January 18, 2004 Sacramento  Bee By Joshua Miner and Kathleen Hennessey

The evidence that could demonstrate the safety -- or absence thereof -- of U.S. beef is in large part not being revealed by U.S. officials, and in some cases isn't even being collected.

For starters, the Department of Agriculture -- a conflicted agency charged with simultaneously promoting the consumption of, and protecting consumers from, U.S. beef -- has yet to give us a transparent definition of what "safe" means when it comes to transmission of this brain-wasting disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), to humans.

Does "safe" mean there's no risk of contracting the disease, or merely a relatively small risk? What information is being used to determine the difference? Answers to these questions would first require an estimate of the number of cattle infected. This is not a number the USDA has released.

We know that at least one cow was infected by eating feed that contained the remains of other BSE-infected cows, but U.S. officials have not told us how many cattle might have become infected in a similar fashion. The maximum number, however, would include every cow reared at the same Canadian breeding operation during the years contaminated feed was used. Because many breeding operations purchase their feed from the same suppliers, multiple operations might also be included in the count. Officials must trace all potentially infected cows, not simply documented cases.

In a country where the average consumer eats roughly 20 pounds of beef yearly, even relatively low amounts of contaminated meat in the food supply can pose a real risk to consumers. If the meat from only one infected cow makes it into the food chain each year, the average consumer will ingest 0.004 ounces of infected beef over 25 years. Bump that up to 1,000 cows, the amount of infected meat increases to a quarter pound every 25 years.

At 10,000 infected cows, the average consumer is eating a pound of contaminated meat every 10 years. These numbers might seem small, but the risks associated with eating any amount of meat infected with BSE are still largely unknown.

Not all cows are created equal. Husbandry practices like the use of organic, vegetarian feed reduce the likelihood that cows become infected in the first place. And we know that cows that are raised entirely on pasture, also known as grass-fed or grass-finished, have zero risk of contracting BSE. We are focusing here only on the conventionally raised beef that the vast majority of Americans consume.

These consumers -- and researchers -- would benefit from better information about exactly how BSE is transmitted from cow to human.

In general, there are two possible routes of transmission. The most obvious route is through the consumption of infected beef products, especially of highly processed products like hot dogs and ground hamburger, which can be contaminated with brain tissue and blood products such as bone marrow. However, there is also a possibility that the disease may be spread by consuming any animal that was fed infected beef, including chicken, turkey or pork. A very remote possibility even exists that transmission might occur through the consumption of vegetables grown with the use of animal fertilizers containing infected beef byproducts.

U.S. officials have consistently discounted and downplayed these indirect avenues. In the Washington Post article on Dec. 23 that first reported the U.S. BSE-infection, Veneman was quoted as saying that BSE is "not known to be transmitted" through the consumption of these non-beef products. The secretary's statement is extremely misleading and gives consumers the mistaken impression that there is no risk associated with eating these foods. BSE is neither known nor not known to be transmitted through non-beef products. The truth is we have no idea.

One of the reasons consumers need such detailed information is that federal officials can do so little to protect them. Veneman doesn't even have the power to recall potentially tainted products, and is left relying on companies to voluntarily take their products off the shelves. Federal rules prohibit counties from releasing the names of stores and restaurants that sold meat and meat products linked to the Washington case. When it comes to steering clear of bad beef, consumers are very much on their own.

But better information on the scope of infection and avenues of transmission wouldn't only benefit consumers. It is also critical to researchers wanting to analyze the range of risk faced by individuals and to calculate an estimated number of cases of BSE-related disease in humans, a first step at protecting against future BSE cases in the U.S.

In all likelihood, the recent U.S. BSE infections pose a lower risk to consumers than previous HIV contamination of the nation's blood supply. However, we still know relatively little about the disease. And because of its deadliness, consumers deserve worst-case scenarios, generous caution and aggressive preventive measures instead of the best-case scenarios and easy fixes we are currently being force-fed.

Secretary Veneman and the beef industry have been quick to act on a handful of long-overdue, common-sense reforms. However, it's an outrage that there's no such urgency when it comes to collecting and releasing vital information that will allow the American public to make informed choices about the foods we eat. The American people deserve hard evidence and policy changes made in their best interests.