|
| Author |
Message |
hillsdown Rancher

Joined: 05 Oct 2007 Posts: 1548 Location: Central Alberta,Canada
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Terry shut the borders of Canada, have you lost your mind. We at least do test for it, and most of us want a live test to be allowed as we have nothing to hide. What about all the other countries that have never ever tested EVER ... Does New Zealand test, South America what about Australia.
If you hate North America so much then move the hell away..........
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker Rancher

Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 18081 Location: Nebraska
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| don wrote: |
| sandhusker just thinks he's the master of diversion. he's been trying for so long everyone is on to him. answer the question: is the usa bse free and if not why aren't you finding any? i guess the school lunch program is a good place to hide them. every one we find is one that doesn't make it into the food supply - how many are you guys keeping out? |
Nobody knows the extent of the BSE situation in the US because the USDA doesn't want anybody to know, including themselves, apparently. They won't test sufficiently, fumbled the tests they did do, and won't allow anybody else to test, using the flimsiest of excuses to ban them.
Speaking of diversion, you didn't answer the question; How does your system guarantee that no BSE tainted beef is entering your own food chain? We both know the reason is because your system CAN NOT guarantee that no BSE tainted beef is entering the food chain. On the contrary, it is a statistical certainty that it is. How one can defend this system while chastising ours is beyond me. You are no better, and the obvious lie of "We are catching them all" is just as aggregious as anything the USDA has ever come up with. |
Well we remove 120 lbs of the most risky material compared to your 12lbs. |
Which is proof that you're not catching them all as advertised and tainted beef is entering the food chain. Otherwise, it would be unneccessary and foolish to remove SRM's from animals that you knew were BSE free.
So where is the room to critisize? The CFIA lies when they way they're catching them all and the USDA hasn't been truthful from the start. Your system has just as many holes in it as ours.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
bakSovrbar Member

Joined: 14 Feb 2010 Posts: 51 Location: Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, Canada
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, that's not accurate.
Right now, our system is superior because it prevents BSE prions from entering the feed cycle and being recycled through cross contamination and accidental feedings.
However, it should be noted our 2007 SRM removal enhanced feedban was still too late, as compared to the actions the U.K. took before we even introduced the first feedban in 1997.
I can assure you, having read the details of the current class action lawsuit poised to forward on behalf of Canadian cattle producers against Agriculture Canada, that producers have more than one leg to stand on. I have little doubt a multi-billion dollar payout will ensue should the feds not settle first.
As far as accusations against the media, this is silly. Many of my readers are cattle producers. We are a small newspaper. If I can tell them before the associated press or reuters does, why not? Believe me, I'm sure those entities weren't impressed they were beat by a weekly paper with a circulation of 2,500. And it would have been covered regardless when the CFIA updated the website.
And a journalist can't decide what to cover based on what it could harm or hurt - that would defeat the entire purpose of an objective, truthful fourth estate. I know many don't understand that, or are cynical about the media, but it's a code I live by – it serves my readers well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker Rancher

Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 18081 Location: Nebraska
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| But your system doesn't stop BSE tainted beef from entering the food supply. Isn't providing BSE free beef to consumers the endgame?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
burnt Rancher

Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 4249 Location: Mid-western Ontario
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well Sheri, I sincerely hope your readers survive the potential side effects of your service so they can continue to enjoy it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker Rancher

Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 18081 Location: Nebraska
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| burnt wrote: |
| Well Sheri, I sincerely hope your readers survive the potential side effects of your service so they can continue to enjoy it. |
Sounds like you're advocating SSS.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
burnt Rancher

Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 4249 Location: Mid-western Ontario
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| burnt wrote: |
| Well Sheri, I sincerely hope your readers survive the potential side effects of your service so they can continue to enjoy it. |
Sounds like you're advocating SSS. |
Spin it your way then, Houdini Jr.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
bakSovrbar Member

