Big Bad
Scrapple Level: 161
Posts: 4388/7062 EXP: 53474558 For next: 638675
Since: 4.1.02 From: Dorchester, Ontario
Since last post: 1927 days Last activity: 1496 days
| #1 Posted on 30.5.07 2327.50 Reposted on: 30.5.14 2328.45 | http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/29/america/NA-GEN-US-Mad-Cow.php
I don't quite get many aspects of this story. First off, shouldn't way more than one percent of U.S. beef be tested for mad cow? Second, why should this small meat producer be punished for actually being responsible about its product? Promote this thread! | | Eddie Famous
Andouille Level: 98
Posts: 1581/2221 EXP: 9444866 For next: 209521
Since: 11.12.01 From: Catlin IL
Since last post: 2620 days Last activity: 2161 days
| #2 Posted on 31.5.07 0035.37 Reposted on: 31.5.14 0036.20 | First, no, for the reasons mentioned in the article.
Second, because of the harm it could do to the industry as a whole, as mentioned in the article.
150 people in the world have been killed by mad cow disease. There have been three cases in the US of COWS with mad cow disease, and one of those was a Canadian import.
Looks like the current system is working quite well. | CRZ
Big Brother Administrator Level: 239
Posts: 8982/17695 EXP: 212425677 For next: 1735122
Since: 9.12.01 From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 8 days Last activity: 3 days
| ICQ: | |
| Y!: | |
|
| #3 Posted on 31.5.07 0041.31 Reposted on: 31.5.14 0043.11 | Man, am I glad you brought it here! First off, shouldn't way more than one percent of U.S. beef be tested for mad cow?
I don't know. If they haven't missed any cases yet, I'd say they're doing fine. How many cases have they missed? Is it greater than zero?
What percentage would make you feel better? (What percentage are they currently testing in Canada?) Second, why should this small meat producer be punished for actually being responsible about its product?
Where in that story is punishment mentioned? I didn't see it. | Corajudo
Frankfurter Level: 63
Posts: 577/810 EXP: 2037481 For next: 59682
Since: 7.11.02 From: Dallas, TX
Since last post: 3550 days Last activity: 3053 days
| #4 Posted on 31.5.07 0916.08 Reposted on: 31.5.14 0917.21 | Originally posted by Big Bad I don't quite get many aspects of this story. First off, shouldn't way more than one percent of U.S. beef be tested for mad cow? Second, why should this small meat producer be punished for actually being responsible about its product?
I agree with CRZ and Eddie. Why do you think additional testing is necessary? And, where's the punishment?
I went to Creekstone's website (http://www.creekstonefarmspremiumbeef.com/) and read their press release (which was dated late March 2007), and they are going to be allowed to do their own testing of the cows, but the USDA is appealing. The USDA doesn't want to be a scaremonger, while a high end producer wants to justify higher prices. Very logical moves by both parties.
EDIT (response to ges): I mistyped and have since corrected it. Creekstone wants to use the same test, not buy testing equipment from the USDA. Sorry.
The USDA is worried about a high incidence of false positives which would cause people to become alarmed about the safety of the beef we eat, even though there would be no reason to be concerned. It seems odd for a regulator to argue for less regulation, but I can see why this may be an exception to that. And, let's keep in mind that Creekstone is doing this for their own individual self interest, not pursuing some altruistic motive.
(edited by Corajudo on 31.5.07 1323) | ges7184
Lap cheong Level: 83
Posts: 1365/1498 EXP: 5223055 For next: 209189
Since: 7.1.02 From: Birmingham, AL
Since last post: 2178 days Last activity: 2166 days
| #5 Posted on 31.5.07 1242.26 Reposted on: 31.5.14 1245.28 | I don't understand why a company that wants to test cattle that it owns with it's own equipment shouldn't be allowed to do so. It's their cattle. Whether it is necessary or not seems irrelevant to me.
And I must be missing it, because I don't see where Creekstone wants to buy anything from the USDA. The roadblock appears to be a regulation that prohibits the private use of rapid test kits to screen cattle and the question appears to be whether or not that regulation is legal or not. | Karlos the Jackal
Lap cheong Level: 89
Posts: 960/1760 EXP: 6653870 For next: 262058
Since: 2.1.02 From: The City of Subdued Excitement
Since last post: 3011 days Last activity: 1966 days
| #6 Posted on 31.5.07 2019.40 Reposted on: 31.5.14 2019.53 | Originally posted by CRZ I don't know. If they haven't missed any cases yet, I'd say they're doing fine. How many cases have they missed? Is it greater than zero?
I am not an expert, but -- I don't think that every burger that comes from a Mad Cow is infected, and I don't think that everyone who eats a Mad Cow burger will get Mad Cow Disease. And I guess not every cow ends up fed to humans. (Are we still feeding cows to cows? Are those cows tested?) So, is your question "how many cases are there of people getting MCD?" or is it "how many Mad Cows have slipped through, but not infected anyone?" Do you feel that there's a difference between the two? Is it good enough if the answer to only one of these question is "zero"?
If they've found two US Mad Cows by testing less than 1% of cattle, does that mean that there are a couple of hundred undiagnosed Mad Cows, statistically speaking? Is that an insignificant number? Also, what's "less than 1%" mean? .9999%? .000001%? How does that affect the statistics?
What are the chances of false positives? Can they just test that cow again? This pdf (med.kobe-u.ac.jp) says, if I'm reading it right, that the Japanese government tests all cows intended for human consumption, with a false positive rate of .03%. Is that an acceptable rate?
Originally posted by CRZ What percentage would make you feel better?
I don't eat beef, but if I did, yeah, 100% would make me feel better. Apparently Japan does it. If Creekstone did it, it would make me more likely to buy beef from them.
Originally posted by the article 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.
So what? Let everyone perform whatever tests they want, advertise that, and then the free market will sort it out! It's capitalism at work, right? Maybe the larger companies would find the cost of the tests offset by increased beef purchasing by a public solaced by the testing.
Like I said, I'm not an expert; any sentence ending with a question mark is not intended to be rhetorical, but is actually a question that I don't know the answer to.
--K
(edited by Karlos the Jackal on 31.5.07 1820) | Eddie Famous
Andouille Level: 98
Posts: 1583/2221 EXP: 9444866 For next: 209521
Since: 11.12.01 From: Catlin IL
Since last post: 2620 days Last activity: 2161 days
| #7 Posted on 31.5.07 2054.25 Reposted on: 31.5.14 2057.12 | Originally posted by Karlos the Jackal Apparently Japan does it.
from The Cattle Site:
"Japanese cattle slaughter during 2006 was estimated at 1.216 million"
from the USDA site, total US cattle slaughter
"2006: 33.698 million head"
33 times more cattle.
And for economic impact? From meatnews.com May 31 2007 Article "South Korea Has World's Highest Beef Prices"
"Seoul consumers are paying on average of US $31 per pound for sliced chuck roll while Japanese shoppers can buy equivalent product for $21 per pound."
21 bucks per pound of beef? That would cripple the US industry for something that BARELY EXISTS. It's a silly idea.
You have a better chance of getting hit by a meteorite than contracting mad cow disease in the US.
(edited by Eddie Famous on 31.5.07 1855) | CRZ
Big Brother Administrator Level: 239
Posts: 8991/17695 EXP: 212425677 For next: 1735122
Since: 9.12.01 From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 8 days Last activity: 3 days
| ICQ: | |
| Y!: | |
|
| #8 Posted on 31.5.07 2210.42 Reposted on: 31.5.14 2213.57 | Although some of your questions are intriguing, Karlos, from my end my most overpowering sentiment is my own personal experience, which today was: we went to Wendy's for lunch today, and I ordered a half pounder without even a FIRST thought about Mad Cow Disease, much less a second one. Thoughts of Mad Cow related to the beef I'd eaten didn't even occur to me until I came back here after work.
If Big Bad can't be cajoled into a second post explaining his FIRST post - which I will choose to believe was inspired by the fact that the first three words in the quoted article were "The Bush administration" - I can't say I feel this topic warrants any more (serious or otherwise) discussion from me at this point, because it really is nothing I'm worried about, or worried other people aren't worried enough about. I believe beef is safe as things stand. I'm'a keep eatin' beef.
Oh, while I'm speaking of delicious, delicious beef, check out this article from today's paper: http://www.startribune.com/438/story/1214666.html - I will need to try this soon. | DrDirt
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 1811/2743 EXP: 12422168 For next: 249816
Since: 8.10.03 From: flyover country
Since last post: 2345 days Last activity: 2247 days
| #9 Posted on 1.6.07 1131.17 Reposted on: 1.6.14 1132.55 | Just a couple of thoughts.
Zed, you don't think about BSE when eating burgers because you think about things. BSE (mad cow) isn't much of a problem even if we did nothing about it but it does give extremists ammunition to scare people who don't think.
And I would assume the 1% testing number is based upon a statistical model and quite valid. Testing all cattle is like alot of what we have done at airports since 9/11. It may make us lemmings feel good but but achieves little.
This is an issue like so many others that far too many think of emotionally without even knowing it. We as a society replace emotional reaction for seriously considering an issue and we have to stop.
(edited by DrDirt on 1.6.07 1134) | Leroy
Boudin blanc Level: 100
Posts: 955/2336 EXP: 10151786 For next: 202646
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 12 days Last activity: 6 days
| #10 Posted on 1.6.07 1737.46 Reposted on: 1.6.14 1737.55 | Originally posted by Eddie Famous from The Cattle Site:
"Japanese cattle slaughter during 2006 was estimated at 1.216 million"
from the USDA site, total US cattle slaughter
"2006: 33.698 million head"
33 times more cattle.
Except Japan has just under half the population of the U.S. on an island that is 1/20th the size. Testing isn't what drives the prices up - beef is an exotic dish because grazing 33 million cows isn't an option in Japan. | Eddie Famous
Andouille Level: 98
Posts: 1587/2221 EXP: 9444866 For next: 209521
Since: 11.12.01 From: Catlin IL
Since last post: 2620 days Last activity: 2161 days
| #11 Posted on 1.6.07 1917.14 Reposted on: 1.6.14 1918.10 | Originally posted by Leroy Testing isn't what drives the prices up - beef is an exotic dish because grazing 33 million cows isn't an option in Japan.
Japan drastically reduced it's beef import from the US because of the mad cow stupidity. So, yes, indirectly, the insistance on testing all beef did raise the price of it there immensely. | Leroy
Boudin blanc Level: 100
Posts: 956/2336 EXP: 10151786 For next: 202646
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 12 days Last activity: 6 days
| #12 Posted on 2.6.07 0216.24 Reposted on: 2.6.14 0217.50 | Originally posted by Eddie Famous Japan drastically reduced it's beef import from the US because of the mad cow stupidity. So, yes, indirectly, the insistance on testing all beef did raise the price of it there immensely.
Point taken. All I am trying to say is that beef is not a staple of their diet like it is ours, so comparing our prices to theirs isn't exactly a fair comparison.
(edited by Leroy on 2.6.07 0017) | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |