So a private company is trying to go above and beyond by testing all its meat at its own cost and the USDA thinks is a bad thing? This really doesn't make much sense to me and since it is a voluntary action by 1 company I don't see how all that important.

"consumers will force other meatpackers to do so, leading to more expensive beef."

OK Fine I'll pay more for beef.

Jesus, stop being so paranoid the US! Put your faith in what the big guys say. I mean seriously, what is there to be frightened of...it's called mad cow disease, not mad peoples disease for a reason. Right?!

In South Korea, American beef has a very bad reputation now, unlike the past. When they allowed some into the country (deboned, steak-type beef only, no ground beef) even so there was a lot of protests.

I know for many people, they will spend 3x the cost to get beef from Australia rather than to eat from USA. This new issue will only make it worse.

This is unfortunate, because in advertisement for milk you will often see the phrase "Held to USDA standards" or for medicine "Held to US FDA standards." But now the USDA is forcing US business to NOT test, and it is hurting the US agricultural brand there very badly.

They can make-up any lost revenue with meth labs like those kosher boys.

the USDA thinks is a bad thing? This really doesn't make much sense to me.

Corrupt government tries to prevent panic over sketchy meat safety, film at 11.

Actually, no film at 11... let's sweep that under the rug and run the usual stories about tots, tears, tits, pets, pets, and vets.

I think the government should just do whats right and start growing chemically enhanced food so we won't have to worry about diseases in our meat. I'm sure they can make a plastic patty taste like bubba burgers and have 0 calories.

isn't it always the right wing promoting "private initiative" and "voluntary compliance" when it comes to environmental and health regulation? why would they object in this case, unless they're in the pocket of big beef producers who throw lots of money around on capitol hill?

Meat tainted with Mad Cow Disease is permitted for sale by someone suffering Mad Cowboy Disease.

What a shock.

There's no evidence that humans can even get CJD from eating mad cow-infected beef. So the testing is basically pointless. There's only even been a handful of cases in the US.

While in principle they should be able to test for whatever they want, it does seem that the USDA is right in that this may cause a public health scare ("only some of beef has been tested?!?! oh noes!").

It's amazing how regulators step in to keep industry from responding to public concern about health, like the bovine growth hormone labeling on milk.

I personally am pissed that the regulators want to keep companies from putting true statements on their labels because they're afraid the extra information might confuse me. So they claim bovine growth hormone is harmless, just like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease...I still think I'm more qualified to decide that for myself.

Land of the free, home of the free market.

And as for the notion that "this may cause a public health scare", shouldn't that be? "Europe is testing cattle at a rate of almost two thousand times that of the United States." Shouldn't we have that info so we can make an informed customer decision? You, czarandy, may be perfectly content to risk serious disease to save yourself some money -- what, a dollar or two a year? -- but millions of Americans like to know what they're putting in their bodies.

@Lamburger Helper: Soylent Green for everyone! /Insert cheers from the crowd here.

OK, really, why is this any different from labeling milk as hormone free? I mean, there's no definitive evidence that milk produced by cows "treated" with hormones is problematic, but we consumers are given the option to pay a premium for hormone-free milk. (Yes, I'm one of those consumers.)

So now we'd get a choice about whether or not to pay a premium to purchase meat that we know has been tested for mad cow. Some cosumers will find it important; others will not. I'm still personally stunned that people are willing to buy meat from Wally World, given that they're getting more than meat in those packages.

@czarandy: "There's no evidence that humans can even get CJD from eating mad cow-infected beef. So the testing is basically pointless. There's only even been a handful of cases in the US."

Tell that to nations which have banned the importations of US beef... I don't think they share your opinion.

Besides which, it would not matter if they are testing these cattle for flat foot or baldness... The idea that government can ban a test like this is not good.

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?).

Yeah but this seems bad. And there is no certainty that other meat packers will follow in their footsteps. From my microecon class I learned that Oligarchies (like the wireless network providers) copy their competition if their big policy change / new offer pans out like the recent all-for-$99 plan that all of them adopted. If the meat packing companies often do this then I guess there's cause for concern on both sides.

So what happens if you eat meat from a madcow or drink its milk?

@sisedi: I don't know if you're referring to this article or the CNN article I link to at the end (which begins, "The Bush administration on Friday urged a federal appeals court to stop meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease"), but neither article exhibits "desperation." USDA stands for United States Department of Agriculture, which is a cabinet-level department whose head is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. I'd consider a cabinet member "close personnel."

Yeah, I'd pay more for beef if the safety guarantee was more all-encompassing. Really, I don't eat that much beef anyway, though not because of health concerns. But I really don't understand why there would be a problem with letting this company test all it's cows. I don't think universal testing should be mandatory, but it certainly shouldn't be forbidden.

Though I do fail to see the Bush connection. Did he, like, appoint the USDA person that is making this decision? That's the only way I could see a connection.

@Alex Chasick:

Well, I suppose that answers my question about the administration.

The way in which our government regulates food production frightens me quite a bit. If we at least had the assurance that they had consumer interests at heart I might not mind so much, but it's obvious that their primary interest is whoever pads pockets best---- those who are in the food production biz.

And sisedi, I wouldn't go so far as to blame Bush personally but Chasick is right in that his administration plays a hand in this so it's not really unfair to blame his administration for this sort of issue.

I'd wish for a muckraker like Sinclair to come along and write The Jungle Part II to expose what's happening with the USDA and FDA these days but hey, someone comes out with a new book about this shit every other week and no one seems to notice. We're all too busy rushing to Walmart to buy our steaks while crying about the increase in food prices to even care what goes on behind the scenes.

I gotta agree to testing. I also see the UDSA point of view... only testing a few, not testing until dead.

How about test ALL cows BEFORE they die? Then everybody can be happy.

@etho:

Technically all exec branch employees are appointed by the prez, even those that have been there since JFK.

Gee, it's just the free market doing its thing, guys. I thought you were all for that. Or is that only when it's a convenient excuse to hide behind?

I

Also, in Canada, there is a lot more random testing, mandatory by the governement. And from time-to-time, there is a cow found, then all livestock is quaranteed and put down. And USA pretends that everything is ok, WITHOUT testing a large number of cows. (If you don't know it, it can't hurt us policy). Which is idiotic.

USA's governement does not want more testing, since it will PROVE that there is a lot more disease cases that what they say now. No wonder most countries do not want USA's meat.

@mcnerd85: Nothing to be afraid of, if you don

@czarandy: There has been a "handful of cases" because USDA barely does any testing. More testing will prove the contrary. And if you don

@Victo: dont

@Alex Chasick: Thanks for clearing it up. I suppose if you mentioned that the top brass at the USDA were appointed by the president then I would've made the connection to the title myself.

@Alex Chasick: On a sidenote, you look like a friend of mine if he had a kick-ass mustache.

Yeah, the private farm should be able to test for what they want. The USDA has no business blocking them and they're just caving, without a legitimate reason, to the Big Meat lobby. They raise the bugaboo that "Meat will get more expensive!!". Who knows if it will? It might, or not. The farm is suffering because of past USDA mistakes and it's trying to heal the corrupted image of US Beef. It should be commended for doing so.

I gave up long ago on our government doing something just because it'd be the right thing to do. There's always a political action group pulling the strings somewhere. Freaking lobbyist bastards.

@Corporate-Shill: I don't know about you, but I only eat meat from cows that are dead. No one is "waiting until they die". (^,^)

@Corporate-Shill:

The testing for MCD involves removing some brain tissue. Most cows react to the procedure by dying.

I dunno. I've had e. coli and my grandmother (in law) died of Mad Cow. They're pretty awful things. But I also realize Grams was one of like 4 people in the US, and I was only one of a few hundred in 2002 to get e. coli.

I'm not sure what to think.

Bush is well known for appointing industry lobbyists to regulatory bodies despite (read: because of) their clear conflicts of interests.

@Alex Chasick: I meant to say that the president nominates cabinet heads; he doesn't appoint them. I also don't envy the Secretary of Agriculture, who Wikipedia says was only in office a few days before the Westland/Hallmark mess erupted.

@MumbletyEmma: I'd wish for a muckraker like Sinclair to come along and write The Jungle Part II to expose what's happening with the USDA and FDA these days

Try reading Slaughterhouse by Gail Eisnitz.

You think v-CJD is nothing to be afraid of? That humans can't get it from eating cows? You are all very wrong. It has an incubation period of up to 13 years. I've also read that people with Alzheimer's could actually be suffering from it and are misdiagnosed. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) remains concerned about the safety of the three dozen or so drugs made from cattle tissue, with hundreds of other drug products containing bovine blood components. Cases of CJD have been transmitted through transplants of human tissue, including the cornea and dura mater (brain membrane), but none have been associated with transfusions of blood donated from CJD sufferers.
All this because people want to feed cows and sheep to cows. DISGUSTING. Anyways go out and read about how horrible it is to go through before you think its okay not to be testing our beef!!!!!!!!

@Daniel Alderman:

Then we need to get a test that is done BEFORE the cow dies.

We have a lot of medical tests that are just screening tests. Personally I had a PSA. An elevated PSA does not mean that I have cancer ... a biopsy must be performed for the confirmation... but an elevated PSA is indicative
of cancer or other problems.

Every Cow should have a similar blood test performed before slaughtering. I know I will be happier. The cow won't mind the blood test as much as what comes next.

@Corporate-Shill:

I'm pretty sure they have to actually test the brain or spinal tissue.

@czarandy:

Yeah, the mountains of evidence saying the opposite notwithstanding.

But then again, others beat me to it.

@MoogleLally:

That's likely because testing for CJD in the US is very, very rare. If you don't test for it, people just don't "die from it," they're listed as some other cause.

@TechnoDestructo:

Brain biopsies can be done. Unfortunately, PETA would immediately start screaming and whining about live biopsies.

That's a brilliant marketing decision--"This meat is less likely to kill you than other meats."

