1/12/2004: Civet cat kill

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by juju
snip--They way to look at it is this: Our ancestors started adding meat to their diet, and their teeth slowly adapted as a result.
It seems likely that if we decided to start eating something else, then our bodies would eventually adapt to fully exploit that food source as well.

I was under the impression that we ate meat from the git go, along with found things like fruit and berries. The diet didn't change significantly until beer was invented and an agricultural society was formed to support that endeavor.

[FelinesAreFine]

Man, I sure could use a nice, big, juicy T-bone right about now.

[quzah]

Originally posted by glatt
I'm disapointed in the US media.

Understatement of the century. But money controls the media.

Originally posted by glatt
I really think that this deserves to be getting a lot more attention than it has.

The beef industry has lots and lots of (subsidized) money...

Originally posted by glatt
This cow came from Canada. OK. I buy that. But how does it follow that it is the only one?

Furthermore, who gives a shit where it came from? The herd that came from Canada was over here for years. Years. There are plants in Washington, one of which handles "sick and downed cows" that hadn't been inspected for years.

See the problem? Sick and downed cows are the most likely to have Mad Cow. Yet they weren't inspected for years. Yet, this is somehow Canada's fault.

Personally I don't care what anyone eats. However, you'll forgive me if I have a hearty chuckle on those who die from eating meat. And if you don't: "My boy, I really don't care."

Quzah.

[quzah]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I was under the impression that we ate meat from the git go, along with found things like fruit and berries. The diet didn't change significantly until beer was invented and an agricultural society was formed to support that endeavor.

Doubtful. Especially if you're a believer in evolution. Thinking back, one of the first things you'd find to eat were berries and grass and such. The instinct to kill wouln't have been the first thing to develop, at least not for food. I'm not a biologist, so I may be wrong. But I believe that plant eating would have been done first, as it takes less effort to get a kill.

Consider the cheetah. They spend huge amounts of energy trying to chase down food to kill. Huge amounts. They rarely catch what they're going after also. (Nature, Learning Channel, some place sited as source. Again, I may be off in my facts. It's been years since I saw the show on them.)

Now on the other hand, you have humming birds...

Anyway...

If you're a Creationist, then you also have to believe in the fruit first version. After all, they started in a garden, and I've yet to see a steak tree. Furthermore, IIRC, the word "meat" actually meant sustinance, and not flesh. That is to say, IIRC, the first time it was used was in reference to fruits and vegetables (according to the bible).

But I'm not a god, or biblical scholar, so I could be off again.

Quzah.

[juju]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I was under the impression that we ate meat from the git go, along with found things like fruit and berries.

And when exactly is the "git go"? :)

It all depends on how far back you go. 65 million years ago, for example, our ancestors were eating insects. Hell, that's why they survived and the dinosaurs didn't. Even a giant fucking asteroid can't kill the cockroaches on this planet.

[Serk]

Dangit Quzah! You're making me hungry... The very thought of a 'steak tree'.....

[Homer Mode]
MMMmmmmmmmm Steeeeakkk treeeeee.....
[/Homer Mode]


On a more serious note, I'll stop eating meat when my eyes slide to the sides of my head... Look at the animal kingdom... Predators have their eyes near each other, on the front of their face, for better depth perception during the hunt and the kill...
Herbivores tend to have their eyes on either side of their head, to better see a predator coming in for them, a wide field of view being more important that good depth perception...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by juju
And when exactly is the "git go"?

It all depends on how far back you go. 65 million years ago, for example, our ancestors were eating insects. Hell, that's why they survived and the dinosaurs didn't. Even a giant fucking asteroid can't kill the cockroaches on this planet.

Exactly, insects are meat.

[FelinesAreFine]

Shit, Bruce....when are you ever gonna let me talk?????

[xoxoxoBruce]

Shaddap and eat your insects.

[quzah]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Shaddap and eat your insects.

If you're lucky, you can get an apple with a worm in it. It's like having a "complete meal" for you omni...

Quzah.

[FelinesAreFine]

Etymophagy isn't all that uncommon. It's the western world that's weird. tones of protein, roughage. It's just getting over the fact that they're *bugs*.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why do I have the feeling that most people that eat bugs (intentionally), never heard the word etymophagy.

[FelinesAreFine]

'Cause we American are weird!

[glatt]

Well, after all my ranting about being dissapointed in the press on this story, I feel a little vindicated.

I'm still dissapointed, because this was put on page 2 instead of front page above the fold, but page two is a start.

Expert panel at Department of Agriculture thinks there are still numerous cases of cows infected with Mad Cow disease in the US beef supply, and current standards do nothing to find them or prevent YOU from eating them.

But don't take my word for it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Feb4.html

I stand by my decision to avoid beef until all this plays out in a couple years. Pains me to say it, cause I love beef. If you love your higher functions, you should avoid beef too.

The beef industry brought this upon themselves, and if they crash and burn, I will feel zero sympathy for them.

[glatt]

Maybe I'm just talking to myself on this one, but I'm going to post this anyway.

It looks like another case of mad cow disease was found over the weekend. Tests are not conclusive yet, and we won't know for a few more days, but I view it as a good sign. The sooner we find more of the infected cows, the sooner the problem will be taken seriously, and the sooner I will be able to eat my beloved beef again. You can't fix a problem until everyone agrees that there is one.

Saturday, June 26, 2004; Page A05 Washington Post

Preliminary Test Results 'Inconclusive' for Mad Cow

A U.S. animal tested positive in a preliminary screening test for mad cow disease, Agriculture Department officials said late yesterday.

John Clifford, deputy administrator of USDA veterinary services, said officials learned of the "inconclusive" test result at 5:30 p.m. The carcass is being sent to the USDA National Veterinary Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for additional tests. Results are expected in four to seven days.

Clifford declined to identify the animal or its location until testing is complete, noting that it is "very likely" final testing could turn up negative.

"The animal in question didn't enter the food chain," he said. "If [additional tests are] positive, we'll provide additional information on the animal and origins."

It was the first "inconclusive" test result for the brain-wasting disease since the government began using rapid test kits in June as part of a program to test more cattle after a Holstein tested positive in Washington state in December. The faster test carries a greater risk of false positives. The USDA did not say whether the animal was a cow, steer or bull.

"This is not at all unexpected," Clifford said. "Screening tests are designed to be extremely sensitive."