Records contradict USDA's mad cow decision

[donsu]

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040420-052613-8197r

A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture decision to block a private company from testing all its cattle under 30 months of age for mad cow disease runs contrary to its own records that show it has tested more than 2,000 animals in that age range, United Press International has learned.

The USDA rejected the Creekstone Farms testing plan on the grounds it was scientifically unsound. The Arkansas City, Kan., Black Angus beef producer wanted to test all its cattle for mad cow disease voluntarily so it could export its beef to Japan.

-snip-

In announcing the decision to reject Creekstone's proposal, Bill Hawks, USDA's undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, said, "There is no scientific justification for 100 percent testing because the disease does not appear in younger animals" under the age of 30 months.

-snip-

The department's mad cow testing records, however, which were obtained by UPI via the Freedom of Information Act, show over the past two years the agency tested 2,051 animals -- and possibly more -- that were under the age of 30 months.

"That's so hypocritical," said Michael Hansen, senior research associate with Consumers Union, the advocacy group in Yonkers, N.Y. "It makes it difficult for the USDA to argue to Creekstone, 'We only test animals above 30 months,' when USDA itself tests animals as young as 3 months old."

-snip-

"There's so many inconsistencies with what they're saying," Fielding said. "I think that's why there's such a public outcry to what they're doing. We were getting hundreds of e-mails and letters, it's now up to thousands ... from people who can't believe what the government is doing."
-snip-
---------------------------------------

we should test ALL cattle and know for sure what we are dealing with.
crip, all the testing would make for more jobs.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Our government lied to us????

Under George W. Bush!??!?! Say it ain't so!!! :eyes:

[Kali]

2. this pisses me off

I am a rancher but sometimes what the National orginizations try to pull.....aaarrrggghhh. They are PROBABLY correct - 100% testing isn't valid and would cost a lot - but SO WHAT???? What about the customer being right? Besides it isn't like I'm the one profitting off not doing it - its the mega-corps, as usual. Isn't that how the market is supposed to work? The same with growth hormones or antibiotics - probably they ARE harmeless, but people DON'T WANT THEM! Why do we shove this crap at our "customers"? Either get the folks to believe your story or quit doing it. The choice should be the customers' - if they want to pay a little extra to have testing done, they will. If they want the cheapest they can get well, so be it. But if we don't give 'em a choice I worry they are going to quit altogether.

[cosmicdot]

3. 'the testing would make for more jobs' ... and, a safer, more secure

America ... whose side is Ann Veneman on?