A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
|Vegitarianism and Islam|
|07/13/02 at 00:04:59|
|salaam alikum |
I used to be a vegan before i became muslim that means i did not any animal product milk eggs meat fish etc. When i became muslim I was told that I had to eat meat. From what I have read the only i hadith i can find says that a person should eat meat once every 30 days. I dont have a problem with eating meat necessarily but i do not like the westernized practice of slaughter houses and doubt how halal the meat we eat is because of the way the animals are treated and various farming practices used now such as feeding chickens and cows meat in both the meat,egg, and milk industry. I dont mind eating cruely free, free range, organic halal products but no such thing exists I would mind sacrificing my own orgainiclly feed animals but dont know any such farmers. Also since I have began eating meat and animal products again i have gained over 50 lbs something that has been compounded since i also stopped smoking drinking and doing drugs. Bascially my question is this woudl it be ok if i ate some fish once a month but did not eat anyother animal products otherwise what do people think?
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|07/13/02 at 03:12:29|
Okay, whatever I say now is just my opinion so don't hold me to it if it goes against the Islamic Truth.
What I think, based on my limited knowledge of Islam. If you don't eat it believing it is forbidden or unlawful then you've made something unlawful while Allah has made it lawful, which is clearly a sin. But if you don't eat for any reason other than the one mentioned above, then I think it is alright.
In fact, in the olden times especially in the times of the prophet, people had meat on special occasions. An ordinary person couldn't even offord it. Meat was food for the rich as they were the only ones who could actually buy it.
Look at it like this, Islam has made lawful every animal that lives under the sea. This does not mean we go fishing for every creature of the sea to be a good muslim. Neither does it mean we eat a fish that could be harmful to our health just becuase it has been made lawful. For instance the jelly fish; it would surely do more than just kill our hunger.
So I guess not eating meat for the reasons you mentioned in your post are good enough to abstain from consuming it.
Additionaly, I heard sheikh hamza yusuf in one of his lectures claiming that he personaly didn't think eating this sort of mass produced meat to be a good eating habit. He said he was virtualy a vegetarian. The only time he ate meat was when he was invited and the host offered him some because it would be bad manners if he refused his offer.
I hope that helps.
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|07/13/02 at 08:36:05|
This discussion came up on some other list I was on some time back. Basically what Traveller said is correct, "If you don't eat it believing it is forbidden or unlawful then you've made something unlawful while Allah has made it lawful, which is clearly a sin. But if you don't eat for any reason other than the one mentioned above, then I think it is alright. "
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|07/13/02 at 16:23:21|
We asked our imam about this too, (being vegetarian, etc) and he said it was fine as a personal choice or wanting to eat healthier, or avoiding the horrible meat market in this country etc.. however, if a person says "i think it's wrong to eat meat and doesn't eat it" then that's not right cause Allah made it permissible and unless all the scholars agree that conditions have totally turned or something and all meat poisons us then we shouldn't be making that fatwa ourselves.
|07/13/02 at 16:23:47|
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|07/13/02 at 19:11:34|
Check out this debate on vegeterianism between a Jain and Dr. Zakir Naik.
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|07/14/02 at 03:03:14|
I know a few Muslim vegetarians and vegans. Some of them are pretty militant. However, as far as I know, all of them base their diet on the cruelty directed towards animals in the food industry here, or on health concerns, and not b/c they are saying it is haram for you to eat meat.
There is an Islamic vegetarian website: www.islamicconcern.com
Please keep in mind that the site is maintained for and by both Sunni and Shi'i Muslims, and keep in mind that I am not necessarily endorsing all the material on the site, nor am I necessarily familiar with all of it. However, over the years, I have found it to be a good resource for Islam and vegetarianism.
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|07/17/02 at 02:54:59|
have meat once in a while, i believe it would be good for you.
For instance the jelly fish; it would surely do more than just kill our hunger.
anyhow, i had jellyfish when i was in Sarawak, its a delicacy there, didnt particularly like it and didnt know we could eat it too prior to that, well, it was just like jelly!
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|07/17/02 at 09:08:34|
[quote]We asked our imam about this too, (being vegetarian, etc) and he said it was fine as a personal choice or wanting to eat healthier, or avoiding the horrible meat market in this country etc.. [/quote]
That's good to know, I was a vegetarian for about 6 years bc Ii was grossed out by the meat industry- I stopped in college bc other Muslims kept telling me it was haram not to eat a lawful substance Allah put on this Earth for you, but I felt so much better not eating hormone injected meat...hmmm..
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|07/18/02 at 10:29:18|
|Bismillah and salam, |
I found this article, i took out a small paragraph:
Who says Muslims can't be Vegetarian?
The option to be vegetarian has always existed in Islam, whether or not it was actualized at any time or place. ...
Sometimes we get negative, hostile, indignant, or incredulous reactions from other Muslims who have never considered the possibility. One common line of attack goes, "You can't make harâm what Allah has made halâl! That is a sin!" Excuse me, but who ever said anything about making anything harâm? Why even bring that issue into it? Why do they have to think of everything in life in terms of force and compulsion and forbidding? In Islamic law there are more categories than just obligatory and harâm. There are various shadings of desirable and undesirable, and in the middle there is the neutral (al-mubâh). The choice of what halâl food to eat is a neutral one---it doesn't have any direct bearing on what is forbidden or obligatory. I'm not making meat "harâm." I just don't wish for any, thank you.
Some Muslims will tell you that in Islamic law you are not allowed to refuse to eat meat. This is mere opinion unsupported by any evidence from the sources of the Shari‘ah. Suppose they establish the "Islamic State," then how will they enforce this ruling? Hold me down, force my mouth open, and shove kebabs down my throat? Come on, I don't think so.
Others try to persuade you by saying that the Prophet, peace be upon him, ate meat, so you should too. Well, let's look closer at that argument. We all know that we should try to emulate the Prophet's sunnah. And what is more important in the Sunnah: to observe specific details of the Prophet's personal taste which others may or may not share? Or to abide by the great universal principles of behavior and character that he exemplified?
The Prophet recognized that each person is a unique autonomous individual with his or her own personality. When giving advice to individual Companions, he would specifically tailor the advice according to that person's own characteristics. He did not enforce any overbearing uniformity on the people. Especially when it came to eating, he recognized that different people have different tastes. And for that matter, not even the Prophet and his Companions ate meat all the time; it was only once in a while that they did, not every day. Some Muslims seem to be under the impression that eating meat is the sixth pillar of Islam or something, but clearly there is no reason for thinking so.
The one overall guideline on food that the Prophet gave was: Eat of what is halâl and what is agreeable to you. That says it all. Within the wide range of halâl food, each individual can choose to eat whatever suits him or her.
If people want to follow the Prophet's sunnah of eating, consider this: The Prophet ate what he liked and he left aside what he didn't like. That's all we vegetarians are doing! Furthermore, he never coerced anyone else into eating what they didn't like. How about imitating this sunnah?
There was a Bedouin tribe whose custom it was to eat lizards, and the Prophet never forbade them from doing so. But he himself would never eat a lizard. This shows that just because something is "halâl," that doesn't require you to eat it if you don't want to.
The bottom line is: no one has the authority to dictate to you what halâl food you can choose to put into your body. I slamic law is completely neutral on this issue; it is only a private matter for each individual to decide for his or her self.
Moreover, note that the Qur'ân does not simply say to eat halâl meat: it says to eat what is good and wholesome (tayyib), and what is halâl. Therefore, if any food is not tayyib, the Qur'ân does not encourage us to eat it. Considering the diseases linked with meat eating (hardening of the arteries, which causes circulatory failure and stroke, in addition to other ills; gout; E. coli infection; and Mad Cow Disease), the hormones artificially put into animals, the filthy conditions of feedlots and slaughterhouses, and the danger of meat going bad, I can only conclude that meat does not pass the test of being tayyib, so Muslims are better off without it.
Ever since I became vegetarian, I feel lighter, fresher, happier, healthier. I can think better. Now, who will argue with that? :-)
Hadith on Milk, Ghee and Beef
This comes from the famous hadith collection Zâd al-ma‘âd by Ibn Qayyim. I have been all through the many hadith books and I have never found any saying that the Prophet of Islam, peace be upon him, ate beef. In fact, he advised against it. If this guidance from the Prophet would be better known, then it could really help to ease the tensions between Hindus and Muslims over the beef issue, if the Muslims would leave off eating beef on the advice of their own Prophet. Let there be peace and harmony between Hindus and Muslims, peace and harmony in the whole world. I wish that could come true!
First, the hadith in the original Arabic:
‘an suhayb radiya Allâh ‘anhu yarfa‘uhu:
‘alaykum bi-laban al-baqar fa-innahâ shifâ' wa-samnuhâ dawâ' wa-lahmuhâ dâ'.
The Urdu translation:
hazrat suhaib raziyallâhu ‘anh se rivâyat hai keh huzűr-e akram sallá Allâh ‘alaihi va-sallam ne farmâyâ:
"gâ'î kâ dűdh isti‘mâl karnâ lâzim pakaR lo, kyűnkeh us men shifâ hai, aur us ke ghî men davâ kî tâsîr hai, aur us ke gosht men rog hai."
Free translation in English:
The Prophet, peace be upon him, said:
"You should use cows' milk, because it is good for health, and cows' ghee is good for health, but beef is bad for health."
Actually, the literal meaning of the words the Prophet used is much stronger than that. He said that milk is "healing," ghee is "medicine," and beef is "disease."
Urdu commentary by Hafiz Nazr Ahmad:
mustadrak-e hakîm kî kitâbuttibb men pahlî hadîs yeh hai keh rasűlullâh sallallâhu ‘alaihi va-sallam ne farmâyâ, "allâh ne ko'î bîmârî nahîn utârî jis kî davâ nah utârî ho, aur gâ'î ke dűdh men har bîmârî se shifâ kî tâsîr hai." us kitâb kî tîsrî hadîs men shifâ kî vajah yeh farmâ'î, "kyűnkeh gâ'î har dirakht se cartî hai -- fa-innahâ tarummu min kull shajar."
yeh ek haqîqat hai keh űnT, bhens, bheR, bakrî, aur dusre tamâm janvaron ke muqâbalah men gâ'î kâ dűdh sab se a‘lá hai. tamâm mazarrat se pâk hai aur muta‘addid ‘avâriz ke liye shifâ bakhsh hai. gâ'î ke dűdh kâ makkhan aur ghî bhî kitnî hî bîmâriyon kâ mudâvâ hain. atibbâ' ba-taur-i davâ tajvîz karte hain. dűsrî taraf gâ'î kâ gosht garm hai, aur apnî garm tâsîr ke bâ‘is ba‘z-i ‘avâriz paidâ kartâ hai. lekin hamain yeh bât hargiz farâmosh nah karnî câhi'e keh gâ'î halâl hai aur kisî halâl shai ko apne aur harâm qarâr dene kî hargiz ijâzat nahîn. tibbî nuktah-i nazar se isti‘mâl aur ‘adam-i isti‘mâl kî sűrat aur hai.
