Bush's Dept. of Agri nixes _voluntary_ beef safety tests: free market, yeah right

[Apos]

U.S. Won't Let Company Test All Its Cattle For Mad Cow (Published 2004)

The facts are these: a beef company wants to test 100% of its cattle for mad cow so that it can sell to the very picky Japanese market. It wants to pay for the tests itself.

The Department of Agriculture, however, which controls testing (but really was given that function in order to make sure things get properly tested when they should be) has told them that they can’t do it, saying that it’s not “scientifically valid.”

Whether or not that’s even true (sure, 100% testing isn’t 100% safety, but it’s not a crazy standard), it’s pretty obvious that they are doing the bidding of the rest of the beef industry, which is scared that if this company offers beef tested with the method will increase demand for other companies to do the same. Instead they are apparently acting exactly like a monopoly, even getting the U.S. government to HELP them in enforcing their will on unwilling competitors, so that they can blackmail Japan into opening its markets to beef not tested in the ways that the Japanese would like.

This is what we get when we have regulartory agencies basically run by lobbyists and sometimes even staffed by ex-lobbyists.

[NurseCarmen]

Amazing.

I heard a story about this on the radio a few weeks back.

I really thought that this small company would win this one. Even Creekstone has admitted that the test is pretty pointless, considering all of their cattle is too young to have ever been given the CWD contaminated feed. But that wasn’t the point. Their biggest customer was the Japanese, and they asked if the quick test would ease their concerns and make the sale, the Japanese said yes.

Salespeople throughout the world do what they can to appease their client’s concerns. That’s all these guys wanted to do. And the government took so long to respond that this company had already took the gamble and built the infrastructure for testing at their facility.

Instead, in punishment for their innovation, they will likely end up going out of business.

Genious…

Outstanding.

I hope they do take it to court. And win.

[treis]

were licensed for surveillance of animal health, while Creekstone’s use would have “implied a consumer safety aspect that is not scientifically warranted.”

I am a little confused by what the article is saying here. I think its saying that the test isn’t accurate enough to be used to determine that meat is safe for human consumption. Any thoughts?

[Gorsnak]

Seems an odd situation, if you ask me. First, if this Creekstone is only marketing finished animals, there’s basically zero risk to begin with - at 18 months or whatever, the animals not only are unlikely to have been fed anything containing ruminant protein, but are unlikely to show any detectable signs of BSE even if they had. Hence, there’s really no point to the testing, which just shows that the Japanese aren’t being rational with their import policies (likely they’re just pandering to misinformed consumer fears, which makes political sense if nothing else).

I strongly suspect the Dept of Ag is opposing this because allowing blanket testing in this case will result in pressure to blanket test everything, and if they start testing every culled cow being sent into the meat grinder, they will find more cases of BSE, and from what I understand are likely to continue to find cases after all every animal fed ruminant protein is long gone, since there’s a (very small) finite probability of BSE spontaneously appearing in any given cow past a certain age as a result of a botched protein replication. This is probably where cases of non-variant CJD come from. So if the Dept allows universal testing, they will never be able to regain BSE-free status.

Consumer and political reaction to BSE are currently lagging far, far behind scientific understanding, imho.

[John_Carter_of_Mars]

As a beef cattle producer, I consider Creekstone’s ploy to get back into the Japanese market to be worthy of about the same respect as a worker crossing a union picket line. Cattle farmers and meat processors across the United States are in favor of USDA’s decision in this matter.

“Creekstone Farms” is no longer a farm, they sold out the farming part of the operation in 1999. [link]

Although the press releases refer to them as a “small” meat packer, they are small only in comparison to the industry giants. Processing 4,000 head of prime beef per day is hardly small business.

For years the Japanese fought with everything they had to keep imports of American beef out of their country. They had to finally grant some trade concessions and open the door to a limited amount of beef from the U.S. Since then, they’ve searched for any and every excuse to discontinue imports of American beef, and the mad cow scare provided the opportunity they were looking for.

I’m guessing that when the Japanese stated they’d accept 100% tested beef, they didn’t think there would be any takers. Then Creekstone saw a quick way to grab the lion’s share of what is an already limited export market and took the leap. They did this without regard to the negative effects their breaking ranks would have on any other beef producers.

USDA’s denial of Creekstone’s request was applauded by both the food industry and American beef farmers and ranchers.

By treis
Quote:
"were liciensed for surveillance of animal health, while Creekstone’s use would have “implied a consumer safety aspect that is not scientifically warranted.”

I am a little confused by what the article is saying here. I think its saying that the test isn’t accurate enough to be used to determine that meat is safe for human consumption. Any thoughts?"

treis: I believe it’s saying that Creekstone would start to market it’s beef, in the U.S. and abroad, as “100% tested” or something similar. This would obviously give Creekstone an (unwarranted) advantage in advertising, as other sources of beef would be as safe, but the other companies would be unable to make that claim.

