Alice Marshall at GOTV has an interesting entry up on the ummm...relationship between well, we'll let you figure it out:
Creekstone Farms Premium Beef is a small producer of high-quality beef in Kansas. But it's making a big point about mad cow disease. It wants to privately test all of the cattle it slaughters for the illness, which can cause a fatal brain disease in humans who eat infected meat. The way Creekstone Farms sees it, 100% testing would reassure U.S. customers. The company also says it is talking with Japan about restarting exports there, where total testing is required.
But the firm has run into surprising obstacles: from the federal government, which has pledged to do everything possible to detect the disease, and from the meat industry, which has scrambled to keep consumer confidence since December. ...
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently does not allow such private testing for mad cow disease.
As Alice point out, it's probably not what you do, but who you pay (or paid or didn't) that matters. Safety my Ass...oh well, another day, another way to extort a bidness. Next.
posted by Jo Fish on 03.30.04 at 01:06 AM
Comments:
On the surface it seems to make no sense for the federal government to prevent a firm from testing their own cattle for mad cow disease, but look at it this way: suppose we relied upon the drug companies to certify all of their testing as accurate and their drugs as safe. Would you trust the drugs that came from, say, Pfeizer if you only had Pfeizer's word and their paid testers' words to go on?
The issue is far more complicated than that, of course. The question is whether we can be certain that a third-party testing frim hired by the producer of the beef can be trusted to provide accurate and honest results. Even if, in this case, the integrity of the cattle producer and its testing firm are beyond reproach, can we be certain of the next beef company, or the one after that? Once this starts, would it be that far-fetched to see self-testing employed in other industries to the detriment of the food supply?
Still, the issue is more complicated than that as well. While I believe that the vast majority of those in the government's employ are honest and decent people, sincerely trying to do their best to ensure the safety and well-being of the populace, it only takes one highly placed public official to destroy credibility and cause great harm. This is where the issue gets even more complicated. One highly placed public official, who is a Bush appointee, in charge of overseeing testing of the food supply. A beef industry contributing many dollars to the Bush campaign.
Okay, I give up. I don't know who to trust, I just know who to NOT trust.
My wife and I are becoming increasingly vegetarian lately in our eating habits. I think that may be the only safe way to go.
posted by: dean on 03.30.04 at 08:12 AM [permalink]
They could not control disclosure and let them feed the diseased cow to other cows if the inspection was done in house?
The idea that somehow the guilty party would cover tail is the issue.
Triple the fines for noncompliance, and forfeit the entire holdings.
Make the people personally liable for the product, ohhh but insurance companies would cry about this.
It would be like making cows wear seat belts , and seat belts don't kill... cow abstinence is so wise.
posted by: Mr.Murder on 03.30.04 at 03:40 PM [permalink]
The last time I checked there were a lot of universities in this countries that had science programs.
If I send something to a university for analysis, that's as good as it gets, trust wise, and it provides a cash flow for public universities that are bleeding for money.
These guys should contact a local rabbi and ask for a kosher rating. That solve most of their problems, and get the government off their backs.
posted by: Bryan on 03.30.04 at 06:16 PM [permalink]
