Regulated Market Failure

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journal...g/17297411.htm

Quote:

Not all to be tested for mad cow

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

The Agriculture Department tests less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. But Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too.

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry. A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. U.S. District Judge James Robertson noted that Creekstone sought to use the same test the government relies on and said the government didn’t have the authority to restrict it.

The ruling was to take effect June 1, but the Agriculture Department said Tuesday it would appeal – effectively delaying the testing.

What's most interesting is the notion that widespread testing for mad cow would generate a false positive. Like people would start preparing their meat less safely knowing they won't get mad cow... which they already presume they won't get?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Somehow that just goes against common sense.
What's wrong with letting the company test its' cows, anyway?

False positive, what sort of bullsh*t is that?

Although it reeks of commercial purpose, generally it just means safer meat, doesn't it? So the department is implying it doesn't care about health?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

You've got to love the notion of, "We can't let that company make a safer product! They'd run us out of business with their safe products!"

Imagine if cars were built in this manner.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I still can't get over the false positive. I mean, seatbelts make you think you're safer and drive less safely, which causes more accidents (lower fatalities). Bicycle helmets will also make the user more reckless, and make motorists think that the cyclist knows what he's doing and take unnecessary risk, putting the user at greater danger.

How do you get a false positive from testing for mad cow? That 1% that might not get tested is more of a threat than the 99% that they aren't? Testing for mad cow breeds a strain of test-resistant Super Mad Cow?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

If I can make a guess, "false positives" is probably a statistics thing. The more stringent you make your testing, the more failures you reject, but the more acceptable specimens you accidentally reject.

If your test is 99.9% accurate, but you start testing all the cattle in the country, you're still going to get a lot of false alarm bells from that 0.1% failure.

I guess these guys are worried that the beef is basically safe, but once you start testing everything you're going to get a shit-load of positives that will require extra testing and public relations nightmares each time.

This is a reasonable worry from the dept, but I don't think this is a good percent to be setting. Testing over the limit should be left as a business decision, or something that's done when a farmer's got a bad feeling...

How ya doing, buddy?

The interesting thing about mad cow disease is that it usually takes years, sometimes a decade or more to even begin showing symptoms in people.

If it were quick, like E. coli, the meat companies would have no choice but to test all their meat because E. coli is easily traced back to the source. The impending public relations nightmare far outweighs the cost of testing. We've seen what E. coli outbreaks have done to meat plants or fast food chains like Jack in the Box.

But meat companies cannot be held accountable in the instance of mad cow disease, thus, any testing becomes a public service rather than something to further company profits.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Wouldn't false positive, in this context, say that a safe animal was in fact diseased, and the company wouldn't profit off of its hide? Not that people wouldn't prepare their meat in a sloppy manner because they know they can't get mad cow from that company.

That sort of concern would be pretty big for any company, but that's how it is.

I think it's lol how the other companies are mad at this company for trying to bolster their reputation, but they could probably protect their herds by not feeding them beef by-products

FELIPE NO

A true positive also means the company wouldn't profit off its hide, as it does can now.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I know, I'm just saying that false positives are a valid concern! Not a valid reason though.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

Well, I can sort of understand this viewpoint, considering that in most cases of bank robbery, the cost to have the police and task force involved cost more than the actual amount the robbers took from the bank. If they didn't respond, it would jeopardize the entire banking system. Who wants that, right?

They DON'T want it done due to the chanes of false positive scares. Nobody wants uppity people. Keep them complacent and docile, Brady.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

All I got from the link was: Couldn't find mapping for /mld/journalgazette/living/17297411.htm and no default error page!

Anyway, I saw in the newspaper that beef has risen in price by about 75% over the last 5 years per pound. Meat I used to buy for $3/lbs. just a couple years ago is now more than $5/lbs. in the same supermarkets. Widespread testing will just raise the cost even higher: $8/lbs. for beef? $12/lbs. for steak? No thanks, and I think many others would turn away when this "testing" (and has it been scientifically proven to make our meat safer, because at the moment it just seems like marketing BS) drives the cost up. May as well just import that hand-massaged beef from Japan.

Beef producers shouldn't worry about other beef producers: the real worry here for the beef industry should be other meats. The industry needs to be careful not to price itself out of the market. Luckily, industrial pork farms are big heaping cesspools that no one wants nearby, fish have mercury (actually trout get whirling disease which has similar zaniness-inducing effects as mad cow), sheep are dumb and do not go where you tell them to go (hence sheepdogs), it's not acceptable to eat dog meat in the West yet, and poultry is going to wipe out 99.9% of mankind with bird flu (and eggs cause high cholesterol depending on whether or not it's a leap year ).

I wouldn't complain about mad cow that much, in light of things, unless you're arguing for eating shrubbery. And then you get to deal with... E. Coli!

Food ftl I guess...

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I still can't get over the false positive. I mean, seatbelts make you think you're safer and drive less safely, which causes more accidents (lower fatalities). Bicycle helmets will also make the user more reckless, and make motorists think that the cyclist knows what he's doing and take unnecessary risk, putting the user at greater danger.

You don't seriously think like this do you? Taking safety precautions makes people more dangerous? The analogy is a joke when applied in this context as there's aren't many otehr ways you can prepare beef. Would a less safe way be serving it raw? Will everyone stop defrosting their frozen meats if they had the comfort of knowing they weren't going to die from it? Get real Brady.

I think it's tragic that it took five posts until How Unfortunate clarified for you what false positive means.

Originally Posted by speculative

Anyway, I saw in the newspaper that beef has risen in price by about 75% over the last 5 years per pound. Meat I used to buy for $3/lbs. just a couple years ago is now more than $5/lbs. in the same supermarkets. Widespread testing will just raise the cost even higher: $8/lbs. for beef? $12/lbs. for steak? No thanks, and I think many others would turn away when this "testing" (and has it been scientifically proven to make our meat safer, because at the moment it just seems like marketing BS) drives the cost up. May as well just

What? Did you just teleport in here after getting a briefing ffrom your boss at the larger meat companies? Testing for disease is not going to raise your meat by 60% overnight or whatever absurd figure you suggested.

The fact of the matter here is one small producer wants to test all their meat for mad cow, maybe they intend to use it for marketing or maybe they care about the livilhood of their consumers and don't want a lawsuit on their hands. Then the bigger companies, afraid of anyone getting a competitive edge, cry foul and make up some lame reason like false positives ruining the industry. The fact is if a cow tests positive, you simply remove it from the herd, big deal. It'll be 1/1000, if that. And it's not like a news crew will be there within seconds "AMERICANS GUNNA DIE FARMER MACDONALD SHOOTS CRAZY COW" to destroy the industry.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Oh, I'm not arguing that the true cost of testing will = the price increase in beef. I would argue that they will jack up the price even higher than it has already been jacked up (have production costs really gone up 75% in the past few years?) and use this "testing" to justify the increase.

I was speaking idiomatically.