Well, I feel proud. For the first time over the weekend, a conservative blogger linked back to one of my posts. Apparently, the fine thinkers at QandO chided me for posting about a story in the NY Times that wasn't thoroughly fact-checked. The post in question is the last one I wrote, Where's The Beef?. Jon Henke thinks that we all need to do a better job of fact-checking. But since he wants to "prove" his point, he does it for us.
His source is a piece from the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy. So, being a brilliant thinker, Mr. Henke points out that Creekstone Farms was denied a license to market their test results, not just denying the company the ability to test at all. After telling us to do a better job, Mr. Henke sums up his opinion with this.
Read that carefully. It's saying something very simple: Creekstone cannot market their meat as "safe", because the tests involved simply do not - and cannot - confirm that the meat is actually safe.The USDA is simply unwilling to license them to market their meat with misleading scientific claims.
The funny thing here is that the article does not say this at all. Let's look at the text.
The department told Creekstone Farms of Arkansas City, Kan., yesterday that its request for a license to use rapid BSE tests in a private marketing program cannot be granted, according to a statement today by Bill Hawks, USDA undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs."The test is now licensed for animal health surveillance purposes," Hawks stated. "The use of the test as proposed by Creekstone would have implied a consumer safety aspect that is not scientifically warranted."
Mr. Henke implies that the reason the USDA denied the license was because the testing could not guarantee that all animals tested were safe. But that's not what the article says.
The USDA announced a major expansion of its BSE testing program in mid-March but has rejected calls for testing of all cattle, saying it is not scientifically justified. Hawks' statement today mentioned the plan to increase testing and noted that an international panel of BSE experts concluded that testing of all cattle is unnecessary because the disease doesn't appear in younger animals.
So it has nothing to do with certifying all animals are safe. Only that some scientists came to the conclusion that young animals do no need to be tested. That is what Mr. Henke claims is not "scientifically warranted."
Why not test all animals? I'm sure that old cattle aren't the only ones we need to be worried about. Scientists also thought that DDT was ok as well. Not all decisions are based on sound science.
Common with most of these conservatives is the act of leaving out the more important parts of a story. Further down the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy piece is this.
When the Creekstone proposal was first reported, the USDA had not approved any rapid BSE tests. Since then it has approved several, including three this week. On Mar 29 the department announced that seven state veterinary labs would help in the expanded BSE surveillance program, using rapid screening tests. Any samples that tested positive in the screening tests would undergo confirmatory testing at the USDA's national veterinary lab in Ames, Iowa, officials said.The USDA granted temporary approval of three rapid BSE tests this week, pending submission of further documents, according to Andrea McNally, a spokeswoman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in Washington, DC.
So much for your accusations Mr. Henke.
So next time you want to deride us basically because we're liberals, you might want to completely understand your source material (and read it all the way through).
This is the first and last time I will ever bother to respond to one of these idiots.
UPDATE: Jon Henke has responded to my remarks last night. I do observe that there is a difference between conservatives and libertarians. After briefly scanning his blog before responding last night (after a long day), I concluded that his was a conservative screed that liked to go after more leftist thinkers. I seem to have mischaracterized Jon's blog, so I apologize.
Comments (10)
Hm...while I tend to side more with Republicans than Democrats, you should be aware that I am neither. I didn't vote for Bush last time, and I would prefer not to vote for him this time.
As for "liberals"? I was not aware that I made any mention of political ideology. I'm sorry you had to bring it into this. It's not relevant.
At any rate, I'm not sure the material you cite actually matches the point you're trying to make.
Regards.
Posted by Jon Henke | April 12, 2004 10:30 AM
Posted on April 12, 2004 10:30
Fair enough. I appreciate you coming over here to my little corner to respond. All I saw from your post was calling out more leftist blogs for posting to an inaccurate MYT piece. A brief survey of your site showed other posts going after liberal bloggers or liberal thought, including your most recent post about Atrios. I just called it as I saw it. As with most things, perception is reality. You see it one way, I see it another.
