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

Canada Tightens Testing Requirements

Mike

Well-known member
CFIA tightens BSE screening
Two new initiatives have been implemented to improve the quality of the BSE surveillance program in Canada.

John B. Spigott
Monday July 10, 2006
Lloydminster Meridian Booster — Two new initiatives have been implemented to improve the quality of the BSE surveillance program in Canada.
The first change involves the refining of animal eligibility criteria to reflect changes in international guidelines for BSE surveillance. The most significant change in the criteria Alberta veterinarians look for when examining cattle considered for BSE testing is that those with a body score of ‘1’ or less will no longer be eligible for sampling unless they show clinical signs of an abnormality. A system implemented by the World Animal Health Organization (OIE) has changed the focus from the number of cattle tested for BSE to the degree of risk the animals pose for BSE, according to Dr. Gerald Ollis, chief provincial veterinarian for Alberta.
“Testing millions of healthy animals is viewed by the international community as much less effective than testing a few thousand high-risk animals,” said Ollis in a prepared statement. “So we’re tightening up our criteria so that we can ensure our efforts are getting the highest value and recognition for the available resources.
“Our BSE program is not a cull program and we must not test animals that aren’t high risk for BSE.”
Gerry Ritz, Battlefords-Lloydminster Conservative MP, says narrowing the focus to specific groups will make the system more efficient, and ultimately, more effective.
“It makes sense to have a target group to go after instead of taking an ad-hoc approach,” said Ritz, who also serves as the chair of the Federal Committee on Agriculture. “There will always be people who want to test every available animal, but there’s no sound science anywhere on the globe that says you should be testing more than the animals that are at risk.
“Now rather than doing just the broad strokes, you’re filling in the picture that needs to be filled in.”
Ritz said continued modification of the BSE program shows the government is committed to making the system work, and cited the recent case of a potential positive case of BSE in Manitoba as proof.
“The message is our testing is working,” said Ritz. “We’re bound to find more, there’s no doubt in my mind. We’re allowed a dozen positive tests within an annual basis, and we’re still within the contained minimal outbreak category.”
The second change strengthens feed controls by removing specified risk materials (SRM) from all animal feed, pet food and fertilizers. SRM are tissues that have been shown in infected cattle to contain concentrated levels of the BSE agent. Canada has already applied the same protection to the food system, where SRM are removed from all cattle slaughtered for human consumption.
“This ban tightens already strong, internationally recognized feed controls and shortens the path we must follow to move beyond BSE,” said Chuck Strahl, minister of agriculture and agri-food, in a prepared release. “Preventing all these materials from entering the animal feed chain minimizes risks and demonstrates the commitment ... to address BSE.”
SRM are defined as the skull, brain, trigeminal ganglia (nerves attached to the brain), eyes, tonsils, spinal cord, and dorsal root ganglia (nerves attached to the spinal cord) on cattle aged 30 months or older and the distal ileum (portion of the small intestine) on cattle of all ages. Removing SRM from pet food and fertilizers is intended to mitigate the risk associated with the potential exposure of cattle and other susceptible animals to BSE through the misuse of these products.
“The idea behind it is to make sure there is absolutely no chance of cross-contamination,” said Ritz. “I think it’s gotten a good reception for the most part. I’m not that concerned about a can of dog food, but things like pig feed, chicken feed, things like that where there can be cross-contamination.
“Until we do something different with those SRM’s – you can’t just keep throwing them out in the dump. We need to start realizing how to get value from them, whether it is rendering them down and going into the biofuel industry, or being run through a burner and a scrubber to create gas to power a turbine. The dead loss of value is going to be reflected right back to the farmgate.”
 

TimH

Well-known member
Quote from the article;

“There will always be people who want to test every available animal, but there’s no sound science anywhere on the globe that says you should be testing more than the animals that are at risk.

:D :D :D :D :D Yup!!! :D Especially people that are selling test kits!!!! :D :D :D :D

Stanley Prusiner who??? :D :D Ron Arnold who??? :D :D :D :D :D
 

Econ101

Well-known member
If people want to pay to get tested animals who are you to say no?

