I heard about that on the news on Friday. When will we ever learn? Sarah

Trying to grow beef too fast, to feed too many people. It's kind of funny to think how much suffering is created by ignorance and "good intentions."

Just heard the latest the other day - a single cow was diagnosed positive for mad cow here in USA.

Tip of the iceberg?

In the Texas conversations forums I posted an OCA article about the cow from Texas that tested positive. In general, my post was met with the attitude that there's too many other things to be concerned about and Mad Cow was waaaay down on the list (if on the list at all). I personally suspect there will be a huge outbreak in the years to come simply because of the length of incubation and the lack of effective controls in the conventional meat industry.

I would say that I'm of the opinion that Mad Cow can likely be corraled. Avian bird flu and other communable viruses are more scary to me. Anyway, we shall see.

Tests have confirmed the cow was diseased.

"Last update: June 24, 2005 at 5:41 PM
Second case of mad cow disease confirmed in U.S.
Libby Quaid, Associated Press
June 25, 2005 MADCOW0625

WASHINGTON -- Exhaustive tests have confirmed mad cow disease in an animal apparently born in the United States, officials said Friday. It is the second case of the disease confirmed in this country, but Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns stressed there was no threat to public health.

The animal, a "downer'' that could not walk, was not killed at a slaughterhouse but at a rendering plant for animals unfit for human consumption, officials said. Johanns would not say where the case turned up, but he said there was no evidence the cow was imported.

"I am encouraged that our interlocking safeguards are working exactly as intended,'' Johanns said at a news conference. "This animal was blocked from entering the food supply because of the firewalls we have in place. Americans have every reason to continue to be confident in the safety of our beef.''

The Agriculture Department said the news also should not affect efforts to lift bans on U.S. beef in Japan and Korea imposed after the first U.S. case in December 2003. Officials in Japan, formerly the largest customer of U.S. beef, have said a positive test result would not deter them from resuming beef imports. Japan agreed to reopen its market last fall but has not actually lifted its ban.

An internationally recognized laboratory in Weybridge, England, confirmed the case Friday after U.S. tests produced conflicting results, Johanns said. Initial screening had indicated the presence of the disease, but the animal was tested and cleared of having the brain-wasting illness.

New tests were ordered two weeks ago. Those results, from a test known as the Western blot, came back positive, leading officials to seek confirmation from the Weybridge lab. The department also performed more tests at its lab in Ames, Iowa.

Mad cow disease medically known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE Â kills brain cells and leaves spongy holes behind. A form of the disease in people is variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. It has been linked to the consumption of contaminated meat. The disease has killed about 150 people worldwide, mostly in Britain.

The first case of mad cow disease in the United States was confirmed in December 2003. It turned up in Washington state in a dairy cow imported from Canada.

The new case was in an animal at least 8 years old, the department said. Like the first case, it was born before the United States and Canada banned cattle parts in cattle feed, which is how the disease is believed to spread.

Officials said the brain tissue samples appeared different from the classical form of mad cow disease seen in Britain, where there was an outbreak in the 1990s, but they are classifying it as mad cow disease, anyway.

Johanns said his department will start conducting the more sensitive Western blot test as a matter of routine. The department has been criticized by consumer groups and cattlemen for not resolving conflicting test results on this animal last November.

The department did initial screening using a "rapid test,'' which was positive. A more detailed immunohistochemistry, or IHC test, was negative. But the department did not conduct a third round, using the Western blot, until the department's inspector general ordered it to do so two weeks ago, said USDA officials, including the inspector general.

Now the department will use both IHC and Western blot when rapid tests indicate the presence of the disease, Johanns said.

"By adding the second confirmatory test, we boost that confidence and bring our testing in line with the evolving worldwide trend,'' he said.

U.S. officials escalated testing for the disease after the first U.S. case. More than 388,000 dead cattle have been screened in the past 13 months, compared with about 2,000 screenings annually before the first case.

Earlier in the day, Johanns expressed irritation that the new round of testing had been ordered without his knowledge or approval. Inspector General Phyllis Fong, an internal auditor and investigator, has not explained why she ordered the new tests.

"I was asked by the Senate and the president to operate the department,'' Johanns told reporters Friday morning. "I believe, in this area, very clearly, the secretary should be consulted, whoever the secretary is, before testing is undertaken. From my standpoint, I believe I was put there to operate the department and was very disappointed.''

ÂÂÂ

On the Net:

USDA: http://www.usda.gov "

I heard that too the other day. They can't even trace where this cow came from or where it's offspring are.I think it's the tip of the iceberg! Sarah

There have been references to the cow having lived in Texas, but USDA isn't confirming anything. The NYTimes article about the confirmation said the strain of mad cow disease is closer to the French variety than the British. I didn't know there were so many variations that have been recorded.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if you ate a juicy steak from a downer cow, if you washed it thoroughly, it would be SAFE, because MUSCLE doesn't transmit the problem. I've heard this several times ON TV, is this true according to the latest science, or not? Is there any studies that put this information in doubt?

Yeah, I always run my T-bones through the washer-drier too. I've been looking for beef never attached to spines and heads and, if possible, circulation systems.

Marshall, as usual, your information leans toward the smart-a** or the obtuse. Either back up your comments without citing fringe groups, or just don't post.

I was just reading some of the forums on OCA and came across this gem. In a discussion on Mad Cow there is a response from The Center for Global Food Issues (the Hudson Institute). Remember John Stossel, 20/20, Dennis Avery?

I really need to go to my local feed store and get a pic of that cattle feed board that states, in clear english, 10% beef protein in one of the brands, and fire it off to those nut jobs.

Thanks for posting it for Randy too.

