Anything From NCBA on This?

[mrj]

MRJ, "You are totally confused on who is supporting "free enterprise". It is NCBA, ...."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Tell that to Bill Fielding! :lol: :lol: :lol:

MRJ, "Further, NCBA is not trying to force Korean consumers to eat our beef against their will, but to force that government to ALLOW the Korean consumers to make their own decision in the marketplace! "

What about those consumers who have made the decision they would like their beef BSE tested? Did NCBA forget about their wishes and that potential market?

How would you react if a foreign government was trying to force our government to do anything? Did NCBA learn that from the George W. Bush School of International Diplomacy?

Show us a BSE test which is licensed and available to local veterinarians to use, and has a reasonable chance of finding BSE in an animal under 20 months of age, and I MAY reconsider my stand on that.

Attempting to cut a trade deal and telling a foreign country we will not buy what they want to ship to us if they do not allow us to put a product in their markets for the consumers to either buy or reject certainly is not "forcing" them to do anything! The Korean agents would be cagey 'horse traders'. They have been out-negotiating us on this issue for quite a while now, with no consequences to their trade, whatever.

BTW, I had an error in my post on NCBA convincing USDA to change the Canadian beef import proposal back in 2005. It did NOT include cattle, but only beef from cattle over 30 months. And NCBA did prevail despite AMI pushing the original USDA proposal. And the change was the reason the so called 11 points were no longer necessary, as the appropriate cattle producer state leaders so decided in the phone conference, as I've told you previously. Your '11 point horse' is dead, so you may as well quit beating it!

MRJ

 

[Tam]

Your model of "openness and honesty" is the one hiding behind a pen name? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now that's funny!

Have you been able to find anything that can prove that what is posted on Swift Horses is not true Yet SANDHUSKER????
Have you talked to Brent or Dennis about their quotes or Jan about the finances RANDY? Come on prove that those hiding behind that pen name are lieing I CHALLENGE YOU. :wink: :lol:

Two questions;
How can I challenge what Swift Horses wrote when I'm not interested in even reading it?
Why would I need to prove anything to you?

So you are not interested in reading the truth Sandhusker. scared it might burst your R-CALF balloon? :wink:

 

[RobertMac]

RobertMac how much did you know about R-CALF finances prior to Swift Horses.com putting it all out on their web page?

Did you know that even though Bill Bullard claimed R-CALF had 18,000 members which was adjusted down to 15,000 due to the miscount of Family members, that there was only about 11,500 that renewed their memberships? BTW according to R-CALF's website membership page R-CALF only has single memberships worth $50 so how much is a family membership and what constitutes a family?

Did you know Bill got $5 per new member? Now that you do know have you questioned the discrepancies in the membership list like Jan has?

Did you know that, even though Bill claimed at your annual convention you had about $256,000, you still owed $400,000 to your DC lawyers and that R-CALF was truly in debt?

Did you know that the R-CALF Lawyers gave your lawsuit a 99.9% chance of loosing but since you had that .1% chance of winning that some on your board voted to go ahead and file another expensive lawsuit?

Just how open and honest was R-CALF with their membership when some are blackballed from mailing lists and board meeting by the CEO?

Did you see any of this coming so soon after your annual convention?

If R-CALF had been so open and honest with they membership in the past there would have been no need for Swift Horses.com to fill you in on what your lawyers are still owed and what they said about your chances of winning your court cases. :wink:

Tam, if I ever had thoughts of getting out of R-CALF, you changed my mind. Like SH, you do more to hurt your cause than help. Thank you!

So RobertMac does this divertion mean you didn't know any of these things that Swift Horses brought to light?? :wink:

It means it's none of your business.

 

[Tam]

Tam, "The US is selling beef that was inspected to the same standards US beef is so WHERE IS THE FRAUD? "

What does the label say?

USDA INSPECTED Sandhusker. What will the consumer think the BSE tested label IMPLIES???

Tam, "Sandhusker how many people have died from eating beef that was not tested for Hormones?"

The same number that has died from eating tested beef.

Can you prove the beef the 150 some that have died from vCJD was not tested? I'll ask again how many have died from Hormones in their beef? does hormones in beef present a genuine risk of death like Cebull claims BSE beef does?

Tam, "And in the US are those that can afford to buy tested beef the only ones that deserve to know whether their beef is safe or not??"

Unless you're saying that untested beef is less safe than tested, you're not making sense.

When the consumer sees the tested label will they think it is somehow safer?If not why bother testing????

Will those that can't afford the tested, buy the beef or will they buy chicken thinking the untested is somehow less safe?