In the Book of Medicine of the Mustadrak al-Hakîm [a classical hadith commentary by al-Hakîm al-Nîsaburî], the first hadith is: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings upon him, said: "Allah did not create any disease without creating its cure; and in cows' milk is a cure for every disease." The third hadith in this book says on the subject of healing: "Because the cow grazes from every kind of plant."
It is a fact that, compared to that of camels, buffaloes, sheep, goats, and all other animals, cows' milk is superior. It is free from everything harmful and provides healing for various illnesses. The butter and ghee from cows' milk are a treatment for several more diseases. Physicians prescribe it as medicine. On the other hand, beef is hot in nature, and its heat causes some diseases to occur. But we should not neglect that beef is halâl and it is not permissible to declare that something halâl is harâm. From the medical point of view, the question of using it or not using it is another thing.
This hadith and commentrary were published in a book called Tibb-i nabavî by Hâfiz Nazr Ahmad (Dihlî: Varld Islâmik Pablikeshanz, 1982), p. 226.
|07/18/02 at 10:31:03|
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|07/27/02 at 14:45:57|
I just wanted to add a fatwa I found on this subject. It confirms what everyone else has said here:
I'm vegain, I mean I do not eat any meat product or dairy from milk , eggs, cheese , or honey , any think that have to do with animal I just I don't eat it, and the thing that I like the religion of the Islam I would like to be a part of it , so my question can I be a Muslim and still don't eat meat and animal product ? Thank you so much
Praise be to Allaah.
Yes, you can be a Muslim without eating these animal products, but you need to be aware of the following:
You should not think that these things are haraam (forbidden), because Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings):
“O you who believe! Make not unlawful the tayyibaat (all that is good as regards foods, things, deeds, beliefs, persons, etc.) which Allaah has made lawful to you, and transgress not. Verily, Allaah does not like the transgressors.” [al-Maa’idah 5:87]
“Say: who has forbidden the adornment with clothes given by Allaah, which He has produced for His slaves, and al-tayyibaat [all kinds of lawful things] of food? Say: they are, in the life of this world, for those who believe, (and) exclusively for them (believers) on the Day of Resurrection (the disbelievers will not share them). Thus We explain the aayat (Islamic laws) in detail for people who have knowledge.” [al-A’raaf 7:32]
“Say: Tell me, what provision has Allaah sent down to you! And you have made of it lawful and unlawful. Say: Has Allaah permitted you (to do so), or do you invent a lie against Allaah?” [Yoonus 10:59]
You should not think that it is better to abstain from these foods, or that doing so will be rewarded, or that a vegetarian is closer to Allaah than others, and so on. It is not permitted to draw closer to Allaah in this way. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who is the best of mankind and the closest to Allaah, used to eat meat and drink milk and honey. When one of his Companions wanted to give up meat( he told him that this was wrong. Anas reported that there was a group of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), one of whom said, “I will never marry women”; another said, “I will not eat meat”; another said, “I will not sleep on a bed”; and another said, “I will fast and never break my fast.” News of this reached the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He praised and thanked Allaah, then said: “ What is wrong with the people who are saying such and such? I pray and I sleep; I fast and I break my fast; and I marry women. Whoever deviates from my Sunnah (way) does not belong to me.” (Reported by al-Nisaa’i; the story is also to be found in the two Saheehs of al-Bukhaari and Muslim).
There is a great difference between not eating a certain kind of food because one does not like it, or it does not agree with one, or one has been put off – for example by seeing an animal slaughtered when one was a child, which may leave one with a distaste for meat – and other similar reasons, and thinking that meat is haraam and that abstaining from it is an act of worship, as is done by Brahmins, monks and others who are misguided.
Once this matter is clear in your mind, there is nothing wrong with not eating foods that you do not like. We will be happy to welcome you soon as our sister in Islam. We ask Allaah to give you the strength to do good and to protect you from every evil. Allaah is the One Who guides to the Straight Path.
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (www.islam-qa.com)
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|08/07/02 at 00:07:28|
|Bismillah and salam,|
long but very interesting
This report raises serious questions about the quality of meat and dairy products that are currently available for Muslims to eat. Furthermore, there is strong reason to believe that this is a world-wide problem driven by greed and price pressures faced by farmers. This report discusses the history of, and some of the problems caused by, the practices of regularly feeding filth to animals we consume, and describes in details the various levels of exposure to this problem. This report also provides alternatives for American Muslims.
Based on a preliminary investigation of what livestock animals are fed before being butchered, there is strong evidence to indicate that the meat supply does NOT meet Islamic standards. These findings go beyond meat and have additional implications on the Muslims’ consumption of eggs, dairy products (milk, butter, ice cream, cheeses), and a variety of food additives used in the majority of consumer-packaged food products (gelatin, whey, beef and chicken stock, meat broth, and some vitamins and supplements that are extracted from animal sources).
Our research indicates that:
Unacceptable Chicken and eggs: There is absolutely no limitation on what is included in the commercial chicken feed. Including animal protein and recycled chicken manure in the chicken feed are industry-wide practices  and affect all commercially produced chicken. Animal protein is derived from the rendering (cooking, pulverizing, and dry-pelletizing) of slaughterhouse by-products (blood, viscera, stomach content, and carcasses of animals that died from disease before slaughter) from cows, pigs, horses, sheep, goats, euthanized cats and dogs, restaurant waste, recalled or rejected meats, and supermarket returns. The same practices apply to the commercial production of broilers (chickens grown to be sold for broiling) and layers (chickens used in the production of eggs, but later sold as roasters).
Unacceptable Dairy Products: Up until 1997, there was no enforced standard in feed. Effective August 1997, the FDA instituted a mandatory ban whereby farmers and feed manufacturers are not allowed to use protein derived from ruminants (cows, sheep, and goats) in dairy cow feed. However, farmers are specifically allowed  (and to a certain degree encouraged) to include blood, gelatin, and tallow (all from any animal source) as well as all animal by-products derived from pigs, horses, restaurant waste, and supermarket returns. Recent reports from the FDA indicate that as late as January 2001, this ban was largely unenforced by the government and simply ignored by farmers, renderers, and feed manufacturer
Unacceptable Beef: Up until 1997, there was no enforced standard in feed. Effective August 1997, the FDA instituted a mandatory ban whereby farmers are not allowed to use protein derived from ruminants (cows, sheep, and goats) in cattle feed. However, farmers and feed manufacturers are specifically allowed  (and to a certain degree encouraged) to include blood, gelatin, and tallow (all from any animal source) as well as all animal by-products derived from pigs, horses, restaurant waste, and supermarket returns. Recent reports from the FDA indicate that as late as January 2001, this ban was largely unenforced by the government and simply ignored by farmers, renderers, and feed manufacturers. Another disturbing industry-wide practice that has been used without regulation since the 1950s is to include composted chicken litter (manure) in cattle feed for non-grazing cattle . This practice is recommended by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)  and various University extension services   to reduce the cost of feeding cattle during periods of drought and winter months, when 50 to 60% of farming enterprises costs occur. As early as 1969, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a warning to consumers that this practice is widely used and unregulated by the federal government . The preponderance of references to this practice indicates that it continues at a large scale, and has even increased, to this day.
Unacceptable Sheep, and Goats: Up until 1997, there was no enforced standard in feed. Effective August 1997, the FDA instituted a mandatory ban whereby farmers are not been allowed to use protein derived from ruminants (cows, sheep, and goats) in sheep and goat feed. However, farmers are specifically allowed  (and to a certain degree encouraged) to include blood, gelatin, and tallow (all from any animal source) as well as all animal by-products derived from pigs, horses, restaurant waste, and supermarket returns. Recent reports from the FDA indicate that as late as January 2001, this ban was largely unenforced by the government and simply ignored by farmers, renderers, and feed manufacturers.
There are clear hadeeths from Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to prohibit eating, drinking milk from, and even riding animals (called Jal-lalah in the Islamic Fiqh) that regularly consume “Najas” (defined in Fiqh to include feces, the by-products of blood, dead animals, and swine). Various Islamic scholars have given specific rulings on the necessity of quarantining Jal-lalah animals before Muslims consume them. Under the current environment of industrialized intensive farming practices, where the vast majority of commercially produced animals can be classified as Jal-lalah, it may become necessary to ban the consumption of all commercially produced meats.
In addition to the “shari’ah” issues associated with consuming livestock grown on filth, there are serious health risks. This report includes a discussion on the various issues that arose from the “mad cow” epidemic in Europe. This report provides evidence that the disease may be present in the U.S. and other parts of the Muslim world.
So in essence… Don’t worry about how your cow, sheep, goat or chicken were butchered, and whether someone Uttered “Bismillah Allahu Akbar” at the time of slaughter… What you should be more worried about is the filth that they were fed before they arrived at your neighborhood grocery store or “Halal” butcher shop!
But there are alternatives… This report provides a number of ideas and sources for “cleaner” products in which the Muslims may be interested. The solution revolves around better health practices and a diet that reduces the excessive consumption of meat and dairy products – a diet that would be more in line with the diet practices of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the early companions.
The reader is encouraged to read this report very carefully, while keeping in mind the recommendation from Allah in Surat-Al-Bakarah (2:216): “And perhaps you may hate something, but it turns out to be better for you.”
1. What’s in the livestock feed?
1.1 Animal Tissue
A 1991 USDA report  states that "approximately 7.9 billion pounds of meat and bone meal, blood meal and feather meal [were] produced in 1983." Of that amount, 34 percent was used in pet food, 34 percent in poultry feed, 20 percent in pig food and ten percent in beef and dairy cattle feed. Scientific American cites a dramatic rise in the use of animal protein in commercial dairy feed since 1987. This is done through a process called rendering. See Appendix A for extensive details about rendering.
Howard Lyman, a previous cattle rancher who became a staunch critic of the cattle industry  talked about “100,000 cows per year in the United States are fine at night, dead in the morning. The majority of those cows are rounded up, ground up, fed back to other cows. If only one of them has mad cow disease, has the potential to affect thousands. Remember today, the United States, 14% of all cows by volume are ground up, turned into feed, and fed back to other animals.” See Appendix B for a discussion of danger the “Mad Cow” disease which is directly caused by the practice of feeding “Najas” to livestock animals..
These figures are confirmed by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes in his book Deadly Feasts [36, pp. 224, 228]. Dr. Richard F. Marsh, a professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Wisconsin in Madison reports the same number in a March 1997 New York Times News Service report . An article published in September 1998 in the Atlantic Monthly magazine  confirms the same estimate saying: “Although no one is tracking how many cows ‘go down’ in the United States each year (that is, become too lame or too ill to stand on their feet) a common estimate is 100,000. Downer cows are by law not admitted into the food supply without first being cleared by a veterinarian, but most enter the food chain through the rendering process.”
A public relation article from Tyson Foods’ own web site brags about the fact that “dead birds make up only a small part of the nearly 30 million pounds of chicken and hog residual products a week, from farms and Tyson production facilities, that are recycled into feed-grade products for poultry feed, cattle feed, and pet food ingredients.” 
In 1997, A US News & World Report article  states that “Some 40 billion pounds a year of slaughterhouse wastes like blood, bone, and viscera, as well as the remains of millions of euthanized cats and dogs passed along by veterinarians and animal shelters, are rendered annually into livestock feed--in the process turning cattle and hogs, which are natural herbivores, into unwitting carnivores.” See Appendix A for extensive details about rendering.
An ABC News 20/20 Story on Mad Cow Disease, March 2nd, 2001  quotes Michael Hansen, from the consumers advocacy group called the Consumers Union, as saying: “It remains legal in the United States, for example, to ‘grind up cattle, feed them to pigs, and then grind up the pigs and feed them to the cows.”
The practice of feeding animal protein to livestock started early during the twentieth century when scientists discovered that feeding protein to cattle (which are herbivores by nature) caused faster weight gain in beef cattle and increased milk production in dairy cows. A 1926 law in Britain referred to the practice and attempted to regulate it . In the US, soy protein was preferred due to the abundance of soybeans.  reports that “The process of rendering, using animal remains in feed, has been widespread since the 1920s.” In Europe however, fishmeal was initially preferred. In the search for cheaper protein, the agricultural industry started recycling (by rendering and pelletizing) various animals and slaughterhouse by-products. And as World War II raged in Europe, the British government passed a law making it mandatory for farmers to feed rendered animal proteins to cattle as a form of efficient reuse of the limited resources and to support the growing nutritional needs caused by the war . As the commercial feed industry became more competitive, the race was on for the cheapest way to satisfy the increasing demand for faster cattle production and to keep costs low. As soybean prices went up in the US, rendered animal proteins became very competitive, and it became more difficult for farmers to resist using this “food supplement” if they wanted to achieve competitive weight gains in the animals they were producing. An Atlantic Monthly article  confirms the economic competitive value of using animal protein (compared to vegetable protein) by quoting Cornell University Associate Professor of dairy cattle nutrition, Larry Chase. In the U.S. today, rendered animal protein is sold on the commodities amrket for about the same price as soybeans . In the Atlantic Monthly article, Chase confirms: “Since animal products deliver more protein per ounce than vegetable products do, it’s no surprise that many farmers have turned to animal-based food supplements.” Chase continues: “The amount of rendered animal protein produced in this country is staggering, and from what I understand, ten to fifteen percent of it goes into cows.”  includes a comparison matrix showing the nutrient composition values (metabolizable energy, protein, fat, calcium, amino acids, etc.) in Meat-and-bone meal, poultry by-product meal, blood meal, and feather meal, as compared to soybean meal.
In the US today, cattle production (animals raised for beef) is divided into two separate industries. Farmers raise calves up to an average weight of 500 pounds. They usually use grazing but often supplement it with commercial feed containing animal proteins. After that, calves are transferred to feed lots. These are often behemoth industrial facilities with concrete buildings housing hundreds of animals in close quarters where the cattle spend the next 150 to 200 days of their lives where their weight goes up to 1100 pounds . This weight is considered the optimal slaughter weight. During this time, the cattle are fed a concentrated diet vegetable matter (hay, grains, cornhusks, etc.) supplemented with up to four pounds of protein per day [36, pp.228]. More often than not, this is commercially produced, rendered animal protein. The majority of their caloric intake comes from this protein. The vast majority of commercially produced meats come from animals that went through feedlots for this intensive fattening process. The vast majority of slaughter cattle never live beyond their second birthday.
The numbers are similar for the dairy industry. The September 1998 Atlantic Monthly article  by Ellen Ruppel Shell reports about Larry Johnston, a seventy-four-year-old dairy farmer from Corvallis, Montana, who has been in the dairy business since the nineteen sixties. Johnston said that when he became a dairyman, a good milking cow maybe gave thirty-five pounds of milk a day (a little more than 4 gallons). Johnston continues: “Today, that cow, if healthy, would immediately be sold at auction and ground into hamburgers and franks, as all healthy dairy cows are eventually. Our top milkers give up to a hundred and thirty pounds of milk a day.” That is more than sixteen gallons of milk per day, or a four-fold increase in milk production over some thirty year-span. The same Atlantic Monthly article  confirms this “scientific” fact by stating: “From 1987 to 1996 the number of milk-cow operations in the United States dropped by 44 percent, and the number of cows by 11 percent, while milk production increased by eight percent. Breeding, hormones, and drugs have made America's dairy cows veritable milk machines.” The same story reports: “American dairy farmers have fed their herds supplements containing fat, bone meal, and blood and meat protein for fifty years or more.” The report quotes Cornell University Professor Chase as saying that: “Cows fed on grass, hay, alfalfa, and other forage produce just ten to fifty pounds of milk a day and that you can’t get a reasonable amount of milk without supplement.” That is hormones and mostly animal protein supplement. An article from Rachels Environment and Health Weekly that was published on February 9, 1999, states that in the U.S., rBGH (a genetically engineered growth hormone to increase milk production) is given to 30% of dairy cattle (according to the manufacturer, Monsanto) and other growth hormones are used in 90% of beef cattle production. 
Chickens too are regularly fed “Meat and Bone Meal” protein (MBM), which is the powdery protein supplement produced by rendering. Chickens are also regularly fed rendered fat and hydrolyzed feather meal (rendered poultry feathers). A 1985 research paper published in the American Journal of Veterinary Research  states that 20% of the diet of chicken raised commercially consists of MBM protein. An article published on the web site for the National Renderers Association’s web site  reports on research conducted at the University of Georgia, which found that MBM portion in chicken feed is as high as 40%. MBM is less expensive than pure grain-based chicken feed and more attractive for its ability to cause faster weight gains in chickens . This research article specifically states: “Since vegetable oil is usually more expensive, the fats predominantly used in animal feeds are of animal origin.” 
But none of this should come as a revelation to the reader. How else can a fast-food chain restaurant afford to sell you a double cheeseburger with all the trimmings on a sesame seed bun for less than the price of fries, and sometimes for less than the price of the drink? And how else would the price of beef remain virtually unchanged for the last 15 years or so? In the classic book, “Diet for a Small Planet” [20, pp.70], Frances Moore Lappe refers to the USDA Economic Research Service to calculate that it takes 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef if you were to feed the cattle a purely vegetarian diet. The same source [20, pp.69] calculates that it takes almost 8 pounds of grain to produce a gallon of milk. It is not difficult to see that the cheap meat and dairy prices we have come to expect at the supermarket are artificially (and unnaturally) low. This report provides some explanation of some of the intensive farming methods used to reduce the cost of production of meat, chicken, eggs, and dairy, and how these methods affect the food source options for Muslims.
1.2 Chicken Litter and Manure
In a U.S. News and World Report (January 9, 1997) article , reporters Satchell and Hedges write: "Agriculture experts say a slew of new and questionable methods of fattening cattle are being employed by farmers. To trim costs, many farmers add a variety of waste substances to their livestock and poultry feed--and no one is making sure they are doing so safely. Chicken manure in particular, which costs from $15 to $45 a ton in comparison with up to $125 a ton for alfalfa, is increasingly used as feed by cattle farmers despite possible health risks to consumers. In regions with large poultry operations, such as California, the South, and the mid-Atlantic, more and more farmers are turning to chicken manure as a cheaper alternative to grains and hay." Satchell and Hedges add: "Chicken manure often contains campylobacter and salmonella bacteria, which can cause disease in humans, as well as intestinal parasites, veterinary drug residues, and toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. These bacteria and toxins are passed on to the cattle and can be cycled to humans who eat beef contaminated by feces during slaughter."
The article continues: “Lamar Carter is one such cattle farmer. Carter recently purchased 745 tons of litter scooped from the floors of local chicken houses, stacking it 12 feet high on his farm near Dardanelle, Ark. After allowing the protein-rich excrement to heat up for seven to 10 days, Carter mixes it with smaller amounts of soybean bran, and feeds this fecal slumgullion to his 800 head of cattle. "My cows are fat as butterballs," Carter says. "If I didn't have chicken litter, I'd have to sell half my herd. Other feed's too expensive."
When chickens are raised on the ground in broiler houses, a layer of material is used to cover the ground and to provide a suitable surface for the birds. This litter absorbs much of the manure produced by the birds.
We found the following detailed description of the timing of feeding chicken manure to cattle :
“Ranchers are paid by the pound, not by the animal. So as a steer approaches slaughter they are sent to a feedlot to be fattened up. Cattle are members of the suborder Ruminantia (as are sheep, goats, deer, and giraffes) and have evolved to eat fibrous, low calorie foods; grasses, shrubs and leaves. To gain the excess weight they must consume high calorie, high protein foods at as little expense to the rancher as possible. The most common way to do so is to mix broiler litter (manure bedding and waste from chicken facilities) with the more expensive grain but other cost saving ideas flourish. One of the most innovative was developed by Illinois State University; in 1994 they announced a plan to feed cattle a mixture of ground newsprint and table scraps from dining halls on campus. (Floyd B. Hoelting, Bioscience Technology 49, no. 1, 1994) Within just a few weeks of such a diet the cattle swell to several hundred pounds above their natural weight and as they fatten so too do the ranchers. But what are they feeding you?”
These facts are confirmed by a variety of papers and recommendations from the USDA  and various university extension services . The 1998 USDA papers  clearly state that a one-to-one mix of chicken litter and grain would be ideal for achieving a 69% live weight gain in beef. A paper by an Auburn University professor  recommends a mix as high as 4 portions of chicken litter to one portion of corn for best results! We even found a classified ad  for chicken litter to be used for cattle feed, and this ad confirms our suspicion that some farmers feed the manure straight to the cattle. A book by Howard Lyman  claims that “in Arkansas, for example, the average farm feeds over fifty tons of chicken litter to cattle every year.”
1.3 Restaurant Waste, Food Garbage, and Other Manure
A September 1997 U.S. news and World Report article  confirms: “Animal-feed manufacturers and farmers also have begun using or trying out dehydrated food garbage, fats emptied from restaurant fryers and grease traps, cement-kiln dust, even newsprint and cardboard that are derived from plant cellulose. Researchers in addition have experimented with cattle and hog manure, and human sewage sludge. New feed additives are being introduced so fast, says Daniel McChesney, head of animal-feed safety for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that the government cannot keep pace with new regulations to cover them.”
This fact is confirmed by the eye-witness account contained in the Earth Island Journal article . A FDA Q&A discussion paper  published in March 2001 confirms, condones, and even defends the practice of including restaurant waste and returned and unsold supermarket meats in ruminant feed. This discussion paper even allows Styrofoam and plastic wrappers used for such products to be included in the livestock feed.
A book published in 1983 confirms that researchers are going beyond chicken manure to include other animal waste . A paper from Texas A&M University  details exactly how to include dead chicken carcasses in the cattle feed and provides a picture demonstration of the complete process
A North Carolina State University report  confirms the usage of swine manure as cattle feed because of the “high protein content of the solids” in the swine manure. This report confirms that swine manure has already been used as cattle feed in commercial operations in North Carolina for many years. This report states: “The direct refeeding of manure solids and the development of off-farm products are two areas that are receiving a lot of attention in the past several years. Refeeding of separated swine manure to cattle has been conducted for many years because of the high protein content of the solids. Current research is focusing on developing methods to reduce the amount of pathogens that may be found in the manure solids. Both, fermentation and acid stabilization have been successfully performed and managed on commercial operations in North Carolina. Turning separated manure into a more valuable off-farm product is a major goal of the Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center at NC State University. Not only would this remove nutrients off the farm, but it would also be an additional revenue source for producers and livestock integrators.”
2. A Pervasive Problem
A September 1997 U.S. news and World Report article  states:
“No accurate statistics exist on how many farmers feed poultry waste to their cattle. Roger Hoestenbach, former president of the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), which sets standards for the animal-feed industry, estimates it occurs to some degree in half to three quarters of the states. Regulating the safety of the nation's animal feed is the FDA's responsibility, but the agency only monitors interstate commerce. Waste products are rarely shipped over long distances, because transportation costs wipe out the savings from using cheaper materials. Manure is not used by the large, commercial livestock-feed manufacturers because they would be required to perform expensive tests to detect pathogens and toxins. But farmers don't have to use commercial feed; they are free to feed their animals anything they choose, and many use poultry litter. Some farmers say they feed chicken manure raw to cattle straight from the broiler house, which virtually ensures problems. Others "go by the smell" to judge when it is ready. "Feeding manure may not be aesthetically pleasing, but it is safe if you process it properly," says the FDA's McChesney. "If you don't, it's like playing with matches around gasoline." Rodney Noel, secretary of the AAFCO feed-standards group, agrees there is a serious regulatory gap. "There should be some decent production oversight of these types of by-products," he says, "particularly when there is a possibility of contamination."
A CNN story  reports that, by 1997, 75% percent of the nation's 90 million cattle had been eating feed containing slaughterhouse by products. It is reasonable to assume that the 1997 FDA ban and continued pricing pressures will cause more farmers and feed manufacturers to turn to cheap feed additives like manure and other questionable waste products.
3. US Government Regulations
On August 4, 1997 the FDA ordered a halt to feeding all ruminant protein tissue to U.S. ruminant livestock (cattle, sheep, goat, buffalo, elk, and deer) as a BSE safety precaution. But major problems still exist. First there are no restrictions on the content of chicken feed. All meats, proteins, and indeed manure can be legally fed to chicken. Second, the FDA Talk Paper  and other documents  that describe the details of this ban specifically allow blood, pork and horse protein in ruminant (cattle, sheep, and goats) feed.
The 1997 FDA ban specifically allows a variety of other substances to be included in ruminant feed:
Grease, fat, tallow, amino acids, and dicalcium phosphate (as a byproduct of the gelatin manufacturing process), and materials that are not considered to be tissues (such as paunch meal – the content of a cow’s stomach, feces, and urine)” ,
Blood and blood products, gelatin, milk products (milk and milk proteins), pure porcine (pork) or pure equine (horse) protein products, inspected meat products such as restaurant plate waste (which have been cooked and offered for human food and further heat processed for animal feed), poultry, marine (fish), grease, fat, amino acids, tallow, and oil.” 
To confirm this loophole, we contacted Cargill, the largest animal feed manufacturer in the country (and perhaps in the world). Mark Klein, Director of Communications of Cargill’s Animal Nutrition Division confirmed in an e-mail to us , dated February 7th, 2001: “We specifically do NOT use ruminant (cow, sheep, and goat) meat and bone meal when making feeds for ruminant animals. Any animal protein sources used, such as milk protein sources and poultry protein sources, are approved by appropriate regulatory groups per the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO).” A second e-mail reply from Cargill to our original inquiry further confirmed on February 7th, 2001: “Cargill (Acco & Nutrena brands) uses only pork protein.” Their e-mails were supposed to make us feel better that ruminant protein was not being included in the commercial feed of cattle. Instead, it confirmed our worst suspicions!
Sandra Blakeslee of the New York Times confirms in a January 11, 2001 news report  that the FDA's supposed 1997 ban on feeding rendered animal protein to cows and other ruminant animals is full of loopholes, and moreover that the so-called ban is not being enforced among the thousands of companies involved in the $3.2 billion dollar rendering industry and the $20 billion dollar animal feed industry. Blakeslee writes: "Among 180 large companies that render cattle and another ruminant, sheep, nearly a quarter were not properly labeling their products and did not have a system to prevent commingling, the FDA said. And among 347 FDA-licensed feed mills that handle ruminant materials--these tend to be large operators that mix drugs into their products--20 percent were not using labels with the required caution statement, and 25 percent did not have a system to prevent commingling. Then there are some 6,000 to 8,000 feed mills so small they do not require FDA licenses. They are nonetheless subject to the regulations, and of 1,593 small feed producers that handle ruminant material and have been inspected, 40 percent were not using approved labels and 25 percent had no system in place to prevent commingling." A January 2001 Associated Press news report confirmed the same findings .
In other words millions of US cows, sheep, chicken, game farm deer and elk, and goats (pigs and cow's blood were inexplicably exempted in the so-called FDA feed ban of 1997), not to mention household pets, are still being fed billions of pounds of animal feed or pet food containing meat and offal from ruminant animals--despite the obvious danger to human and animal health and despite the fact that the FDA and the USDA for the past four years have been reassuring the public that this was no longer happening.
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|08/07/02 at 00:09:48|
4. International Scope
In addition to the lax standards that are used in the U.S., we have done some research into the standards of feed production in countries commonly known to be large meat producers that export not only to this country but also to Muslim countries.
4.1 Exports to Muslim Countries
But the most disturbing aspect about what we discovered during this research is the fact that the FDA ban on ruminant protein content in ruminant feed only applies to commercial feed destined for use within the US. Commercial feed manufacturers are allowed, and continue to include any animal protein in commercial feed destined for export . We are concerned that much of the exported commercial feed ends up used by farmers in Muslim countries. We suspect that any standards and regulations applied in Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina do not apply to meat and feed exported to Muslim countries. This concern goes beyond meat and applies to dairy products (dried milk and cheeses) that are typically imported into Muslim countries from the US and Europe.
In a recent article in Chemical magazine , author Bette Hileman writes: “Britain stopped feeding rendered cattle to other cattle in 1988, but for eight more years it continued to ship infected meat and bone meal to more than 80 countries. Asian nations bought nearly a million tons from 1988 to 1996… Compounding the problem, Britain exported 3.2 million live cattle to 36 countries on every continent between 1988 and 1996.”
In October 2000, the UK government published its findings, called the Phillips report, on the mad cow epidemic and the various facts and lessons associated with it . The Phillips report states that, even after the 1988 animal protein ban in livestock feed in the UK, the UK continued to export infected meat and bone meal to the tune of 12,553 tons in 1988, and 25,005 tonnes in 1989.”
A news report on the Internet magazine mediJunkies.com  reports the following:
“Figures obtained from customs (in the UK) show that more than 200,000 tons of pig and poultry feed, including MBM, were exported to 70 countries between 1988 and 1996, when its worldwide export from Britain was finally banned by the EU because of the BSE threat. The figures do not specify how much of this feed was MBM, but Prosper de Mulder estimates that it would have been up to half. Research has shown that infected material the size of just one peppercorn could transmit BSE to a cow.
The main importers outside Europe include Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Malta, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Thailand. From the analysis of the exports, Andrew Speedy, a senior UN officer, warned that the Middle East, eastern Europe and north Africa have the highest risk of harbouring mad cow disease.”
This fact is confirmed by other sources. Quoting the Phillips BSE inquiry report, The Observer reported on October 31, 2000 that “tens of thousands of tonnes of potentially BSE-infected” cattle feed in the form of “meal and bone meal” was offloaded on nearly a dozen countries, including Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Lebanon and Turkey. During this period while exports to E.U. countries dropped to zero, there was a sharp increase in sales to the Third World. “No one knows how many cattle fed on the meal in those countries may now be incubating BSE,” the Observer news article said.
4.2 Australian Regulations
As quoted directly from the official Australian government web-site, “Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1998”, that mammalian material should not be fed to mammals. However several loopholes still exist as to what is ‘mammalian material’. This regulation allows for the cattle, sheep and goat feed to include birds, chicken, or fish, without limitation. Even under the current concern of ‘mad cow’ disease, the regulation allows for animal products like tallow, gelatin, milk products of the same species. Of grievous concern is the allowance of pig and horse products in the production of animal feed. These are only limitations on ruminant feed. There appears to be no regulation on chicken feed content.
Chicken litter is commonly used for cattle feed in Australia too.  clearly states that “The Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cattle allows chicken litter in feed, as long as it is stored and treated properly and doesn't contain dead bird… The use of chicken litter is now banned in Queensland. Elsewhere (in Australia) it is still allowed.”
4.3 New Zealand Regulations
As of January 1st, 2000, New Zealand issued a ban on feeding ruminant tissues to ruminant animals. While it does limit ruminant material, it has glaring loopholes, which can be easily abused by profit-oriented farmers. Just like the 1997 FDA ban in the U.S., there are no limits on horse, pig, poultry, euthanized pets or animal waste. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) regulations clearly make the statement that “ Meat and bone meal is the principal source of protein in animal feeds in this country”.
As with other countries cited, New Zealand has no actual regulations pertaining to chicken feed.
5. Solutions and Alternatives
Until the feed content regulations change, there seem to be few solutions that would be acceptable to Muslims. We did our own research and we found several farmers and food producers who are sensitive to the issues described in this report. Muslims can find, with a little effort, and for a little more money, products that are certified organic or at least from animals raised exclusively on vegetarian feed. Sometimes, these farmers refer to their animals as naturally raised. State department of Agriculture often maintain directories of farmers and suppliers certified as organic or as practicing “sustainable farming.”
The Organic Trade Association (www.ota.com) web site offers a yellow pages directory that lists several food producers and products that would be acceptable to Muslims. In every city in the US, Muslims should locate “co-op” grocery stores that usually carry organic and natural products.
