<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>건강과 대안 &#187; 동물성사료</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chsc.or.kr/tag/%EB%8F%99%EB%AC%BC%EC%84%B1%EC%82%AC%EB%A3%8C/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr</link>
	<description>연구공동체</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 01:34:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>ko-KR</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>[광우병] 당신이 캘리포니아 광우병에 대해 걱정해야만 하는 이유(Tom Philpott/Mother Jones)</title>
		<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3269</link>
		<comments>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3269#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>건강과대안</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[광우병]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품 · 의약품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[광우병 검사]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[동물성사료]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[미국]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[비정형성 광우병]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[사료정책]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[캘리포니아]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[마더존스에 실린 톰 필포트의 글 &#8220;“&#8217;여기 별 볼것 없으니 그냥 지나가세요&#8217; 이것이 미국의 광우병 케이스에 대한 미국정부 입장이다. 그러나 두가지 점이 문제다. 첫째는 미국소의 광우병 검사비율이 너무 적다는 [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="content-header">
<h1 class="title"><b><font size="2">마더존스에 실린 톰 필포트의 글</font></b></h1>
<h1 class="title"><b><font size="2">&#8220;“&#8217;여기 별 볼것 없으니 그냥 지나가세요&#8217; 이것이 미국의 광우병 케이스에 대한 미국정부 입장이다. 그러나 두가지 점이 문제다.<br />
첫째는 미국소의 광우병 검사비율이 너무 적다는 것이다. 0.1%. 유럽에서라면 이번에 문제가 된 소처럼 주저앉는 소는 48개월<br />
이상이라면 모두 검사대상이고 건강한 소라도 6년이상이면 전수검사대상이라는 점이다. 이번처럼 우연히 발견되는 일은 없다. 두번째는<br />
미국에서는 여전히 동물성 사료가 허용되어 소가 <span class="text_exposed_show">소단백질을 통해 사육된다는<br />
 것이다. 이번에 L type으로 추정된다는 비정형성 광우병은 실험실연구상에서는 유럽에서 발생한 전형적 광우병 보다 전염성이 더<br />
강하다. 비정형성 광우병이 일반적으로 자연발생적으로 발생한다 해도(사료원인을 배제할 수는 없지만), 미국에서 여전히 사료로 소의<br />
시체가 쓰이는 이상 비정형성 광우병도 광우병의 원인이 된다는 것이다.”</span></font></b></h1>
<p><font size="2">http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/04/mad-cow-california</font></p>
<h1 class="title">Why You Should Be Worried About the California Mad Cow Case</h1>
</p></div>
<div id="node-header" class="clear-block">
<div id="node-header-data" class="node-header-data-secondary">
<p class="byline byline-byline">—By <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/authors/tom-philpott">Tom Philpott</a></p>
<div id="dateline">| Fri Apr. 27, 2012 10:50 AM PDT</div>
</div>
<div class="hdr-tools">
<ul class="article-tools">
<div class="comment-tool comment-bar nonteaser-comment-bar"><span id="comment-icon" class="comment-container"><span class="comment-number"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/04/mad-cow-california#disqus_thread" class="comments active" title="Jump to the comments of this posting.">90</a></span></span></div>
<li class="tweet toolbar-btn"></li>
<li class="first fblike toolbar-btn"><span style="height: 20px; width: 77px;"></span></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div id="node-body-top" class="clear-block">
<div class="node-master-image blog-master-image"><img src="http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_16/cow.jpg" alt="" title="" class="imagecache imagecache-master-tall imagecache-default imagecache-master-tall_default"> <span class="byline photo-byline"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rufflife/5466721752/sizes/m/in/photostream/" target="_blank">RuffLife</a>/Flickr</span></div>
<p>Move along, nothing to see here.</p>
<p>That sums up the USDA&#8217;s public reaction to news that a downed<br />
California dairy cow was discovered to have contracted bovine spongiform<br />
 encephalopathy, also known as mad cow disease. The cow had an<br />
&#8220;atypical&#8221; case of BSE, one that likely doesn&#8217;t come from BSE-infected<br />
feed, but rather from a genetic mutation, the agency <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9UBR2RO0.htm">insists</a>.</p>
<p>Moreover, it never came close to entering the food supply, USDA<br />
stressed—it had shown up dead at a rendering facility, where it was<br />
randomly chosen for testing as part of the USDA&#8217;s BSE-testing program.<br />
USDA chief Tom Vilsack, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124149720284886523.html">ever ready to jump to the meat industry&#8217;s aid at a time of need</a>, <a href="http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/24/usda-secretary-i-am-going-home-and-im-having-beef-tonight-for-dinner-and-thats-no-lie/">declared on CNN</a>, &#8220;I&#8217;m having beef tonight for dinner. And that&#8217;s no lie.&#8221;</p>
