Calm down, my friends. We can discuss this rationally.
There is evidence artificial growth hormones accumulate in edible parts of livestock. There is also some evidence these trace amounts affect humans eating the meat. If there are consumers who do not want to chance, it, then that is their right. There are other ways than outright bans such as the Europeans have done to ensure consumers get what they want. Our group, for example will test livers and label ("AGH Free") or not add that particular label depending upon test results.
There are tests which CAN detect PrPsc prions in live animals. One such test is likely to go before OIE for "validation" quite soon. Is it necessary to test every animal? Who knows? USDA and CFIA say "No", but it's not like their "science" is PI* free. If a test is available and it adds 20 cents per pound at the consumer level, will the consumers pay the extra? Some will, some won't.
As to Japan and US beef... Their government determined that most of their people would rather have every animal tested, so they do that. Apparently, some of their people are OK with untested U.S. raised beef. It may well have to do with it being 1/4 the price of home-grown product.
Yes, Aussie's are in there, too, but their product is not tested. They haven't reported a case, but that's not the same kind of guarantee as tested. There are many reports that U.S. beef is tastier and more tender than Australian. I don't know, but if it is, that and price would be why the Australians expect to lose 20-25% of the Japanese market they had built up by last year. Interesting (to me, anyway) they believe they can hang on to the majority.
Is there a chance of getting a variant TSE from U.S. or Canadian beef. Absolutely! Can the chance be lessened through testing? Yes, given the 'right' test. Using the Prionics or BioRad tests? Probably not. The manufacturers of the tests admit it is very unlikely to detect the PrPsc prion's presence in an animal less than three years after infection. That does not mean it is not there.
We play the odds every day, and people should be permitted to play with as much or as little protection as they wish. In all honesty, which is more likely - death from BSE or death from car accident coming home from Safeway with the beef in the back seat? I think we all know the answer to that one, but, hey... off we go to town.
Creekstone wants to enhance their offering with something they believe to be a marketing advantage. There are NO valid, logical reasons to deny them that right.
Will it destroy the market? Hardly.
Will consumers suddenly all want tested meat? Perhaps. I think probably, but so what? The test would be available to everyone.
Should testing be mandatory? To what end? The only people who might lobby for that are the companies supplying the tests.
On the other side of the fence why would testing every animal be so frightening to anyone?
Well, high-volume packers would have a problem because it takes about 48 hours and by then their product is at Safeway and paid for. It would really screw their process to have to hang on to carcasses for two days, AND keep track of which was which.
What if lots of BSE were found? Then there would be a problem. Yes, the market would drop drastically for untested meat. The bigger problem would be the liability of the USDA and CFIA who have been saying their testing catches all the cases. The lawsuits would (will?) make tobacco's problems look small - no government agency was devoted to assuring us our cigarette supply was safe to smoke.
Will 100% testing eventually arrive? Yes, well... maybe. If it were allowed tomorrow, only the consumer response would determine 100% testing. And the sector which has the least money, when faced with the choice: "Do I eat and maybe get BSE which will kill me in 20 years; or do I not eat and starve to death in the next few weeks?" will likely pick eating over starvation. (Or hunger or even unfulfilled cravings.)
Should we fight over all this? I think (and hope) not.