Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge: Government must allow meatpackers' tests for mad cow
Mohave Daily News ^ | Thursday, March 29, 2007

Posted on 03/31/2007 8:41:03 PM PDT by A. Pole

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: quantim

What would the unions have to do with it?


21 posted on 04/01/2007 5:18:23 AM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: em2vn
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.

22 posted on 04/01/2007 5:37:48 AM PDT by A. Pole (G.K. Chesterton: "Too much capitalism means not too many capitalists, but too few.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

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.


23 posted on 04/01/2007 5:39:51 AM PDT by chainsaw (We are going to take things away from you. - H. Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

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.


24 posted on 04/01/2007 6:20:14 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
"Creekstone Farms Premium Beef ... wants to test all of its cows for the disease."

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".

25 posted on 04/01/2007 7:26:15 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

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"


26 posted on 04/01/2007 7:38:55 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
"The Japaneses test every cow/steer.."

Given what they pay for beef, the added cost is probably negligible.

27 posted on 04/01/2007 7:43:10 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I have the right (well, actually I support the mechanism of a free market that allows me) to pay more for 'organic' milk, or 'BSE free meat' or non transgenic rhubarb; I don't see where the government has any right to dictate labeling unless it is fraudulent.

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.

28 posted on 04/01/2007 8:56:00 AM PDT by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, Deport all illegals, abolish the IRS, ATF and DEA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The Agriculture Department argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

The real purpose of this government agency is to protect an industry. Human safety is just a cover.

29 posted on 04/01/2007 9:08:55 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker
"I don't think even the most rabid Libertarian would support a company being able to sell something deadly marketed as a foodstuff."

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.

30 posted on 04/01/2007 10:11:19 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TxCopper
Yeah. Iam's and Eukanuba, the "premium" brands, and Ol' Roy. Ol' Roy?

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.

31 posted on 04/01/2007 12:11:05 PM PDT by Clinging Bitterly (Oregon - a pro-militia and firearms state that looks just like Afghanistan .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"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.


32 posted on 04/01/2007 9:11:23 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
Apparently they have gone nuts. Testing to make sure its safe is a good thing and cen never be bad. Whats the gubberment trying to do kill us???

Breathing deeply, I am relaxing now.... :)

33 posted on 04/03/2007 6:30:49 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon
The government wants to prosecute people for voluntarily testing its cows? Have they gone mad????

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.

34 posted on 04/03/2007 6:48:01 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am ~NOT~ an administrative, corporate, legal, or public entity!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
The real purpose of this government agency is to protect an industry. Human safety is just a cover.

Inside the beltway, bureuacratic regulation is the industry.

35 posted on 04/03/2007 6:55:27 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson