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.
The part I don't understand is that it looks like the markets they lose due to not testing the meant that goes to those markets costs a lot more than the costs of the testing. It looks like that the big producers are preventing small ones exploiting markets left wide open due to their own stubbornness.
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.
"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.
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.
Without special legislation prohibiting it, I doubt saying "Tested for Mad Cow" or labeling the beef as such would be a fraud. They did do just that; test for mad cow. It is just that the test can't detect the disease in its early stages. A label doesn't have to state all of the flaws in a test to say that it tests.
I understand what you're saying, but certainly if you are claiming to have tested for mad cow with a test that is completely ineffective, it would take a severely autistic judge to rule that context, in that case, did not matter.
claiming you tested for mad cow would have to include a basic good faith effort to actually, you know, test for mad cow. Not just use a test that is intended to test for mad cow.
I could take the test and throw it at you. I did not, in fact, test you for mad cow, though I did use a test for mad cow disease. I could not label you "tested for mad cow disease".
Administering the test when it is known to be ineffective would be improperly utilizing the test; exactly as my throwing it at you is an improper administration of the test.
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.
"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.
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.
You understand how MCD is spread, right? You also understand that it's illegal to feed cattle beef protein, right? You understand there have been 3 (1 imported from Canada) cases in the US in all of history, right? You understand there are some 35 million cattle brought to market yearly in the US, right?
Do the math. We have the safest bovine industry on the planet.
Because I live in S. Korea, this issue was huge just a few months ago. Everyone was talking about it.
Then one of my co-workers tried to convince me that NZ beef was safer than US beef because there was more grass in NZ.
Misinformation from the local media.
Then more told me that the US wants to send SK old beef that Americans are unwilling to eat because it's too dangerous. Only beef over three years, they said. In reality, the trade agreement was exclusively for beef under three years (which has the lowest likelihood of being infected).
Also misinformation from the local media.
Finally, several people I talked to wanted to know if I was brave enough to eat US meat because they had been told that Americans are afraid of their own beef.
Very true. That said, if a company wants to do something perfectly safe with their product that they feel will generate more sales, they ought to be able to do so.
Funny how the same Republicans who *love* the free market when it suits them start crying foul when it's used in a way that makes big companies sad.
Sure. You're right. All the scientists who actually study this is wrong. All those reports about deer being infected are wrong.
For someone who claims that we have the safest bovine industry is someone who is ignorant of how the Brits run their bovine industry _after_ their bovine industry was devastated by MCD, and they had to wipe out every single cow. Now, every cow is tracked from birth. And yet, *you* believe our bovine industry is safer. Bah, humbug.
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:(.
"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.
[a Japanese official said:]''We test all slaughtered cattle, regardless of age -- not some.''
This is a point that deserves to be modded up.
In the the spin that this kind of testing is meaningless and therefore would be misleading --- it's the same testing that Japan does on all of their beef. To disallow voluntary testing is just insane, corrupt, and sociopathic.
On a sidenote, the article also notes an issue involving South Korea/Japan and US beef imports. If I remember the South Korea situation correctly, the agreement (or rather, the lifting of the ban on US beef imports) involved the possibility of 30+ month old cattle. The agreement was then revised after much protesting to exclude cattle older than 30 months. 30+ months and less than 24 months in the US are..not exactly the same. I can see why people would be worried then.
Fine, but what seems odd to me is that according to this page [consumersunion.org], 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.
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!
This is clearly an attempt to protect the industry from being compelled to institute 100 per cent testing for all material due to competitive pressure. Not only is this repugnant from a purely "what kind of inhuman bastard would allow people to become infected with a horrible disease" perspective, it's also in direct violation of the free market mentra these soulless creatures swear by. Truly loathsome behavior.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday August 30 2008, @09:03PM (#24815329)
'Add in salaries of lab technicians, the cost of grinding up and delivering cattle brain samples for testing, and the tab would be $30 to $50 per animal, industry experts say. The average U.S. cow slaughtered for food yields meat with a retail value of $1,636.
Each year in the U.S., about 35 million cattle are slaughtered. About 10 million of these animals -- those over 30 months of age -- would be tested for BSE if the U.S. were to adopt European standards, because age is associated with infection.
The grand total to test about 10 million cows in the U.S. would be $300 to $500 million a year. Considering that Americans spend more than $50 billion on beef annually, that would add between six cents and 10 cents per pound.
"Cost should not be a prohibitive factor," says Scott McKinlay, president of InPro Biotechnology Inc., South San Francisco, Calif., a test-kit maker founded by Nobel Prize-winning researcher Stanley B. Prusiner.
"Look at Canada as an example," says Mr. McKinlay. "They have suffered about a $600 million loss already" in lost beef exports and consumption.' http://www.rense.com/general47/cost.htm
The problem with Mad Cow disease is that it is extremely rare. If you slaughter 35 million cows annually, and only 1 in 10,000,000 cows have the disease, then a 1% testing regime is essentially guaranteed to never find the problem. With the numbers given, the 1% testing regime has only a 3.4% chance of detecting a 1 in 10,000,000 problem. Worse, some sample bias is likely present in the 1%, because it will be weighted disproportionately on the younger cattle, as meat cattle are often slaughtered young and young cattle are less likely to have mad cow disease. On the other hand, a 100% testing regime will almost certainly detect mad cow disease, as everything will be tested. Of course, if you find the problem, then it will be a big issue for the meat industry, which will then have to do something about it. This type of strategy is what made the problem so massive in Britain before it was finally caught and dealt with.
From everything I have read, there almost certainly was trace quantities of mad cow disease in the North American meat supply, and these trace quantities will be undetectable with current sampling methods. As such, we cannot really be certain that mad cow is definitely not present anymore, because we are not testing the meat supply effectively enough to find out.
It was just this same sound mathematical policy that led to the deaths of 107 people in Britain from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
No, it was failure to recognize the disease as a threat that lead to those people dying. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy and scrapie [wikipedia.org] have been known about for centuries. But until the first C-J cases were traced, it was thought that those diseases couldn't be transmitted to humans.
Since the disease is extremely rare to begin with, testing samples don't really help you prevent the rare outbreak. Now, you might argue that there are cost benefit issues here, that a couple of hundred people who go mad and die in an agonizing fashion over several years doesn't justify testing every product sold, but others might disagree. I wonder if the US would block import of beef labelled as "tested for mad cow disease" as a threat to the market?
If the only disease we had to worry about were BSE, then you'd be right. Unfortunately there are thousands of diseases we have to test and monitor for. You can't test 100% of all food for all of them - it would be prohibitively expensive. So you have to resort to partial testing in proportion to the prevalence of the disease and the magnitude of its deleterious effect on humans. 100% safety is an unattainable goal, and failure to achieve it should never be assumed to be evidence of negligence or malfeasance.
I would argue that it's hardly negligent to offer consumers the opportunity to purchase tested products, even if those tested products cost more (this is the same argument used with regard to "organic" products). For people like you, who are happy to assume an admittedly small risk in return for cheaper meat, feel free. For people like me, who would gladly pay a little extra for products that have been tested, why shouldn't I have the opportunity?
You can call this marketing if you wish; having seen the resu
The USDA has been a bane to freedom in agriculture since its inception.
One trick the USDA pulls is crop scheduling. When you join the USDA's system, they will tell you what crops to grow at what times, and they will also subsidize you. Joining their system is optional - but unless everyone in your region joins, no one gets the subsidies.
Therefore, you join and plant what they tell you, or you get lynched by your neighbors.
Thats roughly true. [kuro5hin.org] Red states are socialist, and the blue ones pay for their programs. If the GOP is anything its a wealth redistribution system that would make the old soviets drool.
The Constitution is a living document... otherwise the federal government wouldn't have this power.
A real question here is *why* the FDA is so hell bent on blocking testing for mad cow disease... and I think we all know the reason why... the tests would reveal that mad cow disease is rampant within the US Beef supply.
As additional support for this theory, I offer this factoid: The US response to mad cow disease was to institute new regulations that mandated cows be slaughtered before they could reach the age that mad cow disease can first exhibit symptoms. This regulation does nothing to stop the spread of mad cow disease, of course, but it is very effective at sweeping the problem under the rug.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat a bacon cheeseburger. Mmmmmm.
A real question here is *why* the FDA is so hell bent on blocking testing for mad cow disease... and I think we all know the reason why... the tests would reveal that mad cow disease is rampant within the US Beef supply.
As additional support for this theory, I offer this factoid: The US response to mad cow disease was to institute new regulations that mandated cows be slaughtered before they could reach the age that mad cow disease can first exhibit symptoms. This regulation does nothing to stop the spread of mad cow disease, of course, but it is very effective at sweeping the problem under the rug.
RTFA:
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.
The actual decision (PDF) [uscourts.gov] made it clear that the company wanted to use the test that won't work. Not letting them use a test that will only give a positive result, accurate or not, is not sweeping things under a rug.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday August 30 2008, @07:10PM (#24814585)
The phrase has also been used in reference to mad cow disease. More than 30 countries banned beef imports from Canada after one of Albertan farmer Marwyn Peaster's cattle tested positive for the illness. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, in frustration over the situation, said that any "self-respecting rancher would have shot, shovelled and shut up"
I've seen this story pop up in several places, and it seemed too absurd to be true, so I skimmed through the actual decision.
Unsurprisingly, it is too absurd to be true, and does appear to be very misrepresented. The USDA actually has a reasonable argument against allowing testing for marketing purposes, though the argument also seems to call into question their own testing program.
Essentially, the USDA claims that the rapid testing method the packer wants to use is only able to detect the disease after its incubation period, right before symptoms start to appear in living cows. Since the incubation period is several years, and most cows are slaughtered before they are two years old, the USDA claims that testing 100% of young cows without symptoms wouldn't be useful, and would give inaccurate results. If such results, with possible false negatives, were to be used for marketing, they could end up making all testing in the US look bad, as it could be found that "tested" beef was actually contaminated.
What I don't understand, however, is why the incubation time vs. slaughtering age argument doesn't call into question the USDA's entire testing regime. What is the point of testing 1% of cows with a test that isn't going to work in most cases anyway?
What I don't understand, however, is why the incubation time vs. slaughtering age argument doesn't call into question the USDA's entire testing regime. What is the point of testing 1% of cows with a test that isn't going to work in most cases anyway?
Here's the thing, if a single cow shows evidence of BSE, many countries stop importing our beef for a long period of time.
So you want to test 35,000,000 cows a year? If the test is 99.999999% accurate, it'll produce 35 false positives each year. And countries are going to stop importing our beef on those false positives.
On top of that, some portion of cows are going to test as positive (even accurately) spontaneously. BSE had to start somewhere, there's no reason that even if we wipe it out in cows it can't show up again. And we'll lose sales based upon those too.
So yeah, it's an effort to keep from having positive results. But with 1% testing, we can apprently tell that there currently isn't a higher level of BSE in cows in the US than there has ever been. So the number of lives lost to BSE from cows isn't going to be any different than it has been in the past. And it hasn't seemed to be a problem before.
As to the idea that testing will help us internationally, well, there's nothing forcing the South Koreas to buy our beef right now, and they're still buying it. There's no reason I can see to think that sales will go up further in that country with more testing.
I'm not sure why Americans act like we have the worst problem with this in the world. It has not been legal to feed cow parts to cows (which can lead to spread of prion-based diseases) for my entire life. This is unlike Canada, for example where it was only banned a few years back based upon BSE fears.
and it's businessmen who buy the laws. Don't insult the messenger in order to obscure the point. Just as it's whiny and greedy people - not lawyers - who are responsible for frivolous lawsuits, it's businesses that are focused on profits by all means necessary that are responsible for this result.
But the lawyers don't have to take the case. They can say "No, that's stupid" and move on. Saying lawyers aren't responsible is like saying that drug dealers aren't responsible for drugs getting into the hands of kids, its really just the kids fault.
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.
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.
judges and lawyers aren't the problem. the problem is the political culture of our nation. judges and lawyers aren't the ones that make the laws, they just have to work with them. i believe there are judges and lawyers on both sides of the coin, but the laws favor corporate interests over public interests. also, lawsuits cost money, and corporations also happen to have the most money. so they tend to be the ones who abuse the system.
our court system certainly has its problems, but the issue at hand here is
We know that BSE is out of control in American herds, and that's besides the fact that the food is pumped full of growth hormones to such extents that young girls eating it develop breasts at very young ages.
