Thursday, July 20, 2006

USDA Scales Back Mad-Cow Testing - By LIBBY QUAID, AP Food and Farm Writer Thursday, July 20, 2006 (07-20) 12:03 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) -- The Agriculture Department is cutting its tests for mad cow disease by about 90 percent, drawing protests from consumer groups. The current testing level [~] 1,000 each day [~] reflects the heightened concern that followed the discovery in December 2003 of mad cow disease in the United States. Since then, tests have turned up two more cases of the disease, known medically as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. The government says there may be a handful of undetected cases. "It's time that our surveillance efforts reflect what we now know is a very, very low level of BSE in the United States," Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Thursday. "There is no significant BSE problem in the United States, and after all of this surveillance, I am able to say there never was." Critics say now is not the time to scale back on the testing, which has cost the government an estimated $1 million per week. "It surely will not encourage consumers in the U.S. or Japan to rush to the store to buy more beef," said Carol Tucker-Foreman, food policy director for Consumer Federation. A second group, Consumers Union, advocates testing every animal slaughtered in the United States. The current level of 1,000 tests each day represents about 1 percent of the 35 million cattle slaughtered annually in this country. Beginning around late August, the new level will be about 110 tests per day. "If you do testing of 100 percent of your animals, any ones that test positive never go into the food chain," said Michael Hansen of Consumers Union. "That's in part why they do it in Europe because they've seen animals that look perfectly fine and they catch them just before they go to slaughter." Johanns said testing has nothing to do with the safety of U.S. beef for consumers in the U.S. and abroad. From a food safety standpoint, the real key is removing at slaughter those cattle parts known to carry mad cow disease, Johanns said. "Those who are trying to convince their consumers that universal testing or 100 percent testing somehow solves the problem really are misleading you," he said. "Consumers should feel better than ever about the meat that they are buying," Johanns said. His comments were applauded by industry groups such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. It noted that the new level of testing, about 110 per day, is significantly higher than what is called for by the World Organization for Animal Health. Many countries follow the organization's guidelines on testing, trade and other policies. "In addition, our food supply remains safe from BSE thanks to extensive protective measures already in place," said Gary Weber, executive director of regulatory affairs for the association. Johanns said he hopes the reduction will not affect negotiations on resuming beef trade with Japan, which has pushed for the same number of tests or more. Japan was a huge consumer of U.S. beef before the first American case of mad cow disease. Johanns said Japan, which has found 27 cases of mad cow disease, definitely has a problem with mad cow disease. In contrast, the United States has a much larger herd of cattle and has found three cases of the disease: In December 2003, in a Washington state cow imported from Canada; last June, in a Texas-born cow; and in March, in an Alabama cow. Johanns said Japan should "recognize that what we've done here exceeds all the international standards, and the markets should be open to our beef." Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin said he hoped Johanns was right but that "the Japanese appear ready to take advantage of any gap as an excuse to drag out this trade dispute further." Harkin, senior Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, has questioned the accuracy of the department's testing data. In April, Johanns released a department analysis of testing data, saying the prevalence of mad cow disease "is extraordinarily low." There are probably four to seven undetected cases of the disease in the U.S., according to the analysis. A panel of three independent scientists finished reviewing the department's analysis this month. Two of the scientists agreed that the new level of testing is sufficient. The third said the level may be sufficient but that the department needs to do a better job of getting accurate ages for cows that are tested. The brain-wasting disorder infected more than 180,000 cows and was blamed for more than 150 human deaths during a European outbreak that peaked in 1993. Humans can get a related disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, by eating meat contaminated with mad cow. ___ 12:33:01 PM    comment []

Barbara Ehrenreich: Could You Afford to be Poor?. There are people, concentrated in the Hamptons and Beverly Hills, who still confuse poverty with the simple life. No cable TV, no altercations with the maid, no summer home maintenance issues - just the basics, like family, sunsets, and walks in the park. What they don't know is that it's expensive to be poor. In fact, you, the reader of middling income, could probably not afford it. A new study from the Brookings Institute documents the "ghetto tax," or higher cost of living in low-income urban neighborhoods. It comes at you from every direction, from food prices to auto insurance. A few examples from this study, by Matt Fellowes, that covered 12 American cities: Poor people are less likely to have bank accounts, which can be expensive for those with low balances, and so they tend to cash their pay checks at check-cashing businesses, which in the cities surveyed, charged $5 to $50 for a $500 check.   Nationwide, low-income car buyers, defined as people earning less than $30,000 a year, pay two percentage points more for a car loan than more affluent buyers.   Low-income drivers pay more for car insurance. In New York, Baltimore and Hartford, they pay an average $400 more a year to insure the exact same car and driver risk than wealthier drivers.   Poorer people pay an average of one percentage point more in mortgage interest.   They are more likely to buy their furniture and appliances through pricey rent-to-own businesses. In Wisconsin, the study reports, a $200 rent-to-own TV set can cost $700 with the interest included.   They are less likely to have access to large supermarkets and hence to rely on the far more expensive, and lower quality offerings, of small grocery and convenience stores. I didn't live in any ghettoes when I worked on Nickle and Dimed--a trailer park, yes, but no ghetto-- and on my average wage of $7 an hour, or about $14,400 a year, I wasn't in the market for furniture, a house or a car. But the high cost of poverty was brought home to me within a few days of my entry into the low-wage life, when, slipping into social-worker mode, I chastised a co-worker for living in a motel room when it would be so much cheaper to rent an apartment. Her response: Where would she get the first month's rent and security deposit it takes to pin down an apartment? The lack of that amount of capital - probably well over $1000 - condemned her to paying $40 a night at the Day's Inn. Then there was the problem of sustenance. I had gone into the project imagining myself preparing vast quantities of cheap, nutritious, soups and stews, which I would freeze and heat for dinner each day. But surprise: I didn't have the proverbial pot to pee in, not to mention spices or Tupperware. A scouting trip to K-Mart established that it would take about a $40 capital investment to get my kitchenette up to speed for the low-wage way of life. The food situation got only more challenging when I, too, found myself living in a motel. Lacking a fridge and microwave, all my food had to come from the nearest convenience store (hardboiled eggs and banana for breakfast) or, for the big meal of the day, Wendy's or KFC. I have no nutritional complaints; after all, there is a veggie, or flecks of one, in Wendy's broccoli and cheese baked potato. The problem was financial. A double cheese burger and fries is lot more expensive than that hypothetical home-made lentil stew. There are other tolls along the road well-traveled by the working poor. If your credit is lousy, which it is likely to be, you'll pay a higher deposit for a phone. If you don't have health insurance, you may end taking that feverish child to an emergency room, and please don't think of ER's as socialized medicine for the poor. The average cost of a visit is over $1000, which is over ten times more than what a clinic pediatrician would charge. Or you neglect that hypertension, diabetes or mystery lump until you end up with a $100,000 problem on your hands. So let's have a little less talk about how the poor should learn to manage their money, and a little more attention to all the ways that money is being systematically siphoned off. Yes, certain kinds of advice would be helpful: skip the pay-day loans and rent-to-pay furniture, for example. But we need laws in more states to stop predatory practices like $50 charges for check-cashing. Also, think what some micro-credit could do to move families from motels and shelters to apartments. And did I mention a living wage? If you're rich, you might want to stay that way. It's a whole lot cheaper than being poor.   [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 12:08:06 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2006 Patricia Thurston.