Now keeping us safe is illegal, too

The subject of a recent post, rabies, put us in mind of another rare, invariably fatal neurodegenerative disease, Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease (CJD). There is now pretty good evidence that the outbreak of CJD in Europe since the 1990s is caused by the same agent that causes Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease. The incriminated transmissible material is an unconventional agent, an infectious protein (now called a prion). When a prion from a BSE case in cattle is consumed it causes a disease very like CJD in humans. Technically it is called new variant CJD (nvCJD). The BSE prion is thought to stem from feeding cattle other cattle via feed, a practice which is now outlawed. As a result BSE is decreasing in Europe, where extensive testing of cattle is done prior to letting the meat into the chain of commerce. Only a few cases of BSE have been detected in the US, where allegedly stringent controls have been instituted to prevent BSE from occurring. But only a tiny fraction of US cattle is tested and the cattle industry has strenuously resisted any calls for better coverage. You would think that an enterprising meatpacker would test their own products and market it as safe, thus gaining a competitive advantage, especially in export markets highly sensitive to the BSE problem, like Japan. You would be wrong. Not because it isn't a good idea but because the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) forbids the practice. We've discussed it three times here in the context of a Kansas company trying to test its own cattle and being told it cannot.

Our first visit to this ridiculous episode was over three years ago, January 2005. A second case of BSE originating in an 8 year old Canadian dairy cow had just been discovered but the US was planning to resume importing Canadian beef anyway after a brief interruption after another Canadian imported case. As a result Japan banned US beef because the US refused to require all cattle under the age of 30 months to be tested. A small packing house, Creekstone Farms, wanted to test all its cattle so it could export to Japan. It was told by the USDA it couldn't. Creekstone had to lay off 150 workers and reduce the other 650 workers to a 32 hour workweek. Creekstone is located in Arkansas City, Kansas, a town of only 12,000, and is its main employer. The USDA's reasoning is that the test in young cattle would not guarantee safety and thus the testing would be unfair marketing. As if the USDA cares about unfair marketing when it doesn't affect the big meat packers, whom it consistently protects and shields.

If refusing to allow a company to test its cattle when it is required by a foreign government sounds stupid to you, you aren't alone. It sounded stupid to a federal judge, too, who in April 2007 told the USDA it couldn't prevent companies from doing what was obviously a sound business decision. But he put the decision to allow testing on hold pending government appeal. At the bidding of the meat industry the government did appeal and now their lawyers are arguing the case:

Creekstone Farms Premium Beef LLC, the Kansas-based meat producer, shouldn't be allowed to test beef for mad-cow disease on its own because it could hurt the U.S. cattle industry, a government lawyer told an appeals court.

"They are creating a false assurance" because the test Creekstone wants to use can't show that meat is completely free of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease, Justice Department attorney Eric Fleisig-Greene told the court at a hearing today in Washington.

"The test is not only unnecessary, but it has no value whatsoever," Fleisig-Greene told the three-judge panel, adding that a "false positive" from the company's testing would hurt the entire U.S. cattle industry. (Bloomberg)

Let's think about this argument for a moment. Either the test is accurate or it isn't. Suppose it isn't. It could be wrong in either or both of two ways. It could produce false positives, that is, say cattle is diseased when it isn't. That is relatively easy to check by a pathologic examination of the animal. It is of no particular value to Creekstone to show it's cattle are diseased when they aren't so there is no incentive to make the test come out that way either. Or it could produce false negatives, saying the cattle are healthy when they aren't. But the USDA has already said US cattle are healthy, staunchly maintaining there is a very, very low risk of BSE in the US, hence the paucity of testing even older cattle. So an alleged negative test only ratifies what the USDA maintains as an official position. If there is no assurance it is true (how else could there be a false negative?) then the USDA is the one that is offering false assurances. Creekstone Farms would only be offering false assurances to the Japanese under the USDA scenario. The USDA would then be offering false assurances to the entire US population.

The threat that a positive test (real or not) could hurt the entire US cattle industry is what this is all about. This is an administration that claims to have kept us safe. It is Orwellian Newspeak at its finest.

What's my beef? I'm mad as hell. 253 more days of this utter bullshit.

More like this

Normal people like us can not understand. It makes no sense in a logical and good world where normal people would want to make sure the foods and drugs we take are safe.

But normal people do not rule us. We are a pathocracy, led by psychopaths practicing the Politics of Ponerology. Their mission in life is the neo-malthusian goal to depopulate and enslave the planet under the guise of globalization. They believe the end justifies the means, and as they are superior people, compared to "normal" people, they believe they are entitled to make such judgements and determine who among the normal people lives and who dies.

This case alone does not prove my argument. But looking at the big picture, and what becomes clear at a minimum, is that public safety and health is not being given a very high priority. Extending that vision globally, to places like Iraq, Gaza, etc., and it becomes even clearer.

And unfortunately, this is not a Bush thing. After 253 days, not much will change. Bill Clinton was owned by Monsanto and under his rule unsafe GM foods that are untested or inadequately tested foods were allowed to flood the market, with normal people being used as guinea pigs.

Sadly pft: "After 253 days, not much will change", is what my gut instinct tells me.

There are no guarantees he'll leave office either revere, he is maniacal to say the least, as are those who are dictating to him what to do. Something could be devised between now and January that would put him in as dictator.
As pft pointed out we are at their mercy. At their mercy because not enough people will do anything about it.
It's corruption by the many which buries the few.

Hey revere, nothing like lines such as "253 more days of this utter bullshit", to bring out the crazies huh?

By pauls lane (not verified) on 11 May 2008 #permalink

I thought all the crazies were in Maryland actually.

Not all Lea, not all.

By pauls lane (not verified) on 11 May 2008 #permalink

The question, Pauls Lane, is this:

Did you statement add anything to this discussion, other than ridicule and insult?

Sorry should have read

Did your statement

Right on victoria.

In my spare time, ha-ha, I've been reading more and trying to get away from main stream media. It really has been enlightening and educates one on what is really going on in this country.

One of two books I'm reading now is: The Revolution A Manifesto by Ron Paul
The first paragraph in the Preface says: Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us "change," and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon, "change" always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power.
The second paragraph reads: Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that's the one option Americans are never permitted to hear.

FYI-And most people dont know it, after the Electoral College meets in December and elects the President and Vice-Presidents he/she can be sworn in at any time after that. They (the college) meet as state assemblies rather than national ones and "elect" them. That election is run by the Federal Registry and other agencies. That means that the new President could be sworn in on approximately December 7th. I believe 253 days is only inciting the issue Revere. Sounds good but it means nothing to the above.

The back channel scatter is that somehow, someway, this is going to change the above when the new President goes into office. I doubt one damned thing will change except if its Hillary or Obama, they will inflate the federal workforce once again, our taxes will go up and unemployment will rise as a result especially in the poor.

It might be the same under McCain too.... Watch for a rise in the stock market from October to November 7th if its anticipated to be a McCain win, and a decline if Hillary or Obama are in it. If Obama is shot down before Denver it will be Hillary of course. He would though be a total damned idiot to put her on his ticket. I would call him a dead man walking if that happens.

But for all and GWB to stay in office, there would have to be a massive national emergency that stopped the election. This is more of the Florida and Ms. Harris stuff too. I dont want to see anything in the damned courts whether it be Republicans or Democrats. Nixon didnt to his credit, Gore did and we had an election decided by the Supreme Court for all intents and purposes. They made it out to be the Republicans, it wasnt. The Republicans didnt move it into the courts, it was the Democrats.

It wasnt stolen, it was those idiots in Florida and apparently they cant understand how to design a ballot. They tried again in Ohio the last time. Words like disenfranchised, and voter fraud need to come out of our elections unless there is some reason for it. There wasnt any reason for it in Florida except that Palm Beach County and certain precints in Dade County had more people voting than were registered and even after that the newspapers paid as they do for every election to be recounted and GWB still won. Then in the next election the Democrat Secretary of State in Ohio still certified GWB in the second as the winner. Sorry Michael (man of the people) Moore. Have to go back to 5th Avenue and buy stock in all of the companies you rail against.

So lissen up! The only thing that could stop the next President from taking office is for there to be something going on of immense proportions and that means a wipeout of DC, a total destruction of the place and it would also have to stop the election process from going forward. Diebold voter systems have had their software redone and the commissioners of elections in every county has now certified that their machines are working properly in "mock" elections with deliberate intent to defraud.

Bird flu will not do it, even if its raging the states will find a way to hold an election. It is and will be the law and the law will simply be followed unless there is a suspension of the Constitution (martial law). A state of emergency declaration by the President will not do it as the date of the election is set in law. He cannot suspend an election due to a state of emergency, only martial law. Anyone got anything on that happening?

So what toe tapping and foot stomping do we see on our horizon to cause all of this? Nothing I can see. I dont care how you vote, just make sure you slip your N-95 on and go and do it.

If nothing else, go out and vote for the best worst candidate and dont fail to vote ever. There is more blood than you could ever count on the ground in the 13 colonies, millions of gallons of it in N. Africa, France, and Germany. Just 80 miles to the east of me 50,000 men fought for what they believed in and died in just 3 days at Shiloh.

Yep, dont worry about GWB leaving. If he doesnt, the Republicans will be the first to show him the door if any funny stuff starts to happen.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 11 May 2008 #permalink

The outbreaks of pig brain disease - thought not to be related to prions or infection - gives rise to the question whether there is "mad pig disease." And if not, why not.

Does pig neurological material still make it into the US food chain, after some precautions were allegedly taken for cows?

By Frank Mirer (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

Yes Victoria it did, some comments deserve ridicule.

By pauls lane (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

Pauls Lane,

You are practicing censorship through ridicule and insult. As far as I can ascertain you have not been given the mantle of arbiter of good writing. Instead of putting forward a different or opposing point of view, you choose to belittle bloggers on this site. Why not try to put your considerable writing talents to good use, and argue points? I certainly would appreciate hearing your point of view.

censorship through ridicule and insult

i think i'll be pointing and laughing at that line for quite some time to come.

By Nomen Nescio (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

There is one born every day.

Victoria, it wasn't the writing I was ridiculing or insulting. It was what the writing stated, the ideas (if one wishes to call them ideas - paranoid delusions is a much better term) being presented that I was ridiculing and insulting. I also am sure my views were clearly presented with my single question to revere. The comments I ridiculed and insulted deserved to be ridiculed and insulted. In my terminology, revere is the blogger, we the humble masses, are commenters. My question was directed to revere (tongue in cheek by the way), but it wasn't about revere. Lea knew exaclty who I was referring too.

By pauls lane (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

I loved Lea's posting above. Very good, even if Ron Paul is a bit of a nut.

We all need to think about supporting the Constitution and reading what the Declaration of Independence states about throwing off a government that does not support the people.

Delusions, paranoia, whatever. We are living in a time where the government is gaining too much control over our lives and corporations have too much information on who we are and what we consume. The term terrorist today may be applied to a whole different sector of society tommorrow. It is at the governments whim.

It matters little who you elect as President next. It is what is legislated to control you by law that will be enforced. You live in the "Homeland" now, and you better get educated to what that means.

By bigdudeisme (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

bigdudeisme, thank you very much. Words are shallow and hard to come by sometimes so all I can say is thank you. You've put a smile on this tired face and that's priceless.

Your last paragraph pretty much sums it up. Either educate yourself or get used to it. Only thing is I believe most will get used to it and blindly walk into the hornet's nest. Would love to be wrong on that last sentence too however ... .

I'm afraid I agree with M Randolph Kruger on one point, above. I don't expect this to change substantially under a Democratic presidency. I will be both overjoyed and very surprised to be proven wrong.

Similarly, I don't expect a Democratic administration to stop playing the corn-based ethanol game, which has nothing to do with oil independence or greenhouse gas emissions, but a great deal to do with farm state votes and support from folks like ADM.

IIMO, this sort of misbehavior by government has little to do with ideology, and a great deal to do with incentives facing politicians and regulators.

By albatross (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

Forbidding a BSE test for cattle or labeling milk BST-free (in PA law,) is somehow acceptable in this wondrous free-market economy. Even though there are plenty of customers who would prefer hormone-free milk or cattle that at least have been tested for BSE.

Never mind that despite slaps on the wrist, Enzyte Bob keeps a-humpin' away selling male enhancers. Has Enzyte been proven to be safe and effective?

By wenchacha (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

"Lea knew exactly who I was referring too".
No, the comment was directed at you pauls lane, forgive me victoria, I was playing the insult game.
Plus my in-laws live in Maryland and we've never had a close relationship.

The level of respect I hold for revere has grown over these two past years and I could care less where he lives.
With that said now I'm sure revere/Revere will come up with something that I'm in total disagreement with!

Oh let me clarify then. I was referring to Lea's and PFT's comments when I questioned revere about the crazies.

By pauls lane (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

M. Randolf Kruger is dead on about Bush's ability to declare a state of emergency and hold onto the presidency indefinitely. I certainly wouldn't put a declaration of a state of emergency past the current Administration.

By C. Porter (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

I think the Bush seizing control fantasies are pretty amazingly far fetched. He has almost no support left, he's massively unpopular with the people, most of his party is distancing themselves from him, and even the intellectuals whose ideas he's been largely following have little nice to say about him these days.

The Bush administration has pushed executive and government power to frightening lengths, and it says nothing good about us as a nation that we accepted that so freely. But I can't imagine him even trying to hold onto power, and if he tried, he wouldn't be able to get anyone to go along with him. If Bush was riding 85% approval ratings after the stunning success in turning Iraq and Afghanistan into functioning democracies and solving the Israel/Palestine conflict, while both parties had nominated obviously corrupt and incompetent nobodies, maybe there would be some chance of this happening. Not much chance, but maybe it would at least not be instantly stillborn.

As it is, there's pretty much no chance.

