Increased "Mad Cow" (BSE) screening fails first test

Ali Bay
Capital Press Staff Writer

An attempt to create policy supporting increased testing for mad cow disease is losing momentum at the state Capitol.

Last week lawmakers convened a special hearing on the brain-wasting ailment called bovine spongiform encephalopathy. A panel of experts discussed the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s enhanced BSE surveillance program in light of a proposed state resolution that would, if passed, ask the federal government to allow voluntary testing by private companies.

The resolution, SJR 16, was introduced in July (following the discovery of a positive BSE case in Texas) by Sen. Mike Machado, D-Linden. A spokesman for Machado, a Central Valley farmer, said the legislator hopes to encourage the federal government to improve its protections related to mad cow disease.

While members of the Senate Agriculture Committee failed to pass the resolution on Aug. 16, the proposed measure will get a second reconsideration hearing soon.

Members of California’s beef industry have passionately opposed the resolution and any attempts to allow beef processors to privately test their cattle for BSE. Beefing up testing requirements at the federal level or allowing private testing isn’t justified, cattle leaders argue.

“If we were to test 100 percent of our cattle in California, or you could even say in the United States ... you’re testing a population (of cattle) that is not going to have the disease,” said Bud Sloan, a rancher and veterinarian who chairs the cattle health committee for the California Cattlemen’s Association. Sloan said about 90 percent of the cattle slaughtered in California will be younger than 30 months of age. Few animals that young have been found to carry the disease.

“As far as we know, there are no producers in the state of California that are asking for extensive testing like the 100 percent that Japan is doing at this time,” said Sloan.

Some private slaughterhouses have asked the USDA for permission to test their cattle suing the federally approved rapid test kit in order to meet Japanese import requirements. The federal government, however, has denied those requests citing its authority to regulate animal testing and licensing of test kits.

Consumer advocates feel increased testing makes sense and should be allowed. It’s better to be safe than sorry, they argue.

“We just feel all cows over 20 months of age should be tested in the United States,” said Elisa Odabashian, a senior policy analyst for Consumers Union in San Francisco. “We don’t think the USDA is doing enough. Of the cows killed this year in the U.S. 99 percent of them aren’t being looked at.”

In Japan, where mandatory BSE testing was launched after public outrage followed the discovery of several animals with the disease, a few cows just over the age of 20 months have tested positive for mad cow.

“We’re trying to push the USDA to be more vigilant and to do more to protect consumers from BSE,” said Odabashian. “Eventually you’re going to find more cows in the U.S. with BSE. There will be more the more they look.”

A person who eats BSE infected meat (generally believed to be brain and spinal chord tissue) could contract the fatal Crutzfeldt-Jacob disease.

For that reason, Machado and the Consumers Union have both criticized what they call “loopholes” in the federal feed ban rule. While the Food and Drug Administration in 1997 banned the use of most animal proteins in feed intended for cattle and other ruminants, blood and blood products as well as poultry litter can still be fed to cattle.

“So in essence, you can still feed cows to cows, which is the way (BSE) is transmitted,” said Odabashian.

But to date, the prions that cause the degenerative disease have not been found in blood. Beef organizations like CCA don’t oppose a ban on feeding poultry litter to cattle, but they do oppose a ban on blood and blood products.

The disease is found in an animal’s central nervous system, said Sloan. “What modern science tells us is that it’s not found there (in blood), and this is a safe product,” he said.

CCA leaders feel this issue is not one of food safety. It’s an animal health issue – and consumers should have little to worry about.

If consumers do fear the safety of beef products, they certainly aren’t indicating that in the marketplace.

“Consumers in the U.S. have expressed an overwhelming confidence in the safety of the U.S. beef supply,” said Susan LaGrande, vice president of government relations for CCA. “In fact, independent research strongly indicates that confidence in the safety of the U.S. beef supply has actually increased in the wake of the finding of two cases of BSE on U.S. soil,” she said.

If the beef industry is so certain of the safety of their products, the Consumers Union questions why it doesn’t support increased testing and surveillance.

“If (private) producers are willing to pay for it and consumers are willing to pay for it ... why aren’t they willing to let people do it,” said Odabashian.

She also argues that just because demand is increasing doesn’t mean a product is safe.

Increased consumption “says that people really love beef, and that’s great,” she said. “But consumer confidence has never been a great arbiter of whether something is safe or not.”

Ali Bay is based in Davis, Calif. Her e-mail address is abay@capitalpress.com.
<-->