Canadian Consumers have a Choice for their Health!!!

[Tam]

Tam, "Remember Sandhusker None I say NONE of our BSE positive cattle ever stepped foot in a Canadian slaughter plant. That is one of the main reasons our system should show most consumers we have a stricter set of rules"

And you've had 4 post-ban cases. That shows some of those rules aren't being followed. Doesn't matter how strict your rules are of you don't follow them.

You still haven't shown any "new science".

Gee you caught me Sandhusker no "new science" just old policies that went against all the old science that stated there was no need to ban anything if rules were being followed. AND the USDA realizing that those old policies could be the down fall of the US beef industry in the event of BSE being found in the US herd, if they weren't updated. To bad they have been so busy tried up in court with your ignorance that they have yet to find time to update those firewalls that Leo spouts you have. :wink:

I have a question for you Sandhusker if the USDA was to ban all beef coming from a country affected by BSE would they not be breaking their own rules by allowing US producers to sell their BSE affected BEEF to US consumers? :shock: Since firewalls and safeguards don't seem to matter only that a country has been found to have BSE in their herd no matter how little, why should the USDA allow the sale of US beef to US consumers it is affected by BSE isn't it?

Hurling insults about rule breaking when you live in a country that lost their exoprts to your prized Japanese market just a month after regaining it because of RULE BREAKING is funny Sandhusker. Not to forget the US contaminated feed recall that we are yet to see the effects from. Come on Sandhusker rule breaking is not just a Canadian problem.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Gee you caught me Sandhusker no "new science" just old policies that went against all the old science that stated there was no need to ban anything if rules were being followed. AND the USDA realizing that those old policies could be the down fall of the US beef industry in the event of BSE being found in the US herd, if they weren't updated."

You're mistaken about that "old science" stating no bans. The "old science" that has yet to be updated, corrected, etc... called for zero tolerance.

Tam, "To bad they have been so busy tried up in court with your ignorance that they have yet to find time to update those firewalls that Leo spouts you have."

Thier change of policy without any scientic rhyme nor reason puts US producers at risk of losing everything, and we're not supposed to challenge them. OK, Tam.

Tam, "I have a question for you Sandhusker if the USDA was to ban all beef coming from a country affected by BSE would they not be breaking their own rules by allowing US producers to sell their BSE affected BEEF to US consumers?"

No. That policy was on importing. Trade within our borders is neither considered importing or exporting.

Tam, "Since firewalls and safeguards don't seem to matter only that a country has been found to have BSE in their herd no matter how little, why should the USDA allow the sale of US beef to US consumers it is affected by BSE isn't it?"

According to the USDA, we have 5 cases tops. That means that we have virtually none.

 

[Tam]

Tam, "Gee you caught me Sandhusker no "new science" just old policies that went against all the old science that stated there was no need to ban anything if rules were being followed. AND the USDA realizing that those old policies could be the down fall of the US beef industry in the event of BSE being found in the US herd, if they weren't updated."

You're mistaken about that "old science" stating no bans. The "old science" that has yet to be updated, corrected, etc... called for zero tolerance.

Tam, "To bad they have been so busy tried up in court with your ignorance that they have yet to find time to update those firewalls that Leo spouts you have."

Thier change of policy without any scientic rhyme nor reason puts US producers at risk of losing everything, and we're not supposed to challenge them. OK, Tam.

Tam, "I have a question for you Sandhusker if the USDA was to ban all beef coming from a country affected by BSE would they not be breaking their own rules by allowing US producers to sell their BSE affected BEEF to US consumers?"

No. That policy was on importing. Trade within our borders is neither considered importing or exporting.

Tam, "Since firewalls and safeguards don't seem to matter only that a country has been found to have BSE in their herd no matter how little, why should the USDA allow the sale of US beef to US consumers it is affected by BSE isn't it?"

According to the USDA, we have 5 cases tops. That means that we have virtually none.

So Sandhusker is the USDA not in charge of all the food safe issues with in the US? and if they are to ban the importing of beef that may risk the US consumers, why would they not ban domestic food supplies that put those same consumers at risk for the same reason the imported is putting them at risk? Is the GENUINE RISK OF DEATH LESS IF IT ORIGINATES FROM WITHIN THE US. :wink:

And according to the OIE , the group of EXPERTS that look at all the Science and set the rules, of which the US is a member and that the USDA was encouraged to follow when rewriting your import/export rules, state,

Except for short trade suspensions during investigation period following a new epidemiological event, it is of particular concern to the OIE that many countries apply trade bans when an exporting country reports its first case of BSE without conducting a risk analysis as described un the Code. Such situtations penalize countries with a good and transparent surveillance system for animal disease----

Now Sandhusker, the OIE report on our industry stated that we should be emulated so who do you think was transparent about our BSE?

I guess the fact that the OIE (THE EXPERTS OF WORLD HEALTH ISSUES) recommended that the US

take a leadership roll in adopting import/export policy in accordance with international standards and thus encourage the DISCONTINUATION OF IRRATIONAL TRADE BARRIERS when countries identify their first case of BSE

has no scientic rhyme nor reason. :roll:

According to the USDA, we have 5 cases tops. That means that we have virtually none

Funny how you take the USDA's word for only having five cases within the US but when they tell you there is little to no risk of importing BSE from Canada you call them a bunch of liars and take them to court to stop them. :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "So Sandhusker is the USDA not in charge of all the food safe issues with in the US? and if they are to ban the importing of beef that may risk the US consumers, why would they not ban domestic food supplies that put those same consumers at risk for the same reason the imported is putting them at risk? Is the GENUINE RISK OF DEATH LESS IF IT ORIGINATES FROM WITHIN THE US."

Didn't you hear that the USDA says we don't have BSE here? Why would they place a ban because of a disease they think is virtually nonexistant.

Tam, "And according to the OIE , the group of EXPERTS that look at all the Science and set the rules, of which the US is a member and that the USDA was encouraged to follow when rewriting your import/export rules, state, Quote:
Except for short trade suspensions during investigation period following a new epidemiological event, it is of particular concern to the OIE that many countries apply trade bans when an exporting country reports its first case of BSE without conducting a risk analysis as described un the Code. Such situtations penalize countries with a good and transparent surveillance system for animal disease---- Now Sandhusker, the OIE report on our industry stated that we should be emulated so who do you think was transparent about our BSE? "

I don't really care what the OIE has to say. They were created to facilitate trade, not be experts on health. You obviously don't believe fully in them either as you ignore the "effective feed ban" requirements they came up with.

Tam, "I guess the fact that the OIE (THE EXPERTS OF WORLD HEALTH ISSUES) recommended that the US Quote:
take a leadership roll in adopting import/export policy in accordance with international standards and thus encourage the DISCONTINUATION OF IRRATIONAL TRADE BARRIERS when countries identify their first case of BSE
has no scientic rhyme nor reason. "

If they are experts on world health, why are they always talking about trade? Figure it out. They're NOT the experts the USDA consulted when they set the zero-tolerance policy.

Quote:
According to the USDA, we have 5 cases tops. That means that we have virtually none

Tam, "Funny how you take the USDA's word for only having five cases within the US but when they tell you there is little to no risk of importing BSE from Canada you call them a bunch of liars and take them to court to stop them."

Funny how you doubt them when they say there are only five cases , but you think they should be believed when they say it is safe to trade with Canada. I can provide a sound arguement against importing beef from BSE positive countries, can you provide anything other than opinion that we have more cases?

 

[jdst]

A major source of difficulty is when "experts" assert their influence in areas which are none of their business. An example is the quote in Tam's post:

Except for short trade suspensions during investigation period following a new epidemiological event, it is of particular concern to the OIE that many countries apply trade bans when an exporting country reports its first case of BSE without conducting a risk analysis as described un the Code. Such situtations penalize countries with a good and transparent surveillance system for animal disease----

Of concern to OIE should be suspension minimums and other preventive measures. For example:
If a two-month quarantine is necessary, the OIE should state that, and complain about people who quarantine for four weeks. Someone going further than the minimum two months and quarantining for a year may be silly, and may not be overly scientific, but they are erring on the side of caution and will not endanger anyone.
It is the same, or perhaps even worse, when trade "experts" manipulate science because it isn't to their liking.

 

[Tam]

Tam, "There you go again blaming the imports for not being able to eliminate it. Forget the imports, Sandhusker how will you eliminate your strain if you don't KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM OR WHAT CAUSED IT? The true statement is the US will never eliminate BSE as they have no idea where to start cleaning up the US STRAIN OF IT.
So say Leo didn't lie then why can't those firewalls that were designed to protect from and eradicate the native feed transmitted strain of BSE (that strain that is in Canada not in the US) not protect and eradicate it if it is imported to your system???? If Leo is so sure it will catch all the NATIVE CASES and eliminate them from the system what makes him think it will miss the imported cases? Are imported cattle slaughtered to a different less stringent set of rules or something Sandhusker?

One more question Sandhusker How many Federal vets and inspectors inspect US cattle before they hit the US slaughter floor compared to the amount that inspect the health of Canadian cattle being imported to the US for slaughter?

-------------------------------------------------------------
Tam, it does't matter what strain you have. They're both considered BSE. If we get rid of ours, but import yours, we still have BSE, don't we?

If you took the time to read Leo's entire statement (better yet, have somebody read it to you) Leo was calling for tougher firewalls. You and him agree that we need to strenghten them.

I don't know about your vets question.

When are you going to present this "new science"?

If we get rid of ours, but import yours, we still have BSE, don't we?,

Sandhusker according to your fearless leader you have had firewalls IN PLACE for years, to handle our strain, it according to LEO should be a NON-ISSUE. Your problem lies in the fact you don't have any idea how to stop the spread of your strain and if you can't stop it HOW DO GET RID OF IT???? Come on Sandhusker HOW DO YOU GET RID OF YOUR BSE WHEN YOU DON"T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT?


I don't need to have anyone read it Sandhusker I heard him say it with my own ears and I have replayed the tape and listen to it again just to make sure I heard right the first time. Leo said

"we know if we are going to keep consumer confidence we are going to maintain some of the highest standards in the world to make sure that BSE is not introduced into this country. And we are going to make sure we have the best meat and bone meal ban in this country in place. So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue. If we look them right in the eye and say that I will guarantee they will keep eating beef".

Now I know you don't know what "maintain" means, but do you know what "the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years." means? That means you have to have had these firewalls IN PLACE for many years prior to June 2005 and guess what you didn't have them IN PLACE IF R-CALF is still working on GETTING THEM PASSED BY THE USDA over a year after BSE was found in your herd!!!! How many more comment periods will it take to get your feed ban up to excluding Chicken Crap Sandhusker? Then how many more will it take to get all ruminant by products ban from ALL animal feed? That will get you close to what Canada has now but by then will Canada have made a few other needed changes that will put you behind AGAIN.


