06/29/05 B.S.E. test procedures

The fallout of the latest b.s.e. case confirmed in the U.S. is still being assessed. Taiwan as promised closed its border to U.S. beef again. Canada says it will continue to accept our beef. Japan says our nation's latest case of Mad Cow disease should not affect reopening their market to our product. The cattle markets on Monday, the first trading day after the announcement, started down but rallied to close higher than the Friday before. But the most significant changes may be on the way U.S.D.A. actually tests for b.s.e. from this point forward. That is not to say the I.H.C. tests run by the agency, and the expanded b.s.e. testing program implemented after the first discovery of b.s.e. in the U.S., did not provide some proof that America's beef supply is safe. But as U.S.D.A. Secretary Mike Johanns puts it, considering it took tests on about 338,000 head of cattle to finally get one confirmed case of b.s.e., it has been almost a relief that this case was finally discovered. JOHANNS: And I think at the U.S.D.A., it's been a rather remarkable finding because when it was kicked off, people said that "there's bound to be more found". And they were trying to quantifying it, will it be this many or that many. The reality is after all of this testing we come down to finding one animal through the enhanced surveillance. But having said that, it was not the I.H.C. test, but rather a retest of a sample deemed inconclusive, and later shown as negative, last November using the western blot method that produced the first sign of another potential b.s.e. case. So Johanns announced that from now on, both types of tests would be run on inconclusive test results. That was a testing method that was originally rejected by U.S.D.A. in March, but advocated by some groups such as R-C.A.L.F. U.S.A. But there were other concerns addressed by the U.S. Inspector General's office that led to the ordered re-test in the first place. One was that the sample in question was frozen & a violation of U.S.D.A. procedures. The other was the lack of documentation on the I.H.C. test that came back negative last fall on the now confirmed positive sample. But despite the I.G.'s report, the re-test, and the criticism by some livestock groups that the re-test announcement before a conclusion was reached caused undue reactions in the market, most everyone within the U.S. cattle industry are pleased with this new direction U.S.D.A. is going with its newly announced b.s.e. testing procedures. Some of that comment is shared in our next program.