• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ranchers.net

I just had to bring this forward to start a new post. Here is the rationale for Mr. Anti-R-CALF.

Quote:
Sandbag: "Is complete SRM removal based on sound science?"

NO!

So why should we base bse testing on sound science he asks?

Here's the deal. Japan makes their own rules as you've stated. We either abide by them and ship beef to them or we don't but in that process, we have to decide what actions we will support and what actions we won't.

Agreeing to remove all SRMs is hardly the same as agreeing to create an "ILLUSION" of safety by bse testing cattle under 24 months of age with tests that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age.

Here's where I can give you lattitude Sandbag, if Creekstone has a usda approved test that will reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age, I say too, let them test and absorb the costs of testing but that's not the case.

Moot point anyway, Japan has already accepted our beef without testing.


Quote:
Sandbag: "Does it make the product any safer?"


NO!

Japan's rules, not ours. Again, we have the ability to pick and choose what rules we will abide by and what rules we won't.

Here, let me help you out with another typical Sandbag spin question.

WELL, WELL, ISN'T TOTAL SRM REMOVAL CREATING AN "ILLUSION OF SAFETY"???

Their rules Sandbag, not ours! That doesn't justify supporting consumer fraud.

NEXT!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK........SH's "givens";
Creekstone's testing would not be based on sound science.
Complete SRM removal is also not based on sound science.
Testing does nothing to make the product any safer.
Complete SRM removal also does nothing to make the product any safer

SH's deductions;
Providing tested beef would be deception as the Japanese obviously think BSE tested means BSE free, or they wouldn't ask for it.

Even though complete SRM removal does not make the product safer, it is not deception because we get to pick and choose what rules we abide by.

Hmmmmm :shock: ,one process that does nothing to make the product safer is deception, but another process that does nothing to make the product safer is a rule that we can pick and choose?

Another head scratcher.... 100% testing was an unreasonable request, but total SRM removal is their rule, not ours. :shock:

SH, what are the rules of your game here? How do you decide what is deception and what we can pick and choose? What is the difference between an unreasonable request and simply, "their rules"?

Why does the USDA say trade must be based on sound science and even ban a procedure because it is not based on sound science, and then sign a contract that has requirements not based on sound science? Is sound science only a requirement on Tuesdays?

I'm just so full of questions.... :???:

Does SH's reasoning make sense to ANYBODY? Please, help me out? ANYBODY?
Top