The USDA is overstepping its bounds here.

TimH, if you don't want to test, then don't test. You don't have to look at the ultrasound to see if you have a boy or a girl either.

This is the most ridiculous policy that the USDA has come up with.

It shows they have something to hide.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
If people want to pay to get tested animals who are you to say no?

The USDA is overstepping its bounds here.

TimH, if you don't want to test, then don't test. You don't have to look at the ultrasound to see if you have a boy or a girl either.

This is the most ridiculous policy that the USDA has come up with.

It shows they have something to hide.

Econ, where did I say word one about whether I wanted to test or not???
I was merely pointing out that some of the biggest proponents of 100% testing, are the people that are $elling test kit$ and or hold numerous patents on lab procedures.
Try to lay off making $hit up, OK ?? :roll:
 

Murgen

Well-known member
I wonder if after we all start buying tests, the real cause of TSE"s will then be found. If it is found to be environmental, then I guess we'll just have to keep testing, eh? Or use some of them GMO.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
TimH wrote:

Quote from the article;

Quote:
“There will always be people who want to test every available animal, but there’s no sound science anywhere on the globe that says you should be testing more than the animals that are at risk.


Yup!!! Especially people that are selling test kits!!!!

Stanley Prusiner who??? Ron Arnold who???

TimH, you are trying to state that I am in this for the money?? Wrong again pal. I do support 100% testing for a number of reasons and one of them is to provide 100% consumer confidence in the product. Also to provide for 100% Risk Management to the National Herd, not just to a few older animals.

Gerald Ollis has once again showed us that the position of the Alberta Government, the CFIA and other agencies here in Canada refuse to acknowledge that animals younger than 30 months are succeptable to prion disease. They contimue to bury their collective heads in the sand and go on believing that only the older animals are at risk. What a dangerous position to take and at the same time, support the complete and utter disregard for the health and safety of the Canadian consumer.

So TimH, before you write back and pee all over these words, let me ask you this -

How many apparently healthy animals which did not display any BSE clinical symptoms whatsoever, but were carrying the disease, actually walked out of the transport truck, down the ramp and into the slaughterhouse to be turned into the very meat and meat by-products that you and I and thousands of other unsuspecting souls purchased and fed to their families??? One, two, perhaps more???

Only a complete fool would suggest that it never happened! Are you that fool TimH? I think not! Gerald Olis is the fool TimH and a completely stupid one at that to try to smoke up the mirrors this way!

Lastly, it is an absolute fact that most of, if not all of the decisions made at these higher authority levels is influenced by the very agencies that depend on meat sales for their livelyhood. Do you honestly believe that the Tyson's or the Cargill's will want to see 100% testing? Even Bob Church himself told me that until such a time comes along, the testing will be restricted to target numbers and to targeted animals. Good God, the story they put forward about SRM's didbn;t work so what is the next best thing for them to push down our throats. They tried to state that testing would cost hundreds of bucks - that was wrong.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
BSE-Tester. Are you aware of CFIA doing any tests to determine the amount of infectivity of the muscles of any of the BSE postitve animals to date?

If not, it might just be a good idea!
 

TimH

Well-known member
bse-tester said:
TimH wrote:

Quote from the article;

Quote:
“There will always be people who want to test every available animal, but there’s no sound science anywhere on the globe that says you should be testing more than the animals that are at risk.


Yup!!! Especially people that are selling test kits!!!!

Stanley Prusiner who??? Ron Arnold who???

TimH, you are trying to state that I am in this for the money?? Wrong again pal. I do support 100% testing for a number of reasons and one of them is to provide 100% consumer confidence in the product. Also to provide for 100% Risk Management to the National Herd, not just to a few older animals.

Gerald Ollis has once again showed us that the position of the Alberta Government, the CFIA and other agencies here in Canada refuse to acknowledge that animals younger than 30 months are succeptable to prion disease. They contimue to bury their collective heads in the sand and go on believing that only the older animals are at risk. What a dangerous position to take and at the same time, support the complete and utter disregard for the health and safety of the Canadian consumer.

So TimH, before you write back and pee all over these words, let me ask you this -

How many apparently healthy animals which did not display any BSE clinical symptoms whatsoever, but were carrying the disease, actually walked out of the transport truck, down the ramp and into the slaughterhouse to be turned into the very meat and meat by-products that you and I and thousands of other unsuspecting souls purchased and fed to their families??? One, two, perhaps more???

Only a complete fool would suggest that it never happened! Are you that fool TimH? I think not! Gerald Olis is the fool TimH and a completely stupid one at that to try to smoke up the mirrors this way!

Lastly, it is an absolute fact that most of, if not all of the decisions made at these higher authority levels is influenced by the very agencies that depend on meat sales for their livelyhood. Do you honestly believe that the Tyson's or the Cargill's will want to see 100% testing? Even Bob Church himself told me that until such a time comes along, the testing will be restricted to target numbers and to targeted animals. Good God, the story they put forward about SRM's didbn;t work so what is the next best thing for them to push down our throats. They tried to state that testing would cost hundreds of bucks - that was wrong.

Do you ,or your company, stand to profit, financialy, from the sale of each and every test kit your company sells????(if and when it is approved)
This is a yes or no question. :roll: :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
TimH said:
Econ101 said:
If people want to pay to get tested animals who are you to say no?

The USDA is overstepping its bounds here.

TimH, if you don't want to test, then don't test. You don't have to look at the ultrasound to see if you have a boy or a girl either.

This is the most ridiculous policy that the USDA has come up with.

It shows they have something to hide.

Econ, where did I say word one about whether I wanted to test or not???
I was merely pointing out that some of the biggest proponents of 100% testing, are the people that are $elling test kit$ and or hold numerous patents on lab procedures.
Try to lay off making $hit up, OK ?? :roll:

I think bse tester is not the one suing the USDA, or hasn't said so here.

IT IS CREEKSTONE.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
TimH wrote:

Do you ,or your company, stand to profit, financialy, from the sale of each and every test kit your company sells????(if and when it is approved)
This is a yes or no question.

TimH, in the literal sense, the answer is yes - but this is only as a result of the fact that with every sale, there is income and with each income, there is profit. The bottom line is that your question should have been:

"What will my company, or me personally do with any profits that result out of the sales of our test, if and when it becomes approved?"

My answer then would have been, "..distribute the profits among a selected number of Universities, Laboratories, Prion Research Groups and CJD researchers around the world to continue the efforts to find whatever it takes to stop the advance of prion diesease in both animals and humans."

Is that clear enough for you TimH??
 

TimH

Well-known member
bse-tester said:
TimH wrote:

Do you ,or your company, stand to profit, financialy, from the sale of each and every test kit your company sells????(if and when it is approved)
This is a yes or no question.

TimH, in the literal sense, the answer is yes - but this is only as a result of the fact that with every sale, there is income and with each income, there is profit. The bottom line is that your question should have been:

"What will my company, or me personally do with any profits that result out of the sales of our test, if and when it becomes approved?"

My answer then would have been, "..distribute the profits among a selected number of Universities, Laboratories, Prion Research Groups and CJD researchers around the world to continue the efforts to find whatever it takes to stop the advance of prion diesease in both animals and humans."

Is that clear enough for you TimH??

Yup!! I think that is pretty clear. You and or your company literally stand to profit from the sale of each and every test kit you sell. 100% testing means more test kits sold means more profit....clear enough!
What you do with those profits is beside the point. The fact remains that you are obviously in the business of selling tests. No amount of spin or fear mongering can change that. :)
 

Econ101

Well-known member
TimH said:
bse-tester said:
TimH wrote:

Do you ,or your company, stand to profit, financialy, from the sale of each and every test kit your company sells????(if and when it is approved)
This is a yes or no question.

TimH, in the literal sense, the answer is yes - but this is only as a result of the fact that with every sale, there is income and with each income, there is profit. The bottom line is that your question should have been:

"What will my company, or me personally do with any profits that result out of the sales of our test, if and when it becomes approved?"

My answer then would have been, "..distribute the profits among a selected number of Universities, Laboratories, Prion Research Groups and CJD researchers around the world to continue the efforts to find whatever it takes to stop the advance of prion diesease in both animals and humans."

Is that clear enough for you TimH??

Yup!! I think that is pretty clear. You and or your company literally stand to profit from the sale of each and every test kit you sell. 100% testing means more test kits sold means more profit....clear enough!
What you do with those profits is beside the point. The fact remains that you are obviously in the business of selling tests. No amount of spin or fear mongering can change that. :)

If someone wants to buy bse-tester's (or anyone elses) tests, if they cost 10 dollars or 1000 dollars, who cares? It is a private transaction.

When we make the government the sole purveyor of truth, we are all in trouble.

Secretary Johanns has already been caught on that one and has also been caught overseeing GIPSA, a supposed "watchdog" agency to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. He has failed miserably at both as has Ann Veneman. The USDA would not look into the failings of JoAnn Waterfield because the self indictment would have been illuminating and politically embarassing to those who are providing cover for them.



The USDA/NCBA is nothing more than a shell for (specific) packer interests.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
To answer TimH:

TimH wrote:

Do you ,or your company, stand to profit, financialy, from the sale of each and every test kit your company sells????(if and when it is approved)
This is a yes or no question.


BSE Tester wrote:
TimH, in the literal sense, the answer is yes - but this is only as a result of the fact that with every sale, there is income and with each income, there is profit. The bottom line is that your question should have been:

"What will my company, or me personally do with any profits that result out of the sales of our test, if and when it becomes approved?"
My answer then would have been, "..distribute the profits among a selected number of Universities, Laboratories, Prion Research Groups and CJD researchers around the world to continue the efforts to find whatever it takes to stop the advance of prion diesease in both animals and humans."

Is that clear enough for you TimH??

TimH wrote:
Yup!! I think that is pretty clear. You and or your company literally stand to profit from the sale of each and every test kit you sell. 100% testing means more test kits sold means more profit....clear enough!
What you do with those profits is beside the point. The fact remains that you are obviously in the business of selling tests. No amount of spin or fear mongering can change that.

I have no clue at to what you problem is Tim, but it sure as hell appears as if you are pissed at anyone who wants to make a difference. I thought I made my position clear, but you obviously only read that which you wish to see and not what is written. As far as being in the business of selling tests to make a profit, that is certainly not the case. My business is developing a test that is going to be approved - wrap your skull around that idea. It is highly likely that I will seel them once it is approved but as for the profits, I have already explained where they will go. Who knows Tim, maybe through the grants and donations, the scientists may even find a cure for that which has you all spooked about people making a profit! God forbid you ever have to buy a pair of shoes - I can see you arguing with the saleman as to the fact there may be some profit in the sale!!! You do wear shoes in Manitoba Tim????

All companies make a profit of some kind and what they do with that profit IS THE POINT!!! If they use it to buy weapon's grade plutonium and sell it to some idiot to make bombs, then we all have a problem. I chose to give it away! It that so bad - but then, do I really give a rat's arse about what you think in light of your attitude towards the entire idea of what constitutes normal business practices in today's society Tim. You need to take a pill and relax Tim. As for fearmongering, you really need to take another pill Tim, I am not in that game either. All I have stated here is that I am in favor of 100% testing for the sake of the health of the National Herd, he health and safety of the consumer and to provide a better form of Risk Management Protocol to the cattle industry. It is painfully obvious to me that you either have no idea what that means to the cattle industry or you simply have this hate-on for company's that make a profit!! Well, the news is out Tim, all companies make a profit so who are you going to rag on next - perhaps yourself for selling your cattle at a profit and hey, the higher the price, the better you like it huh????? Do you think Prionics is in this game for nothing?? Or BioRad or any of the others?? Man you need to relax and understand what the meaning of words like "Humanitarian, Grant, Donate, Give-away, Scholarships and pre-doctoral internships" mean!! Because my poor conspiracy freaked friend, that is where all our profits will be going! Now, is that clear enough for you???
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
TimH said:
Yup!! I think that is pretty clear. You and or your company literally stand to profit from the sale of each and every test kit you sell. 100% testing means more test kits sold means more profit....clear enough!
What you do with those profits is beside the point. The fact remains that you are obviously in the business of selling tests. No amount of spin or fear mongering can change that. :)

:shock: :shock: :gag: :roll:

Those are all the emoticons I can find that match this situation. I was looking for the 'OMG, did he really just type that?' emoticon too.

