Currently, something like 1% of all cattle bred in the United States is tested prior to slaughter, for diseases such as “Mad Cow.” I don’t think it’s a very serious threat. But some people do. And that’s their prerogative. If some meat packers believe it would appease their customers to more rigorously screen their products, they ought to be able to, right?

Wrong. Enter: Bureaucracy, stage Right.

In order to sell beef in the lucrative Japanese market, Creekstone, a Kentucy based farm product (Beef) company, “would need government certification for its plan to test each [cow] at its Arkansas City, Kan., plant. The [USDA] refused the license request in 2004.”

As Kip would say: This is, of course, utter nonsense.

The New York Times seems to think it’s all about FEAR.

The fear is that broad testing may reveal a higher rate of infection and destroy consumer confidence, with a devastating impact on the cattle market. Which leaves us where we are now: relying on what we don’t know to make us feel safe.

Perhaps the real reason is fear. But it’s not fear of higher than imagined contamination. Statistical modeling generally proves very accurate when the sample is large and unbiased. The NYT would be hard-pressed to find a credible statistician who believes otherwise.

I’d speculate (and this is just speculation) that the problem is the other meat-producers and packers. They feel that the cost of examining each cow is prohibitive. And in many cases, it probably is. But if Creekstone were allowed to do this (and I see no reason why they shouldn’t be), the other meat producers/packers fear that their products will be perceived as significantly lower-quality than Creekstone’s. This of course, might prove to be ruinous to their business models.

And this is perfectly logical – Creekstone is willing to provide meat that is held to higher standards than any of its competitors. It should come as no surprise then, that some consumers would value Creekstone beef above its competitors’.

People do this all the time: They pay premium for Volvos, because of their track record and safety relative to other brands. They shell out hundreds more for side-curtain airbags. They by brand-name ice cream because they perceive it to be of higher quality than the store-brand ice cream. Ditto for soda. And blue jeans… The list goes on and on. You should get the picture by now

There would be an uproar if Saturn was prevented from offering side-curtain airbags in its vehicles, simply because Chrysler or Toyota doesn’t want to do the same. There should be an uproar in support of Creekstone. There is on reason why Creekstone shouldn’t be able to voluntarily test all of its product. All Creekstone wants to do is give consumers what they want: An arguably superior product than the level of which is mandated by government policies.

And your pals at the USDA won’t let them.