For Months, Agriculture Department Delayed Announcing Result of Mad Cow Test

NY Times ^ | June 26, 2005 | DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. and ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO

[neverdem]

Although the Agriculture Department confirmed Friday that a cow that died last year was infected with mad cow disease, a test the agency conducted seven months ago indicated that the animal had the disease. The result was never publicly disclosed.

The delay in confirming the United States' second case of mad cow disease seems to underscore what critics of the agency have said for a long time: that there are serious and systemic problems in the way the Agriculture Department tests animals for mad cow.

Indeed, the lengthy delay occurred despite the intense national interest in the disease and the fact that many countries have banned shipments of beef from the United States because of what they consider to be lax testing policies.

Until Friday, it was not public knowledge that an "experimental" test had been performed last November by an Agriculture Department laboratory on the brain of a cow suspected of having mad cow disease, and that the test had come up positive.

For seven months, all that was known was that a test on the same cow done at the same laboratory at roughly the same time had come up negative. The negative result was obtained using a test that the Agriculture Department refers to as its "gold standard."

The explanation that the department gave late Friday, when the positive test result came to light, was that there was no bad intention or cover-up, and that the test in question was only experimental.

"The laboratory folks just never mentioned it to anyone higher up," said Ed Loyd, an Agriculture Department spokesman. "They didn't know if it was valid or not, so they didn't report it."

On hearing that Friday night, Dr. Michael K. Hansen, a senior research associate at Consumers Union and frequent department critic, reacted skeptically.

[neverdem]

[GVnana]

Those economic consequences look pretty severe. I understand if I buy a burger, the beef might have come from Australia. You'd think we'd adopt more stringent testing standards.

[Texas Songwriter]

I raise cattle. I love raising cattle. The fact that this information was withheld for such a long period of time indicates to me the Department of Agriculture has a tiger by the tail. The ripple effect thru the markets will be staggering. On the futures markets, corn would plummet along with beans, the equities in McDonalds, and many steak restaurants would be hurt. Ancillary companies which deal with cattle equipment,feed,vaccines,etc. would be hit. It could turn very ugly, very quickly.

I have yet heard what breed of cattle was involved. Was it a dairy cow or a beef animal. It came from Texas and as such should never have had ingested any animal neural tissue, so......what are we to deduce from that little piece of information.....that cattle can contract the condition in ways other than ingesting neural tissue infected with the prions. If that is the case, all hell will break loose in the cattle industry.

[GVnana]

It came from Texas and as such should never have had ingested any animal neural tissue, so......what are we to deduce from that little piece of information

Since the prions are nearly impossible to destroy, who knows?

Do you raise cattle for the major markets? Any opinion on the notion that grass-fed beef is safer?

[neverdem]

IIRC, these prions have been found in lymph nodes and other organs, not just the central nervous system.

Current concepts and controversies in prion immunopathology.

[PAR35]

You'd think we'd adopt more stringent testing standards.

It depends on what you think the more stringent testing would show. If you are convinced that the tests would show the meat was safe, then testing would be beneficial. If you have reason to believe that the tests would show a significant number of cases, then you are better off with a weak testing program than having a collapse in the domestic market as well.

[GVnana]

If you have reason to believe that the tests would show a significant number of cases, then you are better off with a weak testing program than having a collapse in the domestic market as well.

Oh that doesn't provide a good night's sleep.

[NJ_gent]

"If you are convinced that the tests would show the meat was safe, then testing would be beneficial. If you have reason to believe that the tests would show a significant number of cases, then you are better off with a weak testing program than having a collapse in the domestic market as well."

If testing shows a number of cases, the beef and cattle markets drop through the floor. If the weak testing program says everything is fine and human beings start dropped dead from 'mad cow disease', those markets are completely dead with no hope of recovery for at least 10 or 15 years. I think a possibly crippled market is better than a possibly destroyed market along with destroyed confidence in FDA testing and internal industry controls. Benefits have to be thought out more than just for the next year or two. You might skirt by with no cases of 'mad cow' affecting humans in the short term, but if the meat is infected, you will see humans affected.

[SERUM10]

Readers need to remember that poor Kansas beef producer that tried to test all his cattle and then sell the cleared beef to Japan. He was legally forbidden to do so in spite of the obvious assault on free enterprise resulting in his loss of all sales to Japan. Also the literature is clear that another form of Mad Cow disease is frequently found among wild deer and elk along with the yet-to-be-proven hypothesis that saliva from those ruminants could infect cows sharing the same grazing land.

As outsiders we have to consider the possibility that the beef industry has bought and paid for the Dept. of Agriculture in what could turn out to be a vain attempt to cover up and then bury the problem cows and infected consumers.

[snowsislander]

Let's just clear up the problem now: test all animals at slaughter, find out where the problems are, and fix them.

It's going to be more expensive if we end up with mad cow as widespread as it was in Britain where they ended up destroying an awful lot of cattle to clear up the problem.

As it is, now we look dang silly to the Japanese, having just expended huge political capital in Tokyo with President Bush and Secretary Rice constantly harping these last few months on a silly insistence that Japan buy American beef that hasn't met Japanese testing standards. That kind of gai-atsu erodes our image in Japan, particularly when it turns out that we were wrong.

