Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Testing for Mad Cow in the US

2

Posts

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Good.

    Testing every goddamn cow for mad cow is the most retarded idea ever, I don't give a shit that Britain does it. We're better off spending the money on feed for cows that doesn't include other cows, so that they don't get the disease in the first place, than testing every goddamn cow for a disease that the vast, vast, vast majority are not going to have.

    This would be like spending money on an in-womb test of a disease that only six people in the world have for every child to be tested. And believe me, I'm not fan of the Bush administration, but they are 100% right on this one. For once, they're stopping people from playing on others' emotions.
    The problem, Thanatos, is that Bush isn't trying to stop a push for mandatory testing of all cattle. What he's pushing for is to disallow meatpackers to do voluntary testing, so that they can meet the standards to export to countries such as the UK and Japan, for the purpose of protecting the larger corporate meatpackers.
    It's a fucking stupid idea, and once one or two companies start doing it, it's going to be de facto mandatory. It'll drive up the price of beef for no real benefit.
    Do you have any proof that it would become de facto mandatory or are you just asserting that?

    If the price of the beef from tested cows is, the market will buy the cheaper stuff. This company is supposed to be small so it won't cost them as much to test all the cows. This should mean that the growth of the company would be limited if it does not eventually stop testing all of the cows.

    If it does become essentially mandatory, that would mean market forces favor testing all of the cattle and that people care about the extremely small risk of getting mad cow disease. As there are foods other than beef, this would mean little other than that the companies would lose some profit.

  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    could you maybe try for a topic title that says something about the actual topic?

    Also, I want a libertarian to come in here and argue against government-set food safety standards now. I could use a scratching post.
    If you promise to be gentle, I can throw all intelligent thought to the wind and pretend I actually agree with the idea that farmers should be allowed to risk my life to save a few bucks.
    They already do. I mean, they don't test every single egg for salmonella, the monsters (and you're way, way more likely to get salmonella from an egg than you are to get mad cow from a cow).

    Isn't salmonella by nature destroyed by cooking, whereas Mad Cow Disease can persist through the cooking process?

    shamanhealingwave.jpgabilitypaladinshieldofv.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    could you maybe try for a topic title that says something about the actual topic?

    Also, I want a libertarian to come in here and argue against government-set food safety standards now. I could use a scratching post.
    If you promise to be gentle, I can throw all intelligent thought to the wind and pretend I actually agree with the idea that farmers should be allowed to risk my life to save a few bucks.
    They already do. I mean, they don't test every single egg for salmonella, the monsters (and you're way, way more likely to get salmonella from an egg than you are to get mad cow from a cow).

    Salmonella can be killed by properly cooking your food. Mad cow disease can't.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Do you have any proof that it would become de facto mandatory or are you just asserting that?

    If the price of the beef from tested cows is, the market will buy the cheaper stuff. This company is supposed to be small so it won't cost them as much to test all the cows. This should mean that the growth of the company would be limited if it does not eventually stop testing all of the cows.

    If it does become essentially mandatory, that would mean market forces favor testing all of the cattle and that people care about the extremely small risk of getting mad cow disease. As there are foods other than beef, this would mean little other than that the companies would lose some profit.
    Okay, the size of the company would make it more expensive to test all their cows, not less expensive. The reason they can afford to do it is because they can start with a relatively niche market, and expand from there.

    Market forces are not the be-all and end-all of good things. The "market forces" in this case would probably force grocery stores to stop stocking beef that hadn't been tested, so even if you wanted to buy the cheaper beef, you fucking couldn't. This is because people are fucking stupid enough to spend money buying things that they think are safer, when, in reality, they're not. Not in any significant way, anyhow. And people will pay for it because they're stupid.

    If everyone were acting rationally, it wouldn't be an issue, because no one is going to pay an extra $1.50 per pound to reduce the chances of dying from mad cow disease from 1/1,000,000,000 to 1/2,000,000,000. It's just not a smart thing to do.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    could you maybe try for a topic title that says something about the actual topic?

    Also, I want a libertarian to come in here and argue against government-set food safety standards now. I could use a scratching post.
    If you promise to be gentle, I can throw all intelligent thought to the wind and pretend I actually agree with the idea that farmers should be allowed to risk my life to save a few bucks.
    They already do. I mean, they don't test every single egg for salmonella, the monsters (and you're way, way more likely to get salmonella from an egg than you are to get mad cow from a cow).
    Salmonella can be killed by properly cooking your food. Mad cow disease can't.
    It would be more rational to ban peanuts and peanut products entirely than it is to test for mad cow disease.

  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    could you maybe try for a topic title that says something about the actual topic?

    Also, I want a libertarian to come in here and argue against government-set food safety standards now. I could use a scratching post.
    If you promise to be gentle, I can throw all intelligent thought to the wind and pretend I actually agree with the idea that farmers should be allowed to risk my life to save a few bucks.
    They already do. I mean, they don't test every single egg for salmonella, the monsters (and you're way, way more likely to get salmonella from an egg than you are to get mad cow from a cow).
    Salmonella can be killed by properly cooking your food. Mad cow disease can't.
    It would be more rational to ban peanuts and peanut products entirely than it is to test for mad cow disease.

    Aren't peanuts boiled before being made into peanut butter?
    And don't they cook the peanuts you eat out of a little can?

    shamanhealingwave.jpgabilitypaladinshieldofv.png
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    Aren't peanuts boiled before being made into peanut butter?
    And don't they cook the peanuts you eat out of a little can?
    allergies

    tmsig.jpg
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Ah.

    Good to be a vegetarian.

  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Ah.

    Good to be a vegetarian.

    You won't be saying that when we can't afford beef, herbivore!

    Until then, don't over-excercise, eat plenty of food and marinade yourself in honey & mustard once a week.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Man you pretty much have a higher chance of an anvil falling out of the sky and crushing you a la Wile E Coyote than catching mad cow

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Ah.

    Good to be a vegetarian.

    You won't be saying that when we can't afford beef, herbivore!

    Until then, don't over-excercise, eat plenty of food and marinade yourself in honey & mustard once a week.

    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

  • a penguina penguin Registered User
    edited May 2007
    The issue here is that this move isn't about public health. This is the key statement:
    The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

    A positive BSE test would be disastrous for the cattle industry. Exports would take a dive. This policy would be to protect Texas beef, not the people.

    This space eventually to be filled with excitement
  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    You know, after the US screwed Canada in the mad cow thing a few years ago (Which still isn't fully resolved as far as I know) I have to say that people really don't know anything about mad cow. I mean, come on, there were hundreds of thousands of infected cattle in Britain entering the human food chain and less than 200 people were infected with CJD. So the danger of being infected by eating meat of an infected cow are pretty small.

    Also, the US and Canada both banned using the remains of cattle in feed in 1997. The mad cow cases that have popped up in both countries are relics of the pre-1997 era, so as time goes on, the chance of infection are dropping.

    As much as I'd like to say that a company should be able to test however it wants, this is purely public relations and won't make beef any safer. At all. Because it IS safe.

    My writing blog, By Way of the Aurora Borealis, is now live! -- D&D Diablo 3 clan: Cosa Nostra Pizza
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2007
    If the principal risk is that this testing would compel other companies to start testing to maintain a competitive advantage, couldn't we just allow the testing but ban using the existence of the testing for marketing purposes? So test your cows all you want, just don't slap "100% BSE-Free!" on the label. If nobody knows the company is doing the testing, there's no competitive incentive for other companies to do it.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Well, at least we have an accurate list of ingredients on our food and drinks.
    *Drinks high fructose corn syrup/sugar Coca-Cola.

    I've been to countries where they list the amount of caffeine in Coke. Seems like a no brainer. We list the amount of drugs in other drugs, why not pop?
    Shinto wrote: »
    Ah.

    Good to be a vegetarian.

    IMO, the voluntary testing of cattle for BSE won't hurt the greater market. If you really care about your safety/health, you aren't eating that much beef anyway.

    eokNV.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Ah.

    Good to be a vegetarian.
    IMO, the voluntary testing of cattle for BSE won't hurt the greater market. If you really care about your safety/health, you aren't eating that much beef anyway.
    I care about my health, and I eat beef every day.

    Shinto doesn't give a shit about his health, and he doesn't eat meat at all.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2007
    If you really care about your safety/health, you aren't eating that much beef anyway.

    Yeah, this is pretty much extremely inaccurate.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Katholic wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    could you maybe try for a topic title that says something about the actual topic?

    Also, I want a libertarian to come in here and argue against government-set food safety standards now. I could use a scratching post.

    Government set-food safety testing would exist and companies would have the option of testing their food/products, but some companies could choose to buypass that and not get the FDA approval. The free market economics would dictate that people who valued safe food would purchase the approved meat only. This would force the non-test companies to offer cheaper food to lure customers. Buyer-beware.

    edit: or the government could be a private company...food for thought

    Oh goody, a moron to play with! Its funny how your argument assumes that everyone will be able to afford the approved food, which will attract a free market premium, that supply will meet demand even if they could, that everyone will be provided with sufficient information to judge the content of the food and the quality of the FDA's work, and that anyone who can't fulfill any or all of the above deserves a good round of salmonella to teach them a lesson for being inferior. Truly, you're a paragon of humanity and a beacon of logical, consistent thought.
    Presumes facts not in evidence, namely that the cost of inspected food would price people out of the market and that a failure to inspect the food itself - rather than other availible steps, such as implementing sanitation standards in production facilities - would cause an unacceptable increase in spoiled food-related ailments. Additionally ignores evidence previously presented that only an absurdly small amount of food is tested under the current system. Fail. Try again.
    Gorak wrote:
    Shinto wrote:
    Ah.

    Good to be a vegetarian.
    You won't be saying that when we can't afford beef, herbivore!

    Until then, don't over-excercise, eat plenty of food and marinade yourself in honey & mustard once a week.
    Truly, salad is what food eats.

    sig.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Presumes facts not in evidence, namely that the cost of inspected food would price people out of the market and that a failure to inspect the food itself - rather than other availible steps, such as implementing sanitation standards in production facilities - would cause an unacceptable increase in spoiled food-related ailments. Additionally ignores evidence previously presented that only an absurdly small amount of food is tested under the current system. Fail. Try again.
    As I recall, we tried that whole "no FDA" thing before. How'd that work out?

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Presumes facts not in evidence, namely that the cost of inspected food would price people out of the market and that a failure to inspect the food itself - rather than other availible steps, such as implementing sanitation standards in production facilities - would cause an unacceptable increase in spoiled food-related ailments. Additionally ignores evidence previously presented that only an absurdly small amount of food is tested under the current system. Fail. Try again.
    As I recall, we tried that whole "no FDA" thing before. How'd that work out?

    Is this where we pretend that conditions today are exactly the same as they were prior to the implementation of the FDA, and so things would revert to exactly that state if the FDA were abolished? That's my very favorite kind of stupid fallacy.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    There's a difference between "no FDA" and "voluntary food inspection." The two are very very different, and there are lots of options for ensuring food safety availible besides inspection processes.

    sig.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Presumes facts not in evidence, namely that the cost of inspected food would price people out of the market and that a failure to inspect the food itself - rather than other availible steps, such as implementing sanitation standards in production facilities - would cause an unacceptable increase in spoiled food-related ailments. Additionally ignores evidence previously presented that only an absurdly small amount of food is tested under the current system. Fail. Try again.
    As I recall, we tried that whole "no FDA" thing before. How'd that work out?
    Is this where we pretend that conditions today are exactly the same as they were prior to the implementation of the FDA, and so things would revert to exactly that state if the FDA were abolished? That's my very favorite kind of stupid fallacy.
    Is this where we pretend that corporations today are bastions of honesty and goodness, unlike those evil corporations of yesteryear, who would do anything to make a buck?

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Is this where we pretend that corporations today are bastions of honesty and goodness, unlike those evil corporations of yesteryear, who would do anything to make a buck?

    Even if all corporations are run by the ghost of Hitler, it doesn't mean that things would be anything like they were 100 years ago if the FDA up and disappeared. Are you also pretending that every advance in sanitation, efficiency, education, technology, and consumer savvy would disappear, as well?

    I mean, c'mon. I think the FDA is a good idea. I just think your comment was mind-bendingly retarded.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Is this where we pretend that corporations today are bastions of honesty and goodness, unlike those evil corporations of yesteryear, who would do anything to make a buck?
    Even if all corporations are run by the ghost of Hitler, it doesn't mean that things would be anything like they were 100 years ago if the FDA up and disappeared. Are you also pretending that every advance in sanitation, efficiency, education, technology, and consumer savvy would disappear, as well?

    I mean, c'mon. I think the FDA is a good idea. I just think your comment was mind-bendingly retarded.
    I think you give too much credit to advances in consumer savvy, by assuming they exist.

  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    This company wants to export beef, not sabotage the U.S. market.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I think you give too much credit to advances in consumer savvy, by assuming they exist.

    Divorce yourself of your hate and anger, Thanatos. Come to the light side. You'll make so much more effective arguments.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    This company claims to want to export beef, not sabotage the U.S. market.
    Fixed that for you.

  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Which is more likely:

    1) A company decides to eat tons of profit in order to benefit from a panic that may happen one day if they get a false positive, which in any case will turn many people away from all beef products, tested or not, until the next news cycle. Don't kid yourself here--the scare of a false positive would be a momentary ripple. The meat industry took on Oprah. This won't be a problem.

    2) They want to export to South Korea and Japan, which ban U.S. untested beef.

  • a penguina penguin Registered User
    edited May 2007
    The Japanese Beef market is freaking lucrative.

    This space eventually to be filled with excitement
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    The South Korean and Japanese beef embargo, I would wager, has little to do with testing and everything to do with protectionist trade policies. They'd come up with another excuse if we tested our stuff.

    sig.png
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2007
    "No, no, we meant 'Tested by non-gaijin hands.' Silly round-eye."

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • a penguina penguin Registered User
    edited May 2007
    I'm fairly sure Japan currently accepts beef exports from the US.

    This space eventually to be filled with excitement
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited May 2007
    The South Korean and Japanese beef embargo, I would wager, has little to do with testing and everything to do with protectionist trade policies. They'd come up with another excuse if we tested our stuff.

    Exactly. Despite these stringent import restrictions and a smaller consumption/production of beef, Japan has had more confirmed cases of BSE than the U.S.

    Same concept behind not allowing recreational snow gear from the U.S., because "Japan snow different from American snow".

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The majority of beef consumers would be mostly unconcerned with a lack of BSE testing, much as they are currently unwilling to pay more for hormone-free/antibiotic-free meats currently.

    Yeah, this is less offensive to my carniverous sensibilities.

    Amended to please the Princess of Enchantment, et. al.

    eokNV.jpg
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    If some meat company wants to blow tons of money testing all it's cows, why should anyone stop them? All it's going to do is make them lose the ability to compete on cost, and maybe they can print a little label on all their meat packages that says "no mad cow, for reals yo!"

    And if that little label is some kind of advantage in the marketplace, there isn't much to stop the other meat producers from affixing equally dumb labels on their meats. Maybe "Won't give you AIDs! Guaranteed!"

    3DS Friend Code: 0817-5033-8184 // Nintendo Network ID: AbsoluteZero
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    If some meat company wants to blow tons of money testing all it's cows, why should anyone stop them? All it's going to do is make them lose the ability to compete on cost, and maybe they can print a little label on all their meat packages that says "no mad cow, for reals yo!"

    And if that little label is some kind of advantage in the marketplace, there isn't much to stop the other meat producers from affixing equally dumb labels on their meats. Maybe "Won't give you AIDs! Guaranteed!"
    You know, we have a three-page thread addressing that very question. You might want to, y'know, read it.

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If some meat company wants to blow tons of money testing all it's cows, why should anyone stop them? All it's going to do is make them lose the ability to compete on cost, and maybe they can print a little label on all their meat packages that says "no mad cow, for reals yo!"

    And if that little label is some kind of advantage in the marketplace, there isn't much to stop the other meat producers from affixing equally dumb labels on their meats. Maybe "Won't give you AIDs! Guaranteed!"
    You know, we have a three-page thread addressing that very question. You might want to, y'know, read it.

    Er, that's this thread. Or are you being ironical?

  • VariableVariable Weed and Masturbation Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    he's being funny.

    you can tell, 'cause it was funny.

    Steam Profile - Variable114 | WiiU - Variable | 3DS - 3866-8105-7478
    Sig%20-%20Reggie%20Watts.png
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Variable wrote: »
    he's being funny.

    you can tell, 'cause it was funny.

    But it's four pages now! I'm so confused!

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    he's being funny.

    you can tell, 'cause it was funny.
    But it's four pages now! I'm so confused!
    It's only four pages if you have 25 posts per page.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.