[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 7976]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                CATTLE TESTING AND ITS EFFECTS ON TRADE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 28, 2004

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to share with his 
colleagues the following editorial regarding cattle testing from the 
April 22, 2004, Omaha World-Herald.

                         USDA's Stubborn Stance

       The absurdity of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's mad 
     cow no-testing policy was highlighted recently when a small 
     Kansas meatpacker wanted to export its products to Japan.
       Japan's government is edgy about the deadly disease, which 
     in rare instances appears to have been transmitted from 
     infected cattle to beef-eating people. When a cow with the 
     disease was found in Washington state in December, Japan and 
     more than 50 other nations banned American beef. Japan has 
     since said it will take beef from tested cows.
       Then the USDA arbitrarily decided (after heavy lobbying by 
     the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and at least one 
     big U.S. packer) that it wouldn't allow anyone but its 
     laboratory to do the testing. And it would test only a 
     limited number of cows.
       Creekstone Farms, the aforementioned Kansas packing plant, 
     is a small, upscale operation. It has spent more than 
     $500,000 on a lab and testers, and it wants to test all of 
     the 1,000 cows a day its slaughters. It says it can test for 
     $18 a head rather than the $325 a head the USDA claims it 
     would cost. The government says no. Because, the agriculture 
     agency rationalized, false positives might worry beef 
     consumers. And testing all cattle might ``confuse'' consumers 
     into thinking there was something wrong with beef. There is 
     no scientific justification for testing all cattle, the 
     government reasoned, so no one may do it.
       Creekstone is in serious trouble. It could close. Its 800 
     employees would be put out of work. And its suppliers--it 
     buys premium cattle--would have to find other outlets.
       All courtesy of the USDA. And all contrary to the most 
     basic of business rules: Give the customers what they want. 
     Creekstone is considering shipping the brain stems of the 
     cattle slaughtered to Japan for testing. It had better watch 
     out--the USDA will most likely come up with an objection to 
     that, too.
       Meanwhile, Australia, which hasn't had a mad-cow case and 
     where no cattle are tested, moves in on the world beef market 
     once served by U.S. growers and packers. What's wrong with 
     this picture?
       What's wrong with the USDA?

                          ____________________