Most informed people know the test is not for food safety, so why use it for a marketing tool?

Tam,"If Creekstone forces the whole industry...."

You can stop right there. Creekstone isn't gong to force the whole industry to do a dang thing. Did somebody selling hormone free force the whole industry to do anything?

HORMONE TESTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A PRECIEVED RISK OF DEATH SANDHUSKER. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Tam]

Tam, if I ever had thoughts of getting out of R-CALF, you changed my mind. Like SH, you do more to hurt your cause than help. Thank you!

So RobertMac does this divertion mean you didn't know any of these things that Swift Horses brought to light?? :wink:

It means it's none of your business.

Typical R-CALF comment :wink: :wink: :lol: :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "USDA INSPECTED Sandhusker."

Is everything that carries that label actually inspected by the USDA as the label says?

Tam, "Can you prove the beef the 150 some that have died from vCJD was not tested? I'll ask again how many have died from Hormones in their beef? does hormones in beef present a genuine risk of death like Cebull claims BSE beef does? "

Geeeeeze. Can you prove nobody had died as a result of hormones in their beef? :lol: Some people claim hormones cause a lot of health problems, but I guess if death isn't one of those problems, they don't matter, eh?

Tam, "When the consumer sees the tested label will they think it is somehow safer?If not why bother testing????

You can apply the exact same to hormone free or "natural".

Tam, "Will those that can't afford the tested, buy the beef or will they buy chicken thinking the untested is somehow less safe?"

Exactly how much do you think a $20 test on a 1400lb animal is going to raise the price of 1 lb. of hamburger?

Do you ever stop and think before typing these idiotic questions?

Tam, "Most informed people know the test is not for food safety, so why use it for a marketing tool? "

Does Creekstone get involved in your marketing plans?

 

[mrj]

Tam, "USDA INSPECTED Sandhusker."

Is everything that carries that label actually inspected by the USDA as the label says?

Tam, "Can you prove the beef the 150 some that have died from vCJD was not tested? I'll ask again how many have died from Hormones in their beef? does hormones in beef present a genuine risk of death like Cebull claims BSE beef does? "

Geeeeeze. Can you prove nobody had died as a result of hormones in their beef? :lol: Some people claim hormones cause a lot of health problems, but I guess if death isn't one of those problems, they don't matter, eh?

Tam, "When the consumer sees the tested label will they think it is somehow safer?If not why bother testing????

You can apply the exact same to hormone free or "natural".

Tam, "Will those that can't afford the tested, buy the beef or will they buy chicken thinking the untested is somehow less safe?"

Exactly how much do you think a $20 test on a 1400lb animal is going to raise the price of 1 lb. of hamburger?

Do you ever stop and think before typing these idiotic questions?

Tam, "Most informed people know the test is not for food safety, so why use it for a marketing tool? "

Does Creekstone get involved in your marketing plans?

Sandhusker, you ask "does Creekstone get involved in your marketing plans?" Yes, they do because the implication is that tested beef is safer beef.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Tam, "USDA INSPECTED Sandhusker."

Is everything that carries that label actually inspected by the USDA as the label says?

Tam, "Can you prove the beef the 150 some that have died from vCJD was not tested? I'll ask again how many have died from Hormones in their beef? does hormones in beef present a genuine risk of death like Cebull claims BSE beef does? "

Geeeeeze. Can you prove nobody had died as a result of hormones in their beef? :lol: Some people claim hormones cause a lot of health problems, but I guess if death isn't one of those problems, they don't matter, eh?

Tam, "When the consumer sees the tested label will they think it is somehow safer?If not why bother testing????

You can apply the exact same to hormone free or "natural".

Tam, "Will those that can't afford the tested, buy the beef or will they buy chicken thinking the untested is somehow less safe?"

Exactly how much do you think a $20 test on a 1400lb animal is going to raise the price of 1 lb. of hamburger?

Do you ever stop and think before typing these idiotic questions?

Tam, "Most informed people know the test is not for food safety, so why use it for a marketing tool? "

Does Creekstone get involved in your marketing plans?

Sandhusker, you ask "does Creekstone get involved in your marketing plans?" Yes, they do because the implication is that tested beef is safer beef.

MRJ

Who are you to say that it isn't, MRJ? Some people like to buy higher priced dog food and now we are finding out it has a lot of the same ingredients and same manufacturer as the less expensive brand. Some people buy branded butter, some do not. Lots of times it is made at the same place. Lots of people buy this brand of sugar over that brand of sugar and it is manufactured at the same place--just different bags. Almost any brand name can be bought with a knockoff. Some tout better ingredients, some tout little leprecons who make these products (keebler and lucky charms). In all of these cases, the basic ingredients and often the manufacturing process is done at the same place and yet you want not allow people in beef to differentiate and sell their product.

