Meatpacker and USDA battle over right to test for mad cow disease

Any day now, we could see a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that has important implications for meat safety.

The case of Creekstone vs. USDA will set precedent for the right to test for mad cow disease, a fatal brain-wasting disorder that cattle can acquire if they are fed the processed remains of mad-cow infected animals. If humans eat meat from a diseased cow, they can come down with the human version of the disease, which is also always fatal.

In 2006, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, a Kansas meatpacking company, sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture because, surprisingly, the USDA was prohibiting Creekstone from testing its slaughtered cows for mad cow disease.

How exactly did the USDA justify the fact that it refused to allow Creekstone to verify that its slaughtered cattle were free of mad cow? And why would the federal agency responsible for meat safety prevent testing that could help keep this important pathogen out of the food supply?

Oddly, the USDA said that the rapid test kits—the same ones the agency itself used on thousands of cattle in its own mad-cow surveillance program—were “worthless” when used by private companies.

The Court was not convinced. It ruled that the USDA can’t argue that the test kits are useful when the government administers them but worthless when a private company does, and that the USDA must allow Creekstone to use the test. The USDA appealed, and the appeal was heard last month.

While the rapid tests are not infallible, we agree with the Court that they are not worthless. The tests can miss a case of mad cow disease in an early stage of incubation, but they can catch the disease in later stages, before the animal is showing symptoms. In the European Union, government-mandated testing of seemingly healthy cattle approved for slaughter turned up over 1,100 of cases of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow between 2001 and 2006 preventing these infected cattle from entering the European food chain.

The USDA also argued that it wants to “prevent beef producers from having to incur increased costs of conducting BSE testing ... to remain competitive if private BSE testing were permitted.” In other words, if the USDA were to allow Creekstone to use the rapid tests, consumer demand for tested beef would be so great that other companies would be forced to test to remain competitive.

Is that a problem?  A CU survey carried out in January 2004 found that 71 percent of the public supported testing of cattle for BSE and, of those, some 95 percent were willing to spend 10 cents more per pound—the projected cost—to buy meat from cows that had been tested. 

Allowing Creekstone to test would almost certainly benefit U.S. beef exporters. Creekstone has said it loses $200,000 a day by not being able to export to Japan and Korea, two major markets that heavily restrict imports of U.S. beef because mad cow was discovered in the United States in 2003. If U.S. companies were allowed to test for BSE, then these restrictions would probably decline or disappear.

If not, these markets are unlikely to open up.  The Korean President’s announcement in April that he would allow Korea to import U.S. beef in return for a free trade agreement set off ongoing street protests involving tens of thousands of people who object to the resumption of U.S. beef imports.

Consumers Union believes that, ideally, the USDA, like Japan, should require testing every cow over the age of 20 months at slaughter.  At this time, the USDA is testing only a tenth of a percent of dead or slaughtered cattle.  But at the very least the USDA should not prevent private companies from testing. Whatever the outcome of the Creekstone case, the USDA should drop its opposition to Creekstone and allow the sale and use of USDA-validated rapid test kits for the detection of mad cow disease. The agency should allow meat from tested animals to be labeled as BSE-tested, so that consumers in the U.S. and abroad have a choice and the market can function freely.—Michael Hansen

Comments

[Mike @ CCD]

I totally agree with you Ed. I just completed a research paper on BSE. The USDA and the US beef industry has a lot to lose if they did test all of the cows they slaughter. But things won't really change domestically or internationally anytime soon because the US still controls too much influence over trade, and there are too many laws in the way to have any whistleblowers come out with evidence on tainted beef.

[David Marjanović]

"At this time, the USDA is testing only a tenth of a percent of dead or slaughtered cattle."

As a European, I am shocked to learn this.

How is it possible that such irresponsible politicians are still in office? Why weren't they all voted out at the first opportunity? Where I come from, laws making testing mandatory were passed as soon as the existence of BSE hit the news.

It boggles the mind.

[rarara]

fighting!!!!! nice!!!!!

[Ed Gehrman]

There are two reasons the USDA doesn't test 100% of all
slaughtered cattle: They are worried about what they will find
and how this information will affect the US Beef industry.
100% testing will mean that the USDA will soon be required try to understand BSE, CJD, CWD and reexamine the prion theory.