Mad Cow Disease Revisited

By Christoph Strünck

	Christoph Strünck explores reasons for the current US outbreak.

The first confirmed case of mad cow disease in the US is also a case for renewed reasoning and determined self-refutation: Is the US really better equipped to deal with that phenomenon as I dared to argue (see eNews Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2002)?

In the wake of mad cow disease in Europe, new institutions have been set up both at the EU level and in member states. Most visibly, the EU finally launched its own food safety agency, the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). One distinctive problem during the second crisis in the nineties was standing committees that acted as advisory bodies in the murky European system of "comitology." Those committees were largely staffed with British scientists that had been picked from the department of agriculture. Member states still exert indirect influence over regulatory policies in bodies like these. In contrast, the EFSA aims to secure a de-nationalized approach based on sound science. The new Food Standards Agency (FSA) has put an end to the secretive style of British government in that field as well. Yet risk assessment and risk management remain separated throughout Europe, due to its parliamentarian tradition.

More importantly, policies have changed as well. All member states are now obliged to thoroughly test cows. Ironically, it is the UK whose scientists are seen as leadings experts in this realm. Some member states have enacted even stricter laws than those advised by the European Commission. In Germany, every single cow that is older than 24 months has to be tested. The results are gathered in a nationwide database. Taking all this into account, change has made further headway in Europe.

In a comparative perspective it is testing that makes the real difference. In fact nobody really knows how safe American beef is because the data contains loopholes. When it comes to testing, the US scores poorly. Over the last decade less than 2 percent of all downers have been tested. Given this fact, recent findings (that were rather accidental) raise concerns that there might be many more cows with infections.

There are striking parallels to the former European crisis. Especially in relation to British authorities that had downplayed scientific evidence in European advisory bodies before the true scandal unfolded. Much of the conflict evolved around secrecy and science-based-approaches towards the handling of the outbreak. What has been going on in the US so far resembles this script. USDA and special interest groups have claimed that consumers only get muscle cuts to eat which, as they say, pose no threat to human beings. Consumer groups point out that this reassurance rests on shaky grounds. First, they argue, other material is likely to end up in meat products that may contain the prions that cause mad cow disease. Secondly, even muscle meat is not wholly safeguarded against this risk. Also, the American feed ban is not as inclusive as its European counterpart, since blood is exempted. So the dispute is focused on the political use of science and the system of food safety.

In 2002, a General Accounting Office Report revealed further flaws. The report openly criticized the Food and Drug Administration, noting that it was barely capable of enforcing the feed ban. This does not come as a surprise, as the FDA is understaffed within its inspection service compared to the Department of Agriculture.

However flawed the US system of food safety, it is still more open to public scrutiny than European institutions used to be during their own crisis. Public interest groups in Europe would not have weighed in at the beginning because the science dispute was largely shielded from the public. In the UK, most research projects had been conducted under conditions set by the government.

Feeding habits also help avert risks because animal feed in the US contains more soy than in Europe. This boosts the immune system of cows. But of course trade allows in additional risk from the outside. Trade is a contentious issue anyway. More than ten countries have already signed a ban on American beef into law. As a consequence more than 90 percent of export markets are now closed down. A European ban on several types of American beef treated with hormones has long since been upheld. In order to avoid more losses in trade, US regulatory agencies will probably have to expand testing.

European citizens are not very likely to react dramatically to mad cow disease overseas. Media coverage was broad when the case occurred but quickly disappeared from the headlines. Sales of beef did not plunge, although one would have expected it to happen since most consumers are not aware of all the bans in place. Sales did not dramatically drop, either, when more than 600 cows were reported un-tested in Germany in January, although the scandal immediately stirred a public debate. Veterinarians were fired, and the police have gathered intelligence that hints at criminal energy. By and large, consumers have remained unimpressed.

Public opinion and European Nongovernmental-Organizations are attracted to other topics of regulatory policy at the moment. Attention has shifted to a new system of chemicals control at the European level. Many public interest groups regard this as the new battlefield. Interests of large chemicals-producing countries like France and Germany are at stake, so the proposed directive is a thorny topic. Moreover, the resources of environmental groups are handcuffed by this lasting conflict with lobbyists from all over Europe. This is important because these groups have served as indispensable allies for consumer associations in the fields of GMO and mad cow disease to go public with these issues. Besides, the European Commission is about to soften up the precautionary principle in the field of genetically modified food. This new strategy is supposed to relax recent rows in transatlantic trade. It will probably keep NGOs busy and will distract them from issues like mad cow disease.

When it comes to handling mad cow disease in the US, much will depend on conflicts among business groups and their constituencies. In Europe farmers soon turned into allies of consumer groups by urging trustworthy regulation. Subsequently, tensions between feed companies, retailers and farmers surfaced. Over the past few years, consumer issues in Europe have often left producer interests more fragmented than non-producer interests. They weigh the diversity of producer interests and iron triangles around the US. Department of Agriculture interplay could make a difference as well. A possible threat of litigation might also activate the fragmented forces in American consumer policies. The outbreak of mad cow disease in Europe produced considerable countervailing powers. Litigation has not been one of them.