Bush Admin: Eat Beef and DIE!!!

[dweeb 0]

Quote

US on Mad Cow: Don't Test All Cattle

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Mad-Cow.html

Will one of you Bush supporters please explain why this is a good thing?

Thanks in advance.

[rehmwa 2]

I'm not getting it. Creekstone can do whatever it feels like and if they want to do EXTRA/unrequired testing, the other packers can follow suit or continue to meet minimum regulations as per today's requirements regulated by the Ag dept. It's purely a marketing ploy. Nice one at that.

Certainly the administration should keep their noses out of the free market.

I think this is a stupid thing for the admin to comment on - or at least a waste of time. They aren't replying to a proposal to increase testing, they are just replying to a bit of paranoia from companies "worried" that increased testing may incite legistlation to make it for everyone.

Would this even hit the list for a personal hearing by the pres? Who is this guy "Bush Admin"? Is "Admin" southern european or middle african as a last name? I've never heard of the guy. Either way, shouldn't he be writing up a report or something instead of commenting on pointless meat industry paranoia?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lindsey 0]

Well, I'm not a bush supporter, but I have to agree that testing all beef cattle for mad cow disease is overkill. Testing would require examination of brain tissue of each slaughtered cow by a pathologist. The link between Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is strong, but not proven, and the incidence is rare. I think that testing a few sample cattle along the way should be adequate.

In my mind, if a person is that worried about our beef supply, he/she should probably either raise his own cows or stop eating beef. I like buying steak at a reasonable price, and personally I'm willing to accept the small risk.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[azdiver 0]

i think they are worried that if it becomes standard practice to test every animal to be butchered it would greatly reduce daily out put and add an expense they feel is not justified. driving the price per pound up, same demand+lower supply + increased cost to produce = big rise in price

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[dweeb 0]

Quote

Well, I'm not a bush supporter, but I have to agree that testing all beef cattle for mad cow disease is overkill. Testing would require examination of brain tissue of each slaughtered cow by a pathologist. The link between Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is strong, but not proven, and the incidence is rare. I think that testing a few sample cattle along the way should be adequate.

In my mind, if a person is that worried about our beef supply, he/she should probably either raise his own cows or stop eating beef. I like buying steak at a reasonable price, and personally I'm willing to accept the small risk.

The BSE Rapid test has been in use for 3 years. It doesn't take a pathologist and the speed of the test results comes back much quicker.

http://newsinfo.colostate.edu/index.asp?page=news_item_display&news_item_id=694639623

And for me personally, I stopped eating beef (for the most part) in 2002. I just don't understand why Bush's approach is to insist that there isn't a problem when nobody knows that as fact.

Is this yet another payback to the American Meat Industry for their years of financial support?

[billvon 2,877]

> Well, I'm not a bush supporter, but I have to agree that testing all beef
>cattle for mad cow disease is overkill.

I agree, but I think the issue is that the Bush administration is trying to _prevent_ a company from doing that. I think all companies should do the minimum required USDA testing and whatever other testing they see fit. If they want to advertise "100% tested for BSE!" and charge more for their meat, then good for them. They'll employ more pathologists and make nervous moms feel better.

> I like buying steak at a reasonable price, and personally I'm willing to
>accept the small risk.

Right. But what's wrong with letting you buy USDA-certified beef at a reasonable price, and also allowing another meatpacker to sell more expensive beef that's tested more extensively?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

US on Mad Cow: Don't Test All Cattle

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

Ah, republicans, the supporters of freedom.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[lawrocket 3]

I think you'll have to actually ask Woodrow Wilson why he signed the bill - the bill was passed in 1913.

It doesn't matter much now, though. A Federal Judge (the same one who threw out the KFC Chicken case) ruled that the USDA exceeded its authority to ban private testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

But this whole statutory and regulatory framework has been around for a long time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

I'd much prefer to see companies and the FDA focus on the practices that led to the problem in the first place.

The Feds are correct to note that the price of a false positive are very high. In Asia a couple years back (2004), I saw signage in Seoul's airport declaring that the beef was not of US origin. Every time a single cow is suspect, an entire country's meat supply is banned for export.

Mad Cow is no joke, but it's not the biggest threat of the red meat industry to human health.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think all companies should do the minimum required USDA testing and whatever other testing they see fit.

All testing in the past has been done only by USDA approved labs. Part of this is because back in 1913, businessmen would put forth claims of healthy animals, etc. Remember - this was the era of patent medicines and snake oil.

The government figured the way to reign this is is for the feds to decide whether the animal was disease free and in good health. Having private labs or private tests would put in some moral hazard, and the govt. don't like that none.

So, The Virus-Serum-Toxin Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 151-159, (VSTA) makes it unlawful to “prepare, sell, barter, or exchange...any worthless, contaminated, dangerous, or harmful virus, serum, toxin, or analogous product intended for use in the treatment of domestic animals” except at an establishment licensed by the Secretary of Agriculture. 21 U.S.C. § 151.

The question was whether the BSE tests are an "analogous product," which the judge said it was not and therefore could not be banned.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lindsey 0]

Right. But what's wrong with letting you buy USDA-certified beef at a reasonable price, and also allowing another meatpacker to sell more expensive beef that's tested more extensively?

Nothing at all. That's like all the *organic* stuff ya' buy at health food stores. If you want to pay twice the price, then go for it! I'll keep shopping at Mad Butcher. :)

There's no reason to prevent a company from doing as much testing as they desire. But I wouldn't want all beef to be mandatorily tested. Perhaps I misunderstood.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 2,877]

>All testing in the past has been done by USDA approved labs.

Right, and that should be the minimum. Beyond that they should be able to perform whatever tests/use whatever procedures they like.

Want kosher meat? Use a meatpacker that follows kosher guidelines. Want organic meat or free-range meat? Find someone who sells that. Want meat that's 100% tested for BSE, or e. coli, or trichinosis? Find someone who sells that. Want cheap meat? Buy USDA-approved meat with no extras.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Want cheap meat? Buy USDA-approved meat with no extras.

And THIS is why the government wants to prohibit private testing.

Right now the government tests are the maximum available, so they seem really important. But if the market were free, the government regulations would become the minimum and thus they'd look cheap and low-value.

The government hates competition. Even the republicans.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[lawrocket 3]

Oh, I agree. I was merely stating the reasons for it.

And I agree with the reasons why the judge found that the USDA was overreaching in banning private testing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Ah, republicans, the supporters of freedom.

Well I've always considered myself a Republican, but if the Bush Admin is the new standard for the Republican party then I quit. I suppose I'm more of a libertarian if I even spelled that right. When you start messing with the free market like this, I don't think you should consider yourself a republican.

I don't understand how anyone can tell a private business that they can't test their meat 100% and advertise it as so. Afterall its gonna be their liability if a mad cow slips thru and kills some people. I don't see this hurting the industry at all. If a few paranoid people wanna pay big $$ for a few steaks that they feel safer eating, then let them. The rest of us will eat our cheaper and just as tasty alternative. I don't see this any different than the organic industry.

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

Afterall its gonna be their liability if a mad cow slips thru and kills some people

This is a good point however i think the counter is that by the time this was discovered, the current administration would be long gone.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

And THIS is why the government wants to prohibit private testing.

I don't understand how anyone can tell a private business that they can't test their meat 100% and advertise it as so.

USDA was overreaching in banning private testing

the issue is that the Bush administration is trying to _prevent_ a company from doing that

I did not read this from the article in any way. But it seems everyone else is jumping to that conclusion. (except Lindsey, as usual, gets it in a less cynical way and likely more accurate)

I read that the admin would be opposed to a proposal where this one private business' practice that exceeds the minimum would eventually be shoehorned into law imposed on all the rest.

In this case, all you jokers are agreeing with the stance of that guy, Bush Admin. Whoever he is.

