12th case of mad cow confirmed in Japan

[PaulTB]

It doesn't sound like you have any idea what you're talking about ..

Certainly it doesn't make sense unless you specify which testing methods are being talked about. An informative (but with horrible font) post can be found here.

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow...ges/92946.html

[gakami]

It's not really a matter of "which" testing method, it's more about testing requirements. At the moment the standard practice is to test those animals that begin to show symptoms only. Which means any animals who may harbour the disease which haven't had onset of symptoms aren't tested and are still probably passing through the system.

[PaulTB]

At the moment the standard practice is to test those animals that begin to show symptoms only.

http://www.rr-asia.oie.int/topics/detail011_02.html

"The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has innovated on the then BSE testing of all carcasses of cattle slaughtered on or after 18 October 2001. "

From the same page Until 774,733 samples were tested by 8 June 2002.

That doesn't seem like 'animals that begin to show symptoms only'. Nor does the reporting of 3,159,408 animals tested as of May 8, 2004 [presumably mostly/all since 18 October 2001.]

[gakami]

http://www.rr-asia.oie.int/topics/detail011_02.html

"The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has innovated on the then BSE testing of all carcasses of cattle slaughtered on or after 18 October 2001. "

From the same page Until 774,733 samples were tested by 8 June 2002.

That doesn't seem like 'animals that begin to show symptoms only'. Nor does the reporting of 3,159,408 animals tested as of May 8, 2004 [presumably mostly/all since 18 October 2001.]

When you test a cow suspected of BSE, the brain is taken and neuropathological examination is carried out. It's the one sure way of confirming BSE (or not). Other methods are basically a hit and miss, particularly the methods used to examination carcasses en masse. They just don't have time or the resources to extract every brain from every cow, retrieve histological sections from every part of the brain, stain them, and examine them under a microscope.

Search for "BASE" on google, along with the search terms "bse", and "prion". They're finding out that their testing methods haven't been exactly catching all cases...

By the way what's your background in this Paul? You seem to have a special interest in BSE and CJD.

[PaulTB]

When you test a cow suspected of BSE, the brain is taken and neuropathological examination is carried out. It's the one sure way of confirming BSE (or not). Other methods are basically a hit and miss, particularly the methods used to examination carcasses en masse. They just don't have time or the resources to extract every brain from every cow, retrieve histological sections from every part of the brain, stain them, and examine them under a microscope.

Which is exactly why it's important to be specific about which testing methods you're talking about.

By the way what's your background in this Paul? You seem to have a special interest in BSE and CJD.

No special interest and my 'background' is that I read the New Scientist and know how to use Google.

[gakami]

Which is exactly why it's important to be specific about which testing methods you're talking about.

No special interest and my 'background' is that I read the New Scientist and know how to use Google.

No you're missing my point. There's only one sure way to catch a case of BSE, and that is with a post mortem neuropathological examination of the brain.

You may not even find this on a google search but other testing methods are now being re-evaluated due to new discoveries on the aetiology of the disease. It's not a matter of "which" test that matters now, it is the testing requirements that need to be reviewed. The "BASE" google search I recommended is a good start.

[Maciamo]

No you're missing my point. There's only one sure way to catch a case of BSE, and that is with a post mortem neuropathological examination of the brain.

You may not even find this on a google search but other testing methods are now being re-evaluated due to new discoveries on the aetiology of the disease. It's not a matter of "which" test that matters now, it is the testing requirements that need to be reviewed. The "BASE" google search I recommended is a good start.

I admit my ignorance regarding the testing methods, but do you know which countries which countries are using the "post mortem neuropathological examination of the brain" and how frequently if they use various testing methods ?

I suppose that the UK should have better testing methods as it has a longer experience of BSE than any other country. But countries also exchange such information. The problem is, where are the authorities more concerned about doing a proper job.

How comes that someone from Australia (where there has been officially no BSE cases so far, if I remember well) knows so well about this subject. You visibly seem to be working in this field. So it is my turn to ask you about your background, if you don't mind.

[PaulTB]

No you're missing my point. There's only one sure way to catch a case of BSE, and that is with a post mortem neuropathological examination of the brain.

And you've been using sloppy language and reasoning from the start.

In your first post here you said

At the moment the standard practice is to test those animals that begin to show symptoms only.

The US does so, but this thread started about Japan and I've seen nothing to suggest they do.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/BSEOIGFAQ.pdf

And later you said this

When you test a cow suspected of BSE, the brain is taken and neuropathological examination is carried out.

See that word 'test' there? When I said 'important to be specific about which testing methods you're talking about' that includes post mortem examinations of all types as well. It's not as if anybody is going to eat a cow premortem after all. Also I highly doubt they take the whole brain - just sample(s) of brain tissue.

You may not even find this on a google search but other testing methods are now being re-evaluated due to new discoveries on the aetiology of the disease. It's not a matter of "which" test that matters now, it is the testing requirements that need to be reviewed. The "BASE" google search I recommended is a good start.

If this second form of BSE is not being picked up by the current BSE tests (which it is far from clear to be the case) then it is again a matter of WHICH test should be used - namely tests that do pick it up should be used. I really don't see what the problem is you've got with the phrase 'which tests'

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994689

The two cows with BASE were detected by a BSE test made by the Swiss company Prionics. Markus Moser, at Prionics, says that even if BASE is a distinct form of BSE, it is not likely to escape being detected by the tests used in European abattoirs.

The Italian study was based on '1,638,275 tested brain samples'
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr04/040415h.asp
in which 2 of 103 samples had the newly found variant. I say newly found because there's every chance that this version had always occurred spontaneously at that level on in the cow population - which what I've read so far there's no way to tell one way or another.

===================================

Australia (where there has been officially no BSE cases so far, if I remember well)

Well that's a bad sign. How carefully have they been looking?

I suppose that the UK should have better testing methods as it has a longer experience of BSE than any other country.

Actually it appears to be the other way around. The UK doesn't need as good testing methods because we _know_ some of our cows have BSE and we're tracking the decline of BSE in the population. The USA doesn't 'know' and so needs more sensitive tests to confirm that it doesn't. (At least that's what the first link I posted said - Frankly the US is demonstrating the "It's not just a river in Egypt" concept).

But countries also exchange such information. The problem is, where are the authorities more concerned about doing a proper job.

It appears that Japan is doing a much more proper job than the US. The US system is
- mainly voluntary
- has reluctantly expanded the 'at risk' target group over the years
(1990 - 'classic BSE symptoms', 1993 - 'downers', 2001 - 'died of unknown cause')
- is starting from the assumption that the US doesn't 'have' BSE and is attempting to show that is true.