Thanks for the link mudbug. An entertaining read.

Randy, don't you think you're being a little harsh? The prions reside primarily, as far as we know in the nerve tissues. Muscle tissue has nerve tissue, but not as concentrated as the spinal column. I think new butchering standards were put in place to make sure no central nervous system tissue was splattered on the rest of the carcass.

Back to you question. The prions haven't been discovered in the muscle tissue of cows, but they have been found in other species like mice, things we don't eat. Last year, a sheep with scrapie, a related disease was found to have prions in the edible muscle tissue.

Randy, I recommend for your next BD or Christmas gift, a couple of good search engines and an open mind. (A sense of humor might be too much of a good thing.)

There's lots of good information on the subject of prions and associated diseases. True, specialists still don't fully understand the subject. Thus, I would expect non-specialist talking heads with agenda have even less to contribute. So, I post to the subject to have fun and perhaps to learn something new. I love it when you knock "fringe groups."

I am wondering how long Mad Cow has really been around. Perhaps it is another example of de-evolution. By that I mean the breakdown of creation [degrading]. I have my opinion of what has caused this...and yes man is responsible in my opinion.

Randy, OCA has a whole section devoted to Mad Cow. The collection of articles and studies is linked below.

Amongst the more recent reports is this:

"BSE may spread to other tissues

January 21, 2005 The Toronto Star by Peter Calamai

Mad cow disease could - under certain conditions - spread to parts of cattle now considered safe to eat, Swiss researchers say.

The research team reported yesterday that prions, the twisted proteins responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), thrive in the liver, kidney and pancreas of lab mice that are also suffering from inflammatory diseases like hepatitis.

"There are health implications from this finding. There may be cattle that are harbouring prions in other tissues, including muscle," said prion researcher Dr. Neil Cashman, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. "

(http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/tissues12104.cfm)

As Marshall said, even the specialists are reluctant to make any definite statements regarding bse because they just don't know. If you are hearing definitve statements on TV, you should challenge the network/reporter for spreading misleading info.

Here's one solution to getting mad....Yum!...but they'd probably still add nitrates & nitrites :o(

Cow-free Beef Proposed
By Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 07 July 2005
01:54 pm ET

Scientists have proposed two new techniques for growing meat in a lab by a process that could one day make beef cows obsolete.

Don't toss out those beef steaks just yet, however. The technology is in its infant stages and it is not clear whether large-scale production will work. It's not known, for example, how to exercise an animal that doesn't exist, in order to give lab meat the full range of cow-like qualities.

Currently, small amounts of edible fish can be created in the lab. But University of Maryland doctoral student Jason Matheny says that this process could be adapted on an industrial scale -- whole factories producing fish sticks without the fish or chicken nuggets without the real birds.

"With a single cell, you could theoretically produce the world's annual meat supply," Matheny says. "And you could do it in a way that's better for the environment and human health. In the long run, this is a very feasible idea."

Health benefits

Lab-grown meats could be designed to be healthier too.

"For one thing, you could control the nutrients," Matheny says. "For example, most meats are high in the fatty acid Omega 6, which can cause high cholesterol and other health problems. With in vitro meat, you could replace that with Omega 3, which is a healthy fat."

Cultured meats would reduce the environmental burden that comes from raising livestock. Also, it wouldn't need to be treated with antibiotics and other drugs that are common in the industry.

Scientists have already demonstrated that a single muscle cell from a cow or chicken can be turned into thousands in the lab. But so far, these experiments haven't gone large scale.

The methods

To grow meat on large scale, Matheny suggests two methods. One is to grow muscle cells on long, flat membranes. Once the cells are mature, the tissue would be stretched off the membrane and stacked so the product better resembled the real thing.

The other option would be to grow cells on small, three-dimensional beads that stretch with temperature changes. The cells could be scraped off and turned into processed meat like chicken nuggets or ground beef.

The trick, however, is to grow something that tastes like real meat. That means growing not just muscle cells, but other types of tissue -- like fat -- as well. Once the taste is good, the texture has to be just right for consumers to buy into the idea.

"We have to figure out how to 'exercise' the cells. For the right texture, you have to stretch the tissue, like a live animal would," Matheny says.

Matheny's paper was published in the June 29 issue of the journal Tissue Engineering

Vgkg - I have a suspicion that none of those scientists are gardeners, else they would know about the taste and textural difference between those commercial tomatoes available in winter and a sun-ripened, fresh-off-the-vine homegrown tomato. OTOH, there are people who go to the grocery in January and think those pinkish card-board flavor globes are as good as the "real thing" -- and those same folks will probably be happy with lab-grown fish sticks.

I dunno vgkg. That sounds like another form of madness taking shape.

Following Meldy, there are beef connoisseurs who prefer grass-fed to corn-fed beef, or visa versa. Will the tissue engineers be able to cater to these tastes?

They'll probably remedy the lab beef flavor by transplanting some corn genes in there somewhere, sure wouldn't put it pass them. Could also be a marketing plus - "Meat & Veggie all in one Bite"

Think about it: "Tissue Engineers" (?).
I was amazed by tone dialing vs. the rotary dial. I remember Sputnik and hideing under desks during Atomic Bomb drills. I'm typing on a machine that was inconcievable when I was born (1948).
We have the bad (mad cow and pesticide residues) but then look at where Vgkg and others are pointing - to the new technologies.
In other words, although there are many negatives in our modern life, enjoy the positive advances.

vgkg- stop giving them ideas~(lol?!) I am always afraid that if one can think it....its probably already being done...

Absolutely Lily, that's why we'll reach for the stars and over come the so-called speed of light barrier one day.