Subject: BSE: Slaughter of 11 million cows

From: [email-masked] (Rachel Shepherd)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 19:34:04 LOCAL

What is this I hear about a proposal to slaughter all the cows in the UK?

---

From: Lorri Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 15:51:46 PDT

> What is this I hear about a proposal to slaughter all the cows in the UK?

I saw on the news last night (3/21) that Mad Cow Disease has returned to the 
UK, largely due to not enough controls and slaughters being performed during 
the last outbreak in the 80's. Now the countries bordering the Channel are 
refusing to purchase BK beef, and British consumers are passing on it as well, 
as the disease is transmissible to humans and can be fatal. Now the UK 
authorities are considering slaughtering all the beef herds in order to stop 
the spread (real or perceived--I wasn't too clear on this from the newscast) 
of the disease.

Lorri

---

From: [email-masked] (Joseph A. Ames Sr.)
Date: 22 Mar 1996 14:49:39 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
says...
>What is this I hear about a proposal to slaughter all the cows in the 
UK?
MAD COW DISEASE appears to be crossing to humans.

Joe

---

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 10:14:02 GMT

On Fri, 22 Mar 1996 19:34:04 LOCAL, [email-masked] (Rachel

>What is this I hear about a proposal to slaughter all the cows in the UK?

Hello Rachel,

What you hear is a combination of a Government wanting to be seen to
"do something", preferably something dramatic, and saying in effect
"We'll do whatever the scientists tell us, even that", and the
activities of some journalists suffering from Mad Headline Writers'
Disease. 

Scientifically  and public health-wise, there is no justification for
mass-slaughter (or even of herds affected by BSE or of about one
million cattle born before 1990, as variously mooted). There is no
scientific evidence linking BSE and CJD or that BSE can be transmitted
to humans. Moreover,  research has shown that, of all tissues and
secretions from confirmed BSE-affected cows, infectivity can be found
only in brain, spinal cord and retina. 

In the next few days we may see whether slaughtering, of whichever
variant, is adopted for non-scientific but expedient reasons.  

The present situation has arisen because of the emergence of a not
previously recognised pattern of ten anomalous CJD cases (I posted the
features of the anomalous pattern here on 21 March, but for
convenience I append them below).  No matter how wise the
deliberations of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee of
independent experts (SEAC) that advises the UK Government on
BSE-related matters, there is not yet enough (any?) definitive
scientific knowledge about  this newly-recognised pattern for
scientists suddenly to produce the instant magical answers/solutions
that are expected of it. As one member of SEAC was quoted as saying
yesterday (Saturday) "We are not politicians, we are not world
leaders. We are just trying to make the best of inadequate data".  So
SEAC was reduced to conjecture in relation to those cases, saying in
effect  "we cannot at present think of a cause, and in the absence of
that it seems that the most likely explanation is exposure to BSE
infected brain or spinal cord before 1989". That becomes wrongly
interpreted by the media and the UK public and in other countries as
"It is officially proved that ....." and, moreover, interpreted as
extending to all beef including muscle meat.  

Understandable concern among farmers for anything that might restore
public confidence is reflected in this morning's report that a Sunday
Times poll of Farmers' Union county chairmen that two-thirds of
farmers would back slaughter "if necessary".

The above are at present my personal comments. Watch out for the new
update of the IFST Position Statement on BSE, due to be issued and
posted here on Thursday, 28 March.

Regards

Ralph

Ten cases of CJD have emerged over the past two years, and
have been found by the CJD Surveillance Unit to exhibit unusual
features, as follows

1. No shared risk factors suggesting a common risk factor.

2. The individuals were much younger than normal CJD cases, with an
average age of 27.5 (cf usually over 63).

3. Duration of illness average 13 months (normally 6 months).

4. EEG electrical activity in the brain is not typical.

5. Although brain pathology is recognisable as CJD, the pattern was
different from normal CJD, with large aggregates of prion protein
plaques (the brain pathology pattern was, however, totally different
>from  that in the brains of BSE-affected cows).

. 

******************************************************************
J Ralph Blanchfield
Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
Chair, IFST Member Relations & Services Committee
Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology
IFST Web address: http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/ 
******************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Neil Gall)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:43:07 GMT

Lorri Robinson wrote:

> UK,

It never went away; the government just ignored it and assured everyone
that nothing was wrong.  The number of BSE cases has been reducing since
the offal ban in 1989.

> Now the countries bordering the Channel are 

I think by today, all EU countries will have banned it.  MacDonald's UK have
stopped using it - they will import Dutch beef instead.  This is ironic,
especially for the French, who bought most of our offal stocks after is
was banned.  It is likely that BSE is equally (or more) common in France.

> as the disease is transmissible to humans and can be fatal.

The disease, AFAIK, is incurable and fatal.  There is no concrete evidence
that humans can catch the disease from infected beef, but the "most likely
cause" of the 10 new cases of CJD confirmed last week are from consumption
of infected beef.  As far as I can see, this conclusion was reached by
elminating other possible causes rather than by direct evidence.

> Now the UK 

Obviously, given the attribution of the above cases, public confidence in
British beef products has been virtually wiped out.  I don't believe that
the slaughter of 11 million cattle is necessary, but that kind of knee-jerk
reaction may unfortunately be what is required to restore public confidence.

It should be possible to selectively slaughter cattle (or herds) by testing
for BSE.  A Newcastle microbiologist apparently developed a urine test for
cattle which detects BSE, but the government first reduced his budget then
sacked him and still use the old forensic test which can only be done once
the animal is dead.

--
| Neil Gall, Hewlett-Packard Ltd, Queensferry Telecoms | That's what it |
|   Operation, South Queensferry, Scotland  EH30 9TG   | will be like   |
|     +44 (0)131 331 7112  [email-masked]      | in the future  |

---

From: Steve Custance <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 13:26:36 +0000

In article <[email-masked]>, Rachel Shepherd
<[email-masked]> writes
>What is this I hear about a proposal to slaughter all the cows in the UK?
A statement has been issued proposing the slaughter of all cows born
before 1989 when feeding cattle other ruminant waste was banned. It now
seems that most of the world has banned British beef. The consequences
are grave for the industry. The origins of the epidemic lie in the
changes in the process used to manufacture cattle feed, made in response
to the oil crisis of the early 70s. Apparently in order to reduce the
use of solvents in the rendering process, which required a lot of energy
to drive them off and because tallow prices declined, the process of
high temperature extraction was replaced with a low temperature system.
The result was bonemeal and meat with a much higher fat content than
before produced at lower temperatures. These factors allowed scrapie
>from  sheep carcasses to pass through.

One question which doesn't seem to have been answered by the media here
is if Britain is alone in this practice or are we merely highlighting a
worldwide problem at the risk of shooting ourselves in the foot? Any
views out there?

Believe me if our good old government issues a statement like this the
there is a REAL problem. They are very clever at masking the truth.

Interesting statement from Macdonalds is that it is withdrawing
hamburgers from sale in all there UK outlets until alternative foreign
sourcing of beef can be found. Very clever marketing ploy and I doubt if
they will lose all that much financially as people flock to their
restaurants regardless of whats on.

We as a family are now very reluctant to eat beef. 
-- 
Steve Custance

---

From: [email-masked] (Roy Goodacre)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 08:28:42 UNDEFINED

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Sue Jeffrey) writes:

||Finally, there is no direct scientific evidence of a connection
||between BSE and CJD or that BSE can be transmitted to humans. 
||The present situation has arisen because  of the ten anomalous CJD
||cases. SEAC cannot think of any other explanation, and, in the absence
||of scientific evidence,  has conjectured that it is likely to have
||been connected with consumption before 1989 of brain or
||spinal cord of BSE-infected cows. 

|>There are now 12 cases in under 42 year olds and I belive that 
|>statistics show this to be very much higher than the random noise.

|Well, I think that if meat - muscle, bone or blood were infective, the
|incidence coming to light would be vastly greater that 12 or so cases.
|Ultimately time will tell, but we aren't talking about a vast epidemic
|just yet. It is perhaps more likely that these cases are due to
|another, as of yet unexplained cause. 

You are correct in your assumption that 'time will tell'.  However the 
incubation is long 10-30 years (and as yet not truely specified), the fact 
that under 42 year olds have contract CJD is very significant; especially 
since it has been seen in teenagers for the *first time* in the UK.  Moreover, 
the neurologists have also said that this is a new type of CJD, ie different 
>from  the one that has been seen in the 50+.

I hope I'm wrong - but we could be seeing the tip of the iceberg.  Given the 
rather lenghty incubation period and if we speculate that it has arisen from 
Infected beef it is likely that these unfortunates contracted the disease in 
the early 1980s before the disease was acknowledged by MAFF in 1985.  Since 
the disease is much more prevelant in cattle and now at 161,663 (figures at 
end of this for clarity, this is of course the recorded figures which doesn't 
include pre-clinical cattle which have entered the food chain).

It wasn't until 1988 when the most infective parts were banned by MAFF from 
our food chain (although I doubt this was 100% effective given the unscupulous 
nature of the market).  Therefore a great many more infective cattle have been 
consumed between early 1980s and now - thats approx 15 years and the number of 
infected cows has increasing exponentially; it may be that this is now going 
to be shifted to the human population unless a cure can be found.

Incidently, you will see at the end that Northern Ireland has an incidence 
of 1,680.  This is quite significant because they also acknowledged BSE in 
1985.  However, there numbers have not gone exponential as have Great 
Britians because unlike MAFF when the Irish find one infected cow in a herd 
the whole herd is destroyed.  It must surely be time for culling to start.  

I did hear that the UK government were thinking of doing a U turn (how 
unusual!) and introduce selective culling.  However, rather than this being 
because of the scientists say-so it is because the farmers have asked for it 
so that some confidence in the UK beef market can be restored.

Roy

Dr Roy Goodacre
E-mail: [email-masked]      http://gepasi.dbs.aber.ac.uk/roy/rgcv.htm           
Voice : +44 (0)1970 621947                    Fax: +44 (0)1970 622354                   
Snail : Inst Biol Sci, Univ Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3DA, WALES

Yesterdays Telegraph states
   Since BSE was identified the United Kingdom has logged 422 times more
   cases than the rest of the world put together:

United Kingdom             161,663
of which:
        Great Britain      158,882
        Northern Ireland     1,680
        Guernsey               575
        Isle of Man            405
        Jersey                 119
        Alderney                 2

Rest of world                  384
of which:

        Switzerland            205
        Irish Republic         124
        Portugal                31
        France                  13
        Germany                  4
        Italy                    2
        Oman                     2
        Canada                   1
        Denmark                  1
        Falklands                1

---

From: [email-masked] (Neil Gall)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:16:20 GMT

Yesterday I wrote:
>  A Newcastle microbiologist apparently developed a urine test for
> cattle which detects BSE

This was in reference to Harash Narang.  He did develop the test,
which MAFF confirmed worked, but it was not a urine test.  I don't
know what the details of the test were, although it apparently
gives "same-day" results.

Sorry for the mistake - don't know why I thought that; perhaps I've
got something wrong with my brain.... ;-)

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:03:47 +0000

In article <[email-masked]>, Roy Goodacre <[email-masked]>
writes
>since it has been seen in teenagers for the *first time* in the UK.  

Strange, I thought it had happened with growth hormone (human), the
preparation given to haemophioliacs (ex human), transplants, dentists
.....

>Moreover, 

True.

>the whole herd is destroyed.  

No. It's because they use a rather extensive system and used very little
(if any) meat & bone meal. What you have said is a non-sequitur.

*****IMPORTANT*******
BSE is not infectious between cattle. So if one animal in a herd has had
it, it does not mean that they all will have caught it. This is not
uncommon with diseases, many have a definite infection route and cannot
be caught any other way. This is rather common even amongst human
diseases.

>It must surely be time for culling to start.

Bearing in mind that only a tiny, miniscule minority of cattle are
infected, do you really propose killing several million innocent
uninfected cattle for no reason? Do you have a blood lust? There *might*
have been a risk in the mid 80's, but the risk now is not one you should
worry about IMHO. This has all the feel of a Witch hunt. Can you prove
you are a witch; no: so burn.

>so that some confidence in the UK beef market can be restored.

How do you remove an irrational fear of the unknown?

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:57:49 +0000

In article <[email-masked]>, Neil Gall
<[email-masked]> writes
>gives "same-day" results.

I *believe* it had a large number of false positives, and some false
negatives.

---

From: [email-masked] (Roy Goodacre)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 08:54:51 UNDEFINED

In article <[email-masked]> Oz <[email-masked]> writes:

|*****IMPORTANT*******
|BSE is not infectious between cattle. So if one animal in a herd has had
|it, it does not mean that they all will have caught it. This is not
|uncommon with diseases, many have a definite infection route and cannot
|be caught any other way. This is rather common even amongst human
|diseases.

If this is true then why is the occurence of the disease exponential rather 
than level.  One theory was that BSE has arsien from cattle being fed with 
scrapie infected sheep.  MAFF banned this practice in 1988 so we should have 
seen the disease leveling if this theory were true, but it hasn't.

It has been proven that infective material from the brain of confirmed BSE cow 
when injected into a healthy cow will cause that cow to get BSE.  There are 
also recorded cases of calves with BSE from mothers who also have BSE - this 
shows vertical spread, unfortunately the placenta was not analysed for 
infectivity.

|>It must surely be time for culling to start.

|Bearing in mind that only a tiny, miniscule minority of cattle are
|infected, do you really propose killing several million innocent
|uninfected cattle for no reason? Do you have a blood lust? There *might*
|have been a risk in the mid 80's, but the risk now is not one you should
|worry about IMHO. This has all the feel of a Witch hunt. Can you prove
|you are a witch; no: so burn.

I would not call 161,663 recorded cases in the UK up-to-date a miniscule 
number.

I do not have blood lust.

Indeed culling will not stop it.  Since these prions are very restive to 
heat and UV they are fairly difficult to kill (or at least lose their 
infectivity, since I'm sure we can argue about whether they are alive or not). 
 There is recorded a case where a herd of sheep with scrapie were culled and a 
year or so latter fresh sheep raised on the same land - within 5 years the 
scrapie had reappearred.  So it is plausible the same thing will happen with 
cattle.

|>I did hear that the UK government were thinking of doing a U turn (how 
|>unusual!) and introduce selective culling.  However, rather than this being 
|>because of the scientists say-so it is because the farmers have asked for it 
|>so that some confidence in the UK beef market can be restored.

|How do you remove an irrational fear of the unknown?

You can't, but if UK government get the go ahead from their talks in 
Luxembourg today it might do.

Incidently it was announced that beef sales were back to normal in most 
supermarkets this weekend, and Sainsburys even ran out of beef.

Roy

Dr Roy Goodacre

---

From: [email-masked] ("Roger Clutterbuck")
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:20:25 GMT

> If this is true then why is the occurrence of the disease exponential 
> rather than level.  One theory was that BSE has arisen from cattle 
> being fed with scrapie infected sheep.  MAFF banned this practice in 
> 1988 so we should have seen the disease levelling if this theory were 
> true, but it hasn't.
Roy
For one so academically qualified it beholdens you to at least get your 
facts right. For your information the occurrence pattern of BSE 
remarkably co-insides with the projected occurrence when the 1989 
restrictions came into effect.

That is that the occurrence of BSE rose to 900 confirmed cases per week 
(out of a possible 1000 animals destroyed) in early 1993, since then it 
has declined (as exponential as the early no. of cases increased)to a 
level of 250/week, very much a predicted in 1989. I note few people who 
criticised the findings in 1989 , stating that no such decline could be 
expected, have not since admitted their error!??

Grippa

---

From: [email-masked] (Gaz)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:30:13 GMT+1 (BST)

>From: Oz <[email-masked]>

>......

True, but the method of infection (injection) is different, and known to 
produce much quicker results than eating the agent. Even so, clinical symptoms 
took 5-15 years. so it seems safe to assume that the "illness" from eating BSE 
meat (if it exists...) will take longer than this 5-15 year period.

>be caught any other way. This is rather common even amongst human

No. This is just an educated guess and not at all proven. Some tentative 
evidance exists that suggests that these agents (not just BSE) can infact be 
passed to others in the herd/flock/group by some method.

>you are a witch; no: so burn.

But when records of bloodlines and stock movements are not kept, how are you 
supposed to know which are infected and which are not. By the time clinical 
symptoms are shown it is too late....

Gaz

Gaz

Ignorant Yank (tm) #2

---

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 19:19:36 GMT

Hello all,

On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 08:54:51 UNDEFINED, [email-masked] (Roy Goodacre)

>seen the disease leveling if this theory were true, but it hasn't.

Hasn't it? How about some real facts? After peaking in 1993, there has
been a dramatic decline in new cases (30 percent drop from 1993 to
1994, over 40 percent drop from 1994 to 1995, and, up to 20 March
1996, a further 27.5 percent drop compared with the same period in
1995). 
>shows vertical spread, unfortunately the placenta was not analysed for 

It does not necessarily _show_  vertical transmission. Scientists
should reserve "shows" for something that is the logical conclusion
>from  the evidence of a properly designed investigation.  Your
conclusion is merely one conjectured explanation from a few random
observations. There is at present no actual evidence of maternal
transmission in cattle, and epidemiological evidence [Hoinville et al,
Veterinary Record (1995) 136, 312] strongly suggestive of
non-occurrence. The only long-term experimental trials are those
started in 1989. They are due to run until November 1996, when the
youngest animal reaches seven years of age, at which time all will be
slaughtered and their brains examined histologically.  The analysis
and results will be available in early 1997. Only then will it be
possible to reach  any evidence-based conclusion about vertical
transmission, one way or the other.

Regards to all,

Ralph

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 17:57:11 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Roy Goodacre <[email-masked]>
writes
>seen the disease leveling if this theory were true, but it hasn't.

Eh? But it has. Cases are currently down to 1/3 of the peak, numbers
affected in 1995 are 40% below 1994. Surely you knew that?

>shows vertical spread,

It shows mothers have daughters who are also milking in the herd and
both could have eaten infective material. I haven't seen any figures
that allow one to separate out any small vertical transmission but it's
clearly not significant or the effects would have been very clear by
now, and it isn't.

> unfortunately the placenta was not analysed for 
>infectivity.

Eh? Of course the placenta has been tested for infectivity. Do you think
the people working in the field are stupid? A whole bundle of other
tissues have also been tested. Some you might find interesting that gave
negative results are, milk, udder, placenta, muscle. The full list of
negatives is very long. 

Refs: 
Veterinary Record 1993: 132, 545-547 Middleton & Barlow
CEE Directorate General For Agriculture. Proc. BSE vet group 1994.
SEAC 1994 report.

>scrapie had reappearred.  So it is plausible the same thing will happen with 

The fall in the number of cases makes this unlikely at present.
Management of sheep is important for scrapie as I have pointed out on
another thread, so this in itself doesn't necessarily mean much.

>supermarkets this weekend, and Sainsburys even ran out of beef.

It looks like the majority of British people are less suceptible to mad
media disease than was predicted. By the media of course.

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 22:02:11 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Gaz <[email-masked]> writes
>meat (if it exists...) will take longer than this 5-15 year period.

I don't have references on this. However my memory of the cases is that
the disease appeared very much more quickly. In particular I seem to
remember that children treated with infected growth hormone died in
their late teens or early twenties. This is what puzzles me in the
statement that deaths from CJD have *only* occured in elderly people. I
would be interested to know if the symptoms in these young cases was
similar to the ones recently reported.

It is also unclear from the references I have to hand if the incubation
period refers to the delay from a single dose of infected brain extract,
or whether the animals had been fed for an extended period. If the
latter (which is implied in at least one paper) it may simply reflect
the difficulty of infecting an animal via an oral route. Certainly it
seems to be very much harder to do it orally than by direct brain
injection. Many cattle that did eat infected feed do not seem to have
developed the disease, and may well not be infected. 

>passed to others in the herd/flock/group by some method.

I cannot agree with you here. If this was the case then we would not see
a decline in cases. There are certainly mechanisms that it can happen, I
have already suggested why scrapie might be largely only a disease of
british sheep. This does not seem to apply to cows to any noticeable
extent. The epidemiology already bears this out.

>symptoms are shown it is too late....

Eh? Stock movements have been kept, and are regularly inspected, by MAFF
ever since the early foot and mouth epidemics. Woe betide a farmer that
doesn't keep them too. The brits have a suicidal tendency to following
to the rules, unlike many countries. Certainly in dairy herds all the
bloodlines are known, and also in most beef units too where they breed
their own stock. Unique ear tag numbers are also checked and recorded in
markets too. Animals are certainly traceable.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 10:18:48 GMT

>markets too. Animals are certainly traceable.

NOTE THIS IS ME SPEAKING AS ME, NOT AS A SCIENTIST :-)

If these records are so well kept why did the 10 o'clock news last night show 
a farmer checking the teeth of his cow to find out how old it was? Not exactly 
the best way of reassuring us that no cattle over a certain age are entering 
the food chain is it?

Haze.
----------------------------------------------------------
|          Dr Hazel Marie Davey   [email-masked]         |
|Sefydliad y Gwyddorau Biolegol*Inst. Biological Sciences|
|Prifysgol Cymru               *      University of Wales|
|        ABERYSTWYTH, Dyfed, CYMRU / WALES SY23 3DA      |
|            http://pcfcfh.dbs.aber.ac.uk/index.htm      |

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 08:06:06 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] writes
>the best way of reassuring us that no cattle over a certain age are entering 

Sigh. Dear oh dear.

As I understand it, in order to be absolutely sure that no evil farmer
is trying to pull a fast one they are going to use cattle dentition to
assess age. After all, he might spend a week or two re-writing his
records, artificially ageing them etc etc (I have said HM Govt was going
over the top, haven't I?) so as to fiddle the books. <NB this is called
sarcasm>.

Unfortunately some cattle show this dentition change at 20 weeks.

The only groups of animals who would be tedious to track would be the
rather small number on 'finishing' farms where they are bought in as
stores (12-15 months) from a market because they may have gone through
two or three hands in the meantime. For the majority of herds where the
animal had remained on one farm from birth, or arrived aged two or three
weeks, it's not a problem. 

You should already be aware of this. Unless Aberystwith is breaking the
regulations. I presume the agricultural college is still part of your
'university'? I presume they actually have animals?