[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Cattlemen Association has beef with my dioxin posting :)
Before the latest message ("Dioxin in Beef") even hit this list, I got a
response from one Gary Weber with the beef industry. He'd most likely seen
it on the McLibel list which my comments were originally posted on. I'm
forwarding our latest exchange to let everyone know what some of their
current (pathetic) arguments are. If I had the time, I'd go through their
points and shoot them down, but I'm too busy fighting local incinerators to
entertain them right now. I thought I'd leave that to the rest of you, if
you're up to the task...
From: gw@beef.org <-- isn't that a GREAT address?? :)
X-PH: V4.1@r02n06
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 15:30:43 MST
Encoding: 80 Text
To: catalyst@envirolink.org
Subject: Dioxin
I received a copy of a recent summary of dioxin
exposure data provided by you, which I found
interesting. However, you may want to acquire the
most current information on the issue by reading:
Winters, D. et al. "A Statistical Survey of
Dioxin-Like Compounds in United States Beef: A
Progress Report." Chemosphere, Vol 32, pp
469-478. 1996.
This represents a much more science based analysis
of the dioxin levels in U.S. beef. It is
interesting to note the earlier EPA data was
largely of European origin. The 1996 report
documents the levels of dioxin in U.S. beef, and
you will find the levels are only 25% of those
reported earlier.
You also mentioned the following "... 90% of the
dioxin you're exposed to is through meat and
dairy products. Sadly, while the main
anti-toxics groups will admit this, they all but
refuse to recommend a vegan diet. Beef is
the most dioxin-contaminated food according to
EPA."
In making this statement, you need to remember
that cattle are essentially "vegans." Where do
you suppose they acquire the dioxin that ends up
in their tissues? Answer: eating plants!
As a scientist, I share concerns about the
exposure of people and animals to natural and
environmental contaminants, such as dioxin, fungal
and other naturally occurring toxins, heavy
metals, etc.
In that regard, I view the consumption of animal
products as a means of protecting me from the
natural carcinogens found in and on many plants,
as well as the fungal contamination that is so
prevalent on plants. Animals are natural "filters"
of these contaminants. Of course, an appropriate
amount of plant products are critical to a healthy
diet and long life.
Another point is that the beef marketed in the
U.S. is from animals that are, on average, less
that 4 years old. So, the dioxin accumulated in
their fat reserves from eating plants over that
short of a lifespan. Imagine a human living 70-80
years, bioacccumulating dioxin from plant sources.
It is interesting to note the EPA left plant
sources off the 1994 chart you mentioned. Wonder
why?
If you are concerned about dioxin, one way to
avoid it would be to simply eat low fat products,
since it is concentrated in lipids.
Lean beef has very, very little dioxin or other
potential naturally occuring plant and fungal
toxins. As a result, it is my preferred choice for
high quality protein, biologically available
micronutrients, and essential fatty acids.
Whatever your dietary choices are, they are your
choices, and I respect you having that right. I
do feel we all have a responsibility to provide
our fellow citizens accurate information. I hope
you will acquire the aforementioned report, and
update your information.
Bon appetit
Regards, Gary Weber
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:17:21 -0500
X-PH: V4.1@f03n03
To: gw@beef.org
From: Mike Ewall <catalyst@envirolink.org>
Subject: Re: Dioxin
Dear Dr. Gary Weber,
I find it laughable that you have seen fit to write me such an ill-informed
piece of propaganda. I thank you for the insight into the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association twisted logic and public relations arguments.
If I thought it worth my time, I might even go through your arguments point
by point and knock them down like the partronizing straw men and red
herrings that they are. However, assuming you actually believe the lies
you sent me, I doubt any amount of common sense will influence you. I'm
curious, though, to know how much you earn as Executive Director of
Regulatory Affairs for NCBA's Center for Public Policy. I'd also like to
know which public relations firms helped craft the propaganda that you spew
forth. Finally, I'd like to know where it is that you've obtained writing
of mine.
Looking forward to your honest replies,
Mike Ewall
From: gw@beef.org
X-PH: V4.1@r02n06
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 97 13:56:07 MST
Encoding: 20 Text
To: Mike Ewall <catalyst@envirolink.org>
Subject: Re[2]: Dioxin
Mike, the content of your last note indicates a
lot about you. Perhaps the anger you display is
due to the fact you know I am not trying to spew
propaganda, but facts, and that makes your "job" a
lot harder. My job here, and the well documented
position of our organization, and hundreds more
like it, is to support establishment of policies
based on sound science...the truth. If there are
identified, legitimate problems, we are committed
to finding solutions through science and
technological development.
Mike, the truth always will find the way to the
people, there is no hope for you or us trying to
"spew" anything else. You or I could try but we
would fail. I hope you acquire the reference I
mentioned to you, and then perhaps we can have a
reasoned dialog.
Have a great day!
To: gw@beef.org
From: Mike Ewall <catalyst@envirolink.org>
Subject: Re[2]: Dioxin
If you were hoping for reasoned dialogue, you could have started by
answering the quite reasonable questions I posed in my last note to you.
Mike