Canadian Consumers have a Choice for their Health!!!

[Tommy]

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

Some people on here sure do like to type. Reminds me of long winded politicians. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

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

Some people on here sure do like to type. Reminds me of long winded politicians. :lol:

Just like Billy Clinton- when they get caught with their pants down and can't even rationalize it away in their old minds anymore - they filibuster- until that won't work anymore, then they blame it on a right wing/or R-CALF plot... :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

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

Sandhusker think of it this way Prior to Canadian BSE the whole North American ball team was playing in what we will call the "international no risk league" with no risk rules. But when BSE was found in Canada yes that split the team putting Canada in the Minimal risk league which we all know has it's own set of rules, which if you are not willing to play by the new rules then you will not be playing AT ALL. Now the USDA took a look at the facts and realized it was only a matter of time before the US would be playing in the minimal risk league also. So they did the smart thing they decided to start playing by the Minimal risk rules, so when BSE was found in the US which we all knew it would be and WAS. The transition from the No risk league to the Minimal risk league was smooth for the US as your team leaders the USDA had the rule book out and already playing the game. Therefore your team wasn't benched by ALL the other teams just a few that didn't believe you knew what the rules were and trusted you would play by them. The Japanese allowed you to play but when they found you cheating they benched your team for a short time out to make you realize that rules are for the good of the game and if you want to play follow them NO MORE YOUR RULES MY RULES CRAP we are all on the same ball field and playing by the same international rules

And Did you remotely answer my questions Sandhusker?
Look at this question and answer
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?

and your answer The US consumers don't seem to be too concerned,

What does that have to do with what would have happened if the USDA had stood on the old rule. The USDA did not stand on the old rule and that is probably why your consumers don't seem to be concern.

And tell me Sandhusker why is Canada to listen to R-CALF a foreign entity that only thinks they know something but you don't think the US should have to listen to the OIE, A FOREIGN ENTITY THAT JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE WORLD EXPERTS ON ANIMAL HEALTH of which the US is a member. Are Canadian producers members of R-CALF that makes you seem to think we should have to listen to you as a foreign entity?

The only question that you remotely answer was 8. Is the USDA not in charge of the safety of all food supplies in the US? your answer "Yes, that is their job." Want to try the second part to that question Sandhusker " So why do you think you know their job better than they do?"

As I see it the only one with his pants down Oldtimer is Sandhusker and as usual his R-CALF buddies are coming to cover his *** with demeaning comments. And this "then they blame it on" coming from an R-CALFer Funny Oldtimer FUUNNNNYYYY :lol: Aren't you the one blaming Canadian producers for your local butchers Fraudulent act. Isn't Sandhusker blaming your lost exports on the idea the USDA reopenned the border to our beef? When we all know it was the FACT YOU FOUND BSE IN YOUR HERD which was also in your FOOD CHAIN!!! "They Blame" you live in a blaming camp and you do nothing but point fingers so people don't notice you have DONE NOTHING TO CORRECT THE INJUSTICE. :roll:


And Tommy if there weren't so many Half Wits in the R-CALF organization some people wouldn't have to type so much. :wink: BTW have you figured out where Bill when wrong when he made the statement "The US annually tests 150,000 more cattle than Canada does" I gave you the numbers, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out. :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Dang it, I just can't resist.

Tam, if you would look at what actually happened verses what you think might happen, you will see that other countries have done what they think is in their own interests regardless of what we did. You want to think that the US changing policy for Canada was due to planning and vision and that it opened doors for us that wouldn't of opened for us if we hadn't changed policy. Sounds good, but that notion is not supported by actual events. It didn't budge Japan one bit and actually caused a huge problem in getting Korea back.

I can throw # 8 back at you. You've been highly critical of the USDA's BSE testing. What makes you think you know their job better than them? I think the USDA has mishandled this whole deal about in every imaginable way possible - and it all points to carrying water for the big packers.

What would of happened if the US stood with the old rule? As far as re-opening our markets and dealing with domestic consumers, which seems to be your focus, NOTHING WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT.

Now, which policy was wrong, the "old" or the "new"?

 

[Tam]

Dang it, I just can't resist.

