Will no agency, court or lawmaker stand up for the right of Creekstone Farms Premium Beef of Arkansas City to make its own business decision about whether to test for mad cow disease? Apparently not, judging from the status of the company’s legal and regulatory fight to try to cater to its customers and guarantee that its product is mad-cow-free. The latest blow came last week in a federal appeals court decision that the Bush administration’s Agriculture Department has the authority to prohibit a meatpacker from testing all its animals for the disease. Now the case goes back to the district level. At some point, the principle of the free market should prevail over the heavy hand of the USDA.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Daniel on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Daniel on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
83 Comments
It’s obvious that health of consumers in U.S. and world wide must take priority over political considerations.
This defies logic.
Unless you’ve read Thomas Frank’s “The Wreccking Crew” He details how business has taken over government.
The takeover now so pervasive that a small company now wants to go to extra length to guarantee that their product is safe and the business forces invested in government say “No, you can’t do that.”
I defy anyone to defend that as good.
The instances of Mad Cow disease is almost statistically zero in the United States.
If Creek Stone was allowed, consumer unions would demand that other beef companies do the same tests, driving up beef prices.
Creekstone is a small beef company, specializing in angus and caters to specialty markets. Bigger beef companies that are twenty times the size of Creekstone would suffer huge financial losses and would have invoke higher prices, just because there is an unreasonable fear by Japanese and Koreans over a disease that has sprouted up in other countries, but not in the U.S.
What people don’t realize is that USDA is now design on the risk management model for handling risks. According to the risk management models, Mad cow disease in the U.S. is not a problem at all and there is no reason to have companies incur additional testing costs for something that is not even on the bottom 0.001 percent of risk factors.
If Creekstone farms was to have its way, it would set a precident, that somehow 100 percent testing equals 100 percent safe. This is not factual, as the methods of testing efficacy is not 100 percent guarantee there would be no Mad Cow disease in their products.
It’s like the testing for the HIV virus using various versions of the ELISA test. There are false positives and false negatives. The morphological based testing of Mad cow investigation techniques is speculative and not 100 percent assurance that an accurate assessment is being made. This is the old, “which stick is rounder” technique. It is not a proven scientific testing procedure and 100 percent testing does not necessarily yield a 100 percent guarantee.
Reference:
Scrapie, Creutzfeld-Jakob and BSE are among the most unusual diseases known to medical research. Unusual because the pathogens are apparently neither viruses nor bacteria, being simply protein molecules known as protein prions. What is even more peculiar: exactly the same prion proteins occur in healthy animals. The only difference is that they have a different shape. When there is contact with their ‘diseased twins’ they change their shape, also becoming ‘diseased.’ The result is an irresistible chain reaction. The malformed prion proteins can be deposited in the brain, thereby destroying brain tissue. Prion diseases are always fatal, often, however, not until months after the outbreak of the disease. As yet there is no cure. (Science Daily)
I was wondering what the CON cut-and-post response would be. And “Regular” didn’t disappoint.
“If Creekstone farms was to have its way, it would set a precident, that somehow 100 percenttesting equals 100 percent safe.”
It’s called a marketing differential. By your logic, Hebrew National should be forced to sell hot dogs with pig jowls so as not to gain a market edge over Oscar Mayer.
Nobody at Creekstone is saying anybody else has to test for Mad Cow. Nobody at Carnation ever forced Borden’s to make sure Elsie was a contented cow. If Creekstone wants to play Mozart in the slaughter house to calm down their herd, a truly free market conservative would cheer ‘em on.
But the CONs are beholden to big business and use government as a weapon against entrepreneurs.
Hell, let Creekstone test their cattle for Mad Cow, Hoof & Mouth, IQ… whatever they want… without governmental interference.
It seems to me that Creekstone identified a service desired by its buyers in the marketplace; testing. So, if the market is to be the decider, why not let Creekstone test as desired by at least one of the purchasers of its products. This will not force others to so test, unless demanded by the marketplace; and, if it increases costs, surely that’s within the capacity of the market to handle, that is, if the increased costs from testing are higher than the market will bear, then those who do not test will obtain a market advantage by being able to sell the product at a lower cost to those willing to assume whatever risk there may be in purchasing beef that isn’t tested.
