The USDA does seem to be against labeling things and testing things when it would hurt large producers. But this particular case doesn't really cry out as an injustice. At least, not in the way you make it out.

Creekwater's cattle, at the time of slaughter, are not old enough to where the BSE test would work. They simply want to test them anyway to say they are tested (and sell the meat in Korea). A negative BSE result, in other words, would mean nothing to the end consumer and would be protecting nothing.

However, the USDA seems to be going beyond its Congressional mandate by banning the testing. They argued that a test was a treatment, and 2 of 3 judges bought that for some reason,

I wonder if the American people were fully informed that eating meat with prions causes the destruction of the eater's brain how they would respond.

So here's the Gallup question:

Prior in meat cause the eater's brain to be destroyed within a few years. If a test existed to prevent prion-laden meat from being sold and the cost of the test well a few cents per pound of meat, would you purchase the more expensive disease-free meat?

My guess that at least 30% of the country would say they just want cheap food, and the test isn't worth it.

Let's assume my guess is correct. Shouldn't the consumer have the choice of prion-free meat at a higher price or a choice of risky meat at a lower choice? Free Market!

There might be a public political health benefit to allowing the risky folks to eat their prions (instead of just requiring at all meat be tested). Removing the 30% that prefer nice juicy prions would greatly increase the average intelligence level of those who remained after the prions claimed their self-induced victims.

I thought at this point, all the countries allowed us to export beef, and Creekstone just wanted the "tested" on the label even though it would have done nothing. It's not such a bad ruling now.

It used to be much worse. During the mad cow scare, Japan immediately banned import of all US beef unless every animal was tested. Creekstone built its own testing facility and tried to get test kits for all its cattle. USDA wouldn't let them for ... no good reason.

Also this story is way old, unless this is another iteration.

Ezra, did you forget about our right not to know? So much for the market providing us what we want.

the Department of Agriculture has banned a small beef producer named Creekstone from testing its cows for Mad Cow Disease

More evidence that (a) agriculture in the US is far from a "free market" and that (b) the folks at The Department of Agriculture are smoking crack.

Hopefully, there will be some blowback on this anti-competetive move by the DepAg.

Those who have worked for years in state and federal public health are not going to be surprised - the USDA functions purely as a promoter of the agricultural industry, to the detriment of the public, and only takes its public health responsibilities seriously when to not do so would be to the economic detriment of US agriculture (agribusiness). It would be the zenith of self-delusion to believe USDA functions in the consumers' interest.

This is still big news here in South Korea. Even though the US can soon legally import US beef, there's incredibly deep and widespread mistrust surrounding actually eating the stuff. Pretty much anywhere you eat beef you're going to see a sign saying that you're not going to get US beef. And people are VERY upset with the US about this. So obviously, the Creekstone kids being able to stamp a BSE-free label on their tasty cow parts would soothe consumer worries.

But there's an even more critical reason for Creekstone to want to test its beef. From my understanding, Creekstone raises gourmet beef. If someone's going to pay hundreds of dollars for a steak, their also going to be willing to pay a premium for steak that won't kill them.

That's pretty ridiculous, right there.

Good grief, it has nothing to do with the conspiracy reasonings you cite. The prion scares are scientifically nonsense and to allow some little producer to claim their beef is safer only fuels consumers' fears over meat that is less expensive and just as safe. This is an example of why people can be hurt by political scientists playing scientists.