So tell me Tim, Telemiracle organization makes a profit from the Telemiracle show, which they donate to worthy causes within Saskatchewan. Does this mean no-one should donate to them, because they make a profit?

Egads.

Rod
 

TimH

Well-known member
Rod and Ron,
Perhaps you two could put your heads together and show where I said that there was anything wrong with making a profit........talk about reading what isn't there!!! :roll: :roll:
Once again, my point is that some of the biggest proponents of 100% testing are the people that are selling test kits. Can you wrap your skull around that idea? :roll:
Obviously there would be some value in an accurate live animal BSE test. I'm not disputing that. Neither am a saying that profits should be outlawed. Far from it.
I'm only pointing out that at least part of what people such as Ron and Prusiner are saying , is obviously a SALES PITCH, and as such should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. They are after all TRYING TO SELL TEST KITS.
I'm going to let your, " You do wear shoes in Manitoba Tim???? ", comment slide Ron, along with most of the rest of your response,where you try to paint me as "anti-profit".
If you really want to get into a mudslinging contest, just try it again. And Rod, are you actually comparing a private ,for profit, company to a charity organization??? :shock: 'OMG, did he really just type that? :D
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
TimH said:
And Rod, are you actually comparing a private ,for profit, company to a charity organization???

You missed the point Tim. It appears as though the company is being run as a non-profit organization, with the profits being given away. That tells me its not someone whose in it for profit, at least not in the way that you're suggesting. If he were sticking the profits into his own pocket, I could see your point, but in this case......

Rod
 

TimH

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
TimH said:
And Rod, are you actually comparing a private ,for profit, company to a charity organization??? :shock: 'OMG, did he really just type that? :D

You missed the point Tim. It appears as though the company is being run as a non-profit organization, with the profits being given away. That tells me its not someone whose in it for profit.

Rod

Rod, Maybe we should ask Ron if his company is a registered charity organization. :)
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
I'm not sure what the rules are within the US, but within Canada, the rules governing charity organizations are very strict. I suspect if BSE-testers company were registered as non-profit, he'd be severely limited in who he could donate funds to. He's better to answer that question, but in the meantime, as long as his profits are going to BSE research, I think producers should be supporting him, not opposing him.

Rod
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
OK Tim, I guess I did come down hard on you, but you must admit, the implication of not liking businesses that make profit was very strong indeed in your wording - I was not the only one who noticed it.

Having said that, our company is currently still in the research phase of our test development and the final stage of that development is the validation process. Once that is done and our test is not only validated but accepted, we will then sit down with our attorney's and our accountants to best dicuss how to distribute the potential "profits."

My experience with so-called "Non-Profit" groups is one that has taught me to be very aware that first of all, government regulation and controls play an extremely hard role in the distribution of the funds and how it is handled. We do not intent to declare a status of "non-profit" for our corporation and then be subjected to any form of government interference or control.

Instead, we are going to provide funds directly from the corporate accounts and have them distributed directly to the locations that have either applied for them or to those who we have noted as being worthy recipients for grants and/or funding. All funding and grants will be distributed on merit and best use potential. You might consider it to be an investment in the future of health-care for both humans and animals - an investment that never has to be repaid and one that we hope will be ongoing.

As of the continuous debating of this topic, it is getting somewhat tiring to have to keep on explaining it - so enough is enough, can we move on please??? I have stated my position a number of times and frankly, it should be clear to all and if it is not, I am sorry, there is no more I can say or even want to say.
 
Top