USDA Rejects Meatpacker's Plan to Test All Animals for Mad Cow

[Snazzy]

USDA Rejects Meatpacker's Plan to Test All Animals for Mad Cow

By Libby Quaid Associated Press Writer
Published: Apr 8, 2004


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Agriculture Department has rebuffed a meatpacker's plan to test every animal at its Kansas slaughterhouse for mad cow disease.

The refusal quiets a firestorm in the cattle industry sparked by Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, a small Kentucky-based meatpacking company that was seeking to privately test each animal at its Arkansas City, Kan., plant.

"We are looking at what the consensus of international experts is when it comes to testing, and that consensus is that 100 percent testing is not justified," Agriculture Department spokeswoman Alisa Harrison said late Thursday. "That's why we feel at this time we cannot grant Creekstone's requested timeline for a decision."

The department is under pressure from some lawmakers and consumer advocates to expand its testing program. Japan, the biggest market for U.S. beef, is demanding that the United States test all 35 million cattle that are slaughtered each year.

Creekstone said its customers in Japan promised to buy Creekstone beef again if the company tested for the brain wasting disease in every animal processed at the plant.

....

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGANJRWKTSD.html

[Coventina]

1. WHAT THE HOLY, LIVING FUCK?

Lemme get this straight, the USDA won't allow a company to test its own cattle for a 100% fatal disease?



AAAAAARRRGGG!!!!!


I can't stand it anymore......I have to withdraw into a fantasy cocoon, or I am going to completely go off my nut!!!!!!!!!!

[shanti]

7. putting my

:tinfoilhat: on....maybe they WANT to kill us off. isn't population reduction in the PNAC?

[progressiveBadger]

2. Fast Food Nation

It's a great book.

[54anickel]

3. This is BS. If the company wants to test each and every one of their

cattle, that should be their business. Isn't that what capitalism is all about? You improve your product so it's more attractive to the consumer. If they want to either pass along the expense or eat it who is the government to say they can't?

From the article:

Scientists have said that testing each animal is excessive. Plus, the American beef industry is worried about the cost of such testing. They fear that any false-positive tests could potentially scare consumers and cause beef sales to slide, and that Creekstone's plan would set a precedent for trade negotiations.

"We want a level playing field for all companies based on science," said Gary Webber, director of regulatory affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Yeah right, false-positives could scare away consumers :eyes:
But there's the real reason, setting a precendent for trade negotiations and wanting a level playing field based on WHAT? Science? Puh-leez!

[aquart]

4. So no beef is allowed to be marketed as safer than other beef?

Yet we do allow natural beef to be marketed which says on the label that no animal byproducts were fed to the cattle?

I'd challenge this in court. This guy is being unfairly restrained in trade.

If consumers prefer beef that is 100% tested, why should they not be allowed to choose that in a free marketplace?

Maybe because the small guy might become richer than the big guys doing it? Level playing field my ass.

[bagnana]

5. that's why repubs do not really believe in laissez faire capitalism

they want subsidies and government protection from foreign imports. They want all taxpayers to pay for infrastructure necessary to their businesses.

[FlaGranny]

16. If this small cattleman

did 100% testing, the big guys would lose business and look bad. They (the big guys) are way more important than this small rancher or any person or persons who might get a disease. It's just like everything else in this administration - the bigger your pocketbook, the more important and worthy you are.

Has anyone noticed the labeling on meat in the supermarket lately? It is all trying to look "natural" even though it is just ordinary feedlot meat.

[Occulus]

28. isn't this the core

of Straussian philosophy?

"the bigger your pocketbook, the more important and worthy you are."

IOW, if you prove you're worth something you're worth something; if you don't, you aren't.

Am I correct in this interpretation?

[spinbaby]

6. This was a big story last night

On the Japan news on NWI. This meatpacker lost a large percentage of their business when they lost their exports to Japan. And they'd already invested thousands in building a lab and buying the test kits. But then the big meatpackers complained.

It just proves again that this administration will always favor big business over small business and corporations over consumers.

[shanti]

8. yes, that's why it's

such a hoot to hear chimpy talking about entrepreneurship. as if!

[daleo]

9. Does the government really want to know how much BSE is out there?

I think they would rather not know, or at least not let the population know. Given the slow development of the disease in humans, and the difficulty of distinguishing it from other neurological diseases, they have probably calculated that a low level is an acceptable public health trade-off relative to increased costs to the beef industry. Private testing threatens to expose this reality, so it will be prevented by law. So much for consumer sovereignty, free choice, and all the other hoo-haw we hear so much about.

