USDA opposes testing all cattle for mad cow disease

[UpInArms]

http://www.ifbf.org/publication/spokesman/story.asp?number=22549&type=News

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) refusal to allow a Kansas meatpacker to test 100 percent of cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has sparked a national debate about the government’s role in regulating marketing claims.

Creekstone Farms Premium Beef was seeking to test all cattle at its Arkansas City, Kan., plant for BSE. The company hoped the testing would allow it to resume beef exports to Japan, which is insisting on 100 percent testing.

David Miller, Iowa Farm Bureau’s director of commodity services, said the USDA rejected Creekstone’s request over concerns that 100 percent testing would imply that U.S. beef presents a safety risk to human health.

<snip>

The USDA is planning to increase the number of cattle tested for BSE from about 20,000 cattle in 2003 to more than 250,000 cattle in 2004. This increased testing will detect BSE even if there were only five positive animals in the entire country.

<snip>

Creekstone has built a private laboratory at its plant and said it can test at a cost of $18 per head, compared with USDA tests at $325 per head.

...more...

[stepnw1f]

1. Then I Refuse To Eat Beef

and I love beef. That really sucks!

[Eureka]

2. Here's my solution

unfortunately I can't work out how to post the images, but have a look at http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/droughtmaster999

Its the first of my current batch of calves, a boy born on Saturday. Totally organic, totally BSE (and BFEE) free!

[UpInArms]

3. too cute to eat

:sigh:

My family gave up beef and all by-products on December 21, 2003.

Oh well, veggies are good, too.

[Eureka]

5. Thats my biggest problem...

they are very cute. I guess I get to choose between being a cruel cute calf eater, a hypocrite (if I can't eat my own but eat stuff from the shops) or a vegatarian (not that theres anything wrong with that).

It's a problem I will have to face sometime near Christamas.

I'll certainly be keeping all the girls though, I need to build up my herd a little.

[stepnw1f]

7. Organic Sounds Safe To Me

Nice calves.

[Eureka]

9. Thanks very much!

I put some pics in the lounge of them too, just for fun.

[nodehopper]

4. but it does!

they reject testing on the grounds that it makes the other beef look unsafe.

Um, maybe because IT IS?

[FormerOstrich]

6. Where are the DU

statisticians? The claim that testing 250,000 will ensure discovery if there are only 5 diseased does not sound plausible to me. For that claim to be true what would the cattle population be? Thanks!!

[daleo]

11. I did a spreadsheet on this once

But it is on my work computer right now. I will try to look it up tomorrow. There is more than just statistics to it, since it depends on what is considered to be the population at risk - all cattle, or just "downer" cattle. Also, it depends on what age of cow is considered to be able to spread the disease.

Also, I seem to recall that the 250,000 to be tested were not all to be tested in the same year.

[daleo]

12. Here is a post I did earlier, using this spreadsheet and some more remarks

He is saying the level of testing proposed would be accurate if there were only 5 cows in the U.S. with BSE. I would guess there must be a good 20 to 50 million cattle in the U.S., so this is claiming a sensitivity of between 1 in a million and 1 in 10 million. So, 250000 cattle is far from adequate for this level of sensitivity, if you assume all cows could have BSE. If they are assuming it is essentially impossible for most cattle to have BSE on other grounds (i.e. they are not downer cows) then they could make the claim with a smaller sample. Basically they would be using a two stage process, that eliminates most cows from being tested from the get-go. Of course, this begs the question at issue.


"The spokesperson in the article, Jim Rogers, says that current sample sizes (about 12,000 per year) are adequate to detect mad cow if it is present at the rate of one in a million. According to my textbook in sampling theory (Barnett, Sample Survey Principles and Methods) a sample size of about 16,000 will give an accuracy of only 1000 in a million, assuming a testing interval of 750 to 1250 in a million (with 95% confidence).

To get an accurate determination of a proportion of one in a million would require a huge sample size, about 16 million.

If this was a two stage sample where you knew you could accurately identify the 1 in 1000 cows who might possibly have BSE, then sample those cows for a 1 in 1000 rate, then you might be able to make the claim that your sample size could detect 1 part in 1 million.

I invite posters to check this out for themselves if they have the appropriate training. I wouldn't mind being corrected if I have made an error in my calculations or assumptions."

[sendero]

8. I fail to understand...

.... on what authority the USDA can prevent anyone from running any test they want on their own effing cows. Could someone please explain this to me?

[Karenina]

14. Here ya go.

The Virus Serum Toxin Act of 1913

"Under a 1913 law called the Virus Serum Toxin Act, the department decides where cattle can be tested and for what."

[NickB79]

10. Testing would imply something is unsafe?

Well, by that logic, shouldn't we stop testing of our food supply entirely?

[Jim Sagle]

13. Shhhh...don't give them any ideas.