FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

writes
>I think the BSE problem was only the worst case of a much more
>widespread problem in animal nutrition. The chances that you will
>eventually cause the spread of a disease by feeding bits of animals
>back to animals is surely very high - especially when the animals (such
>as cattle) have a digestive system which is not designed to break down
>naimal proteins.

This would be a splendid argument if feeding meat products to animals,
including dairy cows, hadn't been going on for a couple of hundred
years, and in pigs and poultry for perhaps 10,000 years.

>Cows left to themselves live on grass.

Even that's untrue. Cattle and sheep knaw bones in the wild and have
been seen to eat fish off the riverbank. I've personally seen one grab
and eat a sparrow.

>Once the poor
>animals have been contaminated with the prions responsible for BSE the
>cycle carries on.

Not if the cycle is broken.

>However, BSE is not the only effect of feeding animals with "unnatural"
>materials. The very common use of fish-meal in animal feedstuffs causes
>a major problem for people who are highly allergic to fish. It seems
>logical that it should be that way but nobody in the animal feed or
>fishing industries cares to think the problem through.

I think its better to fix the allergy myself.

>Although fish allergy is often highly species specific, I am sure that
>no studies have been done on which particular fish still cause problems
>after their proteins have been partly digested by a cow (or a sheep,
>chicken, pig etc.) All meat and egg containing products derived from
>the flesh of animals fed in this way can be lethal for a person with
>the right level of allergic response.

Its certainly safer to fix the allergy.

>There is a lot to be said for properly controlled farming (the EEC is
>trying to sort this aspect out at the moment). However, the problem
>doesn't stop there. Here are a few more example of how fish can enter
>the everyday diet with disasterous consequences for highly allergic
>people.
>
>1. The fish residues in English beer
>2. The fish residues in many European wines
>3. The use of fish proteins in the icing on cakes
>4. Any meat products where the origin of the meat is uncertain
>5. The use of fish gelatin in sweets
>6. Via the milk powder used in confectionery and chocolate
>7. The use of monk fish as a lobster replacement
>8. All products containing egg
>
>The monk fish one nearly finished me off in a Chinese restaurant in
>London some years ago. I can eat lobster (real) but monk fish is about
>as healthy as a dose of cyanide for me (and I didn't know!).

You have a problem. You would be wise to source your food with extreme
care. Remember that many oriental cuisines use a fish sauce as a
condiment.

>Unfortunately. I have had to spend my life trying to avoid fish in all
>its obvious and hidden forms - it is a constant battle. Has anyone else
>similar experiences?

I would suggest examining allergy reduction procedures.
Being inhabited by intestinal parasites might help.

--
Oz