The USDA has appealed a district court decision that would allow meatpackers to conduct their own tests for mad cow disease, alleging that such testing would only create “false assurances.” The original plaintiff, Creekstone Farms, wants to test all of its cattle for mad cow but the USDA has prevented it from buying the testing kits.
As we wrote a year ago, when the district court decision was handed down, the current USDA testing scheme for mad cow tests only the cattle that the USDA has dubbed “high risk,” which ends up being less than one percent of America’s beef. Creekstone Farms claimed that it has lost business in Japan and South Korea due to the mad cow scare in the U.S. a few years ago, and that it would like to reassure its domestic and international customers by testing all of its cattle. To that end, the company built its own testing center and was prepared to begin testing its beef, but the USDA, which regulates the sale of mad cow testing kits, blocked the sale. The lower court case turned on an interpretation of the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act, which regulates, among other things, products “intended for use in the treatment of domestic animals.” The district court pointed out that there is no treatment or cure for mad cow disease, and the tests are only performed on dead animals, thus the tests should not be regulated by the USDA under this act.
For its part, the meatpacking lobby (“Big Meat”) opposes Creekstone Farms, citing fears that if Creekstone tests all its beef, consumers will force other meatpackers to do so, leading to more expensive beef.
U.S. Wants to Stop Increased Testing for Mad Cow [CNN]
Creekstone Farms v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Virus-Serum-Toxin Act
(Photo: Yogi)
More From Consumerist
-
FDA Says Writing Menu Labeling Regulations That Please Everyone Is A Tough Task
-
TSA Policies Are So Confusing It’s No Wonder A 3-Year-Old In A Wheelchair Gets Upset During Screening
-
Standing In A Long Line At The Airport Right Now? You Can Maybe Blame Sequestration
-
White House Proposes Giving Religious Employers Chance To Opt-Out Of Contraception Coverage In Health Care Plan
-
SodaStream Customer Service Finds It Hilarious That Its Products Send Me Straight To The Toilet
@mcnerd85:
Even though it is called Mad Cow disease, people have died because of it, it can kill humans.
@Ayleron: Um… you might want to have your sarcasm-o-meter tuned.
who do you trust less, big meat (he he) or the FDA? i’d rather not let a company police itself, not when public health is concerned. i’m not sure why the testing equip is banned, but if the reason is so the FDA can monopolize testing, then that might be a good policy, provided the FDA is competent, which is doubtful. obviously, the whole thing is broken: profit-above-all business models that are under-regulated.
as a consumer, i think the question should not be “what is safe?” so much as “who do i want to support?” i can’t justify giving money to big meat (he he again), so i don’t. i don’t need big meat to get my protein:)
To paraphrase Kayne West, “George Bush hates meat-eating people”.
@fleshtone: It it makes you feel any better, the Big Agri opposes voluntray testing, and is a major reason takes the “out of sight, out of mind” approach to regulation. It’s a mistake to think of Big Meat and FDA as adversaries – they enable each other.
@witeowl: Dude… 2 words:
Mass Spectrometer. NOTHING hides from the mass spec.
This:
“… there’s no definitive evidence that milk produced by cows “treated” with hormones is problematic …”
is wrong. Feel free to look it up. And I have yet to see ANYONE here give a single, credible, logic reason why private industry shouldn’t test itz own meat if it wantz to. ANYONE care to step up to that plate? I would think the legal liability (diz iz amerika and weez all about legal liability) would compel you to test your meat. Doesn’t that simple fact speak volumez?
@MumbletyEmma: I think Schlosser pretty much expected the reaction, for people to be shocked, but not ultimately huge their behavior.
If I remember Fast Food Nation correctly, he puts the blunt of the blame on the consumers, because they are the very group for whom food industry reform is in their best interest, and market forces have proven to be more effective than legislation in getting the fast food industry to change.
But like I said, the book is less about food than about consumerism in general – people disregard their own wellbeing and long term costs, not to mention ethical considerations, for a lower price tag (which isn’t necessarily reflective of real costs).
@guymandude: You do realize that there’s no definitive evidence for gravity either, right? (That’s why it’s still a theory.)
@witeowl:
Might make it harder to get the potentially contaminated meat mixed in with the uncontaminated.
@sisedi:
People pretty much take it for granted these days that a regulatory agency fighting against regulation is a result of the influence of the Bush administration, because that has pretty much been their trademark with regard to regulatory agencies, and it is why they’ve had so many people resign (apparently the Bush administration cannot hold on to anyone with a conscience).
Also you mean oligOPOLY. Not that the two don’t end up being effectively the same thing if left alone long enough.
@jusooho:
Yeah, there are rumors going around South Korea that the US only sends inferior quality meat overseas, stuff that is unfit for US consumers.
Haha…the joke’s on them…it’s the US consumers that get the unfit meat!
I like how this article tries desperately to knock Bush down with the USDA. Does that make it more sensational? I guess if Bush or one of his close personnel told the USDA to do this or at least hired everyone that works at the USDA I wouldn’t call out your yellow journalism (correct term?).
Who do you think appoints the people who run the USDA? Even a little Googling would correct your ignorance: “More than a dozen other high-ranking USDA officials appointed under Bush also have ties to the meat industry.” “The USDA opposed such labeling. The person making the agency’s case, Deputy Undersecretary Charles Lambert, knew the arguments against such labels. He’d made them as a lobbyist for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.”
The problem with 100% testing is an example of the “tragedy of the commons.”
Another of those examples of rightwing shills using phrases they know nothing about yet figure will resonate; typical magical thinking. Yeah, Japan’s meat industry has been devestated by their 100% testing, hasn’t it? Wait, breaking news… it hasn’t? Well gee, that kinda makes the above phrase dropping even more of a dropping… a big heaping pile of dropping.
@witeowl: A couple of things:
*What are you talking about? There’s plenty of evidence for gravity.
*As Stephen J. Gould says, “facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty”, and gravity is both theory AND fact.
Mcnerd85 you must be an idiot right. Mad Cow disease is so dangerous that it’s like putting you down with meds so you won’t suffer from intense pain. The protein prions attack your central nervous system and destroy your neuron cells. This of curse takes time and within a year your mind is a blank. Don’t confuse this with the Alzheimer’s since that only prevents new memories from forming and you forget old ones. This is much worse because it creates gaps in the brain. Your dendrites that connect from cell to cell break down so there is a hole in the neural net. America had a case like that. One young girl ate a cheeseburger and then that prion from a cow triggered a reaction and her own brain cells were dying off and there is nothing anyone could do. It’s worse than death sentence because it’s a slow death. So before you open your mouth and say something idiotic, go and do research. This will also raise your IQ a bit.
@Techno Viking: Might want to check the expiration date on your Sarcasm Meter.
@bobpence:
If you do 100 percent testing, your false positives don’t enter the food supply, they just eat into your margins (in the short term…mysterious spikes in mad cow disease later on could utterly destroy your entire industry). Depending on the false NEGATIVE rates of your tests (which could be determined to some degree by re-testing) there is no “false assurance.”
And what exactly is the common that is being affected by tragedy in this case even if you WEREN’T wrong?
This just in: Ford, GM, and Chrysler have been forced by the U.S. Department of Transportation to quit testing the safety of their antilock brake systems. According to one source, testing would create “false assurances” of safety. In addition, making sure that rigorous standards are followed during the design and manufacture of brake systems would only “lead to more expensive cars” and that any “false positives” would “scare the hell out of consumers and threaten the financial health of the nation’s automotive industry.”
@spinachdip: Ahem. I did not say that there was not “plenty of evidence”. I said that there was no definitive* evidence. Two different things. My point was going back to the hormone-free milk and graymandude’s argument. Honestly, I think I was so flummoxed by his comments that that’s the only coherent thing I could respond with.
* Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive.
@JackHandey: What health? American cars already loosing more and more customers to Japanese makers. Most people do not trust American brands.
@TechnoDestructo: Even Russia banned some USA’s meats. That’s a very bad sign.
@witeowl: Eh, fair enough.
I was more bothered, in an anal nerdy way, by your statement that gravity was “still” a theory, which implies that it has a possibility of not being a theory someday. It’s like saying, “Barack Obama has not been voted President. That’s why he’s still a black man.” One doesn’t really affect the other.
@SBR249: And I would rather not. I have a RIGHT as a consumer to choose a company that caters to my DESIRES, especially when it does not endanger my health. Also, once the said testing is popular, reputable certification agencies will appear. (Look at “fair trade” industry).
If people can get Kosher meet, why cannot I get my mad cow tested meat?
The title of this article is as misleading as any on Digg.
@cmdrsass: Not really.
@spinachdip: Man, I come to “the internets” to get away from coworkers like the one who has me speaking like an ubergeek by no longer using “theory” when I really mean “hypothesis”. So now people look at me funny every time I come up with a potential, tentative explanation for a behavior.
Nevertheless, I’ll eliminate the “still” in future uses. I’m keeping the ironic “only”, though, as that’s the part that really pisses off the anti-evolutionists.
@witeowl: I’m sorry, but we nerdy nerds are infiltrating teh internets after years of standing on the sidelines.
@witeowl: Didn’t seem sarcastic to me. Look up Creutzfeld-Jakob disease and be enlightened.
@Buran: You’re seriously saying that mcnerd85‘s pro-blind-faith in the government and the idea that people wouldn’t suffer if they ate tainted beef wasn’t sarcastic? Really?
I highly recommend growing your own beeves.
Seriously. Find a local herd and offer to buy in. Get a half and freeze it at the local butcher. Anything but meat packing beef. Ye gods … read The Jungle, Upton Sinclair.
And as to ‘trusting the government’? Ask an Indian.
@Victo: No doubt you should have that right, however where safety is concerned, those “rights” of choice unfortunately sometimes goes out the window. Food safety issues such as testing is often already part of the law and usually highly regulated, unlike “fair trade” which is a fairly new concept. Quality and safety testing cannot be done on a whim without proper supervision and regulation to guarantee the validity of the tests-something I’m afraid the government is rather ill equipped to handle.
