digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Mad King George wants to block wider testing for mad cow

usatoday.com — The Bush administration on Friday urged a federal appeals court to stop meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease, but a skeptical judge questioned whether the government has that authority.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • reflex768, on 05/12/2008, -0/+114Defies belief. The government can prevent me from testing my own cattle meat on my own initiative? I think that's very near an indefensible position on the part of the Bush admin.
    • LeeSoong, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7Well, is it the only way to make George sound smarter - make other people dumber with MCD ?
      • deskimo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Unfortunately, MCD doesn't just make you dumber, it makes you insane and paralyzed and kills you quickly by chewing holes indiscriminantly in your brain tissue. The Bush administration has clearly completely lost its marbles, and if it weren't its last year, I would ask Nancy Pelosi to bring impeachment back to the table.
        • grimward, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Are we talking mad cow disesase or mcdonalds here? does it matter? :P
          • LeeSoong, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1same difference,
            and I think it's a legal requirement to bring back Chimpeachment .
    • FredFredrickson, on 05/12/2008, -2/+12"I think that's very near an indefensible position on the part of the Bush admin."
      At this point, what isn't?
  • mentallyinhell, on 05/12/2008, -3/+64Politicians are not scientists or proffesionals of any sort in these fields. Why do they make these decisions? King George is the last person I want telling me what's good for me.
    • Defuser, on 05/12/2008, -26/+4Oh, gee, that's so awesomely cool and clever! The headline called Bush "King George", so you did too!
    • LeeSoong, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4Mad for Cow - I'm Lovin' It !

      - rejected McDonald's sales slogan.
    • aliengoods, on 05/12/2008, -1/+15"Why do they make these decisions?"

      I'm not sure, but I'll take a guess. Some major corporate beef producer doesn't want to have to test to compete, so they gave the Bush administration a couple hundred thousand to try to shut it down in some half ass manner. This is similar to the way the Big Three in Detroit killed the Tucker cars because they were too safe and reliable, only they did it with Senators. It's always about the money.
    • ArchangelZLT, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Politicians are not professionals of BSE, but that doesn't matter here. What matters is that they are masters in calculating their own interest.
      • itzac, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1In this case, their desire to cling to the myth that there's no BSE in the US.
  • rnwen2750, on 05/12/2008, -0/+59Oh, the wonderful effects of powerful lobbies.
  • spinchange, on 05/12/2008, -1/+46So because the current standards for testing livestock are unacceptable to others in the developed world, and private enterprise wants to adapt to that demand and test all their cattle, these jokers in the WH /Justice dept. contend people might "falsely assume" they're eating safe meat !?!

    Beside being a logical, legal, and moral conundrum, That has to be the worst argument for the USDA and public health, ever

    • macweirdo42, on 05/12/2008, -1/+12Dear sweet God... That's exactly the argument they use with regards to why we can't have any sex ed. that isn't abstinence only.
  • ssn697, on 05/12/2008, -2/+27This is the third story like this over the last 6 months. The first whiff of this story was that the government was going to SUE ranchers if they decided to test every cow!
    • boomshakalaka, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4please tell me you have a source. i need to get my rage on today...
  • posys, on 05/12/2008, -17/+7This is insane, why on earth would anyone want to NOT test for such a horrendous disease. This is evil... We are being treated worse than Cattle. Learn about the "SUPERCLASS" http://teaminfinity.com/COMMUNICAE-12556.shtml so you can help steer them in the right direction on the MAD COW issue, as well encourage them to rollout the solution to problems, the "ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY" where even cattle are treated well. http://RoboEco.com/happy-cow
    • hayzeus, on 05/12/2008, -5/+5Wow -- you're kinda nutty. Wait -- I'm sorry -- I should have said "KINDA NUTTY"/
    • akkibaba, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7You're missing either a Bible verse or the ever-popular WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!
  • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -5/+31My roommates think I'm insane because I only buy beef from Wholefoods (or other places that guarantee 100% grass-fed beef).
    • inavat, on 05/12/2008, -3/+12Well, you can ask them "Who's insane now?!" when they're suffering from:
      rapidly progressive dementia, leading to memory loss, personality changes, hallucinations, speech impairment, jerky movements (myoclonus), balance and coordination dysfunction (ataxia), changes in gait, rigid posture, and seizures.

      Then you can steal all their stuff.
      • CiXeL, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6you have to wonder how latent madcow disease affects the decision-making process of world leaders.
        would it confuse and screw with your decision making enough to launch the nukes?
      • Matri, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Progressive dementia, hallucinations, speech impairment... You could have described ol' George himself...
    • cerejota, on 05/12/2008, -23/+6You *are* insane.

