Meat + Poultry - July 2004 - 64

PERSPECTIVE

Do you agree with the proposals to exclude from the downer
suffered broken legs and other ailments unrelated to BSE?

Carol Tucker Foreman
Director
Consumer Federation of
America's Food Policy
Institute
Washington, D.C.
■ I think it's hard to know
what is and what is not related to BSE. As I recall, the
cow that tested positive in
Washington state was
thought to be down due to
an injury giving birth, not a
central-nervous-system
disorder. So I think it's very
hard to know why an animal is a downer. Maybe a
complete veterinary checkup might fine-tune this
process. Also, I'm not sure
the industry really wants
the American public to
dwell on the fact that they
are slaughtering and serving downer animals to
families.

Editor's note: The Associated Press reported that public comments are roughly
10-1 in
favor of keeping the current downer ban. Some say
any exclusions would pose
a health risk and subject
cows to suffering.

12 FSI FOOD SYSTEMS ınsıder

Jerry Smith
Retail marketing specialist
Associated Food Stores
Salt Lake City
■ I am pleased that we as
an industry are addressing
the issues surrounding the
downer cattle category.
When the term surfaced in
the recent BSE situation, I
felt that "downer" encompassed far too broad of a
spectrum, and it needed
immediate clarification. To
declare all of these products
unusable is, in my opinion,
a mistake and a waste of
resources. Humane, conscientious procedures need
to be implemented to deal
with all situations, along
with the categorizing of
each incident, whether a
possible BSE suspect, a preexisting mobility or
structure problem, or an
in-transit occurrence which
may cause the lack of
mobility. All need to be
handled in a category of
their own and usage policies and procedures implemented. If we respond
in a positive way to a potentially negative situation,
the public response will be
much more favorable than
if we leave this antiquated
structure as it is.

JULY 2004

Dawn Capucille
Assistant professor
N.C. State University
College of Veterinary
Medicine
■ I do not believe allowing
exclusions to the downer
ban will significantly increase the risk of BSE transmission. The level of BSE in
the U.S. is very low, so the
public-health risk from all
non-ambulatory animals is
miniscule. That said, the
likelihood of a non-ambulatory animal being infected
with BSE is thousands of
times greater than that of
an ambulatory animal,
making the ban a reasonable precaution. Downer
animals entering the food
supply is more an animalwelfare issue than a publichealth issue. Certainly, if
injured during transport,
humane slaughter is reasonable. However, loading
and unloading an animal
that is down on the farm
appears traumatic and is
rightly questioned by
many. The overall impact
of our practices needs to be
considered carefully - is
the value of the few
"broken leg cows" worth
the perceived inhumane
treatment of the animals?

Pete Kappelman
Co-owner
Meadow Brook Farms
Manitowoc, Wis.
■ As producers of both
meat and milk, we dairy
producers cannot fail to
recognize that consumers
need to have ultimate confidence in the quality and
safety of their food supply.
However, programs and
policies should be based on
strict scientific and analytical protocols to eliminate
specified risk material from
the food chain. It's critical
that we allay any health or
safety concerns that consumers may have while not
placing unnecessary costs
or burdens on producers or
processors. The current
USDA restrictions on nonambulatory cows are too
broad. Healthy cows that
"split out" on slippery concrete and sustain permanent ligament damage
should be allowed into the
food chain provided the injury is documented. These
cows should also be segregated for slaughter and BSE
tested. Properly designed
procedures will provide a
level of protection that policy makers and the public
can have confidence in.
Meat + Poultry - July 2004

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat + Poultry - July 2004