Who do you think you are, god? You are fooled by every argument that the packers and NCBA put forth that appeals to your self interest--often at the expense of other producers or the market as a whole. If you don't want to provide hormone free, don't do it. You don't have the right to stop others no more than you have the right to stop all the branded products in the U.S.

Why do you want to deny the right of anyone to differentiate their product from yours to get a better price unless you think everyone should stay with commodity beef?

More and more you reveal yourself as a packer momma.

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Sandhusker, you ask "does Creekstone get involved in your marketing plans?" Yes, they do because the implication is that tested beef is safer beef."

The guys who sell "hormone free" or "natural" imply the same! Do you have a problem with them? What about the Certified Angus folks - aren't they implying Angus is better? If not, why are they pushing the "Angus" name to city people who couldn't tell a Holstein from a Brahman?

When did this rediculous notion that "implying" anything about your product was illegal? Did you pick that up from SH? Pay attention to the commercials on TV and radio - every damn one of them implies something!

MRJ, you really need to mull things over before blindly accepting them.

 

[Tam]

MRJ, "Sandhusker, you ask "does Creekstone get involved in your marketing plans?" Yes, they do because the implication is that tested beef is safer beef."

The guys who sell "hormone free" or "natural" imply the same! Do you have a problem with them? What about the Certified Angus folks - aren't they implying Angus is better? If not, why are they pushing the "Angus" name to city people who couldn't tell a Holstein from a Brahman?

When did this rediculous notion that "implying" anything about your product was illegal? Did you pick that up from SH? Pay attention to the commercials on TV and radio - every damn one of them implies something!

MRJ, you really need to mull things over before blindly accepting them.

Sandhusker do you know what the level of Hormones are in hormone treated beef compared to untreated or say in Cabbage or Soybean oil?

 

[Mike]

do you know what the level of Hormones are in hormone treated beef compared to untreated or say in Cabbage or Soybean oil?

There are "Estradiols", "Progesterones", and "Testosterones" in cabbage?

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Sandhusker, you ask "does Creekstone get involved in your marketing plans?" Yes, they do because the implication is that tested beef is safer beef."

The guys who sell "hormone free" or "natural" imply the same! Do you have a problem with them? What about the Certified Angus folks - aren't they implying Angus is better? If not, why are they pushing the "Angus" name to city people who couldn't tell a Holstein from a Brahman?

When did this rediculous notion that "implying" anything about your product was illegal? Did you pick that up from SH? Pay attention to the commercials on TV and radio - every damn one of them implies something!

MRJ, you really need to mull things over before blindly accepting them.

Sandhusker do you know what the level of Hormones are in hormone treated beef compared to untreated or say in Cabbage or Soybean oil?

I don't buy hormone free beef. Makes no difference what I know about it. Sounds to me that you're trying to make an arguement that hormone free is "implying" something...... which is confusing since I haven't seen you speak out against the hormone free implications as you have the testing implications. A little double standard?

 

[mrj]

Econ, it is you, not I, who has the superiority complex. I don't call anyone who disagrees with me an "idiot", or claim they are being "fooled", though it appears more and more as though you are being led in your thinking and 'ideas' by some politics quite foreign to those that made the USA strong. Your cutesy attempts at clever name calling are so boring!

Where have I ever said others should not be able to produce organic, natural or hormone free beef?

I have stated, and will with my dying breath, that people who attempt to frighten consumers into believing that beef is more residue free or better for human health than is conventionally produced beef where production has followed the rules for use of medication, so called 'hormones' feed, pesticides, etc. UNLESS they have the records to prove that my beef is contaminated, provided by an independent lab verified by proper authorities for accuracy, at their cost, since they accuse me of producing substandard beef.

You can produce all such beef you want, but CANNOT bad mouth my beef to make your mega bucks for your so called PRISTING beef. You should be able to sell it honestly simply by stating how it is raised, but no unfounded claims. Is that clear enough? No more lies about what I have said without proof, please!

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Econ, it is you, not I, who has the superiority complex. I don't call anyone who disagrees with me an "idiot", or claim they are being "fooled", though it appears more and more as though you are being led in your thinking and 'ideas' by some politics quite foreign to those that made the USA strong. Your cutesy attempts at clever name calling are so boring!

