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

R-CALF pleased with Judge

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Washington, D.C. – R-CALF USA was pleased to learn that a federal district court has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) action of prohibiting Creekstone Farms Premium Beef (Creekstone) from voluntarily testing cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is unlawful. Unless USDA appeals the decision, Creekstone can start testing for the disease on June 1.

"We are pleased that the judicial branch of our government is helping to maintain the accountability of this agency," said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian. "We stood by Creekstone’s entrepreneurial spirit then, and we do so now because Creekstone can now lead the beef-processing industry into a new era – one that’s predicated on meeting the needs and wants of its customers.

"In April 2004, R-CALF USA wrote to then-Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman in support of Creekstone’s request to voluntarily test for BSE because Creekstone was responding to its customers’ requests – primarily from the Japanese government," he noted. "Had USDA granted Creekstone’s request – which obviously was a reasonable, efficient and timely solution for resuming export trade with Japan – then perhaps our Asian export markets would’ve agreed to accept more U.S. product.

"As it stands now, it appears Japan and South Korea feel uncomfortable with the agency’s obstinate tactics, and the resulting situation – age limits on beef, rejections of entire shipments of beef, and difficult trade negotiations – could have been avoided altogether," Thornsberry pointed out.

"USDA should never have attempted to use its regulatory authority to hamstring market competition, particularly in this instance, because Creekstone intends to use identical BSE-testing procedures currently used by USDA," he said. "R-CALF stands by its original position that USDA’s actions shielded the less innovative, less nimble and less responsive beef processors from the competitive capacity of cutting-edge processors like Creekstone."

The court’s memorandum states in part: "…should a reviewing court determine that BSE could be detected in slaughter-age cattle, as is suggested by evidence…and the more extensive testing conducted by other countries, let it be noted that the government cannot have it both ways: the test kits cannot be both ‘used for treatment’ and ‘worthless.’ If USDA’s surveillance testing helps ‘manage’ the disease by providing information about the prevalence of BSE and contributing to the knowledge of the disease…, then so might the more extensive testing proposed by Creekstone…"

Also, the court rejected USDA’s argument that private testing somehow would interfere with the agency’s BSE surveillance program.

R-CALF USA policy – established by membership in 2005 – states that the organization shall encourage USDA to allow voluntary BSE testing of cattle born and raised in the U.S. by USDA-inspected beef processing facilities.

R-CALF USA continues to support mandatory country-of-origin labeling to provide important information to consumers, and we support efforts to continue to the high level of consumer confidence in the U.S. food supply. R-CALF USA also supports an expanded testing program for identification of BSE and elimination of any animals so infected from the food supply.

Note: To view the court’s order and memorandum, visit the "BSE-Litigation" link at

www.r-calfusa.com.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
It is about time. Thank God we do have a few Judges left that know right from wrong, and that right will prevail.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"We stood by Creekstone’s entrepreneurial spirit then, and we do so now because Creekstone can now lead the beef-processing industry into a new era – one that’s predicated on meeting the needs and wants of its customers.

How dare they do something like this? This goes against the grain of Maxines/NCBA's Corporate Ruled Constitutional Republic's belief of " You all folks don't know whats best for you- you folk et what we stick in front of you and like it"... :wink: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I hope this really does stand up to appeal and that the higher appeals court does not block this decision. We have had too much of a sell out by our court system to corporate interests and this tyranny needs to stop.

The other question that comes to mind is the same one that was revealed in the questioning of the chief of staff for Alberto Gonzales. In the questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was revealed that the chief of staff suggested that the strategy the decision makers should use to get their candidates put in as AGs without Senate approval via the clause in the Patriot Act, was to use the recess appointment power and then "gum up" the appointment controversy. "Gum up" means that they just kept up political talk while not doing anything about the issue.

The damage during the meantime occurs. This damage is the result of the process. For Creekstone, it is the damage of the lost opportunity due to time it takes the court to act to correct the overreach of power by the USDA. In the AG situation it was fact that the recess appointments remained in place while political will gathered forces against the abuse of power ---if it was able to. In both cases, the process of justice had costs.

My question is who is responsible for these costs and why does our system allow those costs of abuse of power to stand? Can politicians/big business just game everyone with comparative advantages and reap those benefits without any costs? The strategy of using the justice system in this manner is all too common for big business. It allows them to get away with things by gaming the justice system and not pay the costs that are placed on others while the process to correct the injustice occurs.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
"We stood by Creekstone’s entrepreneurial spirit then, and we do so now because Creekstone can now lead the beef-processing industry into a new era – one that’s predicated on meeting the needs and wants of its customers.

