Food Security NetworkHousehold Food Security in the United States, 2002 Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. (FANRR35) 58 pp, October 20 Some others, perhaps more useful:
Food Security and Other Related Links from MSU Ag Econ --see also their Food Security II/III Cooperative Agreement with USAID and others
Ensuring the Safety and Security of the Nation's Food Supply from FDA {Learn from the Teachers by Negative Example}
USDA COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVE
FOOD SECURITY AND SAFETY US Department of State
What is Food Security and Famine and Hunger? (Melaku Ayalew)
The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2002 (FAO)
ELDIS Food Security Resource Guide ("ELDIS is a gateway to information on development issues, providing free and easy access to wide range of high quality online resources. ")
Latest News on Food Security from UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Food Security for a Growing World Population: 200 Years After Malthus, Still an Unsolved Problem (Prof. Dr. Klaus M. Leisinger's contribution to the Saguf-Symposium, "How will the future world population feed itself?" Zürich, October 9 - 10 , 1996) from Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture ...and The Ethical Challenges of Green Biotechnology for Developing Countries Prof. Dr. Klaus M. Leisinger's contribution to the International Conference on Biotechnology CGIAR - National Academy of Sciences The World Bank, Washington D.C. October 21-22, 1999. ...and see other Syngenta articles
Sustainable Food Security for All by 2020 — Proceedings of an International Conference September 4–6, 2001 • Bonn, Germany (IFPRI --International Food Policy Reserach Institute)
Some from Annie (kw='food security'):
TITLE Ending hunger in our lifetime : food security and globalization /
by C. Ford Runge ... [et al.]
IMPRINT Baltimore, Md. : Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.
CALL NO. HD9000.6 .E53 2003.
AUTHOR Hart, Kathleen.
TITLE Eating in the dark : America's experiment with genetically
engineered food / Kathleen Hart.
IMPRINT New York : Pantheon Books c2002.
CALL NO. TP248.65.F66 H37 2002.
AUTHOR Leisinger, Klaus M.
TITLE Six billion and counting : population growth and food security in
the 21st century / Klaus M. Leisinger, Karin Schmitt, and Rajul
Pandya-Lorch.
IMPRINT Washington, DC : International Food Policy Research Institute,
c2002.
CALL NO. HB849.53 .L44 2002.
TITLE Organic agriculture, environment and food security / edited by
Nadia El-Hage Scialabba and Caroline Hattam.
IMPRINT Rome : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
2002.
TITLE The ethics of food : a reader for the twenty-first century /
edited by Gregory E. Pence.
IMPRINT Lanham : Rowman & Littlefield, c2002.
CONTENTS Introduction : the meaning and ethics of food / Gregory E.
Pence -- A thing shared / M. F. K. Fisher -- How we grow food
reflects our virtues and vices / Wendell Berry -- Animal
liberation and vegetarianism / Peter Singer -- Meat is good for
you / Stuart Patton -- Lifeboat ethics : the case against
helping the poor / Garrett Hardin -- Golden rice is fool's gold
/ Greenpeace International -- Are we going mad? / Norman
Borlaug -- The unholy alliance / Mae-Wan Ho -- The FDA's volte-
face on food biotech / Henry I. Miller -- Dr. Strangelunch :
why we should learn to love genetically modified food / Ronald
Bailey -- Organic or genetically modified food : which is
better? / Gregory E. Pence -- The benefits of organic food /
Tanya Maxted-Frost -- Genetic engineering and food security /
Vandana Shiva -- GM food is the best option we have / Anthony
J. Trewavas -- Biotechnology's negative impact on world
agriculture / Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey -- The population/
diversity paradox : agricultural efficiency to save
wilderness / Anthony J. Trewavas -- A removable feast / C. Ford
Runge and Benjamin Senauer -- From global to local : sowing the
seeds of community / Helen Norberg-Hodge, Peter Goering and
John Page -- The hamburger bacteria / Nicols Fox -- The United
States food safety system / U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
CALL NO. TP248.65.F66 E86 2002.
TITLE The geopolitics of hunger, 2000-2001 : hunger and power / Action
Against Hunger.
IMPRINT Boulder, Colo. : L. Rienner, 2001.
