392 replies to this topic

[Nick]

Additional information from USDA:

PS When the new regulation comes out requiring the removal of spinal cords,
it will most likely affect only animals 30 months and older.

Alexander L. Lauro, DVM
Technical Assistance & Correlation (TAC) Staff Officer
Technical Service Center
402-221-7400
402-221-7497 (FAX)
Alexander.Lauro@fsis.usda.gov

Somehow, "...it will most likely affect only animals 30 months and older." is a little confusing. Does this regulation have a time limit intended only to catch older animals from before feed regulations went into effect, or will this go on for years in a way that somehow doesn't make sense?

At least to me.

[ExtraMSG]

I don't believe animals less than 30 months can have Mad Cow. It takes longer than that to develop.

[redarmy]

I don't believe animals less than 30 months can have Mad Cow.  It takes longer than that to develop.

It takes anywhere from 3-6 years for BSE to develop in cattle. Cattle who don't show signs of the BSE prion have not been proven to be infective.

The majority of cattle slaughtered in the U.S. are less than 30 months of age, which means even if you test them, you're not going to get a positive result for BSE.

So if you're getting your oxtail from younger animals, it A-OK.

There an EXTREMELY low (0.002%) chance of cattle younger than 30 months showing evidence of prions in the brain. However, the two (?) EU cases were both very close to 30 months in age--28 and 29 months respectively.

Japan has had more case which were less than 30 months of age. However, they are also using a rapid test which--according to our vets and the USDA--skews positive. They're also not sending their "positive" results to Waybridge (BSE lab central) or performing the "gold standard" immunohistochemistry test.

[Kenk]

Here is a good article that explores the problem some more. Taken from the Montreal Gazette.

Beef disaster follows years of sloppy regulation

The diagnosis of mad cow has nothing to do with detecting the specific prion that may cause the disease. There is no way of assuring that animals less than 30 months are mad cow free. They are just less likely to show symptoms and are less likely to have been fed higher risk food.

I must reiterate I strongly believe no ruminent animals should be fed any kind of meat. No animal should ever be fed canabalistacly or ever fed manure.

[ExtraMSG]

Kenk, that's a moral opinion, though, not a scientific, nutritional, or health-oriented one. Afterall, it's not meat in general that causes the problem, but the same thing that causes the problem in us: nervous system tissue.

[redarmy]

Here is a good article that explores the problem some more.  Taken from the Montreal Gazette.

Beef disaster follows years of sloppy regulation

The diagnosis of mad cow has nothing to do with detecting the specific prion that may cause the disease.  There is no way of assuring that animals less than 30 months are mad cow free.  They are just less likely to show symptoms and are less likely to have been fed higher risk food.

I must reiterate I strongly believe no ruminent animals should be fed any kind of meat.  No animal should ever be fed canabalistacly or ever fed manure.

Not entirely sure how the diagnosis of BSE has nothing to do with the diagnosis of the prion, since the two are THE SAME THING.

How many times do people have to hear that animals less than 30 months are incredibly unlikely to contract BSE before they believe it?

Let me repeat: It takes anywhere from 3-6 years for BSE to develop in cattle. Cattle who don't show signs of the BSE prion have not been proven to be infective. The majority of cattle slaughtered in the North America are less than 30 months of age, which they haven't had time to develop the disease--even if they've contracted it--which means even if you test them, you're not going to get a positive result for BSE.

Tests have also shown that cattle that don't have the prion CANNOT SPREAD THE DISEASE.

The Harvard Centre for Risk Analysis has shown that the most effective way to stop the spread of BSE is to eliminate the infective material in the feed. This was done in 1997 by both the U.S. and Canada. The two North American BSE cases were born before the feed ban, which prohibited ruminants from being fed to ruminants. This means they most likely got the disease from contaminated feed.

Canada and the U.S. have also recently changed their rules regarding specified risk materials--the infective agents which spread BSE--further reducing the risk of BSE being spread.

also p.s. there are few cattle producers that feed their cattle animal-based proteins, at least in Alberta. Grain--and assorted vegetable-based feeds--are the rule, because Alberta has an abundance of grains/etc. with a high enough level of protein to promote growth.

[mb7o]

so if it takes 30 months to show up.
but it's not infective before then
where does the prion come from? is it spontaneous at 29 months?

[Katherine]

Here is a good article that explores the problem some more.  Taken from the Montreal Gazette.

Beef disaster follows years of sloppy regulation

The diagnosis of mad cow has nothing to do with detecting the specific prion that may cause the disease.  There is no way of assuring that animals less than 30 months are mad cow free.  They are just less likely to show symptoms and are less likely to have been fed higher risk food.

I must reiterate I strongly believe no ruminent animals should be fed any kind of meat.  No animal should ever be fed canabalistacly or ever fed manure.

Not entirely sure how the diagnosis of BSE has nothing to do with the diagnosis of the prion, since the two are THE SAME THING.

How many times do people have to hear that animals less than 30 months are incredibly unlikely to contract BSE before they believe it?

Let me repeat: It takes anywhere from 3-6 years for BSE to develop in cattle. Cattle who don't show signs of the BSE prion have not been proven to be infective. The majority of cattle slaughtered in the North America are less than 30 months of age, which they haven't had time to develop the disease--even if they've contracted it--which means even if you test them, you're not going to get a positive result for BSE.

Tests have also shown that cattle that don't have the prion CANNOT SPREAD THE DISEASE.

Prions are not diagnosed; it is the condition of the brain tissue that determines the diagnosis. Animals with BSE have brain tissue which is significantly different than that of uninfected animals.

It is in fact generally understood that the incubation period for BSE is quite long. The animals contract it while they are young. Only when they become older (and dairy cattle live the longest lives: they are the animals in which we see symptoms) do symptoms appear. There is no evidence whatever that animals that die of BSE have just contracted it, or contracted it after 30 months of age. Nor is there evidence that animals that do not yet show symptoms, yet are infected (and were they to live long enough, would die of the disease) are not infective.

Lack of evidence that something is infective is not the same as proof that it is not.

In real world populations, it is impossible to trace the exact animal that transmitted the disease. If you prefer to believe that eating possibly BSE-infected animals is safe until after people have been proven to have died from this, that is your choice. But BSE is not innocent until proven guilty. The scientifically prudent thing to do is not feed suspect cattle to humans.

So go ahead. Eat suspect cattle. Experiment on yourself. Maybe you'll get a Darwin Award.

[ExtraMSG]

I put links to the Harvard risk analysis site in this thread:

http://forums.egulle...showtopic=34632

I don't get it Katherine.... So are you saying that people should just stop eating beef all-together because we can't be sure that any cow doesn't have BSE?

The odds of getting BSE are damned slim anyway, even when you eat beef with it. It seems quite paranoid to cut out beef that can't be shown to even have the disease. You know how much higher your risk of getting heart disease from that hamburger is than BSE? There's always risk in food.

BSE is scary because when you get it there's no cure and it really sucks. Sucks hard. And so it makes big news in the papers. But really, there are so many more important and common things to worry about: drinking, smoking, stairs, sex, freshly mopped floors, jai-lai, swimming pools, sex in swimming pools, cars, sex in cars, Canadians.... The list goes on and on.

[Katherine]

I don't get it Katherine.... So are you saying that people should just stop eating beef all-together because we can't be sure that any cow doesn't have BSE?

I said nothing of the sort.

But if we do not have clear evidence that that downer cow would have been infective, had it been butchered at 30 months, this is in no way clear evidence that a serving of fried brains made from it would have been safe to consume, even if it had passed the currently available tests at that point.

BSE is a complex problem, and there is no one simple solution for it.

[fresco]

Scientists are now reported to be trying to clone cattle that are resistant to BSE, which strikes me as wrong-headed:

http://www.local6.co...098/detail.html

[Kenk]

ExtraMSG,

Thank you for accusing me of taking a moral opinion on this issue. I have heard enough scientific opinions stating that protein is just protein. Including a professor from Guelph University that think it is a good idea to feed animal human sewage.

This moral opinion has followed people probably for thousands of years and gets proven to be a good one, time after time.

Science is not able to prove, or immunize people for every condition. At best they can address some problems in time.

15 years ago it was considered perfectly within scientific reason to feed cattle processes cattle from rendering plants. Now without absolute proof it is not considered scientifically acceptable to feed cattle the same way.

I think your point on risk analysis has some merit. The problem is confidence in the food supply is based on perception. If the perception is that you can get sick from eating beef the perception can take over. If the food industry Ignores the problem, or buries it or misrepresents it or blames it all on Canada this will not help.

[ExtraMSG]

But the problem is that presumably any animal could get the disease from eating the nervous system tissue of an infected animal. It has nothing to do with cannibalism or herbivores eating meat.

There are many animals that are naturally cannibalistic, such as trout and salmon. Even some mammals, and many carniverous or omniverous animals, especially when their food supply is stressed. Rats will eat their own young if they get low on food or water.

I just never really buy into the natural = good arguments. It's contextual. Sometimes what is natural is good, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes cannibalism is okay, sometimes it isn't.