By albatross (not verified) on 13 May 2008 #permalink

Only the mood of the country was changed drastically by the events of 9/11, resulting in a big, endless W(ar) for W...

WAR IS PEACE: established. now go shopping. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY: still working on that one; India, Africa, Middle East, etc. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH: done deal.

Imagine what would have happened when the b-52 from Minot to Barksdale that had nukes loaded by mistake, had also mistakenly dropped one on the way; The story would go out it was set by Iranian special ops; Commander Cheney and fellow neocons would get their coveted action against Iran and more permanent bases throughout the Mid East, to control more resources, at relatively low cost to themselves... Who cares that tens of thousands of us and a few million of them would die, the survivors would get a real World War, just what the neocons want. And of course, W would get another W(ar) and get closer to his dream of a unitary executive, Uber FDR... Why not? The stage is set, now ready...

First let me warn RobT not to read the rest of this because he might get offended. Fairly warned.

Douglas - ever think of becoming a fiction thriller writer, like Tom Clancy? You certainly have the imagination. Lots of folks on this blog could serve as editors, proof readers, sounding boards, and perhaps even give you more insights into the evil that is Bush/Cheney/US/BigBusiness/Conservatives/Religion.

By pauls lane (not verified) on 14 May 2008 #permalink

While it seems utterly ridiculous to me for the USDA to be preventing businesses from performing the tests, there really is no good reason to do it. As long as tests are performed at random, the statistics can ensure a high degree of safety of the meat. This sort of problem has been done for quite a while now, for example, in the computer industry. The reason why it's done this way is that BSE, like failures in semiconductors, are often correlated with one another. If one cow in a lot has it, it's rather likely that others will too. So, you just test a few and place strong statistical limits on the occurrences.

By Jason Dick (not verified) on 14 May 2008 #permalink

Ran across this at another blog:

"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience.
Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are running and robbing the country. That's our problem."

Never heard of the person who wrote this, some of you will no doubt know who it is.

The reason Bush wouldn't attempt to declare martial law is that it would crash the markets the next day and the Republicans would lose their entire business constituency "for a generation" as the Democrats lost the south after LBJ signed the civil rights laws.

However. If we wish to consider scenarios, I offer the following two examples:

One, "the Goldwater Moment." Bush prepares a power grab. A couple of Generals and/or Admirals walk into his office in full dress uniform and tell him, "Sir, it's over." Under threat of military revolt, he recants his power grab and resigns from office. The election goes forward.

Two, "Jefferson's Fourth Box," overt physical revolt. In response primarily to those whose trigger fingers are itching for revolution, I've been promoting the following as the standard for the threshold for armed insurrection:
a) The election is canceled, suspended, or tampered with in a manner that is so obvious that it would pass the standard for a criminal conviction, "beyond a reasonable doubt,"
*and*
b) Congress is somehow rendered incapable of responding to this, such that redress via the legislative branch is not possible,
*and*
c) The courts provide no redress, as for example via another pre-emptive Supreme Court decision,
*and*
d) Efforts at redress via peaceful civil disobedience are met with violent and disproportionate responses at the behest of the executive.

In other words, when all other avenues of redress are exhausted, *then* and only then is it justified to go the route of violent revolt. However, the flipside of this is, at that point it is also *necessary* to go the route of violent revolt, specifically in defense of the Constitution against the unlawful acts of a regime that was a de-facto "domestic enemy of the Constitution." By the way, the last quoted phrase there will also bring a sizeable fraction of the military into it, on the side of the Constitution against the regime.

We can hope it doesn't come to that. And the best preventive is to register voters in such huge numbers, and get them to the polls in such huge numbers, that there is no question of a landslide and a mandate.

"This year, vote as if your life depends on it."

G336 Yup.... GWB will be outta there in January of 09. Everyone had better get ready for the big day. Revere will likely attend in black tie.

Lea-Howard Zinn wrote that in reference to the big lie of the big war of Vietnam. They one that killed 50,000 plus, maimed 235,000 and was for .....ummmm?

Required reading. I actually had to to an unauthorized biography on him in college. The lefties got Goldwater. The teacher...later arrested for possession of coke, pot and running a meth lab and distribution with intent....65 years if he is lucky.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 14 May 2008 #permalink

Bush's billionaire base actually would not mind the markets crashing. They get to buy whatever they want at a great bargain after having made a bundle selling short and put options before the little dictator grabs the crown and declares himself emperor. After long, quiet meditation in the Oval Office he declares "my father (in heaven) told me this would be best for our country."

Getting back to beefier issues, Is there someone within the USDA who can verify that suppression of results, etc., has increased the last 7 1/2 years? There was one USDA inspector in California who was fired after refusing to be quiet and refusing to pass tainted beef, telling her story on a radio program, talking about events of 2 years ago.