This is what government is for.Follow

Preventing companies from trying to make food safe.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May29/0,4670,MadCow,00.html


WASHINGTON — The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease .

The Agriculture Department tests less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. But Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows.


Why wouldn't the government want companies to do more testing?


Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too.



Ohhh....


The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. U.S. District Judge James Robertson noted that Creekstone sought to use the same test the government relies on and said the government didn't have the authority to restrict it.

The ruling was to take effect June 1, but the Agriculture Department said Tuesday it would appeal _ effectively delaying the testing until the court challenge plays out.

Well thank goodness the summer hamburger season is safe for capitalism again. Horay!

You know, I'm surprised you're taking that stance. You usually seem more of the risk vs. reward, "people worry way too much about stuff that's incredibly unlikely" stance.

Was there a sudden jump in incidences of mad cow recently? Don't make me look it up myself, I'm sleepy.

Nexa

That's cute.

Nexa

You know, I'm surprised you're taking that stance. You usually seem more of the risk vs. reward, "people worry way too much about stuff that's incredibly unlikely" stance.

I was having a hamburger, actually. No lie.

I don't think there's any particular great risk of contracting disease from eating beef, I just think this policy stance is retarded.

I don't think it's likely that I'll be in a plane crash any time soon, but I'd think it was a bad idea for the government to prevent an airline from doing additional safety checks because it might pressure other companies to do them too because of advertising.

Well. It's from Fox News though. We all know that you can't trust Fox News...


I'd be curious to see who pays for the tests before passing judgement. The article doesn't say but I can't imagine that the government would care unless it's somehow shouldering some of the burden for this through some loophole of the law.

The article doesn't say but I can't imagine that the government would care unless it's somehow shouldering some of the burden for this through some loophole of the law.

You really are kind of slow, aren't you?

The government would pay nothing for the tests.

This is, unequivocally, the government intervening in free market capitalism to protect large companies from competition.

NY Times article from back when Creekstone first sued.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE4DD103BF93BA25757C0A9629C8B63



Japanese buyers assured Mr. Fielding that they would buy again if he tested his beef for the disease, formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

In response, he built a laboratory five feet from the overhead chain that carries skinned heads through the plant. His staff was trained in testing for mad cow, using a machine that gives results in seven hours, while the carcasses are still in the cooler.

But on April 9, the United States Department of Agriculture forbade Creekstone to test its cattle, saying there was ''no scientific justification'' for testing young steers like those Creekstone sells. Certifying some beef for Japan as disease-free, the department said, might confuse American consumers into thinking that untested beef was not safe.

Calling those arguments ''ludicrous,'' Mr. Fielding has threatened to sue. He says he only wants the freedom to please a big, fussy customer, and he accuses the department of bending to the will of the big meat companies that control 80 percent of the industry.

Ya know, Bush could come right out on national TV and say "Yea, I'm bought and paid for by big bussines. What of it? Whatcha gunna do? Impeach me? MWahahahahahah!!" and gbaji would still find an excuse for it.

Yes, the Department of Agriculture pays for the tests that the Department of Agriculture runs.

The company listed in the original argument ran their own tests, in their own lab. However they need government cooperation to continue doing so. Presumably the DOA is the only source for the test kits, or medium. Almost certainly they have to report the results of all tests conducted to the DOA, so there is some expense incurred there, of course.

Actually, let me correct myself:



Well then. Privatize that ****. Problem solved.


Edited, May 30th 2007 7:10pm by Samira

This means that he does not lose the cow in terms of profit but still gets paid $100 per sample sent in.

No.

Learn to read.

If you've read the rest of the posts, you might have got your answer by now, but just in case:

You have to do a brain autopsy to properly identify mad cow disease. This makes the test tricky to administer to humans who wish to donate blood.

Same deal with Myalgic Encephalomylitis (M.E.), which is caused by a virus infecting and damaging the brain stem.

M.E. is oficially known these days as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which is like calling Diabetes a "Chronic Weight Problem". It not only misses 99% of the point, it dangerously misses 99% of the point.



Read the original article. Nowhere does the government, the department, or others object on the grounds that the government is paying for the tests, which is an unneccessary burden on taxpayers. They are worried about the statistical likelihood of at least a couple of false positives happening, at which point the public relations disaster could be huge...

And they are worried that one company is going to gain a costly (to the company!), "unfair" advantage by being able to advertise "Guaranteed free of Mad Cow Disease." To match the same claims, other companies are going to have to spand the same amount of money on testing their own cows.



Creekstone Farms, built their own little lab off the production line, trained workers, were all set to go to start testing at their own expense... and the Agricultural Department shut them down, because they didn't want a company to be responsible for testing it's own product.

Well you can see why the tax department wants to do random audit checks, and the EPA should be doing random tests for poisons, etc etc. We want outside, disinterested parties to be keeping an eye on companies to make sure they are sticking with what is safe and legal.

However a company has to have it's own finances, quality and safety procedures under control as well. We allow companies to be responsible for maintaining their own spotlessly clean kitchens all year round, with only the occaisonal check by Food Safety. Private cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies do all sorts of science tests on their own products, with only occaisonal spot-checks by outside authorites.

Why shouldn't a private food company quality check it's own product with a scientific test? The Agricultural Department can perfectly well come in for random spot-checks; duplicate the tests on the same tissue samples on the same budget it has now.

Edited, Jun 4th 2007 3:40am by Aripyanfar

Hmm this is an interesting article. How many people in the United States have contracted Mad Cow Disease from beef? Very very few, if any? I think this is the main reasoning behind the government's actions.

So, if the government allows this test and there is a false positive, it's going to have an incredible impact on the meat industry. The meat industry feeds a lot of people and employs a lot of people. Since there hasn't been an issue with people coontracting Mad Cow Disease in the U.S., it would be risky to allow a widespread test like this that could paint a false picture of the quality of the meat and do quite a bit of damage to the economy.

Yes, I realize that there is a chance that more widespread testing could possibly find true cases of MCD. However, since the testing that's in place now seems to protect Americans from MCD so far, I think doing more testing could open up the door to major problems, and I think that's why the government is taking this stance.

Samira makes a good point. I for one would love to see beef raised as it was 150 years ago. Leaner, and I would assume that would translate to healthier, and I wouldn't mind paying slightly more for old school raised meat. That's what I do now anyway. I've become such the organic/health nut after seeing what some of these additives and hormones can actually do to us over time.

Alternatively: don't feed your cows cow brains, or better yet, don't eat cow brains yourself.

The danger of BSE has been blown way out of proportion, but even so, limiting tests to prevent false positives is just about the stupidest logic I've ever heard. Why test at all, then? "Guys! We have to stop testing for AIDS, because it could cause a panic! If we ignore it, it'll probably just go away."

Maybe this perspective comes from where I live, having watched the US response to the last BSE crisis, but damn - that Agriculture Department of yours is one shady organization.