Breakthrough in Pig Cloning Could Aid Organ Transplants
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: Friday, January 4, 2002

Two rival biotechnology companies announced this week that they had cloned pigs that are missing a specific gene, a feat that experts say helps pave the way to transplanting pig organs into people without causing immune rejection. With human organs in short supply, companies have been racing to develop so-called knockout pigs in which a gene that prompts rejection has been removed, or knocked out. Although pigs have been cloned before, until now scientists have been able to add genes but not to take them away. Today, researchers at the University of Missouri, in collaboration with Immerge BioTherapeutics, a biotechnology company in Charlestown, Mass., announced that they had created four cloned miniature pigs, each lacking one of two copies of the crucial gene. The piglets, all female and apparently healthy, were born in September and October. On Wednesday, PPL Therapeutics, the Scottish company that helped create Dolly, the cloned sheep, said it had cloned five pigs that lack one copy of the gene. The animals were born on Christmas Day at PPL Therapeutics's United States branch in Blacksburg, Va., and the company has named them Noel, Angel, Star, Joy and Mary. (The Missouri pigs have numbers.) Experts say the animals represent an important milestone in the field of animal-to-human transplants, known as xenotransplantation. But significant hurdles remain before scientists will be ready to test pig organs in people. First, the researchers must breed animals that lack both copies of the gene. Second, transplant experts expect to face other problems involving immune rejection, although less daunting ones. Third, critics warn that the pig organs could introduce deadly viruses into the recipients. ''This is a very important step in what has been a long pathway,'' said Dr. David H. Sachs, director of the Transplantation Biology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, who collaborates with Immerge BioTherapeutics but did not work on this experiment. ''But we are not there yet.'' With more than 75,000 Americans waiting to receive human organs, and demand far exceeding supply, scientists have long looked to animals as the answer to the shortage. ''This is why cloning was developed,'' said Dr. David Ayares, chief operating officer of PPL Therapeutics United States branch. ''Xenotransplantation is the holy grail of the cloning field, and the unmet clinical need that can be met here is huge.''
But immune rejection has been a huge barrier, and the field of xenotransplantation is littered with failures, among them the ''Baby Fae'' case in 1984, in which a baby died after receiving a baboon heart. In recent years, scientists have focused their attention on pigs because they are readily available and easily bred. But pigs carry a gene that is missing in humans. The gene sets off production of an enzyme called 1,3-galactosyltransferase, which makes a sugar that humans and other primates recognize as foreign. So the primate immune system kills the pig organs.
The idea behind the recent cloning experiments was to create a supply of identical animals that lack the problematic gene. But, said Dr. Randall Prather, the reproductive biologist from the University of Missouri who led the Immerge BioTherapeutics research, ''until this time we haven't been able to remove a gene, we have only been able to add genes.'' To clone the animals, company scientists first developed a line of cells from a pig fetus, said Dr. Julia Greenstein, chief executive of Immerge BioTherapeutics, a company that was formed in 2000 as a joint venture of Novartis Pharma A.G. and BioTransplant Inc. Scientists then took DNA that was designed to disrupt the gene that results in the production of the sugar molecule, and introduced the DNA into the fetal cells. The researchers identified cells that had taken up the DNA and put it in the correct place. Those cells were frozen and shipped to Dr. Prather in Missouri. He inserted them into pig eggs and transferred the resulting embryos into surrogate mothers, who gave birth to the four cloned piglets. The company chose miniature pigs, Dr. Prather said, because they will weigh only 250 to 300 pounds when grown and are therefore a better match for humans than full-size swine, which can top 1,000 pounds. The results of his experiment are reported in the current issue of the journal Science. Dr. Ayares of PPL Therapeutics said his company's pigs would weigh 400 pounds when mature. The PPL Therapeutics research, announced on Wednesday, on the eve of the release of Dr. Prather's study, has not yet been published in an academic journal and drew criticism as a result. A leading opponent of xenotransplantation, Alix Fano, director of the Campaign for Responsible Transplantation, a New York advocacy group, described the PPL announcement as ''a publicity stunt'' intended to attract investors.
''It is to attract investors, but it's not a publicity stunt,'' Dr. Ayares said, adding that it was the company's policy to announce the results of experiments before they were published. He said the company was looking for an investment partner and was trying to raise $15 million in venture capital to spin off its American branch into a separate company. Xenotransplant research has generated intense controversy, so much so that Dr. Prather would not reveal the whereabouts of his four miniature pigs ''because of security,'' he said. Animal rights activists oppose the work, and other critics say it is not safe because of the threat of viruses. One virus that has been especially worrisome to scientists is called PERV, or porcine endogenous retrovirus. Immerge BioTherapeutics says its pigs do not carry the PERV virus, but Ms. Fano said she was not convinced. ''Xenotransplantation is fraught with danger,'' she said. ''This could trigger an epidemic, exposing the public at large to viruses known and unknown.'' Cloning itself is also controversial, and the results of Dr. Prather's experiments are likely to fuel the debate over the safety of human cloning. To get the four miniature piglets, Dr. Prather said, he and his team transplanted about 3,000 genetically modified embryos into 28 surrogates. Seven piglets were born, but two died shortly after delivery, of respiratory distress, he said. A third died at 17 days, during a routine blood collection procedure. An autopsy of that animal showed a dilated right ventricle in the heart and a thickening of the heart wall, Dr. Prather said. Dr. Prather and Dr. Greenstein said the next step was for the company to breed pigs that have both genes removed and then to work on other problems involving immune rejection. ''It is down the road before we will have payoffs,'' Dr. Prather said. ''But the payoffs are now in sight.''

