Mad Cow False Negatives: A Retraction
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Environment, Science
The AP reported that the government was challenging a farmer for testing all of his cows for Mad Cow disease. I thought that was pretty stupid.
Turns out I was wrong…sort of.
See, they did challenge the farmer, but not for the reason that was first reported…
In the lawsuit, the government did not make an argument about “false positives.” To the contrary, the government’s brief in support of a motion for summary judgment (as well as its other briefs) argued that BSE tests would provide a overwhelming number of false negatives.[...]The false negative argument was also made in a 2005 rule from the USDA, which found universal testing to lack any scientific justification: [...]
Why is the government taking this position? I see no evidence, as of yet, that concern for “protect[ing] companies’ profits” has anything to do with this. Instead, this seems to be a perfectly normal case of the liberal regulatory state protecting its turf.
However, let me ask if there really is not scientific justification for testing all animals for this? We’re not talking about polling here and this isn’t like rat hairs in peanut butter, or as the FDA likes to call it, the “Food Defect Action Levels.” We’re talking about cows with a serious disease that can jump to humans.
I suppose this seems to me like the argument against testing the cargo containers. Sure, can we test 2% of the containers and have a reasonable scientific estimation about the threat level, but we’ll never truly know and the time, energy and money it would have taken to stop that ONE container with a bomb in it would have been worth the time, energy and money it would take cleaning up the destruction it caused. Same goes with a disease inside of an animal.
Hat tip to Pat over at Stubborn Facts for pointing out the inconsistency and emailing me personally as a heads up.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 6th, 2007 and is filed under Environment, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
I think this is different from the cargo containers, a bit. In a BSE world, each of us ultimately decides what risk to accept eating a particular piece of beef. If a company says “we’re tested and 100% negative,” then that makes us assume that that beef is actually safer. The FDA’s position is that the test won’t reveal a BSE-infected cow that’s less than about 5 years old, and so testing all slaughtered beef cows, which average about 24 months in age would never show a positive result, even if the cow were in fact infected. The marketing of the test makes us feel safer than we actually are.
Suppose you were deciding whether to sleep with someone, and they said “it’s ok, I’ve been tested.” You feel safer. But suppose you then found out they had been tested last a year ago, and since that time they’ve participated in 3 orgies with a bunch of IV drug users and promiscuous bi-sexuals. Suddenly, the fact of the testing offers much less reassurance. The fact of the test may blind you into inquiring about other risk factors.
If there’s SOME chance that the test might provide a better degree of comfort that the beef is BSE-free, then the container analogy may work. But if the FDA is correct that the test just won’t catch any cows, even if they are BSE infected, if they’re younger than 3 to 5 years old, then the test is completely worthless and offers only a false reassurance. As I noted in my post, even Europe only tests cattle that are 30 months old or more.
Kudos on the retraction, though. I’ve been very pleased to see the reaction by bloggers of all political stripes on this issue.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:08 am
I’m sorry I didn’t specify, but I was talking about testing cattle after the appropriate gestation period.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Oh, ok. I could probably support allowing that.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
The problem being that prime beef cattle are generally slaughtered well before the age at which testing would show the presence of BSE. The ranch in question is a “Prime” producer, and would have been slaughtering exclusively in the under-30-month age range for Prime. Older means tougher and lower grade–by the time cattle are at 5 years age, they’re generally fit only for burger and other processed meats, and byproducts usage.
Most cattle raised for beef are slaughtered at 15-18 months, half the age at which BSE can first be detected. Almost all commercial beef cattle are slaughtered before 30 months. Slaughter past that age is generally restricted to milk cattle and breeders who have outlived their functions, and goes to hamburger and feed and byproducts. As BSE resides in the nueral tissues, that’s where the greatest chance of exposure is–in food products uisng everything but the moo….
September 1st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Who cares about the age of a cow? Heck we don’t even know where it comes from for certain. nor do we know what causes CWD (chronic wasting disease) but its been around since a deer herd got it in Colorado in the 70’s.
If a company wants to take it on themselves to test what they are putting on the market, I would feel a whole lot safer knowing it had been tested; even if it was too young to show up. I don’t know what beef cut you are eating but the majority of us out here are eating the cheapest thing walmart sells.
The military instituted a service wide test for AIDS in the late 80’s, but it takes several years to show up. So if you got it last night. reckon you got a while to wait.
Besides, if they are paying for it who cares and it costs less than 10 cents a pound to the consumer.
Reckon if it were another bovine disease uncle sam would be pumping millions into the only company that makes the test or inoculation as the case is with anthrax. Its sorta ironic that the only people that were targeted were politicians who apparently have know idea what a chem suit is for and by one of their own.
I SAY LET THEM TEST AND I’LL SEE IF I CAN AFFORD A TESTED BURGER ON PAYDAYS.