Discount Medications
Court Backs Bush on Cow Testing
The battle against mad cow disease in the U.S. has turned into a legal showdown with the Bush administration vs. the safety of beef exports and protection of the public. A federal appeals court ruling allows the federal government to prohibit meat packers from testing their animals for mad cow disease.
It all started when a small Arkansas meat packing company named Creekstone Farms Premium Beef asked for testing kits for all of its cows. The company stated it wanted to guarantee to its buyers that its beef was totally safe from mad cow disease.
However, the USDA refused the request saying it only allows the sale of mad cow testing kits to labs that it approves. The rationale for this is that the tests should not be used as a marketing tool. Moreover, the USDA said the cattle that provide most of the meat supply are too young to be tested accurately.
Currently, the USDA tests approximately 1% of cows for evidence of mad cow disease within the entire cow population. The reason for this low level of testing is, according to the Bush administration, because of the limited number of cases of the disease found in the animals. According to the USDA only three cases of made cow disease have been reported and none of those have involved human infection. The UK has the highest incidence rate of the disease of the more than 150 reported deaths around the world.
In the U.S. large meat packers have come out against the testing of all animals. The ‘Big Business’ packers feel that if Creekstone is allowed to test every cow, they too will have to follow suit and that will cost them money.
The issue has been bounced around the courts starting in 2006 when Creekstone launched a lawsuit to get access to testing kits. Creekstone argued in the suit that it lost $200,000 a day due to reduced U.S. beef exports. In March 2007, U.S. District Judge James Robinson ruled that the USDA could not prevent mad cow disease testing because it is not a treatment for animals.
However, the USDA asserts that the law extends to control of products for "prevention, diagnosis, management or care of diseases of animals."
So the Big Business backed Bush administration would not let the matter rest there. It forced the issue to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. There the original judicial decision was overturned in a 2-1 ruling. The Appeals court found that diagnosis through testing of dead cows can be considered treatment. In a 25-page ruling, Appellate Judges Karen Henderson and Judith Rogers said the USDA does have the authority under the 1913 Virus-Serum-Toxin Act to prevent sale of mad-cow test kits to meatpackers.
Judge Henderson stated in her decision …"And we owe USDA a considerable degree of deference in its interpretation of the term."
Meanwhile, the chief judge of the District of Columbia, David Sentelle, dissented from the decision saying the USDA interpretation "exceeds the bounds of reasonableness" for a law aimed to prevent distribution of inadequate animal medicine.
Most countries banned U.S. beef imports following reports of the first case of the disease in December 2003. Currently, Japan and South Korea, major markets for U.S. beef exporters accept beef only from young animals since mad cow disease is found primarily in older cattle. The incubation period for the disease that causes a fatal neurological infection in humans who have ingested infected meat is two to eight years.
For its part, the U.S. instituted a number of safeguards against mad cow disease, formally named bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Specifically, there is a ban on using cattle parts in feed. Slaughter houses are required to remove the brain, spinal column and nervous system tissue before preparing and packing beef.
Meanwhile, the legal arguments were sent back to the district court, where Creekstone can make further appeals.
It is a sad commentary when Big Business interests forsake complete safety of its beef supply when a small operator like Creekstone is willing to go the extra mile to allay concerns about its product. U.S. Beef exports suffered terrible losses when international panic set in following the 2003 discovery of the disease in this country. Foreign buyers did not want to take a chance on bringing the infection into their livestock population.
Perhaps the collective memory of Big Business beef producers is short since they appear to prefer taking chances rather than spending money on broader testing practices. Let the buyer beware is a caveat they seem willing to suppress.