US earns Mexico's thanks over swine flu response
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 14th 2009, 3:27 PM

MEXICO CITY — Swine flu has infected Mexico's relations with China and other countries that have canceled airline flights and halted some trade. But its most prickly neighbor — the United States — now seems like the country's most loyal friend. Mexico is smarting from what it considers discriminatory actions by countries it had considered friendly, insisting the world should be grateful for its open and aggressive efforts to stem the spread of swine flu. The shutdown of public life cost Mexico $2.2 billion in the first 10 days after the epidemic was announced. The government sent a plane to pick up 70 of its citizens quarantined in China. It rebuked Cuba, Ecuador, Argentina and Peru for banning flights to Mexico, saying they were acting "incongruously with our traditional ties of friendship." France tried — and failed — to win a European Union-wide ban on flights to Mexico. Particularly insulting for Mexico: Haiti rejected a Mexican ship last week carrying 77 tons of much-needed food aid because of swine flu fears. All of that put the U.S. response in a very favorable light. Neither the United States nor Canada banned flights or restricted trade with Mexico. The three countries are partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Barack Obama forcefully rejected the idea of closing the border, despite arguments from conservative talk show hosts that swine flu showed immigration from Mexico was a threat. The Obama administration cast the decision as a recognition of reality: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said sealing the border would be extremely costly and pointless since the virus was already in the United States. Obama likened the idea to "closing the barn door after the horses are out." Even so, it was symbolically significant in Mexico, which protested when the U.S. began building a border fence under former President George W. Bush. While Obama has also beefed up border security, he has pledged to renew efforts to push through immigration reforms that eluded the Bush administration, including extending a citizenship path for illegal immigrants. His emphasis on open borders during the swine flu outbreak could help set the tone. "There was a very explicit recognition that the U.S. and Mexico cannot close their borders," said Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Washington-based Wilson Center. "Maybe that tells you that Mexico is really more integrated with its neighbors to the north than the rest of Latin America."

Mexico took note. The Foreign Relations Department held a special ceremony to thank the U.S. government both for keeping the border open and for providing aid and medical expertise.
"The way in which the border between Mexico and the United States stayed not only open but alive in the past days has been exemplary," said Carlos Rico, Mexico's deputy secretary for North American relations. "The open border is something that has not been recognized enough."
Even members of the opposition leftist Democratic Revolution Party — long known for its nationalistic wariness of the United States — were impressed.
"I thought the reaction and response from the three countries — Mexico, the United States and Canada — was definitely laudable," said Alfonso Suarez de Real, a lawmaker from the party. "It contrasted with the reaction that other countries have had." The experience added momentum to increasingly warming relations, coming on the heels of Obama's April 16 visit to Mexico and his acknowledgment that Americans share the blame for violence south of border because of drug consumption and gun trafficking. Mexico, for its part, has set aside traditional sovereignty concerns in welcoming increased U.S. border security and even U.S. training for Mexico's navy. In contrast, relations with China have been frayed, threatening to undermine trade and investment between the two countries just as it has been picking up, said Hector Cuellar, president of the recently formed Mexico-China Chamber of Commerce. Prominent Mexican companies have started opening operations in China in the last three years, while Mexican exports to China have jumped ninefold over the past decade to some $2 billion. But Mexicans were angered when China banned the direct flights that leading Mexican airline Aeromexico started offering in October, and then quarantined Mexican travelers. Mexico canceled its participation at a Shanghai trade fair where it had meant to showcase its pork products — now banned in China and at least four other nations even though health experts say people can't catch swine flu from meat. he epidemic also set back Mexico's efforts to improve ties with Cuba, which soured during the 2000-06 presidency of Vicente Fox, when Mexico voted at the U.N. in favor of monitoring human rights on the communist island. Fox's successor, Felipe Calderon, had planned a conciliatory trip to Cuba this year. That's up in the air after Calderon said he may have to cancel because Cuba grounded flights to and from Mexico. Mexican officials also didn't take kindly to Fidel Castro lashing out after Cuba confirmed its first swine flu case, accusing Mexico of waiting to disclose the epidemic until after Obama visited, even though Canadian and U.S. scientists did not identify the virus in Mexican patients until a week later. In Europe for a summit Tuesday, Foreign Relations Secretary Patricia Espinosa told Cuba's foreign relations minister, Bruno Rodriguez, that such remarks "hurt bilateral relations." Deputy Health Secretary Mauricio Hernandez said Wednesday that Mexico would support a global compensation fund for countries that suffer from epidemics, and warned that the threat of trade and travel restrictions could provoke governments to hide future outbreaks. "We were responsible, and we ended up with trade sanctions — we were discriminated against," Hernandez said at an academic forum on swine flu. "So, the question is: What is the incentive (for countries to be open)?"

10 things you need to know about swine flu
DAILY NEWS STAFF
Updated Monday, April 27th 2009, 3:51 PM


Q: What is swine flu, and how do humans catch it?
A: Swine flu is a highly contagious respiratory disease normally found in pigs. People usually become infected through contact with pigs, but this new virus has mutated enough to allow human-to-human transmission.
Q: What are the symptoms?
A: Fever, lethargy, lack of appetite and coughing. Some patients also report experiencing a runny nose, sore throat, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
Q: How many people have died from swine flu?
A: 149, all in Mexico, 20 confirmed as swine flu and rest suspected.
Q: How many people have been diagnosed with swine flu in the United States? Elsewhere?
A: 28 in New York, eight in California, two in Kansas, two in Texas and one in Ohio.
Elsewhere: One confirmed in Canada; two confirmed in Scotland and seven suspected; at least 10 suspected in New Zealand; one confirmed and 17 suspected in Spain; one suspected in France; one suspected in Israel.
Q: Should I be tested for swine flu?
A: Knowing you have swine flu will not afect the treatment you receive, but testing certain affected people can help health authorities track the spread of the disease. The Health Department recommends testing only when people experience severe symptoms or fall sick in clusters.
Q: I'm feeling fine. Should I be doing anything?
A: Wash your hands more than usual to protect against catching the flu virus. Make a contingency plan in case the outbreak worsens and your child's school closes.
Q: If I feel flu-ish, what should I do?
A: Check with your doctor, who will likely prescribe an anti-viral medicine like Tamiflu or Relenza. (You probably have a regular flu, or just a cold.) Don't go to work or school, just in case. Stay off public transportation and don't sneeze on people.
Q: Is there a vaccine?
A: No. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is working to develop one, in case it is needed.
Q: Should I stop eating bacon?
A: No. You cannot get the flu from eating pork products of any kind.
Q: How worried should I be?
A: So far, deaths from swine flu have been reported only in Mexico - and the cases in New York have been very mild. Health officials worry the outbreak will get worse, but the summer is almost here, which will slow flu transmission.

"If a boat ends up on a reef you don't blame the reef;
you don't blame the boat;
you don't blame the wind;
you don't blame the waves;
you blame the captain."
— Tongan Saying

thoughtinprocess

The concept of polluting the very environment that we live in is nothing new to myself or my parents for that matter. The author was born in 1983, well into the "prime" of the meat packing industry. Growth hormones, antibiotics, steroids, and pesticides are all synonymous with the last twenty years of America household consumption of food. The idea that everything that I have ever eaten has some degree of synthetic make-up is beyond comprehension. The idea that profits out weigh the cost of the "diginity of life" has truly dealt its final hand. We can only maintain the degree of degredation that we allow corporate interests to subject us to. The socio-economic hegomy that characterizes the middle and upper class of the worlds wealth has over-expanded itself. What will become of this monstrosoty that has our very own neighbors involved in the slow yet constant fattening crawl to death. I can not help but wonder what the effects of this social-ecological-syndrome that will surely have an impact on man and woman in the coming years.

"They Die Piece by Piece" by Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Write

Tuesday April 10th, 2001

It takes 25 minutes to turn a live steer into steak at the modern slaughterhouse where Ramon Moreno works. For 20 years, his post was “second-legger,” a job that entails cutting hocks off carcasses as they whirl past at a rate of 309 an hour.

The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But too often they weren’t.

“They blink. They make noises,” he said softly. “The head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around.” Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his station clearly alive and conscious. Some would survive as far as the tail cutter, the belly ripper, the hide puller. “They die,” said Moreno, “piece by piece.”

Under a 23-year-old federal law, slaughtered cattle and hogs first must be “stunned” — rendered insensible to pain — with a blow to the head or an electric shock. But at overtaxed plants, the law is sometimes broken, with cruel consequences for animals as well as workers. Enforcement records, interviews, videos and worker affidavits describe repeated violations of the Humane Slaughter Act at dozens of slaughterhouses, ranging from the smallest, custom butcheries to modern, automated es-tablishments such as the sprawling IBP Inc. plant here where Moreno works.

“In plants all over the United States, this happens on a daily basis,” said Lester Friedlander, a veterinarian and formerly chief government inspector at a Pennsylvania hamburger plant. “I’ve seen it happen. And I’ve talked to other veterinarians. They feel it’s out of control.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees the treatment of animals in meat plants, but enforcement of the law varies dramatically. While a few plants have been forced to halt pro-duction for a few hours because of al-leged animal cruelty, such sanctions are rare.

For example, the government took no action against a Texas beef company that was cited 22 times in 1998 for violations that included chopping hooves off live cattle. In another case, agency supervisors failed to take action on multiple complaints of animal cruelty at a Florida beef plant and fired an animal health technician for reporting the problems. The dismissal letter sent to the technician, Tim Walker, said his dislosure had “irreparably damaged” the agency’s relations with the packing plant.

“I complained to everyone — I said, ‘Lookit, they’re skinning live cows in there,’ “ Walker said. “Always it was the same answer: ‘We know it’s true. But there’s nothing we can do about it.’ ”

In the past three years, a new meat inspection system that shifted responsibility to industry has made it harder to catch and report cruelty problems, some federal inspectors say. Under the new system, implemented in 1998, the agency no longer tracks the number of humane-slaughter violations its inspectors find each year.

Some inspectors are so frustrated they’re asking outsiders for help: The inspectors’ union joined with the Humane Farming Association last spring and urged Washington state authori-ties to crack down on alleged animal abuse at the IBP plant in Pasco. In a statement, IBP said problems described by workers in its Washington state plant “do not accurately represent the way we operate our plants. We take the issue of proper livestock handling very seriously.”

