Farmed Animal Watch - April 9, 2004

A. USDA CRITICISM
Both the meat industry and the government have been fervidly trying to end the ban on U.S. beef imposed by over 50 countries following the December discovery of a BSE-infected cow ("mad cow") in the U.S. (see: http://tinyurl.com/2x4ss ) {1} Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to ban Canadian beef although it, too, has had a single case of BSE (see item #2: http://tinyurl.com/2slgt and http://tinyurl.com/2tfs7 )).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is under criticism for its handling of the BSE incident, with allegations that the infected cow was not nonambulatory and records were falsified. A criminal investigation is underway. It was also recently revealed that rather than the 10,400 pounds of potentially contaminated meat the USDA said had been recalled, there was actually 38,000 pounds recalled, of which 17,000 pounds were not retrieved.{2} A new California bill seeks to bypass an agreement between the USDA and the state which prohibits the state from telling the public where meat that is being recalled has been distributed (see: http://tinyurl.com/2723j ).

B. INCREASED TESTING
On March 15th, the USDA announced it will increase the number of cattle tested for BSE. While the Department wouldn't give a definite figure, it set a tentative range of between 201,000 and 268,000, which is at least a ten-fold increase over the number of cattle tested last year [though still only about one-half of 1% of the 35 million cattle slaughtered annually]. According to the USDA, 201,000 tests will provide a 95% probability of detecting the disease if it's present in as few as 1 of every 10 million cattle, while 268,000 tests would give a 99% chance of detection.{1}

The majority of tests will be conducted on brains from cattle considered to be at high risk for BSE: nonambulatory cattle, those exhibiting symptoms of central nervous system disease, and ones who die prior to slaughter. (Meat from such cattle is prohibited from the human food supply.) About 10% will be on brains from healthy, older cattle {3} selected from 40 slaughterplants in 17 states {1}. Officials say this combination will best detect whether the disease has spread into the U.S. cattle population {3}. The expanded testing will begin in June and run for 12-18 months, after which the results will be analyzed and future action determined {1}. The Surveillance Plan and related documents are available on-line at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/bse.html

C. ADVISORY PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
The USDA formulated its plan largely based on the recommendations of a panel of international researchers it had convened. The panel concluded there was a "high probability" of other BSE cases in the U.S.{2}, and recommended testing the entire population of high-risk cattle {2}, estimated to be 446,000 {4}, along with a random sampling of healthy but older animals. (BSE's onset usually requires at least 18 months, and most cases are seen in older cattle although the disease has been reported in cattle as young as 20 months.) {1} The recommendations were strongly opposed by industry, which argued that additional testing is unnecessary{2}.

D. BEEF CONSUMPTION: FOREIGN & DOMESTIC
Most of the countries that have imposed bans on U.S. beef want far more testing than the new plan calls for. (A recent article on the export situation is the April 8th San Francisco Chronicle article, "58 Countries Still Reject U.S. Beef" at: http://tinyurl.com/394bm ) Most European nations test a much higher percentage of cattle than do the U.S. and Canada (see chart in source #3). {3} When BSE was found in other countries, beef was quickly shunned there. That was not the case in the U.S., despite consumer advocates calling for more testing and pointing out loopholes in the feed rules. While U.S. testing plans might change, major changes are unlikely unless Americans stop eating beef, remarks an MSNBC report. {4}

E. FEED BAN EXPANSION
Rules put in place in the U.S. and Canada in 1997 banned ruminant protein in ruminant feed (see: http://tinyurl.com/2odnw Dozens of feed mills and distributors have been cited for violating these rules, some as recently as last month). The USDA advisory panel recommended that tissues which are more likely to be infectious ("specified risk material," SRM) be banned from all types of animal feed, including companion animal food. It further recommended that all animal protein, except fish protein, be at least temporarily banned from cattle feed. {6}

On January 26th, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it would expand existing feed restrictions to include bovine blood. However, it will remain legal to feed it to chickens and pigs, who can subsequently be rendered into feed for cattle and other ruminants. [The BSE agent may survive the rendering process.] The FDA also announced a ban on the use of poultry litter and food-service meat scraps in cattle feed. {3 (see "Battling Mad Cow Disease")} The old rules remain in effect until the agency publishes the new ones ( http://tinyurl.com/38amj ). It has yet to do so but on April 2nd announced again that it will. The FDA is presently inviting comments on its Animal Feed Safety System (see: http://tinyurl.com/2fcso ). The agency also said that if additional cases of BSE occur in the U.S. it will consider further feed restrictions, including a ban on SRM in all animal feed. {6}

F. COMMENTS DEADLINE EXTENSION
The USDA has determined that the costs of banning nonambulatory cattle and restrictions on processing (advanced meat recovery (AMR) systems) could cost industry up to $150 million per year. (The government estimates that 213 million pounds of beef will be affected annually by the rules. Total U.S. beef output this year was about 25.28 billion pounds.) On account of the economic impact, the USDA has extended the deadline for public comment on its new BSE regulations to May 7th (see: http://tinyurl.com/ytobw ), noting that it is open to revising them. {7} The USDA economic analysis is available on-line at: http://tinyurl.com/2pv8f

G. PRIVATE TESTING DISALLOWED
Until mid-March, only one laboratory in the U.S. was approved for performing BSE testing {4}. [Seven veterinary schools around the country will now also be participating.] Quicker tests, already used in other countries, have also recently being approved {1}. The USDA has set aside $70 million for the testing plan. The meat industry estimates far higher costs of up to $100 per animal.{4} Most in the meat industry approve of the USDA's testing plan. However, one company's announcement that it plans to privately test every animal it slaughters, in order to regain foreign customers, met with a cold reception both from industry and the USDA. The USDA noted that it alone can legally purchase or authorize the sale and administration of the test kits, and that criminal action could result if the company proceeded {4, 8}. On April 8th, the USDA rejected the plan, stating that the consensus of international experts is that "100 percent testing is not justified." Among industry's concerns is that it could set a precedent for trade negotiations (see: http://tinyurl.com/2zufg ). California legislators are also considering plans to test all cattle {3}. S.B.1425 would require all beef and beef-based meat products sold or processed in the state come from cattle who have tested negative for BSE, and that all cattle slaughtered in the state be tested. The California Cattlemen's Association has denounced the bill as an overreaction.{8}

H. DEFINING "DOWNERS"
The USDA emphasizes that the testing is designed for disease surveillance, not food safety purposes, noting that it previously put in place consumer protection safeguards {1}. They include a ban on the use of nonambulatory cattle ("downers") in the human food supply (see item #1 of: http://tinyurl.com/ytobw ). They are defined as cattle who "cannot rise from a (reclining) position or that cannot walk, including but not limited to, those with broken appendages, severed tendons or ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column or metabolic conditions." Ranchers say the definition is too broad, needlessly costing them money.

The Consumer and Producer Protection Act, a federal bill introduced on April 1st, would exclude from the definition cattle who are paralyzed by "fatigue, stress, obdurator nerve [a thigh muscle nerve] paralysis, obesity, or one or more broken or fractured appendages, severed tendons or ligaments, or dislocated joints." A lobbyist for the bill explains: "As long as we are protecting public safety and human health and animal health, we believe we ought to be able to move animals through the system and make the most specific use of product as we can"{5}. The cows in Canada and the U.S. who tested positive for BSE were initially diagnosed as being non-ambulatory due to such paralysis and a broken leg: http://www.hsus.org/ace/20873

I. NEW FORMS OF BSE AND SCRAPIE
Italian researchers announced they have identified a new form of BSE. Instead of holes in the brain, the novel prion (the BSE agent) causes plaques to occur, similar to those seen in Alzheimer's disease. Past studies showed about 5% of cows with BSE have such plaques. The prion protein appears similar to isolates from sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (a human disease similar to BSE, see item #1: http://tinyurl.com/395p7 ). Sporadic CJD accounts for 85-90% of CJD cases, and scientists say the new prion could be related to a subset of these cases. Since the new prion does not affect nerves connected to the digestive tract, the researchers speculate it isn't transmitted through contaminated feed but instead through the air or another route.{9}

The British government announced that a new type of scrapie not previously seen in the U.K. has been found. (Scrapie is a sheep disease similar to BSE.) It has long been feared that sheep who ate meat and bone meal derived from cattle during the BSE epidemic might have acquired the disease. Unlike BSE in cattle, prion diseases are transmitted directly from sheep to sheep. Therefore, if BSE did occur in sheep it could still be circulating despite later bans on animal-derived feed. Since sheep carry prions in more tissues than cattle do, the risk to human consumers is greater. {10} (See also item #6 of: http://tinyurl.com/2qhhj )

