Should Catholics be concerned about animals?

[Mickey_Finn]

For mercifulJan. If you are for some reason a supporter of HSUS. You may view their actions as accomplishments. But the odds are, you are well intentioned and far removed from the realities and harm they do. They frequently use the rare occasion of dog fighting, or animal hoarding to push legisaltors to pass very restrictive laws which make the usual and moral use of animals anywhere from difficult to outright impossible.

Here are some of the problems I as a hunter and dog owner am aware of.
1,ussafoundation.org/Page.aspx?pid=1750

HSUS and Others Push New Agriculture Secretary to Stop Wildlife Control

Coalition Demands a Halt to Lethal Control of Predators
1/6/09

The incoming Secretary of the Agriculture is getting pushed by anti’s to stop a key federal program that prevents numerous problems associated with predatory animals. This push highlights the anti-hunting agenda to tar and feather historically effective means of managing wildlife.

On January 2, 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and a wide number of other organizations sent a letter to Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (D), President- elect Obama’s choice to head the Department of Agriculture. The letter demands the end of lethal control by the Department’s Wildlife Services Program (WS).

When requested by state or local governments, the WS uses a variety of tactics to prevent predator encroachment on urban areas that compromise public safety. The WS also works to prevent economic loss to farmers and the destruction of endangered species as a result of over predation.

While the WS use numerous non-lethal mechanisms for reducing the threats associated with predatory animals, there are times when selectively removing a small number of them is necessary. According to fact sheets available from the WS, “WS employees strive to remove only the predators that are causing the damage. To accomplish this goal, they direct control methods at only the specific animal or local wildlife population in the area where damage has occurred.”

The coalition argues that the WS program focuses on “methods that are non-selective, haphazard, and brutal” and requests a meeting to discuss the issue with Vilsack.

If antis can stop legitimate forms of wildlife management conducted by wildlife professionals, it sets a precedent that can be used to continue attacks on the rights of sportsmen.

2.Some of the more famous quotes from Mr. Pacelle…“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” – Wayne Pacelle, as quoted by the Associated Press in Impassioned Agitator, December 30, 1991.

“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.” – Wayne Pacelle, as quoted in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, October 8, 1991.

“Sport hunting—the killing of wild animals as recreation—is fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just and caring society.” – HSUS Website 2003.

1. Even Merritt Clifton, publisher of “Animal People”, a newsletter written by animal rightists for animal rightists, singled out HSUS for appearing to be something it is not. In December’s 11th annual report on fundraising, under the heading “How they fool the world”, he writes:

“The most misleading appeals that Animal People sees on a regular basis are those which misrepresent the sender. Over time, such appeals can create an image for an organization which is sharply at odds with what it actually does.”

“The Humane Society of the U.S., for instance, is not and never has been a collective voice for all, most, or any other humane societies. Neither does it shelter animals, adopt out animals, neuter animals, or share funding with local humane societies. In fact, HSUS is an advocacy organization representing just itself.”

1. I would concede, that they played a major supporting role in rescueing displaced pets after the katrina hurricane. What happened to the rescued pets? They flooded the local shelters up north. some of which, I’m sure are no-kill shelters. A cynical or world wise person might wonder if they like so many charities after 9/11 saw an opportunity to fill their coffers and got to work.

I think these four, show the HSUS as not worthy of trust. Unless of course you are opposed to hunting, or don’t mind being misled.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“The Humane Society of the U.S., for instance, is not and never has been a collective voice for all, most, or any other humane societies. Neither does it shelter animals, adopt out animals, neuter animals, or share funding with local humane societies. In fact, HSUS is an advocacy organization representing just itself.”

Wow! Then they are misleading everyone into associating them with those organizations that do. Tawdry.

 

[Newbie2]

I love your post and agree with it fully. A mouthful of bacon or steak is simply not worth the prolonged pain and suffering the animals experience.

Have you ever been to an animal production facility? A slaughterhouse? I mean actually been there, not seen a video or read a book or seen pictures, etc.

Actually they’re not. We breed these animals purposefully to live unnatural lives on the cement floors of intense confinement facilities (factory farms). There is nothing natural about a factory farm.

Any domesticated animal is kept under “unnatural” conditions, no?

If you consider animals to be sentient, you are departing from Catholic Theology on the matter.

Humans and angels are the only creatures with Reason.

