Late on Friday night, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that a retest of brain matter from a cow killed last November showed that it might have had mad cow disease.
Following up on yesterday's diary by Thinking Republican on mad cow, here's a rundown of the story USDA didn't tell you.
Saddle up, pardners. Let's go for a ride.
There's a lot of ground to cover. Shrubs to whack. Rattlesnakes to kill. Let's use as our guide through these badlands the press release the U.S. Department of Agriculture released late Friday. It follows, reproduced in full in the block quotes, with explanatory comments and links in between.
Release No. 0206.05
Contact:
USDA Press Office (202)720-4623
STATEMENT BY DR. JOHN CLIFFORD REGARDING FURTHER ANALYSIS OF BSE INCONCLUSIVE TEST RESULTS
Whoa! Inconclusive? The test that officials say came back positive on Friday was a Western blot test. The test that USDA is second-guessing is the same one that Europeans use to confirm presence in their cows of the protein believed to cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly called mad cow disease.
The Western blot test is easier to conduct and is less prone to human interpretation, and yet USDA had stopped using it. Is that possibly because it's also more accurate?
See the transcript of this interview with Jean-Philippe Deslys, a medical researcher at the French Atomic Energy Commission and a leading researcher into prions, the proteins believed to cause BSE and other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). (The interview was posted by Terry S. Singeltary, who has been campaigning for answers regarding TSEs since his mother died from one.)
Consumer groups, including Consumers Union in this letter, have been asking that USDA renew the use of Western blot tests as part of its BSE testing program.
In fact, Consumers Union requested in this letter to the secretary of agriculture in February that this particular cow be retested using the Western blot test.
The accompanying - and informative -- Consumers Union news release is here.
And, another thing: Further analysis? Don't be surprised if USDA runs out of brain matter from this cow before they reach what they consider a "conclusive" result. There's only 0.4 ounce of material left.
Why only 0.4 ounce? Maybe in part because the cow was incinerated after it fell suspect. (Just for yucks, note in that Washington Post story that when the second round of tests came back negative in November, USDA considered that result "definitive.")
On with the USDA statement ...
June 10, 2005
Since the USDA enhanced surveillance program for BSE began in June 2004, more than 375,000 animals from the targeted cattle population have been tested for BSE using a rapid test.
The USDA's BSE testing program has been criticized by the department's own Office of Inspector General.
This report from last August contains a hat full of fireants, for those willing to wade through it.
The kicker (from page iv): "The problems disclosed during our review, if not corrected, may negatively impact the effectiveness of USDA's overall BSE surveillance program, impair its ability to perform risk assessments and program evaluations, and reduce the credibility of any assertion regarding the prevalence of BSE in the United States."
In other words, anyone relying on this testing program to back up their claims that USDA is on top of things has some sharp spurs, but no horse.
Back to the press release ...
Three of these animals tested inconclusive and were subsequently subjected to immunohistochemistry, or IHC, testing. The IHC is an internationally recognized confirmatory test for BSE. All three inconclusive samples tested negative using IHC.
The IHC
used to be tops in BSE testing. While USDA continues to insist on using the IHC test, prion science has developed better methods.
USDA has chosen not to use them, except when apparently their hand is forced by their own inspector general's office.
Refer back to the interview with Professor Deslys, who says: "The IHC was the gold standard at one point, but we have shifted to the Western blot. It requires less work, it is more sensitive and its results are reproducible."
And the USDA went on to say ...
Earlier this week, USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which has been partnering with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the Agricultural Research Service by impartially reviewing BSE-related activities and making recommendations for improvement, recommended that all three of these samples be subjected to a second internationally recognized confirmatory test, the OIE-recognized SAF immunoblot test, often referred to as the Western blot test. We received final results a short time ago. Of the three samples, two were negative, but the third came back reactive.
Reactive? I guess saying "positive" for these folks would be as unpleasant as kicking a fresh turd on a hot day.