5.1 Healthier Eating Habits
The authors of this report strongly believe that dealing with the information included in this report necessitates making positive changes to our diet and health habits. It is typical to see people consuming animal protein (meat, eggs, and dairy) twice or even three times per day. Unfortunately, Muslims in the West (and even in many countries with Muslim majority) have embraced similar “regimes.” As a result, this diet has caused many Muslims to become obese and to show symptoms of poor health. Diseases resulting from excessive consumption of meat include heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes, and some types of cancer. Diseases resulting from excessive consumption of milk and dairy products include allergies, various respiratory system problems, digestive discomfort, etc.
So it stands to reason that reducing –not totally eliminating - our consumption of meat and dairy products will result in improved health for Muslims. In combination with higher-quality meats and dairy products (i.e., products from animals raised on Islamically-acceptable feed), this solution is feasible and practical. It is definitely more natural and more in line with the practices of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the early Muslims around him. The increased cost associated with buying “quality” meat and dairy will be tempered by the reduced consumption of these products and the decreased health care costs associated with the current excessive ‘western’ diet.
Muslims need to realize that, although consuming meat is definitely permissible, meat consumption must not become excessive. Meat after all is a luxury and not a necessity. Millions of people around the world live healthily with little or no consumption of meat and dairy products. Fruits, beans, and vegetables are cheaper and healthier substitutes. They are more abundant and cause less stress on the environment than animal agriculture.
Muslims are definitely encouraged to identify solutions that go beyond simply finding alternative sources to continue consuming the same amounts of meat and dairy.
5.2 Kosher is NOT The Solution
Muslims need to be cautious about Kosher foods as well. The Kosher standard allows alcohol to be included in foods. And we are not confident at this time that the Kosher regulations require vegetarian feed and manure-free feed. In fact, the authors of this report specifically requested information from a Kosher certification organization on the Kosher regulations for animal feed content. On April 9th, 2001, we received a reply to our e-mail to Rabbi Yitzchak Hanoka from the Organized Kashrus Laboratories (the “Circle K” certification organization) stating that “According to Jewish law livestock may be fed animal scraps and the like.”
5.3 The Organic Standard
The last regulation amendment relating to the organic standard as specified in  defines the requirements for livestock feed that would be most acceptable to the Islamic standards. According to the organic standard final rule  Section § 205.237 on Livestock feed:
(a) The producer of an organic livestock operation must provide livestock with a total feed ration composed of agricultural products, including pasture and forage, that are organically produced and, if applicable, organically handled: Except, That, non-synthetic substances and synthetic substances allowed under § 205.603 may be used as feed additives and supplements.
(b) The producer of an organic operation must not:
(1) Use animal drugs, including hormones, to promote growth;
(2) Provide feed supplements or additives in amounts above those needed for adequate nutrition and health maintenance for the species at its specific stage of life;
(3) Feed plastic pellets for roughage;
(4) Feed formulas containing urea or manure;
(5) Feed mammalian or poultry slaughter by-products to mammals or poultry; or
(6) Use feed, feed additives, and feed supplements in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Rendering… The Silent industry
In their 1996 book, Food Pets Die For , Ann Martin and Michael Fox describe the rendering process as “A cheap, viable means of disposal. Pets are mixed with other material from slaughterhouse facilities that has been condemned for human consumption - rotten meat from supermarket shelves, restaurant grease and garbage, "4-D" (dead, diseased, dying and disabled) animals, roadkill and even zoo animals.”
Richard Rhodes in his book Deadly Feasts [36, pp. 224, 228] describes rendering plants as “The goriest expressions of the recycling spirit, hellish places of steam, blood, grease, and stink… By Chopping, grinding, cooking and dissolving on a Brobdingnagian scale they produce tallow – rendered beef fat – and what British called greaves. In modern practice, greaves were cooked down in steam-jacketed stainless-steel vessels from the various materials delivered to the rendering plants from slaughterhouses, deboning plants, butcher shops and farms: fat trimmings, bones, offal (guts, heads, tails, blood)…, carcasses from cattle, sheep and pigs, even feathers from poultry.”
From an article in Earth Island Journal  we found the following eyewitness description:
"The rendering plant floor is piled high with ‘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 90-degree heat, the piles of dead animals seem to have a life of their own as millions of maggots swarm over the carcasses. Two bandanna-masked men begin operating Bobcat mini-dozers, loading the carcasses into a 10-foot-deep stainless-steel pit. They are undocumented workers from Mexico, doing a dirty job. A giant auger-grinder at the bottom of the pit begins to turn. Popping bones and squeezing flesh are sounds from a nightmare you will never forget.
"Rendering is the process of cooking raw animal material to remove the moisture and fat. The rendering plant works like a giant kitchen. The cooker " blends the raw product in order to maintain a certain ratio between the carcasses of pets, livestock, poultry waste and supermarket rejects. Once the mass is cut into small pieces, it is transported to another auger for fine shredding. It is then cooked at 280 degrees 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 soup produces a fat of yellow grease or tallow that rises to the top and is skimmed off. The cooked meat and bone are sent to a hammermill press, which squeezes out the remaining moisture and pulverizes the product into a gritty powder. Shaker screens sift out excess hair and large bone chips. Once the batch is finished, all that is left is yellow grease, meal and bone meal.
"As the American Journal of Veterinary Research explains, this recycled meat and bone meal is used as a source of protein and other nutrients in the diets of poultry and swine and in pet foods, with lesser amounts used in the feed of cattle and sheep. Animal fat is also used in animal feeds as an energy source." Every day, hundreds of rendering plants across the United States truck millions of tons of this "food enhancer" to poultry ranches, cattle feed-lots, dairy and hog farms, fish-feed plants and pet-food manufacturers where it is mixed with other ingredients to feed the billions of animals that meat-eating humans, in turn, will eat.
"Rendering plants have different specialties. The labeling designation of a particular "run" of product is defined by the predominance of a specific animal. Some product-label names are: meat meal, meat by-products, poultry meal, poultry by-products, fish meal, fish oil, yellow grease, tallow, beef fat and chicken fat.
"The dead animals (the ‘raw’) are accompanied by a whole menu of unwanted ingredients. Because animals are frequently shoved into the pit with flea collars still attached organophosphate-containing insecticides get into the mix as well. The insecticide Dursban arrives in the form of cattle insecticide patches. Pharmaceuticals leak from antibiotics in livestock, and euthanasia drugs given to pets are also included. Heavy metals accumulate from a variety of sources: pet ID tags, surgical pins and needles.
Even plastic winds up going into the pit. Unsold supermarket meats, chicken and fish arrive in Styrofoam trays and shrink-wrap. No one has time for the tedious chore of unwrapping thousands of rejected meat-packs. More plastic is added to the pits with the arrival of cattle ID tags, plastic insecticide patches and the green plastic bags containing pets from veterinarians. Skyrocketing labor costs are one of the economic factors forcing the corporate flesh-peddlers to cheat. It is far too costly for plant personnel to cut off flea collars or unwrap spoiled T-bone steaks. Every week, millions of packages of plastic-wrapped meat go through the rendering process and become one of the unwanted ingredients in animal feed.”
A March 1997 New York Times News Service report  defines rendering as “the ancient but seldom-discussed practice of boiling down and making feed meal and other products out of slaughterhouse and restaurant scraps, dead farm animals, road kill and -- distasteful as it may seem -- cats and dogs euthanized in some animal shelters.”
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|08/07/02 at 00:11:22|
The same report  adds:
“Renderers in the United States pick up 100 million pounds of waste material every day -- a witch's brew of feet, heads, stomachs, intestines, hooves, spinal cords, tails, grease, feathers and bones. Half of every butchered cow and a third of every pig is not consumed by humans. An estimated six million to seven million dogs and cats are killed in animal shelters each year, said Jeff Frace, a spokesman for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in New York City.
“For example, the city of Los Angeles sends 200 tons of euthanized cats and dogs to West Coast Rendering, in Los Angeles, every month, according to Chuck Ellis, a spokesman for the city's Sanitation Department. Pet food companies try not to buy meat and bone meal from renderers who grind up cats and dogs, said Doug Anderson, president of Darling International Inc., a large rendering company in Dallas. ‘We do not accept companion animals,’ he said. ‘But there are still a number of small plants that will render anything.’
“At least 250 rendering plants operate in the United States, said Bruce Blanton, executive director of the 130-member National Renderers Association in Alexandria, Va. While there are still a few small operations on the outskirts of some cities, he said, modern rendering plants are large and centralized, and the industry's revenues amount to $2.4 billion a year.
“After trucks deliver the wastes to the plants, the material is minced and fed into a vessel where it is steam-cooked to 250 degrees or more, and then the stew is cooked for 20 to 90 minutes, Blanton said. In the resulting mash, heavier material drops to the bottom and the lighter stuff floats to the top. Fat is siphoned off the top, filtered and sent through centrifuges to further refine it, Blanton said. Chemical manufacturers turn much of it into fatty acids for lubricants, lipstick, cement, polish, inks and waxes. Other fractions, including gelatinous layers, tallow and grease, go into thousands of products, including soaps, candles, pharmaceuticals, homeopathic medicines and gummy candies. The heavier protein material on the bottom goes through a separate process, Blanton said. It is dried, squeezed to remove more fat and dried again. The resulting powder is the major ingredient in pet and animal feed. It is a cannibalistic practice that has proved highly profitable.”
The same New York Time News Service report  quotes Dr. Don A. Franco, a veterinarian and director of scientific services for the Animal Protein Producers' Industry, a trade group representing rendering firms as proudly boasting: "We are the original recyclers. We recycle 40 billion pounds of material a year." The same report  summarizes the current level of use of rendered protein: “The resulting powder is the major ingredient in pet and animal feed.”
In a September 1998 set of articles in the Atlantic Monthly Magazine , Ellen Ruppel Shell describes scenes from a clandestinely made videotape of a sampling of rendering plants. Shell says that the video tape was provided to her by the Government Accountability Project, a public-interest law firm in Washington, D.C. Shell describes “a series of altogether unsavory places where dead cats and dogs, road kill, the occasional circus animal, and the diseased carcasses of farm animals are mixed into a ghastly belching stew.”
An American Journal of Veterinary Research  paper reports that “In New York City, approximately 56,000 animals were euthanized in 1983 with Phenobarbital and rendered at a plant in New Jersey. The same American Journal of Veterinary Research  paper states that “It is roughly estimated that the disposal of euthanized animals by municipal animal control facilities is approximately 40% by rendering, 40% by burial, and 20% by cremation.” The paper continues: “In larger Metropolitan areas, the percent of rendering disposal is likely to be higher, primarily for environmental and economic reasons.”
The same American Journal of Veterinary Research  paper reports on a University of Minnesota research investigating the persistence of Pentobarbital (which is typically used to euthanized pets) in the carcasses of euthanized animals at a typical rendering plant in 1985. The researchers found that “Pentobarbital, or a closely related analogue, survived rendering without undergoing degradation,” and that “virtually no degradation of the drug occurred during this conventional rendering process.”