[Hekate]

10. If there's no testing, there's no problem!

No testing = no information = no statistics = no bad news

It's bloody marvellous the extent to which the Bushites will go to take care of the American people. They're using the same technique with mercury in children's vaccines, with air pollutants, and in so many other areas of our lives.

And just as this thought warms the cockles of my heart, so may the Bushites all be warmed somewhere...somewhere hotter than Crawford.

Hekate

[Fovea]

23. A saying from the world of medicine

If you don't want to find a fever,
don't take a temperature...

Dr. Samuel Shem, "The House of God"
It may be fiction, but it lies like truth.

[kodi]

11. gee, the USDA accepts a certain level of rat shit in peanut butter too

.

[rfkrocks]

12. this shows how far right the rethugs have gotten

many of the original food and drug safety measures were started by Theodore Roosevelt-it seems that robber barons have continued their attacks on the well being of Americans-it is always cheaper in the short run not to test-but when the problem comes back-it will be more expensive and deadly-whatever big business wants it gets in the age of Bushco

[w4rma]

13. I'm not touching beef again until there is some serious testing. (nt)

[loftycity]

14. Send the Ranch a keep fighting for whats right email

They are trying to give the consumer what they want and cheer them on.
[e-mail]
www.creekstonefarmspreimumbeef.com

[KoKo]

15. If they don't want testing that must mean there's a problem.

:scared:

[kayell]

17. I think so too

http://www.vegsource.com

[FlaGranny]

18. I think the main problem is

that it would cost the cattlemen 0.001% in profits. I don't really believe that mad cow disease is rampant, but I'll bet there's some out there. The answer, of course, is kill the cattle young, before the disease shows up, that way we'll never know. The trouble with that is that one of these days, the problem will become widespread and then REALLY cause a problem.

Keep an eye on dairy herds, because that is where the actual physical signs of the disease will show up - dairy cattle get to live longer, until they stop being able to produce enough milk.

[discordian]

20. I've sent a letter of support to CSF

They are on the right track with 100% testing. Yes, it will make beef a little more expensive, but I'll pay a couple extra bucks to not have to worry about BRAIN WASTING DISEASE.

[SoCalDem]

19. Reminds me of California's smoking ban

Bar owners wanted to have the choice to be "non-smoking" or "smoking", but the ones who stood to lose business lobbyied long and hard to overrule that idea, because the "non-smoking" bars would lose more smoking customers, than the other way around..

This is quite the same because if their beef was 100% tested, they could rightfully charge more, and customers would choose their products over the "hit-and-miss" testing of the others..

I hope they take this to court.. I really cannot see how the USDA could actually enforce or get support for their ruling.. It's tantamount to just saying.."Hey, we don't mind a little toxic meat in the food supply...don't rock the boat "...

The sad thing about the whole mad cow thing is this.. People will end up dying 10 years from now...from meat they ate 5 years ago..

We were too trusting for too long...and we really thought that our food producers had our best interests at heart.. They did not.. They cared about their bottom line :(

[Karenina]

21. There are no words.

Please re-read the PNAC doc on "population reduction" and get back to me if you believe Americans are NOT in the crosshairs. :eyes:

[NashVegas]

22. Beef Industry Would Be Up in Arms

Imagine one beef brand using the BSE testing in its ad campaigns to promote its product as safer.

Look at the fights Monsanto is having over rBGH-free milk.

Multiply*5.

I suspect the USDA is terrified to piss them off. Ranchers is Bush people, so we're told.

[Chicago Democrat]

25. Bush only acts after 3000 people die.

That's how Bush works.
they are the do-nothing, pollute everything, war starting, world hating, people hating, people killing, baby murderers.


Remember nobody cared after Mad Cow hit...
So they don't care.. After 3000 people die from Mad cow these same Republicans will lambast victims families for seeking damages! Just like they allways do to the victims of asbestos or toxic waste or depleted uranium dust or cyanide or mercury or lead.

They Lie and PEOPLE DIE!

[Chicago Democrat]

24. It cost 5 cents per pound (or less)

I just paid 12 dollars for a pound of porterhouse, I would have paid 12.05 for safe porterhouse.

[amazona]

26. this is bad

If they are afraid to allow someone to test their beef and market it as fully tested, it is very suggestive that there is something very badly wrong.

[porkrind]

27. They know it's out there,

and they are banning 100% testing because it would quickly reveal the extent of the problem. They want the public to forget about it.

This is a shining example of how amoral corporations without governmental oversight will hurt (or in this case kill) the public in pursuit of the bottom line.

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:
:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: