Mad Cow Facts

By Kevin Corke
NBC News Correspondent
MSNBC
July 6, 2005

Excerpt…

ORLANDO, Fla. - High-protein or low-carb? Non-fat or low-fat? The information on diets is confusing, even as the warnings about obesity grow louder.

“There is clearly an (obesity) epidemic,” says Michael Jacobsen, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

“If obesity is a disease, it is the only one that I am familiar with that you can cure by taking long walks and keeping your mouth shut,” counters Rick Berman, of the food industry-funded Center for Consumer Freedom.

Berman is on a mission to fight what he says are scare tactics being used to take the fun out of eating.

“You’ve heard the term ‘junk science?’” asks Berman. “These people use junk science ad nauseum…”

…Berman says it’s about time people take personal responsibility for their culinary choices.

“People know the difference between a banana and a banana split,” he says. “And if you need a warning sign, everybody’s got a warning in their house. It’s called a mirror.”

The Center for Consumer Freedom’s ad campaign pokes fun at just how out of hand things can get, with a person on a scale while waiting in line for food being told, “Oh, so close — salad line.” Then, when a second person comes up and weighs in, sirens go off and that person is told, “No food for you! Come back when you’re thinner.”

Jacobsen says Berman twists statistics to distract from what almost everyone agrees on. “I think everybody knows intuitively that obesity isn’t good for us. And that it increases rates of heart attacks, strokes, cancers, arthritis.”

Dr. David Ludwig, who runs the obesity program at Children’s Hospital in Boston, agrees. “What level of personal responsibility does Consumer Freedom want a 5-year-old to have in the face of endless advertising of fast food?” he asks.

“Kids are not driving themselves to McDonalds,” says Berman. “It’s not about kids and their choices. It’s about parents and their choices.”

It’s all become a loud debate over obesity, weighing heavily on a public which is increasingly weary about who decides what’s for dinner.

The Response to BSE in the United States

Choices
by John Fox, Brian Coffey, James Mintert, Ted Schroeder, and Luc Valentin
July 2005

Since the emergence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United Kingdom in the late 1980s, the United States has implemented various measures to prevent the disease from entering the country, to prevent its spread if discovered here, and to safeguard human health. Regulatory actions included import restrictions, a ban on certain ruminant tissues in ruminant feed, and a surveillance program. Additional measures, aimed at reassuring domestic and foreign consumers about the safety of US beef, were implemented following the December 23, 2003 announcement that a dairy cow in Washington State had tested positive for BSE. In the sections that follow, we discuss the US response to BSE under three broad categories—trade policy, food and feed restrictions, and surveillance. Our analysis focuses on the costs associated with various regulatory actions and less so on potential benefits that are more difficult to quantify.

Trade Policy

Following the announcement of the first US case, 53 countries, including major markets such as Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and Canada, banned imports of US cattle and beef products. This came as no surprise—automatic border closure following such announcements had become standard procedure. The United States itself blocked imports of Canadian beef and cattle following the announcement of the first Canadian case in May 2003.

Border closure in response to a very low BSE incidence in an exporting country is not endorsed by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), particularly when control measures are in place. Moreover, although the United States itself had not adhered to OIE guidance on trade, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) did initiate regulations to allow imports from countries, specifically Canada, that presented a “minimal risk” of introducing BSE. This minimal risk region (MRR) rule that would reopen the border to imports of Canadian cattle less than 30 months old was to become effective March 7, 2005. However, in response to a motion filed by the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF), a federal court in Montana granted a preliminary injunction blocking the measure. A hearing to determine whether a permanent injunction should be granted is scheduled for July 27, 2005.

The controversy surrounding the reopening of the Canadian border illustrates the potential gains and losses from any change in trade policy. Although R-CALF may indeed be concerned about the human health risk from Canadian cattle (though some might doubt it), it is clear that US cattle producers, particularly those in the northwestern US, would lose from import competition in the short run. Marsh, Brester, and Smith (2005) estimate that Canadian imports would reduce US feeder cattle prices by $4.57/cwt. However, in the long run, if adequate cattle supplies are not available locally to keep US packing plants in the region open, producers in the Northwest will lose local cattle markets. Similarly, US producers are losing from the current restrictions on US exports. In 2003, beef exports were valued at $3.95 billion and accounted for 9.6% of US commercial production. Although some important markets, including Mexico and Canada, did partially reopen during 2004, exports for the year were 82% below 2003. Coffey, Mintert, Fox, Schroeder, and Valentin (2005), in an analysis performed for the Kansas Department of Agriculture, suggest that US beef industry losses from export restrictions during 2004 ranged from $3.2 billion to $4.7 billion.

The question we might ask here is whether these trade disruptions and associated welfare losses could have been avoided. Caswell and Sparling (in press) emphasize the importance of an internationally coordinated response to managing risks from diseases such as BSE, and Caswell (in press) argues that the potential trade impacts of BSE discovery were not sufficiently weighted in the BSE risk management process. Thus, if MRR legislation had been enacted prior to the recent discoveries of BSE outside of Europe, we may never have banned imports of Japanese beef when they discovered their first case in September 2001, nor vice versa. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to point out what might have been. Nevertheless, both Canada and the United States had been warned by the European Union in July 2000 that they were at risk for discovering the disease (Scientific Steering Committee, 2000).

(more…)

By Alan Caruba
June 29, 2005

Just what is the level of risk that you might get Mad Cow Disease? Zero! That’s right, the odds of contracting Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) come as close to non-existent as possible. You have a far better chance of being hit by a bolt of lightning.

Dr. Ron DeHaven, the United States Department of Agriculture’s chief veterinarian says, “Beef is absolutely safe to eat.” His colleague, Dr. Ken Peterson of the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service says, “Clinical studies tell us there’s virtually zero risk.”

That’s why Mad Cows don’t scare me, but that doesn’t stop groups with names like the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Friends of the Earth, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and more than a dozen others from flooding the media with claims that hamburgers, steaks, veal, and all those other delicious beef products are too dangerous to eat.

Aside from the scare campaigns intended to frighten everyone, the economy suffers when other nations refuse to import US beef products. An article in a June edition of the Houston Chronicle noted that the USDA’s delays on the announcement of recent test results, typical of any huge bureaucracy, “sent cattle prices falling and, of course, raised new questions about its ability to protect the public.”

It doesn’t take much to scare Americans, but the real story of the USDA’s and the US Food and Drug Administration’s response to a single detected case of BSE back in December 2003 actually demonstrates what a great job they have done in protecting Americans. That cow never entered the food supply.

The system of multiple firewalls maintained by Federal agencies protects Americans from possible exposure to BSE. What made a lot of news was the decision to recall a lot of meat at that time. None of it represented a risk, but no risk was deemed better than even the possibility of any risk. Given the often-wasteful nature of other government agencies, that’s what your tax dollars pay for.

Back in 1998 the USDA commissioned the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis to conduct an evaluation of the US regulatory measures to prevent the spread of BSE into our food supply. The Harvard study concluded that, even if BSE slipped into the country, the preventive measures currently in place insured that it would be extremely unlikely that BSE could become established in the US.

Since 1998 the USDA has banned imports of live ruminants such as cattle, sheep and goats, and most products from these animals from countries known to have BSE. The subsequent ban on US beef products by these nations appears to be more an act of retribution than safety.

In 1997, the FDA prohibited, with some exceptions, the use of protein derived from mammalian tissues in animal feed intended for cows and other ruminants.

And, on January 8, 2004, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service issued new rules to further enhance safeguards against BSE.

Keep in mind, the US case of BSE found in December 2003 was an imported Canadian cow. Recently, in mid-June, reports that “an older animal tested positive” reignited fears that foreign countries would use this as an excuse to shun US beef. This animal, first tested in November 2004, did not enter the human food or livestock feed supply. Since June 1, 2004, USDA has tested almost 400,000 high-risk cattle for BSE and found no cases. On June 24, the Department of Agriculture announced the confirmation that the animal tested positive, but this is irrelevant because of the safeguards in place that protect both humans and animals from exposure to BSE.

Why aren’t you reading or hearing of these results? Because the mainstream media is salivating while waiting around to write about Mad Cow disease. Bad news sells newspapers and increases ratings, but the good news is that Americans can enjoy beef products.

That, of course, didn’t stop the scaremongers and occasional politician from putting out their news releases in a blizzard of demands for greater safety. If you want to do a little research on your own, I recommend a visit to http://www.mad-cow-facts.com.

You are at higher risk of death driving to the supermarket to fill your cart with some of the finest beef produced anywhere in the world than ever getting Mad Cow disease.

When one contemplates how filled with risk life is, it is wonderful to contemplate that life expectancy in America these days exceeds 76 years of age. More Americans are living longer than ever in the history of this nation. Part of the reason is that meat is good for you. Your body benefits in many ways from eating meat and your entire digestive system is designed to eat meat.

And America has the safest supply of beef products than anywhere else in the world. A variety of federal agencies insure that safety and so do the cattle producers who utilize every safety measure to protect their herds.

That’s why Mad Cows don’t scare me and shouldn’t scare you.

This article has been provided in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. This material is provided without profit for research and educational purposes. Prior to republication of this material in its entirety we recommend contacting the source for appropriate permissions. Alternatively, publication of an abstract with a link to the originating source page to see the full text is generally allowed.

By Alan Caruba
June 29, 2005

Just what is the level of risk that you might get Mad Cow Disease? Zero! That’s right, the odds of contracting Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) come as close to non-existent as possible. You have a far better chance of being hit by a bolt of lightning.

Dr. Ron DeHaven, the United States Department of Agriculture’s chief veterinarian says, “Beef is absolutely safe to eat.” His colleague, Dr. Ken Peterson of the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service says, “Clinical studies tell us there’s virtually zero risk.”

That’s why Mad Cows don’t scare me, but that doesn’t stop groups with names like the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Friends of the Earth, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and more than a dozen others from flooding the media with claims that hamburgers, steaks, veal, and all those other delicious beef products are too dangerous to eat.

Aside from the scare campaigns intended to frighten everyone, the economy suffers when other nations refuse to import US beef products. An article in a June edition of the Houston Chronicle noted that the USDA’s delays on the announcement of recent test results, typical of any huge bureaucracy, “sent cattle prices falling and, of course, raised new questions about its ability to protect the public.”

It doesn’t take much to scare Americans, but the real story of the USDA’s and the US Food and Drug Administration’s response to a single detected case of BSE back in December 2003 actually demonstrates what a great job they have done in protecting Americans. That cow never entered the food supply.

The system of multiple firewalls maintained by Federal agencies protects Americans from possible exposure to BSE. What made a lot of news was the decision to recall a lot of meat at that time. None of it represented a risk, but no risk was deemed better than even the possibility of any risk. Given the often-wasteful nature of other government agencies, that’s what your tax dollars pay for.

Back in 1998 the USDA commissioned the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis to conduct an evaluation of the US regulatory measures to prevent the spread of BSE into our food supply. The Harvard study concluded that, even if BSE slipped into the country, the preventive measures currently in place insured that it would be extremely unlikely that BSE could become established in the US.

(more…)

By Sharon Stello/Enterprise staff writer
June 28, 2005

Local experts on mad cow disease say the latest U.S. case of an infected animal is no cause for concern and the nation should focus resources on the research and prevention of other, more prevalent food-borne illnesses.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Friday confirmed the United States’ second case of mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The country’s first case of the brain-wasting illness was in December 2003.

Through the years, UC Davis faculty members have conducted research on the disease and provided educational programs for a wide variety of consumer, producer and veterinary groups.

The California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory at UCD serves as one of seven laboratories across the country approved to conduct rapid screening tests as part of the nationwide surveillance for the disease. Additionally, the university reported that a highly sensitive livestock feed test aimed at preventing the disease has been developed by UCD researchers and is nearing commercialization.

Dean Cliver, professor of food safety at UCD, is a national expert on mad cow disease. Cliver said he believes the latest case is no cause for concern because the infected animal was never in the food supply.

Cliver noted that the animal was fairly old - “a senior citizen for her species” - born before a 1997 ban on feeding cattle remains to other cattle. (Mad cow disease is only known to spread through the feeding of infected cattle remains to other cattle.)

A human form of the illness, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, is fatal and has been linked to the consumption of contaminated meat. The disease has killed about 150 people worldwide, mostly in Britain, where there was an outbreak in the 1990s.

“I feel as if we need to develop some perspective and not overreact. I think we are overreacting,” Cliver said. “There are a lot of other things we ought to be more alarmed about. Š We have other more pressing things to deal with related to food safety.”

Cliver was a member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee on BSE for four years and served on the Institute of Medicine’s committee on advancing prion science. Cliver served on an international BSE forum, has met with other scientists from China and Canada, and has lectured in Mexico.

Cliver said he is satisfied with the testing system for mad cow disease in the United States.

“It looks as if we have enough safeguards in place,” he said.

(more…)