As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Testing for Mad Cow in the US

WallhitterWallhitter Registered User regular
edited May 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007...-US-Mad-Cow.php


quote:

The Associated Press Published: May 29, 2007

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well.

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. U.S. District Judge James Robertson noted that Creekstone sought to use the same test the government relies on and said the government didn't have the authority to restrict it. - A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. The ruling was scheduled to take effect June 1, but the Agriculture Department said Tuesday it would appeal, effectively delaying the testing until the court challenge has played out.

Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is linked to more than 150 human deaths worldwide, mostly in Britain.

Three cases of mad cow disease have been found in the United States. The first, in December 2003 in Washington state, was in a cow that had been imported from Canada. The second, in 2005, was in a cow born in Texas. The third was confirmed last year in an Alabama cow.
Even if the statistics point to the disease being unlikely, if this gets passed...if this shit goes through, I...I'm pretty much dropping beef. Wow.

Wallhitter on
«13

Posts

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    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.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Seriously

    not that big of a deal

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I thought the US govt. was all up on stopping our dirty British cow disease. To the extent of not allowing blood from UK peeps for a while, though I might have made that up.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    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.

    Thanatos on
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    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.

    Now, The Cat - government food testing is stupid. Everyone knows it's survival of the fittest. If you eat spoiled beef, well, that's better genes for the world mirite!

    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    What is the likelihood of being in the exact center of the impact of a comet within any given 30 minute period?

    I think this might actually be less likely to affect you than such a comet strike.

    MKR on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    You know what irritates me? Mr. TB Asshole.

    Fencingsax on
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    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
    What are the odds of this happening?

    Elendil on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Elendil wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    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
    What are the odds of this happening?
    Who cares? I can list a thousand things we'd be better off spending that kind of money and resources on than testing every single fucking cow for something that, what, two cows have had in this country, ever?

    Thanatos on
  • turtleantturtleant Gunpla Dad is the best.Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    What is the likelihood of being in the exact center of the impact of a comet within any given 30 minute period?

    I think this might actually be less likely to affect you than such a comet strike.

    But getting blown up by a comet would be so much cooler.:P

    turtleant on
    X22wmuF.jpg
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    You know what irritates me? Mr. TB Asshole.

    Good to know I'm not the only one.

    Also, this is fucking stupid. I'll have to cut back from red meat two days a week to one.

    And Cat, Libertarianism simply isn't practical even as a concept. I learned quite a bit from the Libertarian thread.

    chasm on
    steam_sig.png
    XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    What is the likelihood of being in the exact center of the impact of a comet within any given 30 minute period?

    I think this might actually be less likely to affect you than such a comet strike.

    But getting blown up by a comet would be so much cooler.:P

    And it's bound to kill off some cows.

    Win-win.

    MKR on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Now we can focus on the real menace: Checking anything with feathers for bird flu.

    Incenjucar on
  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    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.

    Well, a libertarian would have a hard time justifying blocking testing done by willing individuals such as proposed here. The libertarian position would likely be that the independent testing by Creekstone is ideal, since the knowledge that meat is untainted provides market value, etc, etc.

    But really, what's with this forum using libertarians as a generic strawman? It's not like they are that serious of a political force. How would people feel if I randomly started bitching about communists in unrelated subjects?

    Savant on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Savant 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.
    Well, a libertarian would have a hard time justifying blocking testing done by willing individuals such as proposed here. The libertarian position would likely be that the independent testing by Creekstone is ideal, since the knowledge that meat is untainted provides market value, etc, etc.

    But really, what's with these forums using libertarians as a generic strawman? It's not like they are that serious of a political force. How would people feel if I randomly started bitching about communists in unrelated subjects?
    The internet population of Libertarians is way, way bigger than the population of Libertarians IRL.

    Communists aren't anywhere near as much of a problem.

    And I don't think it counts as a strawman when it's accurate.

    Thanatos on
  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Savant 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.
    Well, a libertarian would have a hard time justifying blocking testing done by willing individuals such as proposed here. The libertarian position would likely be that the independent testing by Creekstone is ideal, since the knowledge that meat is untainted provides market value, etc, etc.

    But really, what's with these forums using libertarians as a generic strawman? It's not like they are that serious of a political force. How would people feel if I randomly started bitching about communists in unrelated subjects?
    The internet population of Libertarians is way, way bigger than the population of Libertarians IRL.

    Communists aren't anywhere near as much of a problem.

    And I don't think it counts as a strawman when it's accurate.

    Well, choose some other appropriate terminology for preemptively arguing against something that was never even brought up or relevant. Like fighting phantoms or windmills or something. Or maybe non sequitor.

    Because really, if the issue is the government trying to block voluntary testing of foodstuffs because it would provide a competitive disadvantage to a group that doesn't, what does that have to do with libertarianism being against government involvement in general? It fails being a pure strawman only on the grounds of misrepresentation.

    If a libertarian wants to come in and say something stupid about mad cow testing, be my guest and rip him up, but this preemptive bullshit is for the birds.

    Savant on
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited May 2007
    I think it's because people are stupid and don't understand how much false positives can skew statistics, especially in cases where the chance of a false positive is exponentially higher than the chance of an animal actually having the disease.

    Aroduc on
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I don't exactly see the problem. One Beef producer want to test all of it's cows. It isn't like the entire industry wants to.

    If the others in the industry don't want to, yet fear they'll be forced to, aren't there are other avenues they could take instead where they can still say their cattle are safe?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    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.
    I look at it like this:

    If the beef company wishes to test their cows, let them test their cows. I can't understand why anyone would go "No, you may NOT test your cows for fatal diseases!" I live in a beef-heavy state. I would like to know these things.

    Also, better a false positive (which you might get in a test) than a false negative (which every single infected cow that goes untested gets by default).

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • KatholicKatholic Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    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

    Katholic on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    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.

    So what happens to those who can't afford FDA approved food?

    Fencingsax on
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    This reminds me of the resistance to country of origin labeling, an issue with huge popular support that annoyed corporations and disappeared. I would like to have the option as a consumer. If it's much more expensive, I'll stick with Chinese pet food and non-tested beef. That's the free market in action, a beautiful thing I'm usually cynical about. Fucking Republicans.

    Spaten Optimator on
  • OtakuD00DOtakuD00D Can I hit the exploding rocks? San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    At first, I freaked out but then I realized after reading the rest of the thread. The government needs to focus its efforts towards eliminating the RISK of our livestock catching diseases like Mad Cow. With that done, everyone should be able to feel a bit more at ease. FDA approval requiring testing, like also mentioned just now, is also a good idea.

    OtakuD00D on
    makosig.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax 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.

    So what happens to those who can't afford FDA approved food?

    We go back to how it was during the Gilded Age. Would you like some canned meat? Ignore the green, that is just some green beans.

    Couscous on
  • OtakuD00DOtakuD00D Can I hit the exploding rocks? San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Fencingsax 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.

    So what happens to those who can't afford FDA approved food?

    We go back to how it was during the Gilded Age. Would you like some canned meat? Ignore the green, that is just some green beans.

    If it gets that bad, then maybe we should just make it so every last ounce of food has to be FDA-approved. In the long run, it'll work out for the better. Less of a risk of an "accidental" poisoning, and therefore less bitching.

    OtakuD00D on
    makosig.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    OtakuD00D wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Fencingsax 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.

    So what happens to those who can't afford FDA approved food?

    We go back to how it was during the Gilded Age. Would you like some canned meat? Ignore the green, that is just some green beans.

    If it gets that bad, then maybe we should just make it so every last ounce of food has to be FDA-approved. In the long run, it'll work out for the better. Less of a risk of an "accidental" poisoning, and therefore less bitching.

    Technically, all food is FDA approved. Unfortunately, they can't really do anything because they're underfunded, undermanned, and overworked.

    Fencingsax on
  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Lanz wrote: »
    I don't exactly see the problem. One Beef producer want to test all of it's cows. It isn't like the entire industry wants to.

    If the others in the industry don't want to, yet fear they'll be forced to, aren't there are other avenues they could take instead where they can still say their cattle are safe?

    The theoretical problem is that the company that tested the beef could then use those tests and their results in marketing to generate a competitive advantage (offsetting the cost) when the risk of mad cow beef is practically nonexistent. This may force other companies to test all their cattle when they have much more cattle and thus much more testing expenses. The president's action would then be some mixture of not wanting to waste money on cost ineffective testing and pandering to the other companies.

    Forcing them not to test is sort of a silly solution to it though. If they want to test and it is not efficacious they should be allowed to waste their money on it. They just shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent the dangers of mad cow (which given marketingspeak is probably a bit easier said than done).

    Savant on
  • OtakuD00DOtakuD00D Can I hit the exploding rocks? San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    OtakuD00D wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Fencingsax 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.

    So what happens to those who can't afford FDA approved food?

    We go back to how it was during the Gilded Age. Would you like some canned meat? Ignore the green, that is just some green beans.

    If it gets that bad, then maybe we should just make it so every last ounce of food has to be FDA-approved. In the long run, it'll work out for the better. Less of a risk of an "accidental" poisoning, and therefore less bitching.

    Technically, all food is FDA approved. Unfortunately, they can't really do anything because they're underfunded, undermanned, and overworked.

    Damn shame. A lack of funds tends to kill just about every good idea.

    OtakuD00D on
    makosig.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    OtakuD00D wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Technically, all food is FDA approved. Unfortunately, they can't really do anything because they're underfunded, undermanned, and overworked.

    Damn shame. A lack of funds tends to kill just about every good idea.

    Well, at least we have an accurate list of ingredients on our food and drinks.
    *Drinks high fructose corn syrup/sugar Coca-Cola.

    Couscous on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    Forcing them not to test is sort of a silly solution to it though. If they want to test and it is not efficacious they should be allowed to waste their money on it. They just shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent the dangers of mad cow (which given marketingspeak is probably a bit easier said than done).
    Yeah, this would be the issue, here.

    People aren't rational actors when it comes to stupid shit like this. This is why the government shouldn't let them do it, because it will inevitably lead to over-stating the threat.

    Thanatos on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    OtakuD00D wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    If it gets that bad, then maybe we should just make it so every last ounce of food has to be FDA-approved. In the long run, it'll work out for the better. Less of a risk of an "accidental" poisoning, and therefore less bitching.
    Technically, all food is FDA approved. Unfortunately, they can't really do anything because they're underfunded, undermanned, and overworked.
    Yet another thing that the money could be better spent on.

    And let's not kid ourselves: the moment this becomes a de facto requirement to sell beef, the government is going to bump up the subsidies to cattle ranchers/cut grazing fees.

    Thanatos on
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    Forcing them not to test is sort of a silly solution to it though. If they want to test and it is not efficacious they should be allowed to waste their money on it. They just shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent the dangers of mad cow (which given marketingspeak is probably a bit easier said than done).
    Yeah, this would be the issue, here.

    People aren't rational actors when it comes to stupid shit like this. This is why the government shouldn't let them do it, because it will inevitably lead to over-stating the threat.

    This company wanted to export beef, not sabotage the U.S. market. Hell, they couldn't sabotage the market even if they want to. The companies that are allergic to voluntary testing are large enough to crush anyone with their marketing dollars.

    Even if it became an issue, 'tested' beef would at worst become a boutique segment like organic foods.

    Spaten Optimator on
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    Forcing them not to test is sort of a silly solution to it though. If they want to test and it is not efficacious they should be allowed to waste their money on it. They just shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent the dangers of mad cow (which given marketingspeak is probably a bit easier said than done).
    Yeah, this would be the issue, here.

    People aren't rational actors when it comes to stupid shit like this. This is why the government shouldn't let them do it, because it will inevitably lead to over-stating the threat.
    Than, really, what would sound worse to the public when reported at maximum sensationalization:

    A) "Thousands of cows have been destroyed, sending meat prices nationwide skyrocketing!"
    B) "The government doesn't want you to know if your next steak can kill you!"

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    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.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    mtvcdm wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    Forcing them not to test is sort of a silly solution to it though. If they want to test and it is not efficacious they should be allowed to waste their money on it. They just shouldn't be allowed to misrepresent the dangers of mad cow (which given marketingspeak is probably a bit easier said than done).
    Yeah, this would be the issue, here.

    People aren't rational actors when it comes to stupid shit like this. This is why the government shouldn't let them do it, because it will inevitably lead to over-stating the threat.
    Than, really, what would sound worse to the public when reported at maximum sensationalization:

    A) "Thousands of cows have been destroyed, sending meat prices nationwide skyrocketing!"
    B) "The government doesn't want you to know if your next steak can kill you!"
    It's the Bush administration. He could kill kittens on national television, and his approval wouldn't get any lower. He may as well take advantage of it to do something right that won't be popular.

    Thanatos on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    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.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Katholic wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    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.

    So what happens to those who can't afford FDA approved food?
    They eat hot dogs that are ground up from rotten pig ears, horse hooves, rat skeletons, broken fingernails, jagged rings of rusted metal, human waste, and trace amounts of rat poison.

    tl;dr: They eat hot dogs.

    gtrmp on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    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.

    Thanatos on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    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.

    The Muffin Man on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    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).

    Thanatos on
Sign In or Register to comment.