Read original article, http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/1/70-0006_article.htm

Read author's reply, http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/7/01-0744_article.htm

To the Editor: The article by Brown et al. (1) contains the statement "it appears likely that changes in the rendering process that had taken place around 1980 allowed the etiologic agent in infected carcasses to survive." If that is the case, why not revert to the rendering methods used before 1980? That measure would seem more cost-effective than trade embargoes and mass killing of cattle. Meal made from meat and bone was used as a livestock feed additive in many countries without the apparent disastrous effect seen in the United Kingdom. Did the rendering methods remain unchanged in these other countries? Historically, rendering was viewed somewhat differently in continental Europe; the primary purpose was not to make animal feed but to destroy infectious agents, as indicated by the very name of the facility: destruction plant (Destruktionsanstalt). The plants were under governmental inspection and there were mandatory time-temperature requirements for processing meat, bones, and other offal. Temperature requirements varied from 120°C to 140°C, which presumably would reduce if not eliminate prions. It would be of interest to see a description and objective analysis of rendering methods and regulations in various countries before and after 1980. In these times when the concept of hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) is gaining popularity, it would seem natural to extend the principle of process control to rendering. One might easily get the impression that policies to control bovine spongiform encephalitis are dominated by some of the stakeholders: the researchers writing their next research grant proposals, the public agencies eager to show prompt response, and those who would like to see their competitors' beef kept off the market.

Top

Related Links

• More Letter Articles