[garandgal]

Readers need to remember that poor Kansas beef producer that tried to test all his cattle and then sell the cleared beef to Japan. He was legally forbidden to do so in spite of the obvious assault on free enterprise resulting in his loss of all sales to Japan

I was just going to post something similar. My example was an actually packing plant that had gotten Japan to agree to accept its beef after testing. It wasn't allowed...wonder why NOT? I thought we were for "free trade" and all.

Could be two reasons:

They know that testing will reveal more affected animals.

More likely, the larger packs don't want to test due to expense...and they OWN the government. Same reason that "country of origin labeling" was killed.

Sickening...literally.

[neverdem]

Let's just clear up the problem now: test all animals at slaughter, find out where the problems are, and fix them.

I agree. I also agree that this prion hypothesis needs more funding as well as the alternate hypothesis by Bastian, i.e. Antiserum to scrapie-associated fibril protein cross-reacts with Spiroplasma mirum fibril proteins.

This theory of mutant proteins causing more mutant proteins just sounds weird.

[moog]

Those economic consequences look pretty severe. I understand if I buy a burger, the beef might have come from Australia. You'd think we'd adopt more stringent testing standards.

We had one already and it didn't affect the economy nearly as bad as I thought it would. There are more stringent standards being adopted, though that could be improved.

[moog]

I raise cattle. I love raising cattle.

I really like good cattlemen. They're a rare breed nowadays.

[GVnana]

Really. Why allow this spectre of suspicion? It's confirmed. It's here. Do what we need to do the get rid of it.

[moog]

Really. Why allow this spectre of suspicion? It's confirmed. It's here. Do what we need to do the get rid of it.

That's my approach too.

[TBall]

I agree testing and tracking is the way to go. If the govt is not going to make it mandatory, then individual farms should at least be allowed to do testing and tracking on their own. I would be willing to pay up to ensure that the hamburger my kids eat is not infected. Once testing and tracking catches on the price will come down and eventually it will be affordable for everyone.

[Texas Songwriter]

I remember back in the early 80's when we were told that AIDS could only be contracted by homosexual contact or IV drug use. Some of us were saying that the final chapter had not been written and caution was the order of the day. Then we found out that babies could contract the disease by suckling a HIV pos mother. Then we began to learn of other ways to contract the disease. I distinctly remember C.Everet Coope, the Surgeon General, saying that he would have no concerns to dip his hands in HIV laced blood. I am a surgeon, and I remember telling my wife that that was about as irresponsible a statement as I had ever heard.

Now the USDA has an apparent coverup on its hands and it will come back to haunt them. I am very concerned that as science moves forward we will learn of other ways this disease can be contracted. In the meantime should we err on the side of caution. What is McDonalds to do (the largest purchacer of beef in the world). If we know this information, and do not act to protect the public, what lawsuits will be spawned. If it turns out that there are many other animals which have the disease without clinical sign (not downers) and the USDA knew or should have known it, what will the fall out be. I can see enormous economic, legal, buisness disruptions. It will be interesting to watch unfold.

[NJ_gent]

"As outsiders we have to consider the possibility that the beef industry has bought and paid for the Dept. of Agriculture in what could turn out to be a vain attempt to cover up and then bury the problem cows and infected consumers."

If so, that's a very short-sighted way of doing business. In industries dealing with food and beverage, the perception that you may have inaqequate testing to ensure the quality and safety of your product generally leads to low consumer confidence in your product. The result is that you end up with very poor business. Whether the beef industry likes the FDA or not, it's difficult to argue with the fact that a completely independent FDA helps boost consumer confidence so long as the perception is that the FDA helps maintain high quality beef. Shattering that perception would sound the death knell for the entire industry. Americans have come to assume their beef is safe. When we see that testing is showing some infected cows, we are confident that the testing procedures are working and that the infected beef will never make it to market. You lose only the more timid customers when you show evidence of infected cows to the public, and you lose them for a limited time. When others show, especially through autopsies of humans, that your testing procedures are not working or that the results are being buried, and that the so-called independent agency responsible for ensuring safety and quality regardless of private practices is helping to bury the problems, consumer confidence in the market drops to nothing. Beef futures die, domestic beef consumption dies, every country that has yet to do so bans your beef imports, and every cow in the land becomes utterly (pardon the pun) worthless.

[NJ_gent]

"Do what we need to do the get rid of it."

We know so little about it that we cannot begin to comprehend the methods of wide-scale eradication. We have significant difficulty even identifying that there is a problem. It takes multiple tests to even confirm likelyhood of infection. What we're dealing with is something far scarier than any virus or any bacteria ever discovered. We can catch bacteria in a lab and break its genetic code down in no time. We can find viruses, isolate them, and study exactly how they work. Prions, which cause diseases like 'mad cow', are unlike any threat we've ever faced. They're just bits of protein that, for some odd reason, end up in configurations that are incredibly destructive to neural tissue. Animals are creatures built on proteins. Without them, not even the most basic functions at the cellular level will work. So the question is, how do you identify precisely which proteins are configured in destructive ways, and how do you eliminate them without eliminating any other proteins in the process?