[Apos]

As a beef cattle producer, I consider Creekstone’s ploy to get back into the Japanese market to be worthy of about the same respect as a worker crossing a union picket line.

I have a lot of respect for such workers: they are heroes of the free market.

Then Creekstone saw a quick way to grab the lion’s share of what is an already limited export market and took the leap. They did this without regard to the negative effects their breaking ranks would have on any other beef producers.

What negative effects, precsiely? If other beef producers don’t want to offer this test, they don’t have to. But obviously, they don’t want to compete with anyone offering different options for meat quality.

USDA’s denial of Creekstone’s request was applauded by both the food industry and American beef farmers and ranchers.

News at 11, man applaulds prostitute who gave him a freebie!

[Neurotik]

@John Carter of Mars

As a beef cattle producer, I consider Creekstone’s ploy to get back into the Japanese market to be worthy of about the same respect as a worker crossing a union picket line. Cattle farmers and meat processors across the United States are in favor of USDA’s decision in this matter.

Businesses are not fucking unions.

They’re businesses. If one of them decides that it wants to test all of its cows for BSE so it can gain access to a market, what business does the USDA or the rest of the industry have to tell them they can’t? Especially if the tests are for foreign consumption.

[Miller]

@John Carter of Mars

treis: I believe it’s saying that Creekstone would start to market it’s beef, in the U.S. and abroad, as “100% tested” or something similar. This would obviously give Creekstone an (unwarranted) advantage in advertising, as other sources of beef would be as safe, but the other companies would be unable to make that claim.

What’s to stop them from performing the same tests on their cattle and then making exactly the same claim?

[John_Carter_of_Mars]

@Miller

What’s to stop them from performing the same tests on their cattle and then making exactly the same claim?

Nothing, except that the really smaller outfits can’t afford it. I think the “Our beef is better because it’s been tested” claim would be running very close to violating truth in advertising laws. That’s one problem with what Creekstone wants to do.

By Apos: “I have a lot of respect for such workers: they are heroes of the free market.”
Do you also respect those that won’t pay union or association dues but are happy to reap the rewards garnered by those who do pay? In some quarters they are referred to as Leaches.

By Neurotic: “They’re businesses. If one of them decides that it wants to test all of its cows for BSE so it can gain access to a market, what business does the USDA or the rest of the industry have to tell them they can’t? Especially if the tests are for foreign consumption.”

There is a limited amount of beef that can be exported to Japan. Thus the free market is NOT at work here. Others spent years of time and effort to open this trade door. Now Creekstone wishes to use a gimick to reap the benefits of this while those others are barred from exporting.
The idea is for US beef exporters to stand firm, and sooner or later the Japanese will again accept beef imports without imposing self-serving restrictions.

Trade in food and fibre has long been a tool used by the US government in foreign policy negotiations. Nixon’s beef embargo in the 1970’s would be the most glaring example.

Idealists may state theory all they wish, the practicalities of international trade are complex and supply and demand are seldom allowed to function. If one country doesn’t want to be protectionist, her trading partners probably will.

Even as we speak, salmon and shrimp fishermen are being paid because of “unfair competition from foreign markets”, and the Chineese stand accused of dumping honey in the US at below production prices. Everybody’s government is out there trying to gain all the advantage they can. Free trade is so distorted that one could question if it exists.

Remember, the US Government one time decided that too many of the pickup trucks being purchased in the States were foreign made, so they slapped an extra $500. tarriff on every imported truck. Where’s the free trade there?

[Optihut]

@John Carter of Mars

The idea is for US beef exporters to stand firm, and sooner or later the Japanese will again accept beef imports without imposing self-serving restrictions.

That is one possibility. Another one is that Japan will simply trade with a different country.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Optihut

That is one possibility. Another one is that Japan will simply trade with a different country.

They should start getting Canadian beef. It’s goooood.

[Avumede]

@John Carter of Mars

For years the Japanese fought with everything they had to keep imports of American beef out of their country. They had to finally grant some trade concessions and open the door to a limited amount of beef from the U.S. Since then, they’ve searched for any and every excuse to discontinue imports of American beef, and the mad cow scare provided the opportunity they were looking for.

This doesn’t jive with what I’ve read on the topic. According to the articles I read, they are only asking for the same level of testing on imported beef as from their domestic beef. It certainly seems reasonable to me.

[Apos]

Do you also respect those that won’t pay union or association dues but are happy to reap the rewards garnered by those who do pay? In some quarters they are referred to as Leaches.

People can refer to them however they want. But the fact is, to work in a job, someone shouldn’t have to kowtow to the will of monopoly.

Remember, the US Government one time decided that too many of the pickup trucks being purchased in the States were foreign made, so they slapped an extra $500. tarriff on every imported truck. Where’s the free trade there?

Nowhere: that was stupid.