For all you "The Government is Our Protector" folks der=

[Pierrot le Fou]

Nobody is saying that every company has to do all the tests. Japan is saying, in very plain language, that any company that does not test every cow for BSE cannot export to Japan. It's that simple. Regardless of the science, it is what this company needs to restore the 15-20% of its business that it lost after BSE from Japan.

Nobody is saying that the beef is risk free. The company will certify that it has tested every cow for BSE using test X.

What's wrong with that?

You're using some crazy logic. This is dangerous because the government isn't doing the testing, but the government is saying that it refuses to do the testing, so therefore if the company wants to do the testing it must be dangerous?

[IDupedInMyPants]

From what I saw on the news today they also wanted to fund government oversight of the testing. Which essentially is what would have to happen, you can't just say "Oh hey I'm testing all my own cows, buy it up *snicker*" and expect the nation of Japan to come knocking your door down to buy your product.

But again, what this would do if one company were allowed to do it is to create the false belief (with apparent government support since the government would have to be overseeing), domestically and in whatever foreign markets still buy our beef, that beef from other companies is not safe, which it most certainly is. We didn't have an outbreak of the disease, we had one imported case. And even if you want to count Canada and America as a single beef-producing nation, we have two cases in history.

Japan testing all their cows isn't a sign of a scientific belief that every cow needs to be tested, it's a result of them having had a relatively large outbreak of BSE that was beginning to result in new mutations of the disease.

Japan is saying, in very plain language, that any company that does not test every cow for BSE cannot export to Japan.

I'm gonna need a source on this, everything I'm finding doesn't say either way but very strongly implies the ban is based on country of origin, which would conform with the actual definition of a ban or an embargo.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Japan Times, just about any article over the past month will tell you the same thing. Sorry, they're actual paper newspapers, though you may be able to check their website for the archive.

This company isn't trying to create the false belief of anything. It's stating that it will test all of its cows for the disease so that it can export to Japan. In order to do that they need to test all of them for BSE. Since the government won't do it, they need to do it privately. Where is the part about them releasing press releases about how all the rest of the cows in the country are infected, hrm?

In response, he built a laboratory five feet from the overhead chain that carries skinned heads through the plant. His staff was trained in testing for mad cow, using a machine that gives results in seven hours, while the carcasses are still in the cooler.

But on April 9, the U.S. Department of Agriculture forbade Creekstone to test its cattle, saying there was "no scientific justification" for testing young steers like those Creekstone sells. Certifying some beef for Japan as disease-free, the department said, might confuse American consumers into thinking untested beef was not safe.

Source: New York Times (originally)

No government oversight. Self-testing, certifying his cattle disease-free on the basis of those tests, and the government forbade him from testing.

To Creekstone Farms manager Bill Fielding, his company's idea doesn't seem unreasonable. To satisfy its Japanese customers — which the company needs to survive — Creekstone wants to test for mad-cow disease every one of the cattle it slaughters.

Creekstone has spent more than $500,000 to build the first mad-cow testing lab in a U.S. slaughterhouse and hired seven chemists and biologists to operate it. The company made the investment after Fielding returned from a trip to Japan convinced that officials there would lift their ban on U.S. beef — imposed after an infected cow was found in Washington state last December — only if U.S. companies adopt the Japanese practice of testing every animal.

But there's a big obstacle to Creekstone's mad-cow initiative: The U.S. Department of Agriculture will not allow it.

Creekstone has all the equipment it needs, but it doesn't have the kit of chemical reagents needed to run the tests. In the United States, the USDA controls the sale of those kits, and the agency ruled last week that only labs in the government's testing program can buy them.

Source: Washington Post (originally)

So basically the government is refusing to sell him the stuff needed to do the test. He isn't asking for any government funding, just for them to authorize him to legitimately buy the things he needs for his company.

From the same article:

The issue is not the effectiveness of the testing, as Creekstone would be working under the auspices of an academic lab that the USDA has approved for mad-cow testing. Rather, the agency objects to the very idea of testing every animal, including younger ones.

