It all depends who you ask, as they all have a saying in this case: the animal, the producer, the renderer, the consumer. I am going to prepare a detailed article on this topic, but let me say briefly that it is consumers who run the highest risk in this issue, namely their health.

CLICK TO TWEET THIS: What's wrong with feeding #animalbyproducts? Ioannis Mavromichalis starts the discussion. #animalfeed http://ctt.ec/X7WfF+

It is true; nobody wants to pay more than they have to for their food, but at the same time we all want to make sure this food is not going to kill us. And, in my opinion, this is the root of the whole issue. Taking a consumer’s point of view, we are faced with such media-enhanced freak stories as mad-cow disease, toxins in milk, and Salmonella in eggs and meat. It is no wonder some consumers might start to believe it would be best to convert pigs and poultry to vegetarians (a paradox for people who are going to consume animal products).

But, is this the correct solution? I think not.

Instead, I think we must work harder and invest heavily towards enhancing the quality control and safety of animal by-products, starting from farm level, bringing up the pressure at the slaughterhouse, and then doing the utmost possible during rendering and storage. In my opinion, a ban is never as effective as finding the correct way to resolve an issue by providing viable alternatives and restricting usage to correct applications. We cannot ban humans from consuming peanuts because they might be a source of mycotoxins as much as we cannot ban cereals from animal diets for the very same reason. We did not ban all antibiotics in animal farming, but we restricted their use to therapy, whereas we found viable alternatives for growth promotion. We should work along similar principles when it comes to animal by-products.