I think we have to be careful how we define “sentient”, Brendan. Most would agree, I think, on a definition that sentient creatures do not necessarily have to posess reason. You’re right, of course, in that only we humans have reason.

Just out of curiosity … how do those of you who are opposed in principle to “animal rights” feel about this quote?

I’m a johnny come lately to this thread, but we also have to be careful in defining “animal rights” and “animal welfare”, two related concepts that people misuse, both intentionally and unintentionally, very frequently.

I think everyone who has posted here would probably agree that we, as humans, have been charged by the Almighty with a mandate to care for the beasties of our world i.e practice and participate in looking after their welfare. Animal “rights”, on the other hand, has a very wide range of connotation from those who confuse the term with animal wefare to those (who might be accurately termed extremists) who think that animals should have the same rights as human beings, to the point of seriously posing the question, “Which is a better moral option, swerving to miss a baby and killing a deer, or swerving to miss the deer and killing a baby?”.

Extreme positions aside for the moment, methinks the controversy arises in just what is the best way we can and should achieve animal welfare. Are containment systems inhumane? Are just some methods of large production farming inhumane? How can we manage to maintain an adequate supply of good quality meat in the most humane way possible? Where do production costs become prohibitive, and how should they be balanced against humane treatment of animals? The list of “hows” can seem endless.

IMHO there is a balance between using God’s gift of animals to us in the best way possible in terms of treating them humanely and using what they have to offer to us; food, clothing, work and companionship. How we achieve that is a struggle, methinks. All too often there is little room left for compromise on either side.

I say this as one who had dedicated himself to the care of animals as a veterinarian and as a formal student of Catholic Theology.

 

[Marfran]

I have been in production facilities of both ConAgra and Tyson’s. I’m not sure I understand why they lack credibility when it comes to treatment of animals or sanitation. And I definitely don’t understand how they are abusing small farmers, since they contract with small farmers.

Maybe you can tell me how, exactly, ConAgra and Tyson’s maltreat animals, and how their sanitation is bad. Perhaps you can explain how it’s worse than the way Old McDonald operated his farm. I’m old enough to remember that, too.

As a cattleman, I would like very much to know just how you think people like me mistreat animals or cause e coli outbreaks. Or were you talking about Tyson and ConAgra in that regard?

Ridgerunner: I respect you and actually appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. You have real life experience in cattle ranching. I would be very interested in your review of the documentary film Food, Inc. Is there any way that you can see it? Is it playing in your city? I’m sure that you would have to wear a disguise if you went to a show. Are they talking about this film in your ranching community?

Are you familiar with Michael Pollan? He makes a few appearances in this film as does the hog farmer who supplies Chipotles (organic hog farmer). Walmart executives are in this film as well. And the CEO of Stonycreek Farms. (Smithfield, Tyson, Con-Agra, Monsanto, etc., were all asked to appear in film, and all refused.)

The film explains exactly how the small farmers contract with the larger corporations. Actually small farmers do the explaining themselves. If they do not follow the guidlines to the T they are sued for breech of contract and basically rubbed out. (Because they’re small they can not financially do battle with the big guys and they lose everytime.) The big companies control everything. Tyson’s chickens are raised in the dark–in facilities that have no windows, no sunlight. One farmer refused to update to the windowless barracks and kept giving her chickens sunlight, so Tyson shut her down. Actually they shut her down because she allowed the documentary film crew into her facility. Another farmer agreed to let the film crew film his facility, but then backed out after a visit from Tyson executives. (And they were caught on film giving this farmer a visit in the middle of the night before the scheduled filming.)

Do you know the reason for all the e-coli outbreaks? It’s spelled out in the film. I’d like to hear your take on that as well. (I don’t want to give it away and spoil it for anyone planning to see the film.) And what you think about McDonald’s secret ingredient that they’ve added to their hamburger meat to combat e-coli?

I could probably go on for pages–don’t have the time–wish you could see film. Believe me, all consumers who see the film will have simpathy for the small farmer/rancher. The film is by no means an endorsement of vegetarianism. Though one might feel that that is a safer option–but not necessarily–as e-coli from contamination is getting into all the crops too. The film is more about the corruption of our food industry as controlled by the monopolies, and how this affects the quality and healthiness of our food, how this affects the price of food, how this affects the animals and the conditions that they are raised and slaughtered in, how it affects the human workers (large percentage of illegal aliens), the government’s involvement, and how this goes on to impact the globe…

 

[Michaelo]

And I definitely don’t understand how they are abusing small farmers, since they contract with small farmers.

