|
|
| How to Advertise | |
| How to Subscribe | |
| About Us | |
| Classifieds | |
| Contact Us | |
| Coming Events | |
| Archives | |
| Farm Facts | |
Copyright © 2001 Eastern Ontario Farmers Forum Inc. All Rights Reserved |
U.S. Caught with Inadequate BSE Testing
By: Robert Tremblay
The BSE situation continues to be more of a "soap opera" than a public health or animal health issue.
To its credit, the beef consuming public has recognized this fact and has stood by the beef industry. The most recent episode in this long-running saga was the announcement on June 24th that the U.S. cow that tested first as "suspicious" and then "negative" last November, ended up testing "positive" when re-tested in the internationally recognized laboratory in the UK. We only know this now because the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was forced to do additional testing on the cow by outside forces.
The entire episode adds an element of truth to the rumours that had been circulating about the BSE testing procedure that had been implemented in the U.S.. Theoretically, the testing procedure should be straightforward; select cattle to test from all risk groups. First, use a screening test that tends to err on the side of finding more cattle positive than there actually are and finally, re-test the cattle that are "positive" on the first test with an internationally recognized gold standard test.
Now we know that the final step wasn’t done properly by the USDA. When it was additionally confirmed in the June 24th announcement that the cow had already tested positive in the USDA laboratory seven months ago, who can blame people for being cynical about the entire USDA testing process.
I guess most scientists assumed that the tests the USDA had been using were up to international standards. Apparently those tests weren’t actually up to standard, even though the USDA had assured everyone that they were. The USDA should actually have suspected this last November when this cow tested positive on additional testing in their very own laboratory. Their late admission calls into question the rest of their BSE testing process.
There are numerous places where the U.S. program could be examined. One is the accuracy of the first screening test. It is difficult to comment on whether the first screening test has been properly administered. It sure would be nice to have more information released on the processes in place to monitor the performance of this test. The processes and the actual quality control reports from the regional screening labs should have been made public.
A second area of the USDA testing program has been questioned: the selection of cattle for testing. There is concern that many high-risk cattle are not selected, such as cattle that die on farm. The situation is quite different in Canada where testing of cattle on farms is encouraged through payment programs.
Hopefully, the USDA will improve its testing process and make it more transparent. The legal climate is such that external forces may force the USDA to do both!