CALL NO. HV696.F6 G388 2001.
TITLE Rethinking sustainability : power, knowledge, and institutions /
edited by Jonathan M. Harris.
IMPRINT Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press, c2000.
CALL NO. HC79.E5 R48 2000.
TITLE Food security : new solutions for the twenty-first century :
proceedings from the symposium honoring the tenth anniversary
of the World Food Prize / edited by Amani E. El Obeid ... [et
al.]
IMPRINT Ames, Iowa : Iowa State University Press, 1999.
CALL NO. TX345 .F64 1999.
TITLE The meat business : devouring a hungry planet / edited by Geoff
Tansey and Joyce D'Silva.
IMPRINT New York : St. Martin's Press, 1999.
CALL NO. BJ52.5 .M43 1999.
AUTHOR Pottier, Johan.
TITLE Anthropology of food : the social dynamics of food security /
IMPRINT Cambridge, UK : Polity Press ; Oxford ; Malden, MA : Blackwell
Publishers, 1999.
CALL NO. GN407 .P67 1999.
AUTHOR Conway, Gordon.
TITLE The doubly green revolution : food for all in the twenty-first
century / Gordon Conway ; with forewords by Vernon Ruttan and
Ismail Serageldin.
IMPRINT Ithaca, N.Y. : Comstock Pub., 1998.
CALL NO. HD9018.D44 C66 1998.
AUTHOR Kutzner, Patricia L.
TITLE World hunger : a reference handbook / Patricia L. Kutzner.
IMPRINT Santa Barbara, Calif. : ABC-Clio, c1991.
CALL NO. HD9000.5 .K883 1991.
Continuing to explore the Web:
AgBioWorld.org Biotech Articles (Prakash again --I was looking into Borlaug as Saint or Demon, and this site has a link to Feeding the World in the 21st Century: The Role of Agricultural Science and Technology [Speech given at Tuskegee University -- April, 2001])The Ethical Understandings of Biologically Engineered Foodstuffs Matt Hoerth The Westmont Neuroscience Journal Dec 2000And I found this, from a Wall Street Journal article by Borlaug:
We Can Feed the World. Here's How(see also We Need Biotech to Feed the World Published in Wall Street Journal—December 6, 2000 and on the Web thanks to American Council on Science and Health, at http://www.acsh.org/press/editorials/biotech120600.html
Norman Borlaug, Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2002Thirty-two years ago, I was chosen to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, representing the thousands of researchers who created the higher crop yields of the Green Revolution. The extra food created saved perhaps a billion people from starving in the 1960s.
Today, we are faced with another, equally enormous task. We must learn to produce nearly three times as much food for the more populous and more prosperous world of 2050, and from the farmland we are already using, in order to save the planet's wildlands. That's why I am one of the signers of a new declaration in support of protecting nature with high-yield farming and forestry. (Co-signatories include former Sen. George McGovern and Per Pinstrup-Andersen, the winner of the 2001 World Food Prize.)
The high yields of the Green Revolution also had a dramatic conservation effect: saving millions of acres of wildlands all over the Third World from being cleared for more low-yield crops. If the world were still getting the low crop and livestock yields of 1950, at least half of today's 16 million square miles of global forest would already have been plowed down, and the rest would be scheduled for destruction in the next three decades. Mexico, where I have done much of my high-yield research, is nevertheless losing nearly 3 million acres of forest per year to the expansion of peasant farms.
There are people telling us not to raise the yields. Some of them say that modern food is not as healthy as yesterday's, though science can find no lack of nutrients and, all over the world, the people eating modern crops are growing taller and living longer. There are some who still fear that more food encourages population growth, though food security has helped bring Third World fertility rates 80% of the way to stability.
Some of the naysayers claim that modern, intensive farming is risking the world's biodiversity. However, they apparently think it's more important to save man-made biodiversity, such as antique farmers' varieties, than to save the rich web of unique species characteristic of a wild forest. We can save the farmers' old varieties through gene banks and small-scale gene farms, without locking up half of the planet's arable land as a low-yield gene museum.
I've spent the past 20 years trying to bring the Green Revolution to Africa -- where the farmers use traditional seeds and the organic farming systems that some call "sustainable." But low-yield farming is only sustainable for people with high death rates, and thanks to better medical care, more babies are surviving.
The International Food Policy Research Institute recently projected that Africa is a "building catastrophe." African farms are currently locked in a downward spiral, in which the traditional bush fallow periods are shortened from 15 or 20 years to as little as two or three -- which means crop yields are declining, soil nutrients are depleted, and still more land must be planted every year to feed the people.
Africa desperately needs the simple, effective high-yield farming systems that have made the First World's food supply safe and secure, and kept its wild species from extinction: chemical fertilizers, improved seeds bred>for local conditions, and integrated pest management (with pesticides). Without those basics, Africa is likely to see tens of millions more undernourished children by 2020 -- even after it clears a whole Texas worth of wildlife habitat for additional cropland. Yet the funding for the FutureHarvest agricultural research network that serves the whole Third World is only about $300 million per year.
If America were losing wildlands equal to the size of Texas, we'd believe it was an urgent problem. We'd demand an increase in agricultural research and a crash program to get new technology to farms. If millions of U.S. children were starving for the simple lack of good seeds and fertilizers, the government would fall.
The declaration that I, and others, have signed does not endorse any particular technology or farming system. It simply notes that if the world is to avoid a Hobson's choice between starving children and extinct wildlife species, the first-order priority is higher yields on the land we already farm.
Mr. Borlaug, winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, teaches high-yield farming systems under the sponsorship of the Sasakawa-2000 Foundation and the Jimmy Carter Center.
Resources: Food Security from Virginia Tech Participatory Assessment of Social and Economic Impact of Biotechnology --an up to date bibliography...
Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity Norman Borlaug, the agronomist whose discoveries sparked the Green Revolution, has saved literally millions of lives, yet he is hardly a household name by Gregg Easterbrook Atlantic Monthly January 1997
The 'Golden Rice' Tale Ingo Potrykus / AgBioView 23oct00 --from a VERY curious site: patentmatics 2003 and 2002 (India)
From the Financial Times (found at http://www.thecampaign.org/newsupdates/march01h.htm):
People in focus: Norman Borlaug
The Green Revolution's irascible championMarch 13 2001 Financial Times
Colleagues of Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Prize winner, sometimes joke that three different sorts of human exchange exist: there is dialogue, there is monologue and then there is Borlaug.
At 86, the agronomist has certainly earned the right to have strong opinions. But being on the receiving end of them can prove a sobering experience. When he is roused, his voice suddenly loses the quaver that gives his sentences a staccato quality, like a needle skipping across a vinyl record. Belying his benign appearance as a white-haired patriarch, the man hailed as the father of the Green Revolution unleashes the testiness amassed during a lifetime's labor.
"Ridiculous," he snorts, dismissing suggestions that organic farming could hold the key to agriculture's future. "Hogwash," he snaps at environmentalists' criticisms of the Green Revolution. "Oh come now, this is plain nonsense. I've had to listen to this for years."
The intellectual cuffs are administered across the board, although with varying degrees of sharpness. On the one side, he harrumphs over the "extremists" he feels have turned the phrase "genetic modification" - the aim of plant breeders since Mendel experimented with pea varieties in the mid-nineteenth century - into something frightening and alien.
On the other, he ticks off the biotechnology companies whose gung-ho marketing of genetically engineered crops triggered what he sees as understandable concern about market centralization and excessive corporate control. "They handled things atrociously, giving the impression they were bigger than God. It was some of the worst public relations I've ever seen and it provoked a fear of monopolies. We are now paying a high price for that."
His critique of the private sector - Monsanto's name is mentioned only once but hovers constantly in the background - may come as a surprise to the environmental groups that have made rejection of GM crops their rallying cry. Many of their members regard Mr Borlaug as one of the architects of an approach they claim has squeezed out local varieties and sidelined centuries of traditional knowledge, setting the scene for the entry of big business into agriculture.
It is Mr Borlaug's role in the Green Revolution that puts him at the heart of that debate.
Working in Mexico in the 1960s, he crossed a Japanese dwarf wheat with a disease-resistant local strain to produce a high-yielding hybrid. Transplanted to Asia and Latin America and benefiting from a new understanding of farming techniques, it was one of a generation of disease-resistant crops that contributed to a tripling and quadrupling of harvests, allowing begging-bowl countries to become self-sufficient. In recognition of his efforts, Mr Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.
