November 19, 2004

Weekly Writing Assignment

Since beginning my paper of Chronic Wasting Disease, I have not only learned a great deal about my side of the controversy but about the other side as well. Those who believe CWD is a dangerous threat and support drastic action to curb the problem do make some points that I find hard to refute. First and foremost, CWD is a relatively new disease, which has only been in recognized in the last 30 years. As a result we do not have a great deal of evidence supporting either side. However when I try to argue that the meat from cervids in safe to consume I do not have long term scientific studies. So far CWD has not passed from animal to humans. Yet the other side can use the fact that more testing needs to be done and that we cannot assume safety standards. This argument is popular among the general public. I can argue all day that we have not had any transmission to humans, but the fact of the matter is that we do not have hard, irrefutable evidence for either side. Those on the opposing side say that it is better to be safe and wait until long term testing is completed.
It seems that the argument I have taken on is logical and would probably win support for the opposing side; I have found a way to counter this. While I may accept the fact that there is some inherent risk in consuming meat from cervids that carry CWD, I would also like to point out the risks we take every day. Each and every day thousands of people flock to grocery stores to pick up beef, pork, and chicken out of meat cases. Each time this is done the person is taking a risk. There have been hundreds of meat recalls because of contamination, and these contaminations have led to deaths. Cervids on the other hand have not killed anyone and to this day all evidence has pointed to CWD not passing to humans. In my argument I am essentially trying to bring CWD back into perspective.

Posted by firn0004 at November 19, 2004 11:19 AM