Mad Cow Disease

[Guest guest]

on 7/26/00 3:24 PM, Todd at herb-t wrote:

 

> mad cow disease is on the rise again. check out this ny times article

> at

> http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/072500hth-mad-cow.html

>

> I wonder how TCM would explain mad cow disease. It comes from eating

> infected meat, but also has a very long latency period (decades). Could

> this be understood as some from of gu (worm) or fu xie (hidden evil)?

> Given the mental sx of this disease, gu syndrome is an appealing way to

> categorize mad cow disease, perhaps. There may be as many as 500,000

> cases in Britain alone in the next 25 years. The disease also manifests

> only in particular genetic clusters, suggesting zheng qi factors, as

> well. And chronic gu syndrome always involves vacuity. An evil that

> " literally eats holes in the brain " is no ordinary xie qi. In fact,

> that imagery of something boring around in the head also smacks of

> worms. Not to say that there are actually worms in the heads of mad cow

> disease victims, but that perhaps worm (gu) therapy might be a place to

> start.

>

 

>

 

This is an interesting scenario, I'll have to think this one through.

Definately, mad cow disease has aspects of fu qi wen bing/latent qi warm

disease, and definately could be considered a gu zheng as well. What you've

done here is an essential step for anyone considering disease phenomena that

are 'new', that is, to retranslate into CM terms.

 

 

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

From the HSI News letter 28th May 2008.

Spongy degeneration of the brain – that's what happens when cattle

develop mad cow disease. And it appears that some USDA officials have

developed a similar spongy brain problem with their strict policy that

beef producers are not allowed to test their own animals for mad cow

disease.

Now I'll admit that mad cow disease (more formally known as bovine

spongiform encephalopathy – BSE) is very rare. But if a meat producer

wants to test his cattle, what's the harm? Why would the USDA step in and

prevent the testing?

Answer: Money + power = influence. Pure and simple. That's what drives

decisions about our food safety. And you really won't believe the

hilarious tortured logic that government lawyers use to justify this

insanity.

-----------

Where seldom is heard a discouraging word

-----------

On December 23, 2003, beef producers were blindsided by the discovery of

a case of mad cow disease in the U.S. And Creekstone Farms in Arkansas

City, Kansas, was particularly hard hit.

Creekstone is a high-end beef processor. For years, this large, modern

operation has produced high quality beef that's guaranteed free of

antibiotics, growth-promoting drugs, and added hormones. By and large,

Creekstone beef is a long step up from the typical beef product most

consumers purchase at their local grocery.

With the 2003 mad cow scare, Creekstone's business dropped off sharply,

primarily due to loss of foreign sales. But Japanese meat buyers promised

to start buying again if Creekstone executives could assure them that all

their beef was tested for BSE.

This was a no-brainer. According to a 2004 New York Times report,

Creekstone's foreign sales accounted for $200,000 per day, while the

total bill for testing the animals ran about $20,000 per day. So

Creekstone started testing each animal, reopening the Japanese market.

 

Enter the USDA – to the rescue!

In April 2004, the agency ordered Creekstone executives to stop testing

their cattle, reasoning that there was no scientific justification for

testing the relatively young animals that Creekstone raises. And that's a

valid point. Only older cattle develop BSE. But that detail didn't matter

to Creekstone's Japanese customers – they wanted guarantees that the

animals were disease-free. So…what's the harm in testing?

And that question brings us to tortured logic item number one: According

to the Associated Press, the major meatpacking companies feared that

consumer pressure might lead to a demand for every meat producing company

to test all their animals.

And wouldn't that be just too…safe?

I'll bet the ranch that " consumer pressure " doesn't mean you

and me – it means Japan and other very lucrative foreign markets. And

here was Creekstone, raising the bar on their highfalutin no-antibiotic,

no-added-hormone beef, just further messing up business for ConAgra and

Cargill and other meatpacking giants, dagnabbit!

-----------

False assurances, served fresh

-----------

So Creekstone execs did what they had to do – they sued the USDA. And

they won. And what did USDA officials do? They just couldn't help

themselves – they appealed, further delaying Creekstone's right to test.

 

Which brings us to a fine spring Friday afternoon in May 2008, when

Creekstone attorneys and Justice Department attorneys appeared before a

panel of U.S. Court of Appeals judges in Washington, D.C.

Creekstone lawyers argued that the company is not disobeying any law or

regulation by testing their animals. Nice point.