      Want to be healthy, don't eat meat. You are like people who order double bacon cheeseburgers with a diet coke.

      (for the record, I do eat meat, I just accept the fact that I am doing something deliciously wrong)
      • Vector713, on 05/12/2008, -1/+10Meat is not altogether unheathly. Stop asserting hypocrisy and then playing it off like it's okay because you acknowledge it. That's like saying "I'm a murderer but it's okay because I admit it"

        I hate hypocrites and pompous assholes.
      • DanMiller, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9Meat is not unhealthy, however, fast food meat is generally bad for you. We are a species which has evolved to eat meat. Quit acting like the whole damn food chain should be standing around holding hands.
    • hadees, on 05/12/2008, -5/+13I don't think you are insane just filthy rich otherwise you couldn't afford beef from whole foods.
      • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -0/+10no, just in debt
        • radiopayola, on 05/12/2008, -4/+3or perhaps you eat meat a little less often, and therefore, you can afford to splurge to make sure you aren't going to go insane and die...
        • DanMiller, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7"Welcome to Wholefoods! Would you be interested in one of our low interest/low monthly payment meat loans?"
    • bdbr, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7I don't think you're insane, nor do I think you're decreasing your risk of mad cow disease (which was already very, very close to zero). You are getting healthier beef, though - which might reduce your chances of other problems (like heart disease) that are actually LIKELY to occur.

      Making your food-purchasing decisions based on worries of mad cow disease makes less sense than planning your future on winning the lottery...because your chances of winning the lottery are much higher.
    • shoover, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4Stop eating cow brain and spine, and your chance of having any ill-effects from a known infected cow reduces to near-zero. These are things that are rarely consumed in North America anyway, which is why you don't hear about people getting infected.
      Anyway, asking for grass finished beef gets you gamey meat.
      • charlietuna, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Cow brain is the yummiest part... almost on par with human. Ask any zombie.
      • netant, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Actually, staying complete with reported statistics, the risk of getting mad cow is already near zero. "By April 2008, it had killed 163 people in Britain, and 37 elsewhere". That is the TOTAL diagnosed deaths since 1980!

        (But on the spooky side, for the one diagnosed death for Japan, he lived in Britain for only 24 days during the 1980 period. Also, if you get vCJD after you're 60, you're going to get misdiagnosed as an Alzheimer patient, and die of "natural causes".)

        But I've ceased eating cow for over 5 years, at this point. Not because I'm genuinely scared of dying of vCJD, but because of my outrage at the cattle industry for wanting to pass off my death as an operating expense, rather than test their damn cattle. But you need to be more careful than avoid eating "sweet meats" and spine. I won't eat beef flavored, processed food. (The way you get those beef flavoring packets in ramen noodles,is that they decompose the whole cow, brain & all, into a vat until its a rotting puddle, and dehydrate the pulp. Mmmmm, yummy.) You shouldn't eat hamburger or sausage, because those materials can be ground into the meat, and brain is meat based filler. (You shouldn't eat hamburger anyway, because salmonella gets ground into the interior of the patty, and if its not incinerated into a hockey puck, it could kill you. You can eat steaks rare, because there's no real way for the salmonella to get into the interior of the steak cut; only the outside, which is seared.) I won't even eat soups that have meatballs in them. I probably could eat wontons, but I am so paranoid. And cow is NOTHING. Deer populations are getting ravaged by BSE. I would not eat any venison, period.

        But getting off beef is like kicking a drug habit. Ooooh, how I crave a prime rib, every now then. I wish I could forswear all meat, but I'm too much of an addict.
        • DanMiller, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I think you may have salmonella confused with E Coli. Yes, you can get salmonella from any meat but E Coli is the most common food born illness when you are talking about ground beef. Also, Ramen flavoring is not made from decomposed cow. Bone is cooked in a vat that is reduced until there is very little liquid, the resulting broth is further reduced and dried into a powder. This is the same process as when making meat stocks. The image of cow carcasses being tossed into a giant cooker is asinine. I understand the decision to avoid a particular food due to ethical reasons or health reasons but as you stated before, your odds of getting vCJD is almost zero. There are many other foods that carry diseases just as dangerous and with higher frequency of infection. Consider that almost by default every piece of uncooked chicken you will ever come into contact with will have salmonella present. Cooking your meat to the required temperature will kill most common foodborne illnesses. You have to die sometime, may as well do it with some sweet sweet meat in your belly
    • itzac, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3That's why Alberta Beef is so tasty. It's grain fed. It's yummy.
      Some restaurants have tried selling american beef, but it's almost impossible. It's perfectly legal, and you're welcome to try, but people here just won't eat it.
      • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Boy, I thought you Canadians were bright, but my you're dense.

        If Alberta beef is so tasty, its not because its exclusively corn fed. All American cattle is primarily grain fed. Grass-fed cows are a rarity, nowadays. But thanks for trying to pass off your reported, diseased BSE cows on the US.
  • CryRightardCry, on 05/12/2008, -4/+37If ever you were unsure that Bush does NOT have your best interests at heart, this should convince you.
    Well, most of the stuff he's done during his presidency should convince you, but just in case your head was up your ass, THIS should convince you.
    It's not about the American people, it's about the $$$$.
  • hayzeus, on 05/12/2008, -8/+26Cow to other cow: "Aren't you afraid of getting mad cow disease?"
    Other cow: "No -- I'm a penguin."
    Thanx -- I'll be here all week
  • cheeseron, on 05/12/2008, -23/+11There's no need for such a sensationalist headline on such an important topic
    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/12/2008, -9/+13What? Why did you vote for Bush?
  • twipley, on 05/12/2008, -3/+9Meatpackers will then have an excuse to permit increased productivity, because “the disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority.” -- Stanley Milgram
    • bjs3171, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3what?
      • itzac, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3If farmers aren't allowed to test, they'll stop testing, and leave it to the government to ensure their product is safe, while taking advantage of the reduced cost of quality control to become more productive. Hence the overall quality of the product will drop.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/12/2008, -12/+18Why does Bush hate our troops?
    • Chassit, on 05/12/2008, -2/+14It isn't just our troops, he hates ALL Americans.
    • bjs3171, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5And puppies.
    • ErikHarrison, on 05/12/2008, -2/+8He wants to bury this country so deep that NO candidate will be able to recover.
    • itzac, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I hear Laura bakes a mean Christian Baby Casserole.
  • FearFactory, on 05/12/2008, -6/+41George Bush has Mad Human Disease
  • crapmatic, on 05/12/2008, -5/+26Only eight more months... please, please let it come quick. I can't take any more of this administration's self-serving *****.
    • BasharTeg, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5Yeah, provided the democrats pull together rather than giving McSame more ammunition with the bitter fighting of Clinton and Obama and their respective fanbois. Personally I'm voting for NOT-BUSH which includes Bush apologists like McSame.
    • DavidYeah, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6The problem I have is that after this administration is gone, their hardlinke conservtive appointees will continue poisoning the well for years to come.
    • gernblansted, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Sad to say, but they are almost certainly saving the 'best' for last.
  • roflcoaster, on 05/12/2008, -8/+2aw, he's an animal rights activist now?
    hoorah now im going to support the war!

    /sarcasm
  • Picaroon, on 05/12/2008, -9/+13I don't know whether to Digg this because it's important or bury it because of the idiotic title the submitter used...
    Dugg. Reluctantly.

    BTW, the issue is largely that if you test that much you increase the chances of a false positive. Still, laissez-faire is the way to go with the economy.
    • Defuser, on 05/12/2008, -0/+11There would be NO "false positives". You can bet your ass that if a cow came up positive, the meat packers would make DAMN sure to re-test until they were absolutely certain. It's not like they're going to say "Woops, got a Positive, but let's let it slide without confirming, because nobody really cares".
    • DoubtingThomas, on 05/12/2008, -0/+10Actually if read further, the whole "false positive" logic is a cover for a bigger issue. What the real issue is is that other meat packers fear that they will be pressured (by the consumer) to rise to the same level of testing that Creekstone Farms Premium Beef has.
      • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Its even worse than that. The way I believe testing occurs now, 1 cow in 30,000 is tested for BSE. If they establish the cow is positive, they need to cull the entire group the cow came from (its like 1000 cows). For every cow that's lost to a BSE diagnosis, its like losing $120/cow.

        The ranchers don't care about losing each cow that has BSE. They don't want to lose hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in herd culls.
    • Picaroon, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6^Right you both are, that makes sense. Pretty obvious that government shouldn't be interfering, and big surprise, it's due to lobbyists.
    • itzac, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2There's also the fear that if a case of BSE is found in the US, it will be subject to the same ridiculous restrictions it placed on Alberta beef imports after the case that was found here.
      To date there have been no documented cases of BSE originating in the US (a statistical improbability, likely the result of refusing to report the cases that have come up) and Bush doesn't want that to change.
  • ninjaface, on 05/12/2008, -7/+8I want more mad cow!!! Vote McCain!!!
  • Shogi, on 05/12/2008, -7/+14Dugg for Mad King George.
    • Forsakenmantra, on 05/12/2008, -4/+3I was looking just for your comment, beucase if I didn't it I would have made my own. This is quite silly to demand LESS testing.. :(
      • Forsakenmantra, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1"beucase if I didn't it" /sigh
    • bdbr, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4That would be the main reason I might BURY it. Its not that I'm pro-Bush (I voted for the other guy), but I don't think the subject line should be used for personal commentary.
  • mozzep, on 05/12/2008, -11/+7if there is less testing on the cows for mad cow disease, then prices will go down for meat.
    • Zarokima, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8Yay for cheaper disease?
      • Firehed, on 05/12/2008, -5/+4RTFA. Three cases have been reported since 2003. This is not exactly a widespread issue. More people die in car crashes every hour (hell, probably every minute) than have died from mad cow disease in the past half decade. Let's keep priorities in order.
        • cerejota, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7It is sad that many people die in car accidents a year.

          However, the relationship between transportation safety to food-borne disease prevention, is beyond me.

          Apple and oranges my friend, apples and oranges...
          • MacParrot, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Uh uh, don't bring Apple into this. There's enough Mac-bashing on digg already
        • ludar, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1just so you know there has been 0 documented cases of the human version of mad cow
    • nblsavage, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5so what if there is an increased chance of it killing you, as long as it's cheap!
    • drkmccrthy, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3This is not necessarily true; lower costs =/= lower prices. Although making the consumer assume a greater risk will demand lower prices or more likely, some sort of home test... raising the prices overall.
      • DanMiller, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I don't think your argument makes much sense. If meat producers don't have to spend money testing every animal then it can be argued that production cost would drop, as well increasing overall production due to one less step in the process. The idea that a home test is going to raise the cost of meat per pound is laughable. Do you really believe that people are going to break out the test tubes at their home before cooking up a pound of ground beef. Despite all of the panic and outrage at things like this most people at the end of the day just want cheap food and damn the risks. Why do you think people continue to eat rare meat and buy from fast food restaraunts.
      • ludar, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2unless you have the brain or the spinal cord for ingestion, you don't need to worry about any kind of test.
        • DanMiller, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4No, parts of either often find there ways into other cuts of meat, ground beef is the worst offender.
          • ludar, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1no, it doesn't. not since they banned mechanically separated meat. That is something they do check for.
          • DanMiller, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Um, hate to break it to you but they still use Advanced Meat Recovery systems. While this has helped to limit potential contamination is has not removed it completely. The system still relies on workers fully removing the spinal cord which they often fail at.
    • Jexie, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Yeah, ***** safety, I just want cheap. Lets stop dating it for freshness too, beef will be cheaper if we let them sell us stuff thats gone bad, also lets stop testing pharmaceuticals before they go to market, they'll get so much cheaper!
    • bdbr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2They don't do that must testing, so it wouldn't save much. Its just enough that it might signal us of any outbreak.
    • fluxion, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2awesome now i can afford to make hamburgers again
  • jpop, on 05/12/2008, -3/+14My suspicion is that the reason they don't want to test more is because it is more widespread than we think. If they tested more, they're more likely to find it. If they find it, it decimates the beef industry, hurts the economy, etc.

    In terms of lobbying, you'll have the beef companies that have good cows lobbying for the testing so they have an extra selling point. You'll have the marginal or untested companies lobbying against the extra testing because they may not pass the testing and will and be hurt by it.
    • bdbr, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1More likely its just dirty politics. According to my Korean wife: no sooner had a trade negotiation been completed to open markets between the US & Korea (easier US import of Korean electronics in exchange for easier Korean import of US beef) than propaganda about mad cow disease in US beef started making the rounds in Korea. America isn't the only government that uses fear as a political tool.

