Steve Skutnik authored a column titled “USDA halting progress in mad cow testing” in the April 28 edition of the Daily. In that article, Mr. Skutnik criticized the decision by the USDA to prohibit Creekstone Farms from performing tests for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), or “mad cow disease.”

In forming his argument, he used an analogy of a car company that builds its reputation on safety, but is ordered to stop testing of its cars. If this comparison were accurate, Mr. Skutnik (and many other commentators) would have very valid conclusions. Unfortunately, his initial supposition is incorrect, so his conclusions may similarly be flawed.

A more accurate comparison would be to a little known, but true story about testing for anthrax. Shortly after Sept. 11, and during the anthrax-laced letter scare, a North Carolina based company began marketing a product they said tested for anthrax in air and water or on surfaces.

They of course were playing on public fears, which were at least somewhat irrational (what is the likelihood that the average person will be exposed to anthrax?).

Even worse, however, they made claims to protect individual safety that were not justified based upon the product.

The Federal Trade Commission went after the company, and pulled the product from the market. (See www.ftc.gov/opa/

2002/02/vitalraw.htm for a news release about this incident.)

In the current situation, the irrational fear is BSE. The risk of being exposed to BSE-tainted meat is miniscule to non-existent, given the rigorous limitations on animal feed and removal of specified risk materials from the food supply.

Fortunately in this case, the incorrect safety claims are being made by persons such as Mr. Skutnik, not the business entity that could profit, Creekstone. Testing animals for BSE is an animal health surveillance tool, not a food safety test.

The increased testing currently proposed and performed by USDA will serve to establish an estimation of prevalence within the national herd, to determine what additional measures, if any, are needed to eliminate the disease.

This surveillance generally focuses on older animals showing signs of central nervous disorders, which are more likely to test positive.

The tests have not been proven effective at detecting infected animals at the age typically processed by Creekstone and most other processing plants in the United States. Furthermore, it does not test the edible product; it tests animal tissue that is excluded from the food supply (the brain).

The issue at hand is a trade matter. Should Creekstone be permitted to do the testing to meet demands of its customers? Perhaps.

But only if it is recognized as an issue of commerce, and is not used to provide a false sense of security to consumers, or imply that Creekstone’s product is safer than others.

To make such conclusions based upon a BSE test would be completely erroneous. This is not a food safety issue, and any attempt to make it one is a disservice to American consumers and cattle producers.

Jared D. Taylor

Adjunct Instructor

Center for Food Security and Public Health

College of Veterinary Medicine