'Mad Cowboy' says you're safer with organic beef
cowsense wrote;
>>>OT......Could any Montanans give us some background on Lyman.....I can't fathom how a so-called rancher could resort to vegan activism against his so-called friends! The only thing that bothers me worse about this is the myriad of viewers that rely on Oprah for their view of the world <<<
IF everyone had a view on the world as Oprah does, the world would be a much better place.
she just gave away 10 million and built a complete neighborhood here in the Houston Texas area for relocated Katrina victims. All her work in Africa and other places, she is an earth angel. i think most folks here and other places that don't like her is because she is a rich black woman. Old howard just sent me a copy of his new book, follow up on his other book the mad cowboy. the follow up book is NO MORE BULL. he recently did a radio show here in Houston about his new book and mad cow disease, and the other diseases he can relate too from his experience as a Rancher and his heart ailments. smart guy. too bad some here take his actions as a stab in the back.
http://www.madcowboy.com/02_VVFprods.002.html
soapweed wrote;
>>> I smarted off and said, "Well, Oprah shouldn't worry about getting mad cow disease. She's already got it." My quick thinking uncle immediately replied, "Well, I don't know if she's got mad cow disease, but she has sure got Blackleg." <<<
WHO got the last laugh though
Miss Oprah, Lyman and there attorney Chuch Babcock, gave old Engler of Cactus Cattle feeders and others a good spanken, twice actually, it was a slam dunk, nothing but net. this is what you call, shooting yourself in both feet;-)
Web posted Friday, January 23, 1998 5:49 a.m. CT
Witness testifies some ill cattle sent to rendering plant
By CHIP CHANDLER
Globe-News Staff Writer
A senior vice president of Cactus Feeders Inc. testified Thursday that cattle with central nervous system diseases were sent to a rendering plant.
Attorneys for talk-show host Oprah Winfrey tried to link those diseases with mad cow disease during a sometimes heated cross-examination.
Mike Engler -- son of Paul Engler, the original plaintiff and owner of Cactus Feeders Inc. -- agreed that more than 10 cows with some sort of central nervous system disorder were sent to Hereford By-Products.
The younger Engler, who has a doctorate in biochemistry from Johns Hopkins University, was the only witness jurors heard Thursday in the Oprah Winfrey defamation trial. His testimony will resume this morning.
According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report from which Winfrey attorney Charles Babcock quoted, encephalitis caused by unknown reasons could be a warning sign for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.
Encephalitis was indicated on the death certificates -- or ``dead slips'' -- of three Cactus Feeders cows discussed in court. The slips then were stamped, ``Picked up by your local used cattle dealer'' before the carcasses were taken to the rendering plant.
Under later questioning by plaintiff's attorney Joseph Coyne, Engler said he thought symptoms of encephomyolitis, which include the cow keeping its head locked in an upright position, were ``inconsistent with what was observed in England'' with BSE-infected cattle.
Engler and Babcock sparred frequently as the afternoon's testimony wore on. Most of their squabbles centered on what was said during the April 16, 1996, ``Oprah Winfrey Show,'' the episode that sparked the lawsuit. Engler said during direct testimony that he felt the show contained numerous false statements.
He said Winfrey and guest Howard Lyman seemed to say that the cattle industry was not in favor of a ban on ruminant feed, believed to have caused the spread of mad cow disease in England. Such feed includes processed animal parts.
He said the cattle industry had asked the Food and Drug Administration to impose a mandatory ban on that feed weeks before the show aired.
One significant exchange centered around whether Cactus Feeders or any of the plaintiffs were mentioned by name during the show.
Babcock asked Engler to point out on the show's transcript where they were mentioned.
Engler said he could not, but said, ``When you talk about beef producers in the United States, and we're (Cactus Feeders) the largest cattle feeder in the U.S., then I kinda feel like you're talking about us.''
The plaintiffs are suing, in part, under Texas' False Disparagement of Foods Act, meaning they will have to prove the defendants specifically disparaged the plaintiffs' products.
