I posted same story over a week ago but from a reputable source.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:38 AM, mike532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> QUOTE OF THE DAY:
> "The consequences of USDA - and now the courts - denying voluntary BSE
> testing effectively shield the less innovative, less nimble and less
> responsive beef processors from the competitive capacity of cutting-
> edge beef processors like Creekstone." - Blll Bullard
>
> SUBJECT: The Cure For Mad Bureaucrat Disease
>
> Of the 35 million cattle slaughtered each year, the U.S. Dept. of
> Agriculture (USDA) tests about 1% for BSE, or Mad Cow Disease. But
> Creekstone Farms wants to test 100% of the cattle they process, at
> their own expense.
>
> The USDA won't let them, and the USDA's rule has been backed by the
> federal courts. You see, if Creekstone tests all its beef and boasts
> of it in its marketing, their larger competitors could feel obliged to
> do the same, and this additional expense may lower their profit
> margins or raise the price of beef.
>
> Just three cases of Mad Cow disease have ever been discovered in the
> U.S. You are far more likely to choke to death on a piece of steak
> than eat any Mad Cow meat. If Creekstone wants to sell higher-priced
> meat to pay for a seemingly unnecessary test, that does not mean their
> competitors will have to follow suit. Their untested meat would have
> the advantage of a lower price. The public should choose for
> themselves whether they want 100% protection from the rare Mad Cow
> Disease, or a lower price.
>
> Also, export markets like Japan and South Korea are very concerened
> about Mad Cow Disease. Creekstone wants to do these tests mainly to
> cater to them. By preventing Creekstone from testing for BSE in all
> its cattle, the USDA is:
>
> * preventing a safer product from entering the market, undermining the
> alleged rationale for government regulation and control of industry.
> * denying Americans the opportunity to decide for themselves, in the
> "land of the free."
> * hurting America's trade balance.
>
> Imagine Congress passing a law that prevents a private business from
> voluntarily making its product safer than government standards, in
> order to protect Big Business.
>
> The uproar would be incredible.
>
> But Congress did NOT pass a law against Mad Cow testing. The USDA made
> it up on its own own.
>
> To be more precise, Congress did pass a law back in 1913, called the
> Virus-Serum-Toxin Act. It was designed to prevent the sale of
> dangerous or ineffective animal medicines. But this Act and subsequent
> revisions gave the USDA power to make both broader policies and more
> specific regulations. Even though testing for the incurable BSE
> doesn't seem to fall within the intent of this Act, the USDA has been
> given very broad discretion. In short, Congress never said private
> businesses can't test for BSE.
>
> But the USDA did.
>
> When Congress delegates lawmaking to the Executive Branch, the result
> is Mad Bureaucrat Disease; insane regulations that sacrifice freedom
> and the public good for the interests of a few powerful corporate
> lobbyists.
>
> But DownsizeDC.org has the cure for Mad Bureaucrat Disease.
>
> The Write the Laws Act would force Congress to write specific
> legislation, with no details left to the bureaucrats. Yes, Congress
> may need experts to advise them in drafting the rules and regulations.
> But Congress still has an obligation to write the rules, read the
> rules, debate the rules, and vote the rules into law. That's because
> Congress is ultimately accountable to the people, and bureaucrats are
> not. The Write the Laws Act would prevent an out-of-control
> bureaucracy from doing something so mad as banning Mad Cow testing.
>
> Tell Congress to introduce and pass the Write the Laws Act. In your
> personal comments, tell them about the USDA's ban on Mad Cow testing,
> and ask them to write legislation overturning this ban. Tell them
> unelected bureaucrats should not have the power to make laws. Tell
> them there should be no "legislation without representation." You can
> do so here.
>
> Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
>
> James Wilson
> Assistant to the President
> DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
>
> D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a
>
> >
>
--
*~@):~{>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
