This is from last Saturday's paper.

USDA seeks to lower drug regides in meat

Packers would destroy carcasses exceeding limits

WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid growing concerns about the use of antibiotics and hormones in food animals, the government is preparing to stop packers from selling any meat from carcasses in which excessive chemical residue is found.

Under current rules, packers can throw out the part of an animal that's tested for drug residue, typically the liver or kidney, and sell the rest.

The new policy, which could be made final as early as next month, would require that the entie carcass be destroyed.

Agriculture Department officials said the policy would apply to all liestock but would primarily affect slaughtered dairy cows, the source of about 40% of the nation's hamburger meat.

USDA officials say the intent is to bring their procedures into line with the Food and Drug Administration's policy on chemical residues in food. FDA sets limits, or tolerances, for drug residues in food animals.

"The violation rates are very, very low," said Karen Hulebak, chief scientist for USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service. "We're talking about a small number of animals in the scheme of all the animals slaughtered in this county."

The department does not think that unsafe meat is reaching consumers, she said.

About 0.2% of the cattle tested in 1997 had drug residues in excess of FDA limits, or 12,400 of the 6.2 million cattle slaughtered that year. Animals are tested for more than 50 different compounds, including a variety of antibiotics.

Mike Hanson, a food-safety expert with Consumers Union, said the new policy would be a "step forward in increasing the safety of the food supply."

Consumer advocacy groups assert that livestock producers are giving excessive amounts of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs to their animals. There is concern among scientists, for example, that harmful bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics when they are exposed to the drugs in animals and become more of a threat to humans.

There is also evidence certain human illnesses and allergic reactions are due to drug residues in meat.

Industry officials say the new policy would have a significant economic impact on meatpackers.

Profit margins in the packing industry are so thin that slaughterhouses process or resell every bit of the cattle they kill, including the blood, bones and even the intestional contents.

USDA does not test every animal for drugs. Instead, it conducts a monitoring program for a list of drugs that changes each year, depending on what chemicals officials thing they need to watch for.

---------

Several thoughts on the above:

Funny how everyone in the supply chain says they aren't making any money. I don't. Feedlots say they don't. Slaughterhouses say they don't. Supermarkets say the don't. Someone is lying.

When I was a kid I don't remember girls needing bras until probably Junior High School. Now you see third-graders needing training bras. For you people who pretty well provide your own food supply. Have you noticed any difference in your children's development versus those fed out of supermarkets?

-- Ken S. in TN (scharabo@aol.com), August 21, 2000

Answers

A few weeks back, I heard a short report about plastic causing girls to start puberty a lot earlier. Don't know the details.

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), August 21, 2000.

I can't find it now, but there was an article in Countryside within the past year on this.

-- Ken S. in TN (scharabo@aol.com), August 21, 2000.

I read an article on the plastics thing quite some time ago. I don't remember where it was but the assertions were that exposure to plastics/petrochemicals have caused people to grow taller sooner, reach puberty earlier, and yet be physically weaker than the previous generations who were not so exposed to petrochemicals. Wish I could remember where it was!

-- Doreen (liberty546@hotmail.com), August 21, 2000.

Doreen:

I think the article you are looking for was in the October 21, 1999 issue of the scientific journal Nature. It reported on exposure of mice fetuses to the chemical bisphenol A, a basic building block for polycarbonate plastic products. They found the exposed mice developed puberty earlier than normal and also weighted 20 percent more than normal at puberty.

The Countryside article is in the January/February 2000 issue on page 75. Only comment I received on this article was I needed to remember the Amish and Mennonites have a fairly closed gene pool.

-- Ken S. in TN (scharabo@aol.com), August 21, 2000.

Many clear plastic baby bottles contain bisphenol A, which produces physiological effects similar to those produced by estrogen. These chemicals mimic the action of hormones, possibly upsetting normal development. By the way, beware of plastic wraps leaching chemicals into fatty foods. The May 1999 issue of Consumer Reports has an article on this. Mary

-- Mary Fraley (kmfraley@orwell.net), August 21, 2000.

Mary, you say plastic wrap can cause problems, what about plastic bags? Ziploc, etc. Perhaps we should use those waxed boxes my grandpa used to use to freeze food. Do they still make them?

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), August 21, 2000.

Ken, I think that's right. The same study if not the same journal. Thank you.

It's kind of strange, but think about the Alzheimer's link to aluminum, MS to the silver fillings in teeth, and all of these plastic things. It makes one really want to go back to purely biodegradable things. I guess we are biodegradable too!

I think that the freezer wrap that is used predominately for meats might be a good thing to line containers for freezing with so that the food doesn't absorb the chemicals. But I don't know what wax they use, so maybe someone else could shed some light on that.

Interesting threa

-- Doreen (liberty546@hotmail.com), August 21, 2000.

Doreen:

Actually humans are about the only species which aren't biodegraded. For most the body is put into a metal container and buried deep, probably in a cement crypt. Current containers may last for hundreds of years. If cremated, ashes are normally kept in an airtight urn.

My instructions to my relatives are that I will be cremated with my ashes scattered by airplane over my farm. Asked that a can of Michelob be mixed in beforehand. One sister asked if it could be run through her first. I replied I wouldn't know the difference. Alternative was to have the ashes mixed in with my cattle's minerals. I eat beef, so perhaps they should have revenge.

-- Ken S. in TN (scharabo@aol.com), August 22, 2000.

That's a good one, revenge of the bovines....coming in the way distant future! I want to be cremated as well when I come to my bodily demise. No sense taking up valuable space for me. Ashes are good for the soil in moderation as well.

-- Doreen (liberty546@hotmail.com), August 22, 2000.

I'm with you on the cremation angle. My only other request is my wife scatter me in one of my crop terraces and till me under with my favorite hoe (the old long handled chopper). I did tell her she would have to do it privatly, cause she wouldn't be able to give away a cuc , tomatoe or zuccinni for years . :)

-- Jay Blair (jayblair678@yahoo.com), August 27, 2000.