|
USDA
losing credibility on mad cow
March 4, 04
Suzanne Havala Hobbs
Stories
about mad-cow disease in America have largely disappeared
from the front pages of most U.S. newspapers. But the revelations
concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, haven’t
ended.
The discovery that a dairy cow in rural Washington state had
mad cow disease was shocking for many people. But what this
case continues to reveal concerning our food safety regulatory
system is even more enlightening.
Given those revelations, it’s clear that at least one
federal agency that regulates the food industry — the
U.S. Department of Agriculture — has exhausted its credibility.
Here are just a few of the numerous issues that have come
to light in recent weeks concerning mad cow disease:
* Nationwide USDA testing of cows for BSE fell 48 percent
during the month of January, after the discovery of a BSE-infected
cow in Washington state in December, The Seattle Times reported.
At the slaughterhouse where the Washington mad cow was found,
co-owner Tom Ellestad told the newspaper that USDA officials
asked plant workers to stop taking samples for BSE testing.
Felicia Nestor, food-safety director for the watchdog group
Government Accountability Project, told the Seattle Times:
“We just found a case of mad-cow in this country. We
should be doing a lot of tests now.”
* Statements by USDA officials, including Agriculture Secretary
Ann Veneman, that identified the Washington mad cow as a “downer”
animal — too sick or injured to stand before slaughter
— have been contradicted by workers at the slaughterhouse.
Why is this notable? Because USDA has focused its BSE surveillance
effort — and public attention — on downer cows,
drawing scrutiny away from the vast majority of U.S. cattle.
In Europe, apparently healthy, non-downer cows have tested
positive for BSE.
After taking testimony from three workers who saw the Washington
cow the day it was slaughtered and said it was not a downer,
a U.S. House committee said in a letter to Veneman that this
information “raises questions about USDA’s credibility.”
The USDA says it is investigating the workers’ claims
and will no longer comment on them.
* The conclusions of a study conducted by the Harvard Center
for Risk Analysis that examined the risk of BSE spreading
in the United States have been exaggerated by USDA officials
who have repeatedly cited the study as evidence that the risk
of BSE spreading in this country is low.
However, fundamental questions about the study have been raised
by Congress’ General Accounting Office and in a peer
review by scientists coordinated by Research Triangle Institute
in Research Triangle Park. The GAO said in a 2002 report that
the Harvard study was based on assumptions that the study’s
authors conceded could not be verified with confidence.
The RTI review, which the USDA had for 15 months before releasing
it to the public, cites a long list of concerns about the
Harvard study: It shows a repeated tendency to understate
risks of BSE transmission; the mathematical formulas behind
the study’s simulation were not disclosed; documentation
of the simulation was too sparse to allow a full analysis
of its quality.
USDA officials did not respond to my request for comment on
the RTI review.
I spoke with Christopher Frey, an associate professor at N.C.
State University and a member of the RTI review panel. He
said it was unfortunate that the Harvard researchers did not
do a more complete job of documenting their computer simulation
model, especially considering the study was intended to be
used in making public policy decisions.
The misuse of the Harvard study by USDA fits into a pattern.
The agency, which has the dual mission of promoting U.S. agriculture
while at the same time supporting the public’s health,
is neglecting one of those missions. The way things are going,
it risks failing the other as well.
|
