Cattle were regularly imported into the United States for breeding purposes until 1987. The earliest known cases of BSE in British cattle were confirmed in 1986, but it had to have been in the British Isles for years before it was confirmed. In 1987, the British Government made public the news about mad cow in cattle. That year alone, over 400 cases of mad cows were confirmed. The actual number of cases may have been far higher; for no requirement was yet in place requiring the reporting of sick cattle and British farmers could make more selling the dead carcasses to the rendering plants, to be ground up into cattle feed. Yet, the next year, 1988, over 2,000 confirmed cases were reported (Richard Rhodes, Deadly Feasts).

Is mad cow disease in American cattle? We know that there is an ever-increasing number of downer cows in the U.S., that downer cows do not show the same brain patterns as British mad cows, and that the U.S. Government refuses to conduct autopsies of cow brains to see if they have spongiform. Instead, they are sent to the rendering plant (Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Mad Cow U.S.A.).

In order to combat mastitis and avoid financial loss, ranchers and feedlot operators inject their cows with massive doses of antibiotics. There are about 80 such antibiotics approved for use in agriculture. Only seven are authorized for use in lactating cows, but the USDA tests for only four of them (Journal of American Veterinary Association, July 1, 1992).

When milk from grocery store shelves in the northeastern states was analyzed, it was found that 63% had detectable residues of antibiotics (ibid.).

A 1988 Illinois survey found that 58% of the drugs used on dairy farms were not approved for such use (Government Accounting Office Report, August 1992).

The use of BST (bovine growth hormone) and other drugs weaken the animals, so that more antibiotics are needed to keep them in production until they are slaughtered. There are extraordinary risks in eating meat and drinking milk, laced with antibiotics. Among other problems, it can lead to the development of disease-causing organisms which are resistant to antibiotics, and thus are more deadly. Should you be eating drug-resistant organisms? (Marc Lappé, When Antibiotics Fail, 1986, p. xii).

Howard Lyman, who used to be a Montana cattleman, says cattlemen regularly dump the antibiotics in all the feed rather than giving it only to sick cattle. By overfeeding the livestock on antibiotics, the microorganisms become resistant to the drugs. Such bacteria, of course, are extremely dangerous (H.F. Lyman, Mad Cowboy, pp. 55-56). When you eat that meat you are getting a lot of drugs with it. If it is undercooked, you are getting drug-resistant bacteria in the meal.

Sometimes the drugs used to inoculate cattle were eventually determined by the government to be dangerous to human health. (Even the government knows that you will consume the drugs in those cows and pigs.) But the USDA always made sure the dangerous drugs were used up by the ranchers before the ban went into effect (ibid.).

With every cow in a feedlot pen producing 25 pounds of manure each day, the flies get so thick that they actually threaten the cow’s ability to breathe. In an effort to do something about the flies around them, the cows kick up so much dust they contract what is called dust pneumonia. To counteract this, the feedlot operator fills up a fly fogger every morning and sprays great quantities of insecticide over the cattle and everything else. The spray, of course, falls into the feed which the cattle eat (Lyman, p. 56).

Certain insects lay eggs on the hide of the cattle, which hatch into grubs which burrow in. The rancher pours other types of insecticide onto the cattle, which soaks in and kills the worm-like larvae. More insecticide inside the livestock, to be served to you later (Lyman, p. 57).

Monsanto, one of the largest agriculture/livestock chemical companies in the world, developed recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). In 1993 it was approved by the FDA in the form of the drug, Posilac. rBGH is a genetically engineered copy, although a less than perfect one, of a naturally occurring cow hormone.

Monsanto has pushed hard to get dairy producers to buy BST in order to increase milk production in their cows. When some farmers discovered that BST was draining calcium from the cow’s bones in order to produce more milk, ultimately sickening and killing the cows, Monsanto tried to keep the news from other dairy farmers, without success (Conklin Corporate Newsletter, Vol. 62; Wisconsin Farmers Union News Release, October 7, 1995; Fair magazine, May/June 1995).

