Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Mad cow hunt begins, but will it work?

Expand Messages
  • Virgil
    Looks like we are not the only ones with doubts, huh? There is a place to vote on whether to allow priavte testing (like Creekstone and others want) on this
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Looks like we are not the only ones with doubts, huh? There is a
      place to vote on whether to allow priavte testing (like Creekstone
      and others want) on this site.


      Mad cow hunt begins, but will it work?
      As testing program begins, many say it falls short

      FORT COLLINS, Colo. - The cow brains should arrive any day now.

      If all goes as planned, dozens of plastic-bagged specimens each day
      will be delivered from surrounding states. Technicians will stick on
      a bar code, and delicately slice a sliver of neural tissue, which
      will be puréed into a pink slurry and fed into a $150,000 robot.
      After a few hours, tiny samples - now mere dabs of liquid - will tell
      a crucial tale. If the samples are clear, all is well. If yellow
      tints appear, the country may have another case of mad cow disease.

      Here at the Colorado State University Veterinary Diagnostic
      Laboratory, and at 11 similar labs across the country, everyone hopes
      one of those yellow dabs never appears. But it's a very real
      possibility as the Department of Agriculture begins to collect
      between 201,000 and 268,000 brain samples from mostly sick and dying
      cattle within the next 18 months. Those tiny dots, the federal
      government and many researchers believe, will tell us whether the
      country is safe from mad cow - or needs stronger efforts to ward off
      a deadly disease.

      "If we have it in this country, that's the system that's going to
      detect it," says Barbara Powers, the lab's director.

      Seeking 'confidence'
      On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture begins the much-
      debated $70 million testing program for bovine spongiform
      encephalopathy, as mad cow is formally called. After initial
      reluctance, the government and the beef industry settled on this
      broad one-time effort to determine to what extent, if at all, BSE has
      infected the U.S. herd of nearly 100 million cattle.

      Already this year the government has tested some 15,000 cows, seeking
      to reach what it calls a "confidence level" that the disease isn't

      Most cattle to be tested - sick and dying animals - are not destined
      for the human food chain anyway, though some 20,000 apparently
      healthy older cattle will be sampled. Pointing to recommendations
      from outside advisers and a panel of experts convened by Agriculture
      Secretary Ann Veneman, USDA says they have crafted the best way to
      hunt for the disease.

      "Whatever the prevalence is in this country, this is the target
      population in which we'll be able to find it," says USDA spokesman Ed

      But critics of the USDA's "targeted surveillance" program say the
      testing falls short of a comprehensive effort and will exclude
      millions of cattle that should be checked.

      Lapses in handling
      The critics point to a string of potentially troubling shortfalls in
      the government's handling of mad cow. First, the USDA asserted the
      single infected Washington state cow was a downer, unable to walk,
      which helped reveal its illness; that claim was later upended. Then
      in April, a Texas cow showing possible signs of nervous system
      disorder was sent for rendering without being tested. The agency has
      yet to explain why. In May, the agency acknowledged at least 7
      million pounds of banned Canadian beef had entered the country, an
      embarrassment that prompted some lawmakers to demand Veneman's ouster.

      At the same time, the agency in April rejected a request from a small
      meat packer, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, to conduct its own
      private BSE tests so it could re-open sales to Japan, which tests all
      its cattle for mad cow and wants all American beef imports tested.
      The USDA said private tests would be inappropriate, which enraged the
      agency's critics - and heightened concerns that the handling of mad
      cow has been botched. Worse, critics charged, the developing policy
      on mad cow emerged as final rules, with little or no public review.

      "They just decided to define it in a way that says, 'We don't have to
      talk to the public at large,'" says former USDA undersecretary Carol
      Tucker Foreman, now director of food policy for the Consumer
      Federation of America. "When you do decisionmaking in a very small
      room, talking only to yourself and other like-minded people, you do
      dumb things."

      A precise protocol
      The politics of mad cow have yet to make their way inside the chain-
      link fence that protects the Colorado diagnostic lab, situated on a
      dusty street amid sheep pens, watched by video cameras, accessed with
      staff badges handed out only after an FBI background check.

      The facility is more familiar than most with handling diseases like
      this. For years, it tested deer and elk for chronic wasting disease,
      an affliction caused by the same sort of malformed prion proteins
      thought to cause BSE. Detection of the two diseases is essentially
      the same. Powers' staff field-tested equipment that will be used to
      process mad cow samples across the nation. While other labs have
      scrambled to get ready, the Colorado team is simply waiting for the
      first samples to arrive.

      When a cow brain does show up, a technician will isolate it under a
      biohazard shield and go to work. The brain stem is sliced open; a
      tiny notch of vagus nerve, which connects the brain to vital organs,
      is removed, weighed and dropped in a vial. Used only once, Teflon-
      coated blades used to cut samples can never be laid down and must go
      straight into a disinfection container. Two technicians can turn out
      about 50 samples an hour.

      Samples go into a ribolyzer, a sort of high-tech grinder that turns
      them into a uniform soup, and are then paced through half a dozen
      mostly automated steps required for the Elisa protocol, one of two
      methods that offers a rapid preliminary result. Up to 96 samples can
      be processed at a time.

      A yellow positive is easily viewed among the clear samples, though a
      computer optically confirms each result. Positives will be sent on
      to the USDA's National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames,
      Iowa, for confirmation using a far more precise technique;
      immunohistochemistry, or IHC, is all but foolproof - but requires up
      to two weeks as glass slides of brain tissue are carefully prepared.
      The USDA says it will disclose initial positives as soon as any are

      Powers' lab should be able to process some 500 samples per day, well
      beyond what she expects to receive from the government: "I don't
      think they're going to be able to collect them out in the field that

      The entire process is delicate and precise, a world away from the
      bolt guns and saws of the slaughterhouse. The only nod to the
      commercial pressures that underlie mad cow testing is the lab's
      turnaround time. Samples brought in by noon are to be processed by
      day's end, so the dead cattle from which the brains were scooped can
      be buried, rendered or, potentially, sent along to the supermarket

      But the only way scientists will identify these animals is through
      bar codes that ties a sample to its source, information that will be
      tightly held by the state and federal agriculture agencies. "We
      don't even know where these animals are coming from," Powers says.

      Tests will occur across the nation. In March, the USDA chose public
      labs in Colorado and six other states: California, Georgia, New York,
      Texas, Washington and Wisconsin - spread out to minimize shipping
      distances. In mid-May, it added Florida, Minnesota, Kansas, Kentucky
      and Pennsylvania. In late May, details were still not clear about
      exactly how samples would be distributed.

      Food safety or animal health?
      One place, the agency made quite clear, testing will not occur:
      private labs, either at beef companies like Creekstone or at
      facilities like the Marshfield Clinic, a respected Wisconsin medical
      center that conducts private food safety testing but has been barred
      from the mad cow effort. While official tests may cost upwards of
      $100 per cow, Creekstone said it could conduct tests for less than
      $20 per head. But government officials, and scientists like Powers,
      bristle at the notion of private testing - even with oversight from a
      public lab.

      After all, officials note, these tests are meant to find whether
      other mad cow cases exist in the country. It is about science and
      animal health, they unfailingly point out, not food safety -- which
      they claim is protected by numerous rules put in place since last
      December, along with Food and Drug Administration regulations on
      cattle feed. The rules call for removal of the highest-risk
      materials, like a cow's spinal cord, from the human food chain. When
      supermarkets found meat from the lone infected Holstein had made it
      into shoppers' carts, officials quickly pointed to evidence that
      animal muscle doesn't contain the deformed prions believed to cause
      mad cow's equivalent illness, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, in

      But in a recent memo, the agency directed veterinarians from its Food
      Safety and Inspection Service, not its animal health division, to
      collect all samples from federally inspected plants. The agency
      insists its food safety staff are simply helping with an animal
      health effort, but critics believe the two issues can't be
      separated. "I think that's ridiculous. Of course it's a food safety
      measure," says Jean Halloran, director of the Consumer Policy
      Institute at Consumers Union. "If you test the brain and it's
      positive, then that's an animal that shouldn't go into the food

      Will more cases be found? "My hope is no," says Wayne Cunningham,
      Colorado's state veterinarian. "But when you talk about sampling
      large numbers ... I would be strongly surprised if we don't find one
      or two more." Most everyone tied to the beef industry shares that
      belief, but they warn against hasty conclusions should additional
      positives appear. One repeated argument against private tests is
      that it would allow companies to reveal test results without
      government oversight.

      Positive results don't necessarily mean the food supply is unsafe.
      France discovered 137 cases last year as French consumers kept
      happily eating beef; Spain found 167. But in these countries, and
      others, almost every older cow is tested - up to half of the
      slaughter population - so chances are excellent almost every case can
      be detected.

      Even most of those who want expanded U.S. testing plans don't expect
      the USDA to go quite so far. For one thing, the United States
      slaughters most of its cattle under 20 months, thought to be the
      youngest age that BSE can be detected.

      Still, Americans slaughtered some 35 million cattle last year; if
      every cow over 30 months was tested, it would account for perhaps 3
      million. With so many animals at risk, some scientists intimately
      familiar with diseases like mad cow believe more testing = at least
      for a couple years - is essential to protect public health.

      "You have to do it. Otherwise, you never know for sure," says
      Pierluigi Gambetti, director of the National Prion Disease
      Surveillance Center, in Cleveland, Ohio, which tracks outbreaks of
      diseases like the human equivalent of mad cow. "You look at testing
      in the United States, compared to European nations, you don't feel so
      comfortable, I think."

      © 2004 MSNBC Interactive
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.