U.S. Won't Let Company Test All Its Cattle for Mad Cow

[Guest guest]

Isn't this special? A company wants to test all their

cattle for mad cow and the Department of Agriculture

WON'T LET THEM. If they do it then everyone will have

to do it to seem " safe. " And we can't have that, can

we. Blah. Just another " I'm glad I don't eat meat "

stories.

 

Laura

 

-----------------------

 

April 10, 2004

 

 

U.S. Won't Let Company Test All Its Cattle for Mad Cow

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

 

 

The Department of Agriculture refused yesterday to

allow a Kansas beef producer to test all of its cattle

for mad cow disease, saying such sweeping tests were

not scientifically warranted.

 

 

The producer, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wanted to

use recently approved rapid tests so it could resume

selling its fat-marbled black Angus beef to Japan,

which banned American beef after a cow slaughtered in

Washington State last December tested positive for mad

cow. The company has complained that the ban is

costing it $40,000 a day and forced it to lay off 50

employees.

 

 

The department's under secretary for marketing and

regulation, Bill Hawks, said in a statement yesterday

that the rapid tests, which are used in Japan and

Europe, were licensed for surveillance of animal

health, while Creekstone's use would have " implied a

consumer safety aspect that is not scientifically

warranted. "

 

 

Lobbying groups for cattle ranchers and

slaughterhouses applauded the decision, but consumer

advocates denounced it, saying the department was

preventing Creekstone from taking extra steps to prove

its product was safe.

 

 

Under the Virus Serum Toxin Act of 1913, the

department decides where cattle can be tested and for

what.

 

 

Consumer groups accused the department of bending to

the will of the beef lobby, saying producers do not

want the expense of proving that all cattle are safe

or the damage to meat sales that would result if more

cases of mad cow are found.

 

 

Creekstone said it was extremely disappointed and

frustrated that the department had taken six weeks to

decide and added that it might go to court to fight

the decision.

 

 

Since December, Japan has demanded that producers who

want to export there test each animal, as Japanese

ranchers do. The American beef industry and the Bush

administration have resisted, and negotiations have

become increasingly tense.

 

 

Consumer groups were critical of the department's

decision.

 

 

" It is ironic in the extreme that an administration

that's so interested in letting industry come up with

its own solutions would come down with a heavy

government hand on a company that's being creative, "

said Dr. Peter Lurie, deputy director of the health

research group at Public Citizen, a frequent food

industry critic.

 

 

Dr. Lurie said, however, the Japanese demand for 100

percent testing was irrational because it included

animals younger than 20 months. " But there is no

shortage of irrational consumer demands — like

cosmetic surgery or S.U.V's — that industry is only

too happy to cater to, " he said. " That's what

capitalism does. "

 

 

Andrew Kimbrell, director of the Center for Food

Safety, another group often critical of the industry,

said: " We're the ones who've been irrational on mad

cow because of the foot-dragging and refusals to test,

our head-in-the-sand attitude. And now that it's

brought us to a crisis, American farmers have no way

of protecting their market. "

 

 

A spokesman for the Agriculture Department, Ed Lloyd,

defended yesterday's decision, saying, " We're working

very diligently to re-establish our markets. "

 

 

The department recently changed its testing regimen to

make a one-time effort, beginning in June, to test

201,000 cows with symptoms of nervous disease or that

are too sick or injured to walk, and 20,000 healthy

older ones. The regimen assumes that cattle born

before 1997, when a ban was imposed on feeding bovine

tissue to cattle, are most at risk.

 

 

The president of the American Meat Institute, which

represents slaughterhouses, and the director of

regulatory affairs at the National Cattlemen's Beef

Association, which represents ranchers, praised the

decision.

 

 

Gary Weber of the cattlemen's association called 100

percent testing misleading to consumers because it

would create a false impression that untested beef was

not safe. He compared it to demanding that all cars be

crash tested to prove they are safe.

 

 

Asked if American beef producers were content to give

up the $1.5 billion Japanese market, Mr. Weber said:

" We're not going to give in to their demands. If that

means in the short-to-medium term that we don't have

that market, that's the price we'll pay. But in the

long run, it means there's testing that's science

based and that creates a level playing field. "

 

 

Asked if beef producers did not want to be pressured

to imitate Creekstone and pay for more tests, Mr.

Weber said it was " absolutely not about the money. "

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/national/nationalspecial2/10COW.html?ex=139692\

9600 & en=cfed690f1e01ded8 & ei=5007 & partner=USERLAND

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online by April 15th

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

Won't LET them test their own? I can't believe any court in the land

would let such a law or restriction stand.

 

, " mizmorgaana "

<mizmorgaana> wrote:

> Isn't this special? A company wants to test all their

> cattle for mad cow and the Department of Agriculture

> WON'T LET THEM. If they do it then everyone will have

> to do it to seem " safe. " And we can't have that, can

> we. Blah. Just another " I'm glad I don't eat meat "

> stories.

>

> Laura

>

> -----------------------

>

> April 10, 2004

>

>

> U.S. Won't Let Company Test All Its Cattle for Mad Cow

> By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

>

>

> The Department of Agriculture refused yesterday to

> allow a Kansas beef producer to test all of its cattle

> for mad cow disease, saying such sweeping tests were

> not scientifically warranted.

>

>

> The producer, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wanted to

> use recently approved rapid tests so it could resume

> selling its fat-marbled black Angus beef to Japan,

> which banned American beef after a cow slaughtered in

> Washington State last December tested positive for mad

> cow. The company has complained that the ban is

> costing it $40,000 a day and forced it to lay off 50

> employees.

