What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
236 Comments
- ChessPieceFace, on 10/11/2007, -14/+307From the article: "A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows."
"Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well."
Lets review: Conservatives want industry to "self regulate", so when they try too, conservatives step in and try to stop it. Hmmmm....I guess profits for big corporations are more than the health of the people. - ccheath, on 10/11/2007, -3/+160via: http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/e_coli_conservatism_19_ne_plus_ultra
" ... observe the contempt for small business. When a small company want to - voluntarily! - hold its product to a higher standard, the government blocks it, in part because bigger companies have to be protected from the competition, in part because a theoretical threat to the bottom line (false positives) trumps protection against a deadly disease."
O M F G ! W T F ? - ChessPieceFace, on 10/11/2007, -13/+141Hmm...oops...I mean "I guess profits for big corporations are more IMPORTANT than the the health of the people."
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+109Can someone explain to me how the Dept. of Ag. can legally stop this company from testing? I don't see enough meat (sorry) in the article to explain what law they could possibly use to _prevent_ voluntary testing, unless the government has a patent or monopoly on the test kits...
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+90"Can someone explain to me how the Dept. of Ag. can legally stop this company from testing? "
I had the same question, but three different articles on the subject yielded nothing. Smaller company wants to test, then advertise they test 100%. Big conglomerate cries foul, so the Ag department jumps in to STOP testing? I am baffled by this bull ***** (couldn't help myself).
Can anyone point to a similar move by the Ag department, on say testing veggies or something else? - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+75Yeah. I don't know. I don't see any explanation.
But I'm now calling for 100% testing of USDA officials for Corrupt Pig Disease. I smell bribery. I hear it's quite rampant in this administration.
FBI? Are you listening? - drgnfly84, on 10/11/2007, -4/+75Ummm ... I thought this was from the Onion ... until I realized that it wasn't.
Wow.
Just ...... wow. - littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -4/+59Just another case of Corporatism gone Mad. In this case Cow.
- indyattic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+44Wow. So the big company gets to benefit from the economies of scale, but the smaller company isn't free to incur additional costs as a marketing strategy.
Just.......wow. - NeOmega, on 10/11/2007, -3/+43this is an example of government regulation stifling the way capitalism is supposed to work.
They want to be able to test all their cattle, and certify it as safe, and the government says no... why, beause giant cattle factories don't want the extra cost to compete.
A great example of regulation destroying the merits of the free market. - FyreGoddess, on 10/11/2007, -1/+35All of these articles have been pretty vague. I don't think that anyone can stop the companies from testing, but they CAN prevent them from advertising that they have tested the animals. Preventing them from reaping rewards of labels that include "100% tested!" or "Guranteed no Mad Cow!" will likely make them reconsider the expense of testing all the cattle without having an offset reward.
It's like how dairies can't advertise "No rBGH" on their milk. - LogicBomB, on 10/11/2007, -4/+38Retarded. I ***** hate the world these days.
I'm not emo or anything but seriously, coming to digg and opening my eyes on these stories makes me want to go back into the hole I was used to living in where I thought things were safe and people were reasonable. - jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -3/+36@Entropyman
This is really quite simple. Everything written is subject to interpretation, especially law. The result is that you can always find something to support your point of view. After that, it's all politics and power. In this case the Agriculture Department doesn't want Creekstone to test its cows, that's all it takes. Then the games begin.
An excellent article on this can be found here:
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythFinalDraft.pdf
A more notable instance of interpreting writing is that pesky old Article 1 Section 8 - "To declare war"
The soldiers are in Iraq. May I see the declaration of war please?
Compared to that, the actions of the Agriculture Department are child's play. Be grateful for the owner of Creekstone. It's people like him that are what really makes the world better. - FyreGoddess, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35I ran a search for "Mad Cow in US" just to see what kinds of results there were and apparently the USDA has been taking incredible amounts of criticism for their shoddy handling of Mad Cow testing and procedures. Not only are the methods of testing flawed, but there are rumors (nothing more than rumors that I can find, though I didn't delve really deep) that there have been cover ups of infected cows and a lack of testing on suspect cows.
