US Government Won't Let Company Test for Mad Cow

New York Times ^ | 4/10/04 | Donald McNiel, Jr.

[PolitBase]

Why is the Department of Agriculture refusing to let a private company do what is best for its own business, when the company wants to be MORE safe than Big Brother wants it to be?

[hflynn]

They are trying to protect Hillary Clinton.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Why is the Department of Agriculture refusing to let a private company do what is best for its own business, when the company wants to be MORE safe than Big Brother wants it to be?

Because once one producer starts using it as a certifcation test they have a competitive advantage among mathematically impaired beef consumers, and all other producers will be forced to do the same, even though the test is a screening test, not a diagnostic test.

And since the tests aren't free, all beef consumers will pay for them in the form of increased beef prices.

[Judith Anne]

I don't know why, all I know is that government agencies are completely crazy. All of them. All the time. Regulatory agencies that are taxpayer funded --but NOT accountable to anyone-- are increasing the financial burdens of business so fast it's amazing there are any private companies left at all.

[PolitBase]

LOL!

[PolitBase]

And since the tests aren't free, all beef consumers will pay for them in the form of increased beef prices.

What if I CHOOSE to pay high prices for tested beef? I would certainly prefer that option.

[PolitBase]

I agree. But in this case it isn't like the Department of Transportation mandating seat belts and air bags. It is like the DOT mandating NO seat belts and NO air bags!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

What if I CHOOSE to pay high prices for tested beef? I would certainly prefer that option.

You could buy the screening kit and test your beef yourself.

[eno_]

But smart people like you will continue to be able to enjoy "hamburger" made of eyeballs and ears.

[eno_]

You still have not said why a consumer should not have the choice of a suppliers that performs the screening.

"It's a competitive advantage" is not exactly a negative. The goverment's job is to be a backstop against dangerously unhealthy practices. 100% screening hardly qualifies as dangerous.

[An.American.Expatriate]

The better question is why do we accept the bans on US beef when similar bans are not in place for beef from the EU (and others). The EU has a history of Mad Cow Disease - even today cattle are diagnosed with the disease. The US has had, to date ONE [confirmed] case of mad cow and BAMMMMM - ban all beef.

[PolitBase]

You could buy the screening kit and test your beef yourself.

Apparently not. According to the article, "Under the Virus Serum Toxin Act of 1913, the department decides where cattle can be tested and for what."

[PolitBase]

Yes we only have one confirmed case of mad cow, but that's because we only test 1%. That's Monty Python logic.

[PolitBase]

Do you still eat beef? I'm tentative, to tell the truth.

[PolitBase]

But smart people like you will continue to be able to enjoy "hamburger" made of eyeballs and ears.

Ewwwwwww. Does the FDA allow this, btw?

[farfromhome]

I don't know why the Japanese don't just test the meat that comes over. Do they think they can ask for testing 100% of the meat in the U.S. and magically have it not increase the price?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"It's a competitive advantage" is not exactly a negative. The goverment's job is to be a backstop against dangerously unhealthy practices. 100% screening hardly qualifies as dangerous.

We are talking about the f'ing government here.

The list of things the government does that I object to is longer than the time I care to devote to listing them.

But among the things that the government does that pisses me off, this is a long way down from the top.

And that is all I have to say about that.

[An.American.Expatriate]

I live in Europe and have not stopped eating beef at all.

[PolitBase]

I guess neither would I if I lived in Europe.

But would you eat American beef?