• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Creekstone Calls USDA BSE Policy Likely Unconstitutional

Econ101

Well-known member
DJ Creekstone Farms Premium Beef Counters USDA BSE Claims



Agriculture Online

10:09 AM, November 6, 2006



KANSAS CITY (Dow Jones)--Creekstone Farms Premium Beef on Monday confirmed in

an email that it had filed its reply to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's

opposition to the firm's desire to test all of the cattle it slaughters at its

Arkansas City, Kan., plant for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow

disease.



Creekstone Farms is suing the USDA for refusing to allow it to test cattle

for BSE and this summer asked the U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia to issue a summary judgement in its favor. The USDA replied, and this

filing is Creekstone's response.



Joe Meng, a Creekstone vice president, said Monday the USDA now has a chance

to reply to the company's reply, and the judge has said it must be turned in by

Dec. 1. After that, the judge is scheduled to issue his decision on the motion

for a summary judgement.



In making its case, Creekstone argued that the USDA misinterpreted and

exceeded the authority Congress gave it in the nearly 100-year-old Virus,

Serum, and Toxins Act which was enacted to stop the sale of bogus hog cholera

serums to farmers in the Midwest.



In its filing Friday, Creekstone documented the economic harm caused by the

USDA's refusal to allow the company to test for BSE. According to the filing,

"Creekstone has lost about 35% of its revenue due to BSE concerns and is

prepared to spend $6,000,000 per year to perform BSE testing itself to help

recover the lost demand."



Creekstone also submitted comments from nationally recognized BSE experts,

stating that more BSE testing, even of younger, healthy-appearing cattle is

valuable because it provides more data on the presence or absence of BSE in

cattle slaughtered in the U.S.



Creekstone also assailed USDA for seeking to use its regulatory authority to

"favor one set of competitors (large meatpackers with low margins) over others

(Creekstone and other high-end meatpackers with an interest in BSE testing)" as

"not only inappropriate as a matter of policy, but also likely

unconstitutional."





-By Lester Aldrich; Dow Jones Newswires



agriculture.com
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Natural foods grocer backs Creekstone BSE testing



AgDayta

November 7, 2006



CATTLE: (DTN) -- At least one grocery retailer has now weighed in on the

lawsuit by Kansas meatpacker Creekstone Farms Premium Beef in its case against

the USDA over the right to test cattle for mad-cow disease.



Organic grocer Wild Oats has filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing

Creekstone's position in the case. The retailer, which has 112 stores in 24

states, stated in its court brief that BSE is a major concern for its

customers.
Federal protections to reduce or eliminate BSE from the food chain

also are not adequate, Wild Oats attorneys said in their brief.




Wild Oats states there are loopholes in the current ruminant feed ban

that have not been addressed by the Food and Drug Administration. The retailer

also notes that other countries, particularly in Europe, test all slaughter

cattle ages 24 months or older for BSE "as an additional measure that cattle

infected with BSE are removed from the food supply."



Creekstone filed briefs last week with expert testimony stating that

testing younger cattle for the disease would provide more data on protecting

the U.S. cattle herd. Right now, both USDA and Creekstone are locked in a

battle of motions and court briefings to see if a federal judge will issue a

summary judgment for either side in the case. The case is being heard in the

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C.



The brief from Wild Oats also argues that USDA is violating First

Amendment speech with a policy that prevents retailers from communicating

information on products such as stating that cattle have been tested for BSE.

The ban on testing also does not serve a substantial government interest, but

in citing letters from USDA officials to Creekstone, Wild Oats states USDA is

protecting competitors who may not want to test their own cattle for BSE. In

effect, USDA is interfering with market forces, Wild Oats states.



agdayta.com
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The ban on testing also does not serve a substantial government interest, but

in citing letters from USDA officials to Creekstone, Wild Oats states USDA is

protecting competitors who may not want to test their own cattle for BSE. In

effect, USDA is interfering with market forces, Wild Oats states.

The USDA is trying to frustrate real competition against their big packer buddies to the detriment of the producers they are supposed to serve/protect. Using the regulatory agencies and the OGC (office of general counsel) of the USDA to act as lawyers for the chosen few when selling their power.

Just another sell out government agency with a heck of an expensive beauracrcy/constituency to boot.

If the agency was paid on results their budget would only be a fraction of what it is today.

Such whoring of political power is shameful.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Econ101 said:
The ban on testing also does not serve a substantial government interest, but

in citing letters from USDA officials to Creekstone, Wild Oats states USDA is

protecting competitors who may not want to test their own cattle for BSE. In

effect, USDA is interfering with market forces, Wild Oats states.

The USDA is trying to frustrate real competition against their big packer buddies to the detriment of the producers they are supposed to serve/protect. Using the regulatory agencies and the OGC (office of general counsel) of the USDA to act as lawyers for the chosen few when selling their power.

Just another sell out government agency with a heck of an expensive beauracrcy/constituency to boot.

If the agency was paid on results their budget would only be a fraction of what it is today.

Such whoring of political power is shameful.

Another case of the current leadership on the Hill giving undying support to the Big Multinational Corporations over the rights/concerns/wishes of small business and consumers... Then now all of a sudden the Politicians can't figure out why the polls are all going against them- and voters are saying they want a change... :roll:

Instead of the Big Business lobbyists they were all following, some of them should have been paying attention to their nationwide of constituents that were opposed to NAFTA, AFTA, CAFTA, Illegal Immigrants & Amnesty, Mandatory ID, fraudulently labeled origin imported food products , North American Unions, etc. etc.

Reminds me of an NCBA President that a while back said "We weren't listening to our membership"....... :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"In effect, USDA is interfering with market forces, Wild Oats states."

It's nonsense that they're doing it, but really alarming why.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
"In effect, USDA is interfering with market forces, Wild Oats states."

It's nonsense that they're doing it, but really alarming why.

To make some men richer than they already are.


Money, power, greed and corruption. Its USDA policy.
 
Top