--------------------------------------------- 
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy 
    and related agricultural issues. 
    --------------------------------------------- 
  
* Germany's First Reported Case Of The Disease, And A Widespread Ban On  
  French Beef, Signal Europe's Recognition That Mad Cow Isn't Just A   
  British Affliction 
  
 
    By David Walker, agricultural economist 
    BridgeNews 
    Norwich, England--With most of France's neighbors banning French beef 
imports, it seems that at last continental Europe recognizes that BSE 
(bovine spongiform encephalopathy), better known as "mad cow disease," is 
more than a British affliction. 
  
    This is progress. But there is now an urgent need for politically 
difficult decisions if Europe is to avoid Britain's unfortunate 
experience. 
  
    Three distinct challenges face Europe--gauging the epidemic both in 
and beyond France, controlling its spread and addressing consumers' food 
safety concerns. 
  
    Measures proposed by the European Commission and in the process of 
being accepted by member states address the first two. As yet, there has 
been little attention paid to the third. 
  
    The commission has for some time suspected BSE was underreported. The 
French confirmed this after only a few months of random post-mortem 
testing of fallen stock (ill or sick cattle) not previously diagnosed 
clinically. 
  
    The European agriculture ministers have now agreed to a Europe wide 
program covering fallen stock from Jan. 1, 2001 and all slaughter cattle 
over 30 months of age from July 1, 2001. 
  
    The source of BSE infection is almost exclusively, if not solely, 
through recycling of infected meat and bone meal in cattle feed. This was 
first identified only 13 months after the disease was first recognized in 
Britain in 1987, and relatively promptly (after five months) it was banned 
from cattle feed. 
  
    By 1991 it became evident this ban was not enough to stop the spread 
of the disease, as animals born after the ban began to go down with the 
disease. Several measures to reduce ineffectiveness were tried but only a 
complete ban implemented in 1996 proved to be effective. 
  
    There is therefore no secret as to what needs to be done to stop the 
spread of BSE. The European Commission's challenge is getting member 
states to accept this.  
  
    By way of example, it took six years for the commission to obtain last 
June's acceptance of Europe-wide regulation on the removal of specific 
risk material--those parts of a cattle carcass most likely to cause BSE 
infection. 
  
    The first reported case of BSE in Germany, however, dramatically 
changed attitudes in that country. France has itself banned any use of 
meat and bone meal, but even recently the issue was considered worthy of 
political debate--French President Jacques Chirac initially refused to 
accept Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's proposal. 
  
    Some other member states are still hesitant. Possibly they are 
reluctant to recognize they are at risk, considering the implications for 
consumer confidence in beef. 
  
    Probably the economic advantage of a cheap source of protein feed is 
also on their minds. Continuing to use meat and bone meal, regardless of 
how it is treated and restricted, must at best be a high-stakes' gamble. 
  
    On the food safety front, the French have made little progress. Eating 
BSE infected beef is widely believed to cause variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob 
Disease (vCJD), a rare but fatal human disease. 
  
    Measures ensuring BSE-infected beef does not enter the food chain are  
critical to consumer confidence. France's only immediate and direct measure was  
a ban on the sale of beef on the bone. Some of its other 
actions have been of questionable value. 
  
    In particular, much is being made of statistical comparisons between 
the reported incidence in France and Britain, even though it's now known 
that most cases of BSE in France have gone unreported. 
  
    Unfortunately, France's whole herd slaughter policy is a powerful 
incentive for farmers to avoid reporting BSE. Those infected cattle being 
identified through random testing of fallen stock could conceivably only 
be those that French farmers failed to diagnose early enough to market as 
clean cattle. 
  
    As BSE is a progressive disease, with behavioral symptoms being the 
first to emerge, French farmers get some warning before more obvious 
symptoms surface. 
  
    As for the consumer, since a single undetected BSE case is more 
serious than almost any number of reported cases, the implications are 
very serious. 
  
    On this front, France has two obvious options, either dump the whole- 
herd slaughter policy and adopt an incentive system for BSE reporting, or 
institute a program to remove all cattle more than 30 months--the age 
after which BSE starts to develop, from the food chain. 
  
    If the British experience is any guide, the first would be cost- 
effective and do much to clean up the French beef supply in short order. 
But it might be counterproductive to confidence. 
  
    France, in common with other European countries, adopted a whole-herd 
slaughter policy as an aid to consumer confidence, even though the way BSE 
spreads was known. 
  
    Furthermore, the intense French media coverage of the beef crisis was 
precipitated by news that beef from a BSE implicated herd had found it way 
onto supermarket shelves. 
  
    Incentive reporting is, therefore, almost certainly a non-starter. The 
over 30-month option, although extremely expensive--the British program 
costs almost 400 million pounds a year for its 25-percent smaller national 
cattle herd, is the most likely choice. 
  
    It would restore consumer confidence and reduce beef supplies 
offsetting the reported 40 percent drop in French beef consumption. It 
might even convince France's neighbors to lift their import bans on French 
beef. 
  
    Just as important, the cost implication for the French might also 
persuade these neighbors that continuing to use meat and bone meal under 
current circumstances was a poor bet.  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 BridgeNews, 
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, BridgeNews, 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.