Screening All Cattle is Costly Idea

January 12, 2004.
Omaha World-Herald.
Mark Kawar

Since the U.S. mad cow discovery, some consumer groups, activists and scientists have, according to this story, called for the ultimate safeguard: testing every slaughtered cow or steer. But is universal testing possible without making meat production prohibitively expensive?

Rhonda Luniak, a spokeswoman for Abbott Laboratories, one of the companies that distributes the millions of test kits Europe uses, was quoted as saying, "You've got the Japanese model that tests all animals, and then you've got the other extreme - in the U.S. The right number is somewhere between those extremes."

The story notes that USDA had planned before the mad cow discovery to double its cattle tests this year to 40,000.

Under the current system, meatpackers collect brain samples from cattle that federal inspectors flag for possible infection and ship the tissue to a USDA lab in Ames, Iowa, the only place in the country equipped to test for mad cow disease.

Randall Levings, director of the USDA's National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, was quoted as saying, "We consider this a surveillance effort. If you went to larger numbers, we would probably work with the state laboratories and cover hundreds of thousands. If you went to millions, we're really talking more a European system of food safety testing. All of those things are being discussed."

Levings was further cited as saying his lab has moved its testing for other animal diseases to 26 contract labs to make room for mad cow testing. If the lab were to increase its use of robotics and work its 20 scientists in shifts, he estimates it could process several hundred thousand tests a year - but not millions.

Each test costs about $100, including shipping costs. That's a bill footed entirely by taxpayers.
The story says that under the nation's current testing system, screening all 35 million cattle killed every year would cost the USDA about $3.5 billion. That excludes the meatpackers' additional expense to build storage facilities to store carcasses until test results are returned and meat could be safely shipped to supermarkets.

Bryan Salvage, senior editor for the National Provisioner, an industry magazine, was quoted as saying, "If you test every animal like that, you wouldn't have any food. It wouldn't be feasible, or even reasonable, to test every animal."

The story adds that new rapid tests like those used in Japan and Europe yield results in about four hours. That's quick enough to cause minimal disruption for packers, because carcasses need to cool a day after slaughter anyway.

Two U.S. companies and two European ones make rapid tests costing $10 to $20 each - $30 to $50 if you include processing costs. The USDA hasn't approved their use because they are considered less accurate, but on Friday the agency said it would approve some rapid tests as soon as it can test them.