and even curing that disease. But, sadly, the unilateral research direction of the multinational-ministerial grand alliance is purely designed to develop the most effective means of suppressing symptoms of disease through formulation of pharmaceuticals, gene manipulation, etc; Such an approach fails to deal with the root cause.

My work focuses on the biological impact of the increasing cocktail of environmental oxidizing agents in our modern environment; eg, ultra violet radiation, systemic insecticides, low frequency infrasonic radiation, radar, microwaves, etc. I am studying the oxidative impact that these agents exert upon various transition metals in the brain - manganese, silver, etc - and how they are transformed into pathogenic 3+ or 4+ species which carries a lethal oxidative capacity that is capable of initiating a self perpetuating free radical mediated neuro degeneration.

My technique of "total ecosystem analysis" has identified several environmental prerequisites which could be involved in the origins of some diseases , most particularly my discovery of high levels of silver or manganese in combination with low levels of copper in spongiform diseases. I have also observed molybdenum and serotonergic toxicity in multiple sclerosis, silver toxicity in glioma tumours, a high manganese/ low magnesium induced mutation in Machado-Josephs disease, etc. The political perspectives of my work first came into the news in 1984, when I successfully quashed the UK government's compulsory warble fly eradication scheme in the high courts; thus exempting my farming business from treating my organic cattle with high doses of "systemic" organo-phosphate insecticides.

The chemicals derived from military nerves gases, which, amongst a myriad of toxicological effects, disturb the crucial balance of metals in the brain. I believed that BSE reared its ugly head in the UK cattle herd as a direct legacy of this exclusive "high dose" UK government mandate.

I have found myself at odds with the reductionist mindset of UK government "experts" ever since, and consequently found myself subjected to a steady derisory trickle of ridicule and dirty tricks. Like many heretics before me, I have found myself forced into operating as an "underground scientist"; tramping a lone journey to the Ends of the Earth, sampling exotic corners of Colorado, Iceland, Calabria, Slovakia, Japan, Australia, etc, where high incidence clusters of various neuro degenerative diseases have erupted. ...

-from above link, emphasis added

--
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com

mod parent up by loconet · 2007-01-02 04:28 · Score: 1, Funny

If posts like that makes him want to switch to digg. digg comments will want to make him "switch off his Internet".

--
[alk]

I can't be the only one ... by MrNougat · 2007-01-02 04:38 · Score: 1

... who thought, "And why do we need pr0n-free cows again?"

--
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk

Re:I can't be the only one ... by MLease · 2007-01-02 08:07 · Score: 1

... who thought, "And why do we need pr0n-free cows again?"

What?!? Think of the calves!

-Mike

--
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!

Major breakthrough in physics by kabdib · 2007-01-02 05:03 · Score: 1

I'm happy that we're *this close* [holds hooves together a couple millimeters apart] to finally splitting the cow atom. It's been a long road of discovery, from the Heifersburg uncertainty principle (you can have a cow, or a burger, but not both) to the realization that it is possible to cross a cattle grating, with careful quantized footing and a lot of federal funding.

The next big challenge: Sub-atomic cow fusion, and bringing subjugation to the lemur foe! Mooooo!

--
Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.

Depends on your definition by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2007-01-02 05:24 · Score: 1

Don't they usually start out without prions? You have to infect them.

That depends on whether you define "prion" to mean "the prion protien" or "the prion protien folded into the pathological shape".

These are cows with the prion protien gene "knocked out" so the protien is not produced. They are thus "prion free" by the first definition.

They will also remain prion free (except for the introduced prions) by the second definition as well, since they won't amplify the prions by folding more instances of the protein into the same shape.

I went cow-shopping and I remember prions were strictly an option.

Check the basic option package - it's there as "protein feed suplement".

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Re:Depends on your definition by riker1384 · 2007-01-02 09:29 · Score: 0

Does the good shape ever fold the pathological shape back into the good shape? If not, the good shape isn't a proteinaceous infectious particle. Maybe a prion-precursor but not a prion.

