Bovaer to be added to cattle feed

[beating_my_betes]

@beating_my_betes - You mistakenly imply I have experience in animal feed science. I don't and so cannot make any comment of value to the subject of the thread. In order to do so, I would have to get some overall understanding of the subject, the pros and cons of the issue and the motivations of those making all the noise. I don't have the time, or inclination, to do that.

To be clear, my experience in working in a safety critical industry taught me to leave people who know nothing about a subject other than what they have read in the media to get on with their discussions in their own private world knowing it might give them a reason for living but will never affect anything. As I say, just like listening in to a pub conversation about diabetes.

There, I have shared my experience.

I didn't think for a second you had experience with animal feed science, nor did i imply that was the case.

What I did think was that you were just commenting on your supposed experience by way of a 'flex', and that if I invited you to actually engage seriously in the conversation (and despite early bumps there is a serious conversation to be had), that you would demonstrate you had no interest in anything other than jeering and thumbing your nose at the rest of us.

 

[Wendal]

@beating_my_betes - You mistakenly imply I have experience in animal feed science. I don't and so cannot make any comment of value to the subject of the thread. In order to do so, I would have to get some overall understanding of the subject, the pros and cons of the issue and the motivations of those making all the noise. I don't have the time, or inclination, to do that.

To be clear, my experience in working in a safety critical industry taught me to leave people who know nothing about a subject other than what they have read in the media to get on with their discussions in their own private world knowing it might give them a reason for living but will never affect anything. As I say, just like listening in to a pub conversation about diabetes.

There, I have shared my experience.

Afternoon DocB.Must admit am in total support of your position and stance in this matter.
There are a few areas where we may as individuals have a definite insight, experience or actual information about specific subject matters that others may want to discuss more widely.
Personally I am more than happy to discuss these subjects where there is an informed and balanced audience such as diabetes topics on this forum.However, I think it is often a wiser move to avoid discussions on a number of subject areas due to the agendas and thoughts of other folk who get involved in alternative views.
I am fortunate in that I am precluded from many of these discussions simply by the nature of direct conflicts of interest but I have seen the nature of these debates where opinions are often posted as facts by basically folk who have no professional knowledge and/ or experience.
I always appreciate that everyone can have a view and must decide for themselves and that is fine but there are a number of folk who take an entrenched position and will not be persuaded by sound scientific argument.
ATB

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Whether deciding to contribute or not, let’s all agree to be kind and gracious to each other.

People are allowed to express their concerns about things they have seen / read, and each of us will have our own sense of whether or not any news story or item warrants further investigation for reassurance, or perhaps even a personal decision to change behaviour, but we must all remember that we live in increasingly polarised times, and that many sources of information seem intent on enthusiastically stimulating division, worry, anger, and conflict.

None of us really know anything about this topic, but if I were restricted to only having conversations on subjects I understood well, I’d hardly be equipped to ever talk to anyone about anything!

 

[beating_my_betes]

None of us really know anything about this topic, but if I were restricted to only having conversations on subjects I understood well, I’d hardly be equipped to ever talk to anyone about anything!

Exactly!

 

[beating_my_betes]

I always appreciate that everyone can have a view and must decide for themselves and that is fine but there are a number of folk who take an entrenched position and will not be persuaded by sound scientific argument.

which entrenched position? and which scientific argument?

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

which entrenched position? and which scientific argument?

I believe @Wendal was making a general point, rather than referring to specifics in any thread / discussion either here or elsewhere on the internet.

For example some people take an entrenched position that the earth is flat, and cannot be persuaded by scientific argument / evidence involving photographs showing the planet from space, or images showing curvature of the surface from the upper atmosphere.

 

[beating_my_betes]

I believe @Wendal was making a general point, rather than referring to specifics in any thread / discussion either here or elsewhere on the internet.

I'm sure you're right. But given their post was in agreement with the post by @Docb, who I very much do believe to be acting against the spirit you mention, made me think otherwise.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I'm sure you're right. But given their post was in agreement with the post by @Docb, who I very much do believe to be acting against the spirit you mention, made me think otherwise.

My reading was that @Docb was simply, and quite rightly, encouraging us to remember that the conversation is outside our fields of knowledge and experience, and that we should hold it lightly, recognising that in the end whatever we think on the matter is unlikely to have any consequence, and certainly isn’t worth disagreeing about. 🙂

 

[Inka]

Interestingly I’ve just come back from my local town and there was a card advertising milk available in the deli with “bovaer free” included in the little marketing label. Never seen that before so it definitely seems to be in the news and in people’s minds. Whether there’s a problem with it or not, public confidence can affect sales so decisions about its use might be guided by that.

 

[Docb]

@everydayupsanddowns. Quite agree with you, especially on your earlier point about polarised times. @Wendal and myself both think that there is a middle ground and the best way to find it is not to polarise things further by making comments suggesting we support one extreme or the other when we have no clear knowledge of the subject under discussion.

I will not take offence at the "jeering and thumbing your nose" jibe. I have had far worse things said about me.

 

[CliffH]

@everydayupsanddowns. Quite agree with you, especially on your earlier point about polarised times. @Wendal and myself both think that there is a middle ground and the best way to find it is not to polarise things further by making comments suggesting we support one extreme or the other when we have no clear knowledge of the subject under discussion.

I will not take offence at the "jeering and thumbing your nose" jibe. I have had far worse things said about me.

... which makes me think that an entertaining 'sub-thread' could be, "The worst thing that's ever been said about me is ...".

 

[Docb]

... which makes me think that an entertaining 'sub-thread' could be, "The worst thing that's ever been said about me is ...".

You start🙂

 

[CliffH]

You start🙂

"You're sick, you are!" (from the mother of an ex-fiancee) 🙄

 

[JITR]

Starting with cows (what next?) bovaer has been declared a "safe" additive by both European and UK regulators as "it doesn't transfer into milk".

ALL English cows to be given controversial Bovaer feed by 2030

A document mentioning a Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs plan to mandate the use of 'methane-suppressing feed products' English cattle is circulating on social media.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Tom Whipple, Science Editor, responded in The Times: It's not a conspiracy if you haven't bothered to check

Of course, if you have serious doubts, you should apply the precautionary principle. Stop consuming milk and dairy products, unless you are certain of their provenance.

 

[beating_my_betes]

My reading was that @Docb was simply, and quite rightly, encouraging us to remember that the conversation is outside our fields of knowledge and experience, and that we should hold it lightly, recognising that in the end whatever we think on the matter is unlikely to have any consequence, and certainly isn’t worth disagreeing about. 🙂

You've clearly misunderstood my position. It's all good, though.

 

[Docb]

"You're sick, you are!" (from the mother of an ex-fiancee) 🙄

I was part of a group at one time, all of whom were well over 6ft - the tallest was all but 7ft. Me at a mere 5ft 6" was frequently referred to as the poison dwarf.

 

[Amity Island]

As somebody who spent much of their life in an industry where safety was at the forefront of almost all decision making, I find the conversations in threads of this sort rather like listening in on a pub conversation about diabetes.

Best to keep out of it.

Hi DocB,

My point is much simpler though. It doesn't rely upon any expertise, any knowledge, any intellect or discussion.

Words have meaning. Without meaning, words are meaningless.

Definition is the starting point no matter what field, context or industry and I don't think it unreasonable to want to know what is meant by the word "safe" in the context it's being used/sold. E.g additives to animal feed.

I know that in the pharmaceutical industry "safe" is defined as the "benefits outweigh the risks". To me, this definition has nothing to do with safety. Whereas, in other industries, "safe" is something that is measured. With each event being logged and that at some point, it would be declared unsafe. In the pharmaceutical industry, post release, these events will just get added to the safety sheet, not necessarily declared unsafe.

 

[Wendal]

which entrenched position? and which scientific

Hi DocB,

My point is much simpler though. It doesn't rely upon any expertise, any knowledge, any intellect or discussion.

Words have meaning. Without meaning, words are meaningless.

Definition is the starting point no matter what field, context or industry and I don't think it unreasonable to want to know what is meant by the word "safe" in the context it's being used/sold. E.g additives to animal feed.

I know that in the pharmaceutical industry "safe" is defined as the "benefits outweigh the risks". To me, this definition has nothing to do with safety. Whereas, in other industries, "safe" is something that is measured. With each event being logged and that at some point, it would be declared unsafe. In the pharmaceutical industry, post release, these events will just get added to the safety sheet, not necessarily declared unsafe.

Evening Amity,
The feed additive industry is no different to the pharmaceutical industry in that all products need to be licensed and classified accordingly.
Even if Bovaer if my understanding is correct is classified as non medicinal as most feed additives are.
So all products have a data sheet which lists its details and any contradictions etc so in the case of a food producing animal like cow then would be meat or milk withdrawal.
So any definition of safety is made by likes of EMA/ MHRA/FDA etc and their regulatory system in terms of whether they Apprivevthe product or not and what classification they allocate and restrictions they decide on.
Each product will go through a separate regulatory pathway so phase 1,2 and pivotal phase 3 in case of Vaccines and drugs and then be subject to close monitoring even after Approval.
So I accept the decision of the regulators in deciding on my behalf what is safe or not safe based on their expertise and them knowing the full facts.
I accept others may not share the same level of confidence but that is the system we have and in balance I am happy with it.
ATB

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I know that in the pharmaceutical industry "safe" is defined as the "benefits outweigh the risks". To me, this definition has nothing to do with safety. Whereas, in other industries, "safe" is something that is measured. With each event being logged and that at some point, it would be declared unsafe. In the pharmaceutical industry, post release, these events will just get added to the safety sheet, not necessarily declared unsafe.

My understanding is that the logging of reactions very much does affect whether a pharmaceutical/food additive is considered safe and effective after launch. And depending on the severity of reactions drugs/additives can be withdrawn.

This can also happen (both positively and negatively) during the trial phases. If a sufficient proportion of individuals have a sufficiently negative reaction when human trials start, the trial is immediately stopped. Conversely, if the trial medication is astonishingly effective, and no one has a negative reaction, it can become unethical to continue with the comparator or placebo arm (which you know will have worse outcomes than the newly discovered wonder-drug).

I’m no pharma scientist or researcher, but I can only guess that the number of serious adverse reactions (as awful as they would have been for the individuals involved) were rare in comparison to the much larger number of people who had no adverse reaction and got the benefits of the medication.

I can’t think of anything that is completely and absolutely safe with no documented risk. Even purified drinking water can cause major problems if you drink too much of it. At marathons it is apparently overhydration that is a bigger risk than dehydration, and can lead to collapse and serious harm. And yet if you don’t drink any water because of the potential risk of harm, you will surely die.

Food is a choking hazard. There are documented cases every year of people choking to death. Some foods give rise to allergies in some people, with debilitating or potentially fatal consequences. So food is not safe in the sense of never causing harm to anyone. But Governments still insist on parents feeding their children. And if a parent decided that they would not feed their children because they had “done their own research” into incidence of food poisoning, food allergies, choking hazards, and were worried about the very real risks that food presented, action would be taken.

 

[CliffH]

Hi DocB,

My point is much simpler though. It doesn't rely upon any expertise, any knowledge, any intellect or discussion.

Words have meaning. Without meaning, words are meaningless.

Definition is the starting point no matter what field, context or industry and I don't think it unreasonable to want to know what is meant by the word "safe" in the context it's being used/sold. E.g additives to animal feed.

I know that in the pharmaceutical industry "safe" is defined as the "benefits outweigh the risks". To me, this definition has nothing to do with safety. Whereas, in other industries, "safe" is something that is measured. With each event being logged and that at some point, it would be declared unsafe. In the pharmaceutical industry, post release, these events will just get added to the safety sheet, not necessarily declared unsafe.

I think of it more as a continuum between 'safe' and 'unsafe', in any walk of life. That is, an earthquake would be very close to the extreme 'unsafe' end of the scale - but it's still just about possible to survive an earthquake. A kitten is very close to the extreme 'safe' end from an adult human's perspective - but a scratch from its claws might still cause blood poisoning. So, I'm not sure that there's much point trying to conceptualise things as completely either 'safe' or 'unsafe'.

Also, our perceptions of safety change over time, for cultural reasons and with the benefit of hindsight. When I was a child, the idea that talcum powder might be in any way unsafe would have seemed ridiculous - just as cigarettes were regarded as medically benign a hundred years ago.

Bringing it closer to home, drinking a can of Coke a day would be trivial for most people - but potentially an unsafe thing to do for those of us with Type 1.