US scaling back testing

[Bill]

Despite third case, government scaling back mad-cow testing

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:56 AM PST

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite the confirmation of a third case of mad cow disease, the government intends to scale back testing for the brain-wasting disorder blamed for the deaths of more than 150 people in Europe.

The Agriculture Department boosted its surveillance after finding the first case of mad cow disease in the United States in 2003. About 1,000 tests are run daily, up from about 55 daily in 2003.

The testing program detected an infected cow in Alabama last week, and further analysis confirmed Monday that the animal had mad cow disease.


Still, a reduction in testing has been in the works for months. The department's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, mentioned it when he announced the new case of mad cow disease, and said the United States will follow international standards for testing.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns pointed out testing is not a food safety measure. Rather, it's a way to find out the prevalence of the disease.

"Keep in mind the testing was for surveillance," Johanns told reporters Monday in Warsaw, Poland, where he was attending trade talks. "It was to get an idea of the condition of the herd."

Higher testing levels were intended to be temporary when they were announced two years ago.

Yet consumer groups argue more animals should be tested, not fewer. Officials haven't finalized new levels, but the department's budget proposal calls for 40,000 tests annually, or about 110 daily.

"This would be a tenth of a percent of all animals slaughtered," Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union, said Tuesday. "This starts to be so small that in our opinion, it approaches a policy of don't look, don't find."

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin said the confidence of American consumers and foreign customers is at risk.

"USDA ought to continue a sound surveillance testing program to demonstrate that U.S. beef is indeed safe and that anti-BSE safeguards are, in fact, working," said Harkin, senior Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Consumer groups want every animal to be tested, and that is not realistic, said Gary Weber, head of regulatory affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association in Denver.

 

[mrj]

Bill, do you know the source of that story, the writer or newsservice it came from?

It would be helpful if Johanns has stated that the protocol for the testing, the most at-risk animals tested in the highest numbers (more than 650,000 in recent story about it), the 20,000 + of healthy older cows tested, and the time frame for the testing, was all designed by top scholars from the best universities in the nation to show the prevalence of BSE in the US cattle herd if there should be so few as 15 (not totally certain of the exact number, but think this is fair representation of it) positives in the entire US cattle herd.

If this system of testing, and the protocol design for it is flawed, then why shouldn't the entire body of work and all the things based upon it, for the entire US university systems should be discounted or eliminated as flawed, too.

Does Sen. Harkin also discount the entire international scientific community as not knowing what they are doing, since the US program for testing and reaction to BSE is based upon the recommendations from that body? Or could he be using this issue for campaigning on the back of the cattle industry and consumers ?

I agree with Dr. Weber that testing every animal is not realistic, and would add that according to the best scientists in the world, it is not necessary for human safety.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Bill, do you know the source of that story, the writer or newsservice it came from?

It would be helpful if Johanns has stated that the protocol for the testing, the most at-risk animals tested in the highest numbers (more than 650,000 in recent story about it), the 20,000 + of healthy older cows tested, and the time frame for the testing, was all designed by top scholars from the best universities in the nation to show the prevalence of BSE in the US cattle herd if there should be so few as 15 (not totally certain of the exact number, but think this is fair representation of it) positives in the entire US cattle herd.

If this system of testing, and the protocol design for it is flawed, then why shouldn't the entire body of work and all the things based upon it, for the entire US university systems should be discounted or eliminated as flawed, too.

Does Sen. Harkin also discount the entire international scientific community as not knowing what they are doing, since the US program for testing and reaction to BSE is based upon the recommendations from that body? Or could he be using this issue for campaigning on the back of the cattle industry and consumers ?

I agree with Dr. Weber that testing every animal is not realistic, and would add that according to the best scientists in the world, it is not necessary for human safety.

MRJ

Does MRJ discount Japan's reluctance to take U.S. beef based on bse or are you going to now say it is all about neckbones? MRJ, you are incredible. Sweep, sweep, sweep under the rug.

 

[Anonymous]