But the union complained that new government policies and faster production speeds at the plant had “significantly hampered our ability to ensure compliance.”

“Privatization of meat inspection has meant a quiet death to the already meager enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act,” said Gail Eisnitz of the Humane Farming Association, a group that advocates better treatment of farm animals. “USDA isn’t simply relinquishing its humane-slaughter oversight to the meat industry, but is — without the knowledge and consent of Congress — abandoning this function altogether.”

The USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service, which is responsible for meat inspection, says it has not relaxed its oversight. In January, the agency ordered a review of 100 slaughterhouses. An FSIS memo reminded its 7,600 inspectors they had an “obligation to ensure compliance” with humane-handling laws.

The review comes as pressure grows on both industry and regulators to improve conditions for the 155 million cattle, hogs, horses and sheep slaughtered each year. McDonald’s and Burger King have been subject to boycotts by animal rights groups protesting mistreatment of livestock.

As a result, two years ago McDonald’s began requiring suppliers to abide by the American Meat Institute’s Good Management Practices for Animal Handling and Stunning. The company also began conducting annual audits of meat plants. Industry groups acknowledge that sloppy killing has tangible consequences for consumers as well as company profits. Fear and pain cause animals to produce hormones that damage meat and cost companies tens of millions of dollars a year in discarded product, according to industry estimates. Industry officials say they also recognize an ethical imperative to treat animals with compassion.

Clearly, not all plants have gotten the message.

A Post computer analysis of government records found 527 violations of humane-handling regulations from 1996 to 1997, the last years for which complete records were available. The offenses range from overcrowded stockyards to incidents in which live animals were cut, skinned or scalded. Through the Freedom of Information Act, The Post obtained documents from 28 plants that had high numbers of offenses or had drawn penalties for violating humane-handling laws. The Post also interviewed dozens of current and former federal meat inspectors and slaughterhouse workers. A reporter reviewed affidavits and secret video recordings made inside two plants.

Among the findings:

• One Texas plant, Supreme Beef Packers in Ladonia, had 22 violations in six months. During one inspection, federal officials found nine live cattle dangling from an overhead chain. But managers at the plant, which an-nounced last fall it was ceasing opera-tions, resisted USDA warnings, saying its practices were no different than oth-ers in the industry. “Other plants are not subject to such extensive scrutiny of their stunning activities,” the plant complained in a 1997 letter to the USDA.
• Government inspectors halted production for a day at the Calhoun Packing Co. beef plant in Palestine, Tex., after inspectors saw cattle being improperly stunned. “They were still conscious and had good reflexes,” B.V. Swamy, a veterinarian and senior USDA official at the plant, wrote. The shift supervisor “allowed the cattle to be hung anyway.” IBP, which owned the plant at the time, contested the findings but “took steps to resolve the situation,” including installing video equipment and increasing training, a spokesman said. IBP has since sold the plant.
• At the Farmers Livestock Cooperative processing plant in Hawaii, inspectors documented 14 humane-slaughter violations in as many months. Records from 1997 and 1998 describe hogs that were walking and squealing after being stunned as many as four times. In a memo to USDA, the company said it fired the stunner and increased monitoring of the slaughter process.
• At an Excel Corp. beef plant in Fort Morgan, Colo., production was halted for a day in 1998 after workers allegedly cut off the leg of a live cow whose limbs had become wedged in a piece of machinery. In imposing the sanction, U.S. inspectors cited a string of violations in the previous two years, including the cutting and skinning of live cattle. The company, responding to one such charge, contended that it was normal for animals to blink and arch their backs after being stunned, and such “muscular reaction” can occur up to six hours after death. “None of these reactions indicate the animal is still alive,” the company wrote to USDA.
• Hogs, unlike cattle, are dunked in tanks of hot water after they are stunned to soften the hides for skinning. As a result, a botched slaughter condemns some hogs to being scalded and drowned. Secret videotape from an Iowa pork plant [provided by the Humane Farming Association] shows hogs squealing and kicking as they are being lowered into the water. USDA documents and interviews with inspectors and plant workers attributed many of the problems to poor training, faulty or poorly maintained equipment or excessive production speeds.

Those problems were identified five years ago in an industry-wide audit by Temple Grandin, an assistant professor with Colorado State University’s animal sciences department. . . .
In the early 1990s, Grandin developed the first objective standards for treatment of animals in slaughterhouses, which were adopted by the American Meat Institute. Her initial, USDA-funded survey in 1996 was one of the first attempts to grade slaughter plants. One finding was a high failure rate among beef plants that use stunning devices known as “captive-bolt” guns. Of the plants surveyed, only 36 percent earned a rating of “acceptable” or better, meaning cattle were knocked unconscious with a single blow at least 95 percent of the time.

Grandin now conducts annual surveys as a consultant for the American Meat Institute and McDonald’s Corp. She maintains that the past four years have brought dramatic improvements. Based on the data collected by McDonald’s auditors, the portion of beef plants scoring “acceptable” or better climbed to 90 percent in 1999. Some workers and inspectors are skeptical of the McDonald’s numbers, and Grandin said the industry’s performance dropped slightly last year after auditors stopped giving notice of some inspections.

Grandin said high production speeds can trigger problems when people and equipment are pushed beyond their capacity. From a typical kill rate of 50 cattle an hour in the early 1900s, production speeds rose dramatically in the 1980s. They now approach 400 per hour in the newest plants. “It’s like the ‘I Love Lucy’ episode in the chocolate factory,” she said. “You can speed up a job and speed up a job, and after a while you get to a point where performance doesn’t simply decline — it crashes.”
When that happens, it’s not only animals that suffer. Improperly stunned animals contribute to worker injuries in an industry that already has the nation’s highest rate of job-related injuries and illnesses — about 27 percent a year. At some plants, “dead” animals have inflicted so many broken limbs and teeth that workers wear chest pads and hockey masks.

“The live cows cause a lot of injuries,” said Martin Fuentes, an IBP worker whose arm was kicked and shattered by a dying cow. “The line is never stopped simply because an animal is alive.”

A Brutal Harvest
At IBP’s Pasco complex, the making of the American hamburger starts in a noisy, blood-spattered chamber shielded from view by a stainless steel wall. Here, live cattle emerge from a narrow chute to be dispatched in a process known as “knocking” or “stunning.” On most days the chamber is manned by a pair of Mexican immigrants who speak little English and earn about $9 an hour for killing up to 2,050 head per shift.

The tool of choice is the captive-bolt gun, which fires a retractable metal rod into the steer’s forehead. An effective stunning requires a precision shot, which workers must deliver hundreds of times daily to balky, frightened animals that frequently weigh 1,000 pounds or more. Within 12 seconds of entering the chamber, the fallen steer is shackled to a moving chain to be bled and butchered by other workers in a fast-moving production line.

The hitch, IBP workers say, is that some “stunned” cattle wake up. “If you put a knife into the cow, it’s going to make a noise: It says, ‘Moo!’” said Moreno, the former second-legger, who began working in the stockyard last year. “They move the head and the eyes and the leg like the cow wants to walk.”

After a blow to the head, an unconscious animal may kick or twitch by reflex. But a videotape, made secretly by IBP workers and reviewed by veterinarians for The Post, depicts cattle that clearly are alive and conscious after being stunned.

Some cattle, dangling by a leg from the plant’s overhead chain, twist and arch their backs as though trying to right themselves. Close-ups show blinking reflexes, an unmistakable sign of a conscious brain.
The video, parts of which were aired by Seattle television station KING last spring, shows injured cattle being trampled. In one graphic scene, workers give a steer electric shocks by jamming a battery-powered prod into its mouth.

More than 20 workers signed affidavits alleging that the violations shown on tape are commonplace and that supervisors are aware of them. The sworn statements and videos were prepared with help from the Humane Farming Association. Some workers had taken part in a 1999 strike over what they said were excessive plant production speeds.

“I’ve seen thousands and thousands of cows go through the slaughter process alive,” IBP veteran Fuentes, the worker who was injured while working on live cattle, said in an affi-davit. “The cows can get seven minutes down the line and still be alive. I’ve been in the side-puller where they’re still alive. All the hide is stripped out down the neck there.”

IBP, the nation’s top beef processor, denounced as an “appalling aberration” the problems captured on the tape. It suggested the events may have been staged . . . .
“Like many other people, we were very upset over the hidden camera video,” the company said. “We do not in any way condone some of the livestock handling that was shown.”

After the [Humane Farming Asso-ciation] video surfaced, IBP increased worker training and installed cameras in the slaughter area. The company also questioned workers and offered a reward for information leading to identification of those responsible for the video. One worker said IBP pressured him to sign a statement denying that he had seen live cattle on the line.

“I knew that what I wrote wasn’t true,” said the worker, who did not want to be identified for fear of losing his job. “Cows still go alive every day. When cows go alive, it’s because they don’t give me time to kill them.”

Independent assessments of the workers’ claims have been inconclusive. Washington state officials launched a probe in May that included an unannounced plant inspection. The investigators say they were detained outside the facility for an hour while their identities were checked. They saw no acts of animal cruelty once permitted inside.

 

Grandin also inspected IBP’s plant, at the company’s request; that inspection was announced. Although she observed no live cattle being butchered, she concluded that the plant’s older-style equipment was “overloaded.” Grandin reviewed parts of the workers’ videotape and said there was no mistaking what she saw.

“There were fully alive beef on that rail,” Grandin said.

Inconsistent Enforcement
Preventing this kind of suffering is officially a top priority for the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service. By law, a humane-slaughter violation is among a handful of offenses that can result in an immediate halt in production — and cost a meatpacker hundreds or even thousands of dollars per idle minute. In reality, many inspectors describe humane slaughter as a blind spot: Inspectors’ regular duties rarely take them to the chambers where stunning occurs. Inconsistencies in enforcement, training and record-keeping hamper the agency’s ability to identify problems.

The meat inspectors’ union, in its petition last spring to Washington state’s attorney general, contended that federal agents are “often prevented from carrying out” the mandate against animal cruelty. Among the obstacles inspectors face are “dramatic increases in production speeds, lack of support from supervisors in plants and district offices . . . new inspection policies which significantly reduce our enforcement authority, and little to no access to the areas of the plants where animals are killed,” stated the petition by the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals.

Barbara Masters, the agency’s director of slaughter operations, told meat industry executives in February she didn’t know if the number of violations was up or down, though she believed most plants were complying with the law. “We encourage the district offices to monitor trends,” she said. “The fact that we haven’t heard anything suggests there are no trends.” But some inspectors see little evidence the agency is interested in hearing about problems. Under the new inspection system, the USDA stopped tracking the number of violations and dropped all mentions of humane slaughter from its list of rotating tasks for inspectors.

