A
Anonymous
Guest
asahi.com > ENGLISH > Opinion,Editorial
EDITORIAL/ How safe is U.S. beef?: U.S. testing system for BSE appears highly unreliable.
07/02/2005
A second case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has turned up in the United States, this time in a 12-year-old cow that was born in Texas. That in itself is not particularly surprising since many experts had predicted more cases of mad cow disease would be detected in the United States.
What is shocking, though, is that the DNA test results came out seven months after the first indication of possible BSE infection. In controlling BSE, it is imperative to quickly grasp the source and extent of infection. Whether the current U.S. testing system allows health officials to determine those criteria would appear to be extremely doubtful.
In Japan, the Food Safety Commission is discussing whether to resume U.S. beef imports after an 18-month hiatus. We urge the commission to hold thorough discussions on the effectiveness of the U.S. examination system.
When the infected animal was destroyed last November it was so wobbly, it could not even walk. It tested positive after a simple preliminary BSE test, but tested negative after a second test using a process called immunohistochemistry, or IHC, for conclusive proof. As a result, the cow was determined to be free of BSE.
The U.S. Agriculture Department's inspector-general questioned those findings, and in early June he ordered the USDA to conduct a more sensitive Western blot examination. The result was positive. A laboratory in Britain also provided confirmation.
In Japan and Europe, testing for BSE uses both the IHC and Western blot methods. If an animal tests positive in either instance, it is assumed to have the disease.
In the United States, both testing methods were used when the first case of BSE was suspected. However, for reasons that have not been explained, U.S. health officials stopped using the Western blot method. It was only in the current case that the USDA agreed to use both methods.
The USDA lab tested the animal tissue by using a newly revised version of the IHC method. Even though the animal tested positive, the results were withheld. Even if the revised exam method was only in the experimental stage, once it turned up a positive result, it should have been common sense to conduct further tests to make sure.
Perhaps the United States is trying hard not to uncover more cases of BSE. The turn of events makes us uneasy.
In Japan, BSE tests are done to locate infected animals and remove them from the distribution pipeline for eventual human consumption. In the United States, the testing is aimed at grasping the extent of the disease. As things now stand, we believe it would be difficult for U.S. officials to even ascertain whether a particular animal is infected or not.
During the past year, the USDA has tested 390,000 cows. Most of them could not walk. The number represents just 1 percent of the animals that were slaughtered for human consumption. So, if a seemingly healthy cow was infected, it would appear that it can easily be overlooked.
U.S. and Japanese health officials are now discussing resuming the beef trade using cattle that are less than 20 months old. The U.S. agriculture secretary was quick to point out that the latest case of BSE infection occurred in an animal that was 12 years old, and thus not eligible export to Japan.
The fact is, recent events have shaken our faith in the reliability of U.S. anti-BSE measures.
Ensuring that beef is safe to eat can only be maintained by a culmination of cautious steps to ascertain risk of infection, removing dangerous body parts, and controlling the quality of feed, et cetera.
How safe is U.S beef? As guardians of our food safety, the responsibilities of the Food Safety Commission continues to grow.
--The Asahi Shimbun, July 1(IHT/Asahi: July 2,2005)
EDITORIAL/ How safe is U.S. beef?: U.S. testing system for BSE appears highly unreliable.
07/02/2005
A second case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has turned up in the United States, this time in a 12-year-old cow that was born in Texas. That in itself is not particularly surprising since many experts had predicted more cases of mad cow disease would be detected in the United States.
What is shocking, though, is that the DNA test results came out seven months after the first indication of possible BSE infection. In controlling BSE, it is imperative to quickly grasp the source and extent of infection. Whether the current U.S. testing system allows health officials to determine those criteria would appear to be extremely doubtful.
In Japan, the Food Safety Commission is discussing whether to resume U.S. beef imports after an 18-month hiatus. We urge the commission to hold thorough discussions on the effectiveness of the U.S. examination system.
When the infected animal was destroyed last November it was so wobbly, it could not even walk. It tested positive after a simple preliminary BSE test, but tested negative after a second test using a process called immunohistochemistry, or IHC, for conclusive proof. As a result, the cow was determined to be free of BSE.
The U.S. Agriculture Department's inspector-general questioned those findings, and in early June he ordered the USDA to conduct a more sensitive Western blot examination. The result was positive. A laboratory in Britain also provided confirmation.
In Japan and Europe, testing for BSE uses both the IHC and Western blot methods. If an animal tests positive in either instance, it is assumed to have the disease.
In the United States, both testing methods were used when the first case of BSE was suspected. However, for reasons that have not been explained, U.S. health officials stopped using the Western blot method. It was only in the current case that the USDA agreed to use both methods.
The USDA lab tested the animal tissue by using a newly revised version of the IHC method. Even though the animal tested positive, the results were withheld. Even if the revised exam method was only in the experimental stage, once it turned up a positive result, it should have been common sense to conduct further tests to make sure.
Perhaps the United States is trying hard not to uncover more cases of BSE. The turn of events makes us uneasy.
In Japan, BSE tests are done to locate infected animals and remove them from the distribution pipeline for eventual human consumption. In the United States, the testing is aimed at grasping the extent of the disease. As things now stand, we believe it would be difficult for U.S. officials to even ascertain whether a particular animal is infected or not.
During the past year, the USDA has tested 390,000 cows. Most of them could not walk. The number represents just 1 percent of the animals that were slaughtered for human consumption. So, if a seemingly healthy cow was infected, it would appear that it can easily be overlooked.
U.S. and Japanese health officials are now discussing resuming the beef trade using cattle that are less than 20 months old. The U.S. agriculture secretary was quick to point out that the latest case of BSE infection occurred in an animal that was 12 years old, and thus not eligible export to Japan.
The fact is, recent events have shaken our faith in the reliability of U.S. anti-BSE measures.
Ensuring that beef is safe to eat can only be maintained by a culmination of cautious steps to ascertain risk of infection, removing dangerous body parts, and controlling the quality of feed, et cetera.
How safe is U.S beef? As guardians of our food safety, the responsibilities of the Food Safety Commission continues to grow.
--The Asahi Shimbun, July 1(IHT/Asahi: July 2,2005)
