5 Years Ago--Same Ole Same Ole

[don]

look at it this way sandhusker: canada's testing program gives the rest of the world some indication of the prevalence of bse in the states. maybe that's what will earn you the controlled rating. guys like you, ot and hm should be grateful you can ride canada's shirttails when it comes to testing.

 

[Anonymous]

well, sandhusker i guess the bookmakers, statiticians, etc. better talk to the oie:

=DJ Panel Recommends US, Canada Get Favorable BSE Rating
5:43 PM, February 27, 2007

By Bill Tomson

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES


WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A panel for the World Organization for Animal Health
has recommended to its 167 member countries that the U.S. and Canada be given a
favorable rating on "mad cow" disease safety, a designation both countries
want to spur beef and cattle trade, according to U.S. and Canadian officials.

The organization, known internationally by its French Acronym OIE, is
proposing both countries get a "controlled" risk rating for their handling of
the cattle disease that can be passed to humans through consumption of tainted
meat.

The OIE will meet in May for its annual general session and members will vote
to approve or disapprove rating categories being proposed for several
countries, including the U.S. and Canada.

There are three possible categories and "negligible" status is considered the
best. That rating is reserved for countries with the smallest risk for "mad
cow" disease, known scientifically as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Next best, and the rating U.S. government officials have privately said they
are expecting, is a "controlled" rating. That is the category being proposed by
the OIE Scientific Commission for the U.S. and Canada, government and industry
officials said this week. The third rating is "undetermined."

The officials asked not to be named in this story due to the sensitive nature
of the issue ahead of the OIE vote in May.

A Canadian government official expressed pleasure in the "preliminary" rating
of "controlled" status and called it a positive step.

That commission, after reviewing member country submissions and developing
rating proposals, distributed some copies in February. OIE member countries
will have until the May OIE meeting to review the recommendations.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture sent the U.S. submission to the OIE last
October.

The organization, on its Web site, says: "OIE standards are recognized by the
World Trade Organization as reference (for) international sanitary rules."

Ron DeHaven, administrator of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, was unavailable for immediate comment, but he previously told Dow
Jones Newswires in a December interview that the U.S. would be satisfied with a
"controlled" risk designation.

DeHaven said in December the primary difference between "controlled" and
"negligible" is that with a "controlled" status countries must have
comprehensive surveillance and safeguard measures in place. He said the U.S.
already has established those measures.

An internationally approved favorable BSE-risk status for the U.S. is what is
needed to convince countries around the world that they should drop barriers to
U.S. beef, National Cattlemen's Beef Association Vice President Jay Truitt said
Tuesday.

Many foreign markets have at least partially re-opened to U.S. beef since BSE
was first found there more than three years ago, but there are still plenty of
barriers to trade. Truitt named Japan as an example. Japan maintains
trade-restricting regulations that allow in only beef from very young cattle
from a select number of U.S. production facilities.

"This is about the final chapter on BSE," Truitt said. "This should remove
all the rest of the excuses from other countries that trade (beef) with the
United States."

-By Bill Tomson; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-646-0088; [email protected].


(END) Dow Jones Newswires

That turns the OIE into a bigger UN type joke than they already are...
No wonder the Montana Legislature is fighting so hard to get the US and the individual states back the sovereignty they sold away to WTO....

There is no way when Canada is bimonthly finding POST feedban cattle, and have 5 POST feed ban cattle, which is half the cattle they have found-- and then come back and say that Canada has a working feedban- which is a requirement of "controlled"......

No wonder many of the European countries bypassed OIE and sat their own rules......

 

[Tam]

The difference in the Canadian and USA situations is 100% of USA production can be utilized in the USA...100% of Canadian production can't be utilized by the Canadian market. The Canadian beef industry was expanded to supply beef to the USA market...that supply either displaces USA producers and/or pressures prices lower for the packers biggest expense...USA live cattle!!!!!!!!! These two are R-CALF's concerns for USA producers.

I disagree, RM. Canadian livestock would have never started south in the first place had there not been demand. As it stands, US producers cannot fulfill the demands of the marketplace, as such, Canadian livestock is called upon to fill some of that demand. You cannot force your consumers to eat something they do not want to eat.

However, there is demand, and higher dollar demand, overseas for some that US beef that your consumers do not want. So would you rather 1) try and force your consumers to eat something they don't want, probably by reducing the price, or would you rather 2) leave things open, play by the rules, quit fussing about the BSE non-issue, and have a higher dollar export market for your beef that your consumers don't want?

Its an either/or and you can't have it both ways. US producers cannot supply enough to fulfill demands at home AND have an export market. If you want to give up the bigger dollar export market, by all means, send 'em up north. We'd be happy to have 'em.

Rod

BSE a non-issue? Come on, Rod. Do you think the Japanese and Koreans ( most of that US export market you mentioned) would agree with that?

So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue.

Looks like Leo thought it was going to be a non-issue if it was found in the US. At least that is what he was going to tell your consumers to get them to keep eating beef. :wink:

 

[don]

econ: This whole idea of statistical significance and of rate of infection based on this policy assumes that there is an acceptable loss.

I don't think reader or flounder would agree with this premise.


it's a harsh fact that there is always an acceptable loss whether it has been calculated or not. our cars are not built or inspected to perfection, houses burn, and some food gets contaminated. what is not acceptable is the risk being increased by the actions and greed of powerful and corrupt individuals. if voluntary and controlled testing (for being accurate and up to standard) would benefit the consumer and/or producer it should be allowed.

 

[Econ101]

An internationally approved favorable BSE-risk status for the U.S. is what is
needed to convince countries around the world that they should drop barriers to
U.S. beef, National Cattlemen's Beef Association Vice President Jay Truitt said
Tuesday.

No, the real answer is that your trading partner has to approve of your bse risk status, not some world body (as the Japanese people have shown recently).

This world body nonsense is a convenient excuse for corporations to get around real free trade. Real free trade is predicated on the condition that the trade is beneficial to each of the parties that are involved in the trade. WTO, OIE standards and others simply force trade through penalties.

As I have shown before, in reality, WTO penalties/standards are often ignored by the US and other countries. It is a made up notion of "impartial" judgment to be used as an excuse in trade talks.

 

[Anonymous]

econ: This whole idea of statistical significance and of rate of infection based on this policy assumes that there is an acceptable loss.

I don't think reader or flounder would agree with this premise.


it's a harsh fact that there is always an acceptable loss whether it has been calculated or not. our cars are not built or inspected to perfection, houses burn, and some food gets contaminated. what is not acceptable is the risk being increased by the actions and greed of powerful and corrupt individuals. if voluntary and controlled testing (for being accurate and up to standard) would benefit the consumer and/or producer it should be allowed.

But folks get a choice with the make of car they buy- whether it be a Volvo or a Ford Pinto-- they also have a choice into whether to buy or build fire rated houses....The get to evaluate the risk on their own and make informed decisions...

That is the sad part of this BSE issue-- Where the packers want to lump all beef from anywhere in the world into generic product- with no labeling or choice...The least the US consumer should have is Country of Origin Labeling on their beef so they can make the risk assessment on their own- and an informed choice.....

 

[don]

you're right ot, they should have the choice. are you sure you want them to make an informed choice or do you just want them to make the patriotic choice? if they are informed of usda's slipping health standards they may choose other than american or they may choose to still go with price. i'm all in favour of cool but with credible, honest standards. if you just want us and non-us labels that isn't providing consumers with real choice either. cool is good but go all the way with it then and do the job right; please label canadian as canadian because i theink canada has credibility with a fair number of americans i talk to but then they aren't in montana and seem to have a broader perspective.

 

[Econ101]

econ: This whole idea of statistical significance and of rate of infection based on this policy assumes that there is an acceptable loss.

I don't think reader or flounder would agree with this premise.


it's a harsh fact that there is always an acceptable loss whether it has been calculated or not. our cars are not built or inspected to perfection, houses burn, and some food gets contaminated. what is not acceptable is the risk being increased by the actions and greed of powerful and corrupt individuals. if voluntary and controlled testing (for being accurate and up to standard) would benefit the consumer and/or producer it should be allowed.

"acceptable loss" should be determined by the individual who is given good information. If a company is hiding information (like knowing product defects and allowing them to be used) the company is liable. Who in the government is liable? The risk can be sold so easily through government dictates (like the USDA denying private testing) to the big money interests. Follow the money and you will see that it is more often than not the corporate think tanks and money who pull the strings of politicians. They get away with it because those that are hurt are a small amount of the population and could not possibly have enough votes to throw out the bums. Individual responsibility and liability is thus transferred from the corporate interests to an unaccountable government entity. It is just sold. Nothing more, nothing less.

The same thing has happened with food safety and the USDA/FDA.

 

[Sandhusker]

look at it this way sandhusker: canada's testing program gives the rest of the world some indication of the prevalence of bse in the states. maybe that's what will earn you the controlled rating. guys like you, ot and hm should be grateful you can ride canada's shirttails when it comes to testing.

I don't buy that for a minute. The Koreans and the Japanese are doing what they feel is in their best interests, as they should, regardless of what they are told, what Canada is doing, etc... They're not buying what the OIE is selling.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

but you've got to use the numbers that you have.

But thats what I'm doing Sandhusker. We've tested over 20% of our 4D animals in Canada, compared to the US's testing rate of under 2% of 4D animals. Thats a testing rate 10 times greater, yet we've only found 6 times more animals with BSE. And those are the known numbers. Those are some pretty basic numbers for a statistician to work with. If all we followed were the RAW, known numbers, that tells pretty much any statistician that the rate of infection within the US is actually HIGHER than Canada, not lower.

We also know that there have been numerous violations of the feedban within the US, including tens of thousands of tons of banned material that made it back into the bovine feed chain.

To add to the list of knowns: We also know that the US has similar feeding practices to Canadian ranchers, and that cattle have crossed between the US and Canada freely for literally hundreds of years. Hell, I even have a couple Angus cows out here that trace their lineage back to the US.

And then we have unknowns, like how many of the US 4D animals were faked? Sure they caught one guy, but how many others were there? Transmission of BSE is probably through feed, but with the US's lack of traceback ability, even when an animal is found, there is no way to get back to the herd of origin to test those other animals, just in case there is another transmission route, or to even discover if banned feed was fed to that particular animal.

And how many other positive animals were covered up by the USDA that we don't know about?

So just with the knowns, its pretty clear that the US and Canada are identical in risk, which is to say minimal to the point of non-existence. You add in the unknowns, its easy to see why most countries view us as one market, and for those who don't, the political agenda is pretty clear. As long as R-Calf and other producer organizations continue to harp on BSE, it simply gives those countries with other political motives behind closed borders ammunition to keep the borders closed. But as producers, if we make BSE a non-issue, which it is (c'mon, rates of infection of 1 or 2 in 3 million? E.Coli is a far greater threat.), then those countries with other agendas will have less ammunition.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

but you've got to use the numbers that you have.

But thats what I'm doing Sandhusker. We've tested over 20% of our 4D animals in Canada, compared to the US's testing rate of under 2% of 4D animals. Thats a testing rate 10 times greater, yet we've only found 6 times more animals with BSE. And those are the known numbers. Those are some pretty basic numbers for a statistician to work with. If all we followed were the RAW, known numbers, that tells pretty much any statistician that the rate of infection within the US is actually HIGHER than Canada, not lower.

We also know that there have been numerous violations of the feedban within the US, including tens of thousands of tons of banned material that made it back into the bovine feed chain.

To add to the list of knowns: We also know that the US has similar feeding practices to Canadian ranchers, and that cattle have crossed between the US and Canada freely for literally hundreds of years. Hell, I even have a couple Angus cows out here that trace their lineage back to the US.

And then we have unknowns, like how many of the US 4D animals were faked? Sure they caught one guy, but how many others were there? Transmission of BSE is probably through feed, but with the US's lack of traceback ability, even when an animal is found, there is no way to get back to the herd of origin to test those other animals, just in case there is another transmission route, or to even discover if banned feed was fed to that particular animal.

And how many other positive animals were covered up by the USDA that we don't know about?

So just with the knowns, its pretty clear that the US and Canada are identical in risk, which is to say minimal to the point of non-existence. You add in the unknowns, its easy to see why most countries view us as one market, and for those who don't, the political agenda is pretty clear. As long as R-Calf and other producer organizations continue to harp on BSE, it simply gives those countries with other political motives behind closed borders ammunition to keep the borders closed. But as producers, if we make BSE a non-issue, which it is (c'mon, rates of infection of 1 or 2 in 3 million? E.Coli is a far greater threat.), then those countries with other agendas will have less ammunition.

Rod

You have a point on the risks, Rod. There are two flaws that I see right off however. We really don't know the rates of bse infection at this point because of the possible long incubation period. The other flaw is that you are comparing it to e.coli contamination rates which, I would contend, is a scale that has increased because of lack of food safety of the government.

MRJ says the risks are acceptable for the lower prices of food. I say we are a rich nation and can afford safe food. What family would sacrifice a son or daughter knowing that it came from having a cheaper hamburger on their holiday grill?

The poor thing about the argument is that bse is probably a condition that can be eradicated completely (unless spontaneous generation is a fact--and even then it can be controlled with feed transmission).

The biggest problem is that the Japanese and others don't buy it.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) We really don't know the rates of bse infection at this point because of the possible long incubation period.

2) The other flaw is that you are comparing it to e.coli contamination rates which, I would contend, is a scale that has increased because of lack of food safety of the government.

3) The biggest problem is that the Japanese and others don't buy it.

1) Certainly, but I was addressing Sandhuskers point that we need to go with what we currently know. Whose to say that we won't find another animal tomorrow? Or that the US won't find two on one day? I don't believe we'll ever "know" the true rates of BSE infection in North America. The USDA is scaling back on already low testing rates, so I find it unlikely that the US will ever find another case, even though the stats say that they're out there. I also believe that we'll never get 100% BSE testing, as the real rates of infection will become clear and I think the USDA/CFIA fears fall out from this.

2) Oh certainly, I understand why we're seeing worse E.Coli infection rates, however I still contend that its a worse problem than BSE as far more people die from E.Coli in a year than vCJD. I just think we're making too big a deal out of BSE, and the longer we do so with infighting amongst ourselves, the longer the multinationals have to service other countries with cheap third world beef. If we're not careful, especially the US, in a decade, the least of your worries will be Canadian beef.

3) The Japanese consumer is scared right now, I agree. But this will eventually pass IF we allow the BSE crisis to go away. I think we should be allowing 100% BSE testing, taking stock of the true infection rates, and closing up any feedban holes. In 10 or 12 years, after the feedbans have taken hold, we can then declare ourselves BSE FREE and be on the same footing as Australia, drop BSE testing from the menu and carry on with life.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

Rod, ") The Japanese consumer is scared right now, I agree. But this will eventually pass IF we allow the BSE crisis to go away. I think we should be allowing 100% BSE testing, taking stock of the true infection rates, and closing up any feedban holes. In 10 or 12 years, after the feedbans have taken hold, we can then declare ourselves BSE FREE and be on the same footing as Australia, drop BSE testing from the menu and carry on with life. "

I think that would be a good place to start.

 

[mrj]

How predictable! How disgusting!

Econ posts yet another absolute lie: "MRJ says the risks are acceptable for the lower prices of food".

