AMI FACTSHEET ON BSE

[Anonymous]

Mark Purdey, a Somerset farmer turned epidemiologist, has produced detailed evidence to show that BSE was caused by farmers spreading Phosmetz, an organohosphate (OP), over the backs of cattle as a prophylaxis, but the Government's MRC Toxicology Unit - funded by the pharmaceutical company Zeneca - apparently refuted this theory. Which company held all rights over the production of Phosmetz? Zeneca. Whom do you believe? Independent scientists were vilified
Efforts were made to discredit independent critics, as in the case of Richard Lacey and Mark Purdey in BSE, & Arpad Pusztai in GM food, and too many other examples.
A second reason why there is such pervasive mistrust of science and scientists is that the scientists staffing the official advisory committees and Government regulatory bodies in a significant number of cases have financial links with the industry they are supposed to be independently advising on and regulating. A recent study found that of the five scientific committees advising ministers on food and safety, 40% of committee members had links with the biotechnology industry, and at least 20% were linked to one of the Big Three – Monsanto, AstraZeneca, or Novartis including some worldwide packers. Nor is that an accident. The civil servants who select scientists for those bodies tend to look for a preponderant part of the membership, and particularly the chairperson, to be 'sound', i.e., can be safely relied on not to cause embarrassment to the Government or industry if difficulties arise.

 

[Anonymous]

Nebrusker: "sh, if you truly are a cattlemen then how can you be 100% in line with the price minipulation that the packers do??????"

Nebrusker, there is only two sides to this issue as far as you and I are concerned. There is truth and there is lies. There is no packer side or a producer side.

Everytime someone doesn't believe your packer blaming conspiracy theories, you and your packer blaming buddies are quick to dismiss it as coming from a "packer lackey" or a "packer lover". That's bullsh*t!

That is nothing more than a discrediting divertion to keep you from backing your position. There is truth and there is lies and the burden of proof falls on the accuser.


There is no proof of this "so called" price manipulation you espouse.

If there is any proof to this "price manipulation" you refer to, why are packer profits in the red currently???? Does it make sense to you that packers can manipulate prices yet still be in the red????

If packers can control prices, why does the price of fat cattle move at all????

If packer concentration creates no competition, why did Armour, Wilson, Cudahey, Swift, and Morris become IBP, Excel, Monfort, National, and Smithfield IN A CONTROLLED INDUSTRY????

Can you explain that? No you can't!

Benjamin Roberts wrote a whole book on his market manipulation conspiracy theories and he couldn't answer those simple questions either.

Did you know the plaintiffs in Pickett vs. IBP testified that IBP had a legitimate reason for using forward contracts? Well, if the plaintiffs testified that IBP had a legitimate reason for using captive supplies, how could the jury agree that IBP lacked a legitimate business reason for using forward contracts? Does that make sense to you? It's a wonder why anyone still wonders why the judge threw the Pickett case out on it's ass?

Again, there is no proof of this "so called" price manipulation you are talking about.

All I have ever seen offered to back the packer blaming conspiracy theories is LMA/R-CALF sanctioned packer blaming lies about "HUGE PACKER PROFITS" from the likes of Mike Callicrate, who lied under oath in Pickett.

If you want to argue the merits of the Pickett case, bring it.



~SH~

 

[lightstorm1]

First time visitor here. Good to find a place where industry folks can discuss topics of concern. I am trying to contact the individual going by the alias "reader (the Second)." Please drop me an e-mail: [email protected]

Thank you.

 

[Shelly]

Why don't you just private message her?

 

[Tam]

USDA's Final Rule, in the following ways, compromises science acknowledged throughout the rest of the world:
1) It adopts the Specified Risk Materials (SRM) removal practices recommended by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and practiced in the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) for years – except that USDA only includes some high-risk tissues in its SRM removal plan (fewer tissues than included in the standard risk-reduction practices in the UK and the EU). USDA's Final Rule does not begin removal of SRMs at the age where OIE, the UK, and the EU consider it necessary. USDA's Final Rule requires SRM removal only from cattle over 30 months of age, while European countries require removal of SRMs in all cattle over 12 months of age. OIE recommends SRM removal from cattle over 6 months of age for countries with the same disease characteristics as Canada.
-------------------------------------------------------
In the "AMI BSE FACT SHEET" it states:
"By law all cattle destined for human consumption must have SRM's removed"

I MAY be mistaken but I think that this (directly above) is an outright lie by the AMI. I am under the impression that SRM's are removed from cattle OTM. Could someone correct me if I am wrong?

SRM removal is described as the removal of skull, brain,trigeminal ganglia, eyes, vertebral column, spinal cord, and dorsal root ganglia of cattle over 30 months and the small intestine of cattle of all ages and the tonsil from all cattle by the USDA in their Jan announcement and that is what is ban.

 

[Mike]

That is correct.

 

[Sandhusker]

They sure don't say a whole lot on cattle under 30 months, do they?

 

[lightstorm1]

Thanks for the tips. I'll try this private messaging thing.