But hold on, pardner! Just when did the inspector general ride into town? It seems the USDA's IG, a pretty lady named Phyllis K. Fong, has been nosing around in USDA's BSE testing program.
One former meat inspector has been riding off the ranch, saying the inspector general is looking into whether the USDA has been covering up cases of mad cow disease. See this story, and this story. (Note: UPI's Steve Mitchell has been breaking stories about mad cow disease and other related stories for months. If you're interested in the topic, do a Google News search with his name from time to time.)
The IG knows some things about USDA's BSE testing program. One area of interest has been the strange doings in Texas. (According to this story, the cow that's drawing all this attention from USDA this weekend was from Texas.)
The USDA last year told its slaughterhouse inspectors in Texas to shut their yaps if reporters came wandering around. See this. (Be sure to note this choice quote from Gary Dahl, a meat inspectors union official in Colorado: "And believe me there's so many indicators saying that the USDA's mad cow testing program is broken.")
Why does USDA want folks quiet? Maybe it has something to do with the case of the cow that looked mad, yet made it past the objecting inspectors anyways. See this story. It was also covered in this Associated Press story.
Ms. Fong poked at this snake, providing written testimony before a congressional hearing last summer. Her testimony didn't draw a lot of media attention, probably because 23-page documents don't make good TV. But some of it's compelling readin'. Open the PDF file and skip down to page 9 and read how a corporate vice president was able to stare down meat safety inspectors - over the telephone.
Back to the release ...
Because of the conflicting results on the IHC and Western blot tests, a sample from this animal will be sent to the OIE-recognized reference laboratory for BSE in Weybridge, England. USDA will also be conducting further testing, which will take several days to complete.
Well, that was Friday night. By the time the roosters crowed Saturday morning things changed. Dr. Clifford said they'll have to do some more testing, then decide whether anyone else gets to do any. The
Reuters story again.
The release continues ...
Regardless of the outcome, it is critical to note that USDA has in place a sound system of interlocking safeguards to protect human and animal health from BSE-including, most significantly, a ban on specified risk materials from the human food supply.
Folks who have taken a good look at this "sound system of interlocking safeguards" have found something as dumb as a bag full of hammers.
USDA folks and others are quick to point out that the "firewall" - one of their favorite words - that protects people from mad cow disease is the ban on cow parts in cow feed. The thinking is that if any cattle have BSE, it won't be passed on to other cattle if it's kept out of the feed.
Twice the General Accountability Office has come over the hill to take a look. They haven't been impressed with the Food and Drug Administration's effort to keep cattle parts out of the feed system. Their February report, a PDF file entitled "FDA's Management of The Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness," is here.
Some choice parts:
From page 8: "FDA is reporting information to Congress and the public on industry compliance without providing a full and complete context for that information. That is, FDA reported a 99 percent compliance rate in January 2004. While FDA noted the rate was based on renderers, protein blenders, and feed mills that process with prohibited material, it did not note that the rate was based on inspections of only 570 firms. Some industry officials have cited that high rate of compliance as support for their position that the FDA does not need to strengthen the feed-ban rule. ... [W]e do not believe that FDA has enough information or enough current information to cite a rate of compliance. Any compliance information FDA cites must be reported in it complete context."
(A note: Page 28 of the report discloses that 570 is only 4 percent of the firms involved in cattle feed production.)
From page 9: "We believe that the problems described in this report are serious and that, given the fact that BSE has been discovered in North American cattle, breaches in FDA's oversight of the feed-ban rule place U.S. cattle at risk for BSE."
From page 29: "Especially troubling was our discovery that FDA did not alert USDA and state authorities when it became aware that cattle had been given feed that contained prohibited material. FDA, and its key partner, USDA, together provide critical firewalls that the federal government has in place to protect U.S. cattle and consumers. In addition, the lack of notification was contrary to FDA's own guidance and FDA's inaction prevented USDA and states from being able to make an informed decision on how to respond to the discovery that cattle had consumed prohibited material.