How dare they do something like this? This goes against the grain of Maxines/NCBA's Corporate Ruled Constitutional Republic's belief of " You all folks don't know whats best for you- you folk et what we stick in front of you and like it"... :wink: :lol:

So......is the self proclaimed shurrff/JUDGE/coroner/HORSE TRADER/all around EXPERTconstitutionalist of the world going to guarantee all the BSE tests and all those who administer those tests will not make so much as one mistake?

Do we (in the USA, or even the world) actually have any tests and the technicians to administer and read such tests, currently available which will give even a semi-reasonable assurance of the accuracy of test results?

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
Oldtimer said:
"We stood by Creekstone’s entrepreneurial spirit then, and we do so now because Creekstone can now lead the beef-processing industry into a new era – one that’s predicated on meeting the needs and wants of its customers.

How dare they do something like this? This goes against the grain of Maxines/NCBA's Corporate Ruled Constitutional Republic's belief of " You all folks don't know whats best for you- you folk et what we stick in front of you and like it"... :wink: :lol:

So......is the self proclaimed shurrff/JUDGE/coroner/HORSE TRADER/all around EXPERTconstitutionalist of the world going to guarantee all the BSE tests and all those who administer those tests will not make so much as one mistake?

Sorry to disillusion you Maxine- but no one or nothing is perfect- not even your NCBA social club....But I'll bet Creekstone can't do any worse than USDA :roll: :wink: :lol:

Do we (in the USA, or even the world) actually have any tests and the technicians to administer and read such tests, currently available which will give even a semi-reasonable assurance of the accuracy of test results?

Yes Maxine- Our scientific community hasn't completely disappeared or sold out to the Asians in the last 10 years of our governments failure to support science and science based education....If nothing else I'm sure the Japanese would gladly sell us the tests- and send over the experts to teach our dumb folk in this country how to do it :roll: :wink: :lol:

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "So......is the self proclaimed shurrff/JUDGE/coroner/HORSE TRADER/all around EXPERTconstitutionalist of the world going to guarantee all the BSE tests and all those who administer those tests will not make so much as one mistake?"

Do you expect the same from all those who administer tests for any other disease, whether it be for animal or human? Do you demand the same from the USDA testers - the ones that already made a huge goof?

Why are you defending government interference in business - especially when it took money out of your pockets? I find that incredulous!

When do you think Tyson will go to 100% testing? What about Cargill?
 

Mike

Well-known member
MRJ wrote: Do we (in the USA, or even the world) actually have any tests and the technicians to administer and read such tests, currently available which will give even a semi-reasonable assurance of the accuracy of test results?

All that gin must have finally taken it's toll on your thinking capacity. :???:

I know I have recommended wine to you in the past, but now I'm suggesting MILK!

Given all the mistakes that the USDA has made in the BSE venue, and they are extensive, do you really think anyone could do worse?
:roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Tommy said:
It is about time. Thank God we do have a few Judges left that know right from wrong, and that right will prevail.

Tommy, When Creekstone first petitioned the USDA for this endeavor, they asked for cooperation from the USDA to make this testing deal work.

They asked the USDA for due diligent oversight at the request of the Japs.

If the USDA does not provide it, it may not work now.

There's nothing worse than a scorned government agency................

Well, maybe ONE thing! :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DJ Creekstone: Ready To Work With USDA To Enhance US Beef Value



Agriculture Online

3:48 PM, March 30, 2007



KANSAS CITY (Dow Jones)--Creekstone Farms Premium Beef said Friday it is

ready to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enhance the value of

U.S. beef via voluntary testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or

mad-cow disease.



The statement came after Federal District Judge James Robertson ruled

Thursday that the USDA's prohibition against the private use of rapid test kits

to screen cattle for BSE was unlawful. Judge Robertson further ruled that if

the USDA does not appeal prior to June 1, Creekstone will be allowed to test

for the disease.



Creekstone wants to test all its cattle for the disease and filed a lawsuit

in March 2006 against the USDA to gain approval so it could appeal to certain

international and domestic customers who wanted every slaughtered animal

tested. The USDA contended that such a move would be the same as admitting that

all cattle needed to be tested for the disease and withheld permission for

Creekstone to buy the test kits.



The USDA and some other organizations and meat companies feared that if

Creekstone is allowed to test and advertise its beef as tested for BSE, it

could undermine consumer confidence in the safety of U.S. beef products. The

USDA has said testing the young cattle that Creekstone slaughters is useless

since the rate of BSE in the U.S. is extremely small - and it doesn't show up

in the younger cattle that Creekstone slaughters.



Some feared allowing Creekstone to test could create a demand for the

expensive procedure that consumers weren't willing to pay for. Creekstone has

maintained that its reason for testing is simply to satisfy the demands of some

customers.



"We are very pleased with the ruling handed down by the court and we stand

ready to work with the USDA," said Dennis Buhlke, Creekstone president, in a

release. "This decision confirms the position Creekstone has taken for over

three years that the USDA should not prevent businesses from responding to

their customers' demands for more information about their products, such as BSE

testing."



Creekstone already has built, with the advice of BSE-testing experts, a

state-of-the-art laboratory and is positioned to implement its stated plans for

BSE testing of some or all of the cattle it processes at its Arkansas City,

Kan., plant, the company said.




The U.S. Agriculture Department currently regulates the test and administers

it to about 1% of slaughtered cattle - those that are older and show symptoms

of neurological problems.



Following the news of the ruling, the American Meat Institute's Senior Vice

President of Regulatory Affairs and Counsel Mark Dopp issued a statement

saying, "AMI opposes BSE testing for marketing purposes. Testing is an

important tool for animal disease surveillance.



"Targeted BSE testing is one component of an effective, multiple-hurdle BSE

firewall system used to detect and eventually eliminate BSE from North

America," Dopp said. "Testing all animals will not make beef safer, and is

unnecessary for both animal disease surveillance and food safety purposes."



Joe Schuele, director of trade media for the National Cattlemen's Beef

Association, said, "the NCBA has gathered extensive guidance from experts in

the animal health community, and the international consensus is that 100%

testing for BSE is not warranted, nor is it the most effective method for

preventing the spread of the disease or eliminating human health risks from the

disease.



"We feel the other safeguards that are in place, such as the feed ban

(prohibiting the feeding of rendered ruminant by-products back to ruminants),

the ban on downer cattle for slaughter and the removal of specified risk

materials from the carcass are the safeguards that are really necessary to deal

with BSE," Schuele said.



However, Creekstone did have its supporters. R-CALF United Stockgrowers of

America issued a statement saying the cattlemen's group "was pleased to learn

that a federal district court has ruled that the USDA's action of prohibiting

Creekstone...from voluntarily testing cattle for BSE is unlawful."





-By Lester Aldrich; Dow Jones Newswires



agriculture.com
 

Mike

Well-known member
Safety priority
U.S. meatpackers should be allowed to do as much testing as they want for mad cow disease.


Monday, April 2, 2007

A federal judge’s ruling last week would allow the nation’s meatpackers to perform tests that many Americans probably would applaud.

Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, a meatpacker based in Arkansas City, took its case to the federal courts after the U.S. Department of Agriculture barred it from testing all of the cattle it slaughters for mad cow disease. Creekstone was willing to do the testing to allay fears of the disease that can be fatal to humans who eat the tainted beef. The threat of mad cow disease was central, for instance, to Japan’s decision in 2003 to ban all beef imports from the United States.

Although universal testing might alleviate importers’ concerns, large meatpacking companies don’t want to bear the costs of such a program. Instead, they favor the USDA’s approach of testing fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows. Creekstone, however, was willing to wager that, at least in the Japanese market, people would be willing to pay a higher price for beef that had been screened for mad cow disease.

And that should be their right. Although Japan reopened its markets to U.S. beef in July 2006, another mad cow discovery could easily reverse that decision. If consumers are willing to pay a premium price for beef they know is free of mad cow disease, Creekstone should be able to offer that product.

The federal judge agreed in a ruling that said the USDA doesn’t have the right to regulate the test and bar Creekstone from using it. If the ruling isn’t appealed by June 1, the meatpacker is free to do additional testing.

It’s hard to justify the USDA’s stand. If Creekstone does universal testing and finds no mad cow disease, that finding supports the safety of the entire U.S. beef industry. If the testing detects mad cow disease, that gives beef producers, processors and regulators an opportunity to correct the situation. Outlawing the testing only makes it seem that USDA officials or meatpackers may be concerned about what additional testing would reveal.

Perhaps some American consumers would rather pay less for beef that probably is OK, but some might be willing to pay more for a product that offered an added measure of safety. Within the last month, an outbreak of salmonella across the nation was traced to peanut butter, and contaminated pet food caused kidney failure and death in hundreds of precious pets. Americans are becoming acutely aware of the vulnerability of their food supply to deadly contamination, either accidental or intentional.

It’s primarily a consumer issue. Allowing a company to do additional testing on the meat or any other food product likely will add to the cost of that product, and it will be up to consumers to decide whether they’re willing to pay that price. Recent incidents have shown that the current government inspection system doesn’t guarantee the safety of food being sold in U.S. markets and restaurants. If some companies are willing to go the extra mile to ensure their product is safe, they should be allowed to do so.
 

mrj

Well-known member
BOYS, please tell us exactly how my QUESTIONNING of the CREDIBILITY of TESTS, and testing PROCEDURES, in the hands of CORPORATE business (small CORPORATE business though Creekstone may be in the scale of agribus.) is worse, or "demonstrates" me to be more "foolish", "tribal" or "ignorant"; than does YOUR disdain and claims of "ineffective", "botched", or "designed to fail", re. the TESTS and the PROCEDURES for testing done by USDA and/or GIANT corporations????

Do you all refuse to vaccinate your children because some people claim and believe that causes Autism (for one, among several serious illnesses)?

I have never said anything or anyone is perfect. So far as my experience and the knowledge of gazillions of other people shows, Jesus Christ is the only person who was ever "perfect".

Nor have I said I EXPECT perfection......only a logical and reasonable percentage of probablility of benefit.

This 'malady' of BSE and/or TSE's is far from understood and well researched. Doing what is indicated by a preponderance of evidence and SCIENCE available RIGHT NOW is exactly what NCBA members expect and is, obviously all anyone can actually DO about it at this point in time. Anything else, such as 'testing' with tests which are still dicey in results isn't much more than marketing tactics, IMO.

I do NOT wish Creekstone any bad luck, but just cannot support them in this. OTOH, it seems a pretty safe bet that you guys would just a vehemently support them IF NCBA were the one going for such testing.

YOU could ALL be accurately described as very "TRIBAL" in your agenda against the current leading businesses in the beef industry!

Mikey, don't you "know" that milk, especially from modern dairies, is harmful to humans, according to some of your buddies in the consumer activist groups? Shame on you for promoting such bad food!!!!

BTW, Oldfool, NCBA, though you probably won't admit to it, has been in the LEAD in creating new beef products/cuts prepared in ways CONSUMERS request while you have been beating your drums to 'go back' to the good old ways/days of "teach em to cook it right, they don't need to get those convenient meals, make the packer, not the producer, advertise beef " mind set.

Sandhusker, how many times do you suppose I have criticized USDA and several other offices for the fact that BUREAUCRACY is extremely inefficient? No one or no entity is perfect, but most are working more and better than you guys give credit for toward IMPROVING the cattle/beef industry for business and personal health of producers and consumers alike.

Your penchant for over-simplification and blaming the 'status-quo' (corporate agriculture and/or USDA/APHIS) for all problems when that 'status-quo' has actually done a pretty darn good job of inspections and protecting people from bad food products serves no one well.

Going to the source and actually offering help, AS NCBA HAS DONE FOR/WITH THE BEEF CHECKOFF PEOPLE actually HAS helped to improve 'the system' to dramatically cut the incidence of e Coli, for one instance. Hopefully, that process will sooner than later come up with solid answers to BSE/TSE's. Until then, you people throwing rocks at the people who are actually WORKING toward that end is counterproductive, at best.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ, why do you think that you should decide whether other people go further than the USDA in food safety?

I know you think a lot of yourself, but you are going overboard here. Creekstone doesn't need your support, they need people like you to not get in the way of progress.

I would would agree with Mike. Stick with the milk regardless of what the consumer activist groups say.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
MRJ said:
BOYS, please tell us exactly how my QUESTIONNING of the CREDIBILITY of TESTS, and testing PROCEDURES, in the hands of CORPORATE business (small CORPORATE business though Creekstone may be in the scale of agribus.) is worse, or "demonstrates" me to be more "foolish", "tribal" or "ignorant"; than does YOUR disdain and claims of "ineffective", "botched", or "designed to fail", re. the TESTS and the PROCEDURES for testing done by USDA and/or GIANT corporations????

Do you all refuse to vaccinate your children because some people claim and believe that causes Autism (for one, among several serious illnesses)?

I have never said anything or anyone is perfect. So far as my experience and the knowledge of gazillions of other people shows, Jesus Christ is the only person who was ever "perfect".

Nor have I said I EXPECT perfection......only a logical and reasonable percentage of probablility of benefit.

This 'malady' of BSE and/or TSE's is far from understood and well researched. Doing what is indicated by a preponderance of evidence and SCIENCE available RIGHT NOW is exactly what NCBA members expect and is, obviously all anyone can actually DO about it at this point in time. Anything else, such as 'testing' with tests which are still dicey in results isn't much more than marketing tactics, IMO.

I do NOT wish Creekstone any bad luck, but just cannot support them in this. OTOH, it seems a pretty safe bet that you guys would just a vehemently support them IF NCBA were the one going for such testing.

YOU could ALL be accurately described as very "TRIBAL" in your agenda against the current leading businesses in the beef industry!

Mikey, don't you "know" that milk, especially from modern dairies, is harmful to humans, according to some of your buddies in the consumer activist groups? Shame on you for promoting such bad food!!!!

BTW, Oldfool, NCBA, though you probably won't admit to it, has been in the LEAD in creating new beef products/cuts prepared in ways CONSUMERS request while you have been beating your drums to 'go back' to the good old ways/days of "teach em to cook it right, they don't need to get those convenient meals, make the packer, not the producer, advertise beef " mind set.

Sandhusker, how many times do you suppose I have criticized USDA and several other offices for the fact that BUREAUCRACY is extremely inefficient? No one or no entity is perfect, but most are working more and better than you guys give credit for toward IMPROVING the cattle/beef industry for business and personal health of producers and consumers alike.

Your penchant for over-simplification and blaming the 'status-quo' (corporate agriculture and/or USDA/APHIS) for all problems when that 'status-quo' has actually done a pretty darn good job of inspections and protecting people from bad food products serves no one well.

Going to the source and actually offering help, AS NCBA HAS DONE FOR/WITH THE BEEF CHECKOFF PEOPLE actually HAS helped to improve 'the system' to dramatically cut the incidence of e Coli, for one instance. Hopefully, that process will sooner than later come up with solid answers to BSE/TSE's. Until then, you people throwing rocks at the people who are actually WORKING toward that end is counterproductive, at best.

MRJ

Prime example of psycho babble! :roll: :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Prime example of Physco babble!

I was going to say something close to what you said, except I was going to leave out the "Psycho". :lol:

Just "Babble" was good enough for me. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "Your penchant for over-simplification and blaming the 'status-quo' (corporate agriculture and/or USDA/APHIS) for all problems when that 'status-quo' has actually done a pretty darn good job of inspections and protecting people from bad food products serves no one well."

This was just in the news, "For three decades, U.S. inspectors visited 250 meat processing plants as rarely as once every two weeks despite federal law requiring daily inspection, Agriculture Department officials admitted to lawmakers on Thursday." That's a pretty darn good job? Maybe you would compare the number of cases of food-bourne illness between us and Japan?
 

mrj

Well-known member
To the contrary, 'ranchhand', it is not psychobabble, it is me attempting to show 'the boys' some of the same type arguments they use favoring their agendas just how two faced they really are when what they consider to be ok for their agenda is called by them something far worse when the same is applied to my agendas. That may be a bit convoluted, but you could grasp the idea if you would try.

Econ, I have never said I think I should decide. This is supposed to be a nation of laws (and, sometimes unfortunately) rules and regulations. The rules and regulations of USDA re. BSE, a relatively new and unknown condition, do not allow for BSE testing by individuals. The tests are not reliable at this point in time. That does not make it a question of "getting in the way of Creekstone". It makes it a question of further endangering the survival of the US beef industry to give one company a possible marketing edge. It has nothing to do with what I may think of myself, and everything to do with wanting the best available science used re. BSE.

Sandhusker, what is "the rest of the story" connected with that sound bite? It seems a safe guess that there is far more to it than you quote. No one denies there are glitches in bureaucratic agencies. The miracle is that improvements continue and foodborne illnesses decline each year in spite of bureaucratic bungling. You imply that industry likes these problems, or doesn't dislike them enough to do much about them. How much money do you think they are currently spending on food safety? Irradiation would just about eliminate such problems. Do you support that method of food protection?

This is not Japan. Most likely food service workers in this country have much more freedom than in Japan. We are not allowed to test food service workers to see if they could be a source of infection when there is an outbreak (unless it has changed recently.

If you want comparisons, let's compare incidences of foodborne illnesses in the USA from previous years to recently, comparing populations, better detection methods today, etc.

You probably have employees at hand in the bank who could look that information up for you.

We know that e coli poisoning, for instance, has dropped dramatically in recent years because of improvements in meat handling safety, inspections, and more, and that is in spite of the fact that there are many sources of it originating with wild life which probably accounts for much of it found on produce.

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
The rules and regulations of USDA re. BSE, a relatively new and unknown condition, do not allow for BSE testing by individuals. The tests are not reliable at this point in time.

BSE has been around since 1986. 20 years. We could have learned something from the UK, maybe for starters using a test that actually worked, but NO................................, we have to use experimental procedures for testing.

Heck we could have learned a lot from the Japs. They were using the newer rapid screening tests 3 years before the USDA did.

The tests work fine you old fool, so good that the USDA says they can find "any positive that is possibly infected".

You do believe them, don't you?

The folks at the Univ of Georgia that run the screening tests aren't government employees. THEY'RE STUDENTS!

Does your hospital run test on human diseases or do they send them off to a goverment lab?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
To the contrary, 'ranchhand', it is not psychobabble, it is me attempting to show 'the boys' some of the same type arguments they use favoring their agendas just how two faced they really are when what they consider to be ok for their agenda is called by them something far worse when the same is applied to my agendas. That may be a bit convoluted, but you could grasp the idea if you would try.

Econ, I have never said I think I should decide. This is supposed to be a nation of laws (and, sometimes unfortunately) rules and regulations. The rules and regulations of USDA re. BSE, a relatively new and unknown condition, do not allow for BSE testing by individuals. The tests are not reliable at this point in time. That does not make it a question of "getting in the way of Creekstone". It makes it a question of further endangering the survival of the US beef industry to give one company a possible marketing edge. It has nothing to do with what I may think of myself, and everything to do with wanting the best available science used re. BSE.

Sandhusker, what is "the rest of the story" connected with that sound bite? It seems a safe guess that there is far more to it than you quote. No one denies there are glitches in bureaucratic agencies. The miracle is that improvements continue and foodborne illnesses decline each year in spite of bureaucratic bungling. You imply that industry likes these problems, or doesn't dislike them enough to do much about them. How much money do you think they are currently spending on food safety? Irradiation would just about eliminate such problems. Do you support that method of food protection?

This is not Japan. Most likely food service workers in this country have much more freedom than in Japan. We are not allowed to test food service workers to see if they could be a source of infection when there is an outbreak (unless it has changed recently.

If you want comparisons, let's compare incidences of foodborne illnesses in the USA from previous years to recently, comparing populations, better detection methods today, etc.

You probably have employees at hand in the bank who could look that information up for you.

We know that e coli poisoning, for instance, has dropped dramatically in recent years because of improvements in meat handling safety, inspections, and more, and that is in spite of the fact that there are many sources of it originating with wild life which probably accounts for much of it found on produce.

MRJ

Econ, I have never said I think I should decide. This is supposed to be a nation of laws (and, sometimes unfortunately) rules and regulations. The rules and regulations of USDA re. BSE, a relatively new and unknown condition, do not allow for BSE testing by individuals. The tests are not reliable at this point in time. That does not make it a question of "getting in the way of Creekstone". It makes it a question of further endangering the survival of the US beef industry to give one company a possible marketing edge. It has nothing to do with what I may think of myself, and everything to do with wanting the best available science used re. BSE.

You are a piece of work, MRJ.

Just to clarify, are you saying that the truth about whether or not the US has bse takes second seat to the USDA controlling the information in our country for the sake of the beef industry? If so, why are you hiding behind the "best available science" garbage talk? You just want the best available science that the government can control.

Do you believe the govt. should control all of the "science" and the "truth" and we all have to accept whatever they say?

If so, you and I have a very different view of what our country should be about. I think most of the rest of the world has come to the same conclusion as I have.
 
Top