About the vet question, let me help you, the animals leaving Canada are inspected before they leave Canada, again at the border before entering the US and then they would be subject to the same inspection if not more at the slaughter plant that your cattle are. So if a health problem was to slip by, which animal do you guess would be more likely to be missed the one coming from Canada that has been inspected by numerous Federal vets every step of the way to the US plant and again at the plant or the US animal that is loaded and hauled in and dropped at the plant? :???:

 

[jdst]

Feed Bans

This is an interesting avenue of discussion, because animals born after the feed bans have tested positive. Why so?

Most of the argument here seems put the blame on the evil producer who is out there feeding cows to cows because... ...and that's where the discussion stops.

None of the producers I know who create their own feed have any equipment for mixing animal matter in their feed. They mix various hays and grasses, sileages and grains to get what they believe to be the maximum yield. Some go strictly for weight others for quality and aim for grading bonuses or higher prices from their own marketing efforts.

So from whence comes the bad feed?

Both our countries test imported feed - and amazingly enough if you check out the refused shipments on the appropriate websites, most of the refused shipments are for 'banned material' and most of those are from large multinationals.

IMHO the multi's know exactly what they're doing and do it anyway. They produce feed from anything they can get their hands on cheaply, and sell it domestically (on both sides of the border) because domestic product isn't checked, or at least not as consistently, as product crossing a border.

Why?? Because they are chasing the almighty dollar and because they can get away with it. If OT uses ABC feed and get a BSE positive, the universal answer is "OT did it!" Horse s**t!! ABC did it.

 

[Tam]

Tam, "So Sandhusker is the USDA not in charge of all the food safe issues with in the US? and if they are to ban the importing of beef that may risk the US consumers, why would they not ban domestic food supplies that put those same consumers at risk for the same reason the imported is putting them at risk? Is the GENUINE RISK OF DEATH LESS IF IT ORIGINATES FROM WITHIN THE US."

Didn't you hear that the USDA says we don't have BSE here? Why would they place a ban because of a disease they think is virtually nonexistant.

Tam, "And according to the OIE , the group of EXPERTS that look at all the Science and set the rules, of which the US is a member and that the USDA was encouraged to follow when rewriting your import/export rules, state, Quote:
Except for short trade suspensions during investigation period following a new epidemiological event, it is of particular concern to the OIE that many countries apply trade bans when an exporting country reports its first case of BSE without conducting a risk analysis as described un the Code. Such situtations penalize countries with a good and transparent surveillance system for animal disease---- Now Sandhusker, the OIE report on our industry stated that we should be emulated so who do you think was transparent about our BSE? "

I don't really care what the OIE has to say. They were created to facilitate trade, not be experts on health. You obviously don't believe fully in them either as you ignore the "effective feed ban" requirements they came up with.

Tam, "I guess the fact that the OIE (THE EXPERTS OF WORLD HEALTH ISSUES) recommended that the US Quote:
take a leadership roll in adopting import/export policy in accordance with international standards and thus encourage the DISCONTINUATION OF IRRATIONAL TRADE BARRIERS when countries identify their first case of BSE
has no scientic rhyme nor reason. "

If they are experts on world health, why are they always talking about trade? Figure it out. They're NOT the experts the USDA consulted when they set the zero-tolerance policy.

Quote:
According to the USDA, we have 5 cases tops. That means that we have virtually none

Tam, "Funny how you take the USDA's word for only having five cases within the US but when they tell you there is little to no risk of importing BSE from Canada you call them a bunch of liars and take them to court to stop them."

Funny how you doubt them when they say there are only five cases , but you think they should be believed when they say it is safe to trade with Canada. I can provide a sound arguement against importing beef from BSE positive countries, can you provide anything other than opinion that we have more cases?

Didn't you hear that the USDA says we don't have BSE here? Why would they place a ban because of a disease they think is virtually nonexistant.

I guess Phyllis was wrong then and the Texas and Alabama cows didn't test POSITIVE. You have BSE, Phyllis proved that beyond a doubt. And if the USDA was to stand on their policy of banning beef coming from a country after finding ONE CASE then they should have ban the selling of US beef for the protection of US consumer after the TEXAS COW WAS FOUND.

I don't really care what the OIE has to say.

Gee now you don't care, what happen, did you stop caring about the same time the OIE made the statement about how R-CALF was mistaken about the OIE guidelines. :wink:

They were created to facilitate trade, not be experts on health.

Oh Sandhusker :shock: , taken from the OIE web site

The OIE collects and analyses the latest scientific information on animal disease control. This information is then made available to the member countries to help them to improve methods used to control and eradicate these diseases. The OIE provides technical support to members countries requesting assistance with animal disease control and eradication operations including disease tranmissible to humans. The OIE notably offers expertise to the poorest countries to help them control animal diseases that cause livestock losses, present a risk to public health and threaten other member countries. The OIE develops normative documents relating to rules that member countries can use to protect themselves from disease without setting up unjustified sanitary barriers. OIE standards are recognised by the World Trade Organization as reference international sanitary rules. They are prepared by elected Specialist Commission and by Working Groups, bringing together internationally renowned scientists, most of whom are EXPERTS within the network of Collaborating Centres and Reference Laboratories that also contribute towards the scientific objectives of the OIE

These are the people you say were created to facilitate trade. Yea right Sandhusker. :roll:
I think my favorite OIE rules is

"The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it's measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market"

When do you think the US will start applying the measures they think other countries should follow Sandhusker?

If they are experts on world health, why are they always talking about trade? Figure it out. They're NOT the experts the USDA consulted when they set the zero-tolerance policy.

