--------------------------------------------- 
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy 
    and related agricultural issues. 
    --------------------------------------------- 
  
  * Cases Increase, But There's Little Enthusiasm For Action 
    That Could Devastate The E.U.'s Beef Industry 
  
    By David Walker, agricultural economist 
    Bridge News 
    NORWICH, England--Recent decisions in Paris and Brussels to test 
fallen cattle for mad cow disease probably will be viewed by as 
unnecessarily alarmist, too little too late, or even counterproductive. 
  
    But the simple recognition that mad cow disease (or B.S.E., for 
bovine spongiform encephalopathy) has a hold in France and possibly 
elsewhere in continental Europe is an important first step in its 
eradication. Politics may be as important as science in this process 
because B.S.E. is perceived to be a food safety issue, and not just a 
cattle-industry concern. 
  
    B.S.E. was first recognized as a new disease of cattle in 1986 in 
Britain, where it soon developed into a major epidemic, peaking in 
1992. The possible link between B.S.E. and a new form of Creutzfeldt- 
Jakob disease, a rare, fatal human disease, was suggested in March 
1996. As a result, the profile of B.S.E. was raised substantially,  
particularly beyond Britain. 
  
    Immediate measures were put in place to confine the epidemic to 
Britain. These included an export ban on all cattle, beef and other 
derived products. Unfortunately,  infected cattle and products had 
already escaped. 
  
    The incidence of B.S.E. in Europe was initially limited to cattle 
imported from Britain. More recently, however, and particularly in 
Portugal and France, there has been a relatively low but increasing 
reported incidence of B.S.E. in cattle that have no obvious connection 
to Britain.  
  
    The origin of the infection is no mystery. As early as 1988 the 
main -- and probably only -- source of infection was identified as the 
feeding of recycled meat and bone meal to cattle. European countries 
routinely had imported meat and bone meal from Britain.  
  
    Since 1991, the E.U. has prohibited the feeding of this meal to 
cattle. But the recent increase in the disease, which takes at least 
three years to incubate, is evidence that the ban was not implemented 
effectively in a few E.U. countries.  
  
    In Britain, incidents of B.S.E. occurred in cattle born after the 
1988 ban on feeding the meal to cattle. It was realized that the 
probable source of these cases was from the cross-contamination of 
cattle feed in mills that also produced pig and poultry rations that 
were made from meat and bone meal. This lead to a wider British ban, 
preventing the use of such feed for any livestock. In France apparent 
cross contamination of cattle feed was detected last year. 
  
    Europe is, of course, much better placed than Britain was to 
control its potential epidemic. Reported B.S.E. cases number hundreds 
rather than thousands and,  importantly, much is now known about the 
disease. But, as was the case in Britain,  scientists and veterinarians 
will not have a free hand to get on with the job.  
  
    The E.U. faces two challenges. The more straightforward of these is 
to stop the infection of cattle through the feeding of contaminated 
meat and bone meal. A range of regulations and directives is already in 
place to prevent this. However, the regulations are known to be poorly 
implemented in some cases.  
  
    Of particular concern to the scientific community is the failure of 
seven of the 15 E.U. member states to implement regulations suggested 
by an E.U. directive -- a framework for national regulations for the 
handling of special-risk material. This is brain, spinal cord and 
spleen tissue -- those parts of cattle known to carry the B.S.E. 
infection.  
  
    These seven countries probably justify their inaction on the 
grounds that they are B.S.E.-free. And to implement such a regulation 
might be seen as evidence that this might not be the case.  
  
    This raises the second issue. If measures implemented to control 
the epidemic are perceived by the public to suggest a serious food 
safety issue, demand for beef will again be devastated. It might even 
be necessary to implement the kind of extreme measures implemented in 
Britain to restore consumer confidence -- including the disposal of all 
cattle over 30 months of age.  
  
    In setting in motion programs for random post-mortem B.S.E. testing 
of fallen stock, or ''downers,'' the E.U. and, independently, France 
will be able to gain some insight into the degree of under-reporting of 
B.S.E. without implying that B.S.E.-  affected beef is entering the 
food chain.  
  
    The concern about under-reporting is as great now as that of the 
actual reported incidence. The French government has admitted as much.  
  
    The weakness of this approach is that it may result in more 
infected cattle being marketed for human consumption. Most E.U. member 
states have policies that required whole-herd slaughter where B.S.E. 
occurs. The prospect of losing his whole herd and,  thus, his 
livelihood, even if there is monetary compensation, may encourage a 
farmer to avoid detection.  
  
    An early symptom of B.S.E. is a change in nervous disposition, so a 
farmer familiar with an animal through twice-daily milking will detect 
it before anyone else.  Faced with a potential B.S.E. case, he may be 
inclined to market the animal quickly before more obvious symptoms 
arise. And he will be more inclined to do this if letting the animal 
die will result in detection of B.S.E. through the testing program.  
  
    Abandoning the whole-herd disposal policy and adopting a single- 
animal slaughter program that does not create a major incentive to 
avoid detection is the obvious solution to the problems of under- 
reporting and of B.S.E. beef entering the human food chain. It is 
unlikely to be acceptable to consumers, however, because many may not 
understand how B.S.E. is transmitted.  
  
    Post-mortem testing of all, or a worthwhile proportion of, 
slaughter animals would be very disruptive and only practical where 
programs for tracing beef are effective.  Tests for detection of B.S.E. 
in live animals are not yet considered a reliable option.  
  
    Early results of French post-mortem testing of fallen stock, 
scheduled to start in May, should emerge this summer. Results of 
similar E.U. testing, scheduled for January 2001, should be available a 
year hence. If there is evidence of under-reporting, which seems very 
likely for France, there will be some difficult decisions to be made in 
a hurry.  
  
    But three months is a long time in politics, and three years, after 
which the impact of current delays will begin to unfold, is a political 
eternity.   End 
  
    DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm 
outside Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in 
London for the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was 
executive director of the Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. He also 
maintains a Web site at http://www.openi.co.uk/. His views are not necessarily 
those of Bridge News, whose ventures include the Internet site 
http://www.bridge.com/.  
  
    OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send 
submissions to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, Bridge News, 3 
World Financial Center, 200 Vesey St.,  28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 
10281-1009. You may also call (212) 372-7510, fax (212)  372-2707 or 
send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com.  
  
    EDITORS: A color photo of the author is available from KRT Photo 
Service.  
  
[Begin BridgeLinks] 
  
    A COMPLETE SUMMARY of recent opinion articles is available on 
BridgeStation.  (Story .5400)  
  
[SLUG: MAD-COW-DISEASE-EUROPE:BN _ op-ed]  
[End BridgeLinks]