<p>Global food and health agencies echoed the USDA&#8217;s assessment, <em>Bloomberg</em> <a href="about:blank">reports</a>:<br />
 &#8220;The U.S. finding of a case of mad cow disease shows the country’s<br />
surveillance system is working, according to the United Nations&#8217; Food<br />
&#038; Agriculture Organization and the World Organisation for Animal<br />
Health.&#8221;</p>
</div>
<div id="node-body-bottom">
<p>Let me raise two uncomfortable points about this case.</p>
<p><strong>• The  idea that the discovery of this BSE-stricken cow<br />
proves that the US  &#8220;surveillance system is working&#8221; is, well,<br />
ludicrous.</strong> The cow showed up  at <a href="http://www.bakercommodities.com/products.php">Baker Commodities</a>,<br />
  a California company plant that buys spent cows from California&#8217;s vast<br />
  dairy industry and renders them into various pet and livestock feed<br />
products.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how a Baker executive described the discovery to <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9UBR2RO0.htm"><em>Business Week</em></a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&#8220;We  randomly pick a number of samples throughout the year, and this<br />
just  happened to be one that we randomly sampled,&#8221; Baker Commodities<br />
executive vice president Dennis Luckey said. &#8220;It showed no signs&#8221; of<br />
disease.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So when the rendering plant picked up the infected cow, it was just another dead cow to be rendered. However, in an <a target="_blank" href="http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/04/0136.xml&#038;contentidonly=true">update</a><br />
 released Thursday afternoon, the USDA revealed that the animal was<br />
&#8220;humanely euthanized&#8221; on the dairy farm where it lived, &#8220;after it<br />
developed lameness and became recumbent.&#8221; Apparently, the dairy farm did<br />
 not communicate with the rendering plant that the cow had gone lame,<br />
and thus was a good candidate for BSE infection.</p>
<p>Altogether, the USDA program tests about 40,000 cows a  year for mad<br />
cow—a tiny  fraction of the millions that are slaughtered or  otherwise<br />
die each  year. (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/mad-cow-disease-finding-shows-that-food-inspection-system-is-working/2012/04/25/gIQAApjvgT_story.html"><em>Bloomberg</em></a>  puts the portion tested annually at &#8220;less than 0.1 percent of the U.S.  cattle herd.&#8221;) By contrast, in the <a href="http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/bse/controls-eradication/bsetest.htm">European Union</a><strong>,</strong><br />
  all sick or downed cattle over the age of 4 years old, all healthy<br />
cows  over six years, are tested before being slaughtered or rendered.<br />
The  California cow, the USDA said in its Thursday statement, was 10<br />
years  and seven months old—so it would have been automatically tested<br />
in  Europe.</p>
<div class="pullquote-left">The USDA currently tests less than 0.1 percent of the US  cattle herd for Mad Cow Disease.</div>
<p>So rather than representing a triumph of the system, the California<br />
discovery represents a lucky break. Other BSE-infected cows could be<br />
getting rendered into livestock and pet feed, and no one would know. <strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p>As Michael Hansen, senior  staff scientist at Consumers Union, put it<br />
 in a statement, &#8220;We really  don&#8217;t know if this is an isolated unusual<br />
event or whether there are  more cases in US beef. Our monitoring<br />
program is just too small.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>• The California cow&#8217;s BSE might have come from feed—and cows are still  being fed cow protein. </strong>Now,<br />
 as noted above, the USDA reports that the  California case had<br />
&#8220;atypical&#8221; BSE, which, it says, is thought to derive  spontaneously, not<br />
 from feed. &#8220;USDA confirmed the animal was positive for  atypical BSE, a<br />
 very rare form of the disease not generally associated  with an animal<br />
consuming infected feed,&#8221; the USDA wrote in a <a href="http://blogs.usda.gov/2012/04/25/usdas_chief_veterinary_officer_on_the_recent_bse_case/">Wednesday statement</a>.<br />
  In a Friday morning email, a USDA press officer confirmed to me that<br />
the atypical BSE in question is of the L-type, which, as I showed in my <a target="_blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/04/mad-cow-bse-milk"> last post</a>,<br />
 has been shown under lab conditions to be far more virulent  than what<br />
scientists call &#8220;classical&#8221; BSE, the kind that wrought havoc  in the UK<br />
in the 1990s.</p>
<p>The feed question is vital. If the cow  indeed developed BSE through<br />
some genetic mutation and not through feed,  then this particular mad<br />
cow instance can be viewed as a random and  extremely rare event. But if<br />
 feed was the pathway, then we have to ask  hard—and for the dairy and<br />
beef industries, extremely  uncomfortable—questions about just what<br />
we&#8217;re feeding our nation&#8217;s vast  herd of cows. And if <em>that</em> cow contracted BSE from what it ate, wouldn&#8217;t other cows have been exposed, too?</p>
<p>Paul Brown, a scientist retired  from the National Institute of<br />
Neurological Diseases and Stroke, questions the USDA&#8217;s assertion that<br />
atypical BSE isn&#8217;t associated with feed. &#8220;The most likely explanation is<br />
 that  it arises from the same source as typical BSE,&#8221; he said, which is<br />
  infected feed. He added that it&#8217;s a &#8220;theoretical possibility&#8221; that the<br />
  California BSE case arose spontaneously, but &#8220;there&#8217;s no evidence for<br />
 it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Linda Detwiler, a clinical professor in the Department of<br />
Pathobiology and Population Medicine at Mississippi State University,<br />
told me via phone that the current scientific thinking is that<br />
&#8220;atypical&#8221; BSE types do probably arise spontaneously, but &#8220;feed<br />
certainly  can&#8217;t be ruled out.&#8221; Ermias Belay, associate director for<br />
epidemiological science at the CDC&#8217;s &nbsp;Division of High-Consequence<br />
Pathogens and Pathology, echoed that assessment in a phone interview.</p>
<p>Now, back in 1997, in response to the UK mad cow crisis, the FDA <a href="http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/ComplianceEnforcement/BovineSpongiformEncephalopathy/default.htm">banned the longstanding practice of feeding rendered cow protein to cows</a>,<br />
  and in 2008 banned &#8220;the tissues that have the highest risk for<br />
carrying the agent thought to cause BSE&#8221;—brains and spinal tissue from<br />
cows older than 30 months—from animal feed altogether.</p>
<p>But there is still at least one pathway through which cow proteins<br />
move into  cow  feed: the practice of feeding &#8220;poultry  litter&#8221;—poultry<br />
feces mixed  with bedding, spilled feed, and chicken  carcasses—to cows.<br />
 How does  that bring cow protein into cow diets?</p>
<div class="pullquote-right">Meat and  bone meal from cows is explicitly<br />
 banned from cow diets. But  it ends up  in chicken feed; a significant<br />
amount of it spills into  bedding and ends  up in poultry litter; and<br />
poultry litter gets fed back  to cows.</div>
<p>Let&#8217;s go back to that rendering plant in California, <a href="http://www.bakercommodities.com/products.php">Baker Commodities</a>,<br />
  where the current case of BSE was discovered. Rendering plants like<br />
Baker buy downed cows and other animals and transform them into a<br />
variety of products, including feed for chickens. <a href="http://www.bakercommodities.com/product-detail.php?pid=16">Here&#8217;s</a> how it describes one of its products, &#8220;protein meal&#8221;:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Meat  and bone meal produced from the rendering process is used as a<br />
protein  and energy supplement in poultry and swine feed and may also be<br />
 utilized  as an ingredient in the manufacture of pet food.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now, meat and  bone meal from cows is explicitly banned from cow<br />
diets. But it ends up  in chicken feed; a significant amount of it<br />
spills into bedding and ends  up in poultry litter; and poultry litter<br />
gets fed back to cows.</p>
<p>Official  numbers on just how much poultry litter ends up in bovine<br />
diets is hard  to come by. But with corn and soy prices at heightened<br />
levels in recent  years, feedlot operators are always looking for<br />
cheaper alternatives,  and poultry litter is very much in the mix.<br />
