Sandbag and OT,
The fact that Japan is willing to accept cattle under 21 months of age proves that science won. Prior to that, they wanted expensive, deceptive 100% BSE testing. Japan came our way and we didn't have to give in to this expensive, deceptive consumer fraud to export to them.
Oh yeh, U.S. producers lost millions because we didn't participate in consumer fraud advocated by Sandbag & Co. right????? Why are you concerned about that when bullsh*t Bullard says we don't need an export market. Don't you believe your leaders?
Regarding your worthless imagined "double standard",
SHOULD THE U.S. GIVE JAPAN AN "ALL OR NONE" ULTIMATUM SINCE THE "SOUND SCIENCE" SAYS THAT CATTLE UNDER 30 MONTHS ARE SAFE?????
Yes or no?
Answer the question or divert because you don't want to paint your deceptive selves into a corner.
I'm sure glad idiots like you guys are not in charge of trade negotiations. You and your constant pursuit of IMAGINED double standards.
As far as cattle between 21 months and 30 months, we cannot impose our science based standards on another country by forcing them to take cattle between 21 and 30 months but we sure as hell don't have to go along with their consumer fraud of BSE testing of cattle under 24 months of age WHEN THOSE TESTS WOULD NOT REVEAL PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE.
Sandbag: "You seem to forget that 21 month and younger cattle are the ONLY cattle allowed for Japan. Is that the same here?"
How am I forgetting that when I just mentioned it?????
No it's not the same here BECAUSE IT'S JAPAN'S RULES, NOT OURS! Something you can't get through your thick blaming head. We can't impose science over political perception on them. They make their own choices. Some we can support (21 month) and some we cannot (fraudulent BSE testing).
The science says under 21 month of age cattle are safe for export and the science says that BSE testing of cattle under 24 months of age with the tests that creekstone was advocating is consumer fraud.
Sandbag: "I realize the USDA is not negotiating on sound science, it's about time you recognized that. The problem is that they said they would. Is that a lie?"
What the hell are you babbling about now? Explain yourself (as if your explanation would contain logic)!
Sandbag: "The USDA should allow US companies to give Japan exactly what they want - and should of done that two years ago. They should also quit saying one thing and doing another. If all trade negotiations are to use "sound science" as an absolute, how can you have an age limit of 21 for one country and 30 for another? How can you have a SRM list that is different for different countries if you're following "sound science"?"
First, USDA should not have allowed Creekstone's consumer fraud.
Second, we can only influence the thinking of other countries but we cannot impose science based standards over other country's political pressures IN ALL CASES.
There is no double standard WHEN SCIENCE CANNOT ALWAYS SET THE STANDARD OVER THEIR POLITICAL PRESSURES.
Tommy: "The 100% test was Japan's rule too Scott, but you were against that."
100% testing was a Japanese rule that was not science based and not in our best interests because it promoted consumer fraud by suggesting "BSE TESTED" meant "BSE FREE" when it didn't and it promoted expensive, unjustified testing. Obviously we won that argument or we wouldn't be talking 21 month imports WITHOUT TESTING would we?
If you Creekstone advocates would have had your way you would be promoting the idea that 100% testing was justified and you would have added that expense. Glad you're not in charge of negotations Tommy!
USDA was correct in not going along with the 100% testing consumer fraud due to the standard it set.
In contrast, cattle under 21 months of age are safe so what's the problem?
Should we give them an "ALL OR NONE" ultimatum Tommy?
This is such an empty argument since there is no way we can influence other country's decisions with OUR SCIENCE OVER THEIR POLITICS in every situation.
~SH~