Where have I ever said others should not be able to produce organic, natural or hormone free beef?

I have stated, and will with my dying breath, that people who attempt to frighten consumers into believing that beef is more residue free or better for human health than is conventionally produced beef where production has followed the rules for use of medication, so called 'hormones' feed, pesticides, etc. UNLESS they have the records to prove that my beef is contaminated, provided by an independent lab verified by proper authorities for accuracy, at their cost, since they accuse me of producing substandard beef.

You can produce all such beef you want, but CANNOT bad mouth my beef to make your mega bucks for your so called PRISTING beef. You should be able to sell it honestly simply by stating how it is raised, but no unfounded claims. Is that clear enough? No more lies about what I have said without proof, please!

MRJ

MRJ, you are free to believe the way you raise beef is just as good as any other. Other people are free to believe otherwise if they chose to do so. You are free to make your case as you see fit. Others have the same right. Telling others they do not have this right is trying to make someone believe what you believe. In all of the cases cited, the people producing the product have the right to say what their product does nor does not contain in their method of production, as long as it is true. Whether that puts you at an advantage or disadvantage in your method of production is up to you by employing your specific method of production and by consumers who might judge you by it.

Europeans have the right to say if they will allow hormone free, gmo free, or any other standard they chose. They don't need you telling them to change those beliefs just as consumers don't need you telling them to change their beliefs. The war of ideas will be won by the free mind, not those coerced by force or intimidation. This isn't a totalitarian govt. yet. You are free to make your case and others are free to make theirs.

 

[Tam]

MRJ, "Sandhusker, you ask "does Creekstone get involved in your marketing plans?" Yes, they do because the implication is that tested beef is safer beef."

The guys who sell "hormone free" or "natural" imply the same! Do you have a problem with them? What about the Certified Angus folks - aren't they implying Angus is better? If not, why are they pushing the "Angus" name to city people who couldn't tell a Holstein from a Brahman?

When did this rediculous notion that "implying" anything about your product was illegal? Did you pick that up from SH? Pay attention to the commercials on TV and radio - every damn one of them implies something!

MRJ, you really need to mull things over before blindly accepting them.

Sandhusker do you know what the level of Hormones are in hormone treated beef compared to untreated or say in Cabbage or Soybean oil?

I don't buy hormone free beef. Makes no difference what I know about it. Sounds to me that you're trying to make an arguement that hormone free is "implying" something...... which is confusing since I haven't seen you speak out against the hormone free implications as you have the testing implications. A little double standard?

First of all Sandhusker Nobody buys hormone free beef as there is no such thing, anybody buying Hormone tested as Hormone free is buying a fraud. The amount of estrogen in a 6 oz piece of treated beef is only 1.2 ng more than in untreated, Treated has 3.8 ng and untreated has 2.6 ng. compare that to 4 oz. of cabbage with 2,700 ng. I dare say I would rather eat hormone treated beef over coleslaw if there was ever a threat from hormones in food. :wink:

Second where did I ever say I agreed with selling beef labeled Hormone tested as Hormone Free? I think it is also a fraud but just not as big of fraud as selling BSE tested knowing consumers will see it as BSE free. Creekstone was will to sell a preception and you were willing to support it as long as you don't have to pay for it. Well Sandhusker you will be paying for it if US consumers demand it because they see Japan getting 100% tested. Consumers are willing to pay a bit extra if they think they are buying a speciality item but if they think it is just like all the other beef in the counter they will not pay extra. count on it. Gas prices are going up and the food budget will take the hit. :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, I've never heard of "hormone tested" beef. What are you talking about?

Yes, Creekstone will largely be selling perception. What's wrong with that? The CAB folks do the exact same thing. Creating and selling perceptons on your product is a basic part of marketing. Look what Adolph Coors does with "Brewed with Rocky Mountain Spring Water" and all their commercials with Pete Coors in the snowy mountains. They're selling the perception that the water they use is superior to other's and translates into a superior beer. There is nothing wrong with marketing a perception - that's the way it's done.

Explain to me why US consumers will demand tested beef just because Japan is getting it when they're not demanding the under 20 month product Japan is getting now. Let's hear it, Tam.

 

[Mike]

Sandhusker wrote: Tam, I've never heard of "hormone tested" beef. What are you talking about?

At one time the EU was testing for xenobiotic hormones in 100% of the US beef that was imported there.

They later dropped the testing to 20% of shipments.

Then they dropped to random tests only.

