Stories I have read in the past consistently use careless language in discussing Mad Cow disease. Unfounded assertions, opinion, and untested assumptions are offered rather than straightforward factual statements and recent statements concerning Mad Elk in Saskatchewan are no exception...

The CBC has published a story on the plight of Elk ranchers in Saskatchewan entitled 'Elk farmers call for cull of Elk herds.'

According to the story, "A suggestion by elk farmers in Saskatchewan that the federal government kill half their herds in an effort to eradicate chronic wasting disease (CWD) is unnecessary, according to federal officials.Rick Smith, the former president of the now-defunct Saskatchewan Game Farmers Association, has called for a cull of 15,000 animals and $60 million in compensation to elk farmers.But George Luterbach, chief veterinarian of animal health for Western Canada with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, says chronic wasting disease isn't a big problem. "It's just inappropriate to use a disease control program as an income support or a bridging program," he said ... Luterbach says the CFIA has eliminated all signs of CWD on the infected farms and he expects the industry to rebuild. "Hopefully the removal of any infected herds will strengthen the demand for the product, or confidence in their products, from their animals."

I have found it typical in reading statements released through the American press discussing Mad Cow disease in the deer, bison and elk herds, that such stories will include the statement that 'there has never been a mad cow reported in the United States.' This statement has always struck me as being hear say since, first Mad Cow is not a reportable infectious disease as regulated by the government. Second, there is no Mad Cow testing program in the United States. Third, cattle are fed meat protein supplements to speed growth, and shorten the time from calving to the slaughterhouse, just as elk are fed meat supplements from livestock by-products to speed up the growth of their antlers, and deer are baited with salt blocks and feed supplements containing cattle by-products to speed up their growth, the difference here being that tens of millions of cattle are slaughtered every year once they have reached the proper weight, and long before they would have lived out their natural life span, and so then since Mad Cow disease has incubation period of years,. the fact that cattle are raised for profit and then slaughtered before they can eat more than their worth at the slaughterhouse, the fact that a cow has not appeared displaying symptoms of full blown mad cow disease is not something that I find particularly convincing as evidence that 'there is no mad cow.' There is a kind of hubris here, I always thought, in that we can see mad deer, mad elk, mad bison, but for some reason the cow, we are led to believe, leads a perfectly charmed life, a type of super cow really, with an incredible resistance to the disease that is present on the continent in these other related forms of wild life.

If a testing program was in place then such vague statements about the lack of the disease in cattle might seem more credible, being based on something after all. The statement from Health Canada also did not seem particularly accurate. First the spokeman said that 'mad elk are not a big problem,' which is questionable in and of itself. Experiments have demonstrated that Mad Cow disease spreads through the enviroment. Even when an enviroment was sterilized and then left to sit for three years, when an animal was returned to the enviroment they contracted the prions and the disease. Given then that it is unlikely that Health Ministry subjected the infected elk farms to high temperature burning (the only known way to destroy the prions) it is unlikely then that the previous cull of obviously infected animals was a solution and that mad elk disease is 'no longer a problem.' The disease has spread in various ways from deer, to bison, to elk, although we are constantly led to believe that the cow shows a remarkable immunity to the syndrome, and so mad elk disease is a serious problem, given the spread of the prions over the continent. I found the following statement to be disturbing : "Luterbach says the CFIA has eliminated all signs of CWD on the infected farms." Now given that there is currently no known test for CWD in living animals (the brain must be examined after death to confirm the presence of the prions) , while it could be said that there are now no 'signs' of the disease on the elk farms (no stumbling, drooling elk) it is certainly stretching the facts to then go on to suggest that 'there is no mad elk disease on the farms'. The statement that there is no 'sign' of the disease is technically correct, but to then to assume that there is 'no disease' is not accurate, since as mentioned above, it is impossible to test live animals at the moment, and the prions can persist in the enviroment.

Just last week it was announced that a Saskatoon man had died of Mad Cow disease, and it was noted that he spent some time in Britain during the eighties. Now if we assume that he never ate a bison burger at the Exhibition here in Saskatoon, and that he wasn't fond of elk or venison, then we can assume that he contracted the disease in Britain (here we are assuming that the North American cow remains untouched). Since that time I have become convined, after following the media stories surrounding this event, that Canada, like the United States does not have a mad cow testing policiy, since, if we did, it would be less common to hear vague platitudes and reassuring speculations about the safety of the cow, but instead we would hear reports about the negative test results of our cows which would be a little more reassuring. At the very least, instead of hearing about 'no signs' of the disease, which doesn't mean much, for the reasons alluded to above, we would also hear about the test results. Instead we get hear say and reassuring platitudes about the cow, which is a strong indication that, in spite of the fact that the disease has manifested (showed 'signs') in elk, deer, and bison, there is a kind of hubris at work, or a strong desire to go into denial, that leads us to avoid cattle testing, and instead we get these vague sounding statements, which has been typical of stories I have read in the past.

Now let us consider the example of Japan. Japan does test for the disease and over the last year I have heard reports of three mad cows found, and this in spite of the fact that the feeding regimen has changed, making it likely that Japanese cattle are contracting the disease from the enviroment. Now at this point if we wish to be inaccurate we can say that 'three Japanese cattle had mad cow disease.' If we wish to use careful language when discussing Mad Cow disease we would want to know the sample size involved in the testing. You see, when talking about Mad Cow disease and test results, you are talking about a risk factor. Assume, to over simplify statistics here, that the sample size was 100, and that this sample size was considered adequate to represent the entire herd. We could then make an accurate statement about Mad Cow disease in Japan by stating that 'in Japan the risk of a cow being infected by Mad Cow disease is 3 per cent.' Therefore, if the herd was 1000 strong we could anticipate 30 mad cows, based on the sampling results. So when discussing Mad Cow disease, no matter how much people would like to deny the facts, and use sloppy language, or descend into hubris, the fact of the matter is that one can only talk about a 'risk factor' and not make absolute statements about Mad Cow disease. So then there is a risk factor here, since deer, elk and bison are displaying 'signs' of the disease, and unless we believe in the unproven theory of the SuperCow, we must assume then that a risk factor exists, although the exact size and nature of the risk is unknown at present, given the lack of testing. Should testing find Mad Cow in cattle herds, then, unless we are going to be testing tens of millions of cattle (the number slaughtered every year, a highly unprofitable sounding venture) then from that point on we will talk of risk factors. What we don't need is the implied suggestion that 'we found 3 mad cows' which we should assume would mean that 'there were only 3 mad cows and we found them.' Rather, if the discussion of Mad Cow disease is to become less careless and more meaningful (assume that we begin testing sample populations of a sufficient size to be truly representative of the entire herd) then we must speak of risk factors, probably not a very appealing option, which might explain why we don't test, and why one always hears hubris, denial and platitudes when Mad Cow disease (and the North American SuperCow) are discussed...

Some links to previous Mad Cow stories...

First Canadian dies of Mad Cow disease

Mad Deer Disease - South West Wisconsin plans to 'kill every deer'

Mad Cow U.S.A.?


< BR>