bse-tester
Well-known member
It appears that some on this board are spending far too much time bickering about who, what, when and why BSE is or is not in Canada, others demand proof that it is or is not. Then, to compound the bickering, others are stating that it is or is not in the USA while others argue that it is not until valid and solid proof shows that it is. Then we read that the argument includes the feed ban issue, the congressman/woman issue - as to who is supporting the USDA or is not and to top it off, we get into the R-Calf arguments which go on and on and on.
You people are truly amazing and apparently have forgotten the facts while you continue to bicker on about a subject that is simply not just going to fade away so you can all go home and watch re-runs of Bucky Beaver or the Jack Benny Show.
BSE is alive and well in Canada and the USA. Science has shown that until the CFIA and the USDA engage in 100% testing of all animals susceptable to TSE's and destined for human consumption, the risk will be ever-present. Sure, the numbers of animals tested has been increased - big hairy freaking deal. Now the Canadian and US Governments are testing a few thousand head more per year. But what about the other few million head that are not tested????
The USDA relies, as does the CFIA, on the fact that the OIE has given them - Can ada and the USA - an equal rating now regarding the risk of BSE. But that still doesn't remove the risk.
Yes, Canadian animals still have a remote risk of being contaminated. Animals in the USA still have a remote risk of having some contaminated animals also. Yes, government scientists and the bean counters have determined that the risk is minimal - much like the automakers have done in the past and still do when they use terms like "..faulty brakes may occur but then we consider those remote factory defects to be acceptable risks."
But people still die due to faulty brakes!!
Without 100% testing it is impossible to determine whether or not BSE has been totally and completely removed from the national herds of both Canada and the USA. Or from any other country's national herd for that matter. That is an indisputable fact so please people, why continue to bicker and throw insults at each other when constructive critiscim of those people in power who make the decisions for either enhanced food safety or decisions that still include some risk to the consumers.
I would like to pose a few simple questions and ask who can provide a convincing argument against them??
Suppose you test 15% of the national herd and find only one or two BSE positives. What garrantee do you have that the other 85% is not also containing some positives??
Suppose you stand and watch the meat inspector visually inspect the cattle as they walk down the ramp to the kill floor without stumbling or showing any clinical signs of having BSE and the inspector passes those animals and then passes them again when he inspects the carcasses as they go through the processing departments. How can he possibly tell if that animals is carrying BSE if they fall into the 85% of non-tested animals?
Suppose you see truck load after truck load of cattle crossing the Canadian/USA border [both directions] and those animals fall into the non-tested group also? What then do you say if for any reason, an animal is at the feed lot for a while prior to slaughter and then begins to show clinical signs of BSE? What then would you say if that animal never made it to the feed lot and went instead straight into the kill floor??
All the ranting, bickering, insults and rhetoric regarding BSE is pointless in light of the fact that this issue will never go away. Sure, ranchers will always be aware that BSE has been a curse on all of them and has cost many of them more than they care to mention. But the fact is real and it is ever-present and that is that BSE is still here - in both countries so people, deal with it.
Ranchers and producers now are faced with the ugly fact that only the Cargyll's and the Tyson's are making money and the prices that these plants are willing to pay is nothing short of an insult to the producers who have not only endured the BSE crisis but also the rest that life has thrown at them and to survive this mess they will have to come to grips with the fact that although BSE is still here, it can be managed and managed properly. The current method of risk management is nothing short of being criminal in my opinion because it caters only to the plants and not to the producers. Time will tell.
I know that some will answer me with their usual rhetoric about how I want only to make money with 100% testing and I expect that from those who still cannot see the real truth behind my reasons for wanting it to happen. Consider this:
What will 100% testing provide the producer? Will it provide for enhanced sales because that is what consumers may wish to see? Will it open up markets heretofor close to their product? Will it provide no more arguments and lame excuses from government?
The benefits of 100% far outway the negatives of not doing it.
I know I would rather test all animals for all the right reasons, enhanced product sales, more acceptable markets, total and complete food safety and the total erradication of TSE risk within the human food chain.
