FRANCE MAY TEST YOUNG CATTLE FOR BSE-FARM MINISTER
April 13, 2001
Reuters
PARIS - French Farm Minister Jean Glavany was cited as saying on Fridayt hat
France may begin routine tests for mad cow disease on cattle under 30 months
old in an effort to calm consumer fears about the fatal, brain-wasting
illness, adding, "Lowering the age threshold for systematic testing of
animals from 30 months to 24 months remains one of the few ways of improving
Europe's measures to combat BSE. I think it will come to that in the coming
months because the ultimate aim is to restore consumer confidence and start
people eating beef again."
NZ SCIENTISTS CLAIMS AFRICAN ANTELOPE ORIGIN OF BSE IN BRITAIN
April 17, 2001
Agence France Presse English
WELLINGTON - Epidemiologist Professor Roger Morris of Massey University,
described as New Zealands premier agricultural university based in
Palmerston North, north of Wellington, along with collaborators, was cited
as saying that a single game-park African antelope was probably the origin
of madcow disease in Britain, adding, "The area of Britain where it started
is the area where safari parks started in the 1970s. I've actually got
evidence that every step in the sequence could have occurred. And I know
that various African antelopes are susceptible to the disease. The missing
piece of information -- which is a major challenge to get -- is to actually
find the disease in the field in Africa. But we don't know which (antelope)
species it was, and in the wild those that develop the disease get eatenb y
lions. We also know that the lions get the disease."
The story says that the scientists from Massey will later this year publish
the scientific work on their theory.
Morris was further cited as saying it was likely that the antelope's brain
and organs ended up in a batch of cattle feed given to about 1000 dairyc ows
in the south-west of England between 1975 and 1977.
Some of the infected animals were moved to other areas of the country,
before being slaughtered and recycled as cattle feed in 1981, spreadingt he
disease. BSE is thought to have an incubation period of about five years.
Morris argued that "diseases occur in predator-prey combinations -- youg et
scrapie in sheep, chronic wasting disease in deer, and BSE in antelopes.I
think the evidence favours the whole epidemic starting with a single animal
that brought the disease into the UK. My theory on the African antelopes
says that there's a low rate of transmission from the antelope to their
calves, and the lions that eat the infected antelope develop the diseasea s
well. So what you've got is a low-level population regulator in both the
antelope populations and the lion population -- so it survives in the
wildlife."
April 17, 2001
Reuters
Lisa Richwine
WASHINGTON - Dr. Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA's Center for
Veterinary Medicine, was cited as telling Reuters that U.S. regulatorsa re
considering whether feeding chicken litter to cattle poses any risk of
transmitting the deadly mad cow disease, just one of several practices
regulators were reviewing as they consider whether to tighten the shield
against the illness. So far, neither mad cow disease nor its deadly human
form have been found in the United States.
The story notes that federal rules that took effect in 1997 prohibit feeding
cattle or sheep with protein from animals that are potential carriers ofm ad
cow or a related illness. Now, litter containing waste from chickens legally
can be processed and fed to cattle under some circumstances, Sundlof said.
Some have questioned whether chickens that ate material prohibited for
cattle could recycle the banned byproducts back to cows that ate their
litter. The abnormal proteins believed to cause mad cow disease have proven
resilient, and it is unknown whether a chicken's digestive tract couldk ill
them.
Sundlof was quoted as saying, "That's another issue we intend to put out
there for examination and potentially change our position on that ... Just
about everything is open right now."
In remarks to a public meeting regarding mad cow, also known as bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, Sundlof was cited as saying regulators were
re-evaluating other practices now exempt from cattle feed bans.
One exemption under review is the feeding of "plate waste" to cattle. Plate
waste is food served to people in restaurants that later is discarded.S ome
companies reprocess the leftovers into animal feed.
Dr. Paul Brown, medical director for the National Institute for Neurological
Disorders and Strokes, was cited as saying that infected meat from a T-bone
steak, if cut from an infected animal, could pose "a reasonably remote
possibility" of being infectious when recycled as plate waste. The steak
might carry spinal cord tissue, which along with brain parts is considered
highly infectious.
April 17, 2001
www.meatingplace.com
by Dan Murphy
Commentary
And you thought ³Cats² was the longest-running extravaganza.
Wrong.
For yet another coalition of activists, attacking the meat industry really
is ³what's now and forever.²
Welcome to installment No. 2,854 of the never-ending battle to mock the
truth, obscure justice and damage the American way.
Fourteen animal welfare, consumer, farming, environmental, and public health
groups are demanding that USDA Secretary Ann Veneman and Health and Human
Services Secretary Tommy Thompson take ³immediate action² to protect
Americans from bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease. Their
complaint is that government is ³not doing nearly enough² to protect
consumers from these threats.
I have a news flash, friends: We don't have any cases of mad cow! Moret han
15 years after the problem first surfaced in England, not one case hase ver
been detected here. That's not a bad track record.
That tidbit aside, the coalition members, including the usual suspects --
Animal Welfare Institute, Cancer Prevention Coalition, Center for Food
Safety, Community Nutrition Institute, Family Farm Defenders, Farm
Sanctuary, Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, Government
Accountability Project, Humane Farming Association, Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, National Family Farm Coalition, Organic
Consumers Association, Public Citizen and the U.S. Public Interest Research
Group -- are recommending eight areas of action:
1). Rod Leonard of the Community Nutrition Institute, on mechanical deboning
and advanced meat recovery:
³No parent would intentionally choose to feed their children the ground-up
bones, nerve fibers, and connective tissue found in mechanically deboned
meat. But this product is used in some hot dogs, bologna and other processed
meats, even though it could contain ground-up spinal cord. The European
Union has already banned these products as a precautionary action, andt he
USDA should do the same.²
Response: Similar allegations of CNS tissue ending up in deboned meat
surfaced nearly five years ago, and the same group of activists tried to
puff up a non-issue into a major controversy back then. Should USDA consider
he risks involved with deboned beef? Sure. Have they already done so?
Absolutely. Is this remotely a crisis? No way.
2). Gene Bauston of Farm Sanctuary, on "downer" cows:
"The marketing of cows who are too sick to walk, so called 'downers,' should
be prohibited. Not only is this practice cruel, but it poses a threat to
human health. In fact, some evidence suggests that downed cows may harbor a
variant of mad cow disease. Downed animals should be humanely euthanized,
and then tested for mad cow disease.²
Response: Nice try, Gene, but USDA already prohibits the slaughter of sick
animals for human consumption. ALL animals should be (and are required by
law to be) humanely dispatched. And downers are precisely the population
from which USDA solicits and examines brain tissues to confirm that no
evidence of mad cow is detected.
3). Samuel Epstein, professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago
School of Public Health and chair of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, on
dietary supplements:
³Dietary supplements are not adequately regulated by FDA and may pose a
significant threat to consumers. Right now, an unscrupulous manufacturer
could literally take a British cow brain and use it as an ingredient in a
dietary supplement sold in the U.S.²
Response: Dr. Epstein, his monumental ego aside, makes a valid point about
the regulatory vacuum within which manufacturers of so-called supplements
operate. But that's a function of the natural food store owners' trade
groups exercising their clout on the Hill. And aren't they the very same
people who are lionized by activists as the anti-corporate bastion against
the heartless, exploitive mega-retailers who are ruining the American way of
life? Furthermore, if you're misguided enough to be consuming ³supplements²
derived from bovine brain tissue, you've got bigger problems than just
hypochondria.
4). Christine Stevens of the Animal Welfare Institute, on the spread ofB SE
through feed containing remains of BSE-infected cattle:
³The reign of agribusiness in Britain is at the root of the outbreak of BSE
which has now spread throughout the European Union. Sweden passed -- and
enforced -- strict legislation on animal feed in the 1980s that has
protected its animals and therefore its people. The U.S. should followt he
Swedish example.²
Response: Listen, Sweden has terrific tennis players, sultry movie actresses
and some of the most beautiful countryside on earth. But they are NOT an
example of how to manage a country's agricultural sector -- seeing as how
they really don't have one of any significance. They've got a seriously
socialistic government as well, and I don't think that concept would make
sense for this country, either.
5). Sue Jarrett, a rancher from Colorado and a consultant with Global
Resource Action Center for the Environment, on the challenges facing
small-scale cattle producers:
³For six months, I tried to get my suppliers to certify that their feed did
not contain bone meal or rendered material from cattle. When they couldn't
assure me that cattle protein wasn't mixed in, I quit using their feed.W e
need to remember that cows are not meant to eat cows or other animals.²
Response: Jarrett is correct in demanding her supplier furnish proper
documentation on the source of all feed ingredients. When they couldn't,s he
stopped buying from them. My question is: What's the problem? That's thew ay
it's SUPPOSED to work. Congratulations.
6). Skip Waters, a rancher from Wyoming and spokesperson for the Western
Organization of Resource Councils, on weak regulation and inadequate
resources for livestock import enforcement:
³Public health and safety should come first, before corporate profits and
trade. We need to have adequate safeguards to see that we don't import a
potentially serious health and economic problem.²
Response: I'd like to know what Waters is talking about. Imports of all
livestock, meat and bovine-derived by-products from countries with madc ow
cases are already banned. Is he implying that smugglers are somehow running
illegal cattle across the borders? No, Skip. Those are actually PEOPLE
slipping past our lax law enforcement and immigration authorities.