The agency says it expects its watchdogs to enforce the law anyway. Many inspectors still do, though some occasionally wonder if it’s worth the trouble.

“It always ends up in argument: Instead of re-stunning the animal, you spend 20 minutes just talking about it,” said Colorado meat inspector Gary Dahl, sharing his private views. “Yes, the animal will be dead in a few minutes anyway. But why not let him die with dignity?”

“The industry’s self-inspections are meaningless. They’re designed to lull Americans into a false sense of security about what goes on inside slaughterhouses.”

Know Your Daily Intake

A study conducted by Iowa State University found that 70% of all swine confinement workers suffer from some form of respiratory illness or irritation.¹

Researchers determined that 10% of swine confinement workers experience toxic organic dust syndrome (TODS) and 58% suffer from chronic bronchitis - this is three times higher than the incidence of chronic bronchitis among workers in conventional swine housing units.²

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, meatpacking is the most dangerous job in the U.S.; the rate of injury and illness among slaughterhouse workers is approximately 3 times higher than in the average US factory.³

According to the Centers for Disease Control, foodborne disease causes 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the U.S. every year.⁴

The USDA estimates that 70% of all foodborne illnesses in the U.S. can be traced to contaminated meat.⁵

In 1996, the USDA collected ground beef samples from meat processing plants around the U.S. and determined that 7.5% of these beef samples were contaminated with Salmonella, 11.7% were contaminated with Listeria monocytogens, 30% were contaminated with Staphylococcus Aureus, and 53.3% were contaminated with Clostridium perfringens.⁶

A 1998 study conducted by Consumer Reports revealed that 71% of store-bought chicken were contaminated with Campylobacter and/or Salmonella.⁷

The largest meat recall in U.S. history (27.4 million pounds of poultry) occurred in 2002, after an outbreak of listeriosis killed 20 people and sickened 120 others.⁸

In 1993, contaminated drinking water caused a cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee that sickened 400,000 people and led to over 100 deaths.⁹

In 2000, poor diet and physical inactivity caused 400,000 deaths in the United States, second only to tobacco as the leading preventable cause of death.¹⁰

According to the CDC, in 2000, 64% of all adults in the U.S. were either overweight or obese.¹¹

Experts estimate that the medical costs associated with obesity and overweight in the U.S. amounted to $92.6 billion in 1998.¹²

In 1999, the average U.S. citizen ate 273 pounds of meat. Average meat consumption in other industrialized countries was 170 pounds per person and average meat consumption in non-industrialized countries was only 60 pounds per person.¹³

In the U.S. , the average adult male consumes 154% of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for protein; the average adult female consumes 127% of the RDA for protein.¹⁴

67% of the average American's total protein intake comes from meat and other animal products (the worldwide average is only 34%).¹⁵

According to the CDC, only 23% of American adults eat the recommended 5 daily servings of fruits and vegetables.¹⁶

The USDA estimates that between 1970 and 2000, average daily calorie intake in the U.S. increased by 24.5%, or about 530 calories.¹⁷

1 in 4 Americans visits a fast food restaurant every day.¹⁸

It is estimated that antibiotic resistant bacteria cause U.S. health care costs to increase by $4 billion each year.¹⁹

Meat from pasture-raised animals is lower in calories and "bad" omega-6 fats and contains more of the "good" omega-3 and CLA fats that help fight disease and promote good health.²⁰

Free-range chickens have 21% less total fat, 30% less saturated fat and 28% fewer calories than their factory-farmed counterparts.²¹

Eggs from poultry raised sustainably on pasture have 10% less fat, 40% more vitamin A and 400% more omega-3's.²²

Recent studies indicate that certain organic crops contain higher levels of nutrients, minerals, and antioxidants including vitamin C, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, and polyphenols.²³

 

Sources:

1.      Iowa State University . "Livestock Confinement Dust and Gases." Iowa State University ; University Extension. 1992.

2.      Ibid.

3.      Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 2001. p172

4.      Mead, Paul S. et al. "Food-Related Illnesses and Death in the United States." CDC. 1999.

5.      Shelton, D. "Sources of Pathogens in a Watershed: Humans, Wildlife, Farm Animals?" USDA/ARS position paper, April 2000. as cited in Brubaker, David. Industrial Animal Production in the United States. Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins University. 2000.

6.      Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 2001.

7.      Consumer's Union. "Press Release: Consumer Reports Finds 71 Percent of Store-Bought Chicken Contains Harmful Bacteria" February 23, 1998.

8.      Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. "The Costs of Cheap Food." IATP. 2003.

9.      Letson, David and Noel Gllehon. "Confined Animal Production and the Manure Problem." Choices. 1996: 3rd Quarter. P.18.

10.    Centers for Disease Control (CDC). "Factsheet: Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000." CDC. 2004.

11.    CDC. "Defining Overweight and Obesity." CDC. 2004.

12.    CDC. "Economic Consequences of Obesity." CDC. 2004.

13.    Horrigan, Leo, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker. "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture." Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol 110: 5. May 2002.

