- LOUISBURG, Kan. (Reuters)
- The brown-and-white spotted calves appear happy and healthy as they amble
through the tall grass of a northeastern Kansas field, never straying far
from their mothers.
-
- But back at the barn -- and in countless barns, feedlots,
slaughterhouses and packing plants around the United States -- the health
of cattle like these has become a hot-button issue.
-
- Calls for widespread testing of the nation's beef supply
have stretched from Tokyo to Arkansas City, Kansas, after the United States
detected its first-ever case of "mad cow disease" last December.
-
- The news sent shock waves through domestic markets and
triggered an immediate halt to important international trade, including
deals with Japan, which typically buys about $1.4 billion of U.S. beef
annually.
-
- Still, the U.S. government has refused to support widespread
testing of the nation's cattle herds. Instead, the Agriculture Department
has launched a limited voluntary testing program that its own inspector
general said may be scientifically invalid.
-
- Critics are also accusing the government of favoring
big businesses that oppose extensive testing, at the expense of small cattle
companies that back it.
-
- "It is truly a mess," said Thomas McGarity,
who teaches food safety law at the University of Texas and heads the Center
for Progressive Regulation think tank.
-
- RARE BUT FEARED
-
- Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly called mad
cow, is feared around the world because it can trigger fatal brain disorders
in humans if they eat certain tissue from an infected animal. But the brain-wasting
disease is rare, and transmissions to humans are even more uncommon. The
only known U.S. case was found in a cow in Washington state.
-
- Japan and many other countries routinely test their slaughtered
cattle for the disease and have demanded that beef they buy from the United
States must prove free of mad cow.
-
- But the U.S. Department of Agriculture says widespread
testing is unnecessary. Its new "surveillance" program, expected
to cost taxpayers $70 million, aims to test about 270,000 animals in the
next 18 months, compared with about 35 million slaughtered annually.
-
- Only animals that show certain symptoms will be tested
through the program, which depends on voluntary participation.
-
- As of Monday, some 23,000 cattle had been tested, with
no detection of the disease. The government hopes to show it is virtually
nonexistent in U.S. herds.
-
- "The testing is a one-time enhanced surveillance
program where we will test as many as we physically can," said USDA
spokesman Jim Rogers. "It will give us a snapshot of our animal health
among that population."
-
- But criticism is rapidly growing louder.
-
- In an audit released earlier this month, the USDA inspector
general said the testing program was poorly designed, falsely assumed only
high-risk animals could be infected, and inappropriately relied on voluntary
submissions for testing.
-
- Last week, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa requested
an investigation, saying the government's strategy appeared to be "stumbling."
-
- And of the 12 university-based laboratories designated
to handle the testing, five that were supposed to be operating by June
1 still have not received the green light by the USDA to get underway.
-
- Meanwhile, in trade talks this month, the Japanese continued
to insist that all the beef they buy must test free of mad cow.
-
- CAPITALISM HELD CAPTIVE?
-
- Some private beef companies who have seen their profits
sink because of lost sales to Japan have asked the USDA to allow them to
buy government-licensed kits that they could use to test their entire herds
at their own expense. They believe they could then market the beef as free
of the disease and restart their Asian sales.
-
- But the government has refused those requests. The Organization
for Competitive Markets, an independent farmers group out of Nebraska,
and other critics say the USDA's position favor corporate agriculture over
small businesses.
-
- The large processors that supply a mostly unconcerned
domestic market have not seen their businesses suffer the way specialty
suppliers of beef have, and critics say they don't want to pay for increased
testing or have to compete with companies that do.
-
- Those representing the U.S. meat industry say the U.S.
government's testing program is more than adequate.
-
- "We're confident in the statistical confidence of
the program," said American Meat Institute spokeswoman Janet Riley.
"We think it is an extremely comprehensive program."
-
- Riley said widespread testing of young and otherwise
healthy animals would be unscientific and largely pointless, and allowing
private companies to test their own animals would be unprecedented.
-
- As the controversy brews around them, officials at beef
companies in Kansas and Missouri say the situation is eating up their profits.
-
- "We think it's ridiculous," said Russ Kremer,
chief executive of Overland, Missouri-based Gateway Beef Cooperative. "If
a customer demands a little more assurance on the safety of a product and
we're willing to do it, then that should happen."
-
- Copyright © 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited
without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable
for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance
thereon.
|