:roll:

Their job is to, in their own words, "develops normative documents relating to rules that member countries can use to protect themselves from disease without setting up unjustified sanitary barriers. when they told the USDA to adopt import/export rules that reflect the international standards it was to discontinue the irrational trade barriers set up by SANITARY BARRIERS the their team of RENOWN EXPERTS FELT WERE UNJUSTIFIED. And no they were not the experts the USDA used to set their old policies but look what the old policy got you Sandhusker, ban from all exports and a lose of how many billions of dollars in exports because of what? UNJUSTIFIED SANITARY BARRIERS that lead to IRRATIONAL TRADE BARRIERS :roll:

Funny how you doubt them when they say there are only five cases , but you think they should be believed when they say it is safe to trade with Canada.

Doubting your test results and what the USDA wants people to believe is not hard if you look at the fact that the Nov. Texas cow was not found until seven months later and when the USDA announces the cut back in US testing just days after they found the second positive. But that has nothing to do with our cattle and the risk they may or may not represent Sandhusker. If you have the firewalls Leo claims you have IN PLACE then our cattle being processed in your plants should be NO MORE OF AN ISSUE THAN YOUR CATTLE BEING PROCESSED IN THOSE SAME PLANTS. Either the safeguards that the US has will protect and eliminate all BSE imported or domestic or they won't which is it Sandhusker? If Canadian cattle can't safely be processed in the US plants what makes you think yours can? And if yours can't then how can you sleep at night knowing you are putting US consumers in a Genuine risk of death situation????

I can provide a sound arguement against importing beef from BSE positive countries, can you provide anything other than opinion that we have more cases

As I can see it the only sound argument coming from you would be because of the risk that beef may represent to the health of your consumers and herd. BUT if you use that sound argumant won't you be telling your US CONSUMERS that your US beef represents that same risk as the US is a BSE POSITIVE COUNTRY. And if they agree with your sound arguement will they still be buying your US beef that represents a risk to their health? See Sandhusker by bad monthing our beef you are putting doubt into the minds of every consumer that can think for him/herself about the safety of YOUR BSE POSITIVE BEEF.

And yes Sandhusker it may be my opinion that you have more than five cases, but it was also my opinion that you would find BSE in your native herd but I think you probably denied that too. I was asked in Jan 2005, if I thought the US had BSE in their native herd and I told the person "yes and it will be found as soon as someone retests that Nov cow." And low and behold Phyllis did and proved me RIGHT. Now if we could just get the USDA to test the same animals, to the same percentage as Canada tests, it is just my opinon but I think you will find more than five. BUT that all depends on the honesty of the US producers as they will have to turn over they dead and dieing cattle for testing like we do in Canada and not shoot shovel and deny can you do that Sandhusker. :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Now I know you don't know what "maintain" means, but do you know what "the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years." means? That means you have to have had these firewalls IN PLACE for many years prior to June 2005 and guess what you didn't have them IN PLACE IF R-CALF is still working on GETTING THEM PASSED BY THE USDA over a year after BSE was found in your herd!!!! How many more comment periods will it take to get your feed ban up to excluding Chicken Crap Sandhusker? Then how many more will it take to get all ruminant by products ban from ALL animal feed? That will get you close to what Canada has now but by then will Canada have made a few other needed changes that will put you behind AGAIN. "

Tam, what is the glory in being intentionally thick? Leo has been calling for stronger firewalls, no doubt about it. He says they're not good enough. Knowing this, why in the world would he then allude to them being strong enough? Hint: It because he wasn't. He was, once again, calling for stronger firewalls.

The rest of your anti-R-CALF rant is about trying to blame them for the feed bans problems, but you're not smart enough to figure out that you're agreeing with R-CALF!

 

[jdst]

In defence of R-CALF and from a Canadian perspective...

I disagree with the notion that Canadian imports are, in any way, responsible for BSE in the U.S. I know you're going to jump up and down about the first one being a born-in-Canada animal, but if you objectively look into it, you will find not only are there no relationships to suggest it became infected in Canada, but also that there is not even a reasonable chain of custody to suggest the animal identified was the animal infected. Not to mention that the nearest feed manufacturer was being taken to court at the time by USDA for repeatedly failing to comply with feed restrictions and ignoring cease and desist orders.

That being said, however, R-CALF is correct in doing everything possible to prevent the further spread of this or any other disease. Even things which may be minimally effective or not effective at all, if they are done from an 'eliminate the risk' perspective.

Clearly government agencies, even those mandated to protect our welfare and that of our animals, are bureaucracies easily swayed by the politically powerful, and willing to do almost anything to maintain their own control-freak positions. This is a fact of life in more than just our two countries. No-one, from producer to consumer can count on either USDA or CFIA doing the 'right thing'. (That is not to say they won't stomp on a small producer or a local feed mill.)

Canada's producers as represented by our government, by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and as represented by their provincial associations and most provincial governments are really responsible for their own problems. As many of Wal-Mart's suppliers have learned, having a single customer is not good business. The lesson was very clear when the border closed to our livestock.

Was the lesson learned? Before - long before - bitching about R-CALF and their 'protectionism', Canadian producers should be making actual efforts to replace governments and the boards of check-off funded organizations that refuse to change. (Remember the definition of insanity?)

• * 100% testing would have let us in the Japanese market - and taken it from the Americans at that!
  * A hormone ban or hormone testing can open Europe.
  * Support for small, home-grown packers would provide producers with alternative markets.

Clearly the lesson was not learned. Then we go out and vote for Steve the Sycophant (also known as Bush Ultra-Lite) just to make certain we remain a single-customer industry.

OT - we don't ride on American coat-tails, our collective head is too far up your --- for that.

Now, all of you... Stop sniping and start cooperating.

 

[Jason]

jdst, if you had half as much of a clue as you seem to think you do, you'd understand this isn't just a case of we like to bench about Americans or R-calf.

