6 Responses to “It’s what’s for dinner”

1. jlacivita says:
   April 12th, 2004 at 10:55 pm

   I know. this pissed me off too much to talk about it. I mean, i complain about alot of stuff, but that seems like taking it to a new level.

2. hojothum says:
   April 13th, 2004 at 12:21 am

   Dude, that’s disgusting.

3. Yamin says:
   April 13th, 2004 at 11:42 am

   Well as a person who works in the College of Agriculture and Life sciences here at Cornell U I can tell you that both the meat and dairy industries are probably the most regulated industries in the US.

   There are huge differences between food and consumer goods.

4. Diane says:
   May 3rd, 2004 at 10:04 pm

   I would just like to state my position on the beef industry before going into this- I wish it didn’t exist.

   Now for my thoughts on this article. I couldn’t actually read the NYTimes article because it is past the free period, but I did read a bit elsewhere on this issue.

   My first thought as to why the fed gov was resistent to 100% testing was that possibly the screening test for mad cow produces false positives (as is the case with many diagnostic tests). This would create public confusion over the safety of beef. Well, I didn’t find anything to confirm this, but there are unresolved questions on some of the tests. Let’s assume this denial of 100% testing is entirely motivated by finances; setting a precedent to test 100% would increase costs (which would be reflected in beef prices). I can understand this position that it is unnecessary to spend the cash to test all cattle. Here is a fuller explanation of the truncated quote that is throughout many media articles: U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman responded, “There is no scientifically valid reason for 100% testing.'’ She said that is particularly true for cattle younger than 30 months because they are not vulnerable to the disease.

   The important fact here is that cattle younger than 30 months are not vulnerable to the disease (this isn’t stated very well, because they can be infected but do not develop the disease until later). The incubation period for this prion disease is several years in cattle- so young cattle being slaughtered for beef will not reach the age where many of the tests (possibly all of them) would show a positive result. I need to read more about recently developed tests, but the commonly used tests would not detect the prion until there is a lot of it in the cow ( would have to be older than 30 months).

5. pives says:
   May 4th, 2004 at 10:15 am

   Well, What’s disturbing to me, is that this private company wanted to test 100% of it’s cattle. It wasn’t advocating 100% of US cattle be tested. That is a very important fact. The USDA is preventing a private business from taking measures it wants to take. And so far, I cannot see negative affects of this 1 company doing it.

   Are we not capitalists? If this is a bad idea, let the Market decide. But I think that’s what they are afraid of. I guess my issue is that laissez faire only seems to be applicable to huge companies. It seems like hypocrasy to me.

   PS, This test is most certainly more innocuous than bovine growth hormone.

6. diane says:
   May 4th, 2004 at 4:33 pm

   As far as I can tell, in the U.S. mad cow testing is only done by the government. There isn’t any testing done privately. I’m not sure of the reason for this and whether or not this is the case in other countries as well. I think that’s one reason the USDA took that stance. I understand the point about the government making the decision for this company that wants to sell it’s beef to Japan- I agree that there should be some means for that company to be able to supply that market (and if Japan requires 100% testing, then the company needs to comply). Really, everyone should just stop eating beef since cow’s are so cute and sweet- that would solve the problem