PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Court: Illegal for meat companies to test cows for mad cow


clemensol
08-30-2008, 08:41 PM
wtf? are you serious?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-29-mad-cow_N.htm?csp=34

wazu
08-30-2008, 08:44 PM
OMG I read this today. As outrageous as government gets! WTF?!

Taco John
08-30-2008, 08:47 PM
This is exactly why I want government out of the food regulation business - to go back to a discussion we were having on this subject about a week ago.

banyon
08-30-2008, 08:50 PM
The opinion is here. (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200808/07-5173-1135720.pdf)

I'm going to read it before I weigh in. All of the news coverage just seems like shock.

ClevelandBronco
08-30-2008, 08:55 PM
The opinion is here. (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200808/07-5173-1135720.pdf)

I'm going to read it before I weigh in. All of the news coverage just seems like shock.

Not me. I going to go ahead and call it. The government is stoopid.

Mr Luzcious
08-30-2008, 08:57 PM
Not me. I going to go ahead and call it. The government is stoopid.

Well.. that pretty much goes without saying. Regardless of this incident. :p

bango
08-30-2008, 09:08 PM
This is exactly why I want government out of the food regulation business - to go back to a discussion we were having on this subject about a week ago.

Even Canada was debating the privatization of food inspection after an outbreak of Listerious.

banyon
08-30-2008, 09:26 PM
Now that I've skimmed the case, it appears that this is a terribly botched reading of what the case was about. That's understandable because it's dealing mainly in rather obscure administrative law doctrines that are indecipherable to most lay people.

I'l try to boil it down though. Creekstone farms wanted to test all of their cattle for BSE (Mad Cow Disease). To do so, they wanted to buy test kits from a manufacturer in France, Bio-Rad. Creekstone applied to purchase the kits and the USDA denied the purchase request. Bio-Rad has an import permit, but the import permit only allows them to sell to USDA approved laboratories, not directly to slaughterhouses. That wasthe reason for the denial, UDSA wanted an approved lab, rather than people employed by the slaughterhouse themselves to bedoing the testing.

Creekstone challenged the USDA decision saying that 1) they didn't have the power to regulate the use of any biological products, 2) that the kits weren't used for "treatment" under the regulation and so the USDA didn't have the specific authority to regulate the use of the kits, and 3) that the USDA's ruling was arbitrary and capricious.

The Court ruled that USDA did have such authority on 1 and 2, but did not rule on 3 because that issue was not on appeal.

Essentially, then, the court didn't say anything about a packing plant not being able to test all of its cattle, but if it wants to do so, it still must go through a USDA lab. I would think the reason for not having the foxes guard the henhouse would be obvious. Essentially it looks like Creekstone clothed their desire to self-test in this rather admirable but deceptive goal of providing the public with increased testing. If, however the Court had ruled that the USDA didn't have the authority to regulate the test kits, then Creekstone could easily have scaled back the testing after they didn't feel like doing it any longer.

Good ruling, IMO for a Bush Sr. appointee.

bango
08-30-2008, 09:35 PM
Now that I've skimmed the case, it appears that this is a terribly botched reading of what the case was about. That's understandable because it's dealing mainly in rather obscure administrative law doctrines that are indecipherable to most lay people.

I'l try to boil it down though. Creekstone farms wanted to test all of their cattle for BSE (Mad Cow Disease). To do so, they wanted to buy test kits from a manufacturer in France, Bio-Rad. Creekstone applied to purchase the kits and the USDA denied the purchase request. Bio-Rad has an import permit, but the import permit only allows them to sell to USDA approved laboratories, not directly to slaughterhouses. That wasthe reason for the denial, UDSA wanted an approved lab, rather than people employed by the slaughterhouse themselves to bedoing the testing.

Creekstone challenged the USDA decision saying that 1) they didn't have the power to regulate the use of any biological products, 2) that the kits weren't used for "treatment" under the regulation and so the USDA didn't have the specific authority to regulate the use of the kits, and 3) that the USDA's ruling was arbitrary and capricious.

The Court ruled that USDA did have such authority on 1 and 2, but did not rule on 3 because that issue was not on appeal.

Essentially, then, the court didn't say anything about a packing plant not being able to test all of its cattle, but if it wants to do so, it still must go through a USDA lab. I would think the reason for not having the foxes guard the henhouse would be obvious. Essentially it looks like Creekstone clothed their desire to self-test in this rather admirable but deceptive goal of providing the public with increased testing. If, however the Court had ruled that the USDA didn't have the authority to regulate the test kits, then Creekstone could easily have scaled back the testing after they didn't feel like doing it any longer.

Good ruling, IMO for a Bush Sr. appointee.

This has conspiracy written all over it.

banyon
08-30-2008, 09:44 PM
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2928450820080829) did a much better job on this story.

bango
08-30-2008, 09:55 PM
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2928450820080829) did a much better job on this story.

They mentioned the torture then?

banyon
08-30-2008, 09:56 PM
They mentioned the torture then?

Que?

bango
08-30-2008, 09:59 PM
Que?

I have said too much. How about those Chiefs?

J Diddy
08-30-2008, 10:05 PM
I have said too much. How about those Chiefs?


They're battling angry cows.