Coverage touches the bases...yet, does not ask vital questions (who..spoke for the bush administration)...has no historical perspective/ does not consult outside experts /, does not review settled law. my grade C

A concise report about the government's attempt to stop an independent meatpacker from testing all its intended slaughter cattle for mad cow disease in order to assuage their foreign customers' concerns about meat safety. The government's reason is the usual "bizarre-makes-no-real-sense" Bush administration kind of excuse.

This is a straight forward story reporting the government's position, the meat packer's position and the judge's questioning. There is little background and no analysis here, just some facts. It's better than a slanted story and not as good as a thorough one.

This is an example of why the Federal government has negative opinion.

This is a compelling story for all consumers. The author did a great job presenting the story without giving personal opinions. This is a scary situation to think about. It was investigative journalism without sensationalism.

The writer seems to be afraid of names...what are the names of the opposing "larger meatpackers". Are Bush friends on the boards of these companies? Is this similar to his "regulation of the environment?" ie by decree or order... Of concern is the administration going against a company that is trying to please customers who EXPORT! This is supposed to help the economy.