New York times editorial supporting full BSE testing

[JD4ME]

This editorial is from the New York times.


Stop: Don't Test Those Cows!
Published: April 6, 2006

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[farmers_son]

As an editorial I guess we can assume it is one person’s opinion. And they are entitled to their opinion.

“Why would the U.S.D.A. stop a cattle company from voluntarily meeting a higher standard than the one required by law?”

Well it is like this. A quick Internet search will tell you that Japan has found 24 BSE positives, U.S. has 2, Canada has 5 if you include the Washington Holstein and the OIE does include that as our animal, Israel has one, Greece has one. The list goes on and on. No one keeps track of how many animals were actually tested, no where is there any reference to the size of the national herd and no where is there any mention made that 2 or 5 animals are not very many when compared to the 184,370 BSE positives found in the U.K. and that the risk of contracting nvCJD is completely different in North America and other countries; in fact the risk is almost nothing at all. No where is there mention made that the Specified Risk Materials are removed which eliminates even that minimal risk. North American beef is safe without Creekstone doing any more testing.

OK, what is the harm if Creekstone did their own BSE testing. Well it infers that the untested beef has something wrong with it. If Oprah did that someone would have her up before a judge but what Creekstone is doing is no different. Our beef is safe period.

Where would it stop? If we abandon the science which says our beef or for that matter any food product is safe and let every Tom, Dick and Harry establish what they claim for marketing purposes to be a higher standard where would that lead? One company tests 100% for BSE, the next has to test for BSE and sore toe disease, the next BSE, sore toe, curly tail and so on and so on. Is the product any safer, no way but a whole raft of new costs have been built into the system. Meanwhile South America and Australia are laughing all the way to the bank because they are not testing anything while they sit back and watch the rest of the world’s major exporters see how much they can spend testing for curly tail.

Remember Y2K and the billions spent on the hysteria surrounding that. BSE is not one bit different. In a few years no one will pay any attention to BSE but if Creekstone and for that matter the New York Times had it’s way we would have built into our system 100% testing for a disease that is not going to even exist in the North American cattle herd in a very few years.

[JD4ME]

Nice to see you back FS I have to assume you were off enjoying the tropics somewhere while the rest of us were feeding cows all winter(hopefully you were)
I posted it more as a way to point out that producers and farm groups need to remain vigilant on consumer(urban) sentiment on all issues such as this. I would expect a letter to the editor from the USDA and or NCBA on this issue to the times as a result of this. One of the greatest lessons from this whole BSE and now asian flu issue is that we as producers can be affected so very greatly in this day and age by a misconception or an ill advised attitude that gets put out there in the consumers mind, and we must be sure our producer groups are doing their job in defending our interests and putting our story forward as well.