T
The Fish Assassin
Guest
Here is the article...
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Three U.S. scientists are concern about the potential of people contracting Creutzfeldt Jakob disease -- the human form of "mad cow disease" -- from eating farmed fish who are fed byproducts rendered from cows.
Mad cow disease, also called bovine spongiform encephalopathy is a fatal brain disease in cattle, which scientists believe can cause Creutzfeldt Jakob disease in humans who eat infected cow parts.
In the latest issue of the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, Dr. Robert P. Friedland, a neurologist at University of Louisville in Kentucky and colleagues suggest that farmed fish fed contaminated cow parts could transmit Creutzfeldt Jakob disease.
The scientists want government regulators to ban feeding cow meat or bone meal to fish until the safety of this common practice can be confirmed.
Eating fish at least two times a week is widely recommended because of the beneficial effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on the heart and brain, they note.
"We are concerned," Friedland and colleagues write, that eating farmed fish may provide a means of transmission of infectious proteins from cows to humans, causing variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease.
"We have not proven that it's possible for fish to transmit the disease to humans. Still, we believe that out of reasonable caution for public health, the practice of feeding rendered cows to fish should be prohibited," Friedland said in a prepared statement. "Fish do very well in the seas without eating cows," he added.
The risk of transmission of made cow disease to humans who eat farmed fish "would appear to be low," the scientists emphasize, because of perceived barriers between the species, but that's no guarantee that it can't happen.
"The fact that no cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease have been linked to eating farmed fish does not assure that feeding rendered cow parts to fish is safe," Friedland said.
"The incubation period of these diseases may last for decades, which makes the association between feeding practices and infection difficult," he points out.
"Enhanced safeguards need to be put in place to protect the public," Friedland concludes.
Glad I don't eat that ****!
Take only what you need.
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Three U.S. scientists are concern about the potential of people contracting Creutzfeldt Jakob disease -- the human form of "mad cow disease" -- from eating farmed fish who are fed byproducts rendered from cows.
Mad cow disease, also called bovine spongiform encephalopathy is a fatal brain disease in cattle, which scientists believe can cause Creutzfeldt Jakob disease in humans who eat infected cow parts.
In the latest issue of the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, Dr. Robert P. Friedland, a neurologist at University of Louisville in Kentucky and colleagues suggest that farmed fish fed contaminated cow parts could transmit Creutzfeldt Jakob disease.
The scientists want government regulators to ban feeding cow meat or bone meal to fish until the safety of this common practice can be confirmed.
Eating fish at least two times a week is widely recommended because of the beneficial effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on the heart and brain, they note.
"We are concerned," Friedland and colleagues write, that eating farmed fish may provide a means of transmission of infectious proteins from cows to humans, causing variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease.
"We have not proven that it's possible for fish to transmit the disease to humans. Still, we believe that out of reasonable caution for public health, the practice of feeding rendered cows to fish should be prohibited," Friedland said in a prepared statement. "Fish do very well in the seas without eating cows," he added.
The risk of transmission of made cow disease to humans who eat farmed fish "would appear to be low," the scientists emphasize, because of perceived barriers between the species, but that's no guarantee that it can't happen.
"The fact that no cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease have been linked to eating farmed fish does not assure that feeding rendered cow parts to fish is safe," Friedland said.
"The incubation period of these diseases may last for decades, which makes the association between feeding practices and infection difficult," he points out.
"Enhanced safeguards need to be put in place to protect the public," Friedland concludes.
Glad I don't eat that ****!
Take only what you need.
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Do you eat Beef?
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Do you eat Beef?
B
Brisco
Guest
Hi Sockeyefry,
I would like to know what compels you to cause trouble on this site. It's obvious that no sportfisherman is in favour of farm fish. I feel sorry for you if you have nothing better to do.
B
Brisco
Guest
Hi Sockeyefry,
I would like to know what compels you to cause trouble on this site. It's obvious that no sportfisherman is in favour of farm fish. I feel sorry for you if you have nothing better to do.
Not sure of sockeyefry's real identity or motives - but I know that the salmon farming industry has both members and paid PR firms who are either paid and/or are in positions that keep an eye on news, and letters to the editors, and posted web forums; trolling and spinning lies and half truths in order to try to mitigate the damage caused to public opinion caused by the continuous bad press.
Examples include spokepersons like Odd Gryland, Ian Roberts, Mary-Ellen Walling, Ken Brooks, Patrick Moore, Hill & Knowleton and many, many others.
And yes, before you state it, sockeyefry - NGOs also try to sway public opinion their way.
However, unlike the pro-industry perspective, many (if not most) of the so-called "anti"s expressed opinions are from concerned citizens, concerned sportsfishermen, concerned First Nations and others who have little (if any) connections to those omnipresent evil "anti" NGOs.
They have legitimate concerns and voice those concerns because they care for our future more than some multinationals quarterly profit margin and current stock quote.
The so-called "pro" fish farm lobby group either doesn't understand this or conveniently forgets this in their pursuit of shooting the messenger. Kinda reminds me of the McCarthey era in the states, where under every bush is another omnipresent evil red commie.
Not sure of sockeyefry's real identity or motives - but I know that the salmon farming industry has both members and paid PR firms who are either paid and/or are in positions that keep an eye on news, and letters to the editors, and posted web forums; trolling and spinning lies and half truths in order to try to mitigate the damage caused to public opinion caused by the continuous bad press.
Examples include spokepersons like Odd Gryland, Ian Roberts, Mary-Ellen Walling, Ken Brooks, Patrick Moore, Hill & Knowleton and many, many others.
And yes, before you state it, sockeyefry - NGOs also try to sway public opinion their way.
However, unlike the pro-industry perspective, many (if not most) of the so-called "anti"s expressed opinions are from concerned citizens, concerned sportsfishermen, concerned First Nations and others who have little (if any) connections to those omnipresent evil "anti" NGOs.
They have legitimate concerns and voice those concerns because they care for our future more than some multinationals quarterly profit margin and current stock quote.
The so-called "pro" fish farm lobby group either doesn't understand this or conveniently forgets this in their pursuit of shooting the messenger. Kinda reminds me of the McCarthey era in the states, where under every bush is another omnipresent evil red commie.
quicksilver11
Member
Here Here Agentaqua well said
quicksilver11
Member
Here Here Agentaqua well said
T
The Fish Assassin
Guest
quoteo you eat Beef?
Try not to, I eat lots of Moose and Deer though.
Take only what you need.
T
The Fish Assassin
Guest
quote
Try not to, I eat lots of Moose and Deer though.
Take only what you need.
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Agent,
Why do I have to be a paid industry hack? Can't I be a concerned citizen who sees an excellent oppurtunity for BC being drug through the mud by the NGO naysayers
The anti people are Morton, Orr, Volpe, Frazer, Suzuki, Mair etc... Each one of these has benefitted financially by publishing articles designed not to find any solutions or address problems, but with the sole purpose of swaying these "concerned citizens" you speak of to come out so emotionally against something of which they have little knowledge or understanding and to part with their hard earned dollars to support their cause. Witness Morton's beg a thon on her adopt a fry con site.
I am not here to troll, however if trolling is presenting an opinion different than those on this board than I guess I am.
I am just trying to inject the other side of the debate.
The question regarding beef was to illustrate how silly that article really is. The odds of getting mad cow from eating beef from animals fed beef byproducts is remote. Now they want us to believe that protien meal derived from cows that may be in fish diets is a risk for getting mad cow is you eat the fish? Come on get real.
Why do I have to be a paid industry hack? Can't I be a concerned citizen who sees an excellent oppurtunity for BC being drug through the mud by the NGO naysayers
The anti people are Morton, Orr, Volpe, Frazer, Suzuki, Mair etc... Each one of these has benefitted financially by publishing articles designed not to find any solutions or address problems, but with the sole purpose of swaying these "concerned citizens" you speak of to come out so emotionally against something of which they have little knowledge or understanding and to part with their hard earned dollars to support their cause. Witness Morton's beg a thon on her adopt a fry con site.
I am not here to troll, however if trolling is presenting an opinion different than those on this board than I guess I am.
I am just trying to inject the other side of the debate.
The question regarding beef was to illustrate how silly that article really is. The odds of getting mad cow from eating beef from animals fed beef byproducts is remote. Now they want us to believe that protien meal derived from cows that may be in fish diets is a risk for getting mad cow is you eat the fish? Come on get real.
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Agent,
Why do I have to be a paid industry hack? Can't I be a concerned citizen who sees an excellent oppurtunity for BC being drug through the mud by the NGO naysayers
The anti people are Morton, Orr, Volpe, Frazer, Suzuki, Mair etc... Each one of these has benefitted financially by publishing articles designed not to find any solutions or address problems, but with the sole purpose of swaying these "concerned citizens" you speak of to come out so emotionally against something of which they have little knowledge or understanding and to part with their hard earned dollars to support their cause. Witness Morton's beg a thon on her adopt a fry con site.
I am not here to troll, however if trolling is presenting an opinion different than those on this board than I guess I am.
I am just trying to inject the other side of the debate.
The question regarding beef was to illustrate how silly that article really is. The odds of getting mad cow from eating beef from animals fed beef byproducts is remote. Now they want us to believe that protien meal derived from cows that may be in fish diets is a risk for getting mad cow is you eat the fish? Come on get real.
Why do I have to be a paid industry hack? Can't I be a concerned citizen who sees an excellent oppurtunity for BC being drug through the mud by the NGO naysayers
The anti people are Morton, Orr, Volpe, Frazer, Suzuki, Mair etc... Each one of these has benefitted financially by publishing articles designed not to find any solutions or address problems, but with the sole purpose of swaying these "concerned citizens" you speak of to come out so emotionally against something of which they have little knowledge or understanding and to part with their hard earned dollars to support their cause. Witness Morton's beg a thon on her adopt a fry con site.