14.    Ibid.

15.    Ibid.

16.    CDC. "Five a Day Data and Statistics." CDC. 2002.

17.    USDA. "USDA Fact Book 2001-2002." USDA. March 2003.

18.    Supersize Me: A Film of Epic Proportions. "Supersize Me By the Lb." Accessed December 2004.

19.    Keep Antibiotics Working. "Antibiotic Resistance: A Growing Health Threat to You and Your Family." Keep Antibiotics Working. August 2003.

20.    Pollan, Michael. "This Steer's Life."The New York Times Magazine. Section 6. March 31, 2002.

21.    Smith, Margaret, Mary Swalla and Jim Ennis. "Literature Review of Consumer Research, Publications, and Marketing Communications Related to Pasture-Raised Animal Products and Production Systems." Iowa State University, Iowa InterFaith Ministries and Midwest Food Alliance. Accessed July 2004.

22.    Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE). "Pastured Poultry Products: Summary." SARE. 1999. Worthington, Virginia. "Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains." The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Vol 7: 2 2001. p 161-173.; Burros, Marian. "Is Organic Food Provably Better?" The New York Times. July 16, 2003. 

Here is a lovely update from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Some FAQ on the matter of the current influenza outbreak. It is interesting to note how they do not fail to show the direct relations between the current Swine influenza outbreak and the recent Avian outbreak. In fact the time frame that the U.N.-F.A.O. suggests that the current influenza strain to to mutate was roughly ten to twelve years. Coincidentally, ten to twelve years ago was when southeast Asia was stricken with the Avian influenza strain.

San Francisco Chronicle January 10, 1977 Front page
CIA Link to Cuban Pig Virus Reported
New York


With at least the tacit backing of U.S. Central Intelligence Agency officials, operatives linked to anti-Castro terrorists introduced African swine fever virus into Cuba in 1971. Six weeks later an outbreak of the disease forced the slaughter of 500,000 pigs to prevent a nationwide animal epidemic. A U.S. intelligence source told Newsday last week he was given the virus in a sealed, unmarked container at a U.S. Army base and CIA training ground in the Panama Canal Zone, with instructions to turn it over to the anti-Castro group. The 1971 outbreak, the first and only time the disease has hit the Western Hemisphere, was labeled the “most alarming event” of 1971 by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. African swine fever is a highly contagious and usually lethal viral disease that infects only pigs and, unlike swine flu, cannot be transmitted to humans. All production of pork, a Cuban staple, halted, apparently for several months. A CIA spokesman, Dennis Berend, in response to a Newsday request for comment, said, “We don’t comment on information from unnamed and, at best, obscure sources.” Why the virus turned up in Cuba has been a mystery to animal investigators ever since the outbreak. Informed speculation assumed that the virus entered Cuba either in garbage from a commercial airliner or in sausages brought in by merchant seamen. However, on the basis of numerous interviews over four months with U.S. intelligence sources, Cuban exiles and scientists concerning the outbreak — which occurred two years after then-President Nixon had banned the use of offensive chemical and biological warfare — Newsday was able to piece together this account of events leading up to the outbreak.The U.S. intelligence source said that early in 1971 he was given the virus in a sealed, unmarked container at Ft. Gulick, an Army base in the Panama Canal Zone. The CIA also operates a paramilitary training center for career personnel and mercenaries at Ft. Gulick. The source said he was given instructions to turn the container with the virus over to members of an anti-Castro group. The container then was given to a person in the Canal Zone, who took it by boat and turned it over to persons aboard a fishing trawler off the Panamanian coast. The source said the substance was not identified to him until months after the outbreak in Cuba. He would not elaborate further. Another man involved in the operation, a Cuban exile who asked not to be identified, said he was on the trawler when the virus was put aboard at a rendezvous point off Bocas del Toro, Panama. He said the trawler carried the virus to Navassa Island, a tiny, deserted, U.S.-owned island between Jamaica and Haiti. From there, after the trawler made a brief stopover, the container was taken to Cuba and given to other operatives on the southern coast near the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay in late March, according to the source on the trawler. The base is 100 miles due north of Navassa.The source on the trawler, who had been trained by the CIA and had carried out previous missions for the agency, said he saw no CIA officials aboard the boat that delivered the virus to the trawler off Panama, but added: “We were well paid for this and Cuban exile groups don’t have that kind of money . . .”He said he was revealing the information because he is a member of an exile group being investigated by the United States in connection with terrorist activity in Florida. His account was confirmed by another intelligence source in Miami. The source said he had no proof that the operation was approved by CIA officials in Washington, but added: “In a case like this, though, they would always give them (CIA officials in Washington) plausible deniability.”The investigation referred to by the operative on the trawler involves a federal inquiry into terrorist acts allegedly carried out by Cuban exiles. Those include bombings and assassination attempts in the United States and Venezuela. Trained originally by the CIA for operations against Cuba, the exiles have become more restive as they view what they believe to be an increasing move toward rapprochement between Fidel Castro and the United States.

quiet season

President Obama spoke about the current Swine Flu in a manner we should come to expect from all the worlds leaders.  Pragmatic and honest.  It is amazing how the reassuring words of the Commander-Chief can calm a nation.  Let us take the time, during this long hot summer, to recognize the wonderful gifts around ourselves.  Perhaps we can all take a step towards lightening the inevitable return of this 2009 strain of Influenza.

