Slashdot Mirror


Appeals Court Rules US Can Block Mad Cow Testing

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.

8 of 455 comments (clear)

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

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

    --
    This space available.
  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: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: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!

  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 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!
  8. 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.