Mad Cow and GWBs White House

Boggles the mind how anti-science the Bush White House is. Many of their clients, the corporations, rely upon science to make their profits, why cannot the Bushies let scientists make rational public policy decisions? Apparently, many in the cattle industry wishes to avoid the science of statistics (while relying heavily upon the science of anti-biotics), no doubt because they hope to avoid negative consequences and negative press by wishing there are no risks. Bleh. The Tinker Bell theory of policy making seems to be pretty popular these days.

Stop: Don't Test Those Cows! - New York Times
Late last month, Creekstone Farms, a Kansas-based beef company, sued the United States Department of Agriculture. The reason? Creekstone wants to use tests for mad cow disease on all of the cattle it slaughters, and the U.S.D.A. won't let it.

In contrast, the U.S.D.A.'s testing program for mad cow disease tests only high-risk cattle — those that die on the farm, can't walk or are obviously sick. In other words, the department tests about 1 percent of the 35 million cattle that are slaughtered in this country every year. It believes, based on its statistical models, that testing 1 percent is plenty.

Why would the U.S.D.A. stop a cattle company from voluntarily meeting a higher standard than the one required by law? The very idea sounds counterintuitive. But then so does the agency's rationale. The U.S.D.A. argues that 100 percent testing would not guarantee food safety because mad cow disease can be hard to detect in younger cattle — the very cows that a premium beef company like Creekstone is most likely to slaughter.

To us, this sounds like nonsense — as if we were more likely to be safe by following a testing plan based on statistical modeling of the beef supply than by actually testing all the cattle.

The U.S.D.A. should test every cow that goes to slaughter. The cost is not prohibitive. Fear is the problem. The current testing program for mad cow disease is intended to produce, at best, a snapshot of the likelihood of the disease. The program rests on assumptions that reflect, as assumptions tend to do, only what we know already, and we do not know nearly enough about mad cow disease.

The fear is that broad testing may reveal a higher rate of infection and destroy consumer confidence, with a devastating impact on the cattle market. Which leaves us where we are now: relying on what we don't know to make us feel safe.

Mmmm, mad cow. Makes my brain all tingly.

Tags: , /, /

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Seth A. published on April 6, 2006 8:46 AM.

Tritium spills was the previous entry in this blog.

Big Brother and Ad Metrics is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.37