[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cattlemen Association has beef with my dioxin posting :)
Hi, Mike,
Here's a short response to Mr. Weber's rather
unscientific statements:
1. If, in fact, the amount of dioxin in U.S. beef is
25% of what was reported by EPA, then a single
hamburger only contains 60 times as much dioxin
as is specified as an "acceptable" daily dose by
EPA, that is, only 25 picograms rather than
100 picograms. The EPA "acceptable dose -
0.4 picograms per day - is also questionably
HIGH, not low.
This is the reason: dioxin acts at the cellular level.
Each dioxin molecule traversing your body or carried
in your fat cells has the opportunity to bind to a
hormone receptor of a cell, essentially making that
cell become a rogue. There are more than a billion
dioxin molecules in a picogram of dioxin.
I also doubt very much whether the EPA (and
the studies from which the EPA drew the data) would
have specified U.S. beef if it came from elsewhere.
2. Consuming animal products (either meat or
milk) does not utilize the animal to filter
contaminants. It is the other way around.
Animals *concentrate* contaminants
in their fat cells and their livers.
Cows and steers eat grain
and grass that is contaminated with PARTICULATES
from incinerators that have fallen upon the
plants, as well as consuming a certain amount
of contaminated soil.
3. The amount
of dioxin WITHIN plant products (beans, etc)
is so small it is unmeasurable by any detection
mechanism. In general, products
made from soybeans and grains do not
contain measurable amounts of dioxin.
3. I am not aware that anyone, anytime in
historical record has been made ill or died
from fungal contamination "so prevalent on
plants". There is no need for meat in our
diets, and vegans, as a group, live quite
a bit longer than meat-eaters, not eating
any meat or meat products for decades.
Cheers
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ewall <mxe115@psu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dioxin-l@essential.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 4:50 PM
Subject: 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
>
>
>
>