In order to solve the problem of the cows weakened by BST, Monsanto urged that more high-protein pellets, fortified with dead animals, be given to the cows. BST also increased the percentage of mastitis in the cows. This put more pus into the milk that you drink (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 28, 1990; Nature, October 20, 1994).

In order to combat mastitis and avoid financial loss, farmers inject their cows with massive doses of antibiotics. There are about 80 such antibiotics approved for use in agriculture. Only seven are authorized for use in lactating cows, but the USDA tests for only four of them (Journal of American Veterinary Association, July 1, 1992).

Not only does it produce abnormally high milk-fat concentrations, but BST also increases the amount of Insulin Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a chemical in the body that controls the cellular response to growth hormone, and is the same form in both cattle and humans. An excess in humans can bring about acromegaly, a disease which includes enlargement of the hands, feet, nose, and chin (ibid.). An excess growth harmone in cows, from BST, is known to result in higher levels of IGF-1 in the cows ("Human Food Safety Evaluation," Science 249:875-84, August 24, 1990; Prosser, et al., Journal of Dairy Research, 56:17-26, 1989).

When rats were fed food with IGF-1, it significantly increased their body weight. Those of you who are trying to keep your weight down, keep this in mind (Justevich and Guyer, "BGH: Human Food Safety Evaluation," Science, 249:875-84, August 24, 1990).

In 1994, Vermont became the first state in the nation to require that labeling for dairy products notify the consumer when they contain bovine growth hormone. The International Dairy Foods Association promptly sued the State of Vermont, because it did not want the public to know that growth hormones were in the milk. Its argument in court, in effect, was this: Because there is no difference between milk without the growth hormone, therefore the public should not know when it is in the milk (International Dairy Foods Association News Release, April 25, 1994).

Threatening letters were sent by the firm to milk retailers, warning them that they could be violating federal law by advertising that they were selling milk that came from cows free of rBGH. Monsanto, with assets of $7.7 billion, then sued a small family-owned dairy in Waco, Texas, and some family-owned dairies in Iowa that labeled their milk as being free of the artificial hormone ("rBGH and Biotech Foods Fight Continues," Pure Food Campaign Newsletter, November 7, 1994).

Fact 3: Did you know that a single pellet, containing mad cow prions, could infect an animal? "A feed kernel the size of a peppercorn can transmit BSE to an animal in the feed" (March 12, 2001, issue of Newsweek).

Third, the regulations not only allow dead poultry to be fed to cattle, they allow dead cattle to be fed to poultry (chickens and turkeys). If you would like to read all the strange things that can be fed to the animals you will eat tonight, we refer you to the following sources: "Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed: Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Food; Final Rule," Part II, Federal Register, June 5, 1997; Ellen Ruppel Shell, "Could Mad Cow Diseases Happen Here?" Atlangid Mounthly, September 1998; Rebecca Osvath, "Some Feed and Manufacturing Facilities Not Complying with Rules to prevent BSE, Survey Finds," Food Chemical News, April 3, 2000.

Fourth, although the ban forbids putting of dead cattle (including downer cows which died of a form of mad cow disease) into the cattle feed pellets,—yet it is still being done. Dead cattle are still being put in the feed given to cattle. More on this below.

Sixth, In 1989, the American rendering industry announced it would no longer accept sheep heads. This was done to avoid government-imposed restrictions. Sheep heads are obviously a small part of what they grind up. Remember that only at rendering plants are animals ground up into "high-protein pellets" for animal feed (and only sick animals which died are sent to the rendering plants). But an FDA survey, made three years later, found that 15 of 19 plants inspected had not implemented even that ban! No government action was taken against the plants (FDA Survey, "Report of Findings of Directed Inspections of Sheep Rendering Facilities," January 1993).