Posted by sean | April 12, 2004 10:36 AM
Posted on April 12, 2004 10:36
Heh...well, when I pick up the "also-noted's" from Kevin's trackbacks...it's pretty likely they're going to be liberal. :)
If you'll look at the post below the one you cite, you'll find a post excoriating conservatives for the "Air America/minority station" meme. Meaningless silliness, in my opinion, based on a lack of understanding of the market dynamics of radio. Heck, some of the most virulent feedback I've gotten has come from defending Kerry on his "voted both ways for the $87b". I think he took a principled, consistent stand.
I think he was wrong about the latter vote, but that's a different story.
Always a pleasure to disagree agreeably, though.
Posted by Jon Henke | April 12, 2004 10:52 AM
Posted on April 12, 2004 10:52
I think the whole "not scientifically valid" argument is a distraction. These rapid tests are meant only to be sentinal tests - to be confirmed by the full-up battery. So testing every cow would result in earlier detection of disease among the herd AND the full-up battery of tests could then be used to confirm or deny the results.
I can't imagine how this is not better than testing every 100th animal or whatever the current methodology is. The whole thing is odd...
Posted by Charles2 | April 12, 2004 12:17 PM
Posted on April 12, 2004 12:17
I think we should be testing every animal humans consume. As our food becomes more and more mass-produced, it is easier for the process to become tainted. After all, BSE comes from cattle eating other cattle remains. This practice started as a cheaper way to fatten cows.
Posted by sean | April 12, 2004 12:53 PM
Posted on April 12, 2004 12:53
The test cannot detect BSE in young cattle because BSE takes years to manifest and the test detects ONLY THE SYMPTOMS of BSE. Testing in young cattle is therefore useless because they haven't been alive long enough to manifest the symptoms that the test looks for. The test actually cannot even rule out the presence of BSE in older cattle if their exposure to BSE is relatively recent.
The reason is that BSE is caused by a very small protien called a prion. BSE causes no "antibodies" to test for as with other diseases (i.e., rabies) because the immune system does not react to the prion in any meaningful way. The prion itself is virtually impossible to detect without very expensive and time-consuming tests.
That is exactly what the scientist in the article is referring to when he says that the use of the test as a "consumer safety warranty" as proposed by Creekstone is not scientifically warranted. A negative test only proves that the animal is not currently exhibiting the early symptoms of BSE, not that the animal is not infected with prions that cause BSE. That is why the current policy is destroy or quarantine entire herds of cattle in which one individual exhibits the symptoms, despite the existance of these tests. Actually, it is mostly destroy, as the tests that can actually confirm that an animal is clear of BSE are hideously expensive compared to the price of an individual animal.
You guys are totally misinterpreting what is going on here because you simply do not know enough about BSE to interpret the guy's comments.
Posted by Terry | April 13, 2004 4:47 PM
Posted on April 13, 2004 16:47
Sorry about the double-post.
Posted by Terry | April 13, 2004 4:53 PM
Posted on April 13, 2004 16:53
Terry,
Thanks for the info. I actually got a few articles on the topic yesterday, just so I can make sure I know enough.
Posted by sean | April 13, 2004 5:55 PM
Posted on April 13, 2004 17:55
Sean,
Can you cite some of the articles that you have found? I'm tyring learn more about this problem. Thanks.
I also have a question for Terry. You seem to be saying that rapid testing for pre-symptomatic BSE is INEFFECTIVE and that is why destroy or quarantine methods are used.
Meanwhile:
"... an international panel of BSE experts concluded that testing of all cattle is unnecessary because the disease doesn't appear in younger animals."
The article says that tests are UNNECESSARY which implies that the tests are effective (in one way or another) but need not be performed on all cattle. Are they saying the tests are unnecessary because they are useless? Or is this just "bureacracy-talk" for saying essentially the same thing as you are?
Posted by Hiroshi | April 19, 2004 1:09 PM
Posted on April 19, 2004 13:09
All of the articles I have read in relationship to this post are referenced aboove or in the original post about the topic.
Posted by sean | April 19, 2004 2:52 PM
Posted on April 19, 2004 14:52