Tam, if you would look at what actually happened verses what you think might happen, you will see that other countries have done what they think is in their own interests regardless of what we did. You want to think that the US changing policy for Canada was due to planning and vision and that it opened doors for us that wouldn't of opened for us if we hadn't changed policy. Sounds good, but that notion is not supported by actual events. It didn't budge Japan one bit and actually caused a huge problem in getting Korea back.

I can throw # 8 back at you. You've been highly critical of the USDA's BSE testing. What makes you think you know their job better than them? I think the USDA has mishandled this whole deal about in every imaginable way possible - and it all points to carrying water for the big packers.

What would of happened if the US stood with the old rule? As far as re-opening our markets and dealing with domestic consumers, which seems to be your focus, NOTHING WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT.

Now, which policy was wrong, the "old" or the "new"?

OH NO Sandhusker No more questions from you until you answer mine with something that resembles an answer, not a stupid remark like,

1. the US consumers don't seem to be too concerned,
When the question was what would have happened if the USDA had stood on the old rule of banning everything? Come on Sandhusker you don't even have to guess as the USDA officials told you. I think they said. It is hard to sell US BSE affected beef when you are not willing to buy beef from other countries in the SAME RISK CATAGORY, IE why should anyone including the US consumers trust US beef if we don't trust anyone elses :wink:
2.I don't believe foreign entities should be telling the US what they can and can't do.
Which is just stupid considering who the OIE is and that the US is a member and that you think EVERYONE, foreigners included should listen to you and your mindless Beef organization. :roll:
3) If the OIE is a health organization, why to they talk about trade?
Sandhusker I posted from their web site that they are the World Experts on Animal Health that research and write the international standards that all member countries, THE US INCLUDED are to use to protect themselves from disease. :roll:
4. We lost our markets in December 2003, which was AFTER the rules were changed for the Canadian trade,
Geez we all know Sandhusker that you lost your exports when BSE was found in your herd and the OIE told you, you couldn't consider it in isolation of your herd due to the volume of trade in cattle and feed ingredients that the US was involved in over the years with other BSE affected countries. :roll:
5. I guess that new policy must of cost us our markets,
Stupid just plain stupid When the new policy had nothing to do with it and we all know it was BSE IN YOUR HERD that was BTW imported under the OLD RULE. :wink:
6) Firewalls only work if the rules are being followed, As evident by the post ban cases in a country that imports to us,
THE question was about US FIREWALLS and how they, according to your leader, can protect from and eliminate BSE within the US industry. If rules aren't being followed in the US what is protecting the US consumers from US BSE Sandhusker? Leo is telling consumers the BSE in the US is a NON-ISSUE because of those firewalls, should we trust what he is saying? :shock:

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.
Sandhusker why would the imported be processed different? :???:

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.

Now Sandhusker if the US firewalls, that Leo was going to tell the US consumers about, ARE IN PLACE, like he said they are for so many years, and are being followed, what should it matter where the animal comes from? If they are being followed the US industry is in no more danger from our cattle than it is from your own cattle!!! How can you tell your consumers our cattle processed in your plants are unsafe without putting doubt in their minds about the safety of the US cattle being processed in those same plants? WE BOTH HAVE BSE IN OUR HERDS. SANDHUSKER!!!!!! :shock:

Don't even bother distracting with a question Sandhusker I want answers.

 

[Sandhusker]

I give up, Tam. Did you learn this Chinese water torture method of debating from SH? You win.

Everything R-CALF has ever said is a lie. The USDA changed policy because of vision and forsight and it saved our industry. Every market we got back was a direct result of opening to Canada. The USDA has always done everything right except in testing.

Do I have it right now?

 

[Tam]

I give up, Tam. Did you learn this Chinese water torture method of debating from SH? You win.

Everything R-CALF has ever said is a lie. The USDA changed policy because of vision and forsight and it saved our industry. Every market we got back was a direct result of opening to Canada. The USDA has always done everything right except in testing.

Do I have it right now?

No Sandhusker Wrong AGAIN I learned the relentless badgering for an answer from YOU. :wink: Did I learn well O MASTER OF BADGERING? Funny how you seem to think others should have to answer your question even though you will never admit they are right. But when you are asked you divert, duck out and run while your R-CALF buddies cover your escape with discrediting comments.

And No Sandhusker, the Truth wins. :nod: You know as well as anyone that if the USDA had stood on the old rule of banning all beef from countries affected by BSE that their actions of doing so would have spoke volumes about how safe they really thought US beef was. You See Sandhusker actions speak louder than words. :wink: The USDA could have told everyone they talk to, including the US consumers, about how safe your beef was but their actions of not changing your import rules to reflect that all beef from a BSE affected country, that have the same if not more stringent safeguards in place than those in the US, is not contaminated, would have been telling them something completely different. :shock: Even the USDA admits to that but Sandhusker you can't because it goes against the R-CALF agenda of using BSE to stop the US beef import trade. And we all know that R-CALF was formed to stop import trade at ANY COST.


AND No Sandhusker R-CALF hasn't lied about EVERYTHING . You do need to strenghten your firewalls . :nod: To bad they hadn't stopped there. :roll:

And Sandhusker You yourself have even been known to try tell the truth once Example " No Half Truths, Just Half Wits"
Since this was you first attempt at truth Sandhusker I'll give you credit for the truth even though it was only a Half truth. Besides I thought there was just one half wit but you are right they is a few HALF WITS in the R-CALF organization. :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "And we all know that R-CALF was formed to stop import trade at ANY COST."

I'm tired of fighing with you, Tam. It's hard enough debating one topic with you let alone 8 at a time. However, I'm not going to let blatant nonsense go. Your above statement is just another wild conjecture not based on fact. It has no truth what-so-ever.

 

[Tam]

Tam, "And we all know that R-CALF was formed to stop import trade at ANY COST."

I'm tired of fighing with you, Tam. It's hard enough debating one topic with you let alone 8 at a time. However, I'm not going to let blatant nonsense go. Your above statement is just another wild conjecture not based on fact. It has no truth what-so-ever.

From the R-CALF web site on the FAQ's

Why was R-CALF USA founded?

In 1998 the R-CALF USA was founded as a foundation to represent and file three trade cases on behalf of the U.S. cattle industry. Trade laws are different from domestic laws in that it is generally required that the domestic industry monitors them and files the appropriate petitions when a trade violation occurs that is damaging U.S. prices.

R-CALF USA filed a live cattle and anti-dumping (selling below the cost of production) case against Canada and Mexico , and a countervailing (subsidy) case against Canada. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in January dismissed the Mexico case. In the summer of 1999, the Department of Commerce (DOC) found that Canada was subsidizing the production of live cattle, but not at a high enough rate to warrant penalty tariffs. The DOC in July of 1999 also found Canada was dumping cattle into the U.S. at a high enough rate to warrant tariffs equivalent to the violation to be put on. The U.S. cattle market saw an immediate improvement in their markets.

Unfortunately, the ITC ruled in November of 1999, contrary to the DOC findings, that U.S. producers were not "materially injured" by the dumping of Canadian cattle and the ITC lifted the anti-dumping tariffs imposed by the DOC.

Add to that this piece also from R-CALF USA

Kathleen Kelley ----She didn't like what was happening in the cattle industry – she had some objections about the U.S. market being flooded with foreign cattle and what she perceived as a cheapening of standards for American beef - so she joined two other cattle producers in 1995; Leo McDonnell, who served as president, and Herman Schumacher, to form Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America as a non-profit organization to sue Canada and Mexico over dumping live cattle. After losing both trade actions, R-CALF became a membership organization in 1999.

Now tell us again how R-CALF wasn't started to interupt or stop trade altogether. They filed three trade lawsuits and when they didn't get the desired result with them they moved on to whatever else they could use to stop the flood of foreign cattle IE TRADE. When the crying about how imports were hurting you financially didn't work on your government, R-CALF moved to BSE with public claims that our beef is a risk to human health if allowed to be imported. R-CALF or I should say LEO even admitted they used the "Consumer Groups" :wink: to get the message out, that import trade from Canada was a risk to the health of the Consumer and the US herd, because of the media attention these groups recieve that small town R-CALF couldn't. Couldn't bet on the courts and the government boys as you didn't get the results you wanted the first three times so you move to public opinion and hopefully pressure to garner support for your failing case against the USDA. Just like the first two cases against Canada you won the first go round but when further looked at it was thrown out. R-CALF went so far this time as to chance destroying consumer confidence in all US beef just to keep the actually small amount you import from Canada (compared to the amount the US slaughters) out of your country. They lied consumers about the health risks from our beef that the US beef magically doesn't have even though we both have BSE and they lied to producers, to get their support, about the reason they were seeing such high cattle prices was because of the lack of Canadian beef being imported. Which was proven to be a lie once Canadian boxed beef was allowed back into your country in record amounts and your cattle prices continued to climb to a level not seem in recent history if ever. The Endless stream of half truths and out and out lies coming from R-CALF is a testament to how far they are willing to go to stop trade.