R-calf started from day 1 as an anti Canadian legal fund.

They have lied or misrepresented ideas about the Canadian beef industry, everything from saying we have 53 unfair subsidies now using BSE as an excuse when they are in exactly the same boat as we are.

It's like the captain of the Titanic thinking he won't sink with his ship.

Sandhusker and OT just drink the cool-aid R-cult sells because it's what they want to hear.

Refuting their arguements isn't to try to convince them of anything, it is to get new people here to think before they decide what to believe.

Facts should impact a decision. Nut R-calf has never lets facts get in the way of a good fund raiser.

 

[jdst]

Jason, I think you are missing my primary point so I probably confused the issue by discussing them.

Basically, I believe Canadian producers should be demanding their representative organizations open other markets.

That means doing what it takes, including 100% testing, etc.

When CCA was given some $50 million for marketing the first thing I noticed was a heavy concentration of "Canadian Beef" ads appearing in meatingplace.com news. That while our beef was banned from the U.S. Really good use of their resources.

As to the 53 subsidies, I have producer friends who would really like to get their hands on some of that. Perhaps R-CALF could be convinced to let us know what they are - maybe a list on their web site with links to the application forms.

 

[Sandhusker]

jdst, R-CALF isn't claiming our cases came from Canada, except for the Washington cow. All facts point otherwise - two different strains. We just don't want any new ones to come from ANY BSE positve country.

The rest of your post is right on the money.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

jdst, if you had half as much of a clue as you seem to think you do, you'd understand this isn't just a case of we like to bench about Americans or R-calf.

R-calf started from day 1 as an anti Canadian legal fund.

They have lied or misrepresented ideas about the Canadian beef industry, everything from saying we have 53 unfair subsidies now using BSE as an excuse when they are in exactly the same boat as we are.

It's like the captain of the Titanic thinking he won't sink with his ship.

Sandhusker and OT just drink the cool-aid R-cult sells because it's what they want to hear.

Refuting their arguements isn't to try to convince them of anything, it is to get new people here to think before they decide what to believe.

Facts should impact a decision. Nut R-calf has never lets facts get in the way of a good fund raiser.

I agree with you Jason but I think that number was 103 unfair subsidies. I would sure like to know what they are.

 

[Tam]

Tam, "Now I know you don't know what "maintain" means, but do you know what "the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years." means? That means you have to have had these firewalls IN PLACE for many years prior to June 2005 and guess what you didn't have them IN PLACE IF R-CALF is still working on GETTING THEM PASSED BY THE USDA over a year after BSE was found in your herd!!!! How many more comment periods will it take to get your feed ban up to excluding Chicken Crap Sandhusker? Then how many more will it take to get all ruminant by products ban from ALL animal feed? That will get you close to what Canada has now but by then will Canada have made a few other needed changes that will put you behind AGAIN. "

Tam, what is the glory in being intentionally thick? Leo has been calling for stronger firewalls, no doubt about it. He says they're not good enough. Knowing this, why in the world would he then allude to them being strong enough? Hint: It because he wasn't. He was, once again, calling for stronger firewalls.

The rest of your anti-R-CALF rant is about trying to blame them for the feed bans problems, but you're not smart enough to figure out that you're agreeing with R-CALF!

Sandhusker who knows why Leo says what he says but on any given day the R-CALF message can be taken in two different directions. One day you claim he is asking for higher standards to close loopholes that threaten US beef and consumers and the next day he is buying Washington post ads stating "Everyday U.S. cattle producers bring you the safest beef in the world". Tell us Sandhusker how can your beef be any safer than say Canada's when we both have BSE in our herds AND YOU HAVE LOOPHOLE THAT WE DON"T.
Another Example of a normal R-CALF flip flop "The final rule will expose US consumers to an un-quantified increase in risk from imported products of contracting vCJD, an invariably fatal disease associated with consumption of BSE -contaminated meat" flip "Everyday the U.S. cattle producers bring you the safest beef in the World" :wink: oh I guess the BSE -contaminated meat from US cattle is not putting US consumers at risk of contracting vCJD is it Sandhusker?.
Another "Under no circumstances should the U.S. accept any cattle, beef or beef products from countries that do not maintain identical or more stringent safeguard measures that is presently required or presently proposed in the U.S. which measures have been enforced for at least as long as the U.S. FLIP "We need to implement the same safeguards as CANADA HAS if we are going to import their cattle into our system". I thought Canadian standards were lower than yours Sandhusker now you are to impliment those we ALREADY HAVE. Wouldn't that mean Canada has more stringent safeguards than in the US has?
Another "don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue. flip "why in the world would he then allude to them being strong enough? Hint: It because he wasn't. He was, once again, calling for stronger firewalls." The firewalls to protect the US from BSE have been in place for years according to LEO Sandhuskers.

And Sandhusker I don't blame R-CALF for the feed ban problems. The problem I have with you R-CALFers is you point fingers at our industry in hopes that nobody notices that the US has done nothing about the US problems. All while you tell your consumers you have firewalls in place to protect them if BSE is ever found in the US. When you and I both know more of R-CALFs time has been spent on stopping import trade than implimenting stronger firewall that would protect from ALL BSE IMPORTED OR DOMESTIC. Flip FLOP FLIP FLOP Sandhusker say what ever fits the days agenda is Leo's and R-CALFs MO.

 

[Sandhusker]

OK, Tam, whatever you say. :sure:

 

[Tam]

Tam, "So Sandhusker is the USDA not in charge of all the food safe issues with in the US? and if they are to ban the importing of beef that may risk the US consumers, why would they not ban domestic food supplies that put those same consumers at risk for the same reason the imported is putting them at risk? Is the GENUINE RISK OF DEATH LESS IF IT ORIGINATES FROM WITHIN THE US."

Didn't you hear that the USDA says we don't have BSE here? Why would they place a ban because of a disease they think is virtually nonexistant.

Tam, "And according to the OIE , the group of EXPERTS that look at all the Science and set the rules, of which the US is a member and that the USDA was encouraged to follow when rewriting your import/export rules, state, Quote:
Except for short trade suspensions during investigation period following a new epidemiological event, it is of particular concern to the OIE that many countries apply trade bans when an exporting country reports its first case of BSE without conducting a risk analysis as described un the Code. Such situtations penalize countries with a good and transparent surveillance system for animal disease---- Now Sandhusker, the OIE report on our industry stated that we should be emulated so who do you think was transparent about our BSE? "

I don't really care what the OIE has to say. They were created to facilitate trade, not be experts on health. You obviously don't believe fully in them either as you ignore the "effective feed ban" requirements they came up with.

Tam, "I guess the fact that the OIE (THE EXPERTS OF WORLD HEALTH ISSUES) recommended that the US Quote:
take a leadership roll in adopting import/export policy in accordance with international standards and thus encourage the DISCONTINUATION OF IRRATIONAL TRADE BARRIERS when countries identify their first case of BSE
has no scientic rhyme nor reason. "

If they are experts on world health, why are they always talking about trade? Figure it out. They're NOT the experts the USDA consulted when they set the zero-tolerance policy.

Quote:
According to the USDA, we have 5 cases tops. That means that we have virtually none

Tam, "Funny how you take the USDA's word for only having five cases within the US but when they tell you there is little to no risk of importing BSE from Canada you call them a bunch of liars and take them to court to stop them."

Funny how you doubt them when they say there are only five cases , but you think they should be believed when they say it is safe to trade with Canada. I can provide a sound arguement against importing beef from BSE positive countries, can you provide anything other than opinion that we have more cases?

Didn't you hear that the USDA says we don't have BSE here? Why would they place a ban because of a disease they think is virtually nonexistant.

I guess Phyllis was wrong then and the Texas and Alabama cows didn't test POSITIVE. You have BSE, Phyllis proved that beyond a doubt. And if the USDA was to stand on their policy of banning beef coming from a country after finding ONE CASE then they should have ban the selling of US beef for the protection of US consumer after the TEXAS COW WAS FOUND.

I don't really care what the OIE has to say.

Gee now you don't care, what happen, did you stop caring about the same time the OIE made the statement about how R-CALF was mistaken about the OIE guidelines. :wink:

They were created to facilitate trade, not be experts on health.

Oh Sandhusker :shock: , taken from the OIE web site

The OIE collects and analyses the latest scientific information on animal disease control. This information is then made available to the member countries to help them to improve methods used to control and eradicate these diseases. The OIE provides technical support to members countries requesting assistance with animal disease control and eradication operations including disease tranmissible to humans. The OIE notably offers expertise to the poorest countries to help them control animal diseases that cause livestock losses, present a risk to public health and threaten other member countries. The OIE develops normative documents relating to rules that member countries can use to protect themselves from disease without setting up unjustified sanitary barriers. OIE standards are recognised by the World Trade Organization as reference international sanitary rules. They are prepared by elected Specialist Commission and by Working Groups, bringing together internationally renowned scientists, most of whom are EXPERTS within the network of Collaborating Centres and Reference Laboratories that also contribute towards the scientific objectives of the OIE

These are the people you say were created to facilitate trade. Yea right Sandhusker. :roll:
I think my favorite OIE rules is

"The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it's measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market"

When do you think the US will start applying the measures they think other countries should follow Sandhusker?

If they are experts on world health, why are they always talking about trade? Figure it out. They're NOT the experts the USDA consulted when they set the zero-tolerance policy.

:roll:

Their job is to, in their own words, "develops normative documents relating to rules that member countries can use to protect themselves from disease without setting up unjustified sanitary barriers. when they told the USDA to adopt import/export rules that reflect the international standards it was to discontinue the irrational trade barriers set up by SANITARY BARRIERS the their team of RENOWN EXPERTS FELT WERE UNJUSTIFIED. And no they were not the experts the USDA used to set their old policies but look what the old policy got you Sandhusker, ban from all exports and a lose of how many billions of dollars in exports because of what? UNJUSTIFIED SANITARY BARRIERS that lead to IRRATIONAL TRADE BARRIERS :roll:

Funny how you doubt them when they say there are only five cases , but you think they should be believed when they say it is safe to trade with Canada.

Doubting your test results and what the USDA wants people to believe is not hard if you look at the fact that the Nov. Texas cow was not found until seven months later and when the USDA announces the cut back in US testing just days after they found the second positive. But that has nothing to do with our cattle and the risk they may or may not represent Sandhusker. If you have the firewalls Leo claims you have IN PLACE then our cattle being processed in your plants should be NO MORE OF AN ISSUE THAN YOUR CATTLE BEING PROCESSED IN THOSE SAME PLANTS. Either the safeguards that the US has will protect and eliminate all BSE imported or domestic or they won't which is it Sandhusker? If Canadian cattle can't safely be processed in the US plants what makes you think yours can? And if yours can't then how can you sleep at night knowing you are putting US consumers in a Genuine risk of death situation????

I can provide a sound arguement against importing beef from BSE positive countries, can you provide anything other than opinion that we have more cases

As I can see it the only sound argument coming from you would be because of the risk that beef may represent to the health of your consumers and herd. BUT if you use that sound argumant won't you be telling your US CONSUMERS that your US beef represents that same risk as the US is a BSE POSITIVE COUNTRY. And if they agree with your sound arguement will they still be buying your US beef that represents a risk to their health? See Sandhusker by bad monthing our beef you are putting doubt into the minds of every consumer that can think for him/herself about the safety of YOUR BSE POSITIVE BEEF.

And yes Sandhusker it may be my opinion that you have more than five cases, but it was also my opinion that you would find BSE in your native herd but I think you probably denied that too. I was asked in Jan 2005, if I thought the US had BSE in their native herd and I told the person "yes and it will be found as soon as someone retests that Nov cow." And low and behold Phyllis did and proved me RIGHT. Now if we could just get the USDA to test the same animals, to the same percentage as Canada tests, it is just my opinon but I think you will find more than five. BUT that all depends on the honesty of the US producers as they will have to turn over they dead and dieing cattle for testing like we do in Canada and not shoot shovel and deny can you do that Sandhusker. :wink:

Sandhusker responce was

Tam, what is the glory in being intentionally thick? Leo has been calling for stronger firewalls, no doubt about it. He says they're not good enough. Knowing this, why in the world would he then allude to them being strong enough? Hint: It because he wasn't. He was, once again, calling for stronger firewalls.

The rest of your anti-R-CALF rant is about trying to blame them for the feed bans problems, but you're not smart enough to figure out that you're agreeing with R-CALF!

.

Notice how Sandhusker skipped right passed the information from the OIE web site and discredits by diverting attention with a poor excuse at accusing me of an R-CALF rant when R-CALF was only mentioned once.
What do you have to say for yourself Sandhusker would you like to reread the post and comment on what was actually posted.

1. If the USDA was to have stood on the old policy Would they not have been telling US consumers that US beef was also a risk to human health given you have BSE in your herd and your firewalls are not as stringent as some other countries affected by BSE namely Canada?
2. When did you stop caring what the OIE had to say?
3. If the OIE are not the world health experts as you claim, then why was a certain beef organization (which will remain nameless to avoid accusations of a anti-****** rant :wink: ) trying to us them in their court case against the USDA?
4. What did the USDA old import/export policy get you Sandhusker? (hint ban from all your export markets and billions of dollars in loses)
5. What did the new policy get you? (Hint retained export markets including the Asian markets and retention of the domestic consumers confidence.) Kind of hard to sell your beef when you are banning other countries beef on the basis of unfit for human consumption due to BSE when you HAVE BSE. :wink:
6. If the firewalls the US has came eliminate the risk to consumers as to make BSE a non issue in the US herd why can't they eliminate the risk from imported?
7. Are imported cattle processed to different rules than US cattle?
8. Is the USDA not in charge of the safety of all food supplies in the US?
9. Can your sound argument against imports be given without endangering the consumer confidence in the US beef industry?

Now since you don't like it when a person doesn't answer your questions directly I expect you will be forthcoming with all the answers to the questions I have asked you OR don't expect any answer from anyone else if you divert or drop the subject.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "
1. If the USDA was to have stood on the old policy Would they not have been telling US consumers that US beef was also a risk to human health given you have BSE in your herd and your firewalls are not as stringent as some other countries affected by BSE namely Canada?
2. When did you stop caring what the OIE had to say?
3. If the OIE are not the world health experts as you claim, then why was a certain beef organization (which will remain nameless to avoid accusations of a anti-****** rant ) trying to us them in their court case against the USDA?
4. What did the USDA old import/export policy get you Sandhusker? (hint ban from all your export markets and billions of dollars in loses)
5. What did the new policy get you? (Hint retained export markets including the Asian markets and retention of the domestic consumers confidence.) Kind of hard to sell your beef when you are banning other countries beef on the basis of unfit for human consumption due to BSE when you HAVE BSE.
6. If the firewalls the US has came eliminate the risk to consumers as to make BSE a non issue in the US herd why can't they eliminate the risk from imported?
7. Are imported cattle processed to different rules than US cattle?
8. Is the USDA not in charge of the safety of all food supplies in the US?
9. Can your sound argument against imports be given without endangering the consumer confidence in the US beef industry?

Now since you don't like it when a person doesn't answer your questions directly I expect you will be forthcoming with all the answers to the questions I have asked you OR don't expect any answer from anyone else if you divert or drop the subject.

========================================

Oh, jeeeeeeeze.

1) The US consumers don't seem to be too concerned, I don't hear much on SRM removal - and we wouldn't be doing that if there wasn't a risk. The change in policy certainly wasn't foresight, it was money.

2) I never started. I don't believe foreign entities should be telling the US what they can and can't do.

3) If the OIE is a health organization, why to they talk about trade? Do you ever see the AMA (American Medical Assn) say what can and can't be done in trade? Figure it out. Of course R-CALF is referencing the OIE - the USDA is using selected "guidelines" in the reasoning. How can you then argue against them without also referencing them?

4) Our old policy gave us the highest degree of safety possible. You need to consult a calendar, Tam. We lost our markets in December 2003, which was AFTER the rules were changed for the Canadian trade.

5) Keeping that calendar handy, I guess that new policy must of cost us our markets.

6) Firewalls only work if the rules are being followed. As evident by the post ban cases in a country that imports to us - one case born 5 years after the ban, it's obvious the rules aren't being followed by everybody.

7) Not that I know of, although Korea requires that we keep your seperate from ours. I guess that "new" policy didn't allay their concerns much.

8) Yes, that is their job.

9) Yes. I can say, "Canada has cattle 4 years old who were born 5 years after a feed ban that was supposed to halt the spread of the disease. By closing the border, the likes of that animal won't cross the border." That not only wouldn't endanger the industry, but would assure consumers.