From p. 138 of Fast Food Nation:

Over the last twenty years, the rancher’s share of every retail dollar spent on beef has fallen from 63 cents to 46 cents. The four major meatpacking companies now control about 20 percent of the live cattle in the United States through “captive supplies” – cattle that are either maintained in company-owned feedlots or purchased in advance through forward contracts. When cattle prices start to rise, the large meatpackers can flood the market with their own captive supplies, driving prices back down. They can also obtain cattle through confidential agreements with wealthy ranchers, never revealing the true price being paid. ConAgra and Excel operate their own gigantic feedlots, while IBP has private arrangements with some of America’s biggest ranchers and feeds, including the Bass Brothers, Paul Engler, and J.R. Simplot. Independent ranchers and feedlots now have a hard time figuring out what their cattle are actually worth, let alone finding a buyer for them at the right price. On any given day in the nation’s regional cattle markets, as much as 80 percent of the cattle being exchanged are captive supplies. The prices being paid for these cattle are never disclosed.

Any domesticated animal is kept under “unnatural” conditions, no?

What is unnatural is feeding cattle (a ruminant) corn, which is largely responsible for humans’ recent susceptibility to E. coli. Consider the following from p. 82 of Omnivore’s Dilemma:

Most of the microbes that reside in the gut of a cow and find their way into our food get killed off by the strong acids in our stomachs, since they evolved to live the neutral pH environment of the rumen. But the rumen of a corn-fed feedlot steer is nearly as acidic as our own stomachs, and in this new, man-made environment new acid-resistant strains of E. coli, of which O157:H7 is one, have evolved–yet another creature recruited by nature to absorb the excess biomass coming off the Farm Belt. The problem with these bugs is that they can shake off the acid bath in our stomachs–and then go on to kill us. By acidifying the rumen with corn we’ve broken down one of our food chain’s most important barriers to infection.

 

[Marfran]

: Animal “rights”, on the other hand, has a very wide range of connotation from those who confuse the term with animal wefare to those (who might be accurately termed extremists) who think that animals should have the same rights as human beings…

Hello Newbie! I just wanted to say that I read your whole post–am short on time so this is going to be short–like the way you say methinks!!! Very unique! I like that.

I am so frustrated when people get all huffy about the term “animal rights.” Seriously, do people really think that *animal rights folks *are looking to make animals our equals or fighting to get them the vote???

Each creature is afforded basic rights–the right to live it’s life naturally as intended by it’s design and species. And of course humans have all kinds of other rights–the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to get a driver’s license if they pass the test… The question is, do humans have a right to interfere with the natural lives of animals, and in what ways or in NOT what ways.

 

[JaneGrey]

Have you ever been to an animal production facility? A slaughterhouse? I mean actually been there, not seen a video or read a book or seen pictures, etc.

I assume you think I am overestimating how much they suffer? I have not been to a slaughterhouse but it is not a secret what happens in there. Anything more than a milisecond of fear and pain is not worth the taste of meat to me. Actually even if it was completely painless and they went through their lives not knowing that they or their young would be killed for food, I still do not think it necessary. The very fact that there are vegetarians who live perfectly healthy lives is proof for me.

Now I think there is absolutely no excuse killing animals for their fur. We have the technology to make fake fur, which some say works even better than the real thing. Unless one is an Eskimo, anyone who lives in a semi developed society has no need to make use of animals in this way. The fur trade IS brutal. No one can argue that animals raised for fur are treated humanely.

 

[Drawmack]

Now I think there is absolutely no excuse killing animals for their fur. We have the technology to make fake fur, which some say works even better than the real thing. Unless one is an Eskimo, anyone who lives in a semi developed society has no need to make use of animals in this way. The fur trade IS brutal. No one can argue that animals raised for fur are treated humanely.

 

[redhen]

I think everyone who has posted here would probably agree that we, as humans, have been charged by the Almighty with a mandate to care for the beasties of our world i.e practice and participate in looking after their welfare.

IMHO there is a balance between using God’s gift of animals to us in the best way possible in terms of treating them humanely…

I say this as one who had dedicated himself to the care of animals as a veterinarian and as a formal student of Catholic Theology.