No, MRJ did not post any such statement.

What I've said several times, is that food safety is IMPROVING.

Food safety is the responsibility of ALL who come into CONTACT with food in production, processing, storage, and preparation of our food, and that includes the consumer who eats it and feeds it to his or her family.

Improvement over time has been dramatic.

Incidences of foodborne illness and deaths, including from e coli, have declined.

There does come a point where drastic, dramatic, and EXPENSIVE new measures will add equally drastic and dramatic expense to the cost of food.

Consumer spending for food in the USA now averages less than 10% of our income.

I believe we, consumers and the food industry, need to consider just how much more we CAN spend for food safety, especially considering the levels already achieved and benefits to achieve a zero level, and whether or not zero is the number which MUST be achieved, or if zero even is attainable.

Econ, does "Econ101" indicate you are an Economist or a teacher of Economics?

If so, how will you calculate the cost effectiveness of various procedures in order to achieve significantly safer food?

My posts on this subject usually include the fact that no one minimizes the pain and loss of even one person to food borne illness, or any other illness, for that matter.

However, there has to be limits to the money expended on one such issue. That is, how can we spend all it may take on this issue.......while there are so many ills that cause far more deaths and get far too little research money?

Because you are so fond of claiming you are oh so much more intelligent than am I, would you please show what percent 5000 (annual deaths from foodborne illness) is of 300,000,000 (population of USA). My paper isn't wide enough to figure it out :wink: :lol:.

MRJ

 

[agman]

Look at the pork industry today and tell me how much pork is being exported! No trade groups trying to close the borders no R-pig groups in my area.

Look at the pork industry today and tell me how many independent family farms are still producers. Looks like they needed a R-PIG 10 - 15 years ago.

How has the long term trend in independent farm families differed from the current trend? The decline in family farms was ongoing for decades, actually centuries, before the current trends were in place. What was the cause for the decline in family farms then? Has the long term and principal cause of the decline in family farming changed and to what degree? How do you differentiate "before" and "after" when the trends are the same for both periods?

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "How has the long term trend in independent farm families differed from the current trend? The decline in family farms was ongoing for decades, actually centuries, before the current trends were in place. What was the cause for the decline in family farms then? Has the long term and principal cause of the decline in family farming changed and to what degree? How do you differentiate "before" and "after" when the trends are the same for both periods?'

Yep, you're for the producer. :roll: Is that what you tell farm families when they get squeezed out - "Hey, it's been a trend, get over it"? Is that what you tell the small towns that are fighting for survival that rely on these people? Small businesses (independent farms) are what drives the economy, not the multi-nationals you side with. You're a dandy. What ar you doing on this site?

 

[Econ101]

Look at the pork industry today and tell me how much pork is being exported! No trade groups trying to close the borders no R-pig groups in my area.

Look at the pork industry today and tell me how many independent family farms are still producers. Looks like they needed a R-PIG 10 - 15 years ago.

How has the long term trend in independent farm families differed from the current trend? The decline in family farms was ongoing for decades, actually centuries, before the current trends were in place. What was the cause for the decline in family farms then? Has the long term and principal cause of the decline in family farming changed and to what degree? How do you differentiate "before" and "after" when the trends are the same for both periods?

Tyson tried to get in the pork business. As a reaction, the current leaders in that industry flooded the market with pork. Pork went down to 5 cents per lb. Tyson pulled out and left a lot of contract growers out in the cold (after a long lawsuit, the growers were awarded some money but not the extent of their damages). When packers were able to pay themselves and their contracted farmers more than the 5 cents per lb. equivalent due to their controlling shackle space and market power to retail and not get in trouble for it by GIPSA, the free market was destroyed in hogs.

Which part of this would you like to call a lie, Agman? You continue to call me a liar but you never say which particular part is a lie. Maybe you have reading comprehension problems you don't understand yourself. I would be glad to help you if you only show which part is a "lie" as you put it.