I was disturbed to read a recent article in Farmers Weekly about farmers
under threat of prosecution for storing pet food next to cattle feed

- due to the alleged meat and bone (MBM) / BSE risk . I guess that we are all having to
accept that the totalitarian diktat of DEFRA has totally overstepped the mark
of rational scientific logic. But, in any fair democratic society, they
should be bracing themselves for an immediate counter prosecution seeking a
demand for the evidence that backs up their totally ridiculous claims .

If leakage of micro doses of MBM from pet food poses a real BSE risk, then
why didn't the mega tonnages of pure UK MBM that was shipped to the battery
dairy herds across Saudi Arabia, Libya, India and other third world countries
during 70s, 80s, 90s produce a single case of BSE in those foreign cattle ?
Furthermore, why are none of the BSE susceptible pets that are currently
being fed this 'contaminated' pet feed going down with BSE ? A five year old
child could see the stupidity of prosecuting such an incredibly 'wayout'
causal association .

The article then goes on to quote a DEFRA spokesperson stating how they have
spent a lot of money preventing BSE in the UK. Whilst, it is true that MAFF/
DEFRA  have gobbled up millions in public funds on BSE research, etc,  the
greater majority of those funds have been squandered to keep afloat the egos/
professional reputations of the incestuous clique of  'experts' who dreamt up
this hyper infectious hypothesis in the first place.

Once it became clear that the various feed bans had failed to halt BSE ( eg;
the 40,000  BSE cases born after the 1988 feed ban ), the experts have been
forced to come up with an ever increasing array of implausible reasons for
explaining the continuation of BSE - or face the embarrassment of having to
account to their respective Ministers for so many years of barking up the
wrong tree.

If DEFRA had really wanted to control BSE, they would have taken a more
serious note of the alternative line of experimental evidence that is rapidly
amassing in the scientific literature. Furthermore, they would acted on this
evidence by laying out the much needed funds for pursuing the alternative
research lines, as well as prohibiting the entry of the BSE causal agent -
systemic organo phosphates and  rogue manganese atoms - into the farm food
chain. Sadly, they chose to squander yet more public funds in trying to
discredit and erode the energies of those of us who were actively engaged in
developing this line of research.

The pavlovian-like rejection of alternative research by the Saint SEAC
committee is perhaps easily explained by the fact that a high percentage of 
their members draw over generous research and consultancy funds from the very
same multinational companies involved in organo phosphate and manganese based
feed / fungicide / fertiliser sales. I see that SEAC were running so short of
UK  'experts'  who would guarantee to prop up the hyperinfectious myth at all
costs,  that they have had to woo in Professor Aguzzi from Switzerland - a
world renowned hyperinfectious hysteric.

The unilateral negligence of a mere handful of self protecting 'experts' has
been allowed to debilitate the global livestock industry to virtual breaking
point - all on the basis of their hypothetical hyperinfectious myth. It is
equally disturbing that the conventional quarters of the farming
Establishment have unwittingly aided and abetted DEFRA's machinations by
simply sitting back and unquestionably accepting their unscientific
assumptions as 'gospel truth'.



www.markpurdey.com