A
Anonymous
Guest
bse-tester,
I thought long and hard about your response.
In fairness to you and in remaining consistant with my "presumption of innocense" position on other issues, it was not right or fair for me to question your motives. For that I apologize.
I cannot apply one set of "presumption of innocense" standards to one issue and not apply those same standards to your motives as well. For that reason, I have to give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives but I reserve the right to question them.
For all I know, you may have a bse test that is valid and justified. I just happen to have a hard time believing that the agency responsible for food safety in this nation that is receiving criticism and lawsuits from the packers as well as the producers is doing nothing but what the best available science says is best for the safety of the US consumer. If they rejected your BSE test, they must have had a damn good reason.
I find it rather ironic that USDA was being sued by both the packers for not allowing imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age was also being sued by R-CALF for allowing Canadian imports of cattle under 30 months of age. Where's the bias there?
Where is the polticial bias when one considers the number of consumers in relation to the number of packers and the number of producers in this country???
Based on that, I would think it would be a fair assumption to assume that USDA does have the best interests of US consumers in mind despite enduring politically motivated attacks from special interest groups on both sides of the isle.
I am not a bse scientist so I have to trust that the USDA is utilizing the best scientists available and that if they rejected your tests, they did it for justified reasons.
If I was diagnosed with terminal cancer, I am not a doctor, so I have no option but to trust the best minds at the Mayo Clinic and assume that they know what they are doing. I have that same level of confidence in USDA despite the constant criticisms from biased industry blamers.
What I do know about BSE is that, despite all the testing that is being done, a bse positive animal is a rare animal indeed which bodes the question as to what level of bse testing is truly justified. It also appears that the bse precautionary measures taken by the United States and Canada has been working or we would finding more bse positive animals.
I am all for JUSTIFIED measures to protect human safety, but I'll leave the justification up to the experts. You can sit here and easily state why you think your test is justified and have USDA critics feeding out of your hand because nobody is here to refute you. I want to hear why USDA refused your test before I'm going to sink my teeth into the need to bse-test every animal out there.
I can't prove your motives either way. Only you know your true motives. It may not be money and it may not be notoriety but you sure as heck are going to have to do some serious convincing to get any independent thinkers to believe that you have more concerns about consumer safety than the agency taxed with that responsibility.
Again, my apologies for questioning your motive without proof.
~SH~
I thought long and hard about your response.
In fairness to you and in remaining consistant with my "presumption of innocense" position on other issues, it was not right or fair for me to question your motives. For that I apologize.
I cannot apply one set of "presumption of innocense" standards to one issue and not apply those same standards to your motives as well. For that reason, I have to give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives but I reserve the right to question them.
For all I know, you may have a bse test that is valid and justified. I just happen to have a hard time believing that the agency responsible for food safety in this nation that is receiving criticism and lawsuits from the packers as well as the producers is doing nothing but what the best available science says is best for the safety of the US consumer. If they rejected your BSE test, they must have had a damn good reason.
I find it rather ironic that USDA was being sued by both the packers for not allowing imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age was also being sued by R-CALF for allowing Canadian imports of cattle under 30 months of age. Where's the bias there?
Where is the polticial bias when one considers the number of consumers in relation to the number of packers and the number of producers in this country???
Based on that, I would think it would be a fair assumption to assume that USDA does have the best interests of US consumers in mind despite enduring politically motivated attacks from special interest groups on both sides of the isle.
I am not a bse scientist so I have to trust that the USDA is utilizing the best scientists available and that if they rejected your tests, they did it for justified reasons.
If I was diagnosed with terminal cancer, I am not a doctor, so I have no option but to trust the best minds at the Mayo Clinic and assume that they know what they are doing. I have that same level of confidence in USDA despite the constant criticisms from biased industry blamers.
What I do know about BSE is that, despite all the testing that is being done, a bse positive animal is a rare animal indeed which bodes the question as to what level of bse testing is truly justified. It also appears that the bse precautionary measures taken by the United States and Canada has been working or we would finding more bse positive animals.
I am all for JUSTIFIED measures to protect human safety, but I'll leave the justification up to the experts. You can sit here and easily state why you think your test is justified and have USDA critics feeding out of your hand because nobody is here to refute you. I want to hear why USDA refused your test before I'm going to sink my teeth into the need to bse-test every animal out there.
I can't prove your motives either way. Only you know your true motives. It may not be money and it may not be notoriety but you sure as heck are going to have to do some serious convincing to get any independent thinkers to believe that you have more concerns about consumer safety than the agency taxed with that responsibility.
Again, my apologies for questioning your motive without proof.
~SH~