To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
Bush officials overstated findings of HARVARD BSE risk study
01/27/04
JIM BARNETT
WASHINGTON -- When Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman met a House panel
last week to defend her response to mad cow disease, she cited a Harvard
University study concluding the risk to public health is minimal.
"As you know, USDA requested Harvard University to conduct an
independent risk assessment to evaluate preventive measures already in
place and to identify additional actions that should be taken to
minimize the risk of BSE," Veneman said.
One problem: Harvard never told Veneman what to do.
The Harvard study, released two years ago, has become a universal
defense for Bush administration officials as they have responded to the
first cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Canada and then in
the United States.
But in their rush to embrace "sound science," Veneman and others at
times mischaracterized the study's purpose, recommendations or
conclusions, according to a review by The Oregonian.
From the day it was released by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis,
the study has been portrayed by Veneman and others as more comprehensive
and conclusive than its authors intended. For example, it doesn't say
what to do.
"We specifically didn't do 'shoulds,' " George Gray, the study's lead
author, said in an interview. "Because 'should' implies you know all
those other things you want to know -- essentially all the costs and
benefits. And we didn't know that."
In fact, the study contains numerous caveats. Foremost, its conclusions
are based on hypothetical scenarios rather than data that can be
confirmed. The authors note their model "is not amenable to formal
validation."
Unsubstantiated conclusion Veneman first overstated the study's
conclusions on Nov. 30, 2001, in an agency announcement of the study's
release. Veneman said the study "clearly shows" that existing
precautions, including a ban on recycling cow meat into animal feed,
"have helped keep BSE (mad cow) from entering the United States."
The study made no such conclusion, Gray told The Oregonian. Rather, it
assumed that U.S. cattle -- up to 500 head in one scenario -- already
had become infected. From that assumption, Gray and his team concluded
the feed ban and other steps would make widespread contamination
"extremely unlikely."
The study concluded: "If BSE has been introduced into the U.S., as has
been suggested by some observers, the course of the disease has been
arrested and it is destined for eradication by the measures currently in
place."
But Veneman repeated her broader interpretation of the study's
conclusion four months later in a verbal duel with the General
Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
GAO report disputed On Jan. 25, 2002, the GAO released a report
concluding the feed ban and other steps taken by federal officials "do
not sufficiently ensure" that mad cow "would be detected promptly and
not spread to other cattle through animal feed or enter the human food
supply."
Veneman responded in a statement on Feb. 26, 2002. The GAO report "fails
to appropriately recognize the conclusions and recommendations" of the
Harvard study, she said. The study, she added, found that "early
government protection systems have been largely responsible for keeping
BSE out of the United States."
Other top officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture have invoked
the Harvard study in a more oblique fashion to justify actions that in
fact raise risks to the U.S. herd and by extension to human health.
Undersecretary Bill Hawks cited the Harvard study on Oct. 31, 2003, as
he announced the agency would reopen the border to Canadian cattle. The
border had been closed since Canada disclosed its first case of mad cow
in May.
"I think it's in all our best interests to resume normal trade, if that
is based by, as I said, good, solid science," Hawks told reporters.
Theoretical risk acknowledged But Hawks failed to mention that the
agency had come to its own conclusion that reopening the border would
raise risk, even if it remained within what officials regarded as an
acceptable, if undefined, limit.
In the Nov. 4 Federal Register, the agency said it "acknowledges a
theoretical increased risk of BSE introduction into the United States
because of this rule. However, we conclude, this risk is extremely small."
With the discovery of an infected cow in Washington state in December
2003, claims made by agency officials have come under closer scrutiny
from Congress, industry and the public. Nevertheless, a spokesman for
the risk-analysis center said it had received no complaints about
officials' portrayal of the study.
"It seems like it's not a dramatic stretching of the truth, although it
is technically not my understanding of what we were charged to do," said
David Ropeik, communications manager for the Harvard risk center. "The
heart of how it's being characterized seems fair."
Credibility underminded But when officials misstate conclusions of the
Harvard study or any scientific work -- they undermine their own
credibility, said Frank Ackerman, a Tufts University economics
professor, author and critic of the Bush administration's selective use
of science in rule-making.
"If you tilt entirely toward saying that a study with a zillion caveats
has made definitive proof of a conclusion which can't be found in the
study, then it looks like you made up your mind beforehand," Ackerman said.
When asked for the basis of the department's use of the Harvard study, a
spokeswoman had no direct response but referred a reporter to passages
that discussed assumptions made in the study.
Veneman is scheduled to return to Capitol Hill today to face a Senate
panel. The spokeswoman said it is possible that Veneman might cite the
Harvard study again during a question-and-answer session.
Jim Barnett: jim.barnett@newhouse.com ; 503-294-7604.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1075208119170910.xml
MORE from the mad gunner himself. all you media folks here on this list
should give him a call :-)
Dave Louthian called me this morning and we had a nice talk. His phone is
503-284-3483, over at his brothers. It is ok to give this out as he is open
to speaking to the press and "anyone wanting to get the truth out about
USDA". His email is maddddcow@hotmail.com
Dave is the real thing, good old boy and nothing but. He is not disgrunted
or angry in tone, humorous along the lines of Howard Lyman. His perspective
is no one would listen to him if he had not been the actual guy to kill
America's mad cow, whereas he had a lot of meat safety concerns for years.
He is a former long haul trucker, I would say from Texas somewhere. Likes
to ride his mule out there in the sand dunes. Wife has kicked him out of
the house temporarily because of too much mad cow talk. He prefers the kill
floor to cutting up the meat which ih his words is girls work.
He is quite articulate, very credible in his depth of detail, a good
writer but not much into typing stuff up, though he did a good job
describing contamination of the saw that cuts the spinal cord, reprinted
below.
xxxxx xxxxx is the witness to it not being a downer. He is the cattle hauler
that brought in the downers from Sunny Dene. He was interviewed by the
Oregonian but kept his name out because of a newborn kid and need for his
job. xxxxx will also talk to the press if it is off the record. Dave can
give you the contacts.
Rodney Thompson is the name of the missing inspecting USDA vet. He works
side by side with Dave when the cattle truck comes in. According to Dave a
decent guy. However the bit about the cow being down on its sternum -- that
was doctored up later under pressure from USDA. According to Dave, Rodney
has been boosted 3 civil service grades in exchange for playing ball with
USDA and his house in Moses Lake is now boarded up. Rodney is gonna be a
little hard to get ahold of.
The captive bolt gun is a steel tube. He couldn't remember the brand off
hand but said it is from Kotch butcher supply. You put a load of gunpowder
in the back and shoot the cow in the head. This splatters bone chips,
blood, and brain in your face. It is not the air injection gun but still it
blows the bold in there pretty good.
Dave says a lot of the cows coming to them are not in great condition. The
most common thing is some lymphoma. He thought it was caused by a virus
because it was seasonal. It sounds to me like from a feed carcinogen or the
growth hormones. There are 2-3 cows with lymphoma in every truckload of
10. A lot of the others have mastitis. The owner comes out and climbs in
the cattle truck to negotiate with the vet if he is grading too hard. A lot
of both go into the human food supply. The way it works is that the owner
pays the ranch about 5¢ a pound hook weight after bad legs and so on are
cut off. He sells it later for 50¢.
They slaughter Holsteins on Tues, Wednes, Friday, buffalo on Thursdays.
Mondays are kinda slow. You can also bring your cow in for custom slaughter
and packaging.
Dave sent this email out on 27 Jan 04 to the mad deer listserve:
"My name is Dave Louthan. I'm the guy who shot that mad cow in Moses Lake.
I have talked to dozens of reporters about all this trouble and they have
done a pretty good job getting the story out I guess. The USDA appears to
be on the run but I still have a lot of work to do. My main problem now is
informing people about the splitting saws we use to split the cow carcass
in half. You see every beef slaughtered is split right down the middle from
tail to neck. This means that a band saw cuts right down the exact center
of the spine cutting the spinal cord in half the long way. There are hot
water jets spraying on the blade at the guides to clean off the fat, blood,
and bone dust. As the blade cuts down through the spinal cord little bits
are torn out and mix with this hot water slurry which runs all over the
beef inside and out totally contaminating the meat. When the butcher starts
cutting the steaks and roasts with his knife or saw this contamination is
smeared across every cut he makes. So as you can see it doesn't matter if
it's hamburger or fillet mignon it's is contaminated. Please help me warn
the unsuspecting consumer. Thank you for your time....
=======================================================
this guy should be given a medal, but not a lead one;
> Hi Terry, Dave Louthan here. I probably will get a medal.
> unfortunately it will be made out lead and it will be going very fast.
> No matter this has got
> to be done. Thank you for your time.
old deep throat warned me long ago (deep throat was inside looking out), warned
me long ago to watch my back, that these folks play for keeps.
I'M STILL HERE ;-) i think...TSS