I make moral claims as well, but I try not to confuse them with scientific claims. eg, I feel uncomfortable with eating animals such as dogs. And the higher up on the intelligence scale you go up in animals, the less comfortable I feel, until eventually you get to apes, dolphins, and humans, and I think it's clearly wrong. But that's a moral belief, not a scientific one. There may be problems associated with humans eating any of these things, there may not be. But the two issues have nothing to do with each other.

[ExtraMSG]

CHICAGO, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Excel Corp., the nation's No. 2 beef producer, laid off up to 7 percent of its workers at five U.S. beef plants after major overseas buyers halted purchases of U.S. beef following the discovery of a case of mad cow disease, the company said on Friday.

http://biz.yahoo.com..._layoffs_4.html

[TPO]

There are many animals that are naturally cannibalistic, such as trout and salmon. Even some mammals, and many carniverous or omniverous animals, especially when their food supply is stressed. Rats will eat their own young if they get low on food or water.

True, but in some instances animals who eat their own kind are subject to diseases as a result. To me, that is nature's way of keeping many species from eating their own.

For species do not get diseases from cannibalism, it is likely the result of hundreds or thousands of years of evolution... not a couple of decades of feeding them their own kind when their species simply was not designed to do so.

I'm not going to stop eating beef. As it has been said many times before, there are a lot of risks with any food. But I also think we need to know more about vCJD. We have a lot of people diagnosed with Alzheimer's now, and their are scientists out there who say we'll never know how many really have vCJD.

Additionally, even if an infected cow is not eaten it can still contaminate others in the slaughterhouse. Tools, machines and surrounding meat can be contaminated when a carcass is processed, especially since they are typically split down the middle right through the spinal column.

For this and other reasons, I think that some precautions are warranted and that there is a happy medium between saying there is no problem at all and overreacting.

[Nick]

Good editorial from the NYT -

Modern meatpacking plants are enormous automated factories, as void of humans as possible. The machinery, like the now- notorious automated meat-recovery system, is very expensive. Profitability requires an uninterrupted flow of carcasses. To packers, that means that they, rather than independent farmers, should own the cattle, hogs and poultry moving through the line. The federal government agrees. Every effort to outlaw packers' ownership of livestock has failed.

The result is a system in which the average drives out the excellent, and the international drives out the local.....

Click here.

[ExtraMSG]

But I also think we need to know more about vCJD. We have a lot of people diagnosed with Alzheimer's now, and their are scientists out there who say we'll never know how many really have vCJD.

My understanding of the symptoms is that the two diseases are different enough not to be confused by a doctor.

For this and other reasons, I think that some precautions are warranted and that there is a happy medium between saying there is no problem at all and overreacting.

I agree. How this is done and what the line is for overreacting, though, we may disagree on.

[jeff29992001]

"In 1990, when the federal government designed a surveillance system to detect mad cow disease, scientists said the tests would find one case of the disease if there were 45 infected cattle in the country.
...
Determining the exact number of infected animals will be difficult, perhaps impossible. Unlike countries that test all slaughtered animals, the United States tests a tiny fraction of the 45 million animals thought to be at risk -- 20,526 tests were conducted last year -- leaving experts with more questions than answers.
...
Epidemiologists and statisticians say the infected Holstein raises a flag that could indicate there are two, 10 or even 90 infected animals in the United States. "

Assessing Risks of Mad Cow

summarizing--
the current bse test used by the USDA, more accurately, a "survey" (last year 20,526 cattle tested out of 35 million slaughtered) assumes the following risks: if there are 45 infected cows, then the test will detect at least 1 of them.

so the question is whether there are 45 infected cows out there, or are there more or less.

complicating the matter is the test is administered only on downer cattle, completely missing cows that appear normal. so those 45 infected cattle could be one of those "healthy" looking (but possibly infected, and in the early stages of bse) cows being slaughtered.

there are too many questions and holes in the system to give any concrete answers.



I hope this answers a few questions among the non-scientifically/non mathematically inclined...

[Mottmott]

I just read this article on BSE/MCD. Perhaps those of you with more science behind you could comment. It is not reassuring.

http://www.alternet....l?StoryID=17513

[Katherine]

I just read this article on BSE/MCD.  Perhaps those of you with more science behind you could comment. It is not reassuring.

http://www.alternet....l?StoryID=17513

Wow

[jeff29992001]

hmm, the suggestion of a link between CJD and Alzheimer's is interesting, I'd like to read more into it to be certain of anything...


as for the cross-contamination of pig-chicken-cattle neuro tissue, that should've been obvious to ppl. but i'd like to see some more studies done to be certain of anything...

[ExtraMSG]

Would it mean I could drink canned pop again if I cut out hamburger?

btw, here are some other links:

http://www.hcra.harv...html#spongiform

http://www.foxnews.c...,107632,00.html

[Katherine]

But I also think we need to know more about vCJD. We have a lot of people diagnosed with Alzheimer's now, and there are scientists out there who say we'll never know how many really have vCJD.

My understanding of the symptoms is that the two diseases are different enough not to be confused by a doctor.

A couple of years back, I read on the BBC that it's possible that the reason that vCJD is only found in younger people is that its symptoms mimic those of a variety of other degenerative neurological diseases, which we expect to see in elderly people. They thought that if proper screening procedures were in place, the number of victims found would have been much higher, by a factor of two or three.

[alacarte]

The following is excerpted from financial newsweekly Barron's. The site requires a password, sorry.

ANYONE SEEKING A SENSIBLE APPROACH to avoiding "mad cow" disease perhaps should study first how the cattle are slaughtered. Haven't got the time? Then you might want to consider eating kosher.

That's the conclusion of the preeminent kosher-certification agency, the Orthodox Union -- at least until some added protections from the Agriculture Department take effect. The Jewish agency recently asserted that the likelihood "is much less" that kosher meat will be tainted with mad-cow disease, and that no kosher cattle has ever been infected. Why? Because kosher laws prohibit the use of "downed," or sick cows, as well as stunning or shocking animals to kill them.

.....Once the new USDA rules are implemented, the risk to ordinary cattle should be about equal to kosher ones, says New York-based Rabbi Menachem Genack, rabbinic administrator of the Orthodox Union's kosher division. Still, "it may be that kosher animals are by definition somewhat healthier," because in addition to strictly supervised slaughter, they undergo rigorous health inspections, the rabbi says. With concerns over enforcement of USDA bans, that's no small thing.

[jeff29992001]

"it may be that kosher animals are by definition somewhat healthier," because in addition to strictly supervised slaughter, they undergo rigorous health inspections, the rabbi says.

like what kinda rigorous health inspections? does it include post-mortem inspection of neuro tissue for BSE (20526 cattle tested out of 35 million slaughtered last year)?

if not, then the BSE risk in kosher slaughtered beef is the same as regular beef---healthy looking cattle can still harbor abnormal prions/incubate BSE, and pass through the slaughterhouse without anyone suspecting a thing.

Edited by jeff29992001, 13 January 2004 - 03:41 AM.

[ExtraMSG]

A couple interesting sound clips from NPR on Mad Cow today:

http://www.npr.org/f...hp?wfId=1596785

Last month's discovery of mad cow disease in Washington state touched off a crisis for U.S. beef producers. With billions of dollars at stake, cattle ranchers and meatpackers united to convince consumers of the safety of U.S. beef. Strong sales figures suggest their efforts have been successful. NPR's Elaine Korry reports.

http://www.npr.org/f...hp?wfId=1597543

NPR's Jeff Brady attends the National Western Stock Show in Denver to hear what those in the beef industry are saying about mad cow disease. They report that in addition to containing the disease, they are concerned about public perception of the safety of beef.

[Mottmott]

Here's more (frightening) news about testing procedures or, rather, lack of testing procedures:


http://www.upi.com/v...14-041124-1470r

[QuinaQuen]

What is reassuring is how quickly, decisively and transparently this was handled. After the recent Canadian experience, there was no doubt that announcing the discovery of a single case of mad cow was going to have serious and expensive consequences, but no one delayed or equivocated.

Gawrsh, that's a lot o' big words. But your ironic tone is well taken. To say that corporate megafarms are skirting USDA regulations is so obvious that you might as well assert that there are hookers in Vegas. If you want to turn this forum into a lambasting of Howdy Doody and the megacorps who have their hands up his culo to make him talk, I'll glady add some flapdoodle.

[ExtraMSG]

I'm actually starting to see why the industry has been so worried about oversight. Every time they find a cow that shared the same pasture with the infected cow they decide to kill off the herd that currently shares the pasture with this cow.

http://www.miami.com...ald/7729988.htm

By virtue of six degrees of separation, how long until every damned cow is killed?

[Nick]

I was over at Fulton and Janey's slaughterhouse/meat shop yesterday to get some stuff - pork sausage, ground lamb, 2# porterhouse, and since the boneless chuck roast in the case looked so good I bought the whole thing - 9#. All for 40 bucks.

Anyhow, David said they'd been getting lots of calls about mad cow. Usually along the lines of, "do you have mad cow disease over there?" David - "No ma'am, we only slaughter happy cows."