But not everyone has proved as appreciative as the Nobel committee. The Green Revolution, today's development groups claim, encouraged the intensive farming methods that have polluted rivers and destroyed wildlife. As monocropping spread, it threatened biodiversity. While millions have been saved from starvation, diets have grown poorer as people have abandoned the traditional source of vitamins and minerals: fruit and vegetables cultivated on garden plots and field verges.
Mr Borlaug acknowledges such concerns but says the critics exaggerate what the Green Revolution set out to achieve. Agricultural experts, whose role is to produce better crops and identify ways of improving soil fertility, are taking the flak for the failures of policymakers. "It was a step in the right direction but it was never said that it would solve all the world's nutritional deficiencies. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that," he says, pounding the table. "Never, never."
The exasperation may be explained by the way in which the familiar debate has been revived with the launch of quality protein maize (QPM), Mr Borlaug's last and most treasured project. Endowed with the most important amino acids, QPM, nutritionists believe, could dramatically reduce the number of children who die of malnutrition after being weaned on to protein-poor maize gruel.
As president of the Sasakawa Africa Association, a Japanese-funded development agency, Mr Borlaug played a crucial role in ensuring that research on QPM continued to the point where commercialization was possible. He has traveled more than ever before this year, a level of activity aimed at giving QPM a significant toehold before he dies. "QPM is like a child with great genetic potential. If it doesn't get the right nutrition or healthcare it will never go far," he says.
So it is not surprising that criticism of the new maize, regarded by some as yet another top-down approach to a problem best tackled through education, has him almost squirming with impatience. "To say 'Why don't you just give people a piece of meat, an egg or a glass of milk?' as some people do, reflects the elitism that has come into this issue. To people in the third world, these are luxuries, the equivalent of a Rolls-Royce in Britain."
His own understanding of deprivation is rooted in family history. Mr Borlaug's Norwegian ancestors migrated to the US during the potato famine of the 1840s. He grew up in Iowa, where his parents raised oats, clover and cattle, and was educated at a one-room country school. He has never forgotten the hunger glimpsed in the Great Depression, when he saw people queueing for soup.
"I don't think many Americans can remember it now. But I was steeled in that and I think that is the reason I've spent my life in the third world."
Just as those experiences explain a lifetime's obsession, much of today's biotechnology backlash, he feels, can be traced to a halcyon vision of "traditional" agriculture entertained by a generation that has lost touch with the practical realities of farming.
"I can see this with my own son, who used to come with me on my visits but went into a different profession. Now he sees an anti-science program on television and says: 'Dad, what's going on?' He's lost touch with the land. Only 2 per cent of the population in the US now lives off the land. In western Europe it's 8 per cent."
For Mr Borlaug, no avenue - whether organic or biotechnological - can be barricaded off if humanity is to meet a massive mathematical challenge. Having soared in the Green Revolution, yields have recently shown signs of leveling off. But to feed a population expected to top 8bn by 2025, the world needs nearly to double the 5bn tons of food produced each year. So either new ways must be found of boosting productivity or millions of hectares of forest must be felled to make room for cultivation.
Having originally believed the GM backlash was a temporary "hiccup", Mr Borlaug now recognizes he underestimated the phenomenon that has played its part, he says, in a drop in funding to the agricultural research institutes he works alongside. But it would not take much, he believes, for a western world that appears to have forgotten the potato famines to discover the joys of GM: "Two or three crop failures and it would disappear real fast," he comments sardonically.