The problem with 100% testing is an example of the "tragedy of the commons." If I represent 1% of the industry but start testing all of my cows, instead of about 1%, false positives double overall. The whole industry pays for the uncertainty caused by my false positives. But I alone benefit from the false assurance given by my 100% testing. And the status would not stay quo; other processors would follow my lead, with the net effect of shutting the industry down due to all the false positives.

This is where, in an economy that is partly regulated rather than either laissez faire or centrally planned, government has to step in and be the mean daddy who tells the child "no."

And there is a lesson here for the meat processing industry from the manufacturing industry: You can achieve quality goals merely by testing. You have to build in consistent quality from the start, otherwise you end up with a lot of waste and substandard product still slipping through your tests. The cow farmers and beef processors need to follow good practices, especially with regard to feed quality and sources and animal treatment, and so will produce a good product.

@MumbletyEmma: I think Eric Schlosser qualifiers as Sinclair II. Fast Food Nation was essentially the modern day Jungle, an expose about the the industrialization of our foods and how the meat processing industry reflects what's happening to America as a whole, particularly how we treat our poorest workers, but the popular reaction was basically, "Ewww, a finger in a hot dog!"

And FWIW, Fast Food Nation was on the NY Times best seller, so I think a couple of people noticed.

@Corporate-Shill: How about test ALL cows BEFORE they die? Then everybody can be happy.

Living things hate it when you biopsy their brains.

Again with trying to restrict consumer information so a couple of mega corporations can sell more sub-standard product at a higher profit.

They know damn well if smaller outfits start providing better , in demand products it will cut into their sales and that is what this is all about.

Just like the whole thing over hormone treated milk. There are lots of people who want the information to make an informed decision on their milk purchase. Big agra and the Bush admin don't want people to have information.

Stop asking questions, put a yellow ribbon magnet on your SUV and go shopping at the mall. It is your patriotic duty.

I can't wait til this insane tard is out of office.

While I don't approve of the lax testing standards of the FDA, I'm afraid that given the current regulatory situation I would have to stand with the minority and side with the FDA.

Given that Mad Cow testing kits are highly regulated by the FDA, it is fair to assume that private testing for mad cow is extremely rare and that a majority of all testing that occurs in the US is done by te government. In light of that, it is also fair to assume that proper testing standards for mad cow is not widely publicized if at all. (At least, as a consumer, I haven't seen any "FDA certified Mad Cow Free" labels at the grovery store.) Therefore, given this lack of standardization and oversight, I don't want my beef producers to start testing for mad cow willy nilly without proper regulation and validation. If quality testing in the parmaceutical industry have to conform to these standards, then it is only fair that food testing do so also.

I would rather eat my beef in suspense than be falsely reassured as to its quality.

*Ducks to avoid flames coming this way*

@trk182: This is the very opposite of capitalism. The government is FIGHTING a change that would help consumers and offer them more choice. You don't have to be a libertarian to say that this is bad.

I cannot believe there are still people out there supporting Bush and his policies. He doesn't even represent republican policies.... it is COMPLETELY corporate interest.

For those of you thinking this had nothing to do with Bush appointing industry leaders to cabinet positions.... do us all a favor and eat some mad cow infected meat and get it over with already...

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at some of the idiotic comments about this...hello middle America! There seems to be about 3 informed people commenting here. CJD, Creusfeldt-Jacov's disease, is absolutely horrible. I know. I watched my cousin die of it. She was misdiagnosed as perhaps having premature Alzheimers, and within 3 1/2 weeks of original onset of symptoms, she was dead. The statistics I've seen quoted here on this comment list, "one of 4 in the US", are flat out wrong. Do your own research, but get an INFORMED opinion before you make ignorant comments about a disease you sure as hell do not want to get.

@Shiroiko:

Will do. Thanks for the info- it's on my to-read!

@spinachdip:
You're right, I think Fast Food Nation was really revolutionary and was a fantastic book. There are others that are pretty popular now (Omnivore's Dilemma, for example) but it seems strange: lots of us enjoy reading this and are shocked by the contents, but can't stop ourselves. I speak for myself as well, but I remember what my mom said: "It [Fast Food Nation] was horrific to read, but frankly I eat at McDonald's just as much as I ever did- I know where it comes from, but it's quick and easy."

So I guess it's less about muckraking, more about paying attention. I'm just now trying to modify my diet so I'm getting a little less corn syrup each day.

@SBR249:
I certainly won't flame you but will just echo my earlier statement: if I felt like the decisions made by the FDA and USDA were in the best interests of the consumer, I would feel comfortable with their rationale. But I do not feel that they genuinely do care most about the safety of average joes; they're easily swayed by those who care most about the "bottom line" on their food. I think this is less about chipping away at the authenticity of a test and more about making sure that the bottom line for a meatpacker is kept as low as possible; they're right in saying that, if one company wanted testing, we'd want it out of more people. But that doesn't degrade the test, that just raises prices. We'd see the increased cost as consumers, but personally I'd consider it worth it. Though to be honest, just that test isn't going to fix all the ills of the meatpacking industry.

@Corporate-Shill: I'm not sure what the point of that would be. "This cow is healthy; go ahead and slaughter it. That cow is sick; you need to put it down." What's the benefit of testing before slaughter?