What's absolutely insane is anyone who votes for these
Repugs. They not only refuse to implement an adequate level
of testing for slaughtered beef, but they also refuse to
allow beef producers to test the beef on their own (such as
Creekstone Farms). In Japan, they test each and every single
cow slaughtered, for any symptoms of the deadly Mad Cow
disease. There's no reason why we can't do the same. At
least our government should allow independent beef producers
to test their own individual cows on their own, such as
Creekstone Farms!
Some Scientists suspect that Alzheimers disease is related
to Mad Cow disease. We don't know yet, but it is absolutely
unconscienable that our government, controlled by the
Repugs, is putting the health of our country, and the world,
at risk, just because the big beef producers (who finance
the Repug campaigns) would rather that we all not find out
how many of their cows are infected with Mad Cow disease.
What's up with these Repugs? Ignorance is bliss for them. In
the mean time, aside from the health risks, we are also
losing sales, domestically and abroad, to the tune of
billions of dollars per year. These guys are beyond insane!
Abel Malcolm
From: www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/14/EDG8Q-
6L1OH1.DTL
Remedy for an insane policy -- Test all beef for mad cow
Robert Lull, Steve Heilig
Friday, May 14, 2004
Mad cow disease remains a worrying mystery. Meat from
infected animals can infect consumers with prions, which
cause variant Creutzfeldt- Jakob disease, a progressive
degeneration of the brain that is always fatal.
Mad cow disease (the common term for bovine spongiform
encephalopathy) is caused by prions, the infectious
misshapen proteins discovered by University of California
researcher Stanley Prusiner, who received a Nobel Prize in
Medicine for his groundbreaking work. Prusiner has referred
to BSE-related diseases as "new, strange and scary."
Unfortunately, it seems that some governmental officials and
agricultural leaders are not so worried about the threat
that prion diseases such as BSE present -- not only to
animals, but to humans as well. A human outbreak of Creutzfeldt-
Jakob disease, caused by eating prion-contaminated beef from
cattle with BSE, killed approximately 150 people in England
in the 1990s. At that time, up to a third of British herds
were found to be contaminated before the infection was
controlled.
The one cow found to test positive in the United States in
December unleashed a flurry of concern here, with much
confusion over how much of a threat that case might have
posed. Equally disturbing were varying allegations that the
beef industry and governmental regulators were not being
entirely forthcoming about the details of this case and were
trying to reassure the public without enough scientific
evidence to do so. There admittedly is much scientific
uncertainty about how much a threat BSE poses to humans.
In recognition of that uncertainty, Japan has taken the BSE
threat seriously and now routinely tests all slaughtered
cattle and sheep for the presence of prion infection. The
U.S. government persists in much more limited testing --
fewer than 1 percent of all cows are so tested -- arguing
that scientific uncertainty makes universal testing too
expensive. Yet Consumers Union has testified that such
testing would add, at most, five cents a pound to the cost
of beef. But Creekstone Farms in Kansas, seeking to certify
its beef BSE-free and thus be able to sell it to Japan as
well as concerned consumers here, have been threatened by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture with legal action and
severe fines to stop them from testing all their cattle for
the BSE-causing prion. New tests can detect such prions in a
short enough time to allow use on all animals at the time of
slaughter.
Why would USDA oppose such testing? If it is positive, that
would be good for human safety (one of the USDA's missions);
but it could also trigger public reaction bad for the beef
industry's profits. Wouldn't USDA be happy that any infected
animal was detected before infecting a human? What possible
justification can they have for denying beef producers who
want to test every cow, at their own cost, in order to sell
safety-certified beef?
At this time, testing all cows slaughtered for human
consumption for the presence of BSE prions rather than late-
stage full-blown neurological disease -- which is the only
test now used by the USDA -- makes good sense as a public
health precaution until more data are accumulated on the new
rapid tests for BSE prions. This is why the San Francisco
Medical Society supports this position -- as does Prusiner,
the Nobel winner.
While the details of the threat are being determined, it is
time to err on the side of safety, rather than on assurances
from beef industry spokesmen. If it does turn out that
testing 100 percent of animals is not warranted, good -- the
standards could then be relaxed, and we'd all be safe rather
than sorry. Right now, though, despite all assurances from
those in charge, we just don't know.
Even if we cannot test all cattle, certainly there is no
good reason to keep a ban on voluntary testing by
responsible members of the cattle industry. This would
provide consumers with a real choice regarding the safety of
their beef products. It would also allow our cattle industry
to reopen the markets now closed for beef sales in Japan and
other countries that insist each slaughtered animal be
certified negative for prions.
Congress and the public need to send our agricultural
regulators at the USDA a strong message about their
obligation to public health -- and consumer choice.
Leading scientists agree that eating prions is a bad idea.
If your doctor told you an inexpensive test could reduce
your risk of contracting something that would kill you,
you'd ask for that test. Likewise, isn't it time we pay
the extra nickel per pound to be sure the beef we eat is
free of a fatal disease?
Robert Lull, M.D., is professor of medicine at the
University of California at San Francisco, chief of Nuclear
Medicine at San Francisco General Hospital and a past
president of the San Francisco Medical Society. Steve Heilig
is co-editor of the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare
Ethics, director of Public Health and Education for the San
Francisco Medical Society and co-director of the
Collaborative on Health and the Environment.