As you can see, it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the test.

Japanese officials have supported Creekstone's petition, although Tadashi Sato at the Japanese Embassy in Washington said last week that trade could not be restored unless the USDA not only allowed the testing but also certified that it was being done properly.

The people asking for government oversight are the Japanese, not the owner of said industry.

If the tests aren't merited, then there will be plenty of consumers who will continue to buy untested beef. All it would take is a nice public safety campaign explaining that a case of BSE has never ever been found in a cow under 30 months old, and that company X tests cows over that age so their beef is safe. They had enough money to run the 'Beef, it's what's for dinner' ads, didn't they? Saying that the small company shouldn't be allowed to voluntarily test its cows for the sake of the folks who don't want to have to is ridiculous.

Nobody is saying that if one company tests, all companies will have to test. That's an unreasonable slippery slope. If the test is truly unwarranted, then it won't get done by every company. Personally, I think putting a "shark-free" sticker on every bottle of water I create will not force Coca-Cola to put the same label on their bottles of Dasani. If something is truly unecessary, then not everyone will do it, so why the fear?

Either widespread testing IS scientifically feasible, or they're worried for nothing because they can continue to eat their untested beef as millions of American consumers are not currently scared of doing.

This should be a non-issue, and I cannot see this as in any way defensible.

[IDupedInMyPants]

This company isn't trying to create the false belief of anything. It's stating that it will test all of its cows for the disease so that it can export to Japan. In order to do that they need to test all of them for BSE. Since the government won't do it, they need to do it privately. Where is the part about them releasing press releases about how all the rest of the cows in the country are infected, hrm?

They don't have to directly say it. The only way that sticker is a selling point to a consumer is if the consumer believes there to be a danger of non-stickered beef having BSE. Nobody would fall for the shark free Coke sticker because they can observe for themselves that there are no sharks in it. The idea that beef may be infected with BSE is believable and untestable by the general public.

No government oversight. Self-testing, certifying his cattle disease-free on the basis of those tests, and the government forbade him from testing.

Yeah, sorry about that. The farm I saw on the news tonight was one operating out of Campbellsville Kentucky. I missed the name.

I don't get why we should assume this guy will self-test honestly and accurately without at least check ups every so often. I can't even name you a restaurant that doesn't get inspected at least once a year. Food service is something that can pretty easily end lives. People might stop eating there but that won't bring anyone back from the grave.

As you can see, it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the test.

Ok. But I don't think the test's effectiveness matters.

Japanese officials have supported Creekstone's petition, although Tadashi Sato at the Japanese Embassy in Washington said last week that trade could not be restored unless the USDA not only allowed the testing but also certified that it was being done properly.

The people asking for government oversight are the Japanese, not the owner of said industry.

Doesn't that essentially mean that what Creekstone wants to do with their beef wouldn't satisfy the Japanese restrictions on resuming trade?

If the tests aren't merited, then there will be plenty of consumers who will continue to buy untested beef. All it would take is a nice public safety campaign explaining that a case of BSE has never ever been found in a cow under 30 months old, and that company X tests cows over that age so their beef is safe. They had enough money to run the 'Beef, it's what's for dinner' ads, didn't they?

Right, but the numbers will still change. Consumers who shouldn't switch brands will because they see it as safer. And if the tests aren't merited, that's something the average consumer has little way of verifying on their own.

Either widespread testing IS scientifically feasible, or they're worried for nothing because they can continue to eat their untested beef as millions of American consumers are not currently scared of doing.

This should be a non-issue, and I cannot see this as in any way defensible.

It's an issue because the company wants their Japanese trade back, but the Japanese want government oversight. The government does not want to oversee. If it makes that concession with one company, it has no basis for refusing to take the concession all the way, which is what the however-many-countries that banned our beef want. And when you get right down to it, they want that concession based on two BSE cases in history that as far as I know never reached a single consumer.

[Kore]

I don't get why we should assume this guy will self-test honestly and accurately without at least check ups every so often.