Not infectable or not affected by infection? by Mr+Z · 2007-01-02 05:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ok, so BSE damages prions which leads to all the characteristics of the disease. No prions, no disease. But does that necessarily mean no infection?

BSE can be passed to humans. Is it possible that these genetically modified cows are just modern day Typhoid Marys?

--Joe

--
Program Intellivision!

Re:Not infectable or not affected by infection? by Slur · 2007-01-02 07:35 · Score: 1

Excellent point. Extremely insightful.

We don't exactly know what causes BSE or vJKD, we only know it involves screwy prions. So the essential questions are: "Are screwy prions caused by a transmissible (non-prion) agent?" and "Do human naturally carry susceptible prions?"

Until we know the answers to these questions, it would be very unwise to replace all cattle with a new breed that only hides the problem.

--
-- thinkyhead software and media

Yeah, BUT, by Medievalist · 2007-01-02 06:15 · Score: 1

Factory-style production and distribution of food makes bad food, in my opinion.

I prefer to eat locally raised meat and produce. It tastes better. But the majority of people are just sucking down whatever overprocessed swill is cheap at walmart this week, so my choices won't make much difference on a global scale.

I wish everyone had to kill their own food or go hungry...

Re:Yeah, BUT, by illegalcortex · 2007-01-02 08:28 · Score: 1

I agree, mostly. The thing of it is, I believe (and it's a belief since I've never seen any real studies) that local farmers and ranchers are more likely to take better precautions due to their reliance on brand loyalty and repeat business. However, like the mortuary company that just dumped people out in the field instead of cremating them like they were supposed to do, there are always going to be problems everywhere. And having enough relatives that think nothing of using pesticides that the govt bans if they can find them at the army surplus store, I know that you shouldn't always have that much confidence in a local operation. Oh, and btw, these relatives live in the country and tend to have gardens. Yay.

Take the long view - by wsanders · 2007-01-02 06:26 · Score: 1

Will organisms that eat BSE-infested beef eventually die off? The chances of getting sick from it are infinitestimally small. Somebody run the numbers, but my guess is more genertic information is transmitted by the increased reproductive success of not living near a volcano or subduction zone, or not getting hit by an asteroid, or not gorging on 3000-calorie breakfasts

--
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"

Back in the day... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 06:46 · Score: 0

Before all this DNA nonsense, scientists, or as they were known in the dark ages: farmers, used to crossbreed things to improve them. That's why carrots aren't purple anymore, and you can buy savoy cabbage.

A far cry from chocolate rabbits perhaps, but is Animal Husbandry going out of fashion?

(Waits for "Not here in..." joke.)

What? by Gordonjcp · 2007-01-02 06:57 · Score: 1

I don't know what "CR" or "boutique" are. I don't think bacteria are the problem, anyway. Didn't you read the post?

Vegetarianism by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 07:10 · Score: 0

As far as I know, deer do not eat meat. Yet, CWD has been reported in deer in Wisconsin, along with warnings about not eating venison. Don't know about the latest hunting season.

Other Vectors..... by IHC+Navistar · 2007-01-02 07:11 · Score: 1

Since cows are now able to be bred prion-free, that doesn't fix the other possible vectors for prion contamination. If my biology is correct: Prions are malformed proteins. Can such malformed proteings be cause by genetic mutations from other sources? Even though a BSE-resistant cow has been bred to be 'free' of prions, and the genetic code that causes malformed prions to be created by biological processes withint the cow, can the genetic struture of a BSE-resistant cow mutate through some other avenue, such as naturally occurring radioisotopes (You anti-nuclear assclowns can shut up. Radioisotopes [and other mutagenic compounds] *DO* occurr naturally in harmful amounts in the Earth--- long before reactors and nuclear weapons existed), ultraviolet radiation, free radicals, and other naturally occurring mutagenic compounds? In order to create a truly BSE-free heifer, wouldn't you need to eliminate all possible mutagenic compound exposure vectors? Disclaimer: If my biology is incorrect or inaccurrate, I am only human.