I am not here to troll, however if trolling is presenting an opinion different than those on this board than I guess I am.
I am just trying to inject the other side of the debate.
The question regarding beef was to illustrate how silly that article really is. The odds of getting mad cow from eating beef from animals fed beef byproducts is remote. Now they want us to believe that protien meal derived from cows that may be in fish diets is a risk for getting mad cow is you eat the fish? Come on get real.
B
Brisco
Guest
I haven't seen anything on this site from you other than fish farming support. Do you fish at all? The best thing would be for you to be removed from this forum. Try Fishfarmidiots.com I hear they are looking for members.
B
Brisco
Guest
I haven't seen anything on this site from you other than fish farming support. Do you fish at all? The best thing would be for you to be removed from this forum. Try Fishfarmidiots.com I hear they are looking for members.
I never said you were one or the other (i.e a concerned citizen verses a a paid industry hack; although I noted you did not deny that you were an industry hack).
I concede that it may be (or may not - I have no idea) that the reason you are obviously protective of the industry is because either you and/or your friends work in the open net-cage industry (or a support industry) and you feel protective of your jobs and/or your friends.
These are commendable, albeit potentially destructive motives; given the potential for real, long-term impacts to adjacent wild salmon stocks through the mechanism of disease and parasite transfer through the mechanism of the open net-cage.
By-the-way, nobody benefits "financially by publishing articles". Give us all a break on this one, sockeyefry. Publishers of peer-reviewed journals only pay their editors - not the authors who submit articles.
I never said you were one or the other (i.e a concerned citizen verses a a paid industry hack; although I noted you did not deny that you were an industry hack).
I concede that it may be (or may not - I have no idea) that the reason you are obviously protective of the industry is because either you and/or your friends work in the open net-cage industry (or a support industry) and you feel protective of your jobs and/or your friends.
These are commendable, albeit potentially destructive motives; given the potential for real, long-term impacts to adjacent wild salmon stocks through the mechanism of disease and parasite transfer through the mechanism of the open net-cage.
By-the-way, nobody benefits "financially by publishing articles". Give us all a break on this one, sockeyefry. Publishers of peer-reviewed journals only pay their editors - not the authors who submit articles.
Little Hawk
Active Member
Agent;
Your first post here was, IMHO, arguably one of your best; short, concise and really hit the nail on the head. Thanks!
The last part was a bit of a digression though, "The so-called "pro" fish farm lobby group either doesn't understand this or..."
Oh they understand alright; you had it right the first time.
It's all about distraction, denial, and deflection.
In these three arenas, Sockeye is the 'King-of-Trolls' here and I agree wholeheartedly - the sooner we remove this pedophile from our playground - the better!
Trouble is, another industry-apologist or a 'Big Norwegian Doggy Sh!tting in our front-yard' will appear out of nowhere to take his place...
Your first post here was, IMHO, arguably one of your best; short, concise and really hit the nail on the head. Thanks!
The last part was a bit of a digression though, "The so-called "pro" fish farm lobby group either doesn't understand this or..."
Oh they understand alright; you had it right the first time.
It's all about distraction, denial, and deflection.
In these three arenas, Sockeye is the 'King-of-Trolls' here and I agree wholeheartedly - the sooner we remove this pedophile from our playground - the better!
Trouble is, another industry-apologist or a 'Big Norwegian Doggy Sh!tting in our front-yard' will appear out of nowhere to take his place...
Little Hawk
Active Member
Agent;
Your first post here was, IMHO, arguably one of your best; short, concise and really hit the nail on the head. Thanks!
The last part was a bit of a digression though, "The so-called "pro" fish farm lobby group either doesn't understand this or..."
Oh they understand alright; you had it right the first time.
It's all about distraction, denial, and deflection.
In these three arenas, Sockeye is the 'King-of-Trolls' here and I agree wholeheartedly - the sooner we remove this pedophile from our playground - the better!
Trouble is, another industry-apologist or a 'Big Norwegian Doggy Sh!tting in our front-yard' will appear out of nowhere to take his place...
Your first post here was, IMHO, arguably one of your best; short, concise and really hit the nail on the head. Thanks!
The last part was a bit of a digression though, "The so-called "pro" fish farm lobby group either doesn't understand this or..."
Oh they understand alright; you had it right the first time.
It's all about distraction, denial, and deflection.
In these three arenas, Sockeye is the 'King-of-Trolls' here and I agree wholeheartedly - the sooner we remove this pedophile from our playground - the better!
Trouble is, another industry-apologist or a 'Big Norwegian Doggy Sh!tting in our front-yard' will appear out of nowhere to take his place...
Similar threads
