The W
Views: 99905075
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.10.14 0004
The W - Current Events & Politics - Better mad cow disease than a loss of profits?
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.67
Pages: 1
(464 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (12 total)
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.10
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








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 332 days
Last activity: 326 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.59

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.



As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004
OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005
OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005
OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005
As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight"
As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds

Now announcing for the NBWA! www.nbwawrestling.com
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
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.



I AM CRZ
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 105 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    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)

"Teach children that they have great potential because they are human." -Warrior
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 43 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.42
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.



The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
Karlos the Jackal
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: The City of Subdued Excitement

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.00
    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)


Last 5 movies seen: Whole *** - Off Screen **1/2 - To Catch a Thief ***1/2 - Fay Grim *** - Henry Fool n/a
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 332 days
Last activity: 326 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.59

    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)


As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004
OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005
OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005
OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005
As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight"
As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds

Now announcing for the NBWA! www.nbwawrestling.com
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
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.



I AM CRZ
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.74
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)


Perception is reality
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 5 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.67
    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.



"Oh my God! They have a shit-load of Cockapoo stuff!"
-Jennifer's greatest quote... ever.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 332 days
Last activity: 326 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.59

    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.



As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004
OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005
OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005
OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005
As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight"
As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds

Now announcing for the NBWA! www.nbwawrestling.com
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 5 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.67
    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)


"Oh my God! They have a shit-load of Cockapoo stuff!"
-Jennifer's greatest quote... ever.
Thread rated: 6.67
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: No School Today - It Might Storm
Next thread: Novak on Fred Thompson
Previous thread: Charles Nelson Reilly, RIP
(464 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
This is really getting silly. The newest bogeyman of the left is the "neoconservative." If it's not a conspiracy of the Jews, it's a conspiracy of these mysterious neocons, who seek nothing less than total world domination. Ridiculous.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Better mad cow disease than a loss of profits?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.115 seconds.