Cautionary Perception
In all the announcements, official press conferences, and the like that have been pouring out of Washington, DC, concerning the first U.S. case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), one phrase keeps recurring: “An abundance of caution.” U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials seem to have adopted this as their mantra in justifying the swift actions they have taken despite, they say, any scientific evidence that there is any real problem. In fact, they point to past studies to show that there’s very little chance – a “minuscule” one – that U.S. beef poses any health threat.
Dr. Ron DeHaven, chief USDA veterinarian, cited “out of an abundance of caution” when he said the United States was honing in on finding out what has happened to the other cows that came from Canada along with the infected heifer. He used the phrase again when referring to the recall of meat from that carcass plus 19 others in the same slaughter batch.
Dr. Stephen Sundlof, from FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, called up the “abundance of caution” phrase when he said the government wanted to make sure “that there is no possibility” that any products from the BSE-infected cow get back into cattle feed.
However they put it, administration types are trying to dash any perception – both here and abroad – that there’s any danger to consumers. They’re also eager to quash criticism of so-called foot dragging in adopting some tracking, testing, and slaughter safeguards already used in Europe.
BSE Regs Springing Up
One of the regulatory changes that will affect both the rendering industry and cattlemen is the ban on any “downer” cattle being slaughtered for food. Of the approximately 20,000 animals USDA has tested each of the last two years for BSE, about 75 percent were “downers.” These animals will instead be sent for rendering, with a resultant loss in dollars to beef producers.
Cattle tested for BSE will no longer be allowed to enter the food chain until negative results are received. This will eliminate meat from an animal reaching consumers before test results are known.
The definition of “specified risk material” from slaughtered animals has been expanded to now include skull, brain, trigeminal ganglia, eyes, vertebral column, spinal cord, and dorsal root ganglia of cattle over 30 months of age and the small intestine of all cattle. USDA says it plans to make sure that slaughter plants have plans to remove and dispose of those items so that they cannot possibly enter the food chain.
Mechanically separating meat for human food is now out. Meat obtained from high-pressure technology called advanced meat recovery must also meet stricter standards to ensure that it does not contain BSE-risk materials.
Animals destined for slaughter can no longer be stunned by air-injection stunning. Reason: Portions of the brain can be blown into carcass tissue.
So What’s All the Fuss?
With the whole BSE issue, rendering has inevitably been brought more into the public spotlight. Some of this attention may well be unwanted.
USDA types, in an effort to point out that they are going to make sure the human food supply is safe, note that any potentially BSE-infected cattle parts, as well as downer animals, will be sent to renderers. That, from a public policy standpoint and beef industry view may make sense. However, the public may then ask, are these rendered products safe?
Consumers aren’t likely to be concerned about industrial applications, but might worry about others. What, for example, about Fido or Fluffy’s food? What about tallow in cosmetics?
If you think this last train of thought unlikely, note a question from a CNN reporter at a USDA press conference asking about rendered products in cosmetics and other things. FDA’s Dr. Stephen Sundlof responded: “ Tallow can be used for production of cosmetics. However, one important fact to note is that tallow does not transmit the disease [BSE]. And the reason for that is that the disease-causing organism, the prion, is a protein. In the separation products between proteins and fats, the proteins are completely separated leaving only the fat, which is not capable of transmitting the disease. So there should be no concern among the public that cosmetics may contain products from this animal.
“The other thing though to remember is that we are accounting for all of the rendered products that came from this [BSE-infected] animal, so none of that should be getting into any product, whether it’s in animal feed, pet food, or cosmetics.”
Do the Math
Look for tighter enforcement of animal feed regs due to BSE fall-out. Government types have repeatedly referred to the ban since 1997 on feeding ruminant animal parts back to ruminants. However, they have also admitted that compliance was at first as low as 75 percent. That rate is now 99 percent – with two firms still not in compliance. That’s two out of 1,826 firms.
FDA’s Sundlof told reporters in Washington, DC, that “as little as half a gram of infected brain fed to cattle, especially calves,” can result in BSE in those animals that eat the feed. However, he added, that material would not be eaten raw. It would go through a rendering process, which would “reduce the infectivity by a factor of at least 10, so it would take 10 times that much.”
Cow IDs on the Way
Another fall-out of BSE: Animal identification. After studying the issue for some time, USDA officials said they were beginning “immediate implementation” of national animal identification (ID). Funding and details were yet to be worked out, but the system would be based on some sort of radio frequency ID chip.
A cow could then be electronically traced from birth to slaughter, with no time-consuming sleuthing needed if anything went wrong. Someone, however, will have to foot the bill, making cattlemen and the beef industry nervous.
Media to the Rescue
Mad cow disease became political fodder as a couple of President Bush’s potential Democratic contenders hurled barbs. Howard Dean, seen as probably the Democratic front-runner for the upcoming presidential election, said that finding an infected cow in the United States “raises serious concerns about the ability of this administration to protect the safety of our nation’s food supply.”
The Washington Post responded in an editorial: “Until there is real evidence that America’s effort to prevent mad cow disease has failed, rather than having worked as planned, the better part of valor – even for presidential candidates – is to reserve judgment.”
More Grants of Interest
Among USDA’s recently approved value-added agricultural product market development grants:
• Idaho: $91,200 to determine the feasibility of changing a by-product of the sugar beet process into a usable animal feed.
• Nebraska: Almost one-half million dollars to commission a feasibility study for the commercial development of soy-based surfactants.
• Oklahoma: $37,750 to develop a plan to turn the plant kenaf into several different products, such as livestock and pet food, particleboard, and a charcoal material.
• Texas: $300,000 to process seafood waste into pre-mix feed ingredient.
February 2004 Render