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted September 3, 2008 at 9:04 am | Permalink
I was wondering what the CON cut-and-post response would be. And “Regular” didn’t disappoint.
“If Creekstone farms was to have its way, it would set a precident, that somehow 100 percenttesting equals 100 percent safe.”
It’s called a marketing differential. By your logic, Hebrew National should be forced to sell hot dogs with pig jowls so as not to gain a market edge over Oscar Mayer.
Nobody at Creekstone is saying anybody else has to test for Mad Cow. Nobody at Carnation ever forced Borden’s to make sure Elsie was a contented cow. If Creekstone wants to play Mozart in the slaughter house to calm down their herd, a truly free market conservative would cheer ‘em on.
But the CONs are beholden to big business and use government as a weapon against entrepreneurs.
Hell, let Creekstone test their cattle for Mad Cow, Hoof & Mouth, IQ… whatever they want… without governmental interference.
—————————
Nope. Nope.
This is analogous to energy saving automobiles. Some manufacturers will claim that their energy saving cars get greater miles per gallon because of such-in-such technology.
In reality, the cost to the consumer will skyrocket because the new technology cost several times more than standard internal combustion engines.
If one is going to set the standard of testing and efficiency, they have to do so in the largest market share, the average consumer.
To cater to an elitist group of buyers because of some unfounded fear is not good marketing or good science.
Regular, you have heard of “niche markets”; so, if Cornerstone wishes to serve a niche market, and to do so involves testing to meet the demand of the market niche, then what is the harm in allowing the testing to go forward.
#
avtolle
Posted September 3, 2008 at 9:19 am | Permalink
It seems to me that Creekstone identified a service desired by its buyers in the marketplace; testing. So, if the market is to be the decider, why not let Creekstone test as desired by at least one of the purchasers of its products. This will not force others to so test, unless demanded by the marketplace; and, if it increases costs, surely that’s within the capacity of the market to handle, that is, if the increased costs from testing are higher than the market will bear, then those who do not test will obtain a market advantage by being able to sell the product at a lower cost to those willing to assume whatever risk there may be in purchasing beef that isn’t tested.
———————-
It’s not just that avtolle, it’s the reliability of the testing. It’s a subjective based testing that’s unproven on a mass scale.
Testing 100 percent of your product doesn’t mean 100 percent safe if the tests are evaluated utilizing subjective, morphological (shapes)method.
Again, this is the “which stick is rounder” method of lab testing. It is highly subjective and unproven.
#
avtolle
Posted September 3, 2008 at 9:22 am | Permalink
Regular, you have heard of “niche markets”; so, if Cornerstone wishes to serve a niche market, and to do so involves testing to meet the demand of the market niche, then what is the harm in allowing the testing to go forward.
—————–
Yes, niche markets.
However, those assigned niche markets that use lab testing models are associated with medical or pharmacological based industries that use exacting methods and proven procedures. Even then, there is a propensity to fail statistically on the most stringent tests as I indicated earlier, (false positives/negatives and subjective testing methods)
General Foods should donate some money to George WMD Bush and get the FDA to ban Rice Krispies.
There’s no reason why Kellogg’s should be able to sell a product that goes “Snap! Krackle! Pop!” Cheerios don’t go “Snap! Krackle! Pop!” That’s an unfair advantage and all it would take is people demanding “Snap! Krackle Pop!” for breakfast Cheerios would go out of business! (Or go through high-cost research retooling to come up with Cheerios that make noise!)
Regular, I understand that about the testing. The point I’m trying to make is that regardless of the false negative/false positive problems with the testing, the unreliability of the same, etc., if the customer wants the testing, and the supplier is willing to provide it, then why should there be a problem with the supplier doing it? Of course, by the time my colleagues get done with the disclaimers, etc., in the contracts, both sides might just say “forget it and save a few forests”. :-)
Posted September 3, 2008 at 9:47 am | Permalink
Regular, I understand that about the testing. The point I’m trying to make is that regardless of the false negative/false positive problems with the testing, the unreliability of the same, etc., if the customer wants the testing, and the supplier is willing to provide it, then why should there be a problem with the supplier doing it? Of course, by the time my colleagues get done with the disclaimers, etc., in the contracts, both sides might just say “forget it and save a few forests”
——————–
There is an objection because of smart fellows like yourself would jump on the bandwagons with private consumer agencies and demand that this testing be done nationwide.
After all, the thinking would be, if the Japanese thinks this is good, why can’t we get the same for citizens of the U.S.?
This of course, goes to “exactly how much consumer protection do we need” scenarios.
The digging on a two dollar acre property suddenly becomes a a thousand dollar acre property because of environmental concerns. This is fine and good if one is planning to put a day care and abandoned widows home on the property.
Not a good idea, if all that is going to be done is store drums of used fencing material and broken car parts.
I mean, there are standards for everything and tolerances set for everything.
I’m sure the average consumer does not want to know that there is a standard for how many insects parts per pound of flour is allowable under USDA standards. There are ways to sterilize flour using radiation methods, but then comes the bumblebee with the flower.
We can all demand higher standards in lab testing and sanitation methods, but at what cost?
Remember this the next time you pick up a shaker of salt in a restaurant. How many hundreds of people have touched that shaker of salt with unwashed hands, wiped their nose (or other body parts first) or sneezed and coughed on the shaker?
The solution would be to supply disposable salt containers for each customer in each instance.
Or, one could do their own testing on each shaker of salt testing for escheria coli and tuberculosis bacteria.
What will it be sir? Would you like the no-risk meat loaf at $25.95 or the old fashion at $6.95?
BTW, we do take credit cards. :D
As a conservative, I believe the government should have no right to tell creekstone that they cannot test their beef 100%, and tell others that they do so. Marketing 101. Government stay the hell out of the way. The product is at marginally safer, and apparently creekstones partners, or customers, are willing to pay the extra price. Goverment, stay the hell out of the way!
By the way, I buy my beef local, and have it processed locally. You can too.
“littlejohn” –
You and I are better conservatives than “Regular.”
“littlejohn
Posted September 3, 2008 at 10:02 am | Permalink
As a conservative, I believe the government should have no right to tell creekstone that they cannot test their beef 100%, and tell others that they do so.”
I wish there more people who labeled themselves as “conservative” or “Republican” (the supposed conservative party) who actually held conservative views like this.
So using Regular’s logic, produce processors should not be able to irradiate their vegetables, because that will not 100% guarantee the safety of them and will just drive the cost up?
So much for free market capitalism
BTW, I could inspect Creekstone meat factory and I would guarantee they would fail inspection if I applied all standards to the nth degree.
Let’s start with their labor hiring practices; move on to OSHA standards,; fire protection next; personnel safety; packaging standards (yes there is such a thing); microbiological standards; and etc.
The point is, there is not a 100 percent guarantee that the highly subjective testing for Mad Cow disease would be effective in screening out the protein-based anomaly.
When one introduces procedures in an industry and then make claims (our beef is 100 percent tested against mad cow disease), there is a tendency for consumer advocate groups to jump on the band wagon and force like testing across the board.
Want higher meat prices and the false sense of safety that Creekstone would promote?
Go for it, but don’t forget that you weren’t forewarned.
I kill my own steers and eat them, unless visiting a restaurant. I don’t have them tested for disease, just vaccinated during their growth. Grass fed, some “corn” fed- all delicious.
Mad Cow is not a realistic problem in the US, there are far more “real” issues that can be dealt with in the the beef industry.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted September 3, 2008 at 10:17 am | Permalink
So using Regular’s logic, produce processors should not be able to irradiate their vegetables, because that will not 100% guarantee the safety of them and will just drive the cost up?
So much for free market capitalism
——————–
There is more to food safety than just the safety factor. There are factors such as market equability and influence.
Of these two, influence is the most devastating to an industry.
What I’m stating is not conservative or liberal.
