Artwork by
Dennis Murphy

For the students, by the students

BSE: the road ahead
Megan Cooper, Corner Post Staff

April 14, 2004 - It has been almost three-and-a-half months since Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) was found in a single Holstein cow in Washington State on December 23, 2003. Progress continues to be made to ensure the safety of the U.S. beef supply, keep BSE out of the U.S cattle herd and re-open U.S. beef export markets.

Recent positive steps include Canada and Mexico re-opening their markets to U.S. muscle cuts of beef from cattle less than 30 months of age. Although this is a small step in getting all cattle back into commerce, it is definitely a step into the right direction.

One key export market we're still missing is Japan. Japan was the single most valuable market for U.S. beef exports in 2003, importing over a billion dollars worth of beef, according to USDA. But getting the Japanese market opened up again presents more of a challenge than government officials ever imagined.

Currently, Japanese officials are insisting all U.S. cattle slaughtered undergo testing for BSE before resuming imports of U.S beef.

"With 35 and-a-half million cattle slaughtered a year in America, this makes such a demand nearly impossible," Peter Shinn, News Manager for the National Farm Broadcast Service, said.

John Middleton, Ph.D, a large animal veterinarian at the University of Missouri Columbia, said that export markets are more of a political issue. "It's not a matter of whether our beef is safe or not," Middleton said. "Every country has different rules and regulations to abide by,"

Vice President Dick Cheney will be in Japan this weekend, and a bi-partisan group of Senators from beef producing states, including Missouri GOP Senators Jim Talent and Kit Bond, are urging him to bring up beef export issues.

Since December 23rd, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has implemented a range of new rules aimed at eliminating BSE-related food safety risks. Those measures include prohibiting specified risk materials (SRM), from entering the food supply. USDA also placed new restrictions on automated meat recovery systems (AMR). Additionally, USDA banned the slaughter of non-ambulatory cattle, also known as downer cattle, for use in food.

The percentage of so-called downer cattle in the U.S is very small compared to the million slaughtered annually, so the impact on cattle producers has been relatively small. Still, a Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) economic analysis released Wednesday estimated that new rule alone would cost the U.S beef industry between $35.6 and $71.3 million per year. FSIS estimated the total cost of all the new BSE-related food safety rules at $110.3 to $149.1 million.

As part of its response to BSE, USDA commissioned an international panel, operating under the auspices of the World Organization for Animal Health, to review USDA's BSE responses. Largely due to the recommendation of that international oversight panel, USDA will start a much more aggressive BSE testing program than the Agency had previously planned. In 2003, USDA reports it tested more than 20,000 head of cattle for BSE, and had planned to roughly double that number this year. Under the new plan, however, USDA officials say they could test as many as a quarter-million head of cattle in a 12 to 18 month period starting this June.

Bob Larson, Commercial Agriculture Veterinary Beef Cattle Extension Specialist, takes issue with the USDA decision to dramatically expand BSE testing. According to Larson, "Those of us that are epidemiologists know that a quarter million is way more cows than we need tested. With this high of a number, testing is no longer scientifically based."

U.S. Ag Secretary Ann Veneman has described the enhanced BSE testing program as a "one-time expansion" of USDA's BSE surveillance program, specifically designed to determine the prevalence of the disease, if any, in the U.S. cattle herd. Cattle to be tested under the program will be those deemed at high-risk for BSE. According to Larson, that includes older cows with neurological and musculoskeletal problems.

"Hopefully the quarter million is a one-time deal used to talk to trading partners," Larson said. "There is no reason to keep testing at that level."

Meanwhile, one small meatpacker based in Arkansas City, Kansas, Creekstone Farms, is pressing USDA to allow it to conduct its own, private BSE testing for all its slaughter cattle. Creekstone officials have said they've received assurances from the Japanese that they could resume exporting beef to Japan if they did so. The USDA rejected Crookstone's testing request on April 14, citing the dangers of private beef testing, like an incorrect positive diagnosis damaging the industry and restating the government's duty to protect U.S. food supplies.
"While some cattle producers would like to conduct their own BSE testing, this isn't being viewed positively by the cattle industry or by USDA, because thus far, testing for BSE has primarily been USDA's role," Shinn said.

Last year's lone case of American BSE has also hastened development of a national animal identification system, which had already been under development by USDA. USDA is now likely to implement an initial national animal ID pilot program this year, and USDA officials have said they hope to implement the system nationally in 2005. According to Shinn, key issues for livestock producers in implementing a national ID system include whether or not to make the program mandatory, protecting the confidentiality of records generated by such a program, and ensuring the program doesn't create burdensome new costs.

Currently, two programs that USDA is examining are the United States Animal Identification Program (USAIP) and The National Farm Identification and Records Program (FAIR). The USAIP is a much more complex program because it has to find a way to trace all species, and it is the farthest from being implemented. FAIR is a system that has been used for the past five years to test over one million dairy cattle. Many dairy producers, as well as the Holstein Association, say that it could be a model for a national animal identification program. FAIR has not been used on any other species such as sheep, swine, or beef cattle. It is, however, already in use, and Larson said this makes it very appealing to USDA.

"It is important to remember that a national ID system will not increase food safety," Larson said. "It will be implemented to ensure quick and efficient tracing of foreign and previously eradicated diseases."

Back to archive