Press Release June 3, 1997	Contact: Linda Wagner, (914) 378-2433 Jean Halloran, (914) 378-2457 Consumer Union Yonkers Office

CONSUMERS UNION CRITICIZES FDA DECISION
ON "MAD-COW-DISEASE" RULE

Yonkers, NY, – Consumers Union (CU), the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, today criticized FDA’s final rule on mammalian protein in animal feed, scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on June 5, as inadequate to protect public health. "By failing to include swine in the rule, FDA has left the door open for a mad cow-like disease to circulate in the United States," states Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a CU food safety researcher.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been considering for the last six months what steps to take to prevent a mad cow epidemic like that in the United Kingdom (UK) from occurring here. The UK epidemic, which has killed more than 160,000 cows, and which is suspected of being linked to 16 human fatalities, is believed to have spread through contaminated animal feed. In 1996, the British prohibited feeding the rendered remains of any mammal to all food animals. The rest of the European Union has since done the same.

The FDA action on June 5 will not go as far as the British ban. Instead, it will impose a partial ban on feeding rendered mammal remains back to ruminants (cud-chewing animals), but it exempts swine, horses, blood, milk, and gelatin. "We are particularly concerned that FDA’s exemptions leave consumers unprotected from any mad-cow like disease that may exist in swine," says CU’s Hansen.

FDA exempted swine because no mad cow-like disease has yet been positively identified in pigs. But Consumers Union pointed out in comments submitted to FDA in February 1997 that swine did get the disease in a British experiment where they were injected with brain material from an infected cow.

"FDA claims we are safe because we have never seen swine infected under natural conditions," Hansen states. "But it could just mean we have not looked hard enough. Most commercial pigs are slaughtered at the age of six months, long before they would be expected to exhibit any signs of the disease."

In its comments to FDA, CU also cited scientific evidence that US swine may already be infected with a mad cow-type disease. A 1979-80 USDA study of animals with central nervous system problems at a packing plant in upstate New York was recently re-reviewed by USDA. The expert pathologist who examined brain material from one of the infected animals found it suggestive of a TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, the technical term for mad cow-like diseases). In addition, a 1985 study of some US victims of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), a human TSE, found that the victims ate significantly more of pork products, including ham, hot dogs, and roast pork than a control group. Another study found a statistical link between CJD-risk and eating brains, especially pig brains.

FDA claims that its rule will prohibit "nearly all" mammalian protein from being used in ruminant feed. Consumers Union points out, however, that swine protein constitute 16 percent of all rendered protein.

"We are still feeding mammal protein to food animals. If any of that protein is contaminated, the disease will spread," Hansen states. TSE’s are known to occur in sheep (a disease called scrapie) and in wild deer and elk in the US. Remains of these animals can be used to make feed for pigs, and pig remains can be fed to any food animal, under the rule. CU emphasizes that, by contrast, the European Union has prohibited the use of all mammal protein, including swine, in ruminant feed.

CU also criticized FDA for failing to consult its own TSE Advisory Committee in developing this rule. "FDA has an excellent TSE Advisory Committee, including some of the top TSE scientists in the world. We find it difficult to understand why they failed to ask the Committee’s advice on this rule. Without the Committee’s input, this rule lacks scientific credibility," Hansen says.

"The epidemic in the United Kingdom involved 10 years of bureaucrats ignoring the warnings of scientists and underestimating the seriousness of the risks. The FDA seems bent on repeating those mistakes," Hansen says.