Start testing all cattle for mad-cow
April 21, 2006
Trail Daily Times
Opinion
The panic that used to accompany every new case of mad cow in North America seems to have evaporated, but the global economic threat of the disease has not.
Last week, another case was discovered in Canada, this time from a dairy cow in B.C.'s Fraser Valley. The animal was a six-year-old dairy cow. It was suspect because it was sick and could not stand up. Testing after it was put down confirmed it had BSE.
News of the finding barely caused a ripple. Officials on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border were quick to say that the latest case would not close the border to trade in cattle, which has devastated Canada's beef industry at a cost of billions of dollars since the spring of 2003.
Canadian officials were quick to point out that no part of the cow had ever entered the food chain. American Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said more cases like this were expected from older cows. More diligent testing was expected to turn up more cases and this one is not the tipping point that would trigger another border closing.
All that is true. Its also true that not nearly enough testing is being done, and that restrictions enacted on cattle feed are not sufficient to eliminate the perceived risk.
For international markets, especially those outside North America, that may not be enough to bring consumers back to beef. Japan tentatively reported its first case of mad cow disease this week.
It's uncertain where the infected cow came from, but the discovery is bound to damage beef sales across Asia and imperil Canadian exports, which were shut down in 2003 and are just beginning to resume.
The risk of a person catching mad cow disease is very small. The perceived risk is much higher than the real risk, but it is real; the disease can be fatal and there is no known cure.
That's enough to put billions of consumers off their beef, and no people are more wary of the disease than the Japanese. They insist on testing every animal before its beef is permitted in the food chain.
A new wave of mad-cow fear there is particularly significant for Canada. The two-year shutdown of the U.S. border made it abundantly clear how dependent we are on the Americans, and how important it is to diversify our markets.
Public apprehension about the safety of beef products globally should mean both more testing and more rigorous rules on what cattle can be fed. In the United States, less than one per cent of the cattle heading for market are tested. In Canada, only 100,000 cattle have been tested since the first case of mad-cow disease was detected almost three years ago.
Governments on both sides of the border have been reluctant to demand more testing, knowing that more diligent checking will turn up more cases. Their goal has been to manage risk and attempt to manage public safety perceptions, rather than eliminate the risk totally. They have also been reluctant to totally eliminate the types of cattle feed that are believed to cause mad cow disease.
We have a situation in Canada and the United States where calves are still being legally fed cattle fat contaminated with cattle protein and cattle blood products, said John Stauber, the author of a book called Mad Cow USA.
Unless and until those practices are forbidden outright and more testing is required, suspicions about the safety of our beef will linger around the globe.
