Katrina, Mad Cow, GMO and "sound science"

It seems the US government likes to use "sound science" as a soundbite more than a decision philosophy.

In a 2005 column, agricultural economist Daryl Ray examined the similarity between US government policy on mad cow disease (BSE) and maintenance of the levees in New Orleans. The pressure on the Japanese to open their beef market to US exports after our positive BSE test mirrors the choice to delay levee repairs. The decisions are based on the "sound science" that the chances of a Hurricane Katrina (or a BSE-infected beef patty) are relatively rare and that the resources spent building 100-year levees or testing every cow are disproportionate.

Critics of this approach tend to favor the "precautionary principle." Under this philosophy, you prepare for the worst. This philosophy is embodied in the motherly advice "better safe than sorry" as well as Franklin's "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." More to the point, the preference of "sound science" versus precaution depends a lot on where you stand.

If you're a New Orleans resident, precaution sounds pretty smart. Same for a Japanese beef consumer, who's apparently willing to pay the premium to test every cow and certify that their beef is disease-free (whereas the US government explicitly opposes full testing). And ditto for European consumers who'd rather not take the risk that genetically modified (GM) food might prove harmful in some unanticipated way.

What really galls me is that the US government clearly is not representing the will of the people, but the will of the some other interest. Levee repair gets delayed so we can fund illegal wars and tax cuts. Government trade negotiators try to push US beef on Japanese consumers on behalf of beef producers, and not beef consumers. And GM crops tend to help crop producers by making food hardier, as well as more resistant to disease and pests; but when was the last time you heard of food being modified to be more healthy, tasty, or nutritious? (there are a couple examples, but not usually funded by corporations...)

Maybe our government needs some more motherly advice.

Don't test the meat - it's safe

Mad cow disease took the world by storm in the 1990s as English herds were found to carry a form of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The fear spread quickly, causing many countries to ban beef imports from counties where even a single cow tested positive.

The United States avoided much of the challenge, one could argue, because the USDA refuses to test more than 1% of the herd.
Despite the emotion around mad cow, the USDA asserts that its policy of testing 1% of the American herd is sufficient because the American herd is safe (one could argue that from a statistical standpoint, 1% might suffice). Supporting the USDA's position are the facts that we've banned the use of slaughtered cattle as animal feed and only 3 cases of mad cow disease have been discovered in U.S.-raised cattle.

Since the USDA is confident of our beef safety, how might we expect them to react when one American beef company displays interest in testing every head of cattle it slaughters (at its own expense)?

Dismay, of course. If we test more cows, we might find more disease. And 58 countries banned US beef after the first mad cow case was discovered here in 2003. In fact, the USDA is so afraid that regular and thorough testing might expose previously hidden mad cow disease that they plan to prohibit Creekstone Farms from implementing full testing.

The irony is almost overwhelming, since Creekstone is pursuing full testing in order to instill confidence in its foreign customers that US beef is safe. Statistically, testing every head of cattle is silly, but Creekstone Farms has hopes to sell beef to more than just the statisticians.