040132 Is Beef Lobby Blocking Action on Mad Cow?

Washington - A group of activists and consumer advocates is accusing the U.S. government of doing too little to stop the spread of mad cow disease in this country because of pressure from the powerful beef industry.

They also say that a number of senior employees in the Department of Agriculture (USDA) come from the meat and dairy industries and might still have loyalties to their former firms.

Recently, U.S. officials said they would immediately implement a new set of safeguards to protect the nation’s beef supply against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) also known as "mad cow" disease, after an infected animal was found in Washington state. A human form of the disease, a rare but fatal brain disorder, can result from consuming contaminated cattle products.

The safeguards include removing non-ambulatory or "downer" animals from the human food chain, along with all brain, spinal cord and nervous-system tissue that could carry BSE, adding protections to mechanized meat processing; and instituting a national animal identification program. Downers are animals that are unable to walk to slaughter because of disease or broken legs and other injuries.

Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman has also called for a team of international experts to review inspection procedures and make recommendations following completion of the current probe into the case of the single BSE-positive cow.

But the announced measures failed to allay consumers’ fears both in the United States and abroad. Cattle-futures prices have fallen sharply, and none of the more than 30 nations that have required import bans on U.S. beef are reportedly moving to ease their restrictions. The controls have already cost the U.S. beef industry millions of dollars in exports.

Consumer groups and activists decried the measures as grossly lacking. Some say Britain, for example, managed, after 15 years, to defeat the disease by putting a ban on feeding slaughterhouse waste to livestock and by testing millions of cattle before consumption.

"The USDA’s latest steps on mad cow disease are pathetic," said John Stauber co-author of the book "Mad Cow USA." "Today, in the U.S., farmers legally feed billions of pounds of slaughterhouse waste to cattle, and even wean calves on cattle blood protein."

Farmers here routinely feed animal remains, blood and manure -- particularly chicken feces -- to cattle.

In Europe, where one of every four cows is tested, and Japan, where authorities test 100% of cattle bound for human consumption, officials have found a number of cases of mad cow disease in animals that appeared perfectly healthy.

"France, which has only a fraction of the U.S. cattle population, tests more cattle in a single week than the U.S. has tested in a decade," said Michael Greger of the Organic Consumers Association.

Over the past two years, the USDA has tested only about 20,000 cattle, or less than 10% of the downer animals, for mad cow disease annually.

"I suspect the recent cases of mad cow disease in the U.S. and Canada are just the tip of an iceberg, one that will continue to grow until dangerous feeding practices are completely banned," said Mr. Stauber.

The activists charge that the U.S. beef industry is behind the half-hearted testing here as it fears increased examination could unearth more cases, which could further harm beef sales.

Consumer groups fear the government’s position is dangerous -- as it tries to simultaneously protect the industry and maintain public health.

"Three years ago, we submitted a list of recommendations to the U.S. government regarding mad cow disease -- none were implemented," said Simon Chaitowitz of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a Washington-based non-profit group that promotes preventive medicine.

"We believe the USDA has not instituted these protections because many of its top staffers come from the meat and dairy industries, and they care more about protecting cattle industry profits than public safety."

For example, Secretary Veneman’s chief of staff, Dale Moore, used to be executive director for legislative affairs at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in Washington, a powerful industry lobby group.

USDA Press Secretary Alisa Harrison, Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Chuck Lambert and Senior Advisor on Food and Nutrition Issues Elizabeth Johnson all previously worked for the same organization.

U.S. officials defended their record, saying that tests have been targeted mainly at high-risk animals, those showing symptoms of nervous system disorder or inability to walk.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), a body of the USDA, told IPS the agency will be increasing the number of animals it tests. But FSIS spokesperson Steve Cohen said exactly which animals will be tested has not yet been determined.

"At the time the BCE-infected cow was discovered, the inspectors were testing many times more cattle than international standards would have indicated for a country that had no BCE," he said.

The measures failed to satisfy at least one former official, who said the USDA controls created "a voluntary or piecemeal system" that was not sufficient to protect either public health or consumer confidence.

Carol Tucker Foreman, chief of the agriculture department’s food safety programs during the administration of former president Jimmy Carter (1977-81), acknowledged the new USDA moves as positive but said "industry pressure has kept the Bush administration from taking all of the steps necessary to protect the public."

"FDA did not expand the feed ban to preclude the use of all ruminants in animal feed. Nor did FDA announce the assignment of enforcement resources sufficient to assure the ban on feeding ruminant material to bovines is effective," she said in a statement.

Mr. Greger also faulted U.S. authorities for treating BSE infection as a conventional disease, in which case they would quarantine the herd and block distribution of the meat.

"BSE is not passed from animal to animal," he said. "It’s what this animal ate four years, five years ago. It is not ‘where did the meat from that animal go?’ What about all the meat from all the other animals that ate the same infected feed so many years ago? That’s the concern."

RETURN TO HOME PAGE

E-mail: sflanagan@sprintmail.com