Here's a question for you, Tam. The "old" policy was supposed to be based on the best science and knowledge of the disease. The "new" policy is supposed to be based on same. Other than learning that we have much more to learn on the disease, we don't know anything that we didn't when the "old" policy was established. Therefore, either the "old" policy was wrong, or the "new" one is wrong. Which one is it and why?

 

[Tam]

1) The US consumers don't seem to be too concerned, I don't hear much on SRM removal - and we wouldn't be doing that if there wasn't a risk. The change in policy certainly wasn't foresight, it was money.

2) I never started. I don't believe foreign entities should be telling the US what they can and can't do.

3) If the OIE is a health organization, why to they talk about trade? Do you ever see the AMA (American Medical Assn) say what can and can't be done in trade? Figure it out. Of course R-CALF is referencing the OIE - the USDA is using selected "guidelines" in the reasoning. How can you then argue against them without also referencing them?

4) Our old policy gave us the highest degree of safety possible. You need to consult a calendar, Tam. We lost our markets in December 2003, which was AFTER the rules were changed for the Canadian trade.

5) Keeping that calendar handy, I guess that new policy must of cost us our markets.

6) Firewalls only work if the rules are being followed. As evident by the post ban cases in a country that imports to us - one case born 5 years after the ban, it's obvious the rules aren't being followed by everybody.

7) Not that I know of, although Korea requires that we keep your seperate from ours. I guess that "new" policy didn't allay their concerns much.

Yes, that is their job.

9) Yes. I can say, "Canada has cattle 4 years old who were born 5 years after a feed ban that was supposed to halt the spread of the disease. By closing the border, the likes of that animal won't cross the border." That not only wouldn't endanger the industry, but would assure consumers.

Here's a question for you, Tam. The "old" policy was supposed to be based on the best science and knowledge of the disease. The "new" policy is supposed to be based on same. Other than learning that we have much more to learn on the disease, we don't know anything that we didn't when the "old" policy was established. Therefore, either the "old" policy was wrong, or the "new" one is wrong. Which one is it and why?

1. BUT would they have been concerned if the USDA had stood on the old policy and told them that beef from a country affect by BSE was unsafe? And if Oldtimer thinks Canadian producers go along with the fraud of relabeling our meat for money then who was really going to benefit if you reopenned your export markets. I keep hearing Mike say he wants his $175 back would he have any hope of getting it back if the USDA was not able to sell your beef to the Asian markets by changing your import/export rules?

2. Is R-CALF not a foreign entity to the Canadian cattle industry? but you have no problem with them telling us what we have to do. So what is the difference when the OIE the WORLD EXPERTS ON ANIMAL HEALTH tells the US what to do if they want to trade in the global markets? Do you have the right to threaten world consumers just because you happen to live in the USof A.

3. Because that is part of their job . Would you rather we have the likes of you telling other countries well you have to do this if you want to trade with us but we don't have to as we can put you at any risk we want and there is nothing you can do about it as we are bigger than you. At least with some international standards we can all know that the likes of you can't threaten our health just because your bigger.

4. Alot of good that did you, you still got BSE and it didn't come from Canada as it is not the same strain. And Sandhusker you lost your exports BECAUSE YOU FOUND BSE IN THE US and your export markets lost confidence in your system as that animal was in your FOOD CHAIN. It had nothing to do with the fact the rules had been changed. If those rules hadn't been changed do you think you would have been exporting any of your beef now?

5. How were you planning on selling your beef with a policy in place that stated QUARANTINE IS THE ONLY WAY TO HANDLE BSE? What makes you think your consumers both domestic and foreign were going to buy that Canadian beef is contaminated but the US's isn't even though we are both in the minimal risk catagory for BSE? Wheither you want to admit it or not the USDA was right You can't sell US beef if you are claiming beef from a country in the same risk catagory is unfit for human consumption.

6. I agree the firewalls only work if they are followed and it is also obvious that someone in the US was also breaking the rules, hence, all that US contaminated feed that was recalled from the US system. What do you think your consumers are going to think when in about 5 years you are finding multiple cases of BSE do to that contaminated feed or better yet from the still legal feed source of Chicken Crap? especially after Leo told them you had firewalls IN PLACE to protect them from BSE. :wink:

7. Then if their not processed any different, why would the firewall that Leo claimed you had not protect and eliminate imported BSE? especially when the firewalls he was talking about were those that protected from the common old run of the feed mill strain Canada has but not the unknown strain you have?

8. So why do you think you know their job better than they do?

9. What would it matter if the US imported a minutely possible BSE positive animal of any age? I thought LEO said the US has firewalls in place to protect the US consumer from BSE. Why wouldn't those firewalls protect from imported as well? Does the US system have loopholes in those firewalls that will spread BSE or not? and if it does what is stopping the spread of US BSE? What is protecting US consumers from the native BSE if the US system can't protect them for imported? Aren't Canadian cattle health inspected several more times than US cattle before being slaughtered? I thought that the US removes the SRM's from all animals rendering the meat safe for human consumption according to international standards? can you answer these questions without putting doubt into the minds of the US consumer to the safety of US beef?

Your answer Sandhusker, You said yourself the USDA didn't use the OIE EXPERT"S INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS based on the results of the OIE's years of research, to set the old rule. And when the USDA found they were going to be paying the price of not doing so with your high dollar export markets, the USDA most likely decided :wink: that if the US wants to play on the global ball field you are going to have to play by INTERNATIONAL RULES hence the rule change.

 

[Sandhusker]

You never even remotely answered my question, Tam, but that is fine. This will have no end if I don't end it.