REFERENCES
1. "Big Increase in Number of Mad Cow Tests," MSNBC, Jon Bonné, March 15, 2004.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4534110/
2. "Testing for Mad Cow Disease to Expand," The Washington Post, Marc Kaufman, March 16, 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61585-2004Mar15.html
3. "Mad Cow Testing: How Much Is Enough?" MSNBC, Jon Bonné, March 24, 2004.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4586728/
4. "Mad Cow Testing: What Is the Goal?" MSNBC, Jon Bonné, March 25, 2004. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4588929/
5. "Rehberg Introduces 'Downer' Legislation," Great Falls Tribune, Eve Chen, April 2, 2004.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/news/stories/20040402/localnews/195668.html
6. "FDA: Mad Cow Feed Rules OK for Now," MSNBC (with Reuters and the Associated Press), Jon Bonné, April 02, 2004.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4653558/
7. "USDA Estimates Mad Cow Test Costs," Reuters, April 7, 2004.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4687099/
8. "Bill: Mad Cow Tests for All State's Cattle," Sacramento Bee, Jon Ortiz, March 28, 2004.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/8297336.htm
9. "New Form of BSE Sparks Discussion," JAVMA, Kate O'Rourke, April 15, 2004. http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr04/040415h.asp
10. "Mysterious BSE-Like Disease Found in Sheep," New Scientist, Debra MacKenzie, April 8, 2004.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994869

2. VEAL INDUSTRY: DECADES OF ILLEGAL HORMONE USE
In late March, federal regulators discovered that growth hormones are being used in up to 90% of calves raised for veal production, an illegal practice the industry says it has been engaging in for decades. Implants were found in the ears of calves sent to slaughter. The substances, sex hormones -testosterone and trenbolone (male) and progesterone, estradiole and zeranol (female)- promotes muscle mass. They are approved for, and widely used in, adult cattle but not for calves, since their different metabolism might result in residue of the drugs in their flesh. About 700,000 calves are slaughtered in the U.S. each year at 20 weeks of age, compared to one-and-a-half years of age at which most cattle are slaughtered. (The Food and Drug Administration defines any pre-ruminating calf, regardless of breed or use, as a "veal calf": http://tinyurl.com/yrkmb ) At slaughter, calves bring about $650, with hormone use boosting profits by $30-40.

The American Veal Association downplayed the matter, and appealed to the FDA to hold off on enforcement of its rules for 2 months so implanted calves could be slaughtered and sold for food. The FDA announced that after June 6th, no calf slaughtered for food can be given hormones, and until then slaughtered calves must not have been treated with them for at least 63 days: http://tinyurl.com/2cgxj The National Cattlemen's Beef Association criticized the veal industry's use of the drugs as being "simply wrong."

3. BEEF EXPORTS CONSUMING AMAZON RAINFOREST
The Amazonian rainforest, home to some 30% of the Earth's animal and plant species, has been called "the lungs of the world" due to its capacity to produce oxygen. Cattle ranchers are making "mincemeat" of it, warns the director of the Indonesian-based Center for International Forestry Research (CIFR). The deforestation rate of the world's largest jungle jumped 40% from mid-2001 to mid-2002, to nearly 10,000 square miles. CIFR blames the steep rise in cattle ranching fueled by Brazilian beef exports, primarily to Europe and to Russia and the Middle East. Brazil's cattle herd doubled in the last decade to 175 million in 2002, with ranching in the Amazon accounting for 80% of the rise. The country's exports have tripled in less than a decade, and Brazil is expected to become the world's top beef exporter this year. "Hamburger Connection Fuels Amazon Destruction" is the title of a report CIFR recently released. It recommends urgent action to stop land-grabbing by large-scale ranching operations, restriction of road projects, and economic incentives to maintain the land in its natural state. In mid-March, Brazil's president announced new measures to restrain deforestation, including better planning, law enforcement, monitoring of deforestation, and greater support for indigenous territories and community forest.

"Demand for Beef Speeds Destruction of Amazon Forest," The Guardian, John Vidal, April 2, 2004.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1184092,00.html
"Report: Cattle Farming Biggest Threat to Amazon," Reuters, Axel Bugge, April 1, 2004.
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=4730755&section=news

4. MEAT: GOOD STUFF?
Worldwatch Institute, the environmental/social justice research organization, has come out with "Good Stuff? A Behind-the-Scenes Guide to the Things We Buy." This free publication traces what goes into the production, use and disposal of 25 common consumer items, including fast food, meat, and shrimp. Christine Salvi and Diane Hatz of the GRACE Factory Farm Project ( http://www.factoryfarm.org ) wrote the meat component with a piece entitled "Meat: This Little Piggy Went to the Global Market." The brief write-up tells about trends in meat production and consumption, both in the U.S. and worldwide. It notes that 43% of the world's beef is from cattle fattened in feedlots, and more than half of the world's pork and poultry is from animals raised on factory farms. Informative points and statistics regarding resources, pollution, antibiotics and irradiation are included. It concludes with sections on successes, simple actions, and additional resources. The Guide can be accessed at: http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/goodstuff

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is again confronting the American Cancer Society (ACS) for it's "Cattle Barons' Beef Ball" fundraising events (see item #10: http://tinyurl.com/v97e and: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1254600.html ) with an e-mail "postcard" campaign: http://www.americancancersocietypromotesdisease.org