And now for tortured logic item number two: The Justice Department

attorney told the panel that Creekstone executives " want to create

false assurances. "

Seriously – how do you make a statement like that without laughing? As if

more testing creates false assurances, and less testing is somehow

reassuring.

You want false assurances? Here's a Grade A, USDA-inspected false

assurance for you: The USDA used to test about one percent of all U.S.

cattle for BSE. But earlier this month the Korea Times reported that the

testing program has been reduced by 90 percent! And to absolutely assure

that these testing levels stay low, the agency also blocks companies that

produce BSE testing kits from selling their kits to Creekstone and other

meat processors.

Why in the world is the USDA so doggedly committed to allowing as little

BSE testing as possible? Connecting two simple dots might answer that

question. Dot one: The National Cattlemen's Beef Association

(representing about 27,000 ranchers) strongly supports the agency's

Creekstone ban. Dot two: The agriculture lobby is one of the most diverse

and powerful players inside the Washington Beltway.

Money + power = influence, and logic takes a holiday.

[Guest guest]

I wrote an article about this a while back but didn't know the latest. Another case of "the industry" or big business which is AGAINST free enterprise and competition. Of course more regulations would make sense to most but these days "the people" can't even rely on the FDA or the USDA which are in bed with the big players. http://tectonicforces.blogspot.com/search?q=cow

 

-

Hanneke

Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:02 AM

Mad Cow Disease

From the HSI News letter 28th May 2008.Spongy degeneration of the brain – that's what happens when cattle develop mad cow disease. And it appears that some USDA officials have developed a similar spongy brain problem with their strict policy that beef producers are not allowed to test their own animals for mad cow disease. Now I'll admit that mad cow disease (more formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy – BSE) is very rare. But if a meat producer wants to test his cattle, what's the harm? Why would the USDA step in and prevent the testing? Answer: Money + power = influence. Pure and simple. That's what drives decisions about our food safety. And you really won't believe the hilarious tortured logic that government lawyers use to justify this insanity. ----------- Where seldom is heard a discouraging word ----------- On December 23, 2003, beef producers were blindsided by the discovery of a case of mad cow disease in the U.S. And Creekstone Farms in Arkansas City, Kansas, was particularly hard hit. Creekstone is a high-end beef processor. For years, this large, modern operation has produced high quality beef that's guaranteed free of antibiotics, growth-promoting drugs, and added hormones. By and large, Creekstone beef is a long step up from the typical beef product most consumers purchase at their local grocery. With the 2003 mad cow scare, Creekstone's business dropped off sharply, primarily due to loss of foreign sales. But Japanese meat buyers promised to start buying again if Creekstone executives could assure them that all their beef was tested for BSE. This was a no-brainer. According to a 2004 New York Times report, Creekstone's foreign sales accounted for $200,000 per day, while the total bill for testing the animals ran about $20,000 per day. So Creekstone started testing each animal, reopening the Japanese market. Enter the USDA – to the rescue! In April 2004, the agency ordered Creekstone executives to stop testing their cattle, reasoning that there was no scientific justification for testing the relatively young animals that Creekstone raises. And that's a valid point. Only older cattle develop BSE. But that detail didn't matter to Creekstone's Japanese customers – they wanted guarantees that the animals were disease-free. So…what's the harm in testing? And that question brings us to tortured logic item number one: According to the Associated Press, the major meatpacking companies feared that consumer pressure might lead to a demand for every meat producing company to test all their animals. And wouldn't that be just too…safe? I'll bet the ranch that "consumer pressure" doesn't mean you and me – it means Japan and other very lucrative foreign markets. And here was Creekstone, raising the bar on their highfalutin no-antibiotic, no-added-hormone beef, just further messing up business for ConAgra and Cargill and other meatpacking giants, dagnabbit! ----------- False assurances, served fresh ----------- So Creekstone execs did what they had to do – they sued the USDA. And they won. And what did USDA officials do? They just couldn't help themselves – they appealed, further delaying Creekstone's right to test. Which brings us to a fine spring Friday afternoon in May 2008, when Creekstone attorneys and Justice Department attorneys appeared before a panel of U.S. Court of Appeals judges in Washington, D.C. Creekstone lawyers argued that the company is not disobeying any law or regulation by testing their animals. Nice point. And now for tortured logic item number two: The Justice Department attorney told the panel that Creekstone executives "want to create false assurances." Seriously – how do you make a statement like that without laughing? As if more testing creates false assurances, and less testing is somehow reassuring. You want false assurances? Here's a Grade A, USDA-inspected false assurance for you: The USDA used to test about one percent of all U.S. cattle for BSE. But earlier this month the Korea Times reported that the testing program has been reduced by 90 percent! And to absolutely assure that these testing levels stay low, the agency also blocks companies that produce BSE testing kits from selling their kits to Creekstone and other meat processors. Why in the world is the USDA so doggedly committed to allowing as little BSE testing as possible? Connecting two simple dots might answer that question. Dot one: The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (representing about 27,000 ranchers) strongly supports the agency's Creekstone ban. Dot two: The agriculture lobby is one of the most diverse and powerful players inside the Washington Beltway. Money + power = influence, and logic takes a holiday.

