For Immediate Release: May 18, 2023
Contact: R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard
Phone: 406-252-2516; r-calfusa@r-calfusa.com
Please find below R-CALF USA’s weekly opinion/commentary that discusses how a cattle industry publication refused to publish a rebuttal regarding the safety of mRNA injections in cattle. It is in three formats: written, audio and video. Anyone is welcome to use it for broadcasting or reporting.
Is This Fake News?
Commentary by Bill Bullard, CEO, R-CALF USA
I looked up the definition of “fake news” in the online Cambridge Dictionary. It states it is “false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke.”
So, let’s apply this definition to the following circumstance:
Late last month, Drovers magazine published a “news” article written by its Editorial Director Greg Henderson titled, “mRNA Conspiracy Theories: Ranch Group Offers ‘Fearmongering’ and ‘Misinformation.’”
The Drovers “news” article took exception to a news release and related commentary by R-CALF USA regarding the experimental drug known as mRNA or messenger ribonucleic acid.
Cattle producers from around the country have been asking R-CALF USA what this new drug was that was being offered as a new kind of vaccine. So, R-CALF USA enlisted the help of its Animal Health Committee Chair, Robert Thornsberry, DVM.
What R-CALF USA found was that this new drug did not fit the traditional definition of a vaccine used in cattle as those vaccines typically involve an injection of an actual virus or bacteria that had been weakened so it does not actually cause the disease; but, instead, the weakened virus or bacteria would be met by the animal’s immune system that would then build an immunity toward the particular disease the vaccine was designed to immunize against.
But the mRNA drug was not that because it did not contain an actual virus or bacteria. Instead, it contains a synthetically produced genetic code that tricks the body into developing some level of immunity towards whatever disease the synthetically produced genetic code was targeting. Because of this difference, Dr. Thornsberry refers to mRNA as an injection, not a vaccine.
Now the federal government has granted only emergency use authorization for mRNA injections in humans. But it has not approved mRNA at all for cattle. This is why I refer to mRNA as an experimental drug or injection because it has not yet achieved full government approval.
The logical questions that cattle producers and consumers have are whether mRNA is safe for cattle, whether it affects an animal’s genetic makeup, and whether the meat from an injected animal could transfer the mRNA to humans.
R-CALF USA found scientific studies that question the safety of mRNA and raise concerns that there is a possibility that mRNA can alter the genetic makeup of an animal, and that it could be transferred in the animal’s tissues.
Most importantly, R-CALF USA made clear that “because the research on mRNA is still in its infancy, no one really knows the full impact it has on either humans or animals, particularly its long-term impact” and “this itself warrants more extensive mRNA research focused on safety…”
We then said that Congress should enact mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL) for beef so consumers can choose to buy beef from cattle raised in the U.S. or from some foreign country that could already be using mRNA.
So, while the Drovers article accused R-CALF USA of fearmongering and misinformation, it stated that, “No food safety risk exists for meat from animals that have received any vaccination,” and it encouraged readers to celebrate the advances in technology, which would presumably include mRNA injections.
Remember, Drovers has dismissed producer and consumer concerns for the safety of mRNA and it definitively states what mRNA will and will not do even though the research is so new regarding this new injection that it has received neither unqualified government approval for humans nor any approval for cattle.
So, R-CALF USA submitted a rebuttal to Drovers’ attacks replete with citations to several actual scientific studies that raise the safety concerns expressed by R-CALF USA.
Guess what Drovers did.
It refused to publish R-CALF USA’s rebuttal.
Drovers claims that its experts found that the studies cited by R-CALF USA are unreliable, that R-CALF USA’s conclusions are inconsistent with the overall scientific community on mRNA; and get this: Drover’s believes R-CALF USA’s rebuttal will do nothing but confuse readers and producers even more and they and consumers will be needlessly alarmed and beef demand will be damaged.
Hmm. So, it seems Drovers believes its readers, producers and consumers lack sufficient intelligence to consider the two sides of this important debate and that they should simply accept the mainstreams’ assurances regarding mRNA’s safety. And they should do this even though our government scientists responsible for determining the safety of mRNA have not yet made such a determination.
Can we conclude that Drovers is engaged in fake news by prematurely asserting mRNA’s safety before mRNA has even been approved for cattle and by quashing the public’s opportunity to weigh the competing sides of this important issue?
This is for you to decide. But in the end, let’s be sure we get this right or beef demand will be damaged.
###
R-CALF USA’s weekly opinion/commentary educates and informs both consumers and producers about timely issues important to the U.S. cattle industry and Rural America.
R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America) is the largest producer-only trade association in the United States. It is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. For more information visit www.r-calfusa.com or call (406) 252-2516.