Ah yes. More disease, death and destruction brought to you by our good friends at Monsanto. When the Four Horsemen get riding, they will have the Monsanto corporate logo on their flags.
Or, to modify Bill Hicks a little: "By the way, if there is anyone here who works for Monsanto - kill yourselves. There is no excuse for what you do. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourselves."
Well some countries seem hell bent on importing the USA beef against the wishes of their citizens. So it is possible (but not proven) that the same forces preventing small supplies from doing 100% testing will smooth the way for the 1% tested beef to be sold to those countries.
BUT, if the ruling prevents TESTING (not the government providing test kits), it is a fscked up ruling and someone is a total numbskull for making such a ruling.
It's sort of inbetween; the exporter wants to buy their own BSE test kits, but the USDA regulates who they can be sold to, and won't grant the exporter permission to get them. I think the USDA is right in this situation, they're tasked with monitoring BSE, and the test the exporter wants to use is pretty much useless:
There are several types of BSE tests available; the most
common--and the one at issue here--is the immunoassay, or
"rapid," BSE test.3 See CX-3, at 89-91. The rapid BSE test,
7
is then treated with an antibody that binds to any abnormal
prion. Id. By measuring the amount of any antibody that binds,
the presence of BSE can be determined in a matter of hours. See
id. at 90.
however, has limitations. It can detect abnormal prions only if
they exist in a relatively high concentration, id. at 91, and
abnormal prions typically reach detectable concentrations only
two to three months before an animal exhibits observable
symptoms. See Declaration of Byron Rippke 9 (Sept. 12,
2006). The incubation period for BSE (i.e., from infection to
observable symptoms) is two to eight years--the average being
five years--and cattle younger than thirty months are rarely
symptomatic. Ferguson Decl. 5. Because most cattle for
slaughter in the United States go to market before they are
twenty-four months old, it is unlikely that the rapid BSE test will
detect the disease. Id. In light of the rapid BSE test's limited
efficacy, USDA believes that the routine use of the test on
"clinically normal young cattle is not practical[], offers no food
safety value," is "likely [to] produce false negative results" and
is "meaningful and reliable . . . when used for surveillance
purposes on . . . animals exhibiting some type of clinical
abnormality that could be consistent with BSE" (e.g., cattle that
cannot stand or walk, show signs of neurological disorders or
die from an unknown cause). Ferguson Decl. 6.
Yes, you forgot to include an outraged knee-jerk response like everyone else (who probably didn't bother to read TFA) in this conversation:-P. Seriously though, I'm surprised no one else thought this through. If proper test procedures are in place and a sufficiently large sample is taken there is no good reason for 100% coverage except to try to gain marketing leverage. If everyone was forced to perform 100% test coverage we would definitely see an increase in the
Sooner or later the extent of BSE contamination in US herds is going to come out, and consumer reaction will be so swift and devastating that it will likely take decades for the industry to recover.
So, expert, what is the extent of BSE contamination in US herds? What evidence do you have that it difference significantly from what the statistical testing currently done tells us?
Again please... (Score:4, Insightful)
What?
Re:Again please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The part I don't understand is that it looks like the markets they lose due to not testing the meant that goes to those markets costs a lot more than the costs of the testing. It looks like that the big producers are preventing small ones exploiting markets left wide open due to their own stubbornness.
Re:Again please... (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Again please... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Parent
Re:Again please... (Score:5, 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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Again please... (Score:4, Informative)
I understand what you're saying, but certainly if you are claiming to have tested for mad cow with a test that is completely ineffective, it would take a severely autistic judge to rule that context, in that case, did not matter.
claiming you tested for mad cow would have to include a basic good faith effort to actually, you know, test for mad cow. Not just use a test that is intended to test for mad cow.
I could take the test and throw it at you. I did not, in fact, test you for mad cow, though I did use a test for mad cow disease. I could not label you "tested for mad cow disease".
Administering the test when it is known to be ineffective would be improperly utilizing the test; exactly as my throwing it at you is an improper administration of the test.
Parent
Re:Again please... (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.
Parent
Re:Again please... (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.
Parent
Re:Again please... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do the math. We have the safest bovine industry on the planet.
Re:Again please... (Score:5, Informative)
Then one of my co-workers tried to convince me that NZ beef was safer than US beef because there was more grass in NZ.
Misinformation from the local media.
Then more told me that the US wants to send SK old beef that Americans are unwilling to eat because it's too dangerous. Only beef over three years, they said. In reality, the trade agreement was exclusively for beef under three years (which has the lowest likelihood of being infected).
Also misinformation from the local media.
Finally, several people I talked to wanted to know if I was brave enough to eat US meat because they had been told that Americans are afraid of their own beef.
The media. Meh.
Parent
Re:Again please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Very true. That said, if a company wants to do something perfectly safe with their product that they feel will generate more sales, they ought to be able to do so.
Funny how the same Republicans who *love* the free market when it suits them start crying foul when it's used in a way that makes big companies sad.
Re:Again please... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure. You're right. All the scientists who actually study this is wrong. All those reports about deer being infected are wrong.
For someone who claims that we have the safest bovine industry is someone who is ignorant of how the Brits run their bovine industry _after_ their bovine industry was devastated by MCD, and they had to wipe out every single cow. Now, every cow is tracked from birth. And yet, *you* believe our bovine industry is safer. Bah, humbug.
Parent
Re:Again please... (Score:5, 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 :(.
Parent
Re:Again please... (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 [nytimes.com]
Tadashi Sato, agricultural attaché at the Japanese Embassy in Washington, The Associated Press reported. ''We test all slaughtered cattle, regardless of age -- not some.''
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a point that deserves to be modded up.
In the the spin that this kind of testing is meaningless and therefore would be misleading --- it's the same testing that Japan does on all of their beef. To disallow voluntary testing is just insane, corrupt, and sociopathic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WOR [cnn.com]
Re:Again please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine, but what seems odd to me is that according to this page [consumersunion.org], 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.
Parent
outsource it (Score:4, Interesting)
Could not they just outsource testing to a non-US company? Or would that be much more expensive?
Money rules, who cares about health? big deal.... (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:
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!
Re:Money rules, who cares about health? big deal.. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is clearly an attempt to protect the industry from being compelled to institute 100 per cent testing for all material due to competitive pressure. Not only is this repugnant from a purely "what kind of inhuman bastard would allow people to become infected with a horrible disease" perspective, it's also in direct violation of the free market mentra these soulless creatures swear by. Truly loathsome behavior.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, if you test 100% of the meat, you'd effectively stop any chance of mad cow disease making its way to market.
By the way, if you were to take 300,000,000 Americans, 0.17% ends up being 510,000 people.
100% Testing is Not Cost Prohibitive (Score:5, Informative)
'Add in salaries of lab technicians, the cost of grinding up and delivering cattle brain samples for testing, and the tab would be $30 to $50 per animal, industry experts say. The average U.S. cow slaughtered for food yields meat with a retail value of $1,636.
Each year in the U.S., about 35 million cattle are slaughtered. About 10 million of these animals -- those over 30 months of age -- would be tested for BSE if the U.S. were to adopt European standards, because age is associated with infection.
The grand total to test about 10 million cows in the U.S. would be $300 to $500 million a year. Considering that Americans spend more than $50 billion on beef annually, that would add between six cents and 10 cents per pound.
"Cost should not be a prohibitive factor," says Scott McKinlay, president of InPro Biotechnology Inc., South San Francisco, Calif., a test-kit maker founded by Nobel Prize-winning researcher Stanley B. Prusiner.
"Look at Canada as an example," says Mr. McKinlay. "They have suffered about a $600 million loss already" in lost beef exports and consumption.'
http://www.rense.com/general47/cost.htm
Parent
You might want to check your stats (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with Mad Cow disease is that it is extremely rare. If you slaughter 35 million cows annually, and only 1 in 10,000,000 cows have the disease, then a 1% testing regime is essentially guaranteed to never find the problem. With the numbers given, the 1% testing regime has only a 3.4% chance of detecting a 1 in 10,000,000 problem. Worse, some sample bias is likely present in the 1%, because it will be weighted disproportionately on the younger cattle, as meat cattle are often slaughtered young and young cattle are less likely to have mad cow disease. On the other hand, a 100% testing regime will almost certainly detect mad cow disease, as everything will be tested. Of course, if you find the problem, then it will be a big issue for the meat industry, which will then have to do something about it. This type of strategy is what made the problem so massive in Britain before it was finally caught and dealt with.
From everything I have read, there almost certainly was trace quantities of mad cow disease in the North American meat supply, and these trace quantities will be undetectable with current sampling methods. As such, we cannot really be certain that mad cow is definitely not present anymore, because we are not testing the meat supply effectively enough to find out.
Parent
Re:Money rules, who cares about health? big deal.. (Score:5, Informative)
No, it was failure to recognize the disease as a threat that lead to those people dying. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy and scrapie [wikipedia.org] have been known about for centuries. But until the first C-J cases were traced, it was thought that those diseases couldn't be transmitted to humans.
If the only disease we had to worry about were BSE, then you'd be right. Unfortunately there are thousands of diseases we have to test and monitor for. You can't test 100% of all food for all of them - it would be prohibitively expensive. So you have to resort to partial testing in proportion to the prevalence of the disease and the magnitude of its deleterious effect on humans. 100% safety is an unattainable goal, and failure to achieve it should never be assumed to be evidence of negligence or malfeasance.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would argue that it's hardly negligent to offer consumers the opportunity to purchase tested products, even if those tested products cost more (this is the same argument used with regard to "organic" products). For people like you, who are happy to assume an admittedly small risk in return for cheaper meat, feel free. For people like me, who would gladly pay a little extra for products that have been tested, why shouldn't I have the opportunity?
You can call this marketing if you wish; having seen the resu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At least one government agency has pulled a little trick like this every single day for the past eight years. Just look at the EPA for example.
USDA (Score:5, Interesting)
The USDA has been a bane to freedom in agriculture since its inception.
One trick the USDA pulls is crop scheduling. When you join the USDA's system, they will tell you what crops to grow at what times, and they will also subsidize you. Joining their system is optional - but unless everyone in your region joins, no one gets the subsidies.
Therefore, you join and plant what they tell you, or you get lynched by your neighbors.
Re:USDA (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait. You mean these "real Americans" in "the Homeland" are really just a bunch of socialists?!
Someone better tell the GOP!
Parent
Re:USDA (Score:5, Informative)
Thats roughly true. [kuro5hin.org] Red states are socialist, and the blue ones pay for their programs. If the GOP is anything its a wealth redistribution system that would make the old soviets drool.
Parent
The Constitution is a living document (Score:5, Interesting)
The Constitution is a living document... otherwise the federal government wouldn't have this power.
A real question here is *why* the FDA is so hell bent on blocking testing for mad cow disease... and I think we all know the reason why... the tests would reveal that mad cow disease is rampant within the US Beef supply.
As additional support for this theory, I offer this factoid: The US response to mad cow disease was to institute new regulations that mandated cows be slaughtered before they could reach the age that mad cow disease can first exhibit symptoms. This regulation does nothing to stop the spread of mad cow disease, of course, but it is very effective at sweeping the problem under the rug.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat a bacon cheeseburger. Mmmmmm.
Re:The Constitution is a living document (Score:5, Informative)
A real question here is *why* the FDA is so hell bent on blocking testing for mad cow disease... and I think we all know the reason why... the tests would reveal that mad cow disease is rampant within the US Beef supply.
As additional support for this theory, I offer this factoid: The US response to mad cow disease was to institute new regulations that mandated cows be slaughtered before they could reach the age that mad cow disease can first exhibit symptoms. This regulation does nothing to stop the spread of mad cow disease, of course, but it is very effective at sweeping the problem under the rug.
RTFA:
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.
The actual decision (PDF) [uscourts.gov] made it clear that the company wanted to use the test that won't work. Not letting them use a test that will only give a positive result, accurate or not, is not sweeping things under a rug.
Parent
Re:The Constitution is a living document (Score:4, Interesting)
Rampant? You're an idiot. There have been 2 cases of US cattle with MCD in US history.
Parent
Shoot, shovel, and shut up (Score:5, Interesting)
The phrase has also been used in reference to mad cow disease. More than 30 countries banned beef imports from Canada after one of Albertan farmer Marwyn Peaster's cattle tested positive for the illness. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, in frustration over the situation, said that any "self-respecting rancher would have shot, shovelled and shut up"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting,_shoveling,_and_shutting_up
A Rather Misrepresented Decision (Score:5, Informative)
Unsurprisingly, it is too absurd to be true, and does appear to be very misrepresented. The USDA actually has a reasonable argument against allowing testing for marketing purposes, though the argument also seems to call into question their own testing program.
Essentially, the USDA claims that the rapid testing method the packer wants to use is only able to detect the disease after its incubation period, right before symptoms start to appear in living cows. Since the incubation period is several years, and most cows are slaughtered before they are two years old, the USDA claims that testing 100% of young cows without symptoms wouldn't be useful, and would give inaccurate results. If such results, with possible false negatives, were to be used for marketing, they could end up making all testing in the US look bad, as it could be found that "tested" beef was actually contaminated.
What I don't understand, however, is why the incubation time vs. slaughtering age argument doesn't call into question the USDA's entire testing regime. What is the point of testing 1% of cows with a test that isn't going to work in most cases anyway?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See also: Airport security theater
I can see what the government would be nervous (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the thing, if a single cow shows evidence of BSE, many countries stop importing our beef for a long period of time.
So you want to test 35,000,000 cows a year? If the test is 99.999999% accurate, it'll produce 35 false positives each year. And countries are going to stop importing our beef on those false positives.
On top of that, some portion of cows are going to test as positive (even accurately) spontaneously. BSE had to start somewhere, there's no reason that even if we wipe it out in cows it can't show up again. And we'll lose sales based upon those too.
So yeah, it's an effort to keep from having positive results. But with 1% testing, we can apprently tell that there currently isn't a higher level of BSE in cows in the US than there has ever been. So the number of lives lost to BSE from cows isn't going to be any different than it has been in the past. And it hasn't seemed to be a problem before.
As to the idea that testing will help us internationally, well, there's nothing forcing the South Koreas to buy our beef right now, and they're still buying it. There's no reason I can see to think that sales will go up further in that country with more testing.
I'm not sure why Americans act like we have the worst problem with this in the world. It has not been legal to feed cow parts to cows (which can lead to spread of prion-based diseases) for my entire life. This is unlike Canada, for example where it was only banned a few years back based upon BSE fears.
And Businesses are Greedy (Score:3, Insightful)
and it's businessmen who buy the laws. Don't insult the messenger in order to obscure the point. Just as it's whiny and greedy people - not lawyers - who are responsible for frivolous lawsuits, it's businesses that are focused on profits by all means necessary that are responsible for this result.
Re:And Businesses are Greedy (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:And Businesses are Greedy (Score:5, 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:
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.
Parent
Re:And Businesses are Greedy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
judges and lawyers aren't the problem. the problem is the political culture of our nation. judges and lawyers aren't the ones that make the laws, they just have to work with them. i believe there are judges and lawyers on both sides of the coin, but the laws favor corporate interests over public interests. also, lawsuits cost money, and corporations also happen to have the most money. so they tend to be the ones who abuse the system.
our court system certainly has its problems, but the issue at hand here is
Re:This really isn't the sensible thing to (Score:4, Funny)
Ah yes. More disease, death and destruction brought to you by our good friends at Monsanto. When the Four Horsemen get riding, they will have the Monsanto corporate logo on their flags.
Or, to modify Bill Hicks a little: "By the way, if there is anyone here who works for Monsanto - kill yourselves. There is no excuse for what you do. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourselves."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Test it themselves! (Score:5, Informative)
It's sort of inbetween; the exporter wants to buy their own BSE test kits, but the USDA regulates who they can be sold to, and won't grant the exporter permission to get them. I think the USDA is right in this situation, they're tasked with monitoring BSE, and the test the exporter wants to use is pretty much useless:
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you forgot to include an outraged knee-jerk response like everyone else (who probably didn't bother to read TFA) in this conversation :-P. Seriously though, I'm surprised no one else thought this through. If proper test procedures are in place and a sufficiently large sample is taken there is no good reason for 100% coverage except to try to gain marketing leverage. If everyone was forced to perform 100% test coverage we would definitely see an increase in the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sooner or later the extent of BSE contamination in US herds is going to come out, and consumer reaction will be so swift and devastating that it will likely take decades for the industry to recover.
So, expert, what is the extent of BSE contamination in US herds? What evidence do you have that it difference significantly from what the statistical testing currently done tells us?