During direct testimony on Thursday morning, Engler outlined the standard procedures for feeding cattle in feedlots. To do so, he mixed in a large, clear plastic bowl the ingredients that would make up the 20 pounds of feed a feed-yard animal eats per day.
The recipe contained 78 percent steamed, flaked whole corn; 10 percent roughage; 3 percent liquid fat; 2 percent molasses; and 1 percent vitamins and pharmaceuticals, Engler said. The remainder would be a supplement, an ingredient bought from feed manufacturers to provide protein. This portion would be made primarily of cottonseed or soybean meal, but could contain meat and bone meal.
Before this summer, that meal could have contained rendered cattle parts, which is believed to have contributed to the spread of mad cow disease in England, Engler said. The government issued a mandatory ban on such feed on Aug. 4.
Later, Babcock and Engler fought over Lyman's statement that ``cows are eating cows.''
Engler would not concede, as Babcock wanted, that rendered cows can still be considered cows when part of bone and meat meal.
Corn is processed into fructose, which is then used in soft drinks, Engler said.
``When people drink Cokes, they don't say they're drinking corn,'' he said, arguing that a similar process happens with rendered cows.
During the day's testimony, Engler also said statements by Lyman were inflammatory and false.
He said the statement ``100,000 cattle are fine at night, dead in the morning,'' made by Lyman, is untrue.
``It simply doesn't happen,'' Engler said, adding that most cattle that die are the victims of lengthy illnesses with symptoms that are tracked.
When questioned by Lyman's attorney, Barry Peterson, Engler said he did not know whether cattle with BSE might have been imported from England or other countries before bans on those countries' cattle were enacted.
Peterson focused on the only known case of BSE in Canada. He said cattle from that herd were brought to America. Though most were found and destroyed, some could not be located, he said.
``You can't tell me today that some of those cattle were not turned over to a renderer?'' Peterson asked.
``Nor can I say they were,'' Engler answered.
Winfrey appeared tired during testimony, at times resting her face in her hand. The eight-woman, four-man jury appeared attentive through most of Thursday's testimony, though by the end of the day, some seemed restless.
http://amarillo.com/stories/012398/cattle.shtml
Engler's son on the witness stand
Cattlemen vs. Oprah Winfrey
By CHIP CHANDLER
Globe-News Staff Writer
A senior vice president of Cactus Feeders Inc. said Thursday that it was possible that cattle with what the defense characterized as mad cowlike symptoms were sent to a rendering plant.
Mike Engler - son of Paul Engler, the original plaintiff and owner of Cactus Feeder Inc. - agreed that more than 10 cows with some sort of central nervous disorder were sent to Hereford By-Products. He made the statements during a cross-examination that at times grew heated.
The younger Engler, who has a doctorate in biochemistry from Johns Hopkins University, was the only witness jurors heard Thursday in the Oprah Winfrey defamation trial. Testimony will resume Friday morning.
According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report from which Winfrey attorney Charles Babcock quoted, encephalitis caused by unknown reasons could be a warning sign for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.
Encephalitis was indicated on the death certificates - or "dead slips" - of three Cactus Feeders cows. The slips then were stamped, "Picked up by your local used cattle dealer" before the carcasses were taken to the rendering plant.
Under later questioning by plaintiff's attorney Joseph Coyne, Engler said he thinks symptoms of encephomyolitis, which include the cow keeping its head locked in an upright position, were "inconsistent with what was observed in England" with BSE-infected cattle.
Engler and Babcock sparred frequently as the afternoon's testimony wore on. Most of their squabbles centered on what was said during the April 16, 1996, "Oprah Winfrey Show," the episode that sparked the lawsuit.
One significant exchange centered around whether Cactus Feeders or any of the plaintiffs were mentioned by name during the show.
Babcock asked Engler to point out on the show's transcript where they were mentioned.
Engler said he could not, but said, "When you talk about beef producers in the United States, and we're (Cactus Feeders) the largest cattle feeder in the U.S., then I kinda feel like you're talking about us."
