A mad stand

[Guest guest]

April 25, 2006

 

Steve Chapman:

A mad stand on testing cattle

When a meatpacker wants to check every one of his

cattle for mad cow disease, the government has no

business saying no.

 

Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune

If a hospital wanted to advertise that it upholds

sanitary standards higher than any required by the

government, no one would object. A used car dealer

that decided to offer only vehicles with the best

crash-test scores would be free to do so. But after a

meatpacker announced plans to establish the strictest

program around to protect consumers from mad cow

disease, the United States Department of Agriculture

replied: Fat chance.

 

Eating meat from animals afflicted with the illness

can cause irreversible, fatal damage to the brain.

Last month, a cow in Alabama was found to be infected,

the third confirmed case in this country. Canada,

which has similar regulations to prevent the disease,

has had five such cases.

 

You would think those would indicate the need for more

testing of cattle to keep contaminated beef off our

tables. In fact, the USDA, which now tests only 1

percent of all slaughtered cows, is planning to cut

back on that effort. Crazier yet, it also intends to

keep anyone else from conducting more tests.

 

One company wants to do exactly that. Creekstone

Farms, a premium meatpacker based in Kansas, knows

bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) can be deadly

for business. After the first American case was

discovered in 2003, some 58 countries banned shipments

of American beef, costing Creekstone some $100 million

in sales.

 

Those countries were dissatisfied with the safety

measures in effect here. So chief executive officer

John Stewart decided to address health concerns in

places like Japan and South Korea by going beyond what

the U.S. government requires of packers. He pledged to

test all his cattle for mad cow, in an effort to

reassure nervous foreign consumers.

 

What he didn't account for was that his own government

would bar him from doing what his customers want him

to do. Creekstone's plan, it said, would undermine

federal attempts to " maintain domestic and

international confidence in U.S. cattle and beef

products. " To let the company adopt a more stringent

regime would imply that USDA rules were inadequate.

 

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association agreed,

complaining that " if you let one company step out and

do that, other companies would have to follow. " So

last month, Creekstone filed a lawsuit requesting the

right to cater to its customers.

 

Of course, if some foreigners have little faith in

U.S. beef, a program like this would improve their

confidence -- unless it finds the disease is more

common than we thought. In that case, ignorance is not

bliss.

 

It's possible that this innovation might give the

company an advantage over other packers. But since

when do Republican administrations oppose the

strenuous free-market competition? Other companies

would have to follow only if the innovation proved

successful with consumers. More likely, there is room

for Creekstone's approach and less stringent ones,

too.

 

After all, the USDA allows the sale of

government-certified organic food, but most shoppers

still go for the nonorganic kind. The department says

it " makes no claim that organically produced food is

safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced

food. " That doesn't stop it from allowing sellers to

cater to consumers who think it is. So why balk when a

company wants to ease fears about mad cow?

 

The government's attempts to justify its diktat are

almost comically inept. The USDA scoffs at testing

cattle younger than 30 months, insisting that the

disease usually shows up only in older animals. It

claims the rules on the use of animal remains as

cattle feed are all the protection consumers need.

 

But more testing can't hurt and might help. Plenty of

other countries require screening of cattle starting

at the age of 24 months, and the disease has been

detected in some even younger. Consumers Union says

that the existing rules aimed at preventing infection

are full of holes, and thinks the Agriculture

Department should mandate testing of all cows older

than 20 months.

 

Maybe I believe Consumers Union and you trust the

National Cattlemen's Beef Association. But in this

instance, what you and I think shouldn't count for any

more than it did when Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes

picked a name for their baby. The only opinions that

should matter are those of Creekstone's clients.

 

If they want 100 percent testing and the company wants

to give it to them, they may be wise or stupid. But in

that decisionmaking process, there's only one place

for the government to be: out of the way.

 

Steve Chapman's column is distributed by Creators

Syndicate.

 

©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.