Our Tax Dollars Hard At Work... Obstructing Reason & Safety

Stop: Don't Test Those Cows!

Late last month, Creekstone Farms, a Kansas-based beef company, sued the United States Department of Agriculture. The reason? Creekstone wants to use tests for mad cow disease on all of the cattle it slaughters, and the U.S.D.A. won't let it.

Okay, someone explain to me how this makes any sense.

In contrast, the U.S.D.A.'s testing program for mad cow disease tests only high-risk cattle — those that die on the farm, can't walk or are obviously sick. In other words, the department tests about 1 percent of the 35 million cattle that are slaughtered in this country every year. It believes, based on its statistical models, that testing 1 percent is plenty. We disagree.

So do the rest of us... Who the hell taught these folks statistics? The idea of sampling a statistical population is based on the idea that the sampling is random. But we do not want to be random in matters of transmitting dangerous diseases, do we?

Why would the U.S.D.A. stop a cattle company from voluntarily meeting a higher standard than the one required by law? The very idea sounds counterintuitive. But then so does the agency's rationale. The U.S.D.A. argues that 100 percent testing would not guarantee food safety because mad cow disease can be hard to detect in younger cattle — the very cows that a premium beef company like Creekstone is most likely to slaughter.

As I understand the BSE disease (aka Mad Cow Disease) it is transmittable only when the prions are developed in the brain and neurological tissues, which usually happens after the first year of growth.... and the neurological tissues need to be present in order for the disease to be transmitted. So, if the younger cows are slaughtered in a safe manner where all neurological and ailimentary canal contents (where e. coli is found) are handled carefully and excluded from the processing of the beef, then the risk is almost nil. The logic of the USDA folks is inherently flawed. We must ask ourselves what other motivations are present?

To us, this sounds like nonsense — as if we were more likely to be safe by following a testing plan based on statistical modeling of the beef supply than by actually testing all the cattle.

Considering that the sampling methodology is inhrerently flawed ab initio, then we can safely assume that the methodology is not safe.

We agree that private testing is not the way to go in the long run. It wouldn't make much sense to have a national system made up of a few large producers that tested all their cattle while only 1 percent of everyone else's were tested. But there is a simple solution for that.

But that requires that we are willing to establish a network of properly trained and thoroughly committed food safety experts, and a system of inspection, regulations, laws and enforcement that is commensurate with the risks of a contaminated food supply. This is an area that should also fall under the idea (not the DHS) of preventing terrorist activity and promoting public health. In the long run, it will also promote our trade status. A 100% tested status of our beef, especially in a system with rigid and tough standards, would make our beef more marketable to markets that are already concerned about our beef supply. If we took this one step further and worked out a cooperative testing plan with Mexico and Canada, we would improve our health, safety and commerce.

The U.S.D.A. should test every cow that goes to slaughter. The cost is not prohibitive. Fear is the problem. The current testing program for mad cow disease is intended to produce, at best, a snapshot of the likelihood of the disease. The program rests on assumptions that reflect, as assumptions tend to do, only what we know already, and we do not know nearly enough about mad cow disease.

If we extend that idea to include testing every time these cattle are exchanged for breeding purposes, transported to different ranches or grazing areas, and before the slaughter, we would improve our lot in beef.

The fear is that broad testing may reveal a higher rate of infection and destroy consumer confidence, with a devastating impact on the cattle market. Which leaves us where we are now: relying on what we don't know to make us feel safe.

AHA! We now see the other concerns... These are the concerns of the beef industry and their lobbyists... and like the FDA, the USDA seems to be more concerned with the issues of big business than our nation at-large.