Fox, John. "The Response to BSE in the United States." Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm & Resource Issues 20.2 (2005): 103. MAS Ultra - School Edition. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.
In this article, John Fox argues that the United States’ response to the mad cow scare was quite affective. He also argues that the people are far more afraid of mad cow than they should be. In the words of Mr. Fox; “the human health risk from BSE is probably far lower than the risk of choking on a toothbrush” (107). In the article Fox goes over what the U.S. government has done to help prevent the spread of mad cow. He also provides data of cows that have been tested and what the results of those tests are. I think this article will be useful to me because it provides the other side to my argument. It also provides detailed information about the steps the government has taken to prevent mad cow from spreading.
Pierce, Alan. "Preventing Mad Cow Disease." Tech Directions 66.10 (2007): 11. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Web. 9 Oct. 2010.
In this article, Alan Pierce argues for the use of genetically cloned cows for consumption. He starts by describing how mad cow works. He describes what mad cow does to an infected cow and then how people can get it. He then goes on to explain why cows get mad cow disease in the first place. He puts the blame on ranchers feeding their cattle other animals’ parts in the feed. Then he brings up a company and its’ plan for preventing the spread of mad cow. The company’s solution to mad cow, cloned cows. So far, some cows have been cloned and the results seem promising. The researchers have even directly injected the cows with mad cow and so far the cows have seemed immune. I believe this article will be helpful because it provides another means of preventing the spread of mad cow. It also provides me with a dumbed down version of what happens when a cow contracts mad cow, which is greatly appreciated.
Neuman, William. "U.S.D.A. Plans to Drop Program to Trace Livestock." New York Times 05 Feb. 2010: 2. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 9 Oct. 2010.
In this article William Neuman reports that a new system of tracking livestock to help in the prevention of possible mad cow outbreaks has been scrapped. The plan apparently received a lot of negative feedback from ranchers and farmers and was therefore shot down. The system was supposed to keep track of groups of animals and where they come from so that in case of an outbreak, the source could be located. However, with so much opposition from the livestock industry, the government decided against the plan. The government hopes to develop a new plan that will gain the support of the farmers and ranchers. I think this article will be a use to me because it shows that the government is more interested in keeping big money makers happy, then focusing on the safety of the public.
Stein, Rob. "Mad Cow Rules Hit Sperm Banks' Patrons." Washington Post, The n.d.: Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.
In this article, Rob Stein argues that the restrictions on sperm donations into the United States are unnecessary. He first informs the reader that there is a possible connection between mad cow infected sperm. He then provides real life scenarios of women who had had children with a particular sperm donor and then because of the restrictions were not allowed to use the same donor. Women who wanted to have multiple children with the same father were now forced to either find a new donor, or go to country where the donor was from. Stein explains that the research behind the claim of mad cow infected sperm is minimal if even existent. He claims that even if one can get infected via “bad” sperm, the odds are very small that one would. I think this article will be useful to me because I think it will be a nice little anecdote as evidence that the government still knows little about mad cow and how one contracts it. And quite honestly, I found the article kind of fascinating.
No comments:
Post a Comment