|
Back in 2006, a meatpacking company in Kansas had a great idea: it would test every cow for bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE), commonly known as “mad cow disease”. It was a great idea because the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) tests only a very small percentage of cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat beef from infected cattle. Creekstone Farms Premium Beef was willing to undertake the testing of every cow at its own expense. In fact, the company built a laboratory and sent its employees to France for training with the company whose test kits it intended to use. But then Creekstone ran into a problem: test kits for BSE could be sold only to laboratories approved by the U.S.D.A., and the U.S.D.A. said no to the testing. In fact, although the division later sought to explain away the statement, a senior veterinarian with the U.S.D.A.’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) told a reporter that Creekstone could face criminal liability if it tested its animals for BSE. Creekstone sued for the right to test its own cattle for the deadly disease, and won in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson—the same judge who authored the District Court opinion in the groundbreaking Guantanamo case, Hamdam v. Rumsfeld, and resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in apparent protest over President Bush’s decision to use wiretaps to gather information about U.S. citizens without first seeking court approval—ruled that the U.S.D.A. had exceeded its authority under the 1913 Virus-Serum-Toxin Act. Robertson’s opinion made good sense, since that statute was intended to protect against substandard veterinary care, and the animals in question were being tested after they were dead. Creekstone did not propose to replace or interfere with U.S.D.A. testing of its beef. Rather, as a purely supplemental measure, it proposed to perform additional testing to ensure the safety of its beef. The concern, rather, seemed to be that Creekstone might use the additional testing as a marketing point—it might, in short tell people that all of its beef had been tested. That, the U.S.D.A said, was “inconsistent with USDA's mandate to ensure effective, scientifically sound testing for significant animal diseases and maintain domestic and international confidence in U.S. cattle and beef products.” In other words, it might make the companies that didn’t choose to test every animal look bad, and consumers and other countries to which U.S. beef is exported might notice that Creekstone beef was safer than other U.S. beef. Unfortunately, this past week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia bought into that argument, and Creekstone (along with any other meatpacker that might get some crazy idea about making sure that its meat was safe for human consumption) is legally prohibited from testing its cattle. So we might be at risk for “mad cow disease” and see our brains waste away, but at least we don’t have to worry about those big meat packing companies feeling pressured or anything, right?
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Trackback(0)
Comments (10)
  written by Kobra, September 01, 2008
What happened to the government acting in the best interests of the public?
 written by Dane Morgan, September 01, 2008
I just can't wait until we get national health care.
 written by Gaolga, September 01, 2008
Oh :S I wont eat meat never again in the usa... this is just mad :S
 written by Billy, September 01, 2008
Why should they even need to go to court to fight for the right to test "their" cattle for a deadly disease? What right does the courts or U.S.D.A have to tell a company they could be charged because they want to do their best to not kill their loyal customers by testing each cow?
If you ask me, instead of being concerned that it may cause other companies to "look bad" they should be making those other companies start testing every cow as well. I would figure it would be a bigger lose for a company to find out one or two of their cows had the disease, have to then recall all the meat they produced and shipped dating back who knows how far (possibly months). Then theirs the likely chance of a lawsuit if someone got sick (or died) because of it. Wouldn't it be smarter business wise all around to test all cattle because no million dollar lawsuits, no killing of your customers, no wasted time and product from recalls, and no money wasted on shipping to (and from) stores. Guess I kind of got into that... 
 written by SCARED FN SKINNY, September 01, 2008
Whenever you get a chance to happen upon this type of information it has the impact of changing certain thought processes.
Too many time we see these types of things with our eyes closed, but when the time comes and we actually do see the reality of it our eyes become wide open and we then embark on a mission to open other people's eye as well. Eye Opener
written by Kobra, September 01, 2008
Shouldn't this be filed under "Just Plain Stupid"? Because the USDA is.
 written by the Grey Path, September 01, 2008
We certainly wouldn't want a corporation actually acting responsibly
 written by gruelin1, November 08, 2008
These guys wanted to capitalize on people's totally overblown fear of mad cow. They had an angle to push their "tested" beef, implying that untested cow was dangerous. This is frickin horses**t, and it's a good thing the gov't didn't let them do it. NO CASES of mad cow have been reported in the us according to fda website page http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/...fsbse.html
written by gruelin1, November 08, 2008
So, maybe I'm not so outraged by this. Mad cow in the us is a non problem, according to fda website: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/...fsbse.html
 written by Holly Jahangiri, November 29, 2008
...assume that Creekstone were allowed to test their animals in a private lab THEY BUILT, OWN, and OPERATE, using test kits bought overseas, to no standards but their own. Assume that they are scrupulous about it, and whether they actively use it as a marketing point or not, word gets out and it becomes one - because the public has an emotional reaction to the risk of BSE and forgets that it's about as likely to contract it as to be struck by lightning.
1) Other producers are not required by law to test their animals; doing so might drive them out of business, but now not doing so effectively will drive them out of business, thus potentially giving Creekstone a monopoly. 2) Still other producers might "test" their animals to gain the marketing benefit, but with no testing requirements or standards in place, results may or may not be valid. IF consumers truly feel this is an important point, and agree that all cows should be tested for BSE, then they should lobby to make it a law and ensure that it is enforced uniformly. Okay - done now.  I think it's awful that one innovative company willing to test all its animals to ensure a safer food supply is PROHIBITED by law from doing so. They should assume all risk of errors (e.g., if you say your beef is 100% free of BSE, you pay all damages if it's not) and the consumer can decide if it's worth the extra price charged.
Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
