article-horsemeat contaminated

[county]

Question your motavation? I don't question your motavation I question your using me to see your desired results.

[Shahrazade]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by county:
As far as helping kids I don't think its your actual motive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah... If you are not questioning my motivation, then why are you using that particular phrasing? A vocabulary lesson: Motive- "An emotion, desire, physiological need, or similar impulse that acts as an incitement to action."
Motivation- "a motivating force, stimulus, or influence (as a drive or incentive) (sex as the motivation of animal)"

So, I don't believe that questioning my motive is different from questioning my motivation.

I'm very sorry if you object to my asking you to back up a blanket statement, made as if you were speaking about an objective fact, in order to keep food sold in the USA safe for consumers, including children. I simply assumed that, because you frequently mention your love of children, you would take any opportunity to prevent their potential death or illness. You have posted on other threads that people who campaign against horse slaughter should spend their time helping children's causes instead. The logical conclusion would be that you feel issues of horse slaughter are less important than issues of children's safety. Therefore, why in the Lord's name would you object to the infinitesimal possibility that you allowing me to report these alleged beef producers that you say you know for a fact use a banned substance in cattle intended for human consumption might lead to an increase in sentiments against exporting horse meat?

[county]

ROTFLMAO!!! So you feel unless I think the same way you do I'm wrong and your right????!!!! Me thinks you have no clue.

BTW your in that group that likes to assume way to much.

[Shahrazade]

Well, actually, I don't know to what you are referring.

Could it be my statement that bute is dangerous and carcinogenic? If the statement from the FDA is inadequate for you, I can find some studies on this subject in a heartbeat using Academic Search Premier, to which I have a subscription. If you don't think bute is dangerous to humans, yes, you are wrong and I am right. End of story. It is no longer open for debate, as the substance was pulled off the market and banned from use in animals for human consumption many years ago after extensive studies of its side effects. You might as well say smoking does not cause cancer.

Or is it my statement that you think children's issues are more important than campaigning against horse slaughter? If that's what you object to, I suggest you look up a few of your own posts. How about this? "gazenna I agree but to me the children are a billion times more important." http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/55660.../160209408#160209408

Or... "While I'm not big on animal abusers this is nothing compared to what some people do to children theres a real problem!!!" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/55660.../349208408#349208408

Or "I've asked the same type question to anti slaughter people aout spending their efforts saving children" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/55660.../992200577#992200577

What about "No doubt some do just as some pro slaughter people work to curb what goes into land fills. The ones I've asked stated they haven't done anything about children" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/55660.../993200577#993200577

Perhaps what I am wrong to assume is that you have the capacity to stand by your own words. Is that it?

[county]

No its like I said you assume I should think the same way you do. Heres a little tip not everyone does, and thats normal.

[Shahrazade]

County, please tell me where I am assuming you think the same way I do. Where did I assume something about you that wasn't backed up by something YOU said?

[county]

Sorry I'm heading to bed you'll have to find someone else to play your control games with.

[Shahrazade]

Ok, have a good night. However, I can't remember when the definition of 'control games' changed to include asking someone to back up their own statements with facts. Actually, I've been nothing but polite to you, County, and I've been offering you an opportunity to help children (something you have said is important) without having to use your name for a complaint and risk upsetting a rule-breaking neighbor. Really, I'm flattered that you think I can control you, but I would actually prefer a good conversation in which we disagree but do so in an engaging and intellectual manner.

[JSwan]

This is what I'm talking about. "I don't like it so you can't do it".

"I'm better than you because I don't eat (fill in the blank). "

In the end, it's about control.

It ends up not about about horse slaughter, but some sort of game to see how much "better" one person is over the other.

This is how people justify flying planes into buildings. My moral code is better than yours. And since you won't see things my way, I'll lie, and beat you over the head until you give up.

Isn't that nice.

If you are that concerned about the poor widdle Europeans eating horsemeat, try stopping them with that propaganda. They'll spit in your face. Because the Europeans don't care what Americans think. Our culture and ethics are not the end all be all of the world.

[armandh]

there is this story about the PR guy hired by the book publishing industry to boost sales. what he in fact did was convince home builders to put in more book shelves.

so wouldn't photos or clips of US horses getting medicated posted on french BBs be great. I can see it now.

"a fellow who looks like the cow boy in the cigerette ad squirts and tosses the bute tube in to the trash where a zoom in shows the warning.
the tag line with a flag backgeound and a white coated DR. like figure smoking says between puffs "cancer: it is one of our biggest exports"

[JSwan]

Funny you mention that - when I lived in Germany and went to the movie theater - they showed the old American Marlboro tv ads from the 70's before the movie started. Aren't the Japanese the biggest smokers in the world? Something like that.

I'm not picking one side or the other in this argument - my views are my own. But if facts don't sway people, I don't think it justifies lying, manipulation, brow beating and even violence. In the end, you can't legislate morality.

[bjrudq]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is how people justify flying planes into buildings. My moral code is better than yours. And since you won't see things my way, I'll lie, and beat you over the head until you give up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


oh, fer chrissakes. next you'll be comparing people involved with the slaughter issue to hitler. and that's just plain silly.

the anti slaughter people went to their elected representatives in an attempt to bring about change. that's how democracy is supposed to work. it's hardly comparable to flying a plane into a building. unless, i suppose, that horse slaughter is part of the underpinnings of the way you make your living. any assault on profit-why, that's TERRORISM.

eventually horse slaughter is going to be outlawed in this country. deal with it. there are other, bigger, more important fish to fry.

and j swan-"you can't legislate morality?" i beg to differ- my minnesota criminal law handbook is almost 1600 pages thick, and that doesn't begin to include all the regulations of industry, commerce, and the professions and trades. i do believe that "legslating morality" is done on a rather regular basis in this country! i don't see, however, that the regulation of horse slaughter(or livestock slaughter of any kind) is necesasily a "moral" issue.

susan p, thanks for the article.

[JSwan]

PETA makes comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust, not me.

I don't like extremism in any form. If horse slaughter should be banned in this country there shouldn't be a need for the histrionics. Most of the pablum sounds like it's written by a bunch of hysterical post-menopausal cat ladies.

What I'm saying, since you obviously didn't understand that the post that so offends you referred to an argument between County and Shahrazade, is that many people, myself included, would be able to understand and perhaps even support the position if the information available wasn't so full of misdirection, emotion, hyperbole - and yes, outright lies.

To understand the issues surrounding these practicies, I'll rely on scientists and dispassionate, reasoned discourse - not journalists, activists or kooks with ulterior motives and a bridge they'd like to sell me.

Yes, SusanP - thanks for the article. You're well-intentioned.

[greysandbays]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bjrudq:
eventually horse slaughter is going to be outlawed in this country. deal with it. there are other, bigger, more important fish to fry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bigger, more important fish to fry than having the government controlling every damn thing we do? I read a scary line the other day: "The government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." The anti-slaughter faction has yet to come up with any argument beyond "I don't like it. It's icky. It should be illegal." In other words -- I WANT TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE. But then it IS the objective of a certain persuasion to achieve total control of the people, is it not? This is one more notch on the butt of their gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and j swan-"you can't legislate morality?" i beg to differ- my minnesota criminal law handbook is almost 1600 pages thick, and that doesn't begin to include all the regulations of industry, commerce, and the professions and trades. i do believe that "legslating morality" is done on a rather regular basis in this country! i don't see, however, that the regulation of horse slaughter(or livestock slaughter of any kind) is necesasily a "moral" issue.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this legislating of morality is working SO well in Minnesota that everybody there is a perfectly behaved Saint, isn't it?

[jetsmom]

greysandbays- Every law on the books in every state is an effort to control behavior...but it doesn't mean that it is wrong to have those laws. There is a law against torturing animals, because "it is icky and I don't like it". But torturing animals is also inhumane. Ditto the horse slaughter issue.


I really would like to ask county to tell Shahrahzade the name of the cattle producer who is buting his livestock. He said that he knows it is being done, so provide the proof, rather than just the allegation.

And county...Shahrazade was very polite to you, and your answers to her were rude whether you intended them to be or not.

[JLK]

Phenylbutazone is not classified as a known carcinogen by the National Toxicology or the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is not on the National Toxicology Program's 11th Annual List of Carcinogens. The NTP states that a two year study found "some evidence" of carcinogenicity in female rats and and male mice, no evidence in female mice, and equivocal evidence in male rats.

A very far cry from the "known carcinogen" the original post claimed.

And - all drugs/chemicals have the potential to be poisons. The difference between a drug and a poison: the dose.

[des]

Hmm...

The more I read.. the more I don't know what to think of this whole thing.

I got a question:

What is going to happen to the 65,000 horses that are annually slaughtered? Who's gonna take em? Or is this none of our concern?

[Sing Mia Song]

Just to clear up some of the misconceptions and misstatements here regarding the FDA and the USDA.

The FDA is charged with monitoring food, drugs, cosmetics, devices, etc.

Veterinary drugs are approved (or not) by the FDA at the Center for Veterinary Medicine. There are three target animal divisions:
1.Therapeutic Drugs for Food Animals (they approve the use of painkillers and antibiotics in food animals, i.e., Banamine in dairly cattle).

2. Production Drugs for Food Animals (they work on approvals for drugs that increase meat and milk production, like hormone implants for beef cattle, or BST).

3. Therapeutic Drugs for Non-Food Animals (antibiotics, painkillers, dewormers, etc for HORSES, dogs, cats, wildlife, etc).

Drugs that are approved for food animals have to go through withdrawal testing to see how long before slaughter the drug must be discontinued. Drugs approved for non-food animals, such as HORSES, do not. This is because drugs approved by the FDA are approved for use in the US and ONLY in the US. Because horses are not consumed by humans in the US, drugs approved for use in horses do not have to demonstrate withdrawal times. This is the way the drug companies like it, because doing withdrawal studies is an added expense.

Once an animal walks up the ramp to slaughter, it is no longer a food animal and FDA doesn't really have any jurisdiction. Once it is no longer "on the hoof," it's subject to USDA regulations.

Okay, so now instead of a "food animal," you simply have "food." This food, whether beef, pork, horsemeat, lamb, etc., is subject to residue testing. Residue reports are available on the USDA website.

Country's example of beef or dairy farmers who use bute in their cattle is an example of a violation of the safe use of an FDA-approved medication. If their animal tested positive in residue, they'd get a nice little letter from FDA and a fine. I have yet to see any such letters regarding residues in horses, although I know there have been a couple violators from reading the USDA site (I'm not saying they don't exist--I don't work in the compliance office, so I wouldn't come across them.). Of the ones that I have seen (and they're all public record), it seems like the most common violation is the use of penicillin, probably used in a dairy cow in an attempt to treat whatever she had. Frequently, dairy farmers will atempt to treat, but when things look like they're going down hill, they'll ship the cow to slaughter before she dies of her own accord. The dosing with penicillin isn't necessarily intentional--it could be the result of miscommunication between the herd manager and a worker.

BTW, a couple of years ago McDonald's was the number one purchaser of culled dairy cattle.

[jetsmom]

des- Look at the link and scroll down to my post giving the #'s slaughtered...You'll see that there won't be a bunch of unwanted horses all of a sudden.

where would the horses go?

[JSwan]

Oh no - you mean Europeans are eating tainted Big Macs? Quelle dommage....of course, the big radioactive cloud that settled over Europe from Chernobyl was perfectly safe.

If you knew what was in your food you'd freak out and starve to death. "grass fed beef", organic tomatoes - doesn't matter.

I have as many animals as I can afford. I can't take in one of those 65 thousand that won't go to slaughter if the plants close.

I sure as hell hope that if the plants close that abuse, neglect and abandonmnet cases don't skryocket. Where do you think all those animals are going to go?????? Those USDA numbers reflect a huge and dramatic change in the tax law - not "fewer" animals. If plants had not been available to slaughter those animals after the tax change - WHERE WOULD THEY HAVE ENDED UP?

Because I bet once the plants close, many anti slaughter folks will pat themselves on the back, say job well done -------- and walk away.