The same paper  cites “a number of reports, primarily from England, of relay or secondary toxicosis, including deaths, in animals that have ingested tissues of other animals euthanized with Pentobarbital.” This could explain some of the 100,000 downer cows that dies yearly in the U.S. for unknown reasons.
The same paper  concludes by stating that “the potential of other chemical contaminants (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides and environmental toxicants, which may cause massive herd mortalities) to degrade during conventional rendering needs further evaluation."
The rendering industry contributes about $2.5 Billion to the U.S. Gross National Product (GNP) . We found the following industry statistics in [36, pp. 257-258]:
Total volume of rendered material in the U.S.: 44 Billion pounds
Amount of blood rendered in the U.S.: 3 Billion pounds
Amount of restaurant waste rendered in the U.S.: 2 Billion pounds
Amount of cats, dos, mink carcasses, and road kill rendered in the U.S.: more than 2 Billion pounds
Total volume of rendered “meal” supplement produced in the U.S.: 7.2 Billion pounds [36, pp. 228]
Percentage of rendered products consumed by cattle in the U.S. in 1997: 13%
Percentage of rendered products consumed by cattle in the U.K. in 1997: 12%
But the most powerful indication that this spirit of “recycling” has gone too far is found in [36, pp. 216]. Richard Rhodes, in his book “Deadly Feasts” reports that the Swiss government confirmed in April 1996 that two clinics in Zurich had been disposing of human placentas – presumably from abortions – by delivering them to renderers, where they were mixed with animal remains and incorporated into meat-and-bone meal fed ultimately to Swiss pigs an` chickens. Rhodes states that hundreds of placentas were involved. Rhodes continues: “The Zurich canton veterinarian pledged to stop the practice immediately and to consider prosecutions.”
The “Mad Cow” Disease: A Clear and Present Danger
The Serious Health Risks of Feeding ‘Najas’ to Food Animals
The practice of using rendered proteins in animal feed has been blamed directly for the spread of “mad cow disease” . Feeding animals to animals caused the amplification of a family of diseases, called Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE). This family of diseases includes:
The cattle version, or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease),
The sheep version, called “scrapie” (named for its most telling sign where a sheep develops itchiness on its hide and scrapes excessively against walls and fences to the point where their raw skin becomes exposed and bloody and continues to eventual death)
The mink version, called Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy (TME),
The deer and elk version, called Chronic Wasting Disease or CWD (named for its most telling sign where the animal looses weight and “wastes” away to eventual death), and
The human version, called Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) where the victim suddenly develops neurological symptoms ranging from memory loss, violent uncontrollable contortions and shaking, loss of major muscle functions, loss of eyesight, loss of ability to walk, talk, swallow, and eventual coma followed by death. This disease was called Kuru when it was first discovered in a tribe of human cannibals who lived in Papua New Guinea in the 1950s  but later was proven to be the same as a rare disease discovered by two German scientists, Creutzfeldt and Jakob  in the 1920s.
What Causes “Mad Cow”
This disease is thought to be caused *by a defective protein - called prion - that appears under an electronic microscope as a twisted fiber . This fiber multiplies in the body by mysteriously infecting otherwise healthy neighboring proteins in various organs. Dr. Carleton Gajdusek, the Nobel Laureate who first identified the connection between TSEs and cannibalism practices, similates the infectious process of prions to the crystallization process [36, pp. 240]. In scientific studies of TSE victims, researchers have found the heaviest concentration of these prions in the brain, in the spinal cord, in connective tissue, in the spleen, in the placenta (birth sack), and in a few other organs. These prions concentrate in the brain of the victim, eventually causing microscopic holes that appear under the electronic microscope like a sponge (hence the name “spongiform”). The same prions have also been found, although in smaller concentrations, in almost all muscle tissues, in the intestines, and even in the blood of victims.
Methods of Transmission
Scientists have confirmed that TSEs are transmissible. TSE infectivity may occur through direct injection of diseased material, through organ transplants, through blood transfusions, through reuse of infected surgical and dental instruments, and most relevant to this report, through consumption by eating infected animal tissue. In an April 9, 2001 Chemical magazine article , Dr. Paul Brown, the chairman of FDA’s Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee is quoted as saying: “Half a gram of infected Bovine (beef) brain is all you need to get vCJD.” Dr Brown was referring to dietary supplement pills that often contain bovine brain and spinal cord tissue. But the same material (brain, spinal cord, and connective tissue) is currently commonly found today in the US in hot dogs, franks, and even hamburger. Indeed, this is confirmed by the scientific research cited by Richard Rhodes in . In experiments conducted on sheep in the UK, sheep was successfully infected after eating only half a gram of infected tissue.
An article published in the Scientific American magazine on April 16, 2001 stapes:
“Since the first deaths in 1995, about 100 people have succumbed to vCJD-the vast majority in the U.K., where 15 died in 1999 and 27 last year, according to the U.K. Department of Health. The illness arises primarily through eating beef tainted by the substance that causes Mad Cow disease, or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Between 1980 and 1996 in the U.K., 750,000 cattle infected with BSE were slaughtered for human consumption, and each cow could have exposed up to 500,000 people. Most of Britain's 60 million residents and untold numbers of tourists may therefore have come into contact with the BSE agent.”
But the most poignant warning was made by the scientist often described as “the most knowledgeable expert on TSEs in the world.” In July 1996, Dr. Carleton Gajdusek, a medicine Nobel-prize winner for having been the first to isolate and define Kuru in a tribe of human cannibals in Papua New Guinea in the 1950s, is quoted in Rhodes book as saying [36, pp. 220]: 8br>
“They (referring to the British government officials who tried for over a decade to deny that mad cow disease could infect humans) don’t have the least idea what caused the human cases. It’s Kuru and nothing but Kuru and any species could be carrying it – dairy cows, beef cattle, pigs, chickens. They need to assess the risk and deal with it realistically. All the pigs in England fed on this meat-and-bone meal (rendered proteins). The disease hasn’t turned up in pigs only because you don’t keep pigs alive for seven or eight years; they’re killed after two or three years at most. When we kept pigs we’d inoculated in our laboratory for eight years, they came down with scrapie. Probably all the pigs in England are infected. And that means not only Pork… All the chickens fed on meat-and-bone meal; they’re probably infected. You put that stuff in a chicken and it goes right through…. It could be in the tallow, in butter – how the hell am I supposed to measure infectivity in butter? No one on earth knows how to do that. These people who’ve come down with CJD have given blood. It’s undoubtedly in the blood supply… If it turns up in one kid under fifteen, it’s Kuru. And by the way, it could be in the milk. That hasn’t been excluded either.”
Other studies confirm what Gajdusek warned about [36, pp. 229, 257]. Several teenagers came down with vCJD in Europe during the mid 1990s, including a 16-year old Muslim girl who was diagnosed with the disease in March 1994. On August 17, 1999, the American Medical Association distributed a guidance document  to its members confirming the FDA’s guidance to reject blood donations from any person who have spent 6 months or more cumulatively in the UK from 1980 through 1996 as well as any person who received Insulin or blood infusion from countries with BSE infections. The American Red Cross confirms the same guidance and newer rules reject the blood donations from persons who lived in Europe for 6 months cumulatively . A very recent research from France confirms the potential risk of infection through blood infusion .
Todate, scientists have not been able to uncover the exact method of replication for these prions. Scientists have no test they can use to discover if a living human (or any other living animal for that matter) is harboring this disease. The disease-causing agent does not trigger an immune system reaction and may therefore incubate in the victim for years before any observable symptoms occur. In cattle, this disease may incubate for three to five years . In sheep, this period may be at least two years. In pigs, it may take seven or eight years . In humans, the disease may remain sub-clinical (symptomless but active) for up to fifty years without showing any clinical symptoms. Even after fifty years of stopping the cannibalistic practices in Papua New Guinea, new victims continued to come down with Kuru at the rate of seven or eight new cases per year . This long incubation period makes the disease extremely difficult to study, understand, and predict. The long incubation period, coupled with the lack of a “live” test, makes it almost impossible to pinpoint the exact methods of infection and transmission. The long incubation period also makes it impossible to predict the size of the epidemic if humans have indeed been infected at large scale.
Further complicating the situation, it appears that the agent that causes TSE has mutated and changed its incubation period. Scientists discovered that there were many strains of the disease  even in the same species. Scientists have identified over 20 different strains, each with slightly different clinical symptoms, just in sheep scrapie. In November 2000, French scientists confirmed that a two year-old cow was diagnosed with BSE . Typical BSE incubation in cows takes three to five years. With this new case from France, it is the first time that symptoms of the disease appeared with such a short incubation period. Furthermore, the two-year old cow was born long after all the feed precautions were taken to stop the spread of BSE. This confirms the possibility that the disease is displaying new patterns (mutating) and that not all the transmission mechanisms are yet understood.
In a January 18, 2001 meeting of the FDA’s TSE Advisory Committee, the participants refer to a study where blood from sheep that did not yet display symptoms of TSE successfully transmitted TSE to other sheep that received the blood . The same report  confirms that 12 out of the 27 patients who died with vCJD in UK have indeed donated blood. An April 6, 2001 Reuters news report  summarizes a research conducted in France which shows that the BSE agent can be transmitted through blood infusion from BSE-infected cattle to monkeys. More importantly, it confirms that the disease adapts (its incubation period becomes shorter) as it is injected repeatedly from one monkey to another. Similar results were reported in a March 28th, 2001 report in the New Scientist Magazine . On April 14th, 2001, the American Red Cross announced: “Because Mad Cow disease has spread beyond Great Britain and because there is no blood test for the human variation, the Red Cross will decline blood donations from anyone who has lived six months or more anywhere in Europe.” 
|Re: Vegitarianism and Islam|
|08/07/02 at 00:13:04|
In a news brief article published on January 10, 2001, the American Medical Association reports :
“British vaccine maker Evans/Medeva recently informed the Irish government that a blood donor whose plasma had been used to make a batch of human serum albumin for the company's oral polio vaccine has been diagnosed with a variant form of Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease (vCJD). While Health Minister Michael Martin noted there is virtually no risk to recipients of the vaccine, he said he thought the public had a right to know about the situation. The person with vCJD was part of a 22,353-donor pool that was combined with a second one for a final dilution rate of 1/63,866. An estimated 83,500 doses of the oral polio vaccine were distributed in Ireland between January 1998 and January 1999.”
Now consider the potential threat of TSE transmission through blood in association with the following. What if infected blood gets into our commercial milk? You think that’s not possible? Dr. Virgil Hulse in his book, Mad Cows and Milkgate [67, pp.178, 192] states,"When a cow is being milked with a milking machine, frequently blood vessels break in the udder of the cow. There may be a fissure in one of the teats that allows the bleeding." Dr. Hulse explains: "When milk was in 10-gallon milk cans, it could be condemned as being bloody like a strawberry milkshake.... Now bloody milk is mixed with other milk in large holding tanks and it no longer looks bloody."
But the TSE transmission methods may go far beyond normal disease transmission mechanisms. In fact, Dr. Carleton Gajdusek confirms his belief that TSE could be transmitted through a process he calls “reverse axonal transport” (inhaling through the nose) [36, pp. 241]. The bone meal in dry powder or dust form could be drawn into the nerve endings in the back of the nose where smell molecules are transported to be deciphered in the brain. Dry bone meal is made from rendered cattle and is usually ground up into an extremely fine powder to be used as a fertilizer for roses and shrubs. “The instructions on a bone meal bag warn you not to open it in a close room” says Gajdusek. On April 4, 1996, The London Daily Telegraph printed a reminder from the Royal Horticultural Society for gardeners to wear gloves and a dust-excluding mask to avoid any risk of BSE when applying a spring dressing of blood and bone meal to roses and shrubs.
An Indestructible Disease Unlike Any Other Disease Known to Man
Various scientific studies confirmed that this disease is unlike any other disease known to man . Over the last forty years of studying this disease, tissue infected with these prions remained infective, and the prions remained unaffected, after:
Baking at extremely high temperatures [36, pp. 240]: In 1990, Dr. Paul Brown freeze-dried a sample of scrapie brain, sealed the sample into a glass ampule and baked it in an oven for one hour at 360 degrees Celsius (nearly 700 degrees Fahrenheit). Reconstituted the sample was still infective.
Remaining frozen for 27 years [36, pp. 226]: in 1990, a BSE researchers used infected brain tissue collected from Minks that died from Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy (TME) during a TME epidemic in Wisconsin in 1963, and stored in the laboratory freezers since that time. These inoculants were fed to calves. These calves became sick with BSE (the mad cow disease) just like the cows in the UK. “More ominously, the animals showed only slight signs of illness during most of the course of the infection.” Reports Rhodes in [36, pp.226]
30 minutes of boiling [36, pp. 120]
Disinfection with strong formeldahyde, carbolic acid, and chloroform [36, pp.120]
Passing through ceramic filters (used to isolate viruses) and was small enough to stay in suspension even when spun in solution in centrifuge at four hundred thousands RPM. [36, pp.120]
Being exposed to a considerable enough dose of ultraviolet light which was sufficient to kill the phage virus, one of the smallest viruses known to man [36, pp.120, 122]. Ultraviolet is germicidal. It kills germs by damaging their DNA. It didn’t do a thing to prions!
Being subjected to heavy enough electron beam irradiation to kill all other known organisms [36, pp.121]
Even beef-based gelatin is shown to carry infectivity of mad cow disease. In 1997, Dr. Paul Brown, the chairman of the FDA’s own TSE Advisory Committee warned the FDA that Gelatin has not been ruled out as a TSE transmission channel [36, pp. 257]. A scientific article  by a German scientist, confirms:
“The agents of scrapie and BSE are extremely resistant to physical and chemical influences. Compared with the conditions during gelatin production, in experiments they withstood an acidity, which was ten times as high, an alkaline concentration twenty times as high and a drying temperature that was about 220°C higher. As the procedures of gelatin production cannot be tightened up without significant losses of yield and quality, gelatin can only be produced safely from healthy animals….”
The Prevalence of Beef-based Products
The same scientific article  discusses the pervasiveness of beef-based products:
“Gelatin is everywhere.
“Gelatin is a primary product with an extraordinary wide field of application, used for quality improvement of innumerable foodstuffs and medicaments. It serves for supplementary source of protein, carrier material, bonding agent, stabilizer and emulsifier. It is also used as an aid for frothing up, flavor enhancement, common salt replacement, clearing of drinks, and as a collagen source for dietetics.
“It can be found in jelly, jellied meat and aspic, in ice cream, some margarines, sweets like gummy bears, soft caramels, marshmallows, meringues, liquorice and cream-filled chocolate cakes, in gateau fillings and desserts, in milk products like yogurt and cremes as well as in pies and convenience food. Cream and foam are often made of jelly with beaten egg white, whipped cream or cream cheese.
“Quality-tested wines, cider, apple juice and in some countries also beer, are freed from blurrings, tannin agent and bitter constituents with the help of gelatin. From fizzy drinks it is not removed at all. In milk shakes with fruit or vegetable additives gelatin prevents the milk from curdling. Vegetable juices are thickened with gelatin and enriched with vitamins and minerals. In tinned meat gelatin binds the meat juice. In some cases salami and pepper sausage are protected from drying up by gelatin.
“The pharmaceutical industries use gelatin in soft and hard medicament capsules, for binding in tablets and dragees, in form of sponges for treating wounds and as a colloid to expand the plasma after severe losses of blood. They are also included in vitamin compounds and cosmetics. People having problems with their nail growth or with their joints and cartilage are treated with gelatin. Animal food industries sometimes use gelatin in substitute milk products for calves.
“As gelatin is so omnipresent, nobody in the industrial nations can avoid its assimilation. Therefore even vegetarians have to doubt whether the production of gelatin from slaughter wastes of pigs and cattle totally removes BSE infectivity.”
For additional information on the pervasiveness of beef by-products, and for a detailed list of consumer products that use beef by-products, please see .
The Plague of the 21st Century
In an interview reported by a 2-part report by CBS’ 60-mintes , Dr. Stanley Prusiner who was awarded the Nobel-Prize for medicine for discovering and isolating prions as the most likely agent of infectivity for TSEs is quoted as saying, that like everybody else, he wonders if BSE is “the plague of the 21st century.” In his interview with Oprah Winfrey , Howard Lyman claims that Mad Cow disease “will make AIDS look like the common cold.”
In a Newsweek article published on March 12, 2001, Reporter Geofrey Cowley writes:
“In truth, however, America’s safeguards and surveillance efforts are far weaker than most people realize. And in many of the developing countries that now face the greatest risk, such efforts are nonexistent. How many of the world’s cattle are now silently incubating BSE? How many people are contracting it? The truth is, we don’t know. “We have no idea how many deaths we’re going to see in the coming years,” says Dr. Frederic Saldmann, a French physician who has recently seen both cows and people stricken in his country. “We’ve been checkmated.” Mad cow is the creepiest in a family of disorders that can make Ebola look like chickenpox.”
What’s the Government Doing About It?
The US government insists that no cases of “mad cow disease” have ever been found in the US. Representatives of the meat industry often repeat this line in an effort to reassure American consumers. However, Dr. Richard Marsh and other scientists who looked carefully at the possibility of “mad cow disease” being already in the US concluded that it has indeed occurred in America . They conducted research and published the results that showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that a native strain of BSE has showed up in American cattle. In a letter to the USDA, Consumer’s Union’s research Associate Dr. Michael K. Hansen enumerates all the evidence compiled for more than forty years, and that point to the inevitable conclusion that BSE has indeed showed up in the US .
Nevertheless, the US government may be indeed telling the truth: No cases of “mad cow” have been discovered because they are not looking hard enough or simply not looking for the right disease!
US government’s scientists have been sampling and testing very few cows (compared with the sampling rates in Europe). And they have been looking specifically for the same strain that has affected British cattle . Marsh and the other scientists have argued for a number of years now that the American strain of BSE could very well be different than the British strain. Symptoms in the American “mad cows” were less severe and different than the British “mad cows.” Additionally, the selection of cows to be tested occurs at USDA-inspected slaughterhouses, by sampling downer cows that arrive at these slaughterhouses. By law, a downer cow (one that cannot get up on its own) cannot enter the human food market without the explicit approval of a USDA inspector. No farmer in his or her right mind will willingly send a downer cow to the slaughterhouse, knowing that it will most certainly be rejected by the USDA inspector, or worse yet, selected for “mad cow” testing. A more likely approach is for that farmer to send his downer cow directly to the renderer and to get whatever money the renderer will pay for it instead. Furthermore, because the vast majority of food cattle are slaughtered before their second birthday, it is not likely that “mad cow” symptoms will appear in many cows before they arrive to the slaughterhouse. For an excellent discussion on the shortcomings of the USDA’s current strategy for looking for “mad cow disease” in the U.S. see .
In a May 1997 editorial in the Meat Marketing and Technology Magazine, editor Ken Krizner argues that the U.S. cattle industry should believe the assertion that BSE has already showed up in the United States . Krizner argues that it will be in the best interest of the cattle industry as well as the American consumers to believe the results from the research by Dr. Richard Marsh, and to avoid repeating the mistakes of the British government, which tried to hide the facts from the consumers for more than a decade.
The following paper abstract written by the USDA clearly states that the practice of feeding chicken litter to cattle has been used for the last 40 years http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000010/45/0000104518.html
Another March 1998 paper also from the USDA recommending the practice of feeding chicken litter to cattle http://alembic.nal.usda.gov/is/pr/1998/980331.htm
This link shows a warning from FDA about the fact that cattle farmers are using chicken litter to feed cattle and that no federal government agency is regulating it http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/litter.htm and that states agencies must monitor this practice. Under political pressures, the FDA rescinded this opinion later on and decided that this practice is not that bad after all!
The following paper from the North Carolina State University Extension Service documents exactly how the farmer should stack the chicken litter in order to effectively use it as cattle feed. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/drought/dro-49.html
The following paper from the North Carolina State University Extension Service explains the relative cost and “feed value” of various cattle feed ingredients including chicken litter http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/drought/dro-28.html
This paper from Colorado State University Extension Service shows the comparative value of different feed ingredients including chicken litter and manure http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/livestk/01615.html
Another paper (from the Mississippi State University Extension Service) discussing the benefit of using Chicken litter http://mafes.msstate.edu/pubs/b1045.htm. This paper clearly recommends that the cattle producer takes into consideration the “Public perception of consuming beef having been fed broiler litter.”