Genetically modified crops: the ethical and social issues (1999) and The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries (2003) from Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms from Human Genome Project
Ethical, legal and social issues of genetically modified disease vectors in public health: Social, Economic and Behavioural Research. Special Topics No.1 By Darryl Macer Ph.D. (2003)
Executive Summary from the Genetically Modified Organism Exploratory Committee (Macalester)
Ron adds:
Intensive Agriculture and Environmental Quality: Examining the newest Agricultureal Myth (Tracy Hewitt and Katherine Smith, 1995)Intensive Agriculture and Environmental Quality: Examining the newest Agricultural Myth P.A. Matson et al. Science Volume 277, Number 5325, Issue of 25 Jul 1997, pp. 504-509. --and one of its citers is Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: The need for sustainable and efficient practices David Tilman PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 11, 5995-6000, May 25, 1999. See a selection of the 100-odd citers of Matson et al. 1997
Voices from the South: The Third World Debunks Corporate Myths on Genetically Engineered Crops from Food First
7 February
From Ron:
Feeding People In The 21st Century An Organic Farmer Responds To The Father of the 'Green Revolution'and another:Shepherd Bliss, D.Min., studied at the University of Chicago Divinity School, served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam era, and currently owns an organic farm in Northern California. He can be reached at sb3@pon.net.
"We can feed the world," Norman Borlaug contends in a recent Wall Street Journal commentary. The Nobel laureate claims that the 1960s 'Green Revolution' that he helped launch was a prelude to a necessary new wave of globalized corporate farming for the 21st century. Borlaug asserts that the only way to feed the Earth's billions is to export America's chemically saturated agri-business.
"Today, we are faced with an ... enormous task," he writes. "We must learn to produce nearly three times as much food for the more populous and more prosperous world of 2050, and from the farmland we are already using, in order to save the planet's wildlands."
Borlaug touts the benefits of the 'Green Revolution.' But he does not reveal its substantial costs and risks, some of which are hidden and unintended consequences. Borlaug's one-sided view concerns this organic farmer. Small family farmers like myself, in the United States and abroad, question Borlaug's assumptions. He provides cover for industrial agriculture's problems, and ignores the long-term damage of chemical farming to water, soil, air, and people's health.
Though a heavyweight in global food policy circles, Borlaug's assertions are akin to pronouncements by the "wise-use" movement that natural resources can be exploited with no real harm to the environment. He mocks organic farmers like myself as "naysayers" who want to lock up "half of the planet's arable land as a low-yield gene museum."
Borlaug argues that high-yield, single-crop fields -- grown with genetically-engineered seeds, chemical fertilizer and pesticides -- have already saved millions of people from starvation. He has no patience for organic or 'sustainable' agricultural practices.
"I've spent the past 20 years trying to bring the 'Green Revolution' to Africa -- where the farmers use traditional seeds and the organic farming systems that some call 'sustainable,'" Borlaug writes. "But low-yield farming is only sustainable for people with high death rates, and thanks to better medical care, more babies are surviving."
Such sentiments ignore critical realities. First, Borlaug assumes there will always be an adequate supply of natural resources, such as water and oil, to literally fuel growth. Natural limits to growth are not acknowledged in Borlaug's expansionist mentality, nor does he acknowledge the cultural and societal impact of the world's poorest nations becoming 'clients' of giant American-dominated agri-business corporations.
Let's consider two of his basic assumptions: continued adequate water and fossil fuels. Food is dependent upon water. As the population expands, fueled by the so- called 'Green Revolution,' communities consume more water. But the water supply is finite and does not grow. This is as true in Atlanta, Ga., as it is in India or the Middle East.
What happens to the available water? It will be further polluted by industrial farm runoff, reducing the vital supply of this limited resource. The chemicals Borlaug advocates get into streams and our water supplies in various ways when herbicides are used on plants. Moreover, the insecticides used to eliminate so-called pests also kill desirable species, such as pollinating bees and other beneficial insects, creating negative impacts on ecosystems and bio-regions.
Chemical fertilizers, the bread-and-butter of agri-business and the catalyst of the 'Green Revolution,' come from an industry built on processing fossil fuel. Not only is oil used to create plant nutrients, it's also needed to run the big machines necessary for large-scale mono-crop cultivation.
Borlaug's call for a 21st century 'Green Revolution' collides with what's generally acknowledged as a shrinking world oil supply, not to mention concerns about fossil fuel's role in global warming. Factoring the pending oil shortage into his prescription raises the stakes in ways that go beyond crop cultivation. Where will the world's farmers be once they have abandoned their traditional practices in favor of the "improved" seeds and chemicals, purchased from global corporations?
Though Borlaug derides those who challenge him as "naysayers," he does not deal with our arguments. In the name of feeding the world, Borlaug would create new dependence upon corporate globalism. His opinion piece is a warning sign that indicates the direction where agri-business would like the world to go; it's familiar terrain to environmentalists.
