I only wish you were right - but (for example) look at the fact that
British people actually LINED UP to buy British beef AFTER the scare
because they 'couldn't afford not to' - of course it was being sold at
rock-bottom prices... now, can you imagine, with all the infrastructures
that are already in place and functioning that agribusiness in the US or
anywhere else is going to say, gosh, we really have to stop doing this on
the chance the same thing could happen here.... ?
>The problems with this whole scenario again demonstrate that PREVENTION is
>the prudent way to do deal with so many of the problems of agriculture. If
>we could wind the clock back to 1980 or a time before all this happened in
>England and we were to ask the English what they would do if they knew all
>they know now--I think the response would be- we would not feed rendered
>animals to animals. <Sorry for my convoluted sentence structure but my staff
>did not help on this.>
>In some way isn't that the situation we have in the US now. There is no
>economic, moral or biological reason not to use prevention. The short term
>benefit is so small and the long term risk if you are wrong is so great that
>steps out to be taken by the industry and the govt. to put a stop to this
>practice of feeding rendered animals to livestock. It does not take a great
>scientific mind to figure this out but it does takes a measure of common
>sense and some way to get some action going on this.
>So folks out there where do we go from here to get PREVENTION in the US to
>be the mode of action? If we do not the risks may come home to roost.