Consumer groups urge U.S. not to cut mad cow tests
WASHINGTON, March 14 (Reuters) - U.S. consumer groups on
Tuesday urged the government to continue its enhanced testing
program for mad cow disease, saying any move to end or
dramatically curb the program would send the wrong message to
Americans and U.S. beef importers.
As the Agriculture Department nears a decision on the
enhanced surveillance program it adopted after the first U.S.
mad cow case, it is gathering input from scientists, industry
officials and others.
An agency official spoke on Monday of "the conclusion" of
the program. Advocates of enhanced testing said the
administration's proposed 2007 budget includes funds for only a
fraction of the cattle tests that have been performed in recent
years.
USDA said on Monday an Alabama beef cow was infected with
mad cow disease, the third time the ailment has been found in
the United States in the past 27 months.
"It seems to be unwise to say you're going to ratchet
it...down right after you've had another positive," said Carol
Tucker Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America. "I don't
know how you explain either to American consumers or to people
in Japan that we want to sell beef to that you're going to stop
looking for something because you found it."
The first case of the disease was found in Washington in
2003. USDA launched an enhanced cattle testing program in June
2004 to look at animals seen at the highest risk for mad cow
disease.
The enhanced program, which was to run for 12 to 18 months,
remains in place. It has tested more than 650,000 animals --
far more than initially planned -- and was responsible for
finding two of the three cases of the brain-waisting cattle
ailment in the United States.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said in January he
would decide the future of the program in "early 2006."
USDA on Monday offered the first hint of its plans when
Agriculture Department Chief Veterinarian John Clifford
mentioned "the conclusion" of the program.
"As we talk about the conclusion of our enhanced
surveillance program I wanted to reiterate and state that
program was to take a snapshot in time to give us an estimate
of prevalence," Clifford said during a telephone news
conference on the new mad cow case.
"That was quite a striking statement," said Jane Halloran,
a policy director for Consumers Union. "The alternative is to
put your head in the sand and ignore the problems. The
consequences of that are potentially disastrous," she added.
Consumers Union, which urged the government to test all
cattle over the age of 20 months at slaughter, said the 2007
fiscal budget provides enough funds to conduct only 40,000
tests, or about 0.1 percent of the 35 million cattle
slaughtered in the United States each year.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, said she opposed
any move by USDA to reduce the testing program.
"I intend to fight any funding proposals that may cause a
decrease in testing and would inevitably reduce the
effectiveness of the system," she said.
So far, global markets have had a muted reaction to the
discovery of the third U.S. case of mad cow.
USDA spokesman Ed Loyd said in responses to e-mail
questions that the overall reaction has been "very measured" as
more countries develop "an increasing understanding worldwide
of (the) safety of U.S. beef."
Two major Asian markets said the new U.S. case would not
cause any immediate change in plans. South Korea was scheduled
to resume U.S. beef purchases in April. Japan and the United
States are discussing refinements to U.S. meat inspections.

 

[rkaiser]

You simply goota love these folks from NCBA who continually hold the Packer line on testing.

If there are 15 head MRJ and you believe the species leaping theory, how many of those 15 do you think are in the guts of human beings as we speak.

If you are going to believe that humans are at risk, you have to believe in testing for crying out loud.

 

[Mike]

I think I read that the Risk Analysis narrowed the projected BSE cases in the U.S. to somewhere between 1 and 100,000?

Matter of fact, the guy interviewed said in the next statement that any projections would be purely speculative.

 

[rkaiser]

R2 to MRJ -

You are a very trusting person when it comes to educated people and people in authority --- you should read and judge them just as you judge everyone else. That wierd statement you make about BSE surveillance reflecting on the entire U.S. academic system is just a stray electron and makes no sense. Sorry.

Here here you little stray electron you. :wink:

 

[Mike]

R2 to MRJ -

You are a very trusting person when it comes to educated people and people in authority --- you should read and judge them just as you judge everyone else. That wierd statement you make about BSE surveillance reflecting on the entire U.S. academic system is just a stray electron and makes no sense. Sorry.

Here here you little stray electron you. :wink:

Wonder if R2 knows what a "Homotron" is? That could be a stray electron also. :wink:

 

[Mike]

What is a homotron?

I was just funnin'. It's a little gay electron that goes around blowing light bulbs. :shock: :shock:

 

[rkaiser]

Whatever R2 - it's time to loosen up. I heard they had mud wrestling at the last rancher.net reunion out west. Are you up for hosting the party next summer in the east?

 

[Anonymous]

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:56 AM PST

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite the confirmation of a third case of mad cow disease, the government intends to scale back testing for the brain-wasting disorder blamed for the deaths of more than 150 people in Europe.



The department's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, mentioned it when he announced the new case of mad cow disease,

Now to me this is just brilliant :idea: Only our USDA could come up with this...Here we find more BSE in the country- we are trying to convince Japan, Hong Kong, and half the world of the safety of our beef and our sincerity at eradicating the disease and keeping our beef safe-- and then they come up with this :???: The same time they are announcing the positive cow, they announce cutting back testing :roll: I thought they'd just hired a new PR person- looks like he/she is a waste of taxpayer dollars....

We won't have to worry about the total cost of what mandatory ID will be to us 5- 10 years from now-- USDA's totally joke BSE program, inactions on M-COOL, failure to enforce the PSA regulations , and love affair with free (but not equal) trade agreements with every beef producing country in the world will have us all bankrupt by then anyway.......