I wonder whether or not this anti-testing stance is at least partly due to a fear that it will bring to light that there's a greater risk in the US than anyone thought possible and maybe even a sharp decrease in profits for the US beef industry. - Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -2/+32This just shows the intrinsic hypocrisy of the supposedly "free-market" Republicans (or neo-cons, at least). They are really oligarchists, not capitalists.
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -5/+33the conservatives constantly bring up the image of the small business owner as the person they stand for, but in reality, they only care about large corporations that line their pockets.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+30Terrorism isn't widespread either but they seem to be checking everyone getting on a plane these days.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26Um, no. Impeach Bush for other crimes, by all means. But in this case, first we'd need to show that the USDA was acting improperly and then that there was pressure from the WH to subvert proper regulatory behavior.
The worst thing Bush has demonstrated in this case (this far) is appointing unqualified and biased officials to the USDA. - MrSpontaneous, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24The article states that a big concern about the testing is getting false positives... from another article:
"the BioRad test used was “designed to be extremely sensitive” to catch any possibly infected animal, some of which “will end up negative during further testing”.
Asked the odds of the result being a false positive, Clifford said “we wouldn’t want to provide that type of information”. But the rate of false positives for the BioRad procedure was measured by the European Commission when it evaluated BSE tests for use in the EU in 2003.
Those data have never been published, but industry sources who have seen them say the BioRad test had a false positive rate of about one in a thousand initial tests, a rate borne out subsequently in practical experience. BioRad is used in Germany and Belgium.
In Europe and Japan, if a cow's brain initially tests positive with BioRad, it is tested twice more. Only if one of those repeated tests is also positive is the sample sent for IHC confirmation. The false positive rate after such repeated testing is even lower, around one in 100,000 for BioRad. It is not known whether the USDA is doing this."
~ http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6080
The obvious solution would be to test each positive more than once, as the article suggests. As long as packers stick to a 3 strikes testing policy, I don't see how this could be a bad thing... unless the industry knows that it has been processing some cattle with mad cow - in which case we're already *****. - Eilarais, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25This doesn't feel right, any losses from a false positive would be more than offset by the increased market share caused by consumers having more confidence in the product. It's only a real positive that is likely to hurt the industry. Maybe it's time to start staying away from beef until this testing becomes mandatory.
- SultanTravi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+25Another example of capitalism's benefits in action. Now if only the so-called "free market" conservatives would stop being hypocritical bastards.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23@elranzer, I think the joke you were going for had to do with the fudge, not meat-packing industry. Call meat-packers gay and you're likely to wind up holding your own intestines.
- Enfenestrate, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21I wish I could say that I'm shocked by this, but I can't say that I'm the least bit surprised.
I like how the only reason they gave was that the poor, defenseless, gigantic companies might have to spend more money in order to stay ahead of the mean, nasty, self-serving mom and pop company. - whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -0/+18@FyreGoddess
"It's like how dairies can't advertise "No rBGH" on their milk."
They can't? Where I'm at the grocery store definitely carries milk that says "Hormone Free", in addition to milk that doesn't say that.
Okay, time for the whole story. In 1994, the FDA approved voluntary labeling of rBGH but said each state could enact laws to prevent it. Sadly, some did. In 1997, Ben and Jerry's teamed with Stonyfield Farm, Organic Valley and Whole Foods in suing Illinois, who claimed they would seize any labeled products. They chose Illinois because it was the largest market. They eventually agreed to a settlement that allowed them to label. B&J's has since said they'll bring the same lawsuit against any state that tries to enforce a ban on labeling.
So really, that one can't be fully blamed on the FDA. Yes, it would have been better if they had either ruled for or against rather than leaving it as a state-by-state patchwork. Patchwork regulation generally ends up in companies having to use the least common denominator to keep costs down.
The FDA's powers are a two-edged sword. I'm in favor of them being in charge of things because companies will go to amazing lengths to make a buck. But if there are idiots, partisans or corrupt people in charge, you get some really questionable regulations. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Yeah, that's why the "we're afraid of false positives" thing makes no sense. If false positives were a problem, they'd be a problem with the 1% testing as well, only it might take 100 times longer for the problem to emerge.
If we do 100% testing and establish a known error rate, we can safely (presumably) wait until we exceed that error rate before taking any drastic measures, like culling herds. But for even 1 false positive, isn't it better to at least quarantine that cow and re-test the ones nearby?
Again, I don't blame government for this. This is pretty clearly a case of bribery, or at least the legalized form. - AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18I don't think the USDA can stop them from testing the beef, but perhaps they can refuse to label it "USDA approved." I don't know what they hell that means, but I'm sure they'd have a hard time selling meat without the USDA seal of approval.
Also, as mentioned above, they control the labels. - Hillsfar, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21That's right. Because Americans lives aren't as valuable as Japanese or European lives - in many of those countries, they test every cow.
I totally want to see graphics of little little American kids eating meat with a caption "The USDA doesn't think testing for mad cow disease is right for Americans, even though other countries test to protect their children."
IM IN UR FDA
FEEDING MADCOW 2 UR KIDS - dagnabbit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18False positives are normally considered acceptable when the price for failure is high. Consider the airport screening device, and why it's set to such a sensitive level.
Too bad Bush & Co. would rather let a few disease-ridden cows slip through than have those dreaded false positives (and therefore extra costs to big corporations). America's health isn't THAT important. - aposter, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17@entropyman
Here is the easy interpretation. To sell your meat in the U.S. it must be inspected by the U.S.D.A. inspectors. The Gov tells you not to test and not to advertise the testing. You refuse because they can't stop you from doing so. They pull their inspectors and you can no longer sell beef for human consumption in the U.S. Ta Da! - thomas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16@EntropyMan (#6948729)
"A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. The ruling was to take effect Friday, but the Agriculture Department said Tuesday it would appeal -- effectively delaying the testing until the court challenge plays out."
According to the judge they can't but thats not stopping them from trying. - AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14That's an excellent point neOmega!
I've always been skeptical about claims that the free-market and corporate autoregulation would promote product safety and environmental responsibility, but here's an example to confirm those claims.
I suspect that most consumers would buy beef guaranteed to be free of pathogens and prions. Hence, there would be a huge economic incentive for producers to meet those demands by instituting new technologies.
Okay, I get the idea, but am still slightly skeptical. - betacmag4u, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0107-07.htm
"Over the last 20 years the rates of Alzheimer's disease in the United States have skyrocketed.[60] According to the CDC, Alzheimer's Disease is now the eighth leading cause of death in the United States,[61] afflicting an estimated 4 million Americans.[62] Twenty percent or more of people clinically diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, though, are found at autopsy not to have had Alzheimer's at all.[63] A number of autopsy studies have shown that a few percent of Alzheimer's deaths may in fact be CJD. Given the new research showing that infected beef may be responsible for some sporadic CJD, thousands of Americans may already be dying because of Mad Cow disease every year.[64]"
-----The study I read showed that 4% of Alzheimers patients that were autopsied were in fact CJD.
-----The latest research shows it is probably not prions but a 20 nanometer virus which causes these brainwasting diseases....this is a good thing as maybe a vacine will be possible. - DavidYeah, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Conservative big government, is what I'd call it. Protecting the big guys from the little guys is what the neocon nanny state does. If a state decided through a ballot initiative to legislate this kind of testing for all meat packing factories, corporate entities all over the state would be going to the courts saying their right to privacy is being violated, or some such nonsense.
Then the feds would step in to help out, and make sure that no corporate profit is ever hurt by the public interest ever again.
Just look at how companies who are incompetant at assessing credit risk to people looking for credit-- the government stepped in and REWARDED their incompetance, by making it harder for their customers to file for bankrupcy. These companies should be going out of business for not being able to properly assess credit risk and not being able to collect their money back (the same kind of natural selection free market cons rant about every day at the Cato Institute and the editorial section of Wall Street Journal...)---instead, conservative government helps them out. wtf? - R34C7, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17There has to be a legitimate explanation for this... right? I mean even Bush wouldn't be so bold as to support the criminalization of ethical business practice so blatantly...
We must have rocketed past the point of no return a long time ago. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13@dividebyzero: does not compute. If we test 100% and have confidence in the testing, then we can be more certain that one bad cow is only one bad cow. Right, now, for every 1 we find, there could be millions more we didn't test. THAT's where the uncertainty and mob reaction come from.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17One could also interpret that as: the law of the strongest: Big group can pay lobbying; therefore they can crash the small ones. It's not power-masturbation from the gouvernement.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+21"Lets review: Conservatives want industry to "self regulate", so when they try too, conservatives step in and try to stop it. Hmmmm....I guess profits for big corporations are more than the health of the people."
Will you ***** stop it with the "conservatives are evil *****" routine?!? TRUE conservatives/libertarians (like myself) abhor corporate influence over government and their grinding down of small business. We are PRO small business and PRO competition.
This is our problem with government regulation: most times, it HELPS corporations stifle competition from small business...and this is the perfect example. THIS is what you get when you think government regulation can solve everything.
This isn't about "conservatives"...this is about government being too big and sticking its regulatory nose where it doesn't belong. - toucci, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Don't be amazed.
What we don't know won't kill us, unless it does! - jgandu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Testing every cow might be overkill, however, any farmer / meat packer should have the right to do so and use that in their advertising without being bullied by bigger farms. The government should really just stay out of this one. The 1% testing required is the minimum, they shouldn't prevent additional testing if someone wants to do it.
- vertigoacid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12@FyreGoddess
Not sure you've got your facts straight on rBGH labeling. They are allowed to print that the milk comes from cows not treated with rBGH, but have to also include a statement that the FDA believes there to be no difference anyway - FRANKeB, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to leave this door open so they can blame 'the terrorists' when an outbreak and deaths ensue.
/cynical - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Really? Have you not heard of Crazy Turnip disease?
Seriously, this USDA is the same group that allegedly monitors vegetables for things like e.coli. And with globalization, we get more of the stuff from countries that don't check anything on their own. You may not get Mad Cow, but you might get Mad MIlk, or just get sick. - an0nymous, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Entropy's right.
The larger issue has nothing to do with meat. The Government is preventing small beef producers from voluntarily testing cattle and advertising the results. Could just as well be restricting advertising items as non genetically modified produce, free trade goods, or guarantees that apples are irradiation free.
They are trying to avoid people collecting and making public data points about a disease that is communicable through our food as a vector. It's astounding. - bjornski, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11If 1% testing is good enough for the nations food supply, it should be plenty good enough for searching people to get on and off of airplanes. Or bridge inspections. Or drivers licenses. Or imported containers from China.
Oh wait..... - ButtSmudge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I don't see how this is any different than what happen in China last week. Instead of protecting the people and their healthy, politics and money come in first. Instead of protecting the meat, they want to ensure no huge testing cost is put on the industry. Whereas, in China, the head of the food regulator looked away and approved medicines/foods that are dangerous so he can pocked 100s of thousands of dollars. The only difference is China is executing the responsible party.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12@insomniac: And you know this because of... testing?
Let me ask you this, have you eaten a lot of beef in your life? Just curious. No particular reason I'm asking... - an0nymous, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Agreed, tex. Conservatives and libertarians would have no problem with the company advertising and doing what it wants. The villain here is the governmental org charged with our protection which has been bought and paid for by the very concerns it is supposed to be regulating.
@crimson
I am confused... who is opposing the free market? The FDA is preventing a small company from voluntarily testing for a disease and advertising the results of the test. THAT'S anti free market. - Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -12/+21Conservatives never really did support the rights of meatpackers. That's one of the reasons they won in 2004.
- MeMongo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10@bemenaker:
You could grill it into charcoal and it wouldn't make any difference. Humans are still at risk of contracting BSE (CJD variant in humans). - bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8The CDC tends to disagree with you there bubba
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/ -
Show 51 - 100 of 241 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is