May 7, 2004 Omaha World Herald (Nebraska) editorial

Last week, reports made the rounds of newspapers that nearly 100 U.S. companies have violated a feed ban designed to prevent the spread of mad cow (technically called bovine spongiform encephalopathy). This week, news broke that a federal inspector failed to order a BSE test of a suspect animal in Texas.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's insistence that its new testing regimen - expanded to at least 200,000 animals this year, up from only 20,000 last year - is adequate seems dubious at best now that the Texas animal slipped through the system. Already berated by consumer groups and several foreign governments, who thought several times more animals should be tested, USDA officials should take their plans back to the drawing board.

The Texas animal was sent to be rendered for feed or other uses, not processed for human consumption. Still, questions about the presence of mad cow in American beef can't be allowed to linger.

It doesn't help that compliance with a 1997 ban on feeding cattle protein and bone meal to other cattle or ruminants is in question, too. A recent Associated Press analysis of the government's database on feed inspections revealed that nearly 100 U.S. companies have violated feed regulations.

Twelve of those cases from the past five months were classified as serious violations. Those had the potential for mixing prohibited material or had serious labeling or record-keeping problems, according to the Associated Press report.

(Nebraska found only one minor record-keeping violation in its inspections of state feed makers between July 2002 and June 2003. But several feed manufacturers, including at least one with serious violations, distribute feed throughout the United States and parts of Canada.)

An international scientific panel recommended that protein and bone meal from any ruminant be prohibited in all feeds. Currently, such ingredients are common in feed for nonruminant animals, such as pigs, chickens and pets. The panel cited concerns about the risk of infected tissue inadvertently making its way into the feed given to cattle.

The USDA thus far insists that U.S. policies are adequate to contain and prevent mad cow. The shortcomings of those policies are now clear, however. For everyone's sake - both the consumer's and the cattle industry's - the USDA ought to seriously rework its plans, and soon.