If I read the ruling right the judges essentially gave the USDA a monopoly on all mad cow testing and criminalized any second party testing.
Yes the company is defintely up to something very shady and they needed to be called on it. That's why I emphasised the importance of reading the
commentary.
However the judges very wide ruling seems to be overkill and geared toward achieving something else for the USDA.
Why give the USDA a monopoly on testing for something as dangerous as the mad cow sickness when all that was needed was a ruling that forced the company or any
other company to use the more expensive and accurate test on each cow before being able to claim or advertise thier product as being 100% tested beef.
The USDA and the FDA have become huge often ineffective agencies that like the IRS are almost a power unto themselves, but where the IRS can and does make
millions of dollars vanish in various types of errors every year the USDA has the potential of making millions of lives vanish in some truly horrific ways.
It looks like the USDA like any large government agency is taking steps to increase it's power over the "civilian" population and at the same
time remove any oversite that population has over it.
The 1 in 100 tested with a single standardized test also bothers me.
Biological systems are incredibly complex and are ever changing with a nearly limitless number of input variables causing significant changes in the chemical
makeup of the animals.
Sure the statistics showed that doing more test was nearly useless, but that was under a set of condition that no longer exist.
Just to give you an example of one variable that has had a profound effect on what cattle are fed take what has happened since the price of corn has
skyrocketed. Corn once a staple of a herd's diet is now severly reduced replaced with a unpredictable mishmash of what ever is cheaper.
I've seen farmers substitute nearly everything imaginable, take for example prickly pears as cattle feed.
Feed companies are doing the same thing substituting lower priced alternatives for the corn whereever possible and producing feeds that are significantly
different from what they were a year ago.(Remember the Chinese pet food that killed because of substitutes that pass the test?)
Will this standardized 1 in 100 test work effectively when the conditions it was developed and tested under have changed this much?
When we are talking about something as incureable as mad cow I don't think I'd can be so trusting of the USDA approved 1 in 100 test or the statistics
they use to justify using it. Especially when I've also just seen the USDA take what looks very much like steps to prevent or criminalize any sort of
second guessing or oversite of thier method.
howard melton
God bless
Yes the company is defintely up to something very shady and they needed to be called on it. That's why I emphasised the importance of reading the
commentary.
However the judges very wide ruling seems to be overkill and geared toward achieving something else for the USDA.
Why give the USDA a monopoly on testing for something as dangerous as the mad cow sickness when all that was needed was a ruling that forced the company or any
other company to use the more expensive and accurate test on each cow before being able to claim or advertise thier product as being 100% tested beef.
The USDA and the FDA have become huge often ineffective agencies that like the IRS are almost a power unto themselves, but where the IRS can and does make
millions of dollars vanish in various types of errors every year the USDA has the potential of making millions of lives vanish in some truly horrific ways.
It looks like the USDA like any large government agency is taking steps to increase it's power over the "civilian" population and at the same
time remove any oversite that population has over it.
The 1 in 100 tested with a single standardized test also bothers me.
Biological systems are incredibly complex and are ever changing with a nearly limitless number of input variables causing significant changes in the chemical
makeup of the animals.
Sure the statistics showed that doing more test was nearly useless, but that was under a set of condition that no longer exist.
Just to give you an example of one variable that has had a profound effect on what cattle are fed take what has happened since the price of corn has
skyrocketed. Corn once a staple of a herd's diet is now severly reduced replaced with a unpredictable mishmash of what ever is cheaper.
I've seen farmers substitute nearly everything imaginable, take for example prickly pears as cattle feed.
Feed companies are doing the same thing substituting lower priced alternatives for the corn whereever possible and producing feeds that are significantly
different from what they were a year ago.(Remember the Chinese pet food that killed because of substitutes that pass the test?)
Will this standardized 1 in 100 test work effectively when the conditions it was developed and tested under have changed this much?
When we are talking about something as incureable as mad cow I don't think I'd can be so trusting of the USDA approved 1 in 100 test or the statistics
they use to justify using it. Especially when I've also just seen the USDA take what looks very much like steps to prevent or criminalize any sort of
second guessing or oversite of thier method.
howard melton
God bless