Yep, the government should check to see if the tests are being run properly. Why does this mean that they shouldn't let them run the tests? If you're going to say cost the simple answer to that is to make them get a license for it.

]Doesn't that essentially mean that what Creekstone wants to do with their beef wouldn't satisfy the Japanese restrictions on resuming trade?

Solved in the same way above. The Government does control stuff like this with pharmaceutical companies and the like, it wouldn't be anything new or especially difficult.

]]Right, but the numbers will still change. Consumers who shouldn't switch brands will because they see it as safer. And if the tests aren't merited, that's something the average consumer has little way of verifying on their own.

Oh no! Consumers may switch brands because they percieve something to be better when it isn't even though they're not being lied to! Shock horror! This is truly something new and unprecedented.

[IDupedInMyPants]

Yep, the government should check to see if the tests are being run properly. Why does this mean that they shouldn't let them run the tests? If you're going to say cost the simple answer to that is to make them get a license for it.

Solved in the same way above. The Government does control stuff like this with pharmaceutical companies and the like, it wouldn't be anything new or especially difficult.

Sure, but just like a driver's license, a license to test for BSE doesn't insure that the holder is following regulations. There still is going to have to be an army of people who go physically check this out once in a while.

Oh no! Consumers may switch brands because they percieve something to be better when it isn't even though they're not being lied to! Shock horror! This is truly something new and unprecedented.

Oh well hey, let's support it, because just like murder, anything that happens regularly is good.

[Pierrot le Fou]

If I have a license, say for a bar, then I have to follow dozens of regulations. I also pay a boatload of cash to the government every year for those rights. The government in turn uses that money (theoretically) to pay for folks to come to my bar every now and then and make sure I'm following them.

I fail to see where Kore's suggestion falls short.

And what Kore is stating on the second part is that people generally DO buy things because they are allegedly better but really aren't. Have you ever bought a generic brand Windex vs. Windex proper? It's the same stuff, only windex puts ads on TV saying that their stuff works 40% better than the 'leading brand' and they make you shell out boatloads extra for that fact.

The point is that this has been going on for a long time, and not every brand out there is forced to put ads on that say the same thing, as store brands have been proving for a Hellishly long time. Condoms put 'extra durable' and crap on them all the time, despite the fact that they have worse breakage rates than non 'extra durable' brands (makes you wonder about their normal ones, eh?).

What makes this case so much different, and are you proposing that there should be government regulations prohibiting ANY form of 'excess' test?

I only ask because I have heard you and others like you talk about government regulation as INCREASING safety, not regulating how much safety is in the consumer's best interest (and that is a choice that the CONSUMER should be making anyway). You're arguing what I and many others view as an untenable position Duped, and it really makes it look like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You're arguing that somehow the government knows best how much and how little is too much testing for a corporation? Well what happens when the government and the consumers differ? Does it matter what the government thinks when companies are folding left and right and the average person, despite saving 3 cents a pound on their beef, are worse off financially such that the price actually increased relative to their income?

[Kore]

Oh well hey, let's support it, because just like murder, anything that happens regularly is good.

A better analogy would be the persecution of murderers, as my example was legal. A subtle but key difference.

I don't feel the need to say anything else as PLF has covered the rest very well.

[IDupedInMyPants]

If I have a license, say for a bar, then I have to follow dozens of regulations. I also pay a boatload of cash to the government every year for those rights. The government in turn uses that money (theoretically) to pay for folks to come to my bar every now and then and make sure I'm following them.

You have to follow dozens of regulations to keep your license, one of those regulations being regular inspections. Same as any other license. So in licensing one or two or 80 farms to conduct this test, the USDA would have to set up a licensing division and an inspection division, while simultaneously conceding that there is a need to perform these tests.

And what Kore is stating on the second part is that people generally DO buy things because they are allegedly better but really aren't. Have you ever bought a generic brand Windex vs. Windex proper? It's the same stuff, only windex puts ads on TV saying that their stuff works 40% better than the 'leading brand' and they make you shell out boatloads extra for that fact.