I figure this is what will happen to the BSE tests with the Japs.
*******************************************************
Brussels, 20 February 2002

Hormone free beef from the USA: Additional testing requirements lifted

The imports of non-hormone treated US beef to the EU have been subject to increased testing requirements since September 99. The latest results of this testing programme carried out for hormones on US beef imports have not identified any positive findings of hormones in fresh beef or offal. In the light of these encouraging results, the Standing Veterinary committee (SVC) has given a favourable opinion to a proposal of the European Commission to repeal the requirement for 20% of consignments of meat imported from the USA to be tested for the possible presence of hormones. As soon as this decision is adopted by the European Commission and comes into force, non-hormone treated cattle products from the US will be tested for presence of any residues on a random basis like any other meat imports from third countries.

Following the discovery of traces of growth-promoting xenobiotic hormones in meat imported from the United States of America the authorities in the United States of America suspended their hormone-free cattle programme in July 1999, and re-launched it in September 1999, in an enhanced form as the non-hormone-treated cattle programme. The EU put in place additionally an enhanced system of controls on all imports of fresh bovine meat and offal, excluding bison meat and offal, which foresaw testing for the presence of hormones in all incoming consignments

In September 2000 the obligatory frequency of checks was reduced from 100% to 20%, and Member States were permitted to test and release consignments, without detaining them pending receipt of test results.

 

[mrj]

Econ, as you do so often, you read something into my post that I did not write!

I did NOT say people have no right to believe as they choose; nor to raise their cattle as we/they choose, nor to promote the product as they choose.

What I did say is that IF they say their product is SAFER than other beef, they should have to PROVE that it is, not simply SAY that it is with no verification of fact to support their CLA

It does seem reasonable that people raising organic beef and making such claims without proof, and people falling for it and demanding all beef be so produced would ultimately drive down the price of organically produced beef, destroying the premiums so needed to cover the additional costs of producing it.

I do not care if people or governments choose to raise their beef to their own standards, and choose organic beef, ONLY that they may not claim that other beef is dangerous without proving that it is.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Econ, as you do so often, you read something into my post that I did not write!

I did NOT say people have no right to believe as they choose; nor to raise their cattle as we/they choose, nor to promote the product as they choose.

What I did say is that IF they say their product is SAFER than other beef, they should have to PROVE that it is, not simply SAY that it is with no verification of fact to support their CLA

It does seem reasonable that people raising organic beef and making such claims without proof, and people falling for it and demanding all beef be so produced would ultimately drive down the price of organically produced beef, destroying the premiums so needed to cover the additional costs of producing it.

I do not care if people or governments choose to raise their beef to their own standards, and choose organic beef, ONLY that they may not claim that other beef is dangerous without proving that it is.

MRJ

MRJ, it is perfectly fine for people to make the assumption that organic is better FOR THEM. Many, many of the products of the agribusiness serving this industry sell items that have not been tested sufficiently. Feeding MBM to cattle is one case in point. People have a right to chose to bypass this system when these products have not been tested thoroughly.

No one is saying that everyone must follow suit, NO ONE.

You can make your case that using some of these products in your production system is safe even without these extensive studies if you want to. Too many people know that they are being used as guinea pigs. The recent drug cases show that. People have the right to make the inference that our government is not scientifically vetting many of these drugs used in food production and have the right to buy them if they want.

I don't happen to believe that every agribusiness drug is bad for you but if I want to chose to pay more money for methods of production that do not use them, I have that right. The amount of beef that is taken off the market by these purchases increases beef consumption. That should make you happy.

Asbestos, Viox, phen phen, tobacco, pet food and a lot of other products have been taken off the market or have been forced to disclose the risks before the sale. People have the right to advertise that their methods of production do not employ artificial hormones, funny feed ingredients, non theraputic drugs, etc.

The absence of proof that these things are totally safe can be construed by some that they are not safe. Some people don't like the idea that they are being used as guinea pigs. They have a right to pay for that system of production if they want to. Farmers/ranchers have a right to service those people with those products even if you don't want to. They even have a right to claim that since their products do not contain production methods or inputs that are not fully tested are safer than those that do, EVEN WITHOUT YOUR OR THE USDA's or FDA's APPROVAL.

 

[RobertMac]

MRJ, how do you know all conventional practices are safe? Remember it was this same body of scientist that proclaimed feeding bovine MBM to bovines was a safe practice...how'd that work out?????????????? Oh, but it was efficient for the industry and would return more money to the producers...instead, it created the biggest headache the industry has had to face. Producers should be damn mad and questioning everything the input segment of agri-business is selling us...uh, y'all!!! :wink: