Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Appeals Court Rules US Can Block Mad Cow Testing

Posted by kdawson on from the please-pass-the-lentils dept.

fahrbot-bot tips a story of mad cow disease, a private meat packer that wants to test all of its beef for the disease, and the USDA, which controls access to the test kits and just won an appeals court ruling that the government has the authority to block testing above and beyond the 1% the agency performs. Creekstone Farms Premium Beef sought to test 100% of its beef, in order to reassure its export markets, especially Japan and South Korea, that its beef is safe. Large meat packers opposed any such private testing, because they feared they would be forced into 100% testing and would have to raise prices. The appeals court ruled, 2 to 1, that under a 1913 law, test kits that are used only after an animal is killed still constitute "diagnosis" and "treatment" — this for a disease that has no treatment and is 100% fatal — and therefore fall under the USDA's authority to regulate.

16 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. Again please... by dexomn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What?

    1. Re:Again please... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Shorthand: This is not a democracy, it's a corporatocracy.

      --
      This space available.
    2. Re:Again please... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, here is a redo, that was badly worded.

      The part I don't understand is that losing those markets means that meat producers lose more due to not testing the product than the cost of testing.

      It looks like that the big producers are preventing small ones exploiting markets left wide open due to their own stubbornness. It may well be that they're afraid that people in the US and larger markets would start demanding wider testing. Maybe I should switch to chicken now.

    3. Re:Again please... by tloh · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I was about to agree with you. Then I RTFA:

      "There is a two- to eight-year incubation period for mad cow disease. Because most cattle slaughtered in the United States are less than 24 months old, the most common mad cow disease test is unlikely to catch the disease, the appeals court noted. If the government does not control the tests, the USDA is worried about beef exporters unilaterally giving consumers false assurance."

      Folks seem to neglect this minor detail that it is ultimately a good thing the USDA is taking measures to prevent mis-information and FUD from affecting beef exports.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    4. Re:Again please... by rhakka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      is the "most common" mad cow disease test the one that was going to be administered?

      administering a test when it is ineffective and claiming the results tell a consumer something is "fraud". we already have laws for that, the USDA doesn't have to do anything except note that it would be fraud to do that and point at the justice department should such a thing occur.

      right?

    5. Re:Again please... by retchdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. This is snake-oil, and from a practical point-of-view the government should put a stop to it. It would be nothing but a hundred-fold waste of test kits since, as noted, others would be pressured into doing it also.

      I recognize the idealistic objection, that the government shouldn't have a say at all. This is not without merit I suppose, but it would be nice to have a relatively "shallow" pragmatic analysis, rather than having every court ruling devolve into an argument (or rather, a one-sided rantfest) about Federalism.

      Note that if Creekstone (who I am sure is a paragon of decency and ethics as opposed to all those other corporations who are just in it for the money...) really wanted to do something about BSE, they could increase feed quality and living conditions e.g. by supplying free-range conditions less susceptible to epidemic. Why are they not doing this? Because it is cheaper to sell the snake-oil image of 100% testing.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    6. Re:Again please... by winphreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was about to agree with you. Then I RTFA:

      "There is a two- to eight-year incubation period for mad cow disease. Because most cattle slaughtered in the United States are less than 24 months old, the most common mad cow disease test is unlikely to catch the disease, the appeals court noted. If the government does not control the tests, the USDA is worried about beef exporters unilaterally giving consumers false assurance."

      Folks seem to neglect this minor detail that it is ultimately a good thing the USDA is taking measures to prevent mis-information and FUD from affecting beef exports.

      Quite the rarity, a government organization trying to prevent a feeling of false security.

      P.S. Mod parent up, it's VERY relevant.

      --
      "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
    7. Re:Again please... by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the USDA is taking measures to prevent mis-information and FUD from affecting beef exports.

      That's a very interesting and valid point, but what are they offering to replace the lack of testing with? Instead of spreading mis-information, they are preparing to hide behind willful ignorance should exported US Beef be found to have mad cow. "Willful ignorance of anything that might conflict with the official government line" is starting to become America's new primary reputation. The USDA isn't offering a method to ensure higher quality, they are only offering obstructions to those who are. Perhaps the company in question would be willing to wait until the cattle are three years old to ensure the testing accuracy, but they aren't being given that option. As an American, who loves his country, I really think we have reached the point as a culture and government where we deserve to fall miserably from or positions of wealth and power, for our own eventual good. Darwinism can only really be effective when there is hardship, and this country needs some serious darwinistic thinning of the herd. So I hope those beef producers relocate their headquarters and testing facilities to Mexico or Canada or Singapore, and create a lot of jobs and wealth somewhere far away, and that they send a Christmas card to the governor and congressional representatives of Kansas every year.

      --
      We are all just people.
    8. Re:Again please... by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Folks seem to neglect this minor detail that it is ultimately a good thing the USDA is taking measures to prevent mis-information and FUD from affecting beef exports."

      This is not about falsely misleading consumers that everything is safe. The FDA cannot with a straight face [well, maybe with the current administration they could) say that testing 1% of all cows and not finding MCD is better and safer for consumers than testing 100% of all cows and not finding MCD.

      Quite the opposite. The FDA is worried about someone actually finding a cow with with mad cow disease. If a significant number of cases gets reported, the entire industry goes to hell. All exports from the US drop to zero. Domestic consumption (at least for domestic beef) would drop sharply, particularly if the incubation period was also reported [in that cows could be infected but still test clean].

      Sure testing would be expensive, but actually getting a positive would devastate the industry.

      As for cost:
      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E6DC1431F934A25750C0A9629C8B63
      Tadashi Sato, agricultural attaché at the Japanese Embassy in Washington, The Associated Press reported. ''We test all slaughtered cattle, regardless of age -- not some.''

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Again please... by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do understand that none of that matters if we can't export the beef right? You do know that bans on American Beef are only now being lifted in many countries across the world, and that single incident will bring those bans right back, and for a longer time, right? I don't know that I would go around touting the safety of an industry that had to recall 143 million pounds of beef because they were found to be sneaking cattle to sick to stand into the slaughterhouse. Face it, big industry beef is nasty dirty. There seems to be a big e.coli recall every few years, that is polite wording for cow shit mixed into the meat. Is it any wonder that other countries would view US Beef with a few worries about disease? Is there any better way to relieve that worry other than higher levels of testing and stricter quality control? Is the USDA showing any initiative on that? no, no, and no.

      --
      We are all just people.
    10. Re:Again please... by xigxag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fine, but what seems odd to me is that according to this page, the EU is using the same test on their cattle and found 1,100 cases in a five year testing period. It says that although BSE may have a lengthy incubation period, in some cases the disease can be detected in cows that were asymptomatic while alive. In short it alleges that the test is not completely worthless after all.

      I'd like to believe that the government is only looking out for our best interests as citizens and that that is its only consideration but frankly its track record is not good.

      It would make more sense, IMO, for the government to allow this one company to spend money, if it wishes, on this supposedly pointless test. If nothing turns up over a period of time then the company should be allowed to label its export products as "100% BSE tested according to international standards" but should not be allowed to use any such labeling on beef meant for domestic consumption. Then foreign markets will be happy but the USDA can still uphold its aim of protecting the US consumer from possible misinformation.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    11. Re:Again please... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Be careful what you write. Make no mistake in today's modern corporate profit driven world the sickest kind of tactics will be used with a complete absence of shame to ensure competitiveness whilst maintaining maximum profitability. You just have to read some of the posts, where the claim is proffered that somehow 100% testing is more disingenuous that 1% testing where both tests might miss the full development of the disease.

      There are numerous examples of US companies who produce GM products putting enormous pressure on the Australian government and Australian producers to switch to GM products because the clean green method is providing Australian producers with an enormous competitive advantage with higher profitability and, rather than cleaning up their own act they simply want to take away the competitive advantage that Australian producers have.

      Given the sociopathic behaviour of corporations from around the world (it doesn't seem to make much difference which country they come from) in recent history, spreading agricultural diseases around the planet to boost profitability certainly falls within the bounds of imaginable behaviour :(.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Money rules, who cares about health? big deal.... by houbou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A private meat packer company wants to test all of it's beef products for safety and health issues and to reassure their export customers that their products are safe. Ok, that's a good thing.. right? RIGHT? and the USDA will NOT allow them. uh.. that's a bad thing.. right? BAD? UH?

    Let's see, what's wrong with this picture? I mean, for pete's sakes, shouldn't we applause any company wishing to ensure their food products are 100% safe? Let's give Creekstone Farms Premium Beef credit and a hand folks!

    Now, you would think that the USDA would instead do the following:

    • enforce the 1% rule of testing as a minimum standard of compliance
    • any company wishing to be more thorough should be allowed to
    • they should also be allowed to promote their products are more thoroughly tested too!

    This is one of the many and many cases where money is more important than people, remember that folks! The government wants your taxes, not your health!

  3. Re:USDA by yourpusher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait. You mean these "real Americans" in "the Homeland" are really just a bunch of socialists?!

    Someone better tell the GOP!

  4. Re:And Businesses are Greedy by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's actually not entirely true. It's an ethically grey area, at best, especially for lawyers.

    Yes, lawyers generally have the right to refuse clients based on their personal morality.

    However, lawyers shouldn't exercise this right except under exceptional circumstances (or as a blanket clause- i.e., "I am not accepting any more clients".)

    According to the Law Society of Upper Canada:

    The lawyer has a general right to decline a particular representation (except when assigned as counsel by a tribunal), but it is a right to be exercised prudently, particularly if the probable result would be to make it difficult for a person to obtain legal advice or representation. Generally, the lawyer should not exercise the right merely because a person seeking legal services or that person's cause is unpopular or notorious, or because powerful interests or allegations of misconduct or malfeasance are involved, or because of the lawyer's private opinion about the guilt of the accused. A lawyer declining representation should assist in obtaining the services of another licensee qualified in the particular field and able to act.

    In short: A lawyer should not refuse to represent a client because they dislike their client's cause, because they think there might be retaliation, or because they think the client is guilty. it is generally morally suspect to refuse to represent a client because you disagree with their claim.

    --
    "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
  5. Re:And Businesses are Greedy by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to the Law Society of Upper Canada:

    There's an upper Canada?!?

    In short: A lawyer should not refuse to represent a client because they dislike their client's cause, because they think there might be retaliation, or because they think the client is guilty. it is generally morally suspect to refuse to represent a client because you disagree with their claim.

    On a more serious note, there's the same rule in most if not all U.S. jurisdictions.