http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2008/08/mad-cow-dont-look-dont-find.html

Also, the USDA refuses to sell their mad cow test kits to private business. They just won their appeal against Creekstone Farms, to keep them from testing their beef for BSE so the Koreans (and others) would buy it:

http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2008/08/consumers-union-urges-usda-to-allow.html

It’s good that the USDA is moving to block downer cows. But it’s suspicious that they are moving to block testing for mad cow disease in this country. Japan tests 100% of their cattle for mad cow. The US tests one tenth of one percent.

Oh, and please don’t take that as a criticism of ScienceProgress– I know that you’re not generating those risk numbers (although you’d be doing a huge public service if you were willing to do the work of translating nebulous risk measurements into something more concrete; I’d love to see somebody tell me “you have an X-in-Y chance of purchasing hamburger infected with enough nasty stuff to make you sick right now, if these new regulations pass then that should decrease to Z in Y…” )

Thanks for your scrutiny.

In his testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Michael Greger, M.D. said: “Downed cattle may be at a higher risk of contamination with conventional foodborne pathogens as E. coli and Salmonella, and unconventional pathogens that cause mad cow disease and intestinal anthrax.” He went on to cite a USDA-funded study indicating that downer cows were three times more likely to carry E. coli. His testimony is available here; FDA also had data on increased infection rates, also cited in the testimony.

You’re right to note that the risk posed by downer cows is small (the press release says as much), and that the proposed rule is in the interest of the industry as well as consumers. This summer’s Salmonella outbreak is unrelated to this decision, as it pertained to peppers; I’ve clarified that opening graf. But this rule proposal should be a part of the larger discussion about food safety science and regulation.

But what does the science say? If I read the proposed rule correctly, we’re talking about cows that get hurt between an initial, pre-slaughter inspection and the time they’re actually slaughtered (anybody know how long that time is? Minutes? Hours? Days?) Do they pose an additional risk, and, if they do, how big a risk?

Aside: I’d think the beef industry would be for this regulation; it affects a very, very small number of cows, and it seems to me it would be good for public relations, even if the science says that these cows pose no or negligible risk.

By the way: I found this blog post a little misleading– you seem to be linking the salmonella outbreaks with downer cows. Was that the cause?

The calls to untangle the bureaucratic maze that purports to keep our food supply safe are 100% right. The system is broken.