Consumer Union&#8217;s Michael  Hansen claims that 2 billion pounds of chicken<br />
 litter are consumed by  cows each year—as much as a third of which<br />
consists of spilled feed,  including bovine meat and bone meal. The<br />
University of Missouri&#8217;s  agricultural-extension service explains<br />
chicken litter&#8217;s appeal <a href="http://extension.missouri.edu/p/G2077">like this</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Beef  cattle have the ability to digest low-cost feedstuffs that are<br />
not  usable by other livestock species. One such feedstuff is poultry<br />
litter,  which provides opportunities for both the poultry producer and<br />
the beef  cattle producer. The large quantities of litter produced<br />
during modern  poultry production are expensive to dispose of safely;<br />
moreover, protein  is typically the most expensive ingredient in<br />
ruminant diets. Feeding  poultry litter is a means of disposing of a<br />
waste product while  concurrently supplying a low-cost protein feed to<br />
beef cattle.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It&#8217;s important to note that the dairy industry, too, utilizes chicken litter.</p>
<p>Now,  it&#8217;s also important to note, as I wrote above, that the FDA<br />
banned  the use of &#8220;the tissues that have the highest risk for carrying<br />
the  agent thought to cause BSE&#8221;—brains and spinal tissue from cows<br />
older  than 30 months—from being rendered into any animal feed,<br />
including  chicken feed, in 2008.</p>
<p>But other cow parts can also carry the  infections. For classical<br />
BSE, Detwiler told me that &#8220;current research  shows that the infection<br />
moves from the intestines up to the spinal  column through the nerves.&#8221;<br />
Tonsils, too, can carry the infection.  Intestines, nerve tissue, and<br />
tonsils, of course, are fair game to be  rendered into chicken feed. &#8220;In<br />
 essence, you&#8217;re allowing ruminant  protein to be fed back to<br />
ruminants,&#8221; she said. &nbsp;</p>
<p>As for atypical  L-type BSE, like the one found in California, &#8220;we&#8217;re<br />
 just really  starting to get results on that—we just don&#8217;t know&#8221; what<br />
parts are  infectious. She said some evidence has arisen suggesting that<br />
 lymphoid  tissue in cows infected with atypical BSE have &#8220;abnormal<br />
prion protein.&#8221;</p>
<p>Detwiler pointed to the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/tse_bse/feed_ban_en.htm">European Commission&#8217;s feed ban </a>as  a better way to keep <em>all</em><br />
 bovine protein out of bovine diets. It lays out a simple principle for<br />
keeping cow protein  out of cow diets: it prohibits the &#8220;use of<br />
processed animal  protein (PAP) in feed for farmed animals.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;If I had my druthers, poultry litter would not be allowed in cow feed,&#8221; she said.</p>
<p>Detwiler  raises another important point regarding feed. Even if the<br />
case of BSE  in California arose spontaneously—and even if atypical BSE<br />
in general  has so far been arising spontaneously when it has been found<br />
 in  Europe—it also seems to be quite infectious. As the CDC&#8217;s Belay<br />
told me,  &#8220;all of these prion-related diseases are transmissible through<br />
 infected  material.&#8221; &nbsp;If that infected cow in California hadn&#8217;t been<br />
randomly  selected for testing, it could have ended up being rendered<br />
for poultry  feed—and ultimately fed back to cattle.</p>
<p>But even more than the  chicken-litter issue, what concerns Detwiler<br />
is the issue of compliance.  &#8220;There hadn&#8217;t been a case in six years,&#8221;<br />
she pointed out. &#8220;Hopefully,  [rendering plants] are removing brains and<br />
 spinal columns with care,&#8221;  she said. &#8220;There&#8217;s a tendency with anything<br />
 to let the guard down—my  message would be that we really can&#8217;t get<br />
complacent on this issue.&#8221;</p>
<p>While  the USDA is downplaying the public health ramifications of the<br />
  California BSE case, US public health officials should see it as a<br />
kick  in the pants. It&#8217;s time to ramp up the testing of cows—and Europe<br />
has proven it can be done economically. And it&#8217;s time to ban  all cow<br />
protein from animal feed—or, at the very least, get chicken  litter out<br />
of cow diets.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3269/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