Frankly, I still think it was a waste of time for BA to comment on it unless it was actually a proposed bill for law. In the meantime, it's just one companies marketing practice that's scaring the others.

Must be a good sales idea. But doesn't provide more than a placebo effect for consumers, which some are ignorant enough to pay for.

The better statement would have been along these lines: 1 private companies can do whatever as long as they meet minimum health safety requirements per USDA law. 2 - private, non-value added supplemental testing will not be forced into law. 3 - the admin considers 100% testing to be non-value added based on current knowledge.

The first sentence of the article can be read many ways, though that's the one that will be thrown as response to this post. The one that tells the story is this one "if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too." I read "have to" as legislation to REQUIRE 100% testing.

And no, I haven't read the court brief.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>All testing in the past has been done by USDA approved labs.

Right, and that should be the minimum. Beyond that they should be able to perform whatever tests/use whatever procedures they like.

So the USDA is actually concerned that private industry won't be able to do additional testing without creating the potential for health hazard due to the additional handling? (i.e., they don't trust the private sector to do a good job...) Simple to address, the USDA just requires the private company's lab to be USDA approved.

The USDA could certainly ban a private company from doing a marketting advertised "in house 100%health test" that consisted of spreading feces on the steak and then wiping it off and screening the remaining meat color for discoloration...... Why they'd be keeping a company from doing "health testing". This is the basis for the USDA oversight when companies would do all sorts of in house testing just to advertise 'stuff' and out sell the competition.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,877]

>The USDA could certainly ban a private company from doing a
>marketting advertised "in house 100%health test" that consisted of
> spreading feces on the steak and then wiping it off and screening the
>remaining meat color for discoloration......

You know, if the meat still passed USDA tests, and the company openly describes what they do - I'd have no problem with it. I wouldn't buy the meat, but who knows? Feces-rubbed meat could be the next big thing. Cows do come equipped with a full load of feces when they are slaughtered, and some inveitably gets on the meat anyway.

I know, you posted that as an example of a really gross thing to do, but slaughterhouses do similarly disgusting things quite often. Again, the criterion is not "you can't do gross things" but "the meat has to test safe."

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I know, you posted that as an example of a really gross thing to do,

more of a 'random and pointless, even potentially unsanitary' thing to do, just for the sake of a marketting gimmick

but the point is, companies can meet the minimums, and the USDA should but out of either restricting OR MANDATING anything but those minimums unless the restriction in is the interest of public health

I think the point was that the admin noted they'd oppose "mandating" more testing by all the companies just because a single private group is doing it on their own for marketting reason.

That's in line, not opposed, to 90% of the posts here.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

> Well, I'm not a bush supporter, but I have to agree that testing all beef
>cattle for mad cow disease is overkill.

I agree, but I think the issue is that the Bush administration is trying to _prevent_ a company from doing that. I think all companies should do the minimum required USDA testing and whatever other testing they see fit. If they want to advertise "100% tested for BSE!" and charge more for their meat, then good for them. They'll employ more pathologists and make nervous moms feel better.

> I like buying steak at a reasonable price, and personally I'm willing to
>accept the small risk.

Right. But what's wrong with letting you buy USDA-certified beef at a reasonable price, and also allowing another meatpacker to sell more expensive beef that's tested more extensively?

I doubt it has anything to do with choice for the public or saving them money. Someone with deep pockets in this industry did something to sway the admin to push for this. Special Interests for Big Business...or just another day of the machine in motion.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[jumpinfarmer 0]

Alright after reading this for two days I'll try and give what I know. The real reason that the USDA is opposed to the testing by Creekstone is because of beef trade with Japan. Sorry no conspiracy. The Japanese government wants all US beef to be tested before they reopen there market to US beef. If Creekstone is allowed to test all the cattle they kill it would go against what the USDA is trying to fight against with the Japanese gov.

It's also ironic that the Japanese want such tough standards fron the US which has only had two cases of Mad Cow while, there own country the had dozens of cases and little is said of it in Japan.

I hope this makes sense.