      This increase in testing is purely for assurances that are, most likely, unnecessary. They already pay a lot than we do for food, so the additional cost won't be as visible to them as it is to us.
    • bjornski, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I have a sneaking suspicion that what's being passed off as "Alzheimer's" oftentimes isn't....
  • RSman, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4Time to stop eating beef...
    • YoshinoAiki, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2It's time to eat the other white meat! Pork! And Chicken! Buffalo is another good option. I'm going to avoid beef as long as there is a possibility of buying untested meat.
      • cha5e, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3With chicken you can get salmonella. With spinach you can get e. coli. No food is completely safe.
        (In the style of the Kellogg's Frosted Mini Wheats commerical) As much as the vegetarian in me would love for you to stop eating meat, the rational person in me knows it would be stupid to do so based solely on a fear of Mad Cow Disease.
      • starmanfalls, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0Ummmm buffalo. Buffalo is better than beef cost more but waay better. Elk is pretty good too.
  • wildone71, on 05/12/2008, -7/+0George Bush hates brain eaters...
  • raybury, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4IIRC, ALL positive tests must be reported immediately. The more testing you do, the more false positives you will get. Also IIRC, just a few months ago a positive test led to several days of uncertainty about the safety of our food supply, only -- which diggers like to emphasize is increasing in price already -- only to learn that it had been a false positive.
    • Defuser, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5I'd rather see a few "false positives" (if such a thing is indeed possible) than people dying of Mad Cow. You'll forgive me if I'm willing to pay slightly higher meat prices if it means that nobody dies from having their brain rot.
      • raybury, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1You haven't been paying attention: There have been several false positives (and will be under almost any good test system) which have, in recent months, meant consumers waiting on the secondary results and either going without beef (bad for the producers) or cavalierly taking their chances (cynicism is bad for public health). You would see 100x as many, which either means the end of beef production or the end of effective public health warning systems.

        One percent testing over a very large cattle population can actually be quite effective. (How often do you cite polls that are considered very accurate with a sample size of less than 1100 Americans, about 1 in 300,000?) The 100% requirement is alarmist and far more likely to result in market decimation than in improved safety.
    • dcaveney, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3More testing would also reveal more positive positives...that's a good thing if you need to know which cows will kill you
  • synthpop, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5it's either madcow beef or Soylent Green™
    make your choice
    • Chassit, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Pork.
    • Hetman, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4You know what madcow disease is right? It is when you feed cows to other cows. The same type of disease happens to certain cannibalistic tribesman. It has to be eaten frequently but not every day. Anyways all I am saying even though Soylent green sounds like a tasty solution, in the long run it will probably have far worst affects.
  • pixelfishfood, on 05/12/2008, -1/+18This shows how the Republican party has been taken over by Neocons. Republicans are supposed to step out of the way and let businesses operate as they see fit. From what I've seen, all Neocons want is to keep the population ignorant and scared while amassing $$$ for corporate lobbyists, such as the meat industry.
    • cerejota, on 05/12/2008, -5/+2Yeah its the neocons fault. *****. Can't have it both ways: the markets are about greed and corruption, and they will breed greed and corruption. Stop whining or go socialist.
    • Defuser, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3There's NOBODY more pissed off at the NeoCon agenda than old-school Republicans. We saw our party yanked right out from under us. I am apparently a Democrat now- not by any conscious decision, but because the Republican party has become a warped, twisted parody of itself. I haven't voted for a Republican since George Bush Senior, and I only voted for him the first time, before it became apparent that the entire Bush family is insane.
    • Hillsfar, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2The Republicans have always been for free enterprise when it means deregulating industry as the industry sees fit. But as soon as something like Mexican avocadoes or cane sugar from another country figures into the matter, then it's all about protecting American jobs.
    • Hillsfar, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1The Republicans have always been for free enterprise when it means deregulating industry as the industry sees fit. But as soon as something like Mexican avocadoes or cane sugar from another country figures into the matter, then it's all about protecting American growers.
  • srikanthp, on 05/12/2008, -10/+2Testing for mad-cow disease? Of course, George wouldn't want any testing to be done on his mom.
  • cerejota, on 05/12/2008, -7/+4oh noes, i can has cheezburger no moars!
  • hobbitontherock, on 05/12/2008, -10/+3It seems a bit ridiculous what they're trying to do, but honestly testing for mad cow disease is a waste of time. There are less than 300 cases reported in humans every year, and there is no evidence to support that you can contract it by eating infected meat. Mad King George maybe, but only for the reason that he's trying to control something that the government shouldn't. The industry should be able to decide it's own standards for testing meat as long as they at least meet the government's MINIMUM standards.
  • swordphish, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10Treason.
  • gayforvaginas, on 05/12/2008, -2/+11From Lewrockwell.com:

    Many thanks to Mark Anderson, who read my article proposing the end of the U.S. Agriculture Department (USDA), for provding the following link to a news web site in Arkansas City, Kansas, the ArkCity news. In it, Creekstone - a beef processor - asked permission to test each head of cattle prior to slaughter and processing for BSE, also known as "mad cow disease." It seems that Creekstone has lost a lot of business in exporting quality beef to Japan, as the Japanese consumer insists that the beef be tested. The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service forbid them from doing this, claiming that such young cattle do not need to be inspected. What is the point of this? It seems that USDA doesn't want the private sector to monitor the safety of the products it sells. USDA's bureaucrats seem more concerned about keeping their jobs than they do about true food safety!


