Appeals Court Rules US Can Block Mad Cow Testing 455
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.
outsource it (Score:4, Interesting)
Could not they just outsource testing to a non-US company? Or would that be much more expensive?
Re:Again please... (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.
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.
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.
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
Re:Judges are Lawyers. (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 much, much bigger. for instance, several states have long since passed industry-sponsored legislation to censor the media from criticizing the agricultural industry or even giving negative reports on industry practices--such as the use of bovine growth hormone. so what this particular article talks about is just one small part of the bigger problem, which is the disproportionate influence and political power that corporations hold in our society.
Re:Money rules, who cares about health? big deal.. (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.
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.
Re:Government malfeasance (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?
Re:Again please... (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.
Testing for BSE isn't the USDA's job (Score:2, Interesting)
Sometimes that means doing a few BSE tests to convince the population their beef is safe. Sometimes it's running small meat processors out of business by flat out refusing to have the USDA send inspectors out to the plant (Operating without one would be illegal). Not too long ago they engaged in a campaign of banning all Canadian Beef after a single case of mad cow was discovered in an animal that never entered the food chain. They still claimed Canadian beef was unsafe even after multiple unrelated cases of BSE had shown up inside the US.
Big-Agriculture benefits from the minimum amount of testing and the USDA will ensure that it stays that way. Giving smaller processors the freedom to test more and that would put the big guys at a disadvantage.
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.
Re:Money rules, who cares about health? big deal.. (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 results of human infection with BSE I would gladly pay an extra nickel for my hamburger...
Re:Again please... (Score:2, Interesting)
Reminds me of the response in France some years ago. Somebody or other started to stamp French beef VF (to indicate viande francais, French meat) since English meat was suspect. Of course, people jokingly started to say that VF stood for vachon folle (mad cow).
Re:Again please... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but anyone who can sell to a fear-induced market will exploit that to greater profit. It's not unlike the War on Terror, which was provoked by an incident that caused fewer deaths by far than we have from automobile accidents, almost all diseases, shootings, and pretty much anything short of death by lightning strike. More people die of natural causes in a day than were killed in the 9/11 attacks. That certainly doesn't make the incident okay by a longshot, but you can see what the outcome has been. We'll spend all of or time sensationalizing things of incredibly low risk if there's profit to be made somewhere.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Why test for BSE? (Score:1, Interesting)
Wouldn't it be much more simpler and practical to test beef products for containing bovine neurological matter? After all, even in cows exhibiting total BSE the danger is in other animals consuming their neurological tissues, where the disease occurs. I'm presuming this is also primarily an issue with ground beef products. I imagine most people would notice a bit of brains on their steak.
Re:Again please... (Score:3, Interesting)
Excellent post. My better half works in research into BSE here in the UK, and I can assure you that the Brits are now absolutely paranoid about testing for it. British beef *is* by far the safest in the world, although that's a hollow boast because we had to learn the hard way, by practically wiping out an entire industry.
We are also nowhere near to even vaguely having a cure for this thing, or for that matter, a test that can reliably work on a live animal. Ignore the potential damage from BSE at your peril.
Re:Again please... (Score:3, Interesting)
The FDA is worried about someone actually finding a cow with with mad cow disease.
I'm glad that someone else understands what's really going on here.
When the single previous case of BSE was discovered in the US, by statistical extrapolation, it was safe to estimate that there were about 50,000 head infected. (Given the fraction of the cattle that are tested and the total number of cattle in the US; this, of course, is a very poor estimate because of low N statistics, but the probable number of affected head can still be calculated, and it is in the 50,000 range.) Chances are quite high that we will see an increase in vCJD, the version of mad cow disease in humans that is caused by consumption of affected beef, in the coming years. Although the industry has perhaps cleaned itself up in response to that single episode, my guess is that since the government is still arguing against 100% testing, we still have a serious problem in the food stream.