[Guest guest]

NEEDED CLEAN AND TREATED WATER TO BE SUPPLYIED

IN STAINLESS STEEL VESSELS TO CATTLE.

AL MARDEN

@ wonderfullwonderfullny

 

 

 

, " Bill West "

<coffeemon2002 wrote:

>

> I wrote an article about this a while back but didn't know the

latest. Another case of " the industry " or big business which is

AGAINST free enterprise and competition. Of course more regulations

would make sense to most but these days " the people " can't even rely

on the FDA or the USDA which are in bed with the big players.

http://tectonicforces.blogspot.com/search?q=cow

> -

> Hanneke

>

> Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:02 AM

> Mad Cow Disease

>

>

>

> From the HSI News letter 28th May 2008.

>

> Spongy degeneration of the brain - that's what happens when

cattle develop mad cow disease. And it appears that some USDA

officials have developed a similar spongy brain problem with their

strict policy that beef producers are not allowed to test their own

animals for mad cow disease.

>

> Now I'll admit that mad cow disease (more formally known as

bovine spongiform encephalopathy - BSE) is very rare. But if a meat

producer wants to test his cattle, what's the harm? Why would the

USDA step in and prevent the testing?

>

> Answer: Money + power = influence. Pure and simple. That's what

drives decisions about our food safety. And you really won't believe

the hilarious tortured logic that government lawyers use to justify

this insanity.

>

> -----------

> Where seldom is heard a discouraging word

> -----------

>

> On December 23, 2003, beef producers were blindsided by the

discovery of a case of mad cow disease in the U.S. And Creekstone

Farms in Arkansas City, Kansas, was particularly hard hit.

>

> Creekstone is a high-end beef processor. For years, this large,

modern operation has produced high quality beef that's guaranteed

free of antibiotics, growth-promoting drugs, and added hormones. By

and large, Creekstone beef is a long step up from the typical beef

product most consumers purchase at their local grocery.

>

> With the 2003 mad cow scare, Creekstone's business dropped off

sharply, primarily due to loss of foreign sales. But Japanese meat

buyers promised to start buying again if Creekstone executives could

assure them that all their beef was tested for BSE.

>

> This was a no-brainer. According to a 2004 New York Times report,

Creekstone's foreign sales accounted for $200,000 per day, while the

total bill for testing the animals ran about $20,000 per day. So

Creekstone started testing each animal, reopening the Japanese

market.

>

> Enter the USDA - to the rescue!

>

> In April 2004, the agency ordered Creekstone executives to stop

testing their cattle, reasoning that there was no scientific

justification for testing the relatively young animals that

Creekstone raises. And that's a valid point. Only older cattle

develop BSE. But that detail didn't matter to Creekstone's Japanese

customers - they wanted guarantees that the animals were disease-

free. So.what's the harm in testing?

>

> And that question brings us to tortured logic item number one:

According to the Associated Press, the major meatpacking companies

feared that consumer pressure might lead to a demand for every meat

producing company to test all their animals.

>

> And wouldn't that be just too.safe?

>

> I'll bet the ranch that " consumer pressure " doesn't mean you and

me - it means Japan and other very lucrative foreign markets. And

here was Creekstone, raising the bar on their highfalutin no-

antibiotic, no-added-hormone beef, just further messing up business

for ConAgra and Cargill and other meatpacking giants, dagnabbit!

>

> -----------

> False assurances, served fresh

> -----------

>

> So Creekstone execs did what they had to do - they sued the USDA.

And they won. And what did USDA officials do? They just couldn't help

themselves - they appealed, further delaying Creekstone's right to

test.

>

> Which brings us to a fine spring Friday afternoon in May 2008,

when Creekstone attorneys and Justice Department attorneys appeared

before a panel of U.S. Court of Appeals judges in Washington, D.C.

>

> Creekstone lawyers argued that the company is not disobeying any

law or regulation by testing their animals. Nice point.