"Given these weaknesses and the fact that FDA does not include all violations in its estimates, we believe FDA is overstating industry's compliance with the animal feed ban and understating the potential risk of BSE for U.S. cattle in its reports to Congress and the American people. Despite the problems in FDA's calculation, some in the feed industry claim that overall compliance with the feed ban is nearly 100 percent - a claim that FDA's compliance information does not support."
Back to Friday night's press release:
In the case of this animal, it was a non-ambulatory (downer) animal and as such was banned from the food supply. It was processed at a facility that handles only animals unsuitable for human consumption, and the carcass was incinerated.
USDA has chosen to concentrate its BSE testing program on "downer" cows, those that arrive at slaughterhouses with broken legs or ailments that prevent them from rising or walking. USDA says concentrating the testing on downers increases the likelihood that they'll find BSE if it's present in the cattle population.
Consumer groups and the USDA inspector general's office have criticized the approach, saying that it overlooks the possibility that BSE may be present in healthy-looking cows.
Rep. Henry Waxman, citing the USDA inspector general's report from last summer, wrote in this letter to then-Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman saying he was worried USDA wasn't being up front about its BSE testing program. He said: "The public depends on the USDA to protect the safety of the food supply and to provide honest assessments of problems when they do arise. My concern is that the Department has not met either of these obligations."
"USDA's enhanced surveillance program is designed to provide information about the level of prevalence of BSE in the United States.
Let's look at the USDA OIG's
report from last August that we mentioned early in this post. Some snippets from the executive summary (pages i and ii) describing the BSE surveillance program:
- "Sampling is not truly random because participation in the program is voluntary. ..."
- "As the plan is currently designed, APHIS [Animal Plant Health Inspection Service] cannot obtain a statistically appropriate geographical representation of the U.S. cattle population. Because the program is voluntary and the universe of high-risk cattle is difficult to identify, obtain, and test, the surveillance plan needs to be clarified and its conclusions relating to the prevalence of BSE may need to be qualified."
- "APHIS' sampling plan assumes BSE is confined to the high-risk cattle population; other studies have shown that healthy-looking animals may also have BSE."
- "APHIS' plan to test 20,000 clinically normal cattle may give the incorrect impression that these few tests will suggest a level of assurance higher than warranted about the 45 million adult cattle in the United States."
"APHIS cannot easily identify, obtain, or test cattle in its high-risk population; therefore, the chances of detecting BSE, if it exists, may be reduced and the projected maximum BSE prevalence rate may be unreliable."
On with the USDA's release ...
Since the inception of this program, we have fully anticipated the possibility that additional cases of BSE would be found.
Say what? This is Ministry of Truth talk here. USDA officials and industry folks have relied on stock phrases for years insisting there is no evidence that BSE has made it to the U.S. and that the beef supply is safe. Now they want to act like they thought it was possible all along.
Back to the govmint's story ...
And, in fact, we are extremely gratified that to date, more than 375,000 animals have been tested for the disease and, with the exception of the conflicting results we have received on this one animal, all have ultimately proven to be negative for the disease.
Here's a question I'd like to see asked: Will USDA use Western blot tests to check any of the other 374,999 cow brain samples it says it has collected?
Elizabeth Weiss of USA Today had the best question in Friday night's news teleconference with USDA officials. She wanted to know whether any of the new BSE testing technologies will be adopted by USDA. The response from Secretary Johanns was that they wouldn't want to make any "knee-jerk" changes.
See this summary of research that shows a new test is more accurate than the one USDA uses.
Anyways, on with it ...
USDA is committed to ensuring that our BSE program is the best that it can be, keeping pace with science and international guidelines, and to considering recommendations made by OIG and others in this regard. We are committed to ensuring that we have the right protocols in place-ones that are solidly grounded in science and consistently followed.
After we receive additional test results on this animal, we will determine what further steps need to be taken and what changes, if any, are warranted in our surveillance program.
Last Modified: 06/10/2005
Oh, by the way, apparently Congress is considering legislation that would restrict access to information about future suspect mad cows.
What's for dinner?!