The plaintiffs are suing, in part, under Texas' False Disparagement of Foods Act, meaning they will have to prove the defendants specifically disparaged the plaintiffs' products.
During direct testimony, Engler outlined the standard procedures for feeding cattle in feedlots. To do so, he mixed in a large, clear plastic bowl the ingredients that would make up the 20 pounds of feed a feed-yard animal eats per day.
The recipe contained 78 percent steamed, flaked whole corn; 10 percent roughage; 3 percent liquid fat; 2 percent molasses; and 1 percent vitamins and pharmaceuticals, Engler said. The remainder would be a supplement, an ingredient bought from feed manufacturers to provide protein. This portion would be made primarily of cottonseed or soybean meal, but could contain meat and bone meal.
Before this summer, that meal could have contained rendered cattle parts, which is believed to have contributed to the spread of mad cow disease in England, Engler said. The government issued a mandatory ban on such feed on Aug. 4.
Engler also said statements by defendant Howard Lyman, a guest on the April 1996 show, were inflammatory and false.
He said the statement "100,000 cattle are fine at night, dead in the morning," made by Lyman, is untrue.
"It simply doesn't happen," Engler said, adding that most cattle that die are the victims of lengthy illnesses with symptoms that are tracked.
http://amarillo.com/stories/012298/022-3228.shtml
Web posted Wednesday, February 18, 1998 2:02 p.m. CT
Graphic pictures greet Winfrey jury
By KAY LEDBETTER
Globe-News Farm and Ranch Editor
Pictures of sheep heads, euthanized pets and roadkill greeted jurors this morning as they returned to the continuation of the cattlemen vs. Oprah Winfrey lawsuit.
The lawsuit continues today in U.S. District Mary Lou Robinson's court, but in a much diminished state.
Robinson, after hearing a day of arguments, granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the case in part. The jury will not consider defamation and false disparagement of food issues, Robinson ruled, but the trial will move forward on the common-law business disparagement cause of action.
Defense lawyer Charles Babcock called Van Smith, a City Paper reporter from Baltimore who had written an article on rendering plants in September 1995.
Smith and Babcock went through more than 50 pictures taken as the reporter toured the Valley Proteins plant in Baltimore and followed a rendering truck to the local animal shelter, a sausage plant and a slaughterhouse.
The pictures showed offal being emptied from the slaughterhouses. They showed animal shelter workers in the euthanasia room; barrels of dead animals in a refrigerated room at the animal shelter; waste meat from the sausage plant; and dead sheep from the slaughterhouse.
Babcock used the pictures to back up a statement made by defendant Howard Lyman on "The Oprah Winfrey Show."
Lyman's statement was, "well, what it comes down to is about half the slaughter of ... animals is not salable to humans.
"They either have to pay to have to put it into the dump, or they sell it for feed; they grind it up, turn it into what looks like brown sugar, add it to all of the animals that died unexpectedly, all of the roadkills, and the euthanized animals - add it to them, grind it up and feed it back to other animals."
Babcock also said sheep were a part of this process, contrary to what he said plaintiff Paul Engler earlier testified, that a voluntary ban on sheep in the rendering plant was being followed.
Joseph Coyne, plaintiff's attorney, asked Smith what type of newspaper he wrote for. City Paper is a free alternative weekly paper with a circulation of 91,000 that Coyne said published "the bizarre and offbeat."
"Really gross, wasn't it," coyne asked Smith, referring to the pictures. Smith agreed and also said Coyne was right when he said something had to be done with the pets and animals that people do not take care of.
"There are a lot of elements in society that have to take responsibility for this problem," Smith. "The rendering industry is quietly trying to take care of it."
Without saying why, Robinson has taken the lawsuit out from under the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Foods law, or "veggie libel law."
The plaintiffs, in their response to the defendants' motions for dismissal, said the general elements of a claim for business disparagement are publication by the defendant of disparaging words, falsity, malice and special damages.
The case focuses on comments made during a segment of Winfrey's April 16, 1996, television show on "Dangerous Foods."
Babcock argued Tuesday that there is no "clear and convincing evidence of actual malice," that is, evidence that Winfrey and Harpo Productions knew, at the time of publication, the statements were false.
Babcock said plaintiffs and their witnesses actually testified that Winfrey seemed sincere and wanted to be fair to the industry.
Coyne said the program directly caused the price of cattle to drop and that the plaintiffs suffered losses on the sale of their live cattle and the sale of their cattle on the futures market.
He said the sale of cattle is different from that of a product such as a car, where each maker or producer can identify specific products. With the beef industry, the consumer cannot distinguish between the different producers' products, which means the show was "of and concerning" these plaintiffs.
http://amarillo.com/stories/021898/graphic.shtml
Web posted Friday, February 27, 1998 3:29 p.m. CT
Talk-show host Oprah Winfrey pumps her fist Thursday morning as she greets fans and media outside the federal courthouse. Winfrey said she was pleased with the verdict. (Henry Bargas/Globe-News)
Winfrey wins one for free speech
By CHIP CHANDLER
Globe-News Staff Writer
Trumpeting a victory for free speech, Oprah Winfrey exited Amarillo's federal district courthouse on Thursday a relieved woman after jurors unanimously said she was not liable for statements made on a 1996 talk show.
Plaintiffs quickly said they planned to appeal the verdict.
"My reaction is that free speech not only lives, it rocks!" Winfrey said to a throng of reporters and well wishers gathered in front of the courthouse.
Jurors returned their verdict shortly before 11 a.m. Thursday, deciding that Winfrey, Harpo Productions Inc. and Howard Lyman did not say or air false and disparaging statements about cattle owned by the plaintiffs on Winfrey's April 16, 1996, show.
Winfrey, holding back a widening grin as the jurors left the courtroom, appeared to wipe away tears. She later buried her face in her hands and cried.
Reaction was more subdued from the cattlemen who challenged Winfrey in their home territory.
In the courtroom, they exchanged handshakes and well wishes with their opponents.
Paul Engler, who was the first to file suit against Winfrey, congratulated the talk-show host.
"She worked hard all the way through it just like the rest of us. . . . Of course, we wanted to win," he said.
He did not back down from his belief that Winfrey and her guest made false statements about U.S. beef, nor that Winfrey's talk show was sensationalistic.
"If they're giving opinions, I think they should state they're giving opinions. . . . I want to see responsible reporting and responsible talk-show hosts," he said.
Attorneys for the cattlemen said their case might have been lost when the judge ruled that jurors had to decide that Winfrey's show specifically referred to the cattle owned by Engler, Texas Beef Group and other plaintiffs.
None of the plaintiffs were mentioned by name in the show.
The eight-woman, four-man jury deliberated about 5 1/2 hours over two days before reaching its verdict. The trial lasted almost 27 days over six weeks.
The cattlemen had sought more than $10 million in damages they said was caused by sales losses. Instead, they may have to pay Winfrey some money.
Charles Babcock, Winfrey's lead attorney, said he would ask the judge to order the plaintiffs to pay for his client's court costs. He estimated the cost at $100,000.
He said he likely would not ask for attorneys' fees from the plaintiffs.
Engler and other cattlemen across the country said they did gain a partial victory in the trial: getting out a message that American beef is safe.
But Winfrey said the verdict's message was a definite victory for the First Amendment.
"I have come from a people who struggled for a voice, and I was not about to give it up because two Texas cattlemen wanted me to be silenced," she said.
"I believe I'm one of those people who probably took (free speech) for granted, and I will never be that way again," she said.
Presiding juror Christy Sams said both sides made strong cases.
"There were valid points on both sides, and we just took the facts as we were presented them and made our decision. . . . I think we based it mainly on the facts," she said.
She said she agreed with plaintiffs' arguments that free speech must come with responsibility, but that Winfrey didn't harm anyone.
But, she added, "I think basically it came close to crossing the line."
http://amarillo.com/stories/022798/022-3318.shtml
TSS