 

[Sandhusker]

Addressing problems is a far cry from stopping "the import trade at all costs."

R-CALF has voiced concerns and has asked for certain provisions in our import deals - none of which call for stopping the trade. I would think an outfit intent on stopping imports "at all costs" would never give the nod to an import agreement.

You should read your own little end message.

 

[Tam]

Addressing problems is a far cry from stopping "the import trade at all costs."

R-CALF has voiced concerns and has asked for certain provisions in our import deals - none of which call for stopping the trade. I would think an outfit intent on stopping imports "at all costs" would never give the nod to an import agreement.

You should read your own little end message.

Taken from the R-CALF letter to the US Congess just a week after BSE was found in Canada in one pre-feed ban animal.

As a minimum the United States should prohibit the importation of live rumimants from Canada unless "The exact source of the BSE infection is DEFINITIVELY IDENTIFIED; The entire source of the BSE contamination has been COMPETELY ERADICATED and every animal exposed to the source has been IDENTIFIED AND DESTROYED.

Now Sandhusker what was the reaction to your first cases of BSE? I seem to remember there being no interest in her as she was pre feed ban!!!!! Do you know the exact source of your BSE? Does R-CALF care that you don't know? Was the entire source eradicated? Of course not as you don't know where is came from. Have all the animals that were exposed to the same source been Destroyed? OF course not as they weren't Identified were they Sandhusker? Does R-CALF care about these provisions when it comes to the US HERD? No as your cases was "pre feed ban". like ours weren't. :roll:

Another one of those provisions that R-CALF asked for, The US should enter a formal agreement with Canada obligating them( CANADA) to immediately cease all exports and to immediately begin the quarantine process upon a preliminary finding of BSE.
Did R-CALF ask the USDA to cease exports when you found BSE in your herd? I seem to remember them saying something about the US should not resume imports until you have ALL YOUR EXPORTS BACK. Sure a far cry from being obligated to cease exports Sandhusker!!!! AND if you were to live by the same provisions you were asking be implemented on Canada, your exports would never have opened under R-CALF's Exact source identified and eradicated and all animals identified and destroyed rules . But then R-CALF said that the US industry didn't need exports didn't they? Way to set provisions to STOP TRADE. :roll: IT would not have mattered if we did as you asked as our exports were still tagged to yours and by your own rules the US's exports were not likely to open therefore neither would have ours. But who cares right Sandhusker?

 

[Sandhusker]

If you're going to stop all imports at any cost, there is no "unless". You're also only using 1 country in your examples. We import from many.

 

[jdst]

Well, it's not years, but.

I go away for a few days and come back and what do I see? More nationalistic fighting accomplishing what for producers in either country?

I didn't know R-CALF was formed to file an anti-dumping suit. Don't the Canadians on this board find that interesting? I know none of my friends were deliberately selling below the cost of production, were any of you?

We (Canadians) should have filed amicus briefs in support of R-CALF to help stop the rape of our producers by the trans-nats.

... divided we fall - how's your parachute?

 

[Econ101]

Big Banks, Big Oil, Big Food & the WTO and the politicians who serve them - The real 'Axis of Evil'

 

[Tam]

If you're going to stop all imports at any cost, there is no "unless". You're also only using 1 country in your examples. We import from many.

To save time I didn't type the "or any other country" behind the "Canada" in my example, if you want the EXACT WORDING I can go back and get the exact wording that included any and all countries. We were talking about Trade between the US and Canada so I cut out the rest. . But tell us Sandhusker just how many other countries that have been affected with BSE has R-CALF accused of FLOODING the US with live cattle, that you could have used BSE to close imports on?