[FredZarguna]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has long -- and rightly -- argued that the border closure provides no economic or public health benefit.

Since public perception (wrongly or rightly) is an important component of the consumption equation, the USDA's argument goes too far. There are economic benefits in erring on the side of caution. If BSE concerns are dismissed in a way that's scientifically accurate but publicly perceived as too blithe, there will indeed be economic consequences.

In finally addressing permanent, tamper-proof RFID for large food animals, the US will go a long way toward reassuring the consumer. Fortuitously, the technology is now cheap enough, and sophisticated enough, to also provide real management advantages in addition to being a sop for (unwarranted) public fears.

[prairiebreeze]

mark for later

[Carry_Okie]

If BSE concerns are dismissed in a way that's scientifically accurate but publicly perceived as too blithe, there will indeed be economic consequences.

For which virtually no one at USDA is accountable. That's what you get with government "protection."