Subject: Re: BSE: the internet discussions

From: [email-masked] (Malcolm Goodall)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 22:14:28 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>
        [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)and Os writes: 
      and writes and writes.............,  7 out of 11 items to date, 
on this heading alone - not bad keep it up lads!

Reference to various messages from the above and his friend Mr.Os.
I am glad to see that some people are willing to attack the "party line"
and the pompous statements put out by the above, - but to complain about
the volume - come on Mr.B - you must occupy at least half of the band width!!
I should like to know who they represent - its alright hiding behind a
fancy title ie IFST. but who do they work for? Who funds the IFST?
Where is any reference to the Processed Food Manufactures?
I have a scientific and farming  background  with a sound medical 
influence(my wife) and we have not eaten processed foods for 20 years.
That was after I saw an advertiement in Farmers Weekly for a machine that
 totally processed animal carcases - even the hoofs - into meat products,
I wonder where all this material ends up!
We all know all the "good people" out there but what about the bad ones?
If money is involved a lot of good people turn into bad people and there
are a lot of them I do not trust  - scientists, consultants, farmers, food
processors ( human and animal) -particularly those in  politics - we 
all have  vested interests-  - and these include ones children and family.

  Just for the record I love pure meat and I am most upset that there is
this shadow over beef. I have no interested in any special interest groups.
  My philosophy is that I may be at more risk in other things that I do
but I must drive my car but I do not need to eat beef, I might 
survive a car crash but I would not survive CJD, In most things I 
feel I have some
control over my actions.
Its a pity synthetic glue was invented - I feel we were a lot better off
when we had glue works and the cats and dogs ate the old beasts - they
are too good for them now!

Lets hear where the vested interests lie,  instead of the cant!

Best wishes to all the free thinkers out there,
Regards,
M.

PS - could you all try to cut down the wording from previous items,
I have taken my old computer and slow modem to France and it is costing
me a fortune to keep up with the news.

---

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 07:06:48 GMT

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996 22:14:28 +0100, [email-masked] (Malcolm

>on this heading alone - not bad keep it up lads!

Hello Malcolm and All,

>Reference to various messages from the above and his friend Mr.Os.

I don't know Oz, or who "Oz" is,  or who he represents -- the way he
writes he probably represents himself.

>Where is any reference to the Processed Food Manufactures?

IFST has around 3500 members, all individuals, _no companies or
organisations_.  Its funding is wholly from membership subscriptions
and sale (mainly to libraries) of its research journal . It has to
operate on a shoestring (small admin staff of five) and most of the
work is done by voluntary unpaid members like myself.

The rest  of the information is given at the end of the IFST Position
Statement posted here only a week ago (pity you did not take the
trouble to read it), but as you so courteously request it,  here it is

The Institute of Food Science & Technology (IFST) is the independent
professional qualifying body  for food scientists and technologists.
It is totally independent of government, of industry, and of any
lobbying groups or special interest groups. Its professional members
are elected by virtue of their academic qualifications and their
relevant experience, and their signed undertaking to comply with the
Institute's ethical Code of Professional Conduct. They are elected
solely in their personal capacities and  in no way representing
organisations where they may be employed. They work in a variety of
areas, including universities and other centres of higher education,
research institutions, food and related industries, consultancy, food
law enforcement authorities,  and in government departments and
agencies.  The nature of the Institute and the mixture of these
backgrounds on the working groups drafting IFST Position Statements,
and on the two Committees responsible for finalising and approving
them, ensure that the contents are entirely objective. 

IFST recognises that research is constantly bringing new knowledge.
However, collectively the profession is the repository of existing
knowledge in its field. It includes researchers expanding the
boundaries of knowledge and experts seeking to apply it for the public
benefit.

Its purposes are 

(1) to serve the public interest by furthering the application of
science and technology to all aspects of the supply of safe,
wholesome, nutritious and attractive food, nationally and
internationally;

(2) to advance the standing of food science and technology, both as a
subject and as a profession;

(3) to assist members in their career and personal development within
the profession;

(4) to uphold professional standards of competence and integrity.

Sorry if that sounds pompous to you, Malcolm, but we take it seriously
and "tell it like it is".

--  snipping here to save bandwidth and cost,  as requested :-) -----
>me a fortune to keep up with the news.

PS  And by the way, it is costing me (personally, not IFST) a fortune
too. :-( 
Wish I had the free access that university students/staff enjoy  :-)

Regards to all

Ralph

******************************************************************
J Ralph Blanchfield
Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
Chair, IFST Member Relations & Services Committee
Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology
IFST Web address: http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/ 
******************************************************************

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 09:48:38 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Malcolm Goodall
<[email-masked]> writes
>Lets hear where the vested interests lie,  instead of the cant!

Firstly I abhor the suggestion that if anyone has an interest in
something he/she cannot be trusted and is lying for gain. There is such
a thing as ethics and honesty and the vast majority of people do behave
ethically IMHO. If you believe 'vested interest' results in you being a
liar then you must disregard all information from pressure groups,
religions, politicians and other enthusiasts or organisations. A rather
sad way to live, I would suggest. Having said that I would agree that
caution is always appropriate and you should weigh the actual evidence
and arguments. I am all for that. Harder work though, I must admit.

Oz: MA (Cantab), sometime computer person, earns part of his income from
a UK dairy herd and has been interested in TE's as an informed layman
since about 1970 because it was interesting. Has a family of two young
children. Not an academic, earns his own living.  :-) Believes in the
scentific method, can't stand misinformation. Tries to keep learning,
note my .sig

It's odd that others have not been asked the same question. However I am
rather used to the problem of 'received knowledge' where facts are
regarded as suspect and hearsay is regarded as fact. Science has had to
fight this since witches were burnt at the stake, and humankind hasn't
changed so much since.

Happy?

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"