What I’m stating is that Creekstone’s claim to 100 percent testing is not a guarantee for 100 percent absence of Mad Cow disease in their product. The examination method is too subjective and willy-nilly.
Don’t think it has an effect? Imagine several U.S. companies shipping their beef products overseas were suddenly halted because some reactionaries got into their minds that the Creekstone method of testing guaranteed 100 percent safety (which it doesn’t)
All of sudden, several companies would go out of business because of the increased costs they would have to incur because of a testing procedure that guarantees virtually nothing.
It’s not just hiring one Lab technician to run tests. One has to build isolation pens, have people monitor those pens, have administrative functions to control the process, have processes for quality control on said process, have in place government verification of said tests (yes, that’s a requirement.)
The costs would be huge and all for an extremely low risk (almost zero) instance of a very rare disease.
This would be like testing immigrants from England for leprosy, when there has been no reported case of native leprosy in hundreds of years.
Stupid costs, a stupid policy.
My father died of Kreutzfeld Jakob disease.
“Anti” would you and James “Regular” care for a description of his suffer, decline, and death?
While you are defending the business controlled, not free market?
Sickening.
I was defending nothing there BlueJay. Get your outrage right.
Regular, why do liberals like you always try to get the government involved in business?
“If Creek Stone was allowed, consumer unions would demand that other beef companies do the same tests, driving up beef prices.”
Oh NO! That might cut into the profits the meat cutters padded when they ran the unions out of the packing plants with illegal labor!
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is also EXTREMELY rare coming from US beef.
Sorry to hear that Bluejay, but you do realize there are several forms of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease?
Some of the incidences of the disease are passed on through human hereditary.
Also, it has an extremely long incubation time – as long as fifty years.
One can also get the disease from ingesting other types of wild bovine, ovine mammals (elk, sheep and etc.)
One can also get it from contaminated surgical instruments and through blood transfusions.
Again, sorry to hear of your father’s contraction of a terrible Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
The instance of the disease and its etiology is just not that simple.
It’s a protein based anomaly, it’s not a virus or a bacteria. It’s a complicated mutation of genetics with lots of unanswered questions.
Bacteria (Escherichia coli) is a far more common problem in beef cattle processing and can be managed.
“Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is also EXTREMELY rare coming from US beef.”
We don’t know that.
And so far as we know, my father did not die from eating infected beef.
He just won a very unlucky lottery. So much for “God”.
From infection to symptoms can take as much as 20 years.
Deregulation of the beef industry goes back to the mid eighties.
It could be that a massive outbreak of this disease could come at any time.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted September 3, 2008 at 10:48 am | Permalink
Regular, why do liberals like you always try to get the government involved in business?
————
heh heh
I’m hardly a liberal and based my decisions based on many long years of training and education.
Reactionary politics without understanding the basic facts is one of my pet peeves.
I don’t like uninformed views that want to push through something just because they can.
#
ANTI
Posted September 3, 2008 at 10:52 am | Permalink
Bacteria (Escherichia coli) is a far more common problem in beef cattle processing and can be managed.
————-
Yep, one of my relatives died to a deadly form of e.coli by eating contaminated ground beef.
It could be that a massive outbreak of this disease could come at any time.
—–
Jesus could fall from the sky tomorrow too, but it is highly unlikely, BlueJay.
“consumer unions would demand that other beef companies do the same tests”
The other companies could just not do it…
Free market right? If the consumers are satisfied with the USDA random sampling they will buy the cheaper randomly sampled beef. If they want to buy beef that is 100% sampled, even though statistically it would be silly, they should be able to.
I am very aware of this disease Regular.
When you watch someone you love reduced so quickly to nothing, all the while not knowing why?
You find yourself wanting to learn what it is could do that.
We did not know what it was killing my father until about 3 weeks before he died. The disease is only detectable in humans by spinal tap test.
“The other companies could just not do it…”
That’s right. But believe it or not? While they are busy getting around every precaution and safety measure that they can?
The beef companies are also aware of the future.
If this disease is waiting to explode in our population, as I believe it likely is, the companies that don’t want to test don’t want the scope of the coming lawsuits narrowed to them.
I cannot believe that there is anyone that would even argue this. DEFENDING unsafe food?
BlueJay
Posted September 3, 2008 at 10:53 am | Permalink
“Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is also EXTREMELY rare coming from US beef.”
We don’t know that.
——
Yes, we do know that.
If this disease is waiting to explode in our population, as I believe it likely is, the companies that don’t want to test don’t want the scope of the coming lawsuits narrowed to them.
—–
You apparently know little of mad cow disease and cattle feeding practices/regulations in the U.S.A.
Please work on your reading comprehension “ANTI”
The disease can lay dormant for decades. It is only detectable by spinal tap.
Spinal taps are not part of your average physical examination.
The point is, the government should set the baseline for consumer safety, not the maximum. They should set a minimum standard for safety then get out of the businesses affairs.
Currently, the USDA asserts that random testing of roughly 1% of animals is enough to assert that the beef is safe.
However, there are probably some consumers that want more assurance, and are willing to pay for it.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted September 3, 2008 at 10:56 am | Permalink
“consumer unions would demand that other beef companies do the same tests”
The other companies could just not do it…
Free market right? If the consumers are satisfied with the USDA random sampling they will buy the cheaper randomly sampled beef. If they want to buy beef that is 100% sampled, even though statistically it would be silly, they should be able to.
————–
Well brian, it comes down to “what price for safety and freedom do you want to pay.”
We could use the Italy model they use for tourism sights for sanitation.
That is, each plastic utensil, napkin and plate is charged per unit item above the cost of the food. If you want salt and pepper, you pay for the individual packets and the tax that comes with it.
Regardless of what people think, food service and sanitation of food isn’t all that straight forward.
Dishwashers that work properly try to induce a standard plate temperature of 165F (the temperature on the surface of the plate) to kill most pathogenic bacteria. Note the key word – “most.”
It does not kill spore produced instances of bacteria nor does it prevent instances of poorly pre-washed plates where adhering food particles remain and are “baked” onto the plate. You know, you’ve seen the plate, glass and utensils that have been passed through a restaurants dishwasher, but because they were improperly soaked or pre-washed, the food particles is presented to you at the table with food baked onto it.
The mad cow disease scare is just that, a scare. There are too many unknowns about its etiology (cause). The cause of CJD could be from another human, a wild animal or inherited.
Science just doesn’t know. And, to make things worse, an willy-nilly testing procedure that is based solely on morphology (shape)is hardly a guarantee to make claims that their product is 100 percent safe from CJD.
You are missing my point Regular, it is not what level of food safety I want, but what the market wants. If there is market demand for more testing, irradiating veggies, autoclaving restaurant utensils, whatever, it is not the government’s place to limit that.
“Well brian, it comes down to “what price for safety and freedom do you want to pay.”
Creekstone believes they have a market that they can sell to. Why are you opposed to that?
“Regular” –
“…to push through something just because they can.”
Which is precisely what the government is doing to Creekstone!
If Creekstone wants to test, no one should prevent it. Let ‘em test for Mad Cow, let ‘em test for Hoof & Mouth, let ‘em test their eyes and fit ‘em with glasses, for all I care. If people want to pay a nickel a pound extra for cattle that can read a sign from 500 yards, who is the government to tell them that they can’t?
You advocate big government intrusion into Creekstone’s freedom to market their product as they see fit.
BlueJay
Posted September 3, 2008 at 11:04 am | Permalink
Please work on your reading comprehension “ANTI”
The disease can lay dormant for decades. It is only detectable by spinal tap.
Spinal taps are not part of your average physical examination.
—–
Yes, but in cattle the disease acts much faster. Only 3 cases have been identified in the USA. Hardly an outbreak.
“hardly a guarantee to make claims that their product is 100 percent safe from CJD.”
I do not think they are making a claim that their product is 100% safe – they are claiming (or wanting to) that they test 100% of their animals.
