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

BSE FREE!

Mike

Well-known member
It has been said many times on here that BSE tested animals are NOT BSE FREE. Well...........how about UNTESTED animals being BSE FREE?

Now who is perpetuating a hoax?

Did the Wash Cow not go into the food chain and head for Japan?

Read this letter carefully. :lol: :lol:
----------------------------------------------------------


BSE



December 10, 2001

Honorable Ann M. Veneman
Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Secretary Veneman:

As you know, the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Japan is continuing to contribute to a huge market loss for U.S. beef exporters, processors and producers. This dramatic drop in exports is, of course, being translated into significantly lower U.S. cattle prices and contributing to an overall decline in U.S. agricultural exports.

All facets of the beef industry have worked closely in an effort to restore Japanese consumer confidence and revitalize this market. USDA officials have been extremely cooperative and have provided excellent information and representation on this issue both in the U.S. and Japan. The entire industry is extremely appreciative of these efforts.

The technical information supplied by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has been helpful in providing assurance to the Japanese meat trade that US beef products are safe. We also very much appreciate the work done by the Department, including your personal involvement, in connection with the recently released Harvard Risk Assessment.

Our beef exports to Japan, however, continue to be severely depressed. To assist in restoring confidence in U.S. beef, Japanese importers of our beef have strongly recommended that a formal "BSE Free" statement be included on all export certificates issued for shipments of U.S. beef to Japan. The U.S. beef industry fully agrees with this recommendation.

Accordingly, we request that USDA provide appropriate language on all export certificates indicating that rigorous monitoring and testing have demonstrated that BSE is not present in the U.S. cattle herd. We are confident that the inclusion of such a statement on each export certificate will help restore Japanese consumer confidence in U.S. beef, rebuild this critically important market, and strengthen U.S. cattle prices.

Thank you for the support you have provided. We would greatly appreciate your assistance on this additional matter.

Sincerely,



American Meat Institute
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
U.S. Meat Export Federation
 

Mike

Well-known member
Come on guys! Don't you see the irony in this?

Had the USDA went along with the request and stuck a "BSE FREE" sticker on meat for Japan, and all the while the WASH cow was on the way to Japan until they turned the boat around. And God only knows how many more were missed.

THEY WERE GOING TO DECLARE U.S. BEEF BSE FREE BEFORE WE REMOVED SRM's OR HAD A SCREENING PROCESS!
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Maybe the 'voice of US producers" should tell the USDA that they are corrupt one more time, that will probably get them moving faster.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Maybe the 'voice of US producers" should tell the USDA that they are corrupt one more time, that will probably get them moving faster.

No Murgen. The irony is that the USDA did the right thing this time because they HAD to have known that BSE was gonna jump up and slap them in the face.

The "Voice" of the NCBA and the AMI was over ruled in this case. Thank goodness.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen said:
That's my point Mike, emphasis positives in public and negatives behind closed doors.

The "closed door" meetings only include packer interests. That is the problem, Murgen. There is no balance.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
USDA downplays seriousness of mad cow disease found in Alabama********************************************************************
Mad cow disease was recently confirmed in a cow in Alabama, according to two tests conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Even so, the USDA seems just as reluctant as usual to admit that U.S. herds continue to be infected with mad cow disease. Even though the results of this second test have been announced, there is a whole lot of spin from the USDA on trying to suppress the severity of this news -- so let me translate it into plain English for you.
First, this positive result is from the second test conducted on this particular cow in Alabama. The first test also produced a positive result, but it was a less precise test -- one that's faster and less expensive to conduct. When the first test produced a positive result, the USDA declared it to be "inconclusive" -- that's USDA doublespeak for the word "positive." They call it inconclusive because they don't want to use the word "positive" anywhere near mad cow disease. But you'll notice that the USDA never proclaims a negative result on this initial low-cost screening to be inconclusive -- it's simply called "negative" and it doesn't bother with any other testing. In other words, this testing system is frighteningly unscientific. If the first test is so inaccurate as to be considered inconclusive by the USDA, then how does it know that a negative result on the first test is sound?
Perhaps a negative result is also inconclusive and this test is completely useless. On the other hand, if the test is useful -- that is, if it is accurate enough to be able to declare a cow free of mad cow disease -- then why is it called inconclusive when a cow tests positive?
The answer, of course, has nothing to do with science but everything to do with food politics and USDA efforts to protect the U.S. beef industry. In fact, many of the top people who work at the USDA used to be key executives, public relations people or marketing people working for various meat industry groups in the United States. It's no surprise that they would want to protect the industry they are supposed to be regulating.
 
Top