NEWS: Stop: Don't Test Those Cows! - NYT 4/6/06

[Guest guest]

April 6, 2006

Editorial

 

 

Stop: Don't Test Those Cows!

 

Late last month, Creekstone Farms, a Kansas-based beef company, sued the

United States Department of Agriculture. The reason? Creekstone wants to

use tests for mad cow disease on all of the cattle it slaughters, and

the U.S.D.A. won't let it.

 

In contrast, the U.S.D.A.'s testing program for mad cow disease tests

only high-risk cattle -- those that die on the farm, can't walk or are

obviously sick. In other words, the department tests about 1 percent of

the 35 million cattle that are slaughtered in this country every year.

It believes, based on its statistical models, that testing 1 percent is

plenty. We disagree.

 

Why would the U.S.D.A. stop a cattle company from voluntarily meeting a

higher standard than the one required by law? The very idea sounds

counterintuitive. But then so does the agency's rationale. The U.S.D.A.

argues that 100 percent testing would not guarantee food safety because

mad cow disease can be hard to detect in younger cattle -- the very cows

that a premium beef company like Creekstone is most likely to slaughter.

 

To us, this sounds like nonsense -- as if we were more likely to be safe

by following a testing plan based on statistical modeling of the beef

supply than by actually testing all the cattle.

 

We agree that private testing is not the way to go in the long run. It

wouldn't make much sense to have a national system made up of a few

large producers that tested all their cattle while only 1 percent of

everyone else's were tested. But there is a simple solution for that.

 

The U.S.D.A. should test every cow that goes to slaughter. The cost is

not prohibitive. Fear is the problem. The current testing program for

mad cow disease is intended to produce, at best, a snapshot of the

likelihood of the disease. The program rests on assumptions that

reflect, as assumptions tend to do, only what we know already, and we do

not know nearly enough about mad cow disease.

 

The fear is that broad testing may reveal a higher rate of infection and

destroy consumer confidence, with a devastating impact on the cattle

market. Which leaves us where we are now: relying on what we don't know

to make us feel safe.