>

> And now for tortured logic item number two: The Justice

Department attorney told the panel that Creekstone executives " want

to create false assurances. "

>

> Seriously - how do you make a statement like that without

laughing? As if more testing creates false assurances, and less

testing is somehow reassuring.

>

> You want false assurances? Here's a Grade A, USDA-inspected false

assurance for you: The USDA used to test about one percent of all

U.S. cattle for BSE. But earlier this month the Korea Times reported

that the testing program has been reduced by 90 percent! And to

absolutely assure that these testing levels stay low, the agency also

blocks companies that produce BSE testing kits from selling their

kits to Creekstone and other meat processors.

>

> Why in the world is the USDA so doggedly committed to allowing as

little BSE testing as possible? Connecting two simple dots might

answer that question. Dot one: The National Cattlemen's Beef

Association (representing about 27,000 ranchers) strongly supports

the agency's Creekstone ban. Dot two: The agriculture lobby is one of

the most diverse and powerful players inside the Washington Beltway.

>

> Money + power = influence, and logic takes a holiday.

>

[Guest guest]

> I live in Northern Idaho, close to the Canadian border. (B.C.) . Each

day there are at least 30 semi trucks loaded with Canadian beef that

come through our area on the way to feed lots in Washington. There was

an article in our local paper that stated that less than 5% of these

cows are tested. If you remember right, Washington state had a case of

mad cow disease, and the cow came from Alberta. The cows coming in from

Canada are in trucks with Alberta Canada license plates. That is 5% of

cows being tested that are coming from Alberta, where the cow came from

that had mad cow disease. Seems like profit is much more important than

safety. In the past few years there have been several women in southern

Idaho that have died from some mysterious brain wasting disease. Their

deaths are always announced and then the news is quickly shut up. We

quit eating beef about 5 years ago. If we get a taste for red meat, we

go to a near by restaurant that serves buffalo and elk meat. No more Mad

Cow for me!

>

> From the HSI News letter 28th May 2008.

>

> Spongy degeneration of the brain – that's what happens when cattle

> develop mad cow disease. And it appears that some USDA officials have

> developed a similar spongy brain problem with their strict policy that

> beef producers are not allowed to test their own animals for mad cow

> disease.

>

> Now I'll admit that mad cow disease (more formally known as bovine

> spongiform encephalopathy – BSE) is very rare. But if a meat producer

> wants to test his cattle, what's the harm? Why would the USDA step in and

> prevent the testing?

>

> Answer: Money + power = influence. Pure and simple. That's what drives

> decisions about our food safety. And you really won't believe the

> hilarious tortured logic that government lawyers use to justify this

> insanity.

>

> -----------

> Where seldom is heard a discouraging word

> -----------

>

> On December 23, 2003, beef producers were blindsided by the discovery of

> a case of mad cow disease in the U.S. And Creekstone Farms in Arkansas

> City, Kansas, was particularly hard hit.

>

> Creekstone is a high-end beef processor. For years, this large, modern

> operation has produced high quality beef that's guaranteed free of

> antibiotics, growth-promoting drugs, and added hormones. By and large,

> Creekstone beef is a long step up from the typical beef product most

> consumers purchase at their local grocery.

>

> With the 2003 mad cow scare, Creekstone's business dropped off sharply,

> primarily due to loss of foreign sales. But Japanese meat buyers promised

> to start buying again if Creekstone executives could assure them that all

> their beef was tested for BSE.

>

> This was a no-brainer. According to a 2004 New York Times report,

> Creekstone's foreign sales accounted for $200,000 per day, while the

> total bill for testing the animals ran about $20,000 per day. So

> Creekstone started testing each animal, reopening the Japanese market.

>

> Enter the USDA – to the rescue!

>

> In April 2004, the agency ordered Creekstone executives to stop testing

> their cattle, reasoning that there was no scientific justification for

> testing the relatively young animals that Creekstone raises. And that's a

> valid point. Only older cattle develop BSE. But that detail didn't matter

> to Creekstone's Japanese customers – they wanted guarantees that the

> animals were disease-free. So…what's the harm in testing?

>

> And that question brings us to tortured logic item number one: According

> to the Associated Press, the major meatpacking companies feared that

> consumer pressure might lead to a demand for every meat producing company

> to test all their animals.

>

> And wouldn't that be just too…safe?

>

> I'll bet the ranch that & quot;consumer pressure & quot; doesn't mean you

> and me – it means Japan and other very lucrative foreign markets. And

> here was Creekstone, raising the bar on their highfalutin no-antibiotic,

> no-added-hormone beef, just further messing up business for ConAgra and

> Cargill and other meatpacking giants, dagnabbit!

