US Court upholds ban on mad-cow testing.

[SirNitram]

Link

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court says the government can prohibit meat packers from testing their animals for mad cow disease.

Because the Agriculture Department tests only a small percentage of cows for the deadly disease, Kansas meatpacker Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows. The government says it can't.

Larger meat companies worry that if Creekstone is allowed to perform the test and advertise its meat as safe, they could be forced to do the expensive test, too.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday overturned a lower court ruling that would have cleared the way for the testing. The appeals court said restricting the test is within the scope of the government's authority.

What happens when you politicize so many layers of government the appointments wind up being party-line parrots? Right...

[LadyTevar]

I have to say they're right, though. I'd buy the tested product over the non-tested

[General Havoc]

What was the rationale for the decision? What was the law cited? Don't just give us the same old crap again about politicized decision-making without showing us the politicization.

The beef (forgive the pun) as I understand it is that the USDA has the right to set its own rules on what they will or won't test. Explain to me how that is a matter of party-line parrots. Don't just vaguely wave your hands at the Bush administration every time the courts make a ruling you don't like. This makes perfect damned sense to me.

The government is not "banning companies from testing cows". The court is saying that the Department of Agriculture has the right to set its own policies as to what they will test. At present they test a small percentage of their cows, and this company wanted them to test them all. The DoA refused, and the company sued. That's my understanding of the case, and it could well be wrong, but I think that's what's going on here. If I am wrong, tell me, but either way, explain to me how that's evidence of politicized court rulings.

[LadyTevar]

You're misunderstanding, Havoc.

The company offered to PAY to have its herd Privately Tested, not asking the USDA to do it for them. The USDA is telling them "NO, you can't spend your company's own money to do something that we won't do."

[SirNitram]

Broadly, it goes like this:

Small business: Hey, I can pay to get all my product tests for mad cow! That'd be great, people would know it's safe!

Big Business: COOOOOOOOOURTS, HE'S BEING MEAN!

Small Business: Huh?

Big Business: You're oppressing us! Stop making us do more testing!

Small Business: But..

Court: You're banned from testing how you want to.

[General Havoc]

... well that's a WEIRD ruling, certainly. Do you know what law they based it upon?

[SirNitram]

... well that's a WEIRD ruling, certainly. Do you know what law they based it upon?

No source reporting on it so much as hints as any prior law that would support this. That's why I call politics; it hits those who've profitted happily from hyper-politicization of appointees in the past few years.