--
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....

now I'm like grandpa by juan2074 · 2007-01-02 07:24 · Score: 1

In my day. . .
Cows ate grass.

Aren't the prions... by fahrbot-bot · 2007-01-02 07:35 · Score: 1

I confess; I had to look up what a prion is.

...the beings currently messing with the SG-1 crew and threatening the destruction of the Earth and populated planets in this galaxy? I can see why we'd definitely want cows without them.

Gary Larson would have a field day with this...

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Protein Free, not Prion Free by WryCoder · 2007-01-02 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

A prion is an 'infectious' protein which causes similar proteins to change their structure, rather like seeding a supersaturated solution. What has been done is to clone cattle which lack the protein which could be altered by the prion.

Re:Protein Free, not Prion Free by ScrewMaster · 2007-01-02 15:12 · Score: 1

Actually, I'd say it's more like a catalyst than a seed. As I understand it, prions trigger the conversion of normal proteins to an aberrant type, but are not themselves consumed.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

...so they don't MAKE that protein... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 08:17 · Score: 0

Lazy Cows !

Exactly by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 09:05 · Score: 0

Not until we know the full effects it has in animals

Because people aren't animals.

does this work by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 09:34 · Score: 0

what is this?

Summary of some existing research. by Yunalesca · 2007-01-02 10:19 · Score: 2, Informative

I couldn't access the mentioned paper, but I found another paper that I assume that review cited (Lindquist worked on both of them). The summary "CPEB prions might function in the formation of long-term memory" is probably though not certainly taken from:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR L&_udi=B6WSN-4C5RJXX-C&_coverDate=12%2F26%2F2003&_ alid=516758008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_c di=7051&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051401&_version=1 &_urlVersion=0&_userid=1082852&md5=817b088d824d789 e3c68039a6e013561

which talks about CPEB in Aplysia californica, the California sea slug. The results are pretty interesting, but it's unclear whether they apply to higher organisms. I haven't yet found anything where they test this in mice, but that doesn't mean the paper doesn't exist.

Another paper at

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/utils/fref.fcgi ?itool=AbstractPlus-def&PrId=3580&uid=12058449&db= pubmed&url=http://joi.jlc.jst.go.jp/JST.JSTAGE/jts /27.69?from=PubMed

found that: "Whereas the Zurich I Prnp null mice, as well as mice from a later PrP knockout line designated Edinburgh Prnp -/- (Manson et al., 1994) were clinically healthy, mice of other knockout lines, for example Nagasaki Prnp-/- (Sakaguchi et al., 1996) came down with ataxia and less of cerebellar Purkinje cells at 6-12 months of age. In the Zurich I and Edinburgh mice only the PrP open reading frame (ORF) was ablated or interrupted, while the lines developing ataxia had deletions extending from within the second Prnp intron to the 3' non-coding region [which runs into another gene called Doppel]."

To summarize: at this moment it doesn't seem that taking out only the coding region of PrP wrecks anything blatantly obvious in mice (though other papers I haven't cited show some other effects, not all of them neuro).

--
The floggings will stop when morale improves.

Right on! by Fantastic+Lad · 2007-01-02 11:02 · Score: 1

You can still choose these days how and what you eat. It just takes attention and work. I moved out of a city to a small town in part to be able to get to know my food producers, but even in a city, you can find ways to eat clean.

I do eat meat. I tried vegetarianism for a while and began to waste away. My doctor told me my blood type wouldn't allow for it. No matter. I was only doing it because I lived in a vegetarian household for a while and wanted to see what it was like. In the end, I see the life of an animal the same way I see the life of a plant; Alive. Thus "Free Range and Killed with Respect," has been my personal solution. --That in this reality, to live is to enter into a contract whereby life feeds life and everything must die eventually, including us.

-FL

Ugh! by Fantastic+Lad · 2007-01-02 11:22 · Score: 1

So we've invented Clone Cows which can eat other cows. Charming.

Here's a question. . ,

Why not instead of this Frankenstein Science, just stop feeding garbage to animals, raise them kindly, and kill them with respect? This would solve the prion problem. And the super-bug problem. And the hormone laced milk problem. Among others.

After all, the lives of these animals are being taken so that we can live. Surely they deserve a bit of love. --Also, nobody needs to eat the amount of meat many people do. If our diets were regulated correctly, and if we treated our livestock with affection rather than using them with such coldness, life would be better for a whole lot of creatures as well as humanity. It is true; everything must take life in order to live, and we all must die. Why not try to infuse the process with compassion?

Of course, if you believe in a digital universe where souls do not exist, then what reason does anybody have to respect life and not adopt the behavior patterns of the psychopath?

Welcome to Mordor and the Sith's vision of Empire.

I find it strange that the very subset of the population who love such stories the most are more inclined than anybody to fall into the very paths those stories warn against.

-FL

Re:embarrassed, don't feel bad by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-02 12:27 · Score: 0

The only reason why I know anything at all about the disease is because of the Janet Skarbek documentary. With the law on the side of the beef producers (remember the Oprah case?), you won't see too many news outlets sticking their necks out to report this. That and the CDC is doing its best to discount any cases here in the USA as "normal" CJD (as opposed to the variant type).

What the upshot of all this is (as I understand it) is that the prion unfolds somewhat (mutates) and that is what does the damage. They aren't a virus, and they are dammed hard to destroy. And from what I remember, the mutated prions "saw" through the cells in the brain causing holes in it.

Check out the picture of a damaged brain:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/572832.stm

A link to the unfolding/misfolding info:

http://www.cprmap.com/prion/prion-finding-offers-i nsight-into-spontaneous-protein-diseases-8134.html

A link to the Janet Skarbek documentary:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/sight8704.c fm

The latest victim in the USA:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&arti cleID=13D8532225DEA4FCA8E0EBDFB27B83E4

And a reference to the Hindu/cow link:

http://www.sustainabletable.org/blog/archives/2005 /09/news_new_theory.html

I can't remember where I saw the Janet Skarbek documentary. I think it was either FreespeechTV or LinkTV.

Oh, and the word that I have to type in to prove that I'm not a script is "infected". Ironic.

Oblig. Monty Python ref. by zenhkim · 2007-01-02 13:48 · Score: 1

John Cleese [as the bereaved son]: Um -- er, uh, excuse me but, um, are you suggesting ...*eating my mother*?

Graham Chapman [the undertaker]: ...Yeah! Not raw, cooked!

Cleese: What?!

Chapman: Er, uh, roasted, few french fries, broccoli... Horseradish sauce?

Cleese: Um, uh, well... Well, I do feel a little peckish.

--
"All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"

While I'm at it.. by StikyPad · 2007-01-02 14:10 · Score: 1

Anybody else think Prion is a terrible contraction for "Priory of Scion?" Who names secret societies after cars anyway?

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Re:While I'm at it.. by ScrewMaster · 2007-01-02 15:59 · Score: 1

No, it's actually a contraction of "Pryor On", which is a Kuru-like comedic pathogen known for causing its victims to die laughing.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Was done in 2004. by emaveneau · 2007-01-02 15:15 · Score: 1

Prion free cattle are not entirely new. They were made in 2004.

Further back, "In 1992 ... so called prion knock-out mice [were created]. ... Strangely enough, mice lacking the prion gene are apparently healthy".

While other studies have found, "abnormalities in circadian rhythms and sleep" and ataxia late in life.

Proportionally, such symptoms may occur in 13 year old cattle (see halfbakery link).

So, to follow the new year's theme of predictions, I fully expect to be able to buy prion free beef by 2025.

340 comments