This is what they teach in *formal Catholic Theology *? There’s no wiggle room at all? I thought Catholicism was highly nuanced, unlike fundamentalism?

I for one do not think that we have been “charged by the Almighty” to look after all the other species. Nor do I think that all the other species are “God’s gift” to humans. Then again, what do I know, I’ve never had any *formal Catholic Theology *, yet.

I have many questions, that’s why I’m here at CAF. So I will ask one more. Given the countless number of species that existed (and those that went extinct) before the rise of homo sapiens, how is it possible that they were created for our use? 200,000 years ago, we were just one more item on the menu for large carnivores.

 

[JaneGrey]

JaneGrey;5523935:

Sheep are treated humanely.

Sheep are not killed for their wool.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner: I respect you and actually appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. You have real life experience in cattle ranching. I would be very interested in your review of the documentary film Food, Inc. Is there any way that you can see it? Is it playing in your city? I’m sure that you would have to wear a disguise if you went to a show. Are they talking about this film in your ranching community? ** No. I have not heard of it before now. If it’s a propaganda film, and I don’t know if it is or not, I imagine it would draw guffaws, because too many people around here know what farming and food processing is really like. It might not be shown here for that reason. **

The film explains exactly how the small farmers contract with the larger corporations. Actually small farmers do the explaining themselves. If they do not follow the guidlines to the T they are sued for breech of contract and basically rubbed out. (Because they’re small they can not financially do battle with the big guys and they lose everytime.) The big companies control everything. Tyson’s chickens are raised in the dark–in facilities that have no windows, no sunlight. One farmer refused to update to the windowless barracks and kept giving her chickens sunlight, so Tyson shut her down. Actually they shut her down because she allowed the documentary film crew into her facility. Another farmer agreed to let the film crew film his facility, but then backed out after a visit from Tyson executives. (And they were caught on film giving this farmer a visit in the middle of the night before the scheduled filming.) **I have been in growout facilities and they’re not in the dark, and they do have windows. Electric lights too. I know a lot of growout farmers, and I have seen the documents in connection with bank loans on the facilities. I’ll admit, the integrators are exacting, and some growers complain. Some fail. But most I know do not. And never have I seen any integrator sue a farmer who fails. Never. They just withdraw the contract. Growout farmers I know have not grown immensely wealthy doing it, but moderately so; far beyond what most of them could accomplish without it. It’s extremely common for them to acquire a net worth in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and some have become millionaires. But it is work, no question about that. It takes about seven years to own the facilities free and clear, and during that window the farmer is vulnerable. After that, he isn’t. But it’s a tough seven years, and nobody who knows anything about it would say otherwise. That’s because the loans are short term. Some farmers refinance after about four years to get the payments down. At that point, they have a good deal of equity. After the seven years if they don’t refinance, they can hire people to do the work, or most of it, and still have a very generous income. The going rate around here for hired help of that kind is about $30,000.00/year. Benefits vary. But the owners still have to do it right. Some people are skilled at it and conscientious. Some are not. Some growers are people who spent some time as hired help and learned how to do it well. Most integrators will “back” a person who has proved himself or herself in that way. **

Do you know the reason for all the e-coli outbreaks? It’s spelled out in the film. I’d like to hear your take on that as well. (I don’t want to give it away and spoil it for anyone planning to see the film.) And what you think about McDonald’s secret ingredient that they’ve added to their hamburger meat to combat e-coli? ** I know some things about e coli, but probably not as much as I should. Part of the problem with that is that people are no longer exposed to many of its varieties when they’re young, living in cities and suburbs as they do; particularly the cattle vector varieties. They’re not exposed until much later in life because they aren’t around cattle. It reminds one of polio in that regard, and there was an interesting study in Germany about that. It’s difficult to eradicate because it’s omnipresent. Dollars to donuts some form of it is on your hands right now. But I also know how nasty “Old McDonald’s Farm” really was, and growout facilities are very clean compared to that.**

I could probably go on for pages–don’t have the time–wish you could see film. Believe me, all consumers who see the film will have simpathy for the small farmer/rancher. The film is by no means an endorsement of vegetarianism. Though one might feel that that is a safer option–but not necessarily–as e-coli from contamination is getting into all the crops too. The film is more about the corruption of our food industry as controlled by the monopolies, and how this affects the quality and healthiness of our food, how this affects the price of food, how this affects the animals and the conditions that they are raised and slaughtered in, how it affects the human workers (large percentage of illegal aliens), the government’s involvement, and how this goes on to impact the globe…

