Critics: voluntary MADCOW testing does not equal surveillance!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

Sunday, March 14, 2004 · Last updated 2:15 p.m. PT

 

Critics: voluntary testing doesn't equal surveillance

 

By SHANNON DININNY

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

 

YAKIMA, Wash. -- As agriculture officials work to beef up the nation's

surveillance for mad cow disease, critics continue to poke holes in the

current system.

 

Too few tests are performed. Only sickly animals are tested. And perhaps

the biggest complaint receiving the least attention: voluntary testing

by the cattle industry is too inadequate to label it " surveillance. "

 

" I don't think you can put much stock in it, " said Felicia Nestor, food

safety project director for the Government Accountability Project, a

nonprofit government watchdog group.

 

The Agriculture Department plans to announce a new testing program in

the coming days. Already, plans include doubling the number of cattle

tested each year to 40,000, and some have speculated that number could

rise as high as 300,000.

 

Last year, agriculture officials tested about 20,000 of the 35 million

cattle sent to slaughter.

 

But increasing testing doesn't solve the problem if the cattle industry

doesn't have to participate, critics argue.

 

" We have to make it a requirement of the law if facilities are balking,

and make public lists of those slaughtering and packaging houses that do

not participate in having their animals inspected, " said Rep. Gary

Ackerman, D-N.Y., who has sponsored testing legislation for several years.

 

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who represents the state where the nation's

first case of mad cow disease was found, also said lawmakers need to

explore ways to ensure better compliance and participation.

 

" I think it is clear that a system that is entirely voluntary is not

working, " Murray said.

 

Agriculture officials currently set a goal for the number of tests to

gather nationally each year, then distribute that number across eight

regions. In 2003, the only region not to meet its goal was the Northwest.

 

Dr. Lisa Ferguson of the Agriculture Department said that while the

surveillance system is voluntary, the mad cow case announced Dec. 23

proves the system works.

 

" It's been a cooperative effort overall, and at some times, we've been

amazed at how much cooperation we've been able to get, " Ferguson said.

" Many times, when you mandate things ... there are tendencies for that

to have a backlash. "

 

The United States tests those animals considered at high risk of having

the disease, such as those older than 30 months or showing signs of illness.

 

Japan, which suffered its first case of mad cow disease in 2001 and

banned U.S. beef imports following discovery in this country, now tests

every cow for the disease and is pressing the United States to implement

a similar system.

 

In Britain, where the disease was first discovered in the 1980s,

inspectors test the brains of all slaughtered cattle older than 30 months.

 

Critics argue the U.S. system failed before the mad cow announcement

Dec. 23, and even more after. The number of animals tested fell to 1,608

in January, down from 3,064 in December.

 

When the disease was known to be in the country, the number of animals

tested should have gone up, Nestor said.

 

" The industry knows that this is a critical juncture. There could be a

demand for increased testing at any time, " Nestor said. An unscrupulous

person could have rushed animals suspected of having the disease into

the food supply to beat the tests, she said.

 

" I definitely am not saying that I think the bulk of the industry would

do this. However, there are bad actors. That's why we have regulations,

and USDA, if anything, is assisting them at this point, " she said.

 

Increasing the number of tests is critical to determining if more

animals have the disease as is ensuring the data is collected in a

controlled manner, said Jerry Gillespie, director of the Western

Institute for Food Safety and Security at the University of California

at Davis.

 

" Not having it regulated in terms of how it is done really destroys the

quality of the data that you're collecting. That's one of the biggest

reasons for doing it in the first place, is the surveillance, " he said.

 

Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman announced sweeping regulatory changes

in the weeks following the mad cow announcement. They included a ban on

selling for meat cattle too sick or weak to walk on their own.

 

Since testing is focused on those so-called " downer " animals, Veneman

said the changes likely would move much of the testing from

slaughterhouses to rendering plants that prepare animal byproducts for

use in consumer goods, such as cosmetics.

 

Some testing already was being done at rendering plants and on dead cows

at farms, Ferguson said.

 

" Granted, a lot of our samples were obtained from slaughterhouses. We

don't want to say that's not going to be a challenge, but it's not like

we're starting from ground zero, " Ferguson said.

 

Tom Cook, president of the National Renderers Association, said his

members want to help, though there are concerns about who bears the

costs. He also said the government must have the legal authority to

compel testing.

 

" It would always be nice to have the cooperation, " he said. " I just

think to get the number of samples they're talking about, they're going

to have to get participation from everybody. "

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420 & slug=WA%20Ma\

d%20Cow

 

 

 

karl theis jr

 

 

http://groups.msn.com/exposureofthetruth

 

madcowcoverup-

 

theoneswithoutnames-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam