Government Won't Allow Mad Cow Tests; Meatpacker Sues (protect beef $$?)

[LiberalHeart]

A Kansas meatpacker sued the government on Thursday for refusing to let the company test for mad cow disease in every animal it slaughters. Creekstone Farms Premium Beef says it has Japanese customers who want comprehensive testing.

More:
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4673849

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. The only possible reason the government would say "No way"...

... is that the Department of Agriculture knows more than it is willing to admit publicly.

Tofu, anyone?

[Born Free]

37. afraid too many cases will show up

They are afraid, they have been wrong about everything else, and they fear they are wrong about how many cows are infected. It's scary because the symptoms are about the same as Alzheimer - can you imagine what people would think if the current Alzheimer epidemic is actually a mad cow disease epidemic? No, the bush team isn't going to allow anyone to know that - they may not be able to stop the news from Iraq, but they sure as hell can stop people here is USA from getting the information they need to be safe - it's far better to suppress the information until the next democrat is in office, then blame the democrats

[Kber]

2. and the gov't won't allow it?

Shit - I'd go out of my way to buy from a company that tested EVERY cow.

Why don't they let the magic market decide?

[LiberalHeart]

3. I think the gov considers it gamble to allow the tests... Texas....

...wouldn't like it if tests turned out badly.

[K-W]

4. Because the market would force the whole industry to test.

That is why. Because everyone would buy the tested beef. The only way the industry can avoid tests is to make sure nobody tests.

[DBoon]

5. If we really knew how many cows had this disease

we would all be eating soybeans

[leftchick]

38. That is what I eat

I have not had any beef in about 15 years. I still eat chicken but am phasing that out as well. Soy products are great these days. GMO free of course!

[TexasLawyer]

44. damn straight!

I read "Mad Cowboy" a few years back. (By the guy who got Oprah sued for "food disparagement").

Needless to say, we don't eat beef in my house any more.

[NashVegas]

10. The Most Likely Reason

Just ask Monsanto.

Here's the website for Creekstone farms. They also sell hormone-free, anti-biotic free, grainfed beef.

http://www.creekstonefarmspremiumbeef.com/index.html

[salin]

19. Proving again, that this GOP is not in favor of Free Market

powers.

I recall when there was news that the Dept of Ag. stopped several small companies from doing this - and while we talked about it at DU there was pretty much no real story or follow up in the Media. I am very glad to hear that this suit has been filed.

[Nevernose]

31. Score one for globalization? n/t

n/t

[warrens]

7. Because Tyson and Cargill don't want to have to test too

And they got them some Bushies in their pocket. Tests cost $10 to $15 a pop, and confirming tests cost a lot more. Easier to bribe a Bushie than pay that cost times a few million a year.

[happyslug]

18. And that is the Problem

The Department of Agriculture not only inspect beef, it also PROMOTES beef, and if one company tests every cow, consumers will pay a premium for that Company's beef. Most Beef producers just do NOT want to test and if ONE COMPANY tests all of them will have to sooner or later do to people willing to pay a premium for tested beefs. Just think about it,. Wendy's saying its Beef is 100% tested "safe", while McDonald's and Burger King does NOT, Wendy's could even raise its prices and still get more and more customers until McDonald's and Burger King does the same (And force ALL Beef producers to test). Thus to permit one to test means sooner or later ALL cows will have to be testes and thus the opposition to testing by the USDA.

[Cronus Protagonist]

49. Let the market decide - good idea

Bush is a protectionist.... Sounds funny coming from Democratics, but there ya go, in this particular case, the market would make things better for sure.

[0007]

54. What's a matter with you? You think you live in a free country

or something?

[BadgerKid]

55. see also: Food Uniformity Act

Food can't hurt us if we don't know what's in it, right?
:sarcasm:

[TreasonousBastard]

6. According to the article...

it's the large meatpackers who are telling Agriculture to reduce testing-- they fear that if a sick cow shows up it will reduce beef consumption.

So, we are possibly at higher risk for BSE because the big meat guys are afraid of the publicity?

[K-W]

9. Its not a possibility, its what has already happened.

We are at a very high risk because the industry has not tested and has not taken precautions to prevent transmission.

[Up2Late]

8. Good for them! But due to budget cuts, I doubt it will do much good.

In the new Federal budget, they have cut the funding for inspecting Beef to the point that they could only inspect 1/10th of 1% of all the slaughtered Cattle in this country.

[Marie26]

11. Yet they're implementing

a multi-million dollar program to RFID tag every animal in the United States? Supposedly this program is to prevent mad-cow disease. Does this make sense in any way?

[pushycat]

13. It makes sense if you're Carlyle Group and have RFID technology

They work in China tagging dogs: http://www.rfidgazette.org/2005/11/tagging_dogs_in.html

[ConcernedCanuk]

12. "It would cost about $20 per animal to do the tests,"

.
.
.

From the posted article:

"It would cost about $20 per animal to do the tests, adding about 10 cents per pound to the cost of meat, according to Stewart."
__________________________________________________________________________

TEN CENTS A POUND!!!!

And how many people would mind paying an extra ten cents a pound for that peace of mind??

so it ain't about the 10 cents

It's about having to slaughter thousands of cattle that may be suspect, as Canada and other countries have done in the recent past

Korprate Murikkka at its best . . .

(sigh)

Another snippet from the posted article:

"Testing for mad cow disease in the United States is controlled by the department, which tests about 1% of the 35 million cattle, or about 350,000, that are slaughtered each year. The department is planning to reduce that level of testing."
_______________________________________________________________________

The department is planning to reduce that level of testing.

Shocked, disappointed, but not surprised

I still remain a very Concerned Canuk

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

16. That's saying there's only 200 lbs of meat from a cow?

A 400 kg animal would typically yield 140kg of meat... Thats 308 pounds.

Must be corporate math.

[ConcernedCanuk]

33. NO, that means if it costs the Korporations 5 cents, they'll charge ya 10

.
.
.

That's just the way Kapitalizm works ya know??

[WinkyDink]

14. Same reason gubmint gives when it fights labeling anything:

"The others who don't test will be damned by implication, and that will hurt the economy."

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

15. go VEGAN- it's not that hard these days-it a lot easier than it used to be

Why not try and save yourselves and your famiies from the worry?

There are so many books out nowadays on how to go Vegan without sacrificing taste..
Gabriel Cousens, MD. promotes vegan raw uncooked food.
He was documented doing 600 consecutive pushups on his 60th birthday-
His latest book is called Spiritual Nutrition.
Your DNA gets triggered by certain enzymes in the food.
You can actualy grow younger(process known as youthing)
-you can even have gray hair regain its color-
Cancer patents have had sucess within 2 months.

So yeah, you may have aready been exposed to Prions and going vegan won't help.
But what if it's that very "next" steak that is from a downer cow?
But is the flavor really worth it?
Not to mention the cruelty to those poor peaceful beings!
There are NO controls or Safety Guideines and we now know Mad Cow is out there.
And what a terrible way to go--half of all Alzheimers is actually CJD.

Just a thought.

[Taverner]

17. Well you see a lot of us here like our food to taste good

Rather than like bales of hay.

The problem isn't with milk or eggs, it's with beef. And as long as you get your beef from a reputable source (the plantiff above is one of them) you're safe.

[flvegan]

21. So you're saying that all vegan food tastes

like bales of hay? In addition, vegan food doesn't taste good?

Just want to be sure I have my facts as to your post correct...

[flvegan]

22. Kick for a response.

Hope there will be one...

[flvegan]

24. Guess I'll kick it again

I hope a response in in the making...

[nodehopper]

28. I think most vegan food

tastes really bland and unfulfilling. I have eaten some delicious vegan creations, but usually their preparation requires the sort of time and expensive ingridients that I don't have. For a lot of people going vegan is not really an option in terms of their cultural position and class. For a lot of people being vegan is something that is in one way or another enabled by class privilege.

[flvegan]

29. So then

what you're saying is that "most vegan food" (I've tasted) tastes really bland..

I laugh at "vegan" class privilege because it is, indeed laughable.

[nodehopper]

35. okay you can laugh at it

that just tells me you have a really non-ethnographic approach to thinking about it. In my humble opinion, of course.

And yes, most vegan food I have tasted tastes really bland to me.

[raccoon]

43. In my experience, most of it's expensive, though.

Locally there is a store that sells a lot of vegetarian foods--as well as meat (w/o hormones) etc. They're good but expensive.

Usually eating healthy and/or organic foods is more expensive.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

34. not bland at all- get a book online- it's cheap-take vitamin sups at first

it's not just for rich folks-
Not buying meat might even save you money-

But don't do it on your own- follow guidelines in a book-
you may need to get certain dietary supplements (vitamins) at first til you adjust.
Spirulina is a good cheap supplement that has almost everything in it you need.

Lacto-vegetarian is extremely easy-
Cooked vegetarian food is no problem-
There are thousands of Indian/Chinese/Japanese/Mexican/Peruvian/Morrocan/Italian recipies.
Flavor is abundant.

then, you get used to that for a while you can move toward cutting dairy..
then cutting back on processed and starchy foods...

You can go MacroBiotic- if you want- easy to find books on that-

or you can go with the Raw food-(very popular in S.F and L.A.)
The recipies are now out there for all---there are lots of books out now -
You just need a cheap dehydrator, a food processor, a blender,--and if you can get a juicer you're set.
and then you get a video/ or a book-
It is harder in small towns...but every town has vegetables- and books can be got online.
Believe me, the taste is there...amost even too flavorful.

The idea is you eat in a way that helps yourself while simultaneously helping the planet.

[nodehopper]

36. thank you for the recommendations, but

I have no desire to go vegan. I actually think it's an unhealthy lifestyle. (More so than raw food, unless you are talking about raw-vegan) I don't want to get into a debate about the health merits of it because that is pointless, in my experience many vegans hold views that I don't find scientifically supported, and we wouldn't convince each other. But I have tried the vegan "ethnic" recipes, and even if they have a lot of flavor from spices and such, the core still tastes really bland to me. I mean, tofu in general tastes really bland to me. I *like* it frequently, but in the same way I like bland potatos as comfort food.

Also (aside from my general non-interest in a vegan diet), I have a hard time digesting soy products that have not been cooked, or a lot of soy in general which means I can't really drink soy milk (which I actually really do like the taste of, not as a dairy substitute but just as a drink) and too much of any soy product makes me nauseous very fast, so it wouldn't be a sustainable diet staple for me.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

45. info was just for those interested- if you read a bit more and do the math

it'll shake those strange pre-condceptions you have-
You's also have to try certain things first hand to know ..
I don't really care who eats what-
Diet is a very personal choice...
but to make the best decisions about anything it really helps to
read up and to experiment.

[nodehopper]

47. I've read a lot

I am very interested in nutrition and eating healthily. I see the merits of the green/raw diet, scientifically and nutritionally. I respect veganism as an ethical choice, but I am frustrated by frequent discourse by vegans about how it's healthier/more natural/humans aren't evolved to eat meat, which don't hold water, scientifically.

Just my 0.02

[flvegan]

50. You might

consider looking deeper into your last, well, sans 0.02 statement, post.

It is healthier, it is more natural, it is an evolvement issue. They do hold water, both scientifically and superficially.

And that's my 0.02.

[nodehopper]

53. this is why I don't see the point of arguing about this

It ends up like an Onion Point/Counterpoint. As someone with an extensive education in biology and human evolution and an interest in healthy nutrition I draw the conclusions that while it is possible to lead a healthy vegan lifestyle with suppliments and vitamins, veganism, in and of itself, is not optimal for himan health. It is certainly not what humans have evolved for. I don't know what you mean by holding water superficially, but scientifically it's not healthier, and I don't know what you mean by more "natural"--it seems to me that you are using "natural" as a signifier for a cultural/moral value. As far as eating the flesh of other species being a naturally-occurring phenomenon, it most certainly is.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

51. read Gabriel Cousens MD. books- any of them

any of the books will shed light on why----
It could change your life--or even lenghthen it!

http://www.treeoflife.nu

[nodehopper]

52. I am familiar with the content

I remain unconvinced.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

56. not if you didn't read it--sorry but it's your loss not anyone else's

you are what you eat

[nodehopper]

58. I've read his arguments

I think that he has a lot of valuable things to say about raw eating in general, but I don't agree with his stance on veganism or the whole B12 issue.

[nodehopper]

27. or just don't eat beef. or just eat organic from small farms.

just a thought.

[DeepModem Mom]

20. K&R

[madmark]

23. more bushco incompetence/malfeasance

[nodehopper]

25. I am not vegetarian but

this is why I stopped eating beef about two years ago.

[nodehopper]

26. I am not vegetarian but

this is why I stopped eating beef about two years ago.

[HuffleClaw]

30. utter madness

'threatened to prosecute' ????!!!!!

its just insane. a clear coverup.

[LiberalHeart]

32. Don't you mean "udder madness"? (n/t)

[auagroach]

39. Excessive Antibiotic Use in the Meat Industry?

Speaking as a layman and emphasing I am NOT a scientist I read somewhere that the reason other countries where BSE has been found much earlier than in the States is because the U.S. meat industry uses significantly more antibiotics in their feed than others and that when and if there is an outbreak of BSE in American cattle it will be even more virulent because it has been supressed for so long. Any DUers feel qualified to comment?

[loudsue]

40. K & R. This is a HUGE scandal about the REPUBLICANS making us

far less safe because of their corporate coziness.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Overseas]

41. I just want to kick it and keep it going. no text.

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. As far as I'm concerned, we all should only be buying from

Creekstone Farms. BTW, off tangent, does Katherine Harris owe any of her millions to the cattle business?

[Nikia]

46. I don't get it. I thought businesses could do any tests they wanted

I work in quality in the processed dairy industry. As far as I know, we can do as many chemical and microbiological tests as we want. Companies may have reasons to do more or less of certain tests for a variety of reasons. If there isn't a good reason, usually a company won't do more tests than they have to because testing can get expensive and might create a higher work load for current laboratory personal to handle.
The company wants to do more testing so it can get Japanese contracts. It isn't the first time that a company has done more testing to get a contract. The government has no reason not to let them.

[depakid]

48. No good reason doesn't mean

that the far right won't impose their destructive will on businesses or anyone else.

Look at BGH labeling, for example.

[fob]

57. Heres my e-mail to Creekstone farms

Dear Creekstone Farms,

Growing up in the Mid-West, beef was a part of nearly every meal. I recall a time when "USDA Grade A Beef" was a selling point and the confidence it inspired. Of course the realization of that confidence only comes to me now against the horrible state of our current government "public protection" agencies. When I heard of the mad-cow report a few years back and the intial Bush Administration response was to quickly blame Canada and insist beyond all belief that it was only this "one cow", I put an immediate end to beef consumption by my entire family and made it known to all my friends, who in turn have either also cut entirely or severely curtailed their beef consumption.

I miss beef. It is good tasting and a staple of so many dishes that are easy to prepare for me and my family. I would love to have the confidence in "USDA" again, and for 10 cents a pound, it's almost criminal that you aren't "allowed" to test.

My question is that it seems you are attempting to do this in response to a Japanese request, so if you win will you also test all cattle for your American consumers? I pledge my business to your company should it gain approval and actually test 100% of cattle.

Thank you for your attention

fob