I would agree that if in their marketing they claim that their product is 100% safe that should be prevented, (certainly their would be a huge risk to them financially if they claim 100% safety and someone gets sick)
“let ‘em test their eyes and fit ‘em with glasses, for all I care”
LMAO
Only 1% of cattle are tested ANTI.
If three cases have been found? How many infected cattle have been processed?
How many families will go through what mine did?
How many families will go through what mine did?
——-
Very Very Very few, if any. Due to US beef.
More?
My dad declined over a period of several months.
In June he was fine. In better health than me even.
He died a week before Christmas.
We have no idea how many victims of this disease may suffer a short while in care homes their family never knowing why. My dad’s case was the first his neurologist had seen.
Staff at the nursing home where dad died tell me that incidence of the disease or people with similar symptoms but not diagnosed is increasing.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted September 3, 2008 at 11:14 am | Permalink
“hardly a guarantee to make claims that their product is 100 percent safe from CJD.”
I do not think they are making a claim that their product is 100% safe – they are claiming (or wanting to) that they test 100% of their animals.
I would agree that if in their marketing they claim that their product is 100% safe that should be prevented, (certainly their would be a huge risk to them financially if they claim 100% safety and someone gets sick)
——————-
Ah, but you know that Creekstone would gladly stamp on their labels and letterhead stationery that they do 100 percent “testing” on their products for CJD.
Setting an industry standard via testing without adherent verification is contradictory to establishing fair markets.
If you don’t think this would become an industry standard because of consumer group activism, then you better re-examine instances of past industry practices on claims of products being produced to appear ’safe.’
Candling eggs is an example. Consumers get in their mind that Grade A eggs must be safe. Actually, it’s an indication of the age of the egg, it’s physical properties (whether shell is cracked/damaged) and temperature requirements are met.
A farmer can grade his own eggs and state they are Grade A quality just due to physical and age conditions. However, if there are adhering fecal particles and the eggs have been stored outside the safe temperature zones, then the Grade A quality becomes meaningless as the eggs become a health hazard.
Luring oneself into a false sense of food safety security is one of the jobs of the USDA to prevent.
Just because a product is 100 percent tested is platform for failure waiting to happen. As you said, one failure and an entire industry would be blamed for that one failure.
Would you want to see every beef producer in the U.S. be punished for a Creekfarm screw up?
You know it would happen, people stop buying any product in any configuration, once they hear that the spinach or tomato is contaminated, etc. etc.
It’s not that simple with consumer protection and companies making a claim that their product is safe by a mere factor of testing. There is much more to it.
“Consumers get in their mind that Grade A eggs must be safe.”
I’ve never heard of that happening. No one thinks Grade A eggs are safer than Grade B.
“Setting an industry standard via testing without adherent verification is contradictory to establishing fair markets.”
The difference is the government already set the standard. Now they are saying a producer cannot exceed that standard, even if there is a market for it.
It could be that a massive outbreak of this disease could come at any time.
——
Not one human death has been linked to Mad Cow Disease in the USA.
Congratulations Regular.
You win the prize. You are the epitome of the movement you so love.
Business as government.
I find you beneath contempt.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted September 3, 2008 at 11:32 am | Permalink
“Consumers get in their mind that Grade A eggs must be safe.”
I’ve never heard of that happening. No one thinks Grade A eggs are safer than Grade B.
——————–
Oh, you’d be surprised Brian.
I had to spend tens minutes with a guy once explaining that homogenized milk has nothing to do whether the milk is safe for not.
Just in case someone doesn’t know – homogenized milk indicates that the butterfat is evenly distributed in the milk at a certain percentage.
i.e. 2 percent milk, whole milk, skim milk, etc.
People of various experience and education levels often confuse terms they are not familiar with, as in this case, homogenization and pasteurization.
Consumer protection sometimes has to be “dumbed down” to the lowest denominator – even then it doesn’t’ always succeed.
“Luring oneself into a false sense of food safety security is one of the jobs of the USDA to prevent.”
Within reason yes. There are many many people that will jump to conclusions regardless of what the USDA or anyone else says. How many people think ‘organic’ food is safer?
The point is, the USDA should set the minimum safety standards to ensure a statistically safe food supply then step back and let the market go where it will. If there is rampant misinformation, the USDA should educate consumers with the correct facts.
“Not one human death has been linked to Mad Cow Disease in the USA”
You don’t know that. We don’t even know how many people are taken by this disease.
It is only detectable by spinal tap or brain biopsy. Thousands may be dying of this disease every year.
“I had to spend tens minutes with a guy once explaining that homogenized milk has nothing to do whether the milk is safe for not….People of various experience and education levels often confuse terms they are not familiar with, as in this case, homogenization and pasteurization.”
So why does the USDA not prevent milk producers from labeling their bottles with homogenized? Because that would be stupid to do – the government should just put the facts and not try to account for the lack of intelligence of some consumers.
BlueJay,
Sorry, it is a fact, not one human death has been LINKED to Mad Cow Disease in the USA.
#
BlueJay
Posted September 3, 2008 at 11:36 am | Permalink
Congratulations Regular.
You win the prize. You are the epitome of the movement you so love.
Business as government.
I find you beneath contempt.
——————–
Welcome to “Real World 101″ Junior.
Industry standards very much affect on what companies do and what the government must regulate or see to what is not over or under regulated.
Anywhere from the tensile strength of steel established by ancient Bethlehem steel products to the flash point of non-flammable paint produced by Sherwin Williams.
Standards introduced by companies must first be adherent to the industry as a whole and not stylized to one particular company for purposes of making a claim.
Sometimes it works out. This would be, for example, seat belt harnesses. Introduced initially, they were rigid and tended to cause more injuries than the prevented. Later on, inertia based seat belt models were introduced and tested by the government for certification. The government found out that just strapping oneself in by any means is not always the best methodology or practice.
If you feel that strongly BlueJay, and feel that Mad Cow is rampant in US Beef(despite the evidence), I suggest becoming a vegetarian.
Maybe you or a family member of yours will be the first “ANTI”?
Maybe you or a family member of yours will be the first “ANTI”?
—–
We don’t feed animal parts to our cattle. It is regulated.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted September 3, 2008 at 11:40 am | Permalink
“I had to spend tens minutes with a guy once explaining that homogenized milk has nothing to do whether the milk is safe for not….People of various experience and education levels often confuse terms they are not familiar with, as in this case, homogenization and pasteurization.”
So why does the USDA not prevent milk producers from labeling their bottles with homogenized? Because that would be stupid to do – the government should just put the facts and not try to account for the lack of intelligence of some consumers.
——————–
Well, because whole milk, the real whole milk like you get from a dairy (with the cream on top of the milk) is substantially less safe than homogenized milk. I know that sounds like a contradiction from what I just wrote; but it is indication of where technology (homogenization) introduced a healthy product (lower butter fat) and the pre-mixing of the butterfat concentrate prior to marketing is helpful in consumer utilization.
In shorter words, homogenization claims help the consumer by inference that the milk product has met standards utilizing industry approved methods and government accepted practices.
It makes me ashamed to live in a country where there can be such people.
The profit of business over the safety of people?
Shameful.
BlueJay
Posted September 3, 2008 at 11:49 am | Permalink
It makes me ashamed to live in a country where there can be such people.
—–
Move out….PLEASE.
The profit of business over the safety of people?
——
Not one human death has been LINKED to Mad Cow Disease in the USA.
No, who must be moved “ANTI” is you and Regular and people like you.
You must be moved to be better people who care more about your fellow man than a dollar.
Or you must be moved out of the way to reconstruct a government that protects its people from such as you.
That’s coming in November.
“So why does the USDA not prevent milk producers from labeling their bottles with homogenized? ”
ummm, that was a semi-rhetorical question that I answered myself
BlueJay
Posted September 3, 2008 at 11:53 am | Permalink
No, who must be moved “ANTI” is you and Regular and people like you.
——–
I love this country. I will NOT move. Try to move me and you will have more to worry about than dieing from Mad Cow Disease.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted September 3, 2008 at 11:53 am | Permalink
“So why does the USDA not prevent milk producers from labeling their bottles with homogenized? ”
ummm, that was a semi-rhetorical question that I answered myself
————–
heh, I suppose it was indeed. :)
#
ANTI
Posted September 3, 2008 at 11:55 am | Permalink
BlueJay
Posted September 3, 2008 at 11:53 am | Permalink
No, who must be moved “ANTI” is you and Regular and people like you.
——–
I love this country. I will NOT move. Try to move me and you will have more to worry about than dieing from Mad Cow Disease.
——————-
Well, you know ANTI. There is no accounting for ignorance, even after you explain it to people.
In Junior’s case, his ignorance prefaces every statement he makes on this blog. :D
I am going to go eat some cow. I will walk in my leather boots. ;)
“Regular” –
You’re being particularly dense.
The FAA requires airlines to overhaul their engines every X number of hours. If Airline A wants to overhaul their engines twice every X number of hours, Airline B shouldn’t be able to force the FAA to prevent more frequent overhauls.
That’s what industry standards and governmental regulations are all about.
Creekstone, for whatever reason whatsoever, wants to test all of their cattle for a disease. The government has no right to prevent them from doing so. At least it shouldn’t.
I again cite the Hebrew National analogy. Because they choose to market a Kosher product, Oscar Mayer has no right to get the FDA to force Hebrew National to stuff hog jowls in their hot dogs because the public might perceive a Kosher beef wienie to be better.
Is Kosher beef better? Is the higher price worth it? Let the customer decide.
Is Creekstone beef safer? Let the customer decide.
This is precisely the kind of priciple conservatives object to when they gripe about government regulation. But RepubliCONs sold out to Big Business and have twisted the regulatory process to quash entrepreneurs.
I wonder how much potential revenue the company has lost by not being able to sell its product to South Korea and Japan. As usual, the Republicans express mere rhetoric about supporting competition. By competition they only mean removing tariffs so it’s cheaper to move American jobs overseas.
Monkeyhawk
Posted September 3, 2008 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
“Regular” –
You’re being particularly dense.
—————
Not hardly.
I’m a safety expert by training and past experience.
I do know what I’m talking about. :)
State and Federal agencies are hiding incidences of Kreutzfeld Jakob/ mad cow disease deaths in humans.
The small foundation that address the disease advised my family to be sure and see that my dad’s death certificate accurately reflected his cause of death. We did.
“I’m a safety expert by training and past experience.”
The training apparently did not equip you with a sense of ethics or conscience.
It will be a long road building back the government that business has taken over. I’m eager for January so we can get started.
Creekstone is ahead of the curve. If I were an investor, I’d be looking at their revenue to explode when the Dems win in November.
What do they do with the carcasses while waiting on the results? Do they have a quarantine locker and separate tools to use until they have cleared the carcass?
I don’t care if Creekstone wants to go above and beyond regulational requirements. I would like to know how they plan to do it. It is just a marketing scheme.
#
BlueJay
Posted September 3, 2008 at 12:18 pm | Permalink
“I’m a safety expert by training and past experience.”
The training apparently did not equip you with a sense of ethics or conscience.
It will be a long road building back the government that business has taken over. I’m eager for January so we can get started.
Creekstone is ahead of the curve. If I were an investor, I’d be looking at their revenue to explode when the Dems win in November.
——————–
That’s just hilarious Junior.
Government agencies, like the USDA and apart from funding, are basically the same year in and year out through many administrations.
The only thing that the head of the political positions do, like the head of the USDA, is to make decisions on the direction, scope, finances and manpower.
They very seldom get into minutia such as the Creekstone farm request.
Besides, there is a whole and I might add huge list of regulations governing Creekstone’s request.
You are just very naive and ignorant Junior.
The Wizard of Oz does not occupy the White House.
Be easy on BlueJay, he has had the squirts for months and is massively dehydrated (belligerent). I told you to take it easy on the mulberries BJ! Now you are just “spotting” up the cars with your purple mess.
Bush isn’t pro business, he’s pro Big Business.