Posted on 03/31/2007 8:41:03 PM PDT by A. Pole
WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government must allow meatpackers to test their animals for mad cow disease, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, a meatpacker based in Arkansas City, Kan., wants to test all of its cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. Larger meat companies feared that move because if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they could be forced to do the expensive test, too.
The Agriculture Department currently regulates the test and administers it to less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows. The department threatened Creekstone with prosecution if it tested all its animals.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson ruled that the government does not have the authority to regulate the test. Robertson put his order on hold until the government can appeal. If the government does not appeal by June 1, he said the ruling would take effect.
Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is linked to more than 150 human deaths worldwide, mostly in Britain.
There have been three cases of mad cow disease in the U.S. The first, in December 2003 in Washington state, was in a cow that had been imported from Canada. The second, in 2005, was in a Texas-born cow. The third was confirmed last year in an Alabama cow.
After the first case of mad cow disease heightened concern about the disease, the department increased its testing for the disease to about 1,000 tests each day.
Last July, the department cut its testing by about 90 percent. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said testing should reflect ‘‘a very, very low level'' of the disease in the United States. Neither the department nor Creekstone immediately responded to a request for comment Thursday evening.
The Agriculture Department argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry. Robertson said he was concerned by that possibility but noted that Creekstone sought to use the same test the government relies on.
Tests are done on brain tissue from cows, so animals must be killed before they can be tested. Because of this, Robertson rejected the government's stance that it has the authority to regulate the tests because they are used in the treatment of disease.
He said regulation of the tests might be appropriate through the Federal Trade Commission or the Commerce Department but, as the law is written now, the authority does not exist.
What would the unions have to do with it?
I would say the real culprit is unrestrained pursuit of profit - that is why cows are being fed with carrion. Unions are Red Herring here.
Wide spread testing for mad cow could destroy the beef industry.
Right, but only if a lot of positives are discovered. I for one would not want it any other way.
The reason the FDA and USDA didn't want this is simple. If one plant does it, they will have a huge competitive advantage over any other packing plant. So in the end all the plants will do it.
Which is great, but the BSE tests are not that accurate.
Yeah, right. Great idea.
But if the government forced them to do this, they (and you!) would scream to high heaven about increased costs and the heavy hand of "jack-booted gubmint".
One part of government wanted to side with larger, more powerful and wealthier corporations, the other took side of the smaller weaker player."
"Atlas Shrugged"
Given what they pay for beef, the added cost is probably negligible.
But it is reasonable for the government to set some basic food and drug standards for the safety - I don't think even the most rabid Libertarian would support a company being able to sell something deadly marketed as a foodstuff.
The real purpose of this government agency is to protect an industry. Human safety is just a cover.
I've met a few on this forum -- their attitude is a) caveat emptor and b) the company won't survive if they offer a deadly product, so it's in their interest to ensure product safety.
I suppose now they'll say the government (Canada) does not let them test their food for contaminants. And it could be true?
Our pets will never eat the stuff, I know that. Just yesterday we took in a 3 year old white Mini Schnauzer named Candy. The owner who gave her to us said she had to eat only Iam's kibble. I don't know about that. This poor dog is probably 4-5 lbs overweight. That is a lot for a breed that tops out at 15 lbs.
Our other two dogs are a Mini Pin and another Mini Schnauzer, both two years old. They are both free fed Purina One lamb & rice, plus plenty of fruits & vegetables for treats, and they are happy, active dogs at their ideal weight.
Not that Purina hasn't had issues. Years ago (around 1960), all of our hogs were killed because because their Purina Chow was made with beef scraps that included ears with DES implants in them. I understand the same thing happened again about 25 years later.
So if food producers (human or animal) say they want to do more to prevent disease and contaminants from occurring in their products, I'll be among the first to say "it's about time". That is a competitive factor that would certainly be included in my food buying decisions.
"But if the government forced them to do this, they (and you!) would scream to high heaven about increased costs and the heavy hand of "jack-booted gubmint"."
Exactly correct. Unless one belongs to the "Well, we can twist, stretch, cut or expand the Constitution to mean that FedGov can do whatever it chooses at the moment" school of thought, as you do, one MUST come to the conclusion that FedGov has NO authority to either mandate or prohibit such testing.
Breathing deeply, I am relaxing now.... :)
I believe it was George Washington who said 'Government is not reason, it is force'.
-----
Government is only testing 1% of the cows. You can bet your sweet bippy the other 99% are NOT disease free.
Inside the beltway, bureuacratic regulation is the industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.