Government Fights Mad Cow Testing

[Miss Anthrope]

I support the ruling that beef producers should be able to test every cow to test every cow if they choose. I am at a loss for words that would not violate rule 8 for my anger that the current administration wishes to appeal this ruling. (And I don't even eat beef anymore!)

I understand that there are economic concerns. Frankly, I think the free market and food safety trump the concerns in this case. But, in the spirit of all that is good about JREF, perhaps someone can change my mind.

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The Bush administration said yesterday that it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad-cow disease.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]

Here is a link to one of many articles

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I ask this because I really don't know, but is there definitive proof that "Mad Cow Disease" actually causes Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans? I know that the two are very similar but I have always heard that there was a debate as to whether the one caused the other.

If there is evidence, then I would say, "yes" they should test every cow but if the question is still undecided, then I wouls say "no".

 

[Rob Lister]

Not enough information in the story.

If a certain meat packer is being prevented from testing its own product on its on dime for anything it so chooses, I'd be against that.

If the governments dime is involved in that, I'm against it.

The benefit to me as a consumer does not warrant my tax dime.

Even so, I personally would consider the meat packer in question as using a sleazy ad campaign. Others would buy into it (organic evidence notwithstanding) but not I.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I ask this because I really don't know, but is there definitive proof that "Mad Cow Disease" actually causes Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans? I know that the two are very similar but I have always heard that there was a debate as to whether the one caused the other.

If there is evidence, then I would say, "yes" they should test every cow but if the question is still undecided, then I wouls say "no".

The evidence question I have no idea. A quick search of wikipedia said there was direct evidence that those who had BSE related CJ disease had eaten tainted beef. A quick google didn't lead me to any controversy, but I wouldn't call my search exhaustive. I do know the Red Cross won't take your blood if you're at risk.

However, it is not government testing, it's testing by the individual producer. Why should the government fight that voluntary testing? I wouldn't mind if they made sure advertising and labeling of tested meat met standards for clarification and honesty, but this is not what they are arguing.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I wonder how they go back to see if the affected people had actually eaten tainted beef? But, never mind. I am with you that there is evidence.

If its up to the individual producer, I don't see the problem. As you said, there seems to be little or no controversy about the linkage.

 

[Random]

The article covers it pretty clearly. A small beef producer wants to test all of its cows for the disease so it can advertise that all of their beef has been tested. Larger producers don't want to pay those costs, but they also don't want to compete with a company that advertises their beef as having been tested for mad cow disease. So they lobby the Bush adminsitration to prevent the testing.

It really is as bad as it sounds.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The article covers it pretty clearly. A small beef producer wants to test all of its cows for the disease so it can advertise that all of their beef has been tested. Larger producers don't want to pay those costs, but they also don't want to compete with a company that advertises their beef as having been tested for mad cow disease. So they lobby the Bush adminsitration to prevent the testing.

It really is as bad as it sounds.

Yes, that is loony toons.

DR

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, that is loony toons.

DR

So when critics of the Bush Administration are accused of having "BDS", you can see where they got their crazy from.

I like say that that Bushies appear to have only two reactions to every problem: they either do nothing or the wrong thing.

I'd like to stop feeling so partisan. Really. I'd like to grudgingly admit that the Keystone Kops finally got one right; that this time, good for them, they should be commended. But no matter how hard I look, all I find are stories like this. More stupid policies enacted to facilitate greed and short sightedness.

Sigh.

 

[Corsair 115]

I support the ruling that beef producers should be able to test every cow to test every cow if they choose. I am at a loss for words that would not violate rule 8 for my anger that the current administration wishes to appeal this ruling. (And I don't even eat beef anymore!)

I understand that there are economic concerns.

For what it's worth, Canada faces the same issue in regards to its beef industry.

 

[Rolfe]

Uh, everybody in Britain that ate any meat during the 1980s "ate 'tainted' meat". So yes, those who got vCJD were in that category, just like nearly all of the rest of us.

I'm not convinced there's "conclusive" proof that BSE meat is the cause of vCJD. I think the evidence is very suggestive, but I still keep an open mind as regards further data or new theories.

(Alan Ebringer, however, is out of his tree.)

As I read the OP, this relates to a case in the US. As far as I know, there has never, ever been a case of BSE in the US. That's NEVER. The country is believed, on very good evidence, to be BSE-free.

So what we have here is a small plant trying to gain a competitive advantage by being able to advertise its meat as being tested free from a very scary disease - which doesn't occur in the country anyway. They reckon the exercise will be cost-effective because they're small, so the overall cost of the testing is practicable.

Other, larger producers are concerned by this, because they forsee a situation arising where they too will be forced to test in order to regain the competitive advantage. So cost for all meat will go up significantly, to no advantage at all as the disease is not present in the country anyway.

I can see their point!

Hey, the person I'd like to be here is the owner of the lab that does the BSE testing (or supplies the testing kits). Hmmm. I just wonder who is behind this bright idea the small meat processor has come up with. I smell the faint tinge of a marketing initiative on the part of a laboratory. Of course, I have a suspicious mind.

