Steve Quayle News Alerts

June 5, 2003

As barbecue season approaches, food safety critics are demanding more stringent controls on the beef ranches and processing plants that provide those sizzling burgers and hot dogs. But until that happens, some diners wonder: Is it safe to eat beef?

‘The fact that BSE hasn’t been found here doesn’t mean it isn’t here.’ — CAROLINE SMITH DEWAAL, Food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest

THE CONCERN has arisen from a single case of mad cow disease in Alberta, Canada, disclosed two weeks ago. On Wednesday, agriculture investigators learned that some of the cattle from the sick cow’s herd wound up in Montana.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy has not been found in any U.S. or Canadian beef products. But Canada sends 1.7 million cattle south every year. Until an import ban on May 20 when BSE was discovered, processors regularly mixed beef from both nations.

Prions, the mysterious, abnormal proteins believed to trigger BSE, have not been found in beef muscle. So even most critics aren’t condemning sirloins or hamburger ground from specific cuts like chuck or round.

NERVOUS SYSTEM TISSUE POSES RISK
But processed foods like beef sausage, hot dogs, luncheon meats, taco fillings and some pizza toppings are a dicier subject. Such products contain meat scoured from cow carcasses by automated equipment that pressure-strips flesh from awkward places like backbones.

Prions collect in the cow’s brain, spinal cord and other nervous system tissue. Processors are supposed to remove the spinal cord to minimize health risks. However, a December 2002 inspection showed that one of three samples from 34 beef processors contained central nervous system tissue.

In March, the U.S. Agriculture Department began more careful testing of meat processors that use the automated equipment.

The fatal human version of mad cow known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease has killed at least 132 people since 1986 — 122 of them in Britain, where processed meat products contained larger amounts of such tissue.

In the United States, “We’re talking about stray bits of cells being detected through testing methods,” said Jim Hodges, president of the American Meat Institute Foundation.

But a single cell might contain many prions.

“Consumers don’t want to purchase products with central nervous system tissue in it,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “They think they are buying meat.”

SEARCH FOR THE SOURCE
As the Canada inquiry continues, experts still are ruminating over food safety and basic bovine biology. There is no obvious explanation for the Canadian case.

A cow 6 to 8 years old showed severe symptoms when it was slaughtered. It was sent to a mill for chicken feed or dog food, and testing of the brain later revealed that it had BSE.

Researchers say that probably didn’t develop spontaneously. More likely, they say, the animal was infected through prion-contaminated feed years ago.

“It’s critical that we find the source,” said Iowa State University veterinarian Nolan Hartwig. “If there is a leak in the system, we need to know about it.”

Industry officials say this random surveillance system used by the United States and Canada proved itself effective by spotting the cow. But consumer advocates say this case is a sentinel, not an aberration.

“The fact that BSE hasn’t been found here doesn’t mean it isn’t here,” said CSPI’s DeWaal. “It’s very likely we’ll see a case or more of mad cow disease here.”

LOOPHOLES IN U.S. TESTING
Critics say the U.S. system allows big loopholes.

Europe tests one in four cattle for BSE, or about 10 million animals annually. All slaughtered cattle over 30 months old are tested, an age when BSE is apparent in lab samples and could spread. Britain bans consumption of cattle older than 30 months.

Japan tests all 1.3 million beef carcasses it processes yearly.

In contrast, the United States slaughtered 35.7 million cattle last year and tested 19,990 for BSE — about one in 1,800. Inspectors focus on animals showing symptoms of illness. (Canada follows a similar plan.)

Critics recommend a precautionary program more like the one in Europe, which uses a rapid test and then a second more extensive test on positive cases. The testing costs $80.

Michael K. Hansen of Consumers Union said the current U.S. testing sample is “far too small to detect a problem that might be growing.”

Industry officials say consumer groups are “imagining a BSE epidemic.”

Most cattle slaughtered in the United States are younger than 30 months old, so testing them would be a “huge waste of money and resources,” Hodges said.

INFECTED LIVESTOCK FEED
Livestock feed is a second potential crack in the regulatory firewall. Britain’s mad cow outbreak spread quickly because infected cows and sheep were processed into feed given to healthy cattle.

The United States and Canada banned such feed for cattle in 1997. Because of its age, however, the infected Canadian cow could have eaten tainted food before the ban.

Future BSE pathways could be less direct, too.

It took nearly four months to test the Alberta cow. During that period, the cow was rendered and made into chicken feed and dog food. Dogs and poultry cannot contract BSE, but inspectors cannot prove that prion-laden feed did not inadvertently contaminate feed meant for cattle.

And poultry may act as a reservoir for BSE. If chickens picked up prions in their feed and were themselves processed into cattle feed, it may perpetuate a prion infection cycle in future herds, critics speculate.

Also questionable are blood and other protein materials used in dozens of supplements, including weaning products for calves, Hansen said.

TRACING INFECTED CATTLE
A third potential loophole is cattle identification. The infected cow in Alberta belonged to at least four herds. Investigators trying to locate those other cattle have been slowed by incomplete records. Nine herds have been quarantined so far and more than 1,700 animals destroyed.

Five bulls from the herd were shipped to Montana six years ago. Later, they were slaughtered in the United States, but details are sketchy. Montana officials do not believe the animals were infected, nor used in animal feed.

“It’s time the U.S. livestock industry seriously look at tracing animals from conception to consumption,” Hartwig said. “You could build a huge bureaucracy in a hurry. But look at the Canadians now.”

What's your beef?
Figuring out the names and grades for beef products

Labels
• “Normal” beef
• Organic beef
• Natural beef
• Grass-fed beef
• Free-range beef
• Lean beef

Beef is marketed under enough different labels, names, and grades to be a complete puzzle to the average consumer. Some have specific meanings; others can vary depending on how the producer defines them.

“Normal” beef: What you would typically find in the supermarket or at the local drive-thru. Most U.S. cattle are fed grain or corn, and produced for higher fat content. There are no specific restrictions on the use of either genetically-enhanced feed or antibiotics to treat the cattle.

Organic beef: Refers to the quality of the feed given to the cattle, which must be produced from organic sources. Does not specify the type of feed. Hormones and antibiotics are prohibited. Cattle must be slaughtered at an organic facility. Of all labels, this is the only one with a national set of standards.

Natural beef: By USDA labeling standards, must not contain any artificial ingredients. Does not address use of natural hormones or drugs. In the industry, tends to refer to pasture-raised beef that has received minimal medication. Feed may not necessarily be organic.

Grass-fed beef: Cattle are given grass or silage to eat, not grain or corn. Does not specify the preparation of the grass or the use of drugs or hormones. Does not specify the feeding method, so some grass-fed beef are raised in pens.

Free-range beef: Cattle are allowed to forage for food, usually over open grasslands. Different from “pasture-finished” cattle, which generally begin in pens and often eat grain before being transferred to the open range.

Lean beef: Refers to the fat content, not the grazing method. Focus is on a lower fat beef, with less marbling of fat in the meat. Usually does not apply USDA grades, which promote a higher fat content. Cattle are usually grass fed, but no single standard exists.

USDA Grades*
• Prime
• Choice
• Select
• Others

Prime: Has a high degree of marbling, which allows it to be cooked with minimal preparation. Usually marketed as the top quality of beef. Sample fat content: 23.3g per 100g.

Choice: High quality, though with less marbling. Also cooks easily, but some cuts may require more preparation. Sample fat content: 20.6g per 100g.

Select: Less marbling than the others means this is the leanest cut of beef. Still tender, but may require more preparation because of the lower fat content. Sample fat content: 17.4g per 100g.

Others: USDA also has Standard and Commercial grades, which are often sold ungraded as generic whole meat. USDA also grades beef on yield – how much edible meat is on a carcass.

Determining grade: The USDA beef grades seen in supermarkets actually refer to the amount of fat in the product, though the USDA describes it as a description of “tenderness, juiciness, and flavor.” “Marbled” fat refers to the level of fat distributed throughout the “lean,” or edible meat portion of the beef.

Source: MSNBC research, USDA.
* Fat content based on composite cuts, raw, trimmed to 1/4” fat.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/922648.asp?0cv=CB20