Well, I wonder how many of the successful farmer-contractors are in the film. It’s not just poultry, either. I have also been in hog and poultry processing plants, and know how they do things in reality. I have not seen the film you mentioned, but I have seen You Tube films posted on here in the past, and they’re grotesquely inaccurate. Maybe the film you’re talking about is more accurate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

"Independent ranchers and feedlots now have a hard time figuring out what their cattle are actually worth, let alone finding a buyer for them at the right price. On any given day in the nation’s regional cattle markets, as much as 80 percent of the cattle being exchanged are captive supplies. The prices being paid for these cattle are never disclosed. "

I wonder where “Fast Food Nation” got this. I can go online and watch the cattle being sold. I could do it right now. I can know what the prices were for every class of animal on a sale day. I can participate in online auctions if I want. (I don’t, because I’m not in that phase of it, and don’t particularly like it.) Nobody can know EXACTLY what his cattle are worth any more than anybody can know EXACTLY what his stock is worth on Wall Street at any given moment, because prices change many times daily. But one can look at what they are selling for right now, or yesterday, or last month, and make a pretty good guess.

I personally know the owner of a regional stockyard, and most cattle being exchanged are NOT the captive supplies of some big processor. I truly don’t know where they got all this. I will agree that a lot of cattle are bought and sold by backgrounder/speculators, an extremely hazardous business to be in.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have not been to a slaughterhouse but it is not a secret what happens in there. Anything more than a milisecond of fear and pain is not worth the taste of meat to me.

 

[Marfran]

JaneGrey;5523935:

I have been in them, and I agree it’s not a secret what happens in there. A millisecond is about what it is, all right. Now and then, I’ll agree, there is a foulup. Poultry, by the way, are asleep when they’re killed. That takes place under black light, which appears pitch dark to them. They go somnolent, something poultry do in the dark. Try it sometime. Put a chicken in a totally dark closet. It will hunker down and go to sleep. If you go away and come back, it will still be right where you last saw it, and will take several moments to regain full consciousness. The workers, though, can see them because they glow under black light. The poultry are then shocked to ensure unconsciousness before they’re killed.

Large animals, on the other hand, are not asleep when they’re killed. Nor is it done under black light. It wouldn’t do any good if it was. It’s still very quick, but killing is not at all attractive, asthetically. Nobody could argue with that.

Ridgerunner: I just have to say this: You and I have been in many of the same threads. Obviously I don’t eat meat, obviously you produce it. But I have to say, despite our differences, I really appreciate your honesty and the truths that you bring to the discussions. I do get frustrated with people who spout off opinions based on air–who refuse to learn about how our food is produced, who refuse to learn about nutrition yet are very opinionated about it, who subscribe to myths rather than actively learning the realities… You have proven yourself in these threads to be a sincere contributor, your honesty shines through your words. I really do appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. If there is any way you can see that documentary film Food Inc., I wish you would. I would really like your opinion/perspective on the piece.

Peace,

 

[Newbie2]

From p. 138 of Fast Food Nation:

What is unnatural is feeding cattle (a ruminant) corn, which is largely responsible for humans’ recent susceptibility to E. coli. Consider the following from p. 82 of Omnivore’s Dilemma:

*Quote:
Most of the microbes that reside in the gut of a cow and find their way into our food get killed off by the strong acids in our stomachs, since they evolved to live the neutral pH environment of the rumen. But the rumen of a corn-fed feedlot steer is nearly as acidic as our own stomachs, and in this new, man-made environment new acid-resistant strains of E. coli, of which O157:H7 is one, have evolved–yet another creature recruited by nature to absorb the excess biomass coming off the Farm Belt. The problem with these bugs is that they can shake off the acid bath in our stomachs–and then go on to kill us. By acidifying the rumen with corn we’ve broken down one of our food chain’s most important barriers to infection. *

Bacteria have been evolving for millions of years to evade host defenses…the idea that feeding corn is making a whole new race of superbugs ignores that fact. Bacteria evolve for all sorts of reasons, and the conclusion that more pathogenic E. coli in the rumen of cattle going on to kill us all is pretty much all hype. If one cooks his or her beef, there is no E. coli issues to worry about.