Anyone who doesn't want that level of safety is only thinking about their own bottom line and how much money they can stuff into the jeans and that people, is the truth and you know it!! How sad we have become when we put dollars before health and food safety.
So before you load for bear and come at me with both barrels blazing, think about it. BSE ain't goin' nowhere people - not until we get serious about!
You people are truly amazing and apparently have forgotten the facts while you continue to bicker on about a subject that is simply not just going to fade away so you can all go home and watch re-runs of Bucky Beaver or the Jack Benny Show.
BSE is alive and well in Canada and the USA. Science has shown that until the CFIA and the USDA engage in 100% testing of all animals susceptable to TSE's and destined for human consumption, the risk will be ever-present. Sure, the numbers of animals tested has been increased - big hairy freaking deal. Now the Canadian and US Governments are testing a few thousand head more per year. But what about the other few million head that are not tested????
The USDA relies, as does the CFIA, on the fact that the OIE has given them - Can ada and the USA - an equal rating now regarding the risk of BSE. But that still doesn't remove the risk.
Yes, Canadian animals still have a remote risk of being contaminated. Animals in the USA still have a remote risk of having some contaminated animals also. Yes, government scientists and the bean counters have determined that the risk is minimal - much like the automakers have done in the past and still do when they use terms like "..faulty brakes may occur but then we consider those remote factory defects to be acceptable risks."
But people still die due to faulty brakes!!
Without 100% testing it is impossible to determine whether or not BSE has been totally and completely removed from the national herds of both Canada and the USA. Or from any other country's national herd for that matter. That is an indisputable fact so please people, why continue to bicker and throw insults at each other when constructive critiscim of those people in power who make the decisions for either enhanced food safety or decisions that still include some risk to the consumers.
I would like to pose a few simple questions and ask who can provide a convincing argument against them??
Suppose you test 15% of the national herd and find only one or two BSE positives. What garrantee do you have that the other 85% is not also containing some positives??
Suppose you stand and watch the meat inspector visually inspect the cattle as they walk down the ramp to the kill floor without stumbling or showing any clinical signs of having BSE and the inspector passes those animals and then passes them again when he inspects the carcasses as they go through the processing departments. How can he possibly tell if that animals is carrying BSE if they fall into the 85% of non-tested animals?
Suppose you see truck load after truck load of cattle crossing the Canadian/USA border [both directions] and those animals fall into the non-tested group also? What then do you say if for any reason, an animal is at the feed lot for a while prior to slaughter and then begins to show clinical signs of BSE? What then would you say if that animal never made it to the feed lot and went instead straight into the kill floor??
All the ranting, bickering, insults and rhetoric regarding BSE is pointless in light of the fact that this issue will never go away. Sure, ranchers will always be aware that BSE has been a curse on all of them and has cost many of them more than they care to mention. But the fact is real and it is ever-present and that is that BSE is still here - in both countries so people, deal with it.
Ranchers and producers now are faced with the ugly fact that only the Cargyll's and the Tyson's are making money and the prices that these plants are willing to pay is nothing short of an insult to the producers who have not only endured the BSE crisis but also the rest that life has thrown at them and to survive this mess they will have to come to grips with the fact that although BSE is still here, it can be managed and managed properly. The current method of risk management is nothing short of being criminal in my opinion because it caters only to the plants and not to the producers. Time will tell.
I know that some will answer me with their usual rhetoric about how I want only to make money with 100% testing and I expect that from those who still cannot see the real truth behind my reasons for wanting it to happen. Consider this:
What will 100% testing provide the producer? Will it provide for enhanced sales because that is what consumers may wish to see? Will it open up markets heretofor close to their product? Will it provide no more arguments and lame excuses from government?
The benefits of 100% far outway the negatives of not doing it.
I know I would rather test all animals for all the right reasons, enhanced product sales, more acceptable markets, total and complete food safety and the total erradication of TSE risk within the human food chain.
Anyone who doesn't want that level of safety is only thinking about their own bottom line and how much money they can stuff into the jeans and that people, is the truth and you know it!! How sad we have become when we put dollars before health and food safety.
So before you load for bear and come at me with both barrels blazing, think about it. BSE ain't goin' nowhere people - not until we get serious about!
