Post

To test or not to test

How do you feel about allowing a packer to BSE-test 100% of the cows he processes?
As I see it, this is one of the most contentious issues animal agriculture has dealt with in some time. I spent a few days in Washington, D.C. last week with a group of my peers, meeting with lobbyists, lawmakers, futurists, lawmakers, economists, and bureaucrats. Almost everybody had something to say about BSE testing:

The American Meat Institute Foundation represents the meat packing and processing segment of the industry. Members produce about 95% of all of the meat products manufactured in this country. As AMI President Jim Hodges explained to me, “Testing itself does not make food safe. What makes food safe is having the controls and preventions in place to make sure that the food is manufactured safe. In that case, we are now removing from the food supply all of the potentially infectious material (specified risk materials or SRMs) that could be present if an animal is diagnosed with BSE. That is what makes beef safe. It’s not the testing. Testing is only good as a measurement of the prevelance of the disease if it exists in the United States. Testing with the methods we have today will only detect the infective agent a maximum of 6 months prior to clinical onset. Clinical onset is usually anywhere from 4 to 7 years of age, so they are totally ineffective for young animals, so it doesn’t enhance food safety. It doesn’t enhance animal disease surveillance. It is clearly a public perception issue for marketing purposes. We respect that. But the government has said we need to keep testing on a scientific footing. ”

Creekstone Farms, the first company to ask USDA to allow it to test 100% of the cows it processes, is a member of AMI.

Greg Doud, Chief Economist for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said, “Ranchers and U.S. consumers should never be confused about who is in charge of assuring the safety of their food supply. That has always been the government, and I hope it will always be the government. I don’t ever want to be in the situation where we have got different companies providing different thoughts and different assurances based upon marketing issues. The government has been in charge of regulating the supply of food in this country for well over 80 years. And furthermore, when we get into the situation where we are negotiating the re-opening of a market with a foreign government, my understanding is that it is actually against the law for a private entity to enter into negotiations with that foreign government on these types of issues. This is a government-to-government negotiation and discussion. Once the governments have decided on a criteria to re-establish trade and a private sector entity wants to enter into a contractual obligation with (Japan in this case) that is a completely separate issue. From the NCBA’s perspective, there is absolutely no science anywhere in the world that has any justification for testing animals under 30 months of age. Internationally, that is seen the same as testing Kindergarteners for Alzheimer’s. There’s no basis in it.”

From an economist’s standpoint, Doud said, “This (100% BSE testing) is a $1 billion price tag. Basic economics tell me that anytime you introduce a new cost into the agricultural production system, the producer of that commodity will always pay the majority of that cost. There is no scientific justification for it (100% BSE testing) and at the end of the day, it does nothing to increase the safety of the product for U.S. consumers. These BSE prions do not exist in the muscle tissue of the meat. It is not a virus. It is not a bacteria. It is a protein. This disease is incredibly easy to control through the ban on feeding ruminant meat and bone meal to other ruminant animals.”

Following his most recent meeting with Japanese counterparts, one of the Japanese Ministers still insisted on 100% BSE testing of U.S. cattle before Japan will open it’s borders once again. J.B. Penn, Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services says it is important to remember that just as it is with any government, there is not a unanimity of opinion in the Japanese government. Penn said, “There are several ministries and agencies involved that regulate various parts of the beef system. There are differing interpretations of the science.”

USDA has laid out a process to exchange technical views with Japan. Penn explains, “We’re going to have a technical team from the U.S. meet with a technical team from Japan.” There will be a series of 3 meetings, beginning the week of May 17, where experts will address all of the key issues related to BSE. He said, “This is a relatively new disease that has been largely confined to Europe. It is not yet widely understood. The science is still evolving. We want to bring together all of the best information that we can, and see if we can come to an agreement on what the science is telling us. Because this is a new disease, the trading rules that govern it are not well understood, either.”

Penn believes once the Japanese and U.S. technical teams get together and complete their series of meetings in July, trade will resume. Penn said it is very important that science be at the center of this agreement, “We do not want to just cut a deal or jerry-rig some deal to get trade started. Because, when we find the second or third case of BSE, that deal will collapse and the markets will be slammed shut and we have to start all over again. We want a sound scientific system that safeguards human health and animal health.”

Jim Wiesemeyer with Sparks Companies has covered issues in our nation’s capital for 30 years. Regarding BSE testing, he agrees with NCBA’s stand that food safety should not be determined by an individual company. However, he said, once USDA allowed public perception to take precedence over science (as was the case with downer animals) they reached a “slippery slope” and now have to deal with it. Wiesemeyer said “The ball is now in Creekstone’s court. I’m waiting to see if they take this to court.”

As a reporter, I believe it is my responsibility to bring to my listeners/readers as many facts about an issue as are available. As a columnist, it is my opportunity to share with you my opinion on an issue. Although I believe in free enterprise, I think we need to give science a chance. If we allow the “perception” that 100% BSE testing is necessary for a safe food supply, I personally believe that in the long run, it will be detrimental to the industry. We are enjoying record high beef prices. Our product is safe. Food is affordable. Let’s keep it that way.