Foodconsumer.org

 
USCards.com Bookmark Us
All Food, Diet and Health News 
 
 Misc. News
 Must-Read News
 Letter to Editor
 Featured Products
 Recalls & Alerts
 Consumer Affair
 Non-food Things
 Health Tips
 Interesting Sites
 
 Diet & Health
 Heart & Blood
 Cancer
 Body Weight
 Children & Women
 General Health
 Nutrition
 
 Food & Health
 Food Chemicals
 Biological Agents
 Cooking & Packing
 Technologies
 Agri. & Environ.
 Laws & Politics
 
 General Health
 Drug News
 Diseases
 Mental Health
 Infectious Disease
 Environment
 Lifestyle
 Government
 Other News
 
 Food Consumer
 FC News & Others
Search





Search Consumer Health


Add to Google
Add to My Yahoo
Newsfeed

foodconsumer.org news feed
Su bmit news[release]

Viagra

Isotonix

More than 100 credit cards available at uscards.com from uscards.com, you can pick more than 100 credit cards


Food & Health : Laws & Politics Last Updated: Oct 29, 2008 - 11:04:25 AM


U.S. appeals court says testing of mad cow disease is a diagnosis
By Ben Wasserman
Aug 29, 2008 - 10:11:21 PM

E.mail t.his a.rticle
 P.rinter f.riendly p.age
Get n.ewsletter
 
   

Friday August 29, 2008 (foodconsumer.org) -- Associated Press today reported an interesting piece of news - a federal appeals court said Friday that the Bush Administration can prohibit meat packers from testing their cows for mad cow disease.

 

The reason? The court said testing of mad cow disease in dead cows is a diagnosis and diagnosis is part of treatment, The Associated Press reported.   Disease treatment is under the control of the United States Department of Agriculture. So USDA has the right to disallow the testing.

 

The dispute was brought to U.S. appeals court by USDA after it lost the case in a low court to Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, which wants to test mad cow disease in all animals that intend to be used for beef.

 

Creekstone Farms exports its beef to Japan, which repeatedly asks its trade partner to test mad cow disease because Japan tests each and every cow before its meat is placed on the market.

 

Creekstone agrees to test animals whose meat is intended for the overseas market.   But the USDA early said that private organizations have no right to conducting any test on their slaughtered cows.

 

One argument of the company brought to court is that testing is not treatment.   Because there is no disease treatment involved, the USDA does not have the jurisdiction to intervene.   And a low court sided with Creekstone saying the company can conduct its testing.

 

Big meat packers oppose any testing of beef.   They have said if Creekstone Farms does the testing, then they would have to follow suit to conduct their own testing which would result in an increase in the retail price for beef.

 

However, an early survey showed that consumers welcome mad cow disease testing and are willing to pay an extra for the safety.





© 2004-2008 by foodconsumer.org unless otherwise specified

Top of Page




Google
 
Web foodconsumer.org

Search Consumer-friendly Health Sites












Do you know vitamin C lowers blood pressure?

disclaimer | advertising | jobs | privacy | about us | newsletter | Submit news/articles
link partners: | shopseek.com | infoplus.com | foodregister.com | uscards.com | Buy Viagra | MarketAmerica.com |
Buy a home | Auto Insurance | Mortgage refinancing | DaytonaCPA.com |
© Copyright 2004 - 2008 foodconsumer.org All rights reserved

Disclaimer: What's published on this website should be considered opinions of respective writers only and foodconsumer.org which has no political agenda nor commercial ambition may or may not endorse any opinion of any writer. No accuracy is guaranteed although writers are doing their best to provide accurate information only. The information on this website should not be construed as medical advice and should not be used to replace professional services provided by qualified or licensed health care workers. The site serves only as a platform for writers and readers to share knowledge, experience, and information from the scientific community, organizations, government agencies and individuals. Foodconsumer.org encourages readers who have had medical conditions to consult with licensed health care providers - conventional and or alternative medical practitioners.