I think the point I’m trying to make is that should such activities (tests) be unregulated, as they undoubtedly will be, the consumers would have no way to know how credible their results are. This leads to situations where consumers think they are making informed decisions but actually lack the necessary information. While you personally are fine with this (or even want this), it is the responsibility of the relevant government agencies to avoid such possibilities as there are much more at stake (public health and food quality) than whether some Guatemalan coffee farmers are getting fair deals for their coffee.
It has been calculated that at the reduced rate of testing currently done in the US, it would be another 7-8 years before another mad cow case was found.
False security. Cheaper, too.
Any mad cow not tested and processed ends up in our food supply in several ways. 1st- on our plates. 2nd- unusable cattle material can be fed to chickens. The chicken manure is processed into feed to cattle. A small amount thus infects more cows, expanding the scope of the problem.
So the government argues that testing is bad? That Creekstone’s facility is incompetent? How many labs do we have in the US that test for how many other diseases? Why only one for mad cow? And testing there is sketchy at times. The brain has to be fresh. You can’t let it sit around and deteriorate. Oh, and if a head gets sent in, maybe they might test it in the facility in Iowa. Maybe. It took a lot of pressure to get them to test and admit to one of the cases in the US.
The footdragging by the USDA does not encourage me. They ruin their credibility with consumers by their “Don’t test, don’t find” policies.
I want beef tested.
Oh, and I’d like CJD to be a reportable disease in all 50 states. Funny how the story of the 20 or so people in the NJ area who died of it went unreported (the only connection was to attending a racetrack where they ate burgers).
@spinachdip: The other major problem that Schlosser found is that the USDA is responsible for policing AND promoting agriculture. Does that seem mutually exlcusive to anyone else?
Everyone! Sit down and shut up if you’re a non-Christian! The USDA knows what they are doing. They should be able to control what testing a private company does on it’s meat. Duh! Doesn’t that make sense to you? Well, not me either. There is something fishy going on here. It almost seems as if a government agency is trying to keep something out of public eye…..
this can go both ways… if it will not cause higher prices… im with it… if not, ill go vegetarian…
@BlackFlag55: “And as to ‘trusting the government’? Ask an Indian.”
Or a veteran.
Here in Korea, the #1 issue on the news like EVERY single night is that the president allowed U.S. beef to be imported again after a 6 year mad cow caused hiatus. his approval has dropped to like 24% only a couple months after being inaugruated, mainly because of this issue. It’s a huge national scandal, everybody is freaking out about it.
So, it is not just people in America who are paying attention who know that factory farmed U.S. beef is shit.
Guess I’ll continue to boycott beef (began in 1992). It’s unsafe, unhealthy, and too costly to the environment. A shame it’s so tasty.
@witeowl:
The problem with testing them *after* slaughter is that prions are blood-borne and are nearly impossible to completely destroy.
They thrive in temperatures that are typically used to autoclave medical equipment. This is why the testing is so expensive, none of the testing equipment can be re-used.
This is also why autopsies are not/infrequently performed on suspected CJD patients.
Lets see… Beef becoming a little more expensive or unsafe Beef… Hard decision, anyone got an answer?
This will lead to issues of people claiming they test and do not actually perform the act. This can actually lead to people thinking they are better protected when in reality it has far less meaning.
From all you have seen about companies, you know there are always ones trying to cut corners and pulling fast ones.
czarandy: Your intelligent, considered, nuanced opinion will do you no good here.
witeowl: It’s protection from the madness of crowds. I’m sure there are tons of people would buy only meat labeled AIDS free, if producers were allowed to label it so. Large producers could then use this to their advantage, by testing for all kinds of stuff that the smaller farms couldn’t afford to, running them out of business. It’s just a hunch, but I think the people who buy things labeled hormone free/GMO free don’t want that to be the end result.
/Have you stopped beating your wife?
@Mr. Gunn:
The difference here is that AIDS is not found in cattle. vCJD is.
Maybe we should stop labelling dairy products “pasteurized,” too, since maybe some dairies would do better financially if they didn’t have to go through that whole pesky process.
It would only cost 20 dollars per cow to test for this disease, which translate to 10 cents extra per pound. This has nothing to do about it being to expensive or goes against stated USDA scientific procedures (which is a straw man because for the simple fact they are going above and beyond the minimum requirement and they don’t want them to do it).
It’s about them being afraid and knowing good and well that if this is done that there will be alot of animals that will show they have the BSE disease. That is what they are afraid of, the dirty secret that the federal bodies that are supposed to protect us have been turning a blind eye on this and it will show that many of the big and small herds may in fact have multiple BSE infected cattle. And if that happens they will be required to kill the whole herd (tens of thousands) and start over. I can’t imagine them not letting them buy those kits just to make sure about THEIR cattle. They use these flimsy excuses that don’t hold up at all.
[en.wikipedia.org]
@Buck_Johnson:
But note the large percentage of individuals who agree with the USDA on this.
I continue to weep for scientific education in this country.