|
|
|
|
|
By Mike Barnett
Editor
Remember in 2003, when the cow "stole Christmas?" The U.S. livestock industry went through a similar scare
on Thanksgiving, and that date might have been considered in the future as the day the cow ate Thanksgiving dinner.
Luckily, it wasn't. And there's a lot of reasons why.
We were all thankful that BSE tests performed on a suspect cow the week of the Thanksgiving holiday, turned out to be negative. Rumors were rampant that the suspect cow might be in Texas, but USDA never confirmed it. USDA did, however, release the negative test results on Nov. 23, after nearly a week of reports of inconclusive test results. The USDA laboratory in Ames, Iowa, on Nov. 22 used the immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, the "gold standard" test, and received another negative result. However, because two initial tests indicated the animal might have BSE, a second IHC test was run. Thankfully, it too, was negative.
So what does all of this mean? Very simply, it means the system works. Let me explain.
Under USDA's current testing regime, a second BSE screening test is run if the first test produces an inconclusive result. If the second test is also inconclusive, tissue samples are sent to the USDA Veterinary Services Lab in Iowa. In addition, USDA changed the rules after the "cow that stole Christmas" incident, requiring processors to hold carcasses of cattle tested for BSE until conclusive test results are produced. The suspect animal never entered the food supply.
We might as well get used to the inevitable. More cows are sure to test inconclusive, and the industry, I'm sure, will again sit on pins and needles awaiting a final test. We all need to keep in mind that the rapid screening tests are designed to be extremely sensitive and detect any sample that has the slightest chance of being positive. We'll leave the argument of whether or not USDA should continue to announce inconclusive results after two negative tests, for another day. American Farm Bureau Federation, at their recent annual meeting, voted that USDA should not announce inconclusives.
What is important is the USDA is nearing the halfway mark in its enhanced surveillance program, which began nearly seven months ago. More than 127,000 cows have been tested in the country and we still haven't found a second case of BSE in the U.S.
The Canadians have a similar enhanced program, and recently found two more BSE-infected cows. Guess what? The media outcry was small. Maybe it was because of the tragedy in Southeast Asia. Maybe not.
My hopes are the media are starting to learn that both countries have scientific safeguards in place to catch BSE in their national cowherds. Moreover, both countries have firewalls and safeguards to keep any meat from a BSE-infected cow out of the food and feed supply. The U.S., however, must make certain the decision to reopen the border on March 7 to Canadian cattle is based on sound science, and the science is implemented properly.
Beef producers can take heart that Americans tended to ignore "the cow that stole Christmas," shooting beef demand in this country up and over what it was at the first of 2003. That shows the public trust in both producers and the government's efforts to keep the food supply safe.
Keep that in mind next time an "inconclusive" is announced and you begin cussing USDA. Sure, no program is perfect. But it's the best one we have right now. Most important, I thought as my family gave thanks on Turkey Day, it's getting the job done.