    From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creekstone_Farms_Prem ...

    Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, LLC is a conventional and angus beef producer and limited liability company with livestock based in Campbellsburg, Kentucky and processing and sales in Arkansas City, Kansas. The CEO of Creekstone, John Stewart (who is also the owner of the Triad Foods Group) founded the company in 1995 along with his wife, Carol Stewart. Creekstone Farms is also co-owned by Sun Capital Partners. The majority of their distributors are not chains, but Publix does distribute their products in some states.

    Creekstone Farms is most well known for its attempt to test all of its beef for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or "mad cow disease"). At a cost of about half a million dollars, Creekstone built a testing lab, the first inside a U. S. meat packing plant, and hired the necessary personnel. In 2004, however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which controls the sale of testing kits, refused to sell Creekstone enough to test all of its cows.

    The USDA's stated position was that allowing any meatpacking company to test every cow would undermine the agency's official position that random testing was scientifically adequate to assure safety. The USDA also claims that testing does not ensure food safety because the disease is difficult to detect in younger animals. An alternative position is that the USDA's objection is the result of pressure from larger meatpacking operations. The president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association told the Washington Post that "If testing is allowed at Creekstone, we think it would become the international standard and the domestic standard, too." Creekstone Farms says tests cost about $20 per animal, increasing the cost of beef by about 10 cents per pound. The USDA currently tests about 1 percent of cattle slaughtered in the U.S.

    In March 2006, Creekstone launched a lawsuit against the USDA for refusing to allow complete testing. On March 29, 2007, Judges James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that USDA cannot lawfully prevent Creekstone from testing its cattle for BSE. USDA's appeal of that decision to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is pending.

    The company reports that Japan's ban on U.S. beef beginning in 2003 caused the company to lose a third of its sales, prompting the layoff of about 150 people.
  • Hetman, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7The problem is it will drive up cost. Not by a lot. But it will. And if one person tests all his cows, due to the idea of supply and deman all people will have to test all there cows. I mean who is going to buy meat if the one next to it says been expected for mad cow disease. I personally believe the government should stay out of it and allow american citizens to pay more for beef if they want the extra testing done. It is a free market. That is the problem I have with it, not the fact that they are testing or not testing all their cows. Mad cows disease is the least of my worries.
    • Disgod, on 05/12/2008, -0/+310 cents a pound difference. And it's inspected not expected
      • DanMiller, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Where did you get the ten cent difference?
        • Disgod, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4The President of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, it's a quote in the post just before Hetman's. It's a wikipedia source, so just to be sure I did a google search and found an actual article where someone else is quoted as saying it'd cost 6 to 10 cents a pound. Here's the link.
          http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/06/0515madcow.html
    • Leetamus, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Well said although i think at this point it's more of an illusion of a free market
    • Hetman, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Got me there im an idiot. Anyways that is why I said let the free market decide. I would prefer not to pay the 10 cents. But that is up to the consumer that Is why I am in favor of allowing people who want to test, test them. The people who are only inpsecting 5% of there cows let them keep doing that. Our testing methods are safe and I do not want to pay any more for beef than I am already paying. But that is my choice.
      • Disgod, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Personally I don't think 10 cents is all that much. You'd have to buy 10 pounds of beef at once for it to cost an extra dollar. I completely understand why the industry wants to test all their cattle, they have lost a huge market because they can't test their beef to other countries' standards. It's only a few companies that want to do this, so if you don't want to buy their beef you don't have to, but even if the entire industry starts doing it, the price of testing will probably go down, so it'd be even less than 10 cents a pound.
      • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Less than 1/20 cows are tested for BSE. Its more like 1/30000.
  • dtfinch, on 05/12/2008, -9/+8A cow won't get it unless it's eating the brains of other cows. Then someone has to eat that cow's brains. Testing cows that can't possibly have it is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

    Score 1 against basic human freedom.
    • mnemy, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6I really hope that's sarcasm because if not, you're an idiot talking about something you have absolutely no knowledge of
      • cha5e, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Actually, he/she is correct in that it is transmitted cow-cow and cow-human via consumption of brain/spain matter.
        But as far as the "can't possibly have it"...there's no such thing as an absolute.
        • Cattywampus, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6There's a lot that's not known about CJD (the human form of mad cow disease), including whether it can be caught from eating beef. It may be possible to catch it from eating cow parts other than the brain.

          One reason why authorities are being overly cautious in dealing with mad cow and related diseases is that it can have an incubation period of up to *40 years.*
          • cha5e, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1My bad, I thought it was known that it could be transmitted from consumption.
            I was aware that incubation can be up to 15 years. Up to 40? Wow.
            And, obviously, I meant "spine", not "spain", btw :)
    • DoubtingThomas, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6You are quite ignorant when comes to how large meat processors work. Unused portions of the cow (read: brains and other no salable organ meat) are usually made into feed for subsequent generations, hence there is a very real risk of cows ingesting BSE prion from this feed. It is true that you need to consume either the spinal or brain tissue of the cattle to be exposed to BSE. However, it is very easy for pieces of either brain matter or spinal tissue to contaminate other cuts of meat and especially ground meat processed at the plant.
      • dtfinch, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Feeding mammal byproducts to cows has been illegal in the US for over a decade.
        • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Incorrect. Downer cows are ground up and sold as pet food and "protein supplements" to chickens and pigs. Guess what happens to some of those hogs and chickens? Yup, ground up into the grain as "protein supplements". There is no study that concludes prions are magically filtered into non-existence by feeding them to another animal species.
    • DanMiller, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Actually you only have to eat beef which has come into contact with the spinal cord or brain. Since beef originates from "one big cow" then the likely hood of brain matter or spinal tissue coming into contact with other parts of the meat is increased. Ground beef is one of the greatest threats since the "outside" of the cut, most likely to have come into contact with the offending disease, is ground into the rest. If you eat beef you do run a risk of Mad Cow.
    • dakbonsa, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Well, they actually use something called Advanced Meat Recovery, which basically squeezes cow out so that they could get to that last piece of meat. And in this process, you can actually get BSE prion mixed with your beef...
    • nightwing2000, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3They're pretty sure that Mad Cow started as a known sheep disease in Britain decades ago. Used animal parts are rendered (polite word) into animal feed if they are no use for human consumption. So sick sheep parts were turned into protein to help cows grow big and strong. Oops...
      This is another example of teh problems inherent in being too smart for your own good - feeding animals stuff they would never have eaten naturally, feeding them stuff that came from their own species - enforced canibalism - resulted in the explosive growth of a rare disease.
      Since nobody knwe this at the time, the occasional animal imported from Europe brought the disease over here, where it has worked its way into our foood chain.
      There's a theory that the "prions" proteins at the root cause of BSE can occur spontaneously. So even though we have eliminated cow/sheep cannibalism, there is still a possibility of the disease appearing on tests.
  • lnxfi, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5I'm ignorant here, but what are the effects on humans if they eat the diseased meat? Thanks. I like my beef. :(
    • JoeVet, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4They say it causes a variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. But so far no great human outbreak has followed the british bovine outbreak. CJD causes spongy changes to the brain leading to dementia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt-Jakob_dis ...
    • cha5e, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3I'm tempted to bury you and reply "Look it up" but I'm bored, so:
      Onset of symptoms begins 10-15 years after infection. Seriously. Dementia, speech impairment, seizures, etc. Can be fatal in a matter of weeks, or a few years at the outside...on average 4-14 months.
      I don't mean to frighten you, though - for most of the past 30 years, infection rate has been about 1 out of every 1,000,000 people in the US. Worse in the UK but still very rare.
    • shoover, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Also, you don't get it from eating the meat - you get it from eating brain and spinal matter. Not really on the menu in North America.
      • dakbonsa, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1but cows eat brain and spinal matter..and that's why it spreads...
  • JoeVet, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8I ate British beef when I was stationed in europe during the mad cow outbreak. There has been no great epidemic of vCJD as far as I can tell. The only drawback I have is that the red cross refuses to take my blood. I don't believe the cow disease causes the human jlkidse sadlifsdfg and f sdfisdfasdfnalsdf. Tesasdfsdi fasdlfidf asdfisdfnasdlfksdf asdlfisdf asdfidf.
  • mnemy, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Wonderful logic. Don't test because we dont want you using the tests to reassure customers that they're eating safe meat since the test isn't 100% effective. Instead, don't test, and let consumers guess whether it's safe or not
  • Richandler, on 05/12/2008, -8/+4No food testing should be mandatory. It just drives prices up. Are we so sick that we don't trust people in our country to serve us clean food? Even still are we not will to sacrifice endless testing so that the poorest of us can afford to eat?
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5This is not forcing anybody. The meat processors were testing of their own volition. The gov't is stepping in to say "No, you cannot do that."
    • fluxion, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4not only did you completely miss the point, as pointed out above, but...

      "Are we so sick that we don't trust people in our country to serve us clean food?"

      are you that naive as well? do you realize what the conditions were before the government stepped in to regulate the food industry? Recall your 9th grade basic U.S. history class when they went over industrialization and undoubtedly mentioned the book "The Jungle".
    • dschrute, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3"we don't trust people to serve us clean food?"

      Have you ever worked in a restaurant? Have you every read a bad county health report for one? You are tremendously uninformed.
  • bjs3171, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5they're worried a false positive would create unnecessary worry? wouldn't the meat company just NOT SELL that bit of meat? How would the consumer ever know that one random piece of beef, that they nevr had to touch, was contaminated? it does seem a little pointless, because while there will probably be some false positives, i'm sure there will also be false negatives, but it's NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.
    • pentomino, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1False positives will create public hysteria, until we forbid TV journalists from using the word "could."

      Tonight, Channel 15 in Phoenix is running an IMPORTANT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT about a contaminant in the water supply that's so dangerous, you don't even have to drink it for it to hurt you. Terms like "CANCER" and "BIRTH DEFECTS" were thrown around. They'll probably trot out two or three anecdotes from people with cancer and zealous lawyers trying to sue the city. And they're not airing it because there's a sudden new threat. They're airing it because it's May sweeps, and because you'll watch the news if the commercial is SCARY enough.
  • gbarger, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Actually this is strange but they're trying to push this through to help small business. Large corporate farming can afford to easily test all of their cattle and advertise MCD free meat, but small farmers cannot afford to test just a few cows because it's so expensive (on a large scale things become cheaper...it's called economies of scale). This makes big business much more competitive from a marketing standpoint so this is being done to help the little guy.
  • siszam, on 05/12/2008, -6/+4Bush also vetoed a ban on mercury in childhood vaccines. The man is a demon.
  • papipablo, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5Impeach. Convict. Hang.
  • palladin, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Test George's brain (assuming one can be found).
  • amigabill, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I don't understand why the governemtn would step in to actively prevent a company from volunarily doing more than is minimally required of them. But I also do not understand why they would forbid labbeling naturally born meat as "not a clone" or why Ben and Jerry's ice cream company had such trouble getting permission to say they don't use milk from cows taking growth hormones. These are things that some companies want to voluntarily go beyond minimal requirements and take the risks for themselves, I can't imagine why it's a good idea to forbid them in such activities.
  • jayscot, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Obama would never do that. He's the messiah.

  • drdavid, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Yes the easiest way to reduce the risk of mad cow disease is to stop feeding cows parts to cows. And then there would be no need for testing.
    However the article is not very helpful to me because it does not inform me what BSE testing policies are in other countries, nor how other developed countries approach the issue of BSE. So how am I to know whether Creekstone's test plan is sound? Instead it is framed as "small farmers versus the guvmunt".
    • dakbonsa, on 05/12/2008, -0/+41) Many European countries and Japan that have experienced BSE now do test for every cow they slaughter....
      2) Japan won't import U.S. beef unless they are BSE tested.. and that's probably why that company's is trying to do tests on it. (as it is one of the biggest markets in the world....and before they banned U.S. beef)
      • drdavid, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Yes but who tests the cows - the government or the slaughterers?
        • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Technically, its the government. Meat inspectors are not the employees of the slaughter house. On the other hand, it would be naive to think the cattle industry doesn't have a say in how much money gets allocated to food inspection.
    • netant, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Stop doing any protein supplementing to grain feed. None of the animals need it, its just done to get more mass onto the cow for sale.
  • toconnor, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Do you really think that this came all the way down from GWB? There couldn't be some other peon in the Agriculture Department that made this decision? Not that this isn't right up his alley, but how many decisions do you think the president makes in a day? Just because MSM claims it is the "Bush Administration" doesn't mean he's sitting there ordering people to do these things.
  • BOFH2, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Urged does not mean forced or ordered. Guess there has not been enough Brittany posts for diggers lately.
  • DeFex, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6Mad king George is just fighting for freedom. The freedom for corporations to rip you off, injure or kill you with no consequences.
  • Fallout911, on 05/12/2008, -5/+3Go Vegetarian and you wont have to worry about Mad Cow or the suffering of these animals.
    • starmanfalls, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0Then you need to consider, spinach, lettuce alfalfa sprouts, and pretty much all veggies as well. I am not a quit er and will never quit eating meat. And I don't worry about mad cow.
  • tufftugg, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3 So many mistakes, so long to fix them.
  • ozziedog, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6The reason is simple. There are more cows with the mad cow disease than they would like to report. Canada had 1 case of mad cow disease and America immediately shut it's borders to our beef. America's "cleaner" record is not due to better farming standards but weaker testing standards.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.