So much for building a better mousetrap.

To make a product more attractive to Japanese consumers, a Kansas beef processor wants to voluntarily test its meat for mad cow disease, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture says no, because the tests are unreliable and unnecessary. Never mind that doing the tests make the beef more marketable in Japan.

Many observers suspect that the USDA decision not to allow additional testing is more related to the desires of large meatpacking companies that don’t want the expense of mad cow teasing to cut into their profits.

So, fine, don’t test, but if officials of a small meatpacking company in Arkansas City, Kan., want to test to their meat and raise the desirability of their product, they should be allowed to do so instead of having to lay off employees as they did recently because of a decline in sales.

USDA officials insist that their decision is focused on their mission “to ensure the safety of the food supply.” How does additional testing endanger the food supply? It may not guarantee that beef is safer for American or Japanese consumers, but it doesn’t mean it’s less safe. If consumers want to pay more for what they believe to be a safer or higher-quality product, businesses should be allowed to compete for their business.

There’s an interesting parallel to be drawn here between the USDA’s meatpacking decision and the Federal Drug Administration’s regulation of prescription drugs. The FDA is vigorously opposing the importation of drugs from Canada or other countries because those drugs haven’t undergone the same scrutiny as those sold in America. Even though many American consumers are willing to accept what they see as a minimal risk in order to buy drugs at lower prices from other countries, the FDA says they shouldn’t be allowed to do so.

Yet, U.S. regulators want to force Japanese consumers to take what they consider an unacceptable risk in eating untested American beef rather than being allowed to pay a premium price for a product that has undergone additional testing.

The common thread in both these scenarios is that the U.S. regulators are acting in a way that benefits major U.S. corporations. U.S. drug companies want to protect their profits by not competing with suppliers from other countries. Major meatpacking companies want to protect their profits by not instituting additional testing.

Major meatpacking companies are entitled to make decisions that they believe benefit their bottom line, but small companies that are trying to add value to their product should have the same right. USDA officials deny that they are being influenced by the wishes of major meatpackers, but there seems to be little other explanation for their unreasonable stand against additional testing.