2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials? Bruce Crumley, Paris bureau chief for TIME, helps shape TIME’s coverage of France and Europe in areas including business, politics, religion, terrorism and sports. He joined TIME in 1988, when he began working as a stringer for the Paris bureau. During his 20-year career at TIME, Crumley has covered virtually every aspect of French political, social and economic life.
3. What are the topics of the text? I looked up mad cow disease and how it affected the EU's perceptions of risk (based on p 292) and came across this news article. It was about how, on Feb. 14, members of the EU.’s executive body took a break from Europe’s horsemeat-impersonating-beef scandal to reauthorize a type of animal feed that was banned in 1997 to battle mad-cow disease. This is significant because mad-cow-era precautions are now being rolled back at the very moment the horsemeat flap is raising new concerns about the safety of Europe’s food industry.
4. What is the main argument of the text? The announcement of the new regulations and reversal of an earlier decision displays poor timing on the part of the EU - public perception does play a role in policy making.
This result is allegedly due to Brussels caving to livestock-farming lobbyists demanding resumed use of cheaper animal-based feeds to replace the current vegetal options.
5. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
These new rules will reauthorize a type of animal feed that was banned in 1997 to battle mad-cow disease — an illness that infected nearly 500,000 animals in Europe and killed around 200 people.
The initial interdiction was motivated by suspicions that PAP — whose content often turned livestock into de facto cannibals of fellow species members — may have played a role in ruminants developing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which later spread to human consumers of meat.
Since France’s fish, poultry and pig farmers act on that same bottom-line logic as much as their European competitors do, it’s only a mater of time before PAP-raised livestock turn up in French butcher shops. This implies that these regulations will affect all the countries in EU, despite any "trading up" initiatives (ex: California and car efficiency standards).
6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
“It’s not a good time,” lamented Guillaume Garot, France’s Junior Minister for the Food Industry, on Feb. 15 — just four days ahead of the Tuesday news that Europe’s horsemeat scandal had spread to Nestlé, the world’s largest food group. “You’d have to have the political sense of an oyster to damage peoples’ perception of Europe this way,” Isabelle Thomas, a French member of the European Parliament, said of the move to lift the mad-cow-related animal-feed ban just now. “We demand the commission immediately revise this decision.”
“The most recent scientific findings [demonstrate] the risk of BSE transmission is negligible between non-ruminant animals, provided there is no recycling within species,” the European Commission communiqué explained.
To prepare for that day, Batho is calling for new specifications allowing consumers to avoid livestock raised on animal-based feed if they wish to. Given events of the past few days, however, consumers may well view the proposed labeling measure as a real joke — coming, as it does, from officials still struggling to explain how tons of illicit horsemeat made it into beef-based products in Europe’s highly regulated food chain.
7. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
Why would the EU choose to reverse a decision that was a response to a public health emergency for the sake of one country? On top of that, why couldn't the EU pass regulations on making vegetal options more available?
What does this mean to the EU meat market? Will people notice/accept the change?
How was the perceived risk alleviated in this second round of consideration? How will this be different from the first time this happened?
Notes
Though the timing of the move, which ends the 15-year prohibition of using animal remains to feed other livestock, was terrible at best, E.U. officials defend reauthorization of processed-animal proteins (PAP) as scientifically sound. The initial interdiction was motivated by suspicions that PAP — whose content often turned livestock into de facto cannibals of fellow species members — may have played a role in ruminants developing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which later spread to human consumers of meat. The new rules allow feed made of restricted parts of pigs and poultry to be used to feed fish starting June 1. Poultry and pig farmers may use feed made from each other’s species as of 2014. The ban on feeding ruminants’ PAP (i.e. of cattle, sheep, goats, etc.) — or using them to produce such meal — remains prohibited.
Besides the awkward timing — which has injected the old health fears of mad cow into the already stomach-roiling consumer-fraud horsemeat scandal — critics of the reauthorization decision say it’s the result of Brussels caving to livestock-farming lobbyists demanding resumed use of cheaper animal-based feeds to replace the current vegetal options.
Crumley, Bruce. "As the Horsemeat Hysteria Spreads, E.U. Opens a Mad-Cow Can of Worms." World As the Horsemeat Hysteria Spreads EU Opens a MadCow Can of Worms Comments. Time, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2013. <http://world.time.com/2013/02/19/as-the-horsemeat-hysteria-spreads-e-u-opens-a-mad-cow-can-of-worms/>.
2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials?
Bruce Crumley, Paris bureau chief for TIME, helps shape TIME’s coverage of France and Europe in areas including business, politics, religion, terrorism and sports. He joined TIME in 1988, when he began working as a stringer for the Paris bureau. During his 20-year career at TIME, Crumley has covered virtually every aspect of French political, social and economic life.
3. What are the topics of the text?
I looked up mad cow disease and how it affected the EU's perceptions of risk (based on p 292) and came across this news article. It was about how, on Feb. 14, members of the EU.’s executive body took a break from Europe’s horsemeat-impersonating-beef scandal to reauthorize a type of animal feed that was banned in 1997 to battle mad-cow disease. This is significant because mad-cow-era precautions are now being rolled back at the very moment the horsemeat flap is raising new concerns about the safety of Europe’s food industry.
4. What is the main argument of the text?
The announcement of the new regulations and reversal of an earlier decision displays poor timing on the part of the EU - public perception does play a role in policy making.
This result is allegedly due to Brussels caving to livestock-farming lobbyists demanding resumed use of cheaper animal-based feeds to replace the current vegetal options.
5. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
7. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
Notes
Though the timing of the move, which ends the 15-year prohibition of using animal remains to feed other livestock, was terrible at best, E.U. officials defend reauthorization of processed-animal proteins (PAP) as scientifically sound. The initial interdiction was motivated by suspicions that PAP — whose content often turned livestock into de facto cannibals of fellow species members — may have played a role in ruminants developing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which later spread to human consumers of meat. The new rules allow feed made of restricted parts of pigs and poultry to be used to feed fish starting June 1. Poultry and pig farmers may use feed made from each other’s species as of 2014. The ban on feeding ruminants’ PAP (i.e. of cattle, sheep, goats, etc.) — or using them to produce such meal — remains prohibited.
Besides the awkward timing — which has injected the old health fears of mad cow into the already stomach-roiling consumer-fraud horsemeat scandal — critics of the reauthorization decision say it’s the result of Brussels caving to livestock-farming lobbyists demanding resumed use of cheaper animal-based feeds to replace the current vegetal options.