U.S. plans to reduce mad cow testing

By AP

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

The U.S. Agriculture Department boosted its surveillance after finding the first case of mad cow disease in the U.S. 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 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.

"As we approach the conclusion of our en-hanced surveillance program, let me offer a few thoughts," Clifford said, explaining the U.S. 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 said.

"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 yesterday. "This starts to be so small that in our opinion, it approaches a policy of don't look, don't find."

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin said the confidence of U.S. consumers and foreign customers is at risk if testing is reduced.



12 CommentsChronological   Reverse   Threaded
lomion wrote on Mar 15, '06
What is the international standard? If we are matching that, it's not as bad as it seems on the surface. Also what is the cost of testing per cow?
vdentata wrote on Mar 15, '06
Is the int'l standard the 40,000 tests annually called for in the department's new budget?
mivox wrote on Mar 15, '06
They've found three cases. Whoop de doo.

I'd be more interested in seeing stricter standards for slaughterhouses in general, including EU-style 'maximum animals processed per hour' limits, etc. Seems like overhauling the meat processing industry so they could all do their jobs a little more slowly and carefully, and thereby prevent contamination of meat would be a better long term investement.

Probably reduce the parts per million of slaughterhouse employee body parts in hamburger meat while they're at it.
josephrjustice wrote on Mar 15, '06
lomion said
What is the international standard? If we are matching that, it's not as bad as it seems on the surface. Also what is the cost of testing per cow?
But the question then is, is the international standard a good or desirable one, sufficient, etc? If it's not a good one to begin with, then it might not mean much to say you're matching it. There could be an aspect of "sinking to the lowest common denominator".

I, too, would be interested in knowing what the cost (both in money / resources and in time) is to run a single test. Is there a way to, perhaps, make this a universal measure? (Not merely statistical sampling, but Every Effing Cow?) And, if we did *that*... What might we learn?

But, also, would this be cost effective -- sure, we *say* (born) human life is priceless, but do we really mean it? Maybe there *is* a price, beyond which we will not go?

One being's opinion.

Joseph
josephrjustice wrote on Mar 15, '06
mivox said
I'd be more interested in seeing stricter standards for slaughterhouses in general, including EU-style 'maximum animals processed per hour' limits, etc. Seems like overhauling the meat processing industry so they could all do their jobs a little more slowly and carefully, and thereby prevent contamination of meat would be a better long term investement.

Probably reduce the parts per million of slaughterhouse employee body parts in hamburger meat while they're at it.
But, that would raise food prices in these here United States, and/or lower food manufacturer profits.

Why do you hate America, Mivox?

Joseph
mivox wrote on Mar 15, '06
jackfrost wrote on Mar 16, '06
lomion said
What is the international standard?
Since when did "international standards" apply to the US?
annabellexoe wrote on Mar 16, '06
Call me crazy, but here's an idea: OR-FUCKIN'-GANIC.
controlgroup wrote on Mar 16, '06
I *love* the easy-hate, T. Those things might be america's biggest export. Well, except for military exports, of course.
lomion wrote on Mar 16, '06
Since when did "international standards" apply to the US?
Depends on which standard. And my question was, what was the international standard since the article states the US is aiming to meet that.

So I will ask again. What is the international standard?
mivox wrote on Mar 16, '06
OR-FUCKIN'-GANIC.
Hey, there's nothing non-organic about malformed proteins! Why are you trying to defame mad cow disease like that?!
jackfrost wrote on Mar 16, '06
I *love* the easy-hate, T. Those things might be america's biggest export. Well, except for military exports, of course.
See...all it needs is to be weaponized.

'course, then it will have to be olive drab with black graphics, and known as the Oven & Snack Center, Hate, Easy
Add a Comment
   
© 2008 Multiply, Inc.    About · Blog · Terms · Privacy · Corp Info · Contact Us · Help