Meatpacker Sues Feds Over Mad Cow Test

The Houston Chronicle ^ | March 23, 2006 | LIBBY QUAID

[Amelia]

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Political news

March 23, 2006, 2:36PM

Meatpacker Sues Feds Over Mad Cow Test

By LIBBY QUAID AP Food and Farm Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — 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. The Agriculture Department threatened criminal prosecution if Creekstone did the tests, according to the company's lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

[snip]

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.

Japan tests nearly all its cattle for mad cow disease. While individual companies there may want more testing in the U.S., Japan's government is not asking the U.S. to do the same.

[thebaron512]

They should send the animals to another country to have it turned to steak and tested before hand...

[Amelia]

Private companies certified by the department make screening tests used to detect mad cow disease. The department says it has sole authority over the sale and use of the tests.

Yes, I read that. But what purpose is served by limiting the amount of testing?

Unless there is enough BSE out there to totally panic consumers, it seems that allowing the testing would allow more beef exports and calm those consumers who are paying attention (which admittedly probably isn't very many).

I just don't see the problem, or the reason the government would want less testing rather than more, particularly as they wouldn't be paying for it.

[Amelia]

Thanks so much!

[hedgetrimmer]

But investigators found it impossible to say whether slaughterhouses were following the rules, according to the report.

Well thats laughable. The rules say the slaughterhouses have to keep records of the feeds they use. An investigator could review those records and confirm where the feed was purchased. If they don't have the records, then they didn't follow the rules. How hard is that?

Who are the investigators in the report anyway? This article says the inspector general couldn't do his job.

"To promote effectiveness and integrity in the delivery of USDA agricultural programs."

So maybe its time to fire him and find someone who can.

[Amelia]

Dr. Ron DeHaven, administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, told DeLauro USDA believes market forces will eventually force the industry into a mandatory system. But, he said, USDA has the legal authority to make such a system mandatory.

Instead, the USDA is preventing a voluntary system! I'm gobsmacked!

[khnyny]

I guess my point is, there are arguments on both sides. Who really knows what's going on? Nothing would surprise me.

If meatpackers want to pay for their own tests, I say great! It will force all of them to do it and then US beef will be the safest in the world which would increase sales worldwide. Long term it might be better for the industry.

[1rudeboy]

Looks like a classic turf-battle to me.

[Sabatier]

Creekstone Farms Premium Beef ping.

[Amelia]

If meatpackers want to pay for their own tests, I say great! It will force all of them to do it and then US beef will be the safest in the world which would increase sales worldwide. Long term it might be better for the industry.

I agree. I can't see a downside to letting them test, unless the govt. is afraid they'd find lots & lots of BSE in American beef.

[Marie]

I knew that the gov't didn't require MC testing of every cow, but I am horrified that "they" FORBID the testing.

[Amelia]

I knew that the gov't didn't require MC testing of every cow, but I am horrified that "they" FORBID the testing.

That was my reaction.

[kittymyrib]

"In God We Trust" because the government lies to us constantly. This company ought to have the loud support of every meat consumer in the country. I am willing to pay ten or fifteen cents a pound more for tested meat for my family. How dare someone in the Ag Dept., who is being pressured by a politician who's being paid off by other meat packers, tell this packer he can't test! But then the scales fell from my eyes several years ago when I read that farmers in the Texas Panhandle had cattle practically starving while they waited for the bureaucrats at the Ag Dept. to give them permission to let the cattle graze on their wheat land. When a farmer has to get the government's permission to let his cattle graze on his land, we no longer live in a free country. That sounds like the old Soviet Union to me.

[xarmydog]

It takes quite a while for the symptoms to appear,so it is very hard to trace.The more time lapses,the better,.for the Govt.Not to allow testing makes me think something is going on under the surface.I was born and raised on a dairy farm,and you can not imagine the condition of many dairy cows that were sent to the meat packing plant.The only prerequisite was the animal had to be breathing!If people could see the conditions of the animals,they would never eat meat again!

[steve-b]

But what purpose is served by limiting the amount of testing?

As several people noted, if one supplier does it, there will be heavy pressure on others to do likewise (thus cutting into profits). The government's action is a classic case of corrupt "crony capitalism" (not to be confused with an actual free market).

[Amelia]

As several people noted, if one supplier does it, there will be heavy pressure on others to do likewise (thus cutting into profits). The government's action is a classic case of corrupt "crony capitalism" (not to be confused with an actual free market).

As was also noted, the cost is only about $20 per animal, which is apparently no more (and probably much less) than 10 cent per pound of meat, which could be charged to the consumer. Actually they'd probably end up raising the cost twice as much as they needed to to cover the test, and make more money anyway.

The biggest downside that I can see is if they found the infection rate is much higher than we've been led to believe, but I don't think the meatpacker would want to know that either, because it would put them totally out of business.