I don't understand the Bush administration, the meat industry, or people who eat cows.

yes - companies should have more testing. it doesn't surprise me this administration's government wants to rule otherwise. unfortunately, it seems likely that it'll take a disaster to change this.

Of course there should be more testing. What are people going to tell citizens if there's an outbreak? "Oops, sorry about that" wouldn't cut it. I'm glad I don't eat meat anymore but what about people who do including my family?

This shows how the Republican party has been taken over by Neocons. Republicans are supposed to step out of the way and let businesses operate as they see fit. From what I've seen, all Neocons want is to keep the population ignorant and scared while amassing $$$ for corporate lobbyists, such as the meat industry.

i think tha tthere is a lesson to be learned from all the recalls this past year on meat, and they should allow farmers to test more animals. i can understand that they don't want to give people fasle senses of security, but to not test nearly as much - who knows what the reprocussion will be. how many millions of people need to get sick from meat before they realize that it's something that needs to be done. i don't think that consumers would be thrilled with the increased price, but their health is ultimately more important.

That's so ridiculous. I don't think there necessarily NEEDS to be more testing, but if a company chooses to do it why stop them? As long as they are not putting false information on their package and are not putting customers more at risk they should be able to do what they want. And what does the government care if that raises prices? If people decide that they would rather have cheaper food than safer food they can buy beef from another company that tests less.

Truly terrifying to me. I don't understand why food safety should be a partisan issue. Doesn't everyone want meat that's untainted by disease, especially when that meat is sold to school lunch programs?

this seems to me like an obvious plan of action: to test or not to test should not be a question!

You would think they would...

i think we're all operating under the obviously misguided assumption that the USDA functions to protect the consumer. Silly us. It's only interest is protecting the profitability agribusiness. case in point--the definition of "organic" is a moving target to the point where many small farmers forgo organic certificaiton because it's so costly to the point where only large corporations can afford to jump through the most recently instituted hoops.

as for creekstone, they should be applauded for trying to raise the bar, obviously something the bush administration doesn't want to happen--why eat into margin with "needless" testing? it's a cost with no real return on investment in their idiotic short sighted eyes.

yet the WORLD sees our meat export as unsafe and is banned in several countries, although intermittently so. so why, again, if our interest is protecting the cattle industry would it be a BAD thing to reassure the world that our meat is safe?

again, the only thing that sums up this f****ing administration--WTF?