USDA stands in the way of broader testing

LittleRunningGag

Electoral Member
Jan 11, 2006
611
2
18
Calgary, Alberta
members.shaw.ca
baltimoresun.com

By Steve Chapman
Originally published April 26, 2006
CHICAGO // If a hospital wanted to advertise that it upholds sanitary standards higher than any required by the government, no one would object. A used-car dealer who decided to offer only vehicles with the best crash-test scores would be free to do so. But after a meatpacker announced plans to establish the strictest program around to protect consumers from mad cow disease, the U.S. Department of Agriculture replied: fat chance.

In fact, the USDA, which now tests only 1 percent of all slaughtered cows, is planning to cut back on that effort. Crazier yet, it also intends to keep anyone else from conducting more tests.

One company wants to do exactly that. Creekstone Farms, a premium meatpacker based in Kansas, knows bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, can be deadly for business. After the first American case was discovered in 2003, some 58 countries banned shipments of American beef, costing Creekstone about $100 million in sales.

Those countries were dissatisfied with the safety measures in effect here. So Chief Executive Officer John Stewart decided to address health concerns in places such as Japan and South Korea by going beyond what the U.S. government requires of packers. He pledged to test all his cattle for mad cow in an effort to reassure nervous foreign consumers.

What he didn't account for was that his own government would bar him from doing what his customers want him to do. Creekstone's plan, it said, would undermine federal attempts to "maintain domestic and international confidence in U.S. cattle and beef products." To let the company adopt a more stringent regime would imply the USDA rules were inadequate.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association agreed, complaining that "if you let one company step out and do that, other companies would have to follow." So last month, Creekstone filed a lawsuit requesting the right to cater to its customers.

Of course, if some foreigners have little faith in U.S. beef, a program such as this would improve their confidence - unless it finds the disease is more common than we thought. In that case, ignorance is not bliss.

Hmmm. Personally, I am of the opinion that we should be testing every single animal. If Japan can do it, so can we.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Re: Broader Testing Pertinent

I would agree, LittleRunningGag.

I think that broad testing would be quite appropriate, and I would suggest that corporations should be encouraged to exercise safety, security and integrity beyond that of our institutions of governance. Government-regulated checks should serve as a minimumnot as a maximum.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
RE: USDA stands in the wa

Deregulation is a problem accross the board in North America, drugs, meat, safety, white collar crime,public inspection and regulation in general have been severely curtailed starting in the early eightys.
 

LittleRunningGag

Electoral Member
Jan 11, 2006
611
2
18
Calgary, Alberta
members.shaw.ca
Re: RE: USDA stands in the wa

darkbeaver said:
Deregulation is a problem accross the board in North America, drugs, meat, safety, white collar crime,public inspection and regulation in general have been severely curtailed starting in the early eightys.

Did you read the article? It wasn't a problem of deregulation, it was a problem of the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.