Testing for Mad Cow? Not yet
Here's a worrisome story that has roots in big political money. Contrary to all logic, the USDA filed an appeal yesterday to block Creekstone Farms, a Kansas-based meatpackaging firm, from their efforts to mandate testing for Mad Cow disease in all their cattle. The USDA's appeal on a March 2007 court decision to allow Creekstone farms access and use of the tests was not a surprise. Since Creekstone farms first proposed to test 100% of their cattle, the Department of Agriculture has stood in opposition, citing that "The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry."
The reality, of course, probably has little to do with a worry about a false positive.
"Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well."
Well, gosh, why would we want these megafirms--who already dominate the industry--to spend extra money for something as trivial as protecting consumers' health?
Currently, the U.S. tests only 1% of its cattle, way below Japanese and European standards. Increasing the number of cattle tested is not just a logical step for the safety of consumers (three cases of Mad Cow disease have occurred in the U.S), but is also an effort by Creekstone to increase its production and export of beef to Japan, which used to be one of the biggest buyers of U.S. beef until they placed a ban on the product after the first case of U.S. mad cow disease emerged.
While it may be no surprise that the large meat firms object to Creekstone's proposal, why is the USDA maintaining that "it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease"? Don't rule out the influence of big money from those big firms.
Mike Johanns, the current secretary of the USDA, recieved more than $108,000 of the $2.3 million he raised for his prior gubernatorial race from agricultural companies including Archer Daniels Midland, Kraft and Tyson Foods, and the Nebraska-based ConAgra. Two of these, Tyson and ConAgra, were ranked as the biggest U.S. meat packaging firms in 2004.
Will Congress step in and help? They could, but it's less likely given that the major meatpacking firms have contributed over $4.5 million to House and Senate members over the past six years. These large companies, along with a few others, dominate the industry and have a big interest to keep expensive testing out of the U.S. market.
But it's their domination in the political arena that keeps a firm like Creekstone from even being allowed to test their own cows for Mad Cow disease and keeps consumers from having a choice about whether they buy 100% tested beef. Politicians such as Mike Johanns, as well as the members of Congress receiving campaign cash from these firms, will continue to drag their feet until we take big money out of the campaign money chase and move away from private funding of elections.
Tags: Money in Politics, USDA (all tags)
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.
