?

Log in

June 2016   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Just Me

Maybe we should start testing DC Judges instead...

Posted on 2008.08.30 at 17:10

Court: US can block mad cow testing



WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration can prohibit meat packers from testing their animals for mad cow disease, a federal appeals court said Friday.

The dispute pits the Agriculture Department, which tests about 1 percent of cows for the potentially deadly disease, against a Kansas meat packer that wants to test all its animals.

Larger meat packers opposed such testing. If Creekstone Farms Premium Beef began advertising that its cows have all been tested, other companies fear they too will have to conduct the expensive tests.

The Bush administration says the low level of testing reflects the rareness of the disease. Mad cow disease has been linked to more than 150 human deaths worldwide, mostly in Great Britain. Only three cases have been reported in the U.S., all involving cows, not humans.

A federal judge ruled last year that Creekstone must be allowed to conduct the test because the Agriculture Department can only regulate disease "treatment." Since there is no cure for mad cow disease and the test is performed on dead animals, the judge ruled, the test is not a treatment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned that ruling, saying diagnosis can be considered part of treatment.

"And we owe USDA a considerable degree of deference in its interpretation of the term," Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote.

The case was sent back to the district court, where Creekstone can make other arguments.


This right here is my favorite part: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned that ruling, saying diagnosis can be considered part of treatment.

"And we owe USDA a considerable degree of deference in its interpretation of the term," Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote.

Judge LeCraft Henderson, I respect your respect for the USDA, but can we really allow them to interpret the term "Treatment" to extend to the handling of dead animals!?!?!?
 


Comments:


(Deleted comment)
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2008-08-31 13:58 (UTC) (Link)
You certainly are! Our courageous government has acted quickly again to protect large contributers from small-business competitors! The Open Market has again triumphed by government intervention to prevent competition. Big Business thus being served, all is well!
B00
i_m_b00 at 2008-08-30 22:40 (UTC) (Link)
Random thoughts on this.

Sssooo only those three cows had mad cow. Not the one on the left or the one of the right.

Good to know that my life is sooo important.

I also have to say that if any business gets an idea that will give them a leg up on the competition they have a right to do it.

I really fear that every one in the Bush administration has caught a bad case of stupid from Bush.

*Points to ICON dircets it at the Bush administration!*
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2008-08-31 14:03 (UTC) (Link)
Loo, it's our government's job to protect us, right-- Oh, no, sorry, it's our government's job to protect Big Business. From competition. Because we WUUUUV the "Open Market." Really. So if Americans end up dying in a dreadful plague of Kreuzfeldt-Jakobs' Disease -- the "Human" name of Bovine Spongiform Encephilopathy, IIRC -- well, that's okay as long as major Bush contributors didn't have to compete fairly in the open market.

The more I think about this case, themore sickened I am by the lying hypocrisy of the Republican administration behind it.
uk_sef at 2008-08-31 07:40 (UTC) (Link)
If the US only tests 1% of cows and they only found 3 infected (and pretending those two things were related) that means the US actually has/had 300 infected cows.

Putting the cows in a barn is part of treatment for many things though. Hence, by the overturnering court's dishonest legal "logic", no farmers should be allowed to put more than 1% of their cows in a barn.

The reality (for those of us who are not dishonest anyway) is that testing, diagnosis and treatment are quite different things. Testing isn't always even part of diagnosis, let alone of treatment. It exists independently. Many diagnoses are arrived at (and acted upon) without tests and tests can be carried out for reasons other than treatment (eg on dead cows - and of course on humans for whom there is subsequently no valid medical treatment). Meanwhile, treatments are often carried out without a diagnosis - to address symptoms.
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2008-08-31 14:06 (UTC) (Link)
The reality, too, when the case is viewed honestly, is that this decision by the FDA had nothing to do with treatment, and everything to do with protecting big beef producers from competition. This from the party that tells us the Free Market is the solution to all our problems.
uk_sef at 2008-08-31 16:12 (UTC) (Link)
Well, yes, the motivation for their "crime" (against the truth) is obvious. However, they were apparently trying somewhat harder to obfuscate the matter itself (much like the EU in some of its most outrageous distortions of reality). NB I'm in the UK, so have little idea what the realistic chances are of overturning even such a transparently motivated and dishonest US ruling (or even where the end of any counter-appeals falls, ie highest court).
dome36
dome36 at 2008-08-31 10:43 (UTC) (Link)
I didn't know that mad cow disease had already "arrived" to USA. This is a surprise for me.

Hopefully you will be able to guarantee the safety of your people!

Around here we had to took painful measures. Painful, yes, but those measures were vital to assure the safety of the european people.

Dome
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2008-08-31 13:55 (UTC) (Link)
I didn't know that mad cow disease had already "arrived" to USA.

Neither do we. We can't, because our own government is more interested in protecting the profits of big-business beef producers than in protecting the safety of our people.

Big businesses have precipitated a government attack on a smaller one to keep it from out-competing them in the Open Market, and the government has operated and ruled strictly in the interests of the short-term profits of the big business.
herrbgone
herrbgone at 2008-09-01 13:57 (UTC) (Link)
Deplorable! Both the ruling and the reporting.

Typical of the MSM AP has placed blame for the actions of a low level bureaucrat within USDA at the feet of the President. This decision didn’t come from the Oval Office but from some regulator in the Agriculture Department.

Now before you go off on me “defending the President” I hate the sumbich nearly as much as you. He should have been impeached years ago for crimes against the Constitution. But he won’t be because a lot of sitting Senators on both sides of the isle would have to be indicted as coconspirators or at least accessories both before and after the fact.

Back to this ruling. IMHO, the meat packer should go ahead and test all their beef anyway and make as much stink about the .gov’s interference as they can. In the MSM where possible and in the new media. That would be us out here in the blogs.

Thanks for pointing out this outrage, L, I’d missed that story in the news.
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2008-09-01 22:58 (UTC) (Link)
If you ant to believe that both USDA and a Federal Appeals Court Judge in DC acted independently of Bush Administration policy, well, that's your prerogative. But recent history shows that the administration has been taking illegal strides to pack federal courts with Administration sycophants, and other important Federal agencies have been staffed through Administration cronyism. Wasn't it just three years ago that Brownie was doin' a heckuva job?

So I prefer to stick with my more rational belief that, yes, the Federal Government under an unaccountable Bush administration can be assumed to be doing the White House's bidding.
Previous Entry  Next Entry