An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

What’s In Your Meat?

We have no idea and, thanks to the Bush administration, we legally can’t find out:

A federal appeals court has ruled that the government can prohibit meat packers from testing their animals for mad cow disease. Because the Agriculture Department tests only a small percentage of cows for the deadly disease, a Kansas meatpacker, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wanted to test all of its cows, but the government says it cannot. Larger meat companies worry that if Creekstone is allowed to perform the test and advertise its meat as safe, they could be forced to do the expensive test, too. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said restricting the test was allowable.

Via Ezra Klein; see also Dean Baker wondering where all the free-marketers went.

Cross-posted to The Debate Link

  • This really really really pisses me off.
  • superdestroyer
    Why not allow home builders or real estate companies mention crime or race in their real estate adds. The same logic applies Of course organic farming is much more important than black on white crime so It is easy to see what you support.
  • So SD, you approve of the government forbidding companies from doing safety testing that could identify a public health menace? Wow. Fortunately, with your anti lawyer screeds, presumably you won't be suing when you get spongiform. Astonishing that you try to smear others while your own comments almost always read like flagrant bigotry.
  • GreenDreams,
    Isn't it frightening that anyone is against the idea of testing meat for pathogens?
  • sh0ter
    David,

    Could you link to the ruling? I'd love to read this nonsense for myself. I can't see how making sure the meat is safe is an unfair burden on the other companies. I mean hell wouldn't they want safer meat to insure the health of their hopefully returning customers?
  • superdestroyer
    Greendreams,

    It is perfectly fine for a company to advertise that it has tested its food for BSE. However, I also believe that a building developer or home owner should be able to advertise that the house is in a low crime neighborhood or that no 8a housing is located nearby. I believe that cities should have to report crime rates for all crimes and that I should be able to look up if any my neighbors are criminals just like you can look up sex offenders.

    However, I doubt if David would support the public's right to know on crime, 8a, housing,or even how public universities admit people as much as supports the publics right to know about food or chemical plants.

    If you support the public's right to know about hazards to their health, life, or family, then please be consistent and support it in all areas and just not food. Somehow, I doubt if any progressive is ready to support the publics right to know about crime.
  • SD, you have undermined any free market cred you might have claimed. You support big government protecting companies--inferior ones--against legitimate competition. There is a market for products that are tested for pathogens, and for those that are free from Malathion, like organics. I should have the right to waste my money on pure food if I want to, and companies that want my dollar should be free to pursue it.

    You're welcome to save money and buy tainted or poorly-tested food. Hell, you're welcome to get a box of malathion at the hardware store and add extra to your food. But supporting use of the courts to block a competitor who chooses to test beyond the inadequate level of government testing shows your true stripes (remember salmonela? e-coli? flesh eating bacteria? all failures of limited government testing.)

    As I've said before, you seem to favor freeing corporations from regulation, competition, accountability and lawsuits. You want unfettered corporate capitalism even at the expense of the public good, the ultimate corporate nanny state.

    "cities should have to report crime rates for all crimes"

    There you go again. You want to create another huge, expensive big government bureaucracy to help companies pander to cowards. If they're so scared of the potential neighborhood, let them Google it themselves, or just find a more gated community. China has some nice ones. Oh, and for crime rates by zip code, see www.bestplaces.net

    "I doubt if any progressive is ready to support the publics right to know about crime."

    BTW, if I'm a "progressive" you're wrong. I support the publics right to know almost EVERYTHING the government knows. I would welcome total transparency, with only extremely limited exceptions.
  • superdestroyer
    Greendreams,

    Did you fail to read why I wrote. It is fine for the premium beef companies to test for BSE and advertise that they do. I also think it is fine that irradiated food should be labeled as being free from E. Coli. However, the fre market supporting organic companies will never let it happen. It is funny that even after several organic farms were linked to e-coli outbreaks that people believe that somehow organic = cleaner (it does not). I also think that companies should be able to be certified as illegal alien free when advertising their products just as some construction companies have started saying that they do not use day laborers as code for the same thing.

    P.S. As as malathoin, there are many towns in rural areas at spray for mosquitos using malthion and the citizens see it as a good thing. It is the crazies in california that fight to keep malathion from being used.
  • schraubd
    Here's the link to the ruling. Jonathan Adler has some additional commentary which clarifies some of the issues (though he still thinks the decision is wrong).
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC