UPI: No mad cow tests in Wash.

[J B]

I didn't find this duplicated anywhere else and it's still... pardon the pun... fresh meat.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-041124-1470r

I have just finished reading this sorry story. From what I can tell, the testing required for mad cow disease has been shifted away from the big slaughterhouses, away from the big distributors, away from the big cattle states. NO cows were tested in Wash. State in the first 7 months of 2003 AT ALL. NO cows were tested at the slaughterhouse where the cow with mad cow disease was discovered in the preceding two years. There is a systematic shifting of testing towards those states and slaughterhouses least likely to cause massive industry damage if mad cow is discovered.

My best guess is that this is a case of serious, pervasive corruption.

[cthrumatrix]

1. don't eat beef...it's the only way for now....these people are amazing

[J B]

2. Well the odds of catching this thing are VERY low...

But well, number one.

How can any right-minded Japanese person read this and support Japan dropping the ban on US beef? I mean, even if the risks are low, it's obviously not because the US has adequate testing, and it's not because US feed practices are pristine and without any violations.

Number two.

Obviously the US government has taken the view that the risk is so low that scandalously inadequate testing is just fine since it's not a "real" public safety issue since this disease is something only Europeans catch.

The risks may be low, but no thanks to public corruption.

[yellowcanine]

3. Whoa - this is huge

Dairy cows are the most likely to carry the disease because they live longer and the disease shows up in older animals. Yet there is little evidence that much testing was done at large processing plants that handle old dairy cows. Heads should roll over this one. First to go should be Ann Veneman. It happened on her watch. Also, another arrow in the Democratic quiver, if they care to use it.

[TheDalaiMama]

4. Why am I not surprised. I hope beef is for dinner for all of these

negligent bastards.

[kayell]

7. And old dairy cows have tougher meat, thus will be used for

ground meat or low grade meat used in canned goods and broth. These are the cows that "advanced meat recovery systems" are used on to retrieve meat on bones and spine, since the meat will be ground anyway. This is the system where as many as 33% of the samples tested (in 2002) were contaminated by spinal cord or other nerve tissue.

[Lindacooks]

11. You're right

and that's part of the problem - the disease doesn't show up until the animal is older, but beef are slaughtered at ages 1-1/3 to 3. Therefore there's no physical sign of the disease at all, which is why mandatory testing of every animal will be the only way to control this disease.

I think Mad Cow has been in this country for years, and every case of CJD (the human form) should be considered suspect.

[CO Liberal]

5. UPI Is Owned By Sun Yung Moon

Just like the Washington Times. And just as reliable.

[yellowcanine]

6. Well, blind pigs and acorns, you know.

Strange things happen. Who knows what their motivations might be for getting it right this time?

[J B]

8. If they have legit government records I don't need their reliability

I have the records'.

[JailForBush]

9. It's no big deal.

The Seattle School District has been known to let school cafeterias go without health inspections for an entire year.

[daleo]

10. More mad cow math

The spokesperson in the article, Jim Rogers, says that current sample sizes (about 12,000 per year) are adequate to detect mad cow if it is present at the rate of one in a million. According to my textbook in sampling theory (Barnett, Sample Survey Principles and Methods) a sample size of about 16,000 will give an accuracy of only 1000 in a million, assuming a testing interval of 750 to 1250 in a million (with 95% confidence).

To get an accurate determination of a proportion of one in a million would require a huge sample size, about 16 million.

If this was a two stage sample where you knew you could accurately identify the 1 in 1000 cows who might possibly have BSE, then sample those cows for a 1 in 1000 rate, then you might be able to make the claim that your sample size could detect 1 part in 1 million.

I invite posters to check this out for themselves if they have the appropriate training. I wouldn't mind being corrected if I have made an error in my calculations or assumptions.