January 1, 2004 The New York Times by GLEN JUSTICE

The association and its allies have spent millions in recent years to deploy lobbyists defending its interests on a number of issues, including meat regulations and inheritance taxes. So when a crisis surfaced that struck directly at beef sales, it had a plan.

Washington lobbyists began tracking down lawmakers and discussing the response with officials at the Agriculture Department. Teams of experts in all 50 states were made available to the news media to get out the association's message. And the association posted a Web page -- created years earlier but held in reserve -- to educate the public on the disease.

"We were trying to get to the American consumer, where all our money comes from," said Chandler Keys, the association's vice president for public policy.

The initial response was just the first line of defense for an industry now facing the largest test of its clout in years. It then quickly embraced regulations imposed by the Agriculture Department on Tuesday, including an about-face on one provision the industry had opposed -- and defeated -- in Congress just six months earlier.

"Their barn is burning down," said Howard Lyman, a former rancher and lobbyist for the National Farm Union who is now an activist for tighter regulations and a critic of the industry. "They are trying to put the best face on it."

The crisis was triggered two days before Christmas, when the cattlemen's association got the much-feared news that a cow in Washington state had tested positive in early laboratory tests for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Most of the association's 20-person capital staff was gone for the holidays and many had to be recalled. Some drove through the night to get back to the capital.

What followed in the next few days was a whirlwind of conversations with officials at the Agriculture Department, including Secretary Ann Veneman, and Congress as the industry sought to gather and disseminate information.

Keys said the association made a steadfast effort at transparent communication with its customers about the diseased cow and the safety of the meat supply.

"When people inside the Beltway worry about the perception of the American public and spin things and manipulate the message, that's the worst thing you can do," he said.

Critics of the industry say it was backed into a corner.

"They are on the run now," said Marion Nestle, who will step down as chair of New York University's Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health in 2004 after 15 years. "Countries all over the world are saying they will not buy their meat. That's serious."

The association, which is more than 100 years old, represents most U.S. cattle producers, as well as others associated with the beef industry, from restaurants like McDonald's to grocers like Wal-Mart. It has a long history of opposition to what it calls excessive government regulation.

"One of our philosophies is minimal government involvement and letting the industry address these things," said Terry Stokes, chief executive at the association. "More regulation increases costs and makes it difficult for small- and medium-sized producers to comply."

The association contends that the system in place to detect and guard against mad cow disease is effective, that this week's new regulations were an added precaution, and that anything new should be weighed critically.

Officials often say that any changes should be backed by science, though the industry and its critics often draw different conclusions from the available research.

"We want to make sure that anything we do has a practical and real effect," Keys said. "We don't want to do things that are window dressing and political posturing. When you succumb to that kind of thing, it always bites you."

Whether it can maintain that stance amid the threats of congressional hearings, legislation and other forms of oversight remains to be seen. Like many heavily regulated sectors, the cattle industry has strong ties to government, particularly Republicans.

Cattle and livestock interests gave almost $22 million to political campaigns since the 1990 elections, with three-quarters going to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign finance.

Critics of the industry say it has been ruthlessly effective at knocking down or weakening regulation over the years.

"They are able to exert a lot of pressure," Nestle said. "They are a very important American industry."