Another paper (from the University of Tennessee Extension Service) discussing the benefit of using Chicken litter http://www.utextension.utk.edu/ansci/alternat.htm
Another paper (from the University of Tennessee Extension Service) discussing the fact that Chicken litter has been used in cattle feed since the early 50s and has become a common feedstuff in cattle rations http://www.utextension.utk.edu/ansci/feeding_broiler_litter_to_beef_c.htm
Another paper (from the Texas A&M Extension Service) discussing the benefit of using Chicken litter in cattle feed http://overton.tamu.edu/forage-livestock.1996/litutil.html
Another paper (from the Virginia Tech Extension Service) discussing the benefit of using Chicken litter http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/dairy/1996-02/poultrylitter.html
This paper clearly states that “Feeding poultry litter to ruminant livestock is not a new concept” and recommends adding dead chicken carcasses to enhance the quality of the resulting compost as a feed ingredient for cattle http://www.tamu-commerce.edu/coas/agscience/res-dlc/poultry/dlc-poul.html and the following link shows pictures of a demonstration of how this process works http://www.tamu-commerce.edu/coas/agscience/res-dlc/poultry/forman.htm
Meeting Minutes from The President’s Council on Food Safety - Strategic Planning Task Force January 19, 2000 Public Meeting Transcript: Participants openly refer to the practice of including chicken litter in ruminant feed http://www.foodsafety.gov/~fsg/ctr0001.html
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/guidance70.pdf . This PDF file contains the specific instructions given to cattle farmers as to what to avoid and what is allowed. The following is similar info http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/dairybeefprod.html
A FDA Q&A document updated by the FDA on 3/5/2001 that contains specific details on feed contents http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/guida76.htm
Transcript of the Oprah Winfrey show which has been challenged and confirmed in court http://www.vegsource.com/lyman/oprah_transcript.htm
A US News & World Report article that describes in details all that goes in the feeding of livestock http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/970901/1feed.htm
Article is entitled, "The Dark Side of Recycling," from the Fall, 1990, Earth Island Journal. This article can be found online at
The authors of this report personally contacted one of the largest cattle feed manufacturers in the world, Cargill. Mark Klein, Director of Communications of Cargill’s Animal Nutrition Division confirmed in an e-mail to us, dated February 7th, 2001: “We specifically do NOT use ruminant (cow) meat and bone meal when making feeds for ruminant animals. Any animal protein sources used, such as milk protein sources and poultry protein sources, are approved by appropriate regulatory groups per the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO).” A second reply from the same company to our original inquiry further confirmed on February 7th, 2001: “Cargill (Acco & Nutrena brands) uses only pork protein.” These e-mails are available for inspection for further research.
“Diet for a Small Planet,” Frances Moore Lappe, Ballantine Publishers, 1992.
FDA Final rule prohibiting the use of ruminant protein in ruminant feed http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/bse/6597bse.htm
FDA Guidance for Industry documents #67 (Renderers) http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/guidance67.pdf, #68 (Protein Blenders, Feed Manufacturers, and Distributors) http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/guidance68.pdf, #69 (Feeders of Ruminant Animals With On-Farm Feed Mixing Operations) http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/guidance69.pdf, #70 (Feeders of Ruminant Animals Without On-Farm Feed Mixing Operations) http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/guidance70.pdf
Minutes from a 1999 presentation by Tyson Foods (the largest poultry producer is the US) on the content of chicken feed http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/wto/tennessee/good.html
This paper which is written in May 2000 by an Auburn University professor from the Alabama Cooperative Extension System states that “Broiler litter has been used as feed for several years in all areas of the country “ http://www.aces.edu/dept/extcomm/publications/anr/anr-557/anr-557.html. However, this paper states that “a cow must be off broiler litter for 15 days before it can be slaughtered for beef”. This paper goes into a lot of details about this practice and tells you a lot more than you care to know.
The September-October 1997 issue of Preventive Medicine, Eric Haapapuro, Neal D. Barnard, M.D., and Michele Simon, J.D., M.P.H. exposed the practice of feeding chicken litter to cattle.
A classified ad touting the benefits of feeding chicken litter to cattle http://www.icorp.net/lac/classifieds/all.html
An Australian organization that addresses the common practice of feeding chicken litter to cattle http://www.animalliberation.org.au/cattle2.html
A 1997 CNN story that reports that 75% of cattle in the US are regularly fed animal by-products http://www.cnn.com/US/9708/23/chicken.manure/
Mad Cowboy: the plain truth from a cattle rancher who won't eat meat, Howard Lyman, 1998.
Another university paper singing the praises of using chicken litter as cattle feed http://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu/testing/docs/ps00100.htm
A PR article from Tyson’s own web site http://www.tyson.com/cares/environment/
“Underutilized Resources as Animal Feedstuffs” (1983), Published by National Academy Press, Chapter 4, Animal Wastes discusses all sorts of experiments that identify the potential of feeding animal waste to other animals.
Another story encouraging farmers to sell chicken litter as cattle feed http://www.progressivefarmer.com/issue/0900/suwannee/default.asp
A May 1998 presentation by American Farm Bureau Federation’s poultry industry specialist Mark Jenner states that “The poultry industry has been in the lead for decades in using poultry manure as a cattle feed” http://www.pfb.com/news/focus/may%2098/cf23.htm
An article describing how cattle is fed the chicken litter (manure) mix in their last days before slaughter as an efficient way to cause them to gain weight quickly. http://www.bloomingfoods.org/newsletters/aug00/perishable.shtml
Richard Rhodes, “Deadly Feasts,” Simon & Schuster, 1998.
Sandra Blakeslee, “Many Makers Of Feed Fail To Heed Rules On Mad Cow,” New York Times, Thursday, January 11th, 2001
“Mad cow outbreak may have been caused by animal rendering plants”, N.Y. Times News Service March 11, 1997. This news report could be found online at http://www.mad-cow.org/~tom/render_ed.html
Ellen Ruppel Shell, “Could Mad-Cow Disease Happen Here?” Atlantic Monthly Magazine, September 1998, Also found online at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98sep/madcow.htm
Ellen Ruppel Shell, “What’s on Our Plates?” Atlantic Monthly Magazine, September 1998, Also found online at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98sep/madcow2.htm
Ellen Ruppel Shell, “Jumping the Species Barrier,” Atlantic Monthly Magazine, September 1998, Also found online at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98sep/madcow3.htm
Ron Sheffield, Jim Barker & Diana Rashash, Extension Specialists, Biological & Agricultural Engineering Area Specialized Agent, Solids Separation of Animal Manure, North Carolina State University, October 2000. This report can be found online at http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/manure/technologies/solids.pdf
ABC 20/20 Story on Mad Cow Disease, March 2nd, 2001. Details of this story could be found online at http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_010302_madcow.html
Food Pets Die For: Shocking Facts About Pet Food, Ann Martin and Michael Fox, NewSage Press, 1997.
A report published under the title of “U.S. Version of ‘Mad Cow’ Known to Authorities Since 1960's” summarizes the letter from Dr. Michael K. Hansen to the USDA. This report can be found at http://www.vegsource.com/articles/bse_consumer.htm
Bette Hileman, “The ‘Mad’ Disease has many forms,” Chemical Magazine, April 9, 2001
A report that discusses the practice of feeding animal protein to animals that can be found at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n02/lett2302.htm
The Safety Of Gelatin, Its Production, & Mad Cow/vCJD Prion Theory, Roland Heynke, Germany, 12/1/2000. This article can be found at http://www.rense.com/general5/theory.htm
Potential for Shortages in Blood Supply, American Medical Association, August 1999. This guidance document could be found at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/1822-2068.html
American Red Cross Press Release that could be found at http://www.redcross.org/press/archives/030600.html
“Cattle ranchers fear mention of mad cow may taint beef industry” By Steve Brisendine, Associated Press, January 26, 2001. This news report can be found at http://www.nandotimes.com/24hour/modbee/healthscience/story/0,1655,500304007-500486801-503364821-0,00.html
A 2-part CBS 60-minutes story on mad cow disease that can be found at http://www.wbz.com/now/story/0,1597,268241-364,00.shtml http://www.wbz.com/now/story/0,1597,268516-364,00.shtml
French discover 2 year old cow has BSE http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_news/281100bse.html
Cannibals to Cows: The Path of a Deadly Disease, Geoffrey Cowley, Newsweek March 12th, 2001 issue. Also found at http://www.msnbc.com/news/538946.asp#BODY
Study Points to 'Mad Cow' Blood Risk for Humans, Greg Frost, Reuters, April 6th, 2001. The story can be found at http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010406/sc/madcow_blood_dc_1.html
Suspect Symptoms, Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist Magazine, March 28, 2001 http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999560
Mad Cow Can Happen Here, Ken Krizner, Meat Marketing and Technology, May 1997. This article can also be found at http://www.meatingplace.com/articles/m793.asp
Big Money in By-Products?, Bryan Salvadge, Meat Marketing and Technology, October 1998. This article can also be found at http://www.meatingplace.com/articles/m147.asp
USDA Mad Cow Strategy: Don't Look, Don't Find, by Jeffrey A. Nelson, VegSource.com. The report can be found at http://www.vegsource.com/articles/bse_usda.htm
Minutes of the meeting of the FDA’s TSE Advisory Committee on January 18th & 19th, 2001. These minutes can be found at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/transcripts/3681t1.rtf and http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/transcripts/3681t2.rtf
Beef Cattle Feeding and Nutrition 2nd Edition, Tilden Wayne Perry et al - Academic Press -
Hardback - August 1995
The authors of this report received the e-mail from Rabbi Yitzchak Hanoka. A copy of this e-mail may be provided upon request.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Agricultural Marketing Service. 7 CFR Part 205. [Docket Number: TMD-00-02-FR]. RIN: 0581-AA40. National Organic Program.
“BSE Timeline,” Can be found at http://www.just-food.com/features_print.asp?art=344
“Fate of Sodium Pentobarbital in Rendered Products,” John J. O’Connor, Clarence M. Stowe, Robert R. Robinson, American Journal of Veterinary Research, Volume 46, No. 8, August 1985.
“Rendered Animal Products for Poultry.” This report can be found on the web site for the National Renderers Association at http://www.renderers.org/poultry.html
Madcows and Milkgate, Dr. Virgil M. Hulse. Marble Mountain Publishing, 1996.
“Overview of World Markets,” Jim Rudbeck, National Renderers Association’s Director of International Programs, World Renderers Organization Congress, Palm Springs, CA, October 26, 2000. This presentation can be found at http://www.renderers.org (Convention’00 and then JR Market Presentation)
CJD – Mad Cow Blood Ban, Associated Press, April 14, 2001. This news article can be found at http://www.mad-cow.org/current_UK_news.html (look for CJD set 55).
Mad Cow’s Human Toll: The unfolding mystery of prion disease and its ultimate casualties, Philip Yam. Scientific American, April 16, 2001. This article can also be found at http://www.mad-cow.org/current_UK_news.html (look for CJD set 55)
Rachels Environment and Health Weekly, #666, The Bad Seed, February 9, 1999.
Lancet (12/30/00) Vol 356, No. 9248, P. 2167; Birchard, Karen. A reference to this article may be found at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/3617-3710.html
The Phillips Report, ordered by the British government, and finally published in October 2000, can be found at http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/index.htm
70 countries possibly infected with BSE, MediaJunkies.com. This report can be found at http://www.mediajunkies.net/archives/00000042.html
* Some researchers (such as Professor Laura Maneulidis, Head of Neuropathology at Yale School of Medicine, and others) believe that some kind of mini virus might be involved, but there has been no evidence of nucleic acids in infectious prions.
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board