Bush administration fights to stop meatpackers from testing all meat for 'mad cow'

[PUGalicious]

From the International Herald Tribune:

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

The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well.

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. - A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. The ruling was scheduled to take effect June 1, but the Agriculture Department said Tuesday it would appeal, effectively delaying the testing until the court challenge has played out.

That’s right. The U.S. government wants to keep a small meatpacker from testing all of its meat because of the "negative impact" it could have on the rest of the industry… negative impact to their bottom line, that is. Hard to believe, isn’t it. Rick at commonsense puts it this way:

First, observe the contempt for liberty. When E. coli conservatives say self-regulation is preferable to government, they’re even lying about that. Second, observe the contempt for small business. When a small company want to - voluntarily! - hold its product to a higher standard, the government blocks it, in part because bigger companies have to be protected from the competition, in part because a theoretical threat to the bottom line (false positives) trumps protection against a deadly disease.

There’s your conservatism, America: not extremism in defense of liberty. State socialism in defense of Mad Cow.

Un-be-lieve-a-ble.

[Midtowner]

Let the free market decide.

Legally, I have no idea where they get off thinking they can do this.

[PUGalicious]

Legally, I have no idea where they get off thinking they can do this.

When has that stopped this administration before?

[Karried]

Wow.

That’s right. The U.S. government wants to keep a small meatpacker from testing all of its meat because of the "negative impact" it could have on the rest of the industry… negative impact to their bottom line, that is. Hard to believe, isn’t it. Rick at commonsense puts it this way:

This reminds me of Fast Food Nation.

What about the negative impact of E coli?

[PUGalicious]

Fast Food Nation was disturbing!

[Karried]

Wasn't it though? I had a hard time eating a burger for a looonnngggg time.

[dismayed]

"Let the free market decide" only works to a point. The free market has given us melamine-infested food and products from China, which have killed animals and very likely sickened humans. Chinese toothpaste products are now known to have killed maybe 50 people in South America. Sometimes the market is just plain dumb.

There's a reason why food products from industrialized nations cost more and it isn't just labor costs....

[Midtowner]

When has that stopped this administration before?

Well, the difference here is that I really don't think the executive can stop a business from doing a safety test. If this company is willing to fight this in court, I have a feeling they'll win.

[Martin]

in the last decade, around 750 people in the united states have died as a result of being struck by lightning. in the last several years there have been around 170 cases in the us of people contracting the human variant of mad cow. people's perceptions of risk are much higher than reality.

the government has a vested interest in maintaining consumer confidence. a false positive for mad cow would have a negative impact on the entire cattle industry, even though the risk of actual contraction of the disease is small. the negative economic impact therefore outweighs the potential of saving people from a disease that has been contracted so few times in the us.

that said, i do agree that creekstone farms has the right to conduct tests as stringently as it wants... as long as the tests at least meet the government minimum. usda shouldn't have a say whether or not a company chooses to surpass required standards.

-M

[PUGalicious]

Well, the difference here is that I really don't think the executive can stop a business from doing a safety test. If this company is willing to fight this in court, I have a feeling they'll win.

I agree in principle. But the cynical side of me tells me that there's just no tellin'.

in the last decade, around 750 people in the united states have died as a result of being struck by lightning. in the last several years there have been around 170 cases in the us of people contrcting the human variant of mad cow. people's perceptions of risk are much higher than reality.

the government has a vested interest in maintaining consumer confidence. a false positive for mad cow would have a negative impact on the entire cattle industry, even though the risk of actual contraction of the disease is small. the negative econimc impact therefore outweighs the potential of saving people from a disease that has been contracted so few times in the us.

that said, i do agree that creekstone farms has the right to conduct tests as stringently as it wants... as long as the tests at least meet the government minimum. usda shouldn't have a say whether or not a company chooses to surpass required standards.

-M

I completely agree on all your points.