I have just gotten more information from Jim Stauber of the Center for media and Democracy's PR WATCH
www.prwatch.org/

He sent me this article from today's NY Times

Consumers Union on testing for mad cow disease in today's New York Times. by the senior scientist at Consumer's Union

www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20hansen.html

June 20, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Stop the Madness
By MICHAEL HANSEN

THE Korean beef market, once the third-largest importer of American
beef, has shut its doors to the United States. Why? Because Koreans
are worried about eating meat tainted with mad cow disease, which can
be fatal to humans. Recent attempts by Korea’s president, Lee Myung-
bak, to reopen the market have brought tens of thousands of
demonstrators to the streets in protest.

American beef producers could easily allay those fears by subjecting
every cow at slaughter to the so-called rapid test, which costs about
$20 per carcass and screens for this brain-wasting disease in a few
hours rather than days. But the United States Department of
Agriculture won’t allow that.

In 2004, Creekstone Farms in Arkansas City, Kan., wanted to test the
cattle it slaughters to comply with the wishes of its Korean and
Japanese customers. But the department ruled that the rapid test could
only be used as part of its own mad cow surveillance program, which
randomly checks about 1 in 1,000 dead and slaughtered cattle in the
United States every year. The sale of the kits to private companies is
prohibited under an obscure 1913 law that allows the department to
prohibit veterinary products that it considers “worthless.”

Creekstone sued the government in 2006, arguing in court that the
Agriculture Department could not deem worthless a test that it used in
its own surveillance program. The court agreed, but the department
appealed. A decision is expected soon.

It is hard to understand why the Agriculture Department wants to stand
in the way. Yes, the test has limitations: it can miss a case of mad
cow disease, also called bovine spongiform encephalopathy, in the very
early stages of incubation. But it can catch the disease in later
stages, before animals show symptoms. Between 2001 and 2006, the
European Union used the test to turn up 1,117 cases of mad cow disease
in seemingly healthy cattle approved for slaughter.

Ideally, the Agriculture Department would follow the rules set up in
Europe and Japan that require every cow over a certain age to be
tested before being slaughtered. At the very least the department
should not prevent private companies from testing.

Companies that use the rapid test should also be allowed to label
their meat as having been “tested for mad cow” for American consumers
who would like this extra level of protection. A Consumers Union
national survey done in January 2004 found that 71 percent of adults
who eat beef would pay more to support testing, and of those, 95
percent were willing to spend 10 cents more per pound for tested meat.

In the Creekstone case, the Agriculture Department argued that the
tests should be prohibited because if one company started using them,
consumer demand would drive all companies to use them, and that would
add to the price of beef. But would that be such a bad thing? Isn’t
this how the laws of supply and demand are supposed to work?

Most Americans, like Koreans, understand that testing for mad cow
could save lives — and they’d like to have that option.

Michael Hansen is a senior scientist at Consumers Union.

* * *
Contact:
Dr. Michael Hansen
914.378.2452
hansmi (at) consumer.org

Naomi Starkman
917.539.3924