USDA mad cow madness

[Guest guest]

USDA mad cow madness

The agency's refusal to let firms test for the disease denies

consumers a safety net. June 19, 2008

When is a worthwhile test for mad cow disease not worthwhile?

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it's when a private

company uses the test.

At least, that's part of the argument the USDA has been using to keep

a beef producer from screening the carcasses of all its cattle, saying

that although the federal agency relies on the rapid-screen test for

high-risk cattle, the test would be " worthless " in the hands of

Creekstone Farms.

Knowing that customers, especially foreign ones such as Japan and

South Korea, remain wary of the USDA's spotty screening program, the

Kansas meat company has been fighting the agency for four years for

the right to use the state-of-the-art testing lab it built. The

rapid-screen test is not completely accurate, but it has been useful

enough for the USDA to employ. Creekstone still would not be able to

legitimately label its products as free of bovine spongiform

encephalopathy, the technical term for mad cow disease, but its

customers should have the choice of deciding whether the extra

screening is worth paying for.

The USDA contends that private testing is unnecessary and that its own

program, which tests fewer than 1% of cattle, adequately protects the

public from mad cow. This might well be true. There is no known

instance of U.S. beef causing a case of the human variant of the

disease. But as long as the test presents no threat to animal or human

health, why shouldn't an innovative company give customers what they

want? The USDA's motivation probably has more to do with the beef

industry's opposition to Creekstone: Testing might put consumer

pressure on other companies to do the same.

Creekstone won its first battle in court, but the USDA appealed; a

ruling is expected soon. Meanwhile, instead of letting farms like

Creekstone grow their businesses, the United States has been trying to

persuade or strong-arm foreign countries into accepting U.S. beef

standards, with limited success. Its recent deal with South Korean

President Lee Myung-bak led to massive street protests. And while our

bullying beef diplomacy reaps enmity instead of customers, Australia

is increasing its market share.

The USDA has had enough problems in recent years making sure that

companies meet its safety requirements. It ought to get that job done,

and not interfere with producers that are going above and beyond to

provide the safety standards some consumers want.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-madcow19-2008jun19,0,3257268.story