Mad Cow Meat? Ignore It

2:56 pm EST May 30th, 2007 | News | 15 Comments

The government is fighting against having to test beef for mad cow. Amazing.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

15 Responses to “Mad Cow Meat? Ignore It”

  1. Nimrod Gently says:
    May 30, 2007 at 3:44 pm

    …The HELL?

  2. Thad says:
    May 30, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Technically, they’re not even fighting against HAVING to test beef for mad cow, they’re fighting against allowing a company to do it VOLUNTARILY.

  3. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    May 30, 2007 at 3:49 pm

    If this doesn’t convince you that Bush et al care more about profits than the safety of the American people, then you must be part of the 28%ers. You are lost to ideology.

  4. SpiderJ says:
    May 30, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    No, wait, there must be some way to justify it! Have no fear!

    Um…testing for mad cow undermines the troops and plays into the hands of the terrorists?

    No? Well…

    Testing for mad cow will destroy the sanctity of marriage, right?

    Okay, maybe not.

    Testing for mad cow is a plot by GEORGE SOROS!!!!

    …

    Yeah, okay, I got nothing.

  5. DrPidgro says:
    May 30, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    This case has been going on for some time now. I believe the company wants to ship its beef to Japan.

  6. fd10801 says:
    May 31, 2007 at 10:39 am

    Of course, when you quote from another blog, there is always a slim chance that a fact or two will be left out

    “USDA has contended that such testing would give a false sense of security because BSE generally is undetectable in younger cattle.”
    from Meatingplace.com

  7. nihilistic_disintegration says:
    May 31, 2007 at 11:59 am

    Hey, free market capitalism, pure and simple. If consumers stop buying meat tainted with mad cow disease, then the awesome friendly caring meat industry will stop producing meat tainted with mad cow disease.

    Don’t you people know how America works? Remove all regulations and industries will police themselves.

  8. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    May 31, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    “Of course, when you quote from another blog, there is always a slim chance that a fact or two will be left out

    “USDA has contended that such testing would give a false sense of security because BSE generally is undetectable in younger cattle.”
    from Meatingplace.com”

    So they’d rather have a real sense of insecurity by not testing.

  9. Nimrod Gently says:
    May 31, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    “USDA has contended that such testing would give a false sense of security because BSE generally is undetectable in younger cattle.”

    Take it from someone who gawped dumbly during the BSE crisis eleven years ago, that’s just an excuse.

    I thought our farmers were bad (their cost-cutting and coverups largely caused said crisis, and also the foot and mouth one of six years ago) but at least they have something resembling accountability to a real entity, as opposed to the invisible hand of utter bollocks.

  10. Duros62 says:
    May 31, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    Wasn’t it determined that the disease is spread to cattle by eating the ground-up carcasses of infected cattle?
    I’d say we should cut that shit right out.

  11. fd10801 says:
    May 31, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    I believe USDA’s point is that if the test returns false positives in young cattle, people will be no safer, even though the price of meat will rise tremendously.

  12. Nimrod Gently says:
    May 31, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    “Wasn’t it determined that the disease is spread to cattle by eating the ground-up carcasses of infected cattle?”

    Yeah, that’s the cost-cutting I mentioned earlier. We don’t do that anymore. I hope.

    If the test might give you false positives, refine the test, don’t just wander off.

  13. fd10801 says:
    May 31, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    Nimrod Gently: And you know they won’t try to refine the test, how?

  14. Nimrod Gently says:
    May 31, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    I was responding to your previous post. Do you even see yourself typing anymore?

  15. fd10801 says:
    May 31, 2007 at 8:50 pm

    NG Did I say that they wouldn’t explore improving the test?

    No, I did not.

    If you read my post carefully, without looking for a “gotcha” to pounce on, you have easily translated it: It’s way too expensive to run a test that isn’t really reliable,