Just to put this in perspective, in this country (where there is still a low level of BSE infection) there is no attempt to test every carcass. Precautionary measures are a lot smarter than that. And in fact the restrictions are gradually being relaxed as the incidence of reported new BSE cases falls closer to zero. And everybody is happily eating meat, and the number of actual vCJD cases as a percentage of the meat-eating population of the country is low enough that public concern is not high.

I smell someone trying to pull a fast one, and can see very good arguments for stopping them.

Rolfe.

 

[Puppycow]

I suspect the company wants to test every carcass not for the US market but for export to Japan. BSE has occurred in Japan and now the Japanese test every single carcass. It occurred I think once in the US, which caused a huge US-Japan trade problem because Japan banned US imports demanding 100% testing until they finally relented under US pressure. The way the media here has portrayed it, the Japanese "man on the street" probably thinks you're taking your very life in your hands if you eat US beef. (Same with almost any imported food, especially from China. If inspecters find any tainted food, the media here tend to make it top news).

 

[Rolfe]

This sounds like a reasonable theory, however is there anything in any of the reports that suggests it is the case? If a US company wants to test every carcass it exports to Japan for BSE because that is an import requirement of that country, I would expect that this would be reported, and that the government would applaud the initiative.

The entire thrust of the article is that the company appears to want to test carcasses for home consumption. We need fuller and better information.

Are you sure the US has had one isolated case? I really thought that was Canada.

Rolfe.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

This sounds like a reasonable theory, however is there anything in any of the reports that suggests it is the case? If a US company wants to test every carcass it exports to Japan for BSE because that is an import requirement of that country, I would expect that this would be reported, and that the government would applaud the initiative.

The government may well not applaud the initiative if they think it undermines their negotiating position in getting the requirement lifted for all exporters.

 

[Rolfe]

The government may well not applaud the initiative if they think it undermines their negotiating position in getting the requirement lifted for all exporters.

Fair point. But have we any glimmering of a clue that this matter actually has anything at all to do with exporting anyway?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Are you sure the US has had one isolated case? I really thought that was Canada.

Here is the information I could find.

Since 1989, when the first BSE case was reported outside the UK, relatively small numbers of BSE cases (in total 3679) have also been reported in native cattle in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland. However, all but 206 cases have been reported in six countries — France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland. Since the introduction of monitoring programmes to detect BSE in dead and slaughtered cattle, 12 countries have found their first native case (Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain).
Small numbers of cases have also been reported in Canada, the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) and Oman, but solely in animals imported from the UK. The International Office for Epizootic Diseases (OIE) reports these cases on their web site.

I can see no mention of any case in the USA.

The same page mentions a single case of vCJD in the USA, but does not state where that person is thought to have acquired the disease.

Rolfe.

Edited to add: I looked into this further, and have found a table listing one case in the USA in 2005 and one in 2006 (I think the page above is older than that). There is also mantion of a prior case in 2004 involving an imported animal.

It's still a low level. Look at the incidence in the UK, and realise that the total number of vCJD cases, at a very recent count, is still only 160 people.

 

[Puppycow]

Here's another article about it. The latest articles don't say which customers this company is targeting, but I do remember reading an article in the past about a company that wanted to do 100% testing specifically for its exports to Japan (the dept of agriculture said they couldn't, so I think this is probably the same or a similar case). Sorry I can't find it for you, but please trust me that this has been the case in the past.

This is a case where my libertarian instincts conflict with my skepical ones. Consumers are willing to pay extra money for "peace of mind" even if their fears are illogical.

 

[Beerina]

If a US company wants to test every carcass it exports to Japan for BSE because that is an import requirement of that country, I would expect that this would be reported, and that the government would applaud the initiative.

The government may well not applaud the initiative if they think it undermines their negotiating position in getting the requirement lifted for all exporters.

Other countries like Japan (well, every country, the US does it, too) put down unreasonable demands, with the surface reason that they are protecting their citizens, but the real reason is to provide price supports to the domestic producers.

Japan refused to import the vastly cheaper US rice for decades. The reason? Hold onto your hat. The "Japanese stomach" couldn't handle it.

And that's at the core of all this mad cow stuff. Not just with Japan, but Europe as well.

Every time there's a problem, mad cow, or the hormone to produce more milk, whatever, there's no shortage of politicians who are looking for an excuse to immediately ban imports.

And they, furthermore, have no shortage of "useful idiots" who will defend to the death the surface reason. And the politician continues to profit via votes, and via bribes both illegal and legal from their domestic beef producers.

 

[Rolfe]

That all does make sense, and I agree that unreasonable demands for trumped-up health reasons are not uncommonly a political ploy.

We've moved a long way from the apparent original premise that the company's wish to test all carcasses was an intrinsically good thing and that the government were being perverse in denying it, though. First, it appears that we may not be talking about the domestic market at all. And second, we may be talking about a company wanting to comply with foreign testing requirements which are in fact a mere front for restriction of trade.

Fine, I'm interested. Carry on.

Rolfe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Government Fights Mad Cow Testing

From the title, I thought this thread would be about some Republican lawmaker objecting to Senator Clinton's breast cancer exams being paid for by the taxpayer.

DR

 

[Miss Anthrope]

From the title, I thought this thread would be about some Republican lawmaker objecting to Senator Clinton's breast cancer exams being paid for by the taxpayer.

DR

I wish there was a rimshot smiley.