The point is that this has been going on for a long time, and not every brand out there is forced to put ads on that say the same thing, as store brands have been proving for a Hellishly long time. Condoms put 'extra durable' and crap on them all the time, despite the fact that they have worse breakage rates than non 'extra durable' brands (makes you wonder about their normal ones, eh?).

Yeah, I figured it out. And what I'm saying is something happening with regularity doesn't make that something a good thing.

What makes this case so much different, and are you proposing that there should be government regulations prohibiting ANY form of 'excess' test?

Probably should be, yeah. I don't need a foreign panic needlessly driving up the cost of my domestic goods.

I only ask because I have heard you and others like you talk about government regulation as INCREASING safety, not regulating how much safety is in the consumer's best interest (and that is a choice that the CONSUMER should be making anyway).

Obviously there are instances where your general opinion isn't going to apply. You're all about infinite personal freedom but against murder, because it's harmful to others. It's an acceptable compromise of your general belief because it harms others.

Same with this. It harms other beef sellers, it harms the consumers, foreign and domestic, who will ultimately be the ones absorbing the costs for a test that's absolutely needless.

You're arguing that somehow the government knows best how much and how little is too much testing for a corporation?

I think that's pretty much the USDA's job in this case, yeah. It's their business all day every day to be experts on this matter.

Well what happens when the government and the consumers differ? Does it matter what the government thinks when companies are folding left and right and the average person, despite saving 3 cents a pound on their beef, are worse off financially such that the price actually increased relative to their income?

Exactly how many beef companies have folded over this? I don't see it being very realistic for a company that can afford, despite 30% slashed profit margins, to set up its own testing lab to go under.

A better analogy would be the persecution of murderers, as my example was legal. A subtle but key difference.

Maybe in general it is, but when applied to this beef example your suggestion would be illegal. That's the whole reason this thread exists.

Why should Japan, the only nation in the world to test every cow, be able to bully us into becoming the second nation to do such over one imported incidence? What's wrong with our current testing? Don't you ever stop and wonder how we caught the one case and have managed never to kill a single beef consumer with BSE? What Creekstone wants to do undermines our current BSE tracking, undermines our trade policy, reinforces the false belief among foreign consumers and creates the false belief among domestic consumers that untested beef is unsafe, thus scares consumers away from other untested beef, and jacks the prices up. Where's the up side to this? One or two companies might possibly get to trade with Japan again one day?

We're creating this security issue where there simply isn't one. We're not talking about somewhere like England with thousands of BSE cases per year totalling over a million animals, or even some place like France or Ireland with hundreds of cases per year. We're talking about one case ever. I think our current testing methods and feeding regulations are just fine.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Duped, if you cared the slightest bit about domestic prices, you'd be pro-free-market, because that's how goods get low low prices. Compare the economic (protectionist) policies of Japan with the US (free market) system, and compare the prices of domestic goods despite Japan being the second strongest economy. You're trying to argue that this is best for the consumer, but it's worst for the consumer, because the consumer loses the only tool he has -- CHOICE.

You keep saying that this is in my best interest. Prove it. Don't give these masked assumptions about how suddenly because one company does testing it will drive up the price of domestic beef. I need more than your opinion on this one. Furthermore, prove to me that the price increase domestically will offset the benefits of increased foreign trade (which means more jobs, more competition, and more efficiency in general).

You keep talking about this as a security issue, as if this company is trying to undermine the US gov't -- it's trying to turn a profit or else it's going to fold, and when one of your biggest customers suddenly won't buy from you, and you're undiversified (unlike the larger beef conglomerates), you're not going to be able to do so hot. This guy has made a last-ditch effort to save his company by building at large expense his own testing station, and the government says, "We'll give you the permit to build, and the right to buy the equipment, but ha-ha, you can't have the one thing you need that costs the least."

Why is the government right and private industry wrong here? All socialist BS aside, what makes this company wrong against the government? I'll need more than your slew of opinions and assumptions.