“yet another creature recruited by nature to absorb the excess biomass coming off the Farm Belt.” Very dramatic, with partial truth, but the conclusion is off kilter. Nature adapts to everything we throw at her; sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Feedlots are not new; bacteria can evolve in a matter of weeks or years due to their reproductive cycle of merely hours. If you believe this conclusion, where are the vast hoards of people dropping dead from the killer E. coli strains? Exaggeration, methinks. A little knowledge can be a bad thing.

Hello Newbie! I just wanted to say that I read your whole post–am short on time so this is going to be short–like the way you say methinks!!! Very unique! I like that.

I am so frustrated when people get all huffy about the term “animal rights.” Seriously, do people really think that *animal rights folks *are looking to make animals our equals or fighting to get them the vote???

Each creature is afforded basic rights–the right to live it’s life naturally as intended by it’s design and species. And of course humans have all kinds of other rights–the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to get a driver’s license if they pass the test… The question is, do humans have a right to interfere with the natural lives of animals, and in what ways or in NOT what ways.

As well, the definition of “natural” is crucial. What is the “natural” life of an animal? Did the Creator make cows, sheep and pigs as a “natural” food source for humans? Would that then make it “natural” for us to raise, slaughter and eat them?

I assume you think I am overestimating how much they suffer? I have not been to a slaughterhouse but it is not a secret what happens in there. Anything more than a milisecond of fear and pain is not worth the taste of meat to me. Actually even if it was completely painless and they went through their lives not knowing that they or their young would be killed for food, I still do not think it necessary. The very fact that there are vegetarians who live perfectly healthy lives is proof for me.

? There’s no wiggle room at all? I thought Catholicism was highly nuanced, unlike fundamentalism?

I for one do not think that we have been “charged by the Almighty” to look after all the other species. Nor do I think that all the other species are “God’s gift” to humans. Then again, what do I know, I’ve never had any *formal Catholic Theology *, yet.

I have many questions, that’s why I’m here at CAF. So I will ask one more. Given the countless number of species that existed (and those that went extinct) before the rise of homo sapiens, how is it possible that they were created for our use? 200,000 years ago, we were just one more item on the menu for large carnivores.

You might want to check out Genesis 26-28:

*26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” *

 

[Michaelo]

Bacteria have been evolving for millions of years to evade host defenses…the idea that feeding corn is making a whole new race of superbugs ignores that fact. Bacteria evolve for all sorts of reasons, and the conclusion that more pathogenic E. coli in the rumen of cattle going on to kill us all is pretty much all hype. If one cooks his or her beef, there is no E. coli issues to worry about.

Current cattle feeding practices have unnecessarily accelerated the formation of new E. coli strains that humans are prone to, and meat processing practices facilitate the transmission of E. coli amongst our meat supply. Compared to Salmonella, the O157:H7 strain is extremely hearty and requires very small amounts to infect someone. Poor food preparation practices can easily contaminate meat before serving.

Consider the following from the same page of Omnivore’s Dilemma:

We’ve recently discovered that this process of acidification can be reversed, and that doing so can greatly diminish the threat from E. coli O157:H7. Jim Russell, a USDA microbiologist on the faculty at Cornell, has found that switching a cow’s diet from corn to grass or hay for a few days prior to slaughter reduces the population of E. coli O157:H7 in the animal’s gut by as much as 80 percent.

If you believe this conclusion, where are the vast hoards of people dropping dead from the killer E. coli strains? Exaggeration, methinks. A little knowledge can be a bad thing.

Here are some statistics that you’ll probably try to downplay:

Incidence (annual) of Escherichia coli O157:H7: estimated 73,000 annual cases of infection in USA (DBMD)
Incidence Rate: approx 1 in 3,726 or 0.03% or 73,000 people in USA [about data]
Prevalance of Escherichia coli O157:H7: An estimated 73,000 cases of infection and 61 deaths occur in the United States each year.1 … An estimated 73,000 cases occur annually in the United States. Uncommonly reported in patients in less industrialized countries. 2

cureresearch.com/e/escherichia_coli_o157_h7/prevalence.htm

 

[Marfran]

You might want to check out Genesis 26-28:

*26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” *

Newbie2: This is EXACTLY what we are discussing. Did you read the OP? Did you view the short film Eating Mercifully? This film is the Christian perspective on factory farming. What is your opinion of the thought presented by the clergy in the film? Here’s a quote by one of them:

from the HSUS video Eating Mercifully
Pastor Greg Boyd, Phd, Woodland Church

**You have a trajectory throughout the whole Biblical tradition, of God caring for the animals, and caring for Creation. And humans being mandated to work with God in caring about Creation. The first mandate in the Bible, Be fruitful and multiply, is the one mandate we’re good at. Second one–is part of the first one–be fruitful and multiply in order that you can have dominion over the Earth and over the animal kingdom. Dominion does not mean dominating. It’s rather more a concept of stewardship. We are to reflect God’s character to the Earth, and to the animal kingdom. The character that He reflects towards us, we are now to administrate on the Earth. **

Also, Newbie2, a veterinarian that I know recommended the book ***Dominion ***by Matthew Scully. Have you read this book? I have quoted several passages in this thread and others. It is very applicable to our discussion.

 

[Newbie2]

Current cattle feeding practices have unnecessarily accelerated the formation of new E. coli strains that humans are prone to, and meat processing practices facilitate the transmission of E. coli amongst our meat supply. Compared to Salmonella, the O157:H7 strain is extremely hearty and requires very small amounts to infect someone. Poor food preparation practices can easily contaminate meat before serving.

Here are some statistics that you’ll probably try to downplay:

cureresearch.com/e/escherichia_coli_o157_h7/prevalence.htm

You assume too much.

In any case, we’ve been dealing with “new” strains of bacteria since the dawn of time and have survived and thrived as a species.* I don’t get too worried about the latest media hype over this and that which are supposedly to doom us all.

While I don’t doubt that certain E. coli strains are problematic, I don’t necessarily buy that it’s not a problem that’s easily solvable by promoting good meat hygene practices. Show me some data that suggests that strains of E. coli are resistant to cooking and I’ll show some concern.

As well, I’d like to read the original research from where you’ve based your conclusions i.e. the real deal published research study.

• OK, that Middle-Ages Plague thing was problematic…

In any case, we’re beginning to stray from the topic, the concern about animals. If they thrive and produce through modern husbandry techniques, methinks that’s prima facie evidence that we’re doing not too bad.

There are improvements that should be made, no doubt. But for purposes of this discussion, I don’t think feeding cattle corn is necessarily bad for them, as evidenced by their ability to convert it into a food source for mankind.

 

[Marfran]

Michaelo: Thanks for the E coli stats:

**Incidence (annual) of Escherichia coli O157:H7: estimated 73,000 annual cases of infection in USA (DBMD)
Incidence Rate: approx 1 in 3,726 or 0.03% or 73,000 people in USA [about data]
Prevalance of Escherichia coli O157:H7: An estimated 73,000 cases of infection and 61 deaths occur in the United States each year.1 … An estimated 73,000 cases occur annually in the United States. Uncommonly reported in patients in less industrialized countries. 2 **

Well, that doesn’t seem so bad. Only **73,000 **people in the US get sick every year from eating E coli tainted food. And only 61 people die. Seems reasonable. For the pleasure of eating meat only 61 people per year have to die. What year are the stats from? We’ve had a lot of outbreaks this year. I would think we’ll lose a few more than 61 this year.

Where are the people who say that we are designed to eat meat?? Why are we cooking the life out of it to kill the E coli anyway??? Well I suppose that if we didn’t cook it, and ate it raw like the animals in nature do, the animals that are designed to eat it–we’d lose a few more than 61 people. I don’t mean to make light of the 73,000 who get sick and don’t die. I wonder if they all fully recover or are there permanent effects to having had this illness?

In the film Food Inc. a little boy dies from eating a hamburger. It takes 16 days after his death before the lot of meat that killed him is recalled. His mother is understandibly distraught at losing her son. This is the origin of ***Kevin’s Law. ***

cspinet.org/foodsafety/kevinslawbrochure.pdf

I was just looking at the brochure on Kevin’s Law. In 1993 only 4 children died from E coli food borne illness. I guess the numbers are going up.

Are we*** eating mercifully ***if people, if children are dying from the food?

 

[Drawmack]

This film is the Christian perspective on factory farming.

So, if my opinion differs from that of the film that I am not a Christian?