"Borlaug doesn't consider the long-term implications of his proposed solution," notes Eric Storm, coordinator of Sustainable Sonoma County, a California environmental group. "A long-term goal would be a secure and sustainable food supply to feed a stabilized population. We need strategies that not only improve conditions for the poorest people, but also address the underlying causes. We must also get our consumption and population under control. And we must do this without causing more problems than we solve," Storm contends.
Borlaug and his corporate colleagues use language and an unbridled faith in technological solutions to conceal and mislead. For example, he espouses "protecting nature with high-yield farming and forestry." Oregon writer George Beres responds, "In this area of lush forestry, I see that kind of linguistic subterfuge used regularly by lumber interests. It is part of public relations gimmickry."
The timing of Borlaug's op-ed is noteworthy. It comes as organic farming has been growing by 20 percent in recent years in the United States. Mainstream Americans seem to be embracing food policies that are contrary to what Borlaug would prescribe for the Third World. Organic agriculture returns to the traditional farming that my Uncle Dale practiced on our small family farm in Iowa before chemical farming was developed. It threatens factory farming.
A "Slow Food Movement" that began in Europe is also now spreading around the world. This movement defends the growing, preparing and eating of nutritious food as integral to diverse, healthy, independent cultures. Food not only feeds individuals; its growing and preparation nurtures families, communities, and cultures.
Credible alternatives to Borlaug's 'Green Revolution' are outlined by Frances Moore Lappe (author of Diet for a Small Planet, 1971) and her daughter Anna Lappe in their new book Hope's Edge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet. They visited Belo Horizonte, Brazil, a city of 2.5 million. Its citizens, under the leadership of the Worker's Party, decided that good food was a human right, rather than a matter of wealth. It is the only city in the capitalist world to make food security a right of citizenship.
Belo Horizonte offers a model for communities to solve hunger on a local level. It focuses on programs such as community and school gardens, fresh food delivery to poorer neighborhoods, and linking hospitals, restaurants, and other big buyers to local organic growers.
Don't be fooled by the term 'Green Revolution.' It harms people, plants, animals, and the environment in order to enhance the profits of a few. Humanity and nature are currently on a collision course, which the 'Green Revolution' hastens.
We need to work to restore natural harmony and the balance of nature, rather than extract more of its gifts for human consumption. Everything that's labeled "green" and all "revolutions" are not necessarily helpful for people or nature.
Published: May 31 2002 (from http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5705)
Confirming this practice in US. So 'culling' hundreds of deer and elk to "prevent the spread" of CWD is probably useless. This is also good evidence that the feed is contaminated and that therefore there are lots of animals in US with BSE. Supposedly animal to animal transmission can occur through soil, though this is not proven and besdies, deer mostly browse, rather than graze, though they aren't above snatching some pasture grass when available.'MAD DEER DISEASE' -- IS IT IN THE FEED?
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_1258908,00.htmlAn Associated Press story speculates today that Wisconsin hunters, having killed deer in the area of the state known to be infected with mad cow-like Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), might have spread the disease around the state by taking carcasses back to their homes and dumping them in the environment. Yes, that is a possibility, but not the most obvious possibility. Feeding rendered byproducts is a much more obvious threat to spread CWD around the state, the nation and to other livestock. Extensive supplement feeding of wild deer to grow big antlers has gone on in Wisconsin's CWD eradication zone, and in fact all over much of the US. The supplements contain protein, minerals, and binders (fat), much of it from rendered slaughterhouse waste, the same stuff that amplified and spread mad cow disease in England. In Wisconsin in 1995 alone over 26,000 road-killed deer were rendered into meat and bone meal used in animal feed. Unlike Britain and Europe, the US still feeds billions of pounds of mammalian rendered byproduct back to livestock. As we document in our book Mad Cow USA, US feed regulations are so weak that cattle blood is used in calf feed. Such policies are inviting a disaster that could dwarf Britain's mad cow crisis since the US is the biggest meat producing country in the world.
SOURCE: Associated Press, July 11, 2002
More web links related to this story are available at: http://www.prwatch.org/spin/July_2002.html#1026360000