7). Felicia Nestor of the Government Accountability Project, on inadequate
testing for BSE:
³The government must demonstrate that its field personnel are trained,
well-equipped and well-positioned, and they are doing sufficient testingo f
high-risk animals in every state to protect the public from this terrifying
disease.²
Response: Since state veterinarians are the ones submitting cattle brains
for testing to USDA, I'd like to know what further ³training² Nestort hinks
they should have. Last time I checked, vet school required at least 12y ears
of post-secondary education and field work. What, that's not enough? Please.
8). Steve Suppan of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, ont he
effect of trade policy on the U.S. ability to prevent mad cow disease:
³U.S. support for World Trade Organization-recognized guidelines to declare
foreign food-inspection systems 'equivalent' to our system is very
troubling. Put simply, a national system with strong BSE prevention measures
could be declared 'equivalent' to another nation's system that lacks such
protections. The USDA's own Inspector General has issued scathing criticisms
of the USDA's process for determining equivalency.²
Response: If I had a buck for every critic who complained about the WTO,I 'd
have enough to buy myself a nice, long vacation away from tired arguments
such as Suppan's. Equivalency-of-inspection issues have absolutely NOTHING
to do with our sovereign programs to prevent mad cow, nor with any other
country's efforts in a similar vein. Read the news, man. There are literally
dozens of countries, all members of WTO, who have unilaterally ordered a
halt to the importation of both live animals and beef products from other
countries who have either recorded or have been suspected of harboringm ad
cow cases. It's a non-issue. We are fully capable of taking whatever
measures we deem necessary to prevent mad cow, WTO or not. End of story.
And finally, no communiqué would be complete without hearing from theq ueen
of high-volume haranguing herself, Wenonah Hauter of Public Citizen:
³Mad cow disease is a frightening example of the health threats posed by an
industrialized food system. The U.S. government must act immediately ont he
recommendations made by these organizations which represent a broad spectrum
of the public.²
Response: Better suggestion, Wenonah: Why don't you focus on your group's
campaign finance reform movement? That -- UN-like your ill-conceived
attempts to derail irradiation and stir up consumers concerns over madc ow
-- at least has some legitimacy.
Oh, yeah. Your allegation that you and your fellow activists represent ³a
broad spectrum² of the public?
Four words: I don't think so.
(The text of the activists' letter to FDA and USDA can be read by logging
onto Citizen.org)
April 16, 2001
ABC Rural News
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/stories/s277608.htm
A new consumer survey shows nearly a quarter of Australia's red meat eaters
are, according to this story, worried about the implications of mad cow,a nd
foot and mouth disease.
But they're not alarmed enough to start cutting down on their meat
consumption.
The story says that the three-month study by Meat and Livestock Australia
shows the importance of publicising the fact that the country is free of
both diseases, according to MLA's David Palmer, who was further quoted as
saying, "Mad cow disease obviously was surfacing in the January element
and again in March, but in the latest one in March, FMD has now raisedi ts
head.
But they do come in behind matters such as cost and nutritional matters
etcetera,
but yes, the diseases are registering on consumers thoughts, but at this
stage it is
not influencing their purchasing behaviour."
MAD COW, FOOT-AND-MOUTH HAVE CONSUMERS SCRUTINIZING
FAST-FOOD CHAINS
April 17, 2001
Bryan Salvage
Sound bite: ³We're starting to see an increase of consumers questioning
major [fast-food] chains about their sources of beef and quality-control
measures for monitoring food safety. But the nervousness extends to a more
pessimistic attitude about the quality, cleanliness and service.²
Pete Blackshaw, CEO, PlanetFeedback.com
Here's some news that may (or may not) surprise readers of The
Meatingplace.com. It should, however, concern meat suppliers to the
fast-food industry.
Consumers are rapidly losing their appetite for the fast-food industry.A nd
it looks like consumer backlash to the mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth
disease epidemics overseas is at least partly to blame.
U.S. consumers, reeling from reports about mad cow and foot-and-mouth
disease in Europe, are putting fast-food chains under higher scrutiny,
according to Pete Blackshaw, CEO of PlanetFeedback.com, a leading online
consumer feedback service.
³We're starting to see an increase of consumers questioning major chains
about their sources of beef and quality-control measures for monitoringf ood
safety,² Blackshaw said.
Cincinnati-based PlanetFeedback.com offers consumers a quick, easy andf ree
way to register a complaint, compliment, question or suggestion with a
company. Aggregated data collected in the feedback process is fed into a
database on consumer attitudes such as customer satisfaction and loyalty.
The latest such data on revealed that complaints are outpacing compliments
by nearly 50 percentage points, with the restaurant category generatingt he
highest volume of feedback. In fact, PlanetFeedback.com analyzed more than
15,000 consumer letters sent to fast-food restaurants and franchises from
September 2000 to February 2001.
Key concerns on consumers' minds
The following is what consumers had to say about their concerns:
Food quality is the major issue for customers, although customers define
³quality² as including the food, the service, order accuracy and employee
training. One customer wrote:
³Employees do not care at all about the customers.² Restaurants morel ikely
to receive food-quality complaints include Hardee's, Wendy's, Burger King,
Pizza Hut, McDonald's and Steak 'n Shake.
Consumers complain frequently about poor service, lack of cleanliness and
hygiene among employees, rudeness, poor training and basic incompetence.
Busy consumers want more menu choices, including more vegetarian options,
more nutritious foods and healthier alternatives -- but in the same amount
of time. Among their suggestions: more breakfast offerings, low-fat items,
and veggie burgers.
Teens and families with children are fast-food's most frequent customers.
Teens remain loyal, no matter what their experiences, while families with
children are more likely to switch to other restaurants if they don't like
what they encounter.
According to PlanetFeedback.com users, the lowest-rated fast-food
restaurants are Hardee's, Dunkin' Donuts, Arby's, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut,
Wendy's and McDonald's. However, PlanetFeedback.com users had praise for
In-N-Out Burgers, Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Chick-fil-A, Papa John's Pizza,
White Castle and Long John Silver's.
Hygiene was identified as a ³viral² concern, meaning it's the one that
consumers talk about most to their friends, families and colleagues,
especially when hygiene is poor. Consumers' definitions of hygiene covert he
gamut, from store cleanliness/trash to employees' appearance to gross-out
food handling habits. They complain about poor or nonexistent hand washing,
direct contact with food, sneezing while preparing food and unkempt
fingernails and hair.
Top-rated fast-food companies
In-N-Out Burger (A)
Krispy Kreme Doughnut (A -)
Chick-fil-A (A -)
Papa John's Pizza (B)
White Castle (B)
Long John Silver's (B -)
Sonic Industries (B -)
Boston Market (B -)
Lowest-rated fast food companies:
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants (C)
International Dairy Queen (C)
McDonald's Corp. (C)
Wendy's Int. (C)
Burger King (C)
CKE Restaurants Inc. (C)
Pizza Hut (C)
Taco Bell (C)
Arby's (C)
Dunkin Donuts (C)
Hardee's (C -)
The top complaints about food quality include preparation (35 percent);
freshness (16 percent); and taste (14 percent).
Consumers' menu suggestions included veggie burgers (39 percent); healthier,
low-fat foods 10 percent); new breakfast items 5 percent); and Philly cheese
steaks (5 percent).
To learn more about how PlanetFeedback.com compiles its ratings,
log onto PlanetFeedback.com/ratings
Founded in October 1999, PlanetFeedback.com calls itself the leading online
consumer feedback service and currently generates thousands of letters a
week. It is the only consumer feedback site with both TRUSTe and BBBOnLine
privacy certification.
BSE UPDATE: GERMAN SAFETY COMPLIANCE SPOTTY
April 17, 2001
Meat News.com
http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Article&artNum=1015
After repeated specified risk material violations in German meat, the U.K.
meat industry calls for a ban on German meat.
Spinal cord has been discovered for the seventh time this year in beef
imported from Germany into the United Kingdom. Bovine spinal cord is
classified as specified risk material (SRM) and is among those parts oft he
animal most likely to transmit BSE. Under European law, SRMs must be
removed immediately after slaughter and disposed of safely.
The SRM contaminated two out of 203 forequarters of beef which were unpacked
at Anglo-Dutch Meats, Eastbourne, Sussex. Unaware of the problem,
Anglo-Dutch marked the meat as fit for human consumption, and certifieda s
coming from animals under 30 months of age. After the problem was
discovered, the two forequarters were detained and will be destroyed.
All German beef imported into the United Kingdom has been subject to
100-percent inspection since January 29, 2001, due to earlier lapses by
German processors in abiding by the BSE controls. The U.K. Meat Hygiene
Service and all local authorities responsible for inspecting beef imports
have added Fleischzentrum Wilhelmshaven, which processed the meat, to the
list of six other German violators.
British industry members are now calling for the United Kingdom to ban
German imports. The British National Farmers' Union (NFU) said its patience
with Germany had run out and demanded an immediate export ban on German
beef. "We have well and truly reached the end of our tether," said BenG ill,
NFU president. "The European Commission must ban exports of German beefn ow.
The time for words has gone - we need action now."
Gill wrote to European Food Safety Commissioner David Byrne, remindingh im
of the string of safety concerns associated with German beef imports. "The
Commission had no compunction in placing a ban on British beef all those
years ago - it should show the same vigor now," Gill wrote. "British farmers
stick to these regulations. They are totally fed up with this situation,
especially when they are struggling to survive foot and mouth. They aren ot
in the frame of mind to be forgiving."