On Monday May 4th, Canadian authorities confirmed that a form of the current Swine Flu was spread from a human to a pig. The Ontario authorities quickly quarantined the 200 exposed pigs. The government officials estimate that a worker who returned from a recent trip to Mexico is responsible for transmitting the current Swine Flu strain. The irony of this report is now we see a link in the transmission of this strain of virus. Pork Producers and the Governments that are funded by them, had attempted to mislead the world in believing that these viruses were not spread directly from pig to human, or vise verse.

The reality is that we are witnessing how we as a global society disregard the quality of life, for the quality of profit margins. The mass production of cattle, be it pork, chicken, or beef, leads to inevitable consequences. This current strain of Swine Flu is only a small example of mans misunderstood attempt to profit off the mass production and slaughter of animals. Perhaps we as citizens of this world, might persuade those who are too blinded by the pursuit of their own economic success. By choosing to eat healthier, by choosing to know what we purchase from our grocers. Most importantly, we must hold all business and government interests accountable for the cause and affect of their actions.

Flu of old Flu of new

The irony of the current outbreak is that cold and flu season does not officially begin until the fall. When we compare predecessors to this current flu we see this same scenario unfold. First, a mild-strain hits in the spring. Second, the heat of the summer generally diminishes the strength of a virus, so it remains inactive or harmless for the summer months. Finally, by winter when everyone is inside and cold, it is in the perfect environment for replicating and spreading.

The flu pandemic of 1918 saw a similar pattern. When the 1918 flu struck the United States in the spring it was a mild strain that did little damage. Once summer ended and the fall began, the virus began to take the death toll that it was famous for of that year: half a million Americans lost their lives.

On a lighter note, the 1976 swine flu outbreak was far milder, even in the winter phase. In fact the U.S. was able to jump on a vaccine in the late spring and early summer months. An aggressive vaccination strategy was implemented to counter the growing hysteria of the Swine Flu outbreak at the time. Half-way through the implemented vaccination plan, the Ford Administration had to call off the plans due to the deaths of several elderly people who had used the vaccine. A counter wave of hysteria was created, people began to fear the vaccine more than the flu.

In terms of the Abrahamic faiths (Juadaism, Christianity, Islam), Leviticus is the book that tells us why we must not eat pork. The pig and the camel are actually the only two mammals forbidden for consumption. First, both of them have cloven feat instead of a split in their hooves. This deems them to be an unnatural animal. The second reason for the prohibition on pig, is the fact that pigs do not spit up their "Chud". Chud is what all cattle produce after their initial stage of digestion. Most cattle regurgitate the Chud, chew it, and digest it once more. Cows are known to do this process several times. The reason most cattle must do this is a lack of proper enzymes to assist in the digestion process.

Seventh-Day Adventists and many of the Eastern Orthodox Churches follow this understanding of the Book of Leviticus. The book was originally written for priests to follow as guidelines. It is placed after Exodus but before Numbers in the Torah or Old Testament. Islam followed Christianity by several hundred years. The sixth and seventh chapter of the Koran (Al'naam and Al-A'raf) are credited with guiding the Islamic dietary laws that we have seen throughout much of the world. The Prophet Muhammad discusses the unsanitary nature that should be avoided in life and in diet, which is unique to few religions other than the Islamic faith. Perhaps the fact that Jesus Christ never made mention of pork directly contributes to its popularity amongst the Christian. Christianity has always been divided by the issue of literal interpretation of the bible, or some sort of academic critique based on the parable nature that Christ spoke in.

In the Hindu faith, the cow is revered for its gentle and docile nature. It is forbidden through-out the holy Vedas, or Indian religious text to harm a cow in any form. Pork is a common food source for India and most of the Hindu world.

It is now a more tolerated belief that most Pagan religions viewed animals as vessels for high powers or Deities. As opposed to the belief that specific animals were worshipped for specific gods and purposes. The reality is that throughout Celtic, Egyptian, and other Pagan lore animals (i.e. the pig) could take contradictory roles in many different tales. A notable example in early Egyptian lore Osiris the Sun Deity and Set the "underworld/chaos" Deity both are worshipped with pig idols. It written that latter Set, in the form of a pig, consumes Osiris's other eye (the Moon). Some say this led to the negative view towards the sacrifice of pigs, that may have assimilated with Greek and other Mediterranean cultures.

world pork consumption

On May 2nd, 2009, Egypt began a slaughter of all domestic pigs within its national boarder. The efforts were taken despite the declaration from the World Health Organization that there is "no reason to believe that pigs are transmitting the virus". Many countries are banning pork imports from New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Mexico. China went so far as to quarantine 70 Mexican nationals in Shanghai, for fear of spreading the virus. The Mexican citizens would later be airlifted out of the country.

Lets take a minute to look at the top ten most populated countries in proportion to the top 5 consumers of pork in the world.

1.China

2. India

3. United States

4. Indonesia

5. Brazil

6. Pakistan

7. Bangladesh

8. Russia

9. Nigeria

10. Japan

Religious observation tends to play a large roll in the dietary norms of a specific country. India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria all have significant religious communities that abstain from beef (Hindi) and pork (Islam). The United States, Brazil, China, European Union, and Canada all lead the world in consumption of pork specifically. It is also interesting to note that China in 2006 consumed half the worlds pork at 51 metric tons of pork, while the U.S. consumed 8.6 metric tons of pork. In proportion to each countries population the average Chinese citizen eats 1/2 a whole pig a year and the average U.S. citizen eats 1/3 of a whole pig a year.