Seventh, although the FDA bans bone, bone marrow, and spinal cord in ground beef, an Agriculture Department survey in 1997 revealed that those materials were still being included in the ground meat it tested ("USDA Reports Spinal Cord Bits in Ground Beef," Associated Press release, February 21, 1997).

Eighth, the FDA permits blood to be placed in the feed given to all livestock.

The fact, known by both the British and U.S. Governments, is that prions (the infective agents in mad cow disease) are not destroyed by any heat below 800o F., which is far above that which cooking produces. (Every housewife knows that anything cooked in water never goes above 212o F.)

To add to the profit, the rendering plants supplying the large feedlots have worked out a scheme to purchase dead dogs and cats from city animal shelters. Arrangements have also been made with city waste disposal departments, to ship them the road kill which is picked off the streets and roads. A nice arrangement, since all parties (except the eating public) make money on the deal. Millions of dead cats and dogs are fed to the cattle every year ("USDA Reports Spinal Cord Bits in Ground Beef," Associated Press release, February 21, 1997).

Tenth, the intestines and their contents are never (never) removed from the dead animals which are fed to the cows, hogs, chickens, and other livestock.

What the cattle are fed also helps spread the disease. Feedlot owners do not want to feed the animals too much grain, since it is expensive. In 1997, it was reported that 75% of the cattle in the U.S. are routinely fed livestock wastes ("The Next Bad Beef Scandal? Cattle Feed Now Contains Things like Chicken Manure and Dead Cats," U.S. News & World Report, September 1, 1997).

Anything and everything is fed to the animals you will eventually eat. The waste products from poultry plants, including the sawdust and old newspapers used as litter on the floors, to catch the manure, are also being fed to cattle (E.R. Haapapuro, N.D. Barnard, and M. Simon, "Review: Animal Waste Used as Livestock Feed: Dangers to Human Health," Preventive Medicine, September/October 1997).

In Arkansas alone, about 3 million pounds of chicken manure were fed to cattle in 1994 (ibid.).

Dr. Neal D. Bernard, head of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, mentions in the above article that chicken manure may contain dangerous bacteria, such as Salmonella and Campylobacter; parasites, such as tapeworms and Giardia lamblia; antibiotic residues; arsenic; and heavy metals (ibid.).

An Arkansas farmer was quoted in U.S. News & World Report as having recently purchased 745 tons of litter collected from the floors of local chicken-raising operations. After mixing it with small amounts of soybean bran, it is the ration he regularly feeds to his eight hundred head of cattle, making them, in his words, "fat as butterballs." That farmer is one of many who has found manure to be even cheaper food than commercial animal feed, which is a combination of manure and dead animals, plus some soy flour ("The Next Bad Beef Scandal," U.S. News & World Report, September 1, 1997).

After touring a rendering plant in southern California and doing additional research on the subject, Keith Wood wrote an article on the activities inside a rendering plant. A watered-down version of his report was published in the San Francisco Chronicle and on ABC’s 20-20. He later wrote a more complete description which was published in Earth Island Journal. Here is the heart of that report:

"A rendering plant somewhere in southern California—The rendering plant floor is piled high with what is called ‘raw product.’ Thousands of dead dogs and cats; heads and hooves from cattle, sheep, pigs and horses; whole skunks; rats and raccoons—all waiting to be processed. In the 90o heat, the piles of dead animals seem to have a life of their own as millions of maggots swarm over the carcasses.

"Once the mass is cut into small pieces, it is transported to another auger for fine shredding. It is then cooked at 280o F. for one hour. The continuous batch cooking process goes on non-stop, 24 hours a day, seven days a week as meat is melted away from bones in the hot ‘soup.’ During this cooking process, the so-called ‘soup’ produces a fat of yellow grease or tallow that rises to the top and is skimmed off.

" ‘NOTICE—All Animals Are to Be Destroyed In a Humane Manner and No Processing Is to Begin Until the Animal Has Expired. —The Management’ "