The persuasivity of an argument does not guarantee its truthfulness.
There are plenty of sources, including court documents, that verify that the USDA was trying to prevent private testing, not just claims being made on the basisnof private testing.
The ban on testing was justified by the USDA based on the potential for safety claims, but the ban itself was on testing.
I don't personally buy the argument, if the US testing was sufficient to guarantee safety I see no consumer harm in allowing additional (potentially ineffective) testing that could help a US producer satisfy other countries' import controls.
Creekstone specifically argued for its use for marketing purposes:[0]
> Creekstone claims to have suffered $200,000 per day in lost revenue as a result of the diminished export market. Stewart Decl. ¶ 17. Moreover, in markets where U.S. beef is available, Creekstone contends that consumer fears about BSE have diminished its sales. See Id. ¶¶ 4, 5 (discussing market surveys in Japan and U.S.). To allay the concerns of consumers and importers, in 2004 Creekstone made a “business decision” to perform the rapid BSE test on each cow it slaughters. ... USDA memorialized its decision to deny Creekstone permission to purchase rapid BSE test kits from Bio-Rad in a June 1, 2004 letter, concluding that “allowing a company to use a BSE test in a private marketing program is inconsistent with USDA's mandate to ensure effective, scientifically sound testing for significant animal diseases and maintain domestic and international confidence in U.S. cattle and beef products.”
Anyway, at the time of the decision, Japan was allowing US exports of beef (this was argued by the USDA in the district court, which they did not pursue on appeal), so their effort was purely a marketing one. For the record, Japan would subsequently go on to ban American beef again, before allowing imports of American beef once more in 2019, after they themselves had scaled back their BSE testing in 2017 to only symptomatic cows.
Would the USDA have allowed Creekstone to use the test if they had said they were going to use it as part of an animal health monitoring measure, which is what the USDA's program is? Maybe, but obviously Creekstone wasn't using it for that purpose if they were wanting to test every cow, including cows for which the test could not possibly detect BSE even if they had it.
You seems to be laboring under several misapprehensions.
> Japan would subsequently go on to ban American beef again, before allowing imports of American beef once more in 2019,
1) The Japanese rules on beef exports did not change significantly between 2006 and 2019. The ban on old beef that was imposed in 2006 was not lifted until 2019. While an argument relating to this was brough up in the original case (that the USDA lost) but not in the appeals case (that the USDA won.)
2) Nothing in the decision in favor of the USDA that I saw was justified on the basis of the purposes of the testing. The decision came down that the judges readings of what authority the USDA has under US law.
So yes, the USDA has the authority to prevent testing and has used it in ways that directly harmed a US business and I don't see how they protected anyone in the process.
Just because our laws give the USDA that authority, doesn't mean that is a good thing.
There are plenty of sources, including court documents, that verify that the USDA was trying to prevent private testing, not just claims being made on the basisnof private testing.
The ban on testing was justified by the USDA based on the potential for safety claims, but the ban itself was on testing.
I don't personally buy the argument, if the US testing was sufficient to guarantee safety I see no consumer harm in allowing additional (potentially ineffective) testing that could help a US producer satisfy other countries' import controls.