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.

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 http://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.

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.

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?