Joined: 14 Feb 2010 Posts: 51 Location: Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, Canada
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps Burnt, the government should not report anything? And if they do, the media should never, ever report it?
The logic you employ in this instance is so flawed, there's no point in trying to address it.
It is not the media's fault BSE exists anymore than it's your fault. Trying to mute its discussion or reportage is akin to fascism in the long run. Like it or not, that's why a healthy media exists.
Whether North American media is healthy or not, is another debate.
Husker:
We do know how prions are transmitted - through SRM. SRM removal is a long-term solution – based on what is scientifically known – to eliminating non-spontaneous BSE.
I don't know it was the best way to go - it has placed additional hardship on the producers, whereas it is a cost I believe should have been covered by the tax base, just as I believe food safety inspections at the slaughterhouse should be.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Kato Rancher

Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 2519 Location: Manitoba - At the end of the road
|
|
| Back to top |
|
cowhunter Member

Joined: 13 Jan 2010 Posts: 494 Location: williston florida
|
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It all boils down to the fact that if they go to findin anymore, be it yalls or ours, its goin to hurt both sides. If japan or. Korea or any country buyin beef, ban one of us , the other is sure to be next. I will say this. If the u.s. requires throwin away 125 pounds or spinal cord, backbone and brain, it might be lettin some sick cattle not get found but its not killin no people. Or bein fed back to cattle. Insted of the finger pointin and arguein, we need to try an work out ways it get shed of this clap.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker Rancher

Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 18081 Location: Nebraska
|
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kato wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Which is proof that you're not catching them all as advertised and tainted beef is entering the food chain. Otherwise, it would be unneccessary and foolish to remove SRM's from animals that you knew were BSE free. |
What?
And if we didn't, then what would you say? I can just imagine.
The fact is that we are going above and beyond anything you guys are doing, and it is costing us dearly in competitiveness. But I predict that some day your lower standards will come back and bite you in the bum. Go ahead and drop your ID, and lower your standards. It's your future you are playing with. We all imported cattle from Britain back in the danger zone, and I bet your government couldn't find all of the ones who went to the U.S., any more than ours did.
Glass houses............................. |
Kato, NEITHER COUNTRY has anything to brag on regarding BSE. We're both dropping the ball and putting consumers at risk. But, hey, packer money talks....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tam Rancher

Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8023 Location: Sask
|
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| Kato wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Which is proof that you're not catching them all as advertised and tainted beef is entering the food chain. Otherwise, it would be unneccessary and foolish to remove SRM's from animals that you knew were BSE free. |
What?
And if we didn't, then what would you say? I can just imagine.
The fact is that we are going above and beyond anything you guys are doing, and it is costing us dearly in competitiveness. But I predict that some day your lower standards will come back and bite you in the bum. Go ahead and drop your ID, and lower your standards. It's your future you are playing with. We all imported cattle from Britain back in the danger zone, and I bet your government couldn't find all of the ones who went to the U.S., any more than ours did.
Glass houses............................. |
Kato, NEITHER COUNTRY has anything to brag on regarding BSE. We're both dropping the ball and putting consumers at risk. But, hey, packer money talks.... |
Got to love it, the same crap as usual. Please tell me Sandhusker who is really putting consumers at risk?
In Canada the government did their part by implementing strict feedbans to stop the chance of cross comtamination. They test our cattle to see how the regulations are doing and update regulations when needed.
The Producers did their part by implementing an National ID system so the CFIA can track infected cattle back to birthplace.
By finding the birth place, the CFIA can find the feed mill that made contaminated feed and inspect their records to see who else may have been affected. Resulting in a successful investigation and clean up
To protect the Consumers The Packers do their part by removing all SRM's .
The US government took a few short cuts on feedbans.
US producers refuse to ID their cattle.
No birthplace, no feedmill, no investigation into records and nobody held accountable for problem.
The USDA is not testing even a fraction of what they should be, so no proof of problem, no need for the packers to protect consumers.
If the US producers would have taken responibility for what they raise by ID'ing them so the USDA was able to carry out a successful investigation in the first two BSE cases they found, then maybe the USDA would have a reason to want to keep looking. Just how many failed investigations do you think the USDA can get away with before the consumers catch on to the US producers un-willingness to protect their health? You can try blame this on the USDA, Packer greed, and imported Canadian beef but the problem starts with the guy that refuses to take responsiblitiy for what he raises. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|