 

[Sandhusker]

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:56 AM PST

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite the confirmation of a third case of mad cow disease, the government intends to scale back testing for the brain-wasting disorder blamed for the deaths of more than 150 people in Europe.



The department's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, mentioned it when he announced the new case of mad cow disease,

Now to me this is just brilliant :idea: Only our USDA could come up with this...Here we find more BSE in the country- we are trying to convince Japan, Hong Kong, and half the world of the safety of our beef and our sincerity at eradicating the disease and keeping our beef safe-- and then they come up with this :???: The same time they are announcing the positive cow, they announce cutting back testing :roll: I thought they'd just hired a new PR person- looks like he/she is a waste of taxpayer dollars....

We won't have to worry about the total cost of what mandatory ID will be to us 5- 10 years from now-- USDA's totally joke BSE program, inactions on M-COOL, failure to enforce the PSA regulations , and love affair with free (but not equal) trade agreements with every beef producing country in the world will have us all bankrupt by then anyway.......

Have you noticed that every time a country closes to us, testing is mentioned? Our foreign customers clearly are not happy with our level of testing. What does the USDA do, they test less and forbid anybody from testing. Makes you want to beat your head against a wall...

 

[rkaiser]

Brings a whole new meaning to the words "captive supply " now doesn't it. Are the packer suffering from this prolonged BSE debacle? Not a chance.

 

[Anonymous]

Japan urges U.S. not to scale down mad cow testing
TOKYO, March 16 (Reuters) - Japanese consumers, already wary of eating U.S. beef due to mad cow fears, will become even more concerned if the United States goes ahead with plans to cut back on its mad cow testing, a government official said on Thursday.

The U.S. Agriculture Department is drawing plans to scale down its mad cow surveillance programme that found two of the three U.S. cases of the disease, including one this week.

Japanese experts and consumer groups have said the current U.S. programme to test only 1 percent of the 35 million cattle slaughtered in the United States each year is insufficient, compared with the Japanese system that requires all cattle aged 21 months or older to be tested for mad cow disease.

"Japanese consumers are concerned about the U.S. way of conducting surveillance," Japanese Vice Agriculture Minister Mamoru Ishihara said at a news conference on Thursday.

Ishihara said U.S. beef would not win Japanese consumers' confidence unless the United States properly carries out its mad cow surveillance programme.

"American beef won't sell in Japan unless they regain trust from Japanese consumers," he said.

Since June 2004, the USDA has tested more than 650,000 head, mostly older and higher-risk cattle, for mad cow disease through its so-called expanded surveillance programme. The programme initially was expected to run 12 to 18 months.

Acting Undersecretary of Agriculture Chuck Lambert said on Wednesday the USDA would shift to a "maintenance" programme that would test fewer cattle and monitor the effectiveness of U.S. safeguards.

"By any stretch of the imagination, we have proven we have a very low incidence," Lambert said.

Japan banned imports of American beef in December 2003, following the discovery of the first U.S. mad cow case in Washington state. Before the ban, Japan was the top importer of U.S. beef, with imports valued at $1.4 billion in 2003.

Last December Japan lifted its ban on imports of beef and beef offal from U.S. cattle aged up to 20 months, on condition that specified risk material that could transmit mad cow disease, such as spinal cords, were removed before the meat was shipped.

But the ban was reinstated just a month later after Japanese inspectors discovered banned cattle parts in a veal shipment from New York.

The Japanese government has said it cannot allow U.S. beef imports to resume until Washington finds the cause of the violation and takes steps to prevent a recurrence.

 

[don]

r2: I believe that the USDA has a PR and communications strategy laid out to get the US consumer used to the idea of low-level BSE and ensure that the consumer dismisses each new case as not news worthy since there are adequate safeguards in place, which they are reassured of loudly each time.

i think that's been obvious for some time now. kind of makes you wonder what else our governments have been lying about. could be lots of things.

 

[Tam]

The thing that I'm can't understand is that The CFIA has told producers in Canada that the OIE says we have to test 30,000 4D cattle in a herd our size for 5 or 6 years or until we find no more to prove our prevalence to BSE and stay within the Minimal risk Catagory. And if we test healthy animals we have to test 100 healthy animals for every one 4D animal that we don't test. We have tested over 91,000 4D since Jan 2004 just because we care and want to know. But the USDA is telling us that a study done within the US tells them to test so many in a one time shot and that will tell everyone of the prevalence within the US herd. And we already know their NOT all 4D cattle like Canada's are. So I ask you Where is the OIE guidelines we are living by in Canada when it comes to the US testing? 40,000 in a herd the size if the US herd is a JOKE!!!!!!!! DON'T LOOK DON'T FIND

 

[Mike]

The thing that I'm can't understand is that The CFIA has told producers in Canada that the OIE says we have to test 30,000 4D cattle in a herd our size for 5 or 6 years or until we find no more to prove our prevalence to BSE and stay within the Minimal risk Catagory. And if we test healthy animals we have to test 100 healthy animals for every one 4D animal that we don't test. We have tested over 91,000 4D since Jan 2004 just because we care and want to know. But the USDA is telling us that a study done within the US tells them to test so many in a one time shot and that will tell everyone of the prevalence within the US herd. And we already know their NOT all 4D cattle like Canada's are. So I ask you Where is the OIE guidelines we are living by in Canada when it comes to the US testing? 40,000 in a herd the size if the US herd is a JOKE!!!!!!!! DON'T LOOK DON'T FIND

Tam, forget the OIE. The USDA tells them what to do. Not the other way around. You should see who is on the OIE Advisors board!

 

[Sandhusker]

The thing that I'm can't understand is that The CFIA has told producers in Canada that the OIE says we have to test 30,000 4D cattle in a herd our size for 5 or 6 years or until we find no more to prove our prevalence to BSE and stay within the Minimal risk Catagory. And if we test healthy animals we have to test 100 healthy animals for every one 4D animal that we don't test. We have tested over 91,000 4D since Jan 2004 just because we care and want to know. But the USDA is telling us that a study done within the US tells them to test so many in a one time shot and that will tell everyone of the prevalence within the US herd. And we already know their NOT all 4D cattle like Canada's are. So I ask you Where is the OIE guidelines we are living by in Canada when it comes to the US testing? 40,000 in a herd the size if the US herd is a JOKE!!!!!!!! DON'T LOOK DON'T FIND

The USDA only follows the OIE when they want to. A prime example is their "minimal risk" category.

 

[flounder]

MRJ wrote;


It would be helpful if Johanns has stated that the protocol for the testing, the most at-risk animals tested in the highest numbers (more than 650,000 in recent story about it), the 20,000 + of healthy older cows tested, and the time frame for the testing, was all designed by top scholars from the best universities in the nation to show the prevalence of BSE in the US cattle herd if there should be so few as 15 (not totally certain of the exact number, but think this is fair representation of it) positives in the entire US cattle herd.

If this system of testing, and the protocol design for it is flawed, then why shouldn't the entire body of work and all the things based upon it, for the entire US university systems should be discounted or eliminated as flawed, too.

======================

simple, read the peer review of the Harvard BSE risk assessment instead of the one that was bought and paid for by your local cattle dealer :lol: :lol: :lol:

no fair cheating though, you must read all 132 pages


suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf



TSS

 

[flounder]

"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer that."

Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow that initially tested positive.

USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.

"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything they did before 2005 suspect," Brown said.


snip...


© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved




http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r



Perspective
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: Background, Evolution, and Current Concerns
Paul Brown,* Robert G. Will,† Raymond Bradley,‡ David M. Asher,§ and Linda Detwiler¶
*National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA; †National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, Scotland; ‡Central Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Addlestone, UK; §Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland, USA; ¶Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Robbinsville, New Jersey, USA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United Kingdom, which began in 1986 and has affected nearly 200,000 cattle, is waning to a conclusion, but leaves in its wake an outbreak of human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, most probably resulting from the consumption of beef products contaminated by central nervous system tissue. Although averaging only 10-15 cases a year since its first appearance in 1994, its future magnitude and geographic distribution (in countries that have imported infected British cattle or cattle products, or have endogenous BSE) cannot yet be predicted. The possibility that large numbers of apparently healthy persons might be incubating the disease raises concerns about iatrogenic transmissions through instrumentation (surgery and medical diagnostic procedures) and blood and organ donations. Government agencies in many countries continue to implement new measures to minimize this risk.



http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol7no1/brown.htm



Dr. Paul Brown currently holds the title of Medical Director, U.S. Public Health Service, and Senior Research Scientist, National Institutes of Health. He is a Board Certified internist and an apprentice Neuroscientist, having devoted almost his entire career in the Laboratory of Central Nervous System Studies at the NIH to the study of various aspects of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. He is the author of nearly 300 publications, of which the most recent focus on the problem of iatrogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and on the potential for disease transmission through the administration of blood or blood products. In addition to his scientific research, he presently serves as Chairman of the TSE advisory committee to the FDA.



http://www.jifsan.umd.edu/presentations/tse/bio/BROWN.htm




TSS