>

>

> The department's under secretary for marketing and

> regulation, Bill Hawks, said in a statement yesterday

> that the rapid tests, which are used in Japan and

> Europe, were licensed for surveillance of animal

> health, while Creekstone's use would have " implied a

> consumer safety aspect that is not scientifically

> warranted. "

>

>

> Lobbying groups for cattle ranchers and

> slaughterhouses applauded the decision, but consumer

> advocates denounced it, saying the department was

> preventing Creekstone from taking extra steps to prove

> its product was safe.

>

>

> Under the Virus Serum Toxin Act of 1913, the

> department decides where cattle can be tested and for

> what.

>

>

> Consumer groups accused the department of bending to

> the will of the beef lobby, saying producers do not

> want the expense of proving that all cattle are safe

> or the damage to meat sales that would result if more

> cases of mad cow are found.

>

>

> Creekstone said it was extremely disappointed and

> frustrated that the department had taken six weeks to

> decide and added that it might go to court to fight

> the decision.

>

>

> Since December, Japan has demanded that producers who

> want to export there test each animal, as Japanese

> ranchers do. The American beef industry and the Bush

> administration have resisted, and negotiations have

> become increasingly tense.

>

>

> Consumer groups were critical of the department's

> decision.

>

>

> " It is ironic in the extreme that an administration

> that's so interested in letting industry come up with

> its own solutions would come down with a heavy

> government hand on a company that's being creative, "

> said Dr. Peter Lurie, deputy director of the health

> research group at Public Citizen, a frequent food

> industry critic.

>

>

> Dr. Lurie said, however, the Japanese demand for 100

> percent testing was irrational because it included

> animals younger than 20 months. " But there is no

> shortage of irrational consumer demands — like

> cosmetic surgery or S.U.V's — that industry is only

> too happy to cater to, " he said. " That's what

> capitalism does. "

>

>

> Andrew Kimbrell, director of the Center for Food

> Safety, another group often critical of the industry,

> said: " We're the ones who've been irrational on mad

> cow because of the foot-dragging and refusals to test,

> our head-in-the-sand attitude. And now that it's

> brought us to a crisis, American farmers have no way

> of protecting their market. "

>

>

> A spokesman for the Agriculture Department, Ed Lloyd,

> defended yesterday's decision, saying, " We're working

> very diligently to re-establish our markets. "

>

>

> The department recently changed its testing regimen to

> make a one-time effort, beginning in June, to test

> 201,000 cows with symptoms of nervous disease or that

> are too sick or injured to walk, and 20,000 healthy

> older ones. The regimen assumes that cattle born

> before 1997, when a ban was imposed on feeding bovine

> tissue to cattle, are most at risk.

>

>

> The president of the American Meat Institute, which

> represents slaughterhouses, and the director of

> regulatory affairs at the National Cattlemen's Beef

> Association, which represents ranchers, praised the

> decision.

>

>

> Gary Weber of the cattlemen's association called 100

> percent testing misleading to consumers because it

> would create a false impression that untested beef was

> not safe. He compared it to demanding that all cars be

> crash tested to prove they are safe.

>

>

> Asked if American beef producers were content to give

> up the $1.5 billion Japanese market, Mr. Weber said:

> " We're not going to give in to their demands. If that

> means in the short-to-medium term that we don't have

> that market, that's the price we'll pay. But in the

> long run, it means there's testing that's science

> based and that creates a level playing field. "

>

>

> Asked if beef producers did not want to be pressured

> to imitate Creekstone and pay for more tests, Mr.

> Weber said it was " absolutely not about the money. "

>

>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/national/nationalspecial2/10COW.html?ex=1=

396929600 & en=cfed690f1e01ded8 & ei=5007 & partner=USERLAND

>

>

>

> Tax Center - File online by April 15th

> http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

, " mizmorgaana "

<mizmorgaana> wrote:

> Isn't this special? A company wants to test all their

> cattle for mad cow and the Department of Agriculture

> WON'T LET THEM. If they do it then everyone will have

> to do it to seem " safe. " And we can't have that, can

> we. Blah. Just another " I'm glad I don't eat meat "

> stories.

 

Now this I could believe. I just read a newspaper article this week

where they have had a large cluster of deaths in New Jersey from CJD,

all of them linked to the (?I believe it was...?) Garden City Race

Track, now closed... The gist of the article was that this news is

being swept under the rug by the government because they don't want

it to harm U.S. beef sales. Darn! I wish I could find that article!

I will keep looking and post a link if I find the actual article.

 

cheryll

[Guest guest]

That's terrible! So in other words, the Department Of Agriculture is

jeopardizing the lives of innocent people by not allowing the Mad Cow tests to

be done. Thank God I'm not a meat eater anymore:) Hearing news like that makes

me even more thankful I gave up meat.

 

Noel

 

 

 

 

Message: 4

Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:21:58 -0700 (PDT)

" mizmorgaana " <mizmorgaana

U.S. Won't Let Company Test All Its Cattle for Mad Cow

 

Isn't this special? A company wants to test all their

cattle for mad cow and the Department of Agriculture

WON'T LET THEM. If they do it then everyone will have

to do it to seem " safe. " And we can't have that, can

we. Blah. Just another " I'm glad I don't eat meat "

stories.

 

Laura

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online by April 15th