>

> -----------

> False assurances, served fresh

> -----------

>

> So Creekstone execs did what they had to do – they sued the USDA. And

> they won. And what did USDA officials do? They just couldn't help

> themselves – they appealed, further delaying Creekstone's right to test.

>

> Which brings us to a fine spring Friday afternoon in May 2008, when

> Creekstone attorneys and Justice Department attorneys appeared before a

> panel of U.S. Court of Appeals judges in Washington, D.C.

>

> Creekstone lawyers argued that the company is not disobeying any law or

> regulation by testing their animals. Nice point.

>

> And now for tortured logic item number two: The Justice Department

> attorney told the panel that Creekstone executives & quot;want to create

> false assurances. & quot;

>

> Seriously – how do you make a statement like that without laughing? As if

> more testing creates false assurances, and less testing is somehow

> reassuring.

>

> You want false assurances? Here's a Grade A, USDA-inspected false

> assurance for you: The USDA used to test about one percent of all U.S.

> cattle for BSE. But earlier this month the Korea Times reported that the

> testing program has been reduced by 90 percent! And to absolutely assure

> that these testing levels stay low, the agency also blocks companies that

> produce BSE testing kits from selling their kits to Creekstone and other

> meat processors.

>

> Why in the world is the USDA so doggedly committed to allowing as little

> BSE testing as possible? Connecting two simple dots might answer that

> question. Dot one: The National Cattlemen's Beef Association

> (representing about 27,000 ranchers) strongly supports the agency's

> Creekstone ban. Dot two: The agriculture lobby is one of the most diverse

> and powerful players inside the Washington Beltway.

>

> Money + power = influence, and logic takes a holiday.

>

[Guest guest]

The corporate fascists (a.k.a. NEO cons) are AGAINST free markets,

competition, innovation, enrepreneurs, organics, alternatives, productivity

small farmers and ranchers, and the little guy whether they realize it or

not. There's similar trends in energy, medicine, " self defense " , housing,

food, water resources, ect... It's a bunch of multinational corporations

with politians in their back pockets.

BW

-

<bikerbillie

 

Friday, May 30, 2008 4:32 PM

Re: Mad Cow Disease

 

 

>> I live in Northern Idaho, close to the Canadian border. (B.C.) . Each

> day there are at least 30 semi trucks loaded with Canadian beef that

> come through our area on the way to feed lots in Washington. There was

> an article in our local paper that stated that less than 5% of these

> cows are tested. If you remember right, Washington state had a case of

> mad cow disease, and the cow came from Alberta. The cows coming in from

> Canada are in trucks with Alberta Canada license plates. That is 5% of

> cows being tested that are coming from Alberta, where the cow came from

> that had mad cow disease. Seems like profit is much more important than

> safety. In the past few years there have been several women in southern

> Idaho that have died from some mysterious brain wasting disease. Their

> deaths are always announced and then the news is quickly shut up. We

> quit eating beef about 5 years ago. If we get a taste for red meat, we

> go to a near by restaurant that serves buffalo and elk meat. No more Mad

> Cow for me!

>>

>> From the HSI News letter 28th May 2008.

>>

>> Spongy degeneration of the brain - that's what happens when cattle

>> develop mad cow disease. And it appears that some USDA officials have

>> developed a similar spongy brain problem with their strict policy that

>> beef producers are not allowed to test their own animals for mad cow

>> disease.

>>

>> Now I'll admit that mad cow disease (more formally known as bovine

>> spongiform encephalopathy - BSE) is very rare. But if a meat producer

>> wants to test his cattle, what's the harm? Why would the USDA step in and

>> prevent the testing?

>>

>> Answer: Money + power = influence. Pure and simple. That's what drives

>> decisions about our food safety. And you really won't believe the

>> hilarious tortured logic that government lawyers use to justify this

>> insanity.

>>

>> -----------

>> Where seldom is heard a discouraging word

>> -----------

>>

>> On December 23, 2003, beef producers were blindsided by the discovery of

>> a case of mad cow disease in the U.S. And Creekstone Farms in Arkansas

>> City, Kansas, was particularly hard hit.

>>

>> Creekstone is a high-end beef processor. For years, this large, modern

>> operation has produced high quality beef that's guaranteed free of

>> antibiotics, growth-promoting drugs, and added hormones. By and large,

>> Creekstone beef is a long step up from the typical beef product most

>> consumers purchase at their local grocery.

>>

>> With the 2003 mad cow scare, Creekstone's business dropped off sharply,

>> primarily due to loss of foreign sales. But Japanese meat buyers promised

>> to start buying again if Creekstone executives could assure them that all

>> their beef was tested for BSE.

>>

>> This was a no-brainer. According to a 2004 New York Times report,

>> Creekstone's foreign sales accounted for $200,000 per day, while the

>> total bill for testing the animals ran about $20,000 per day. So

>> Creekstone started testing each animal, reopening the Japanese market.

>>

>> Enter the USDA - to the rescue!

>>

>> In April 2004, the agency ordered Creekstone executives to stop testing

>> their cattle, reasoning that there was no scientific justification for

>> testing the relatively young animals that Creekstone raises. And that's a

>> valid point. Only older cattle develop BSE. But that detail didn't matter

>> to Creekstone's Japanese customers - they wanted guarantees that the

>> animals were disease-free. So.what's the harm in testing?

>>

>> And that question brings us to tortured logic item number one: According

>> to the Associated Press, the major meatpacking companies feared that

>> consumer pressure might lead to a demand for every meat producing company

>> to test all their animals.

>>

>> And wouldn't that be just too.safe?

>>

>> I'll bet the ranch that & quot;consumer pressure & quot; doesn't mean you

>> and me - it means Japan and other very lucrative foreign markets. And

>> here was Creekstone, raising the bar on their highfalutin no-antibiotic,

>> no-added-hormone beef, just further messing up business for ConAgra and

>> Cargill and other meatpacking giants, dagnabbit!

>>

>> -----------

>> False assurances, served fresh

>> -----------

>>

>> So Creekstone execs did what they had to do - they sued the USDA. And

>> they won. And what did USDA officials do? They just couldn't help

>> themselves - they appealed, further delaying Creekstone's right to test.

>>

>> Which brings us to a fine spring Friday afternoon in May 2008, when

>> Creekstone attorneys and Justice Department attorneys appeared before a

>> panel of U.S. Court of Appeals judges in Washington, D.C.

>>

>> Creekstone lawyers argued that the company is not disobeying any law or

>> regulation by testing their animals. Nice point.

>>

>> And now for tortured logic item number two: The Justice Department

>> attorney told the panel that Creekstone executives & quot;want to create

>> false assurances. & quot;

>>

>> Seriously - how do you make a statement like that without laughing? As

>> if

>> more testing creates false assurances, and less testing is somehow

>> reassuring.

>>

>> You want false assurances? Here's a Grade A, USDA-inspected false

>> assurance for you: The USDA used to test about one percent of all U.S.

>> cattle for BSE. But earlier this month the Korea Times reported that the

>> testing program has been reduced by 90 percent! And to absolutely assure

>> that these testing levels stay low, the agency also blocks companies that

>> produce BSE testing kits from selling their kits to Creekstone and other

>> meat processors.

>>

>> Why in the world is the USDA so doggedly committed to allowing as little

>> BSE testing as possible? Connecting two simple dots might answer that

>> question. Dot one: The National Cattlemen's Beef Association

>> (representing about 27,000 ranchers) strongly supports the agency's

>> Creekstone ban. Dot two: The agriculture lobby is one of the most diverse

>> and powerful players inside the Washington Beltway.

>>

>> Money + power = influence, and logic takes a holiday.

>>

>

>

> ---

>

> «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»

>

> § - PULSE ON 21st CENTURY ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE! §

>

>

> Subscribe:......... -

>

> «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»

>

> DISCLOSURE:

>

> Any information here in is for educational purpose only; it may be news

> related, purely speculation or SOMEONE'S OPINION. Always consult with a

> qualified Medical Doctor before deciding on any course of treatment,

> especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.

>

> SUBMISSION POLICY & CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP:

>

> By becoming a member of this group you AGREE to hold this group its

> members, list owners, moderators and affiliates harmless of any liability

> for any direct, consequential, incidental, damage incurred.

>

> Anything going to this list may eventually be posted on another list.

> If you post a piece to the list. We reserve the right to attach your

> name and email address to the piece, as well as to keep them on record.

> You should NOT post copyrighted material unless proper attributions

> to the source of the material are made.

> Submissions are gladly accepted. Please feel free to post material that

> you think is worthy.

>

> YOU AGREE; to accept responsibility and liability for your own actions and

> to contact a licensed Medical Doctor before deciding on any course of

> treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.

>

> IF YOU DO NOT AGREE; you must :

>