Jun 23, 2007, 02:51 PM
|
#1 of 13
|
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?
|
How Unfortunate