Capital Concerns

[ranch hand]

I thought the membership of NCBA voted against this rule. I wonder how NCBA will voice their concerns? Will they vote for or against this?

USDA Rule to Expand Canadian Trade Expected Soon: The USDA has officially re-submitted a proposal to amend its BSE minimal risk region importation policy to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Currently, the United States only imports live cattle and beef from cattle less than 30 months of age from Canada. The rule, which will expand trade to include older animals, was proposed earlier this year and withdrawn until further analysis and investigations of Canadian feed systems was completed.



NCBA supports taking every measure necessary to protect our nation's herd health and food supply. NCBA policy also supports a science-based approach to trade which means trading beef and cattle of all ages when necessary food safety and animal health standards are met. NCBA will review the proposal, comment accordingly and encourages other cattle industry leaders to do the same.


Further details on the proposal are posted on OMB's website at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoViewRule?ruleID=262154.

 

[Mike]

Good question RH. If you find out, let us know for sure.

Bet you got a good guess now, HUH? :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

$20 bucks say they give it the green light. "They" meaning leadership - thought I had better qualify my statement since leadership doesn't always do what membership says.

 

[Anonymous]

$20 bucks say they give it the green light. "They" meaning leadership - thought I had better qualify my statement since leadership doesn't always do what membership says.

Wasn't that one of the things that brought about the NCBA President's "I guess we weren't listening to our membership" famous/infamous quote before :???:

One of the only things I could believe coming out of an NCBA leaders mouth that year :wink: :lol:

 

[mrj]

You boys only hear/read things to mean what you want it to.

The 27,000 members of NCBA are not worried about leadership getting off track. We know we have control. Convention is just under two months away. We will have a great slate of candidates to choose from, just as we have in the past to put into current leader positions.

Wouldn't you boys like to have a real slate of strong candidates with so many contenders running that it is really difficult for the nominating committee to choose among excellent leadership potential for your organizations?

NCBA is fortunate to have such a 'problem'!

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

$20 bucks say they give it the green light. "They" meaning leadership - thought I had better qualify my statement since leadership doesn't always do what membership says.

Wasn't that one of the things that brought about the NCBA President's "I guess we weren't listening to our membership" famous/infamous quote before :???:

One of the only things I could believe coming out of an NCBA leaders mouth that year :wink: :lol:

What I was referring to was the reversal of the 11 points.

 

[ocm]

I thought the membership of NCBA voted against this rule. I wonder how NCBA will voice their concerns? Will they vote for or against this?

USDA Rule to Expand Canadian Trade Expected Soon: The USDA has officially re-submitted a proposal to amend its BSE minimal risk region importation policy to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Currently, the United States only imports live cattle and beef from cattle less than 30 months of age from Canada. The rule, which will expand trade to include older animals, was proposed earlier this year and withdrawn until further analysis and investigations of Canadian feed systems was completed.



NCBA supports taking every measure necessary to protect our nation's herd health and food supply. NCBA policy also supports a science-based approach to trade which means trading beef and cattle of all ages when necessary food safety and animal health standards are met. NCBA will review the proposal, comment accordingly and encourages other cattle industry leaders to do the same.


Further details on the proposal are posted on OMB's website at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoViewRule?ruleID=262154.

This should be a no brainer. It is a fact that Canada no longer qualifies as a minimal risk region under USDA's science used to create the minimal risk region.

Does the NCBA leadership think that the science has changed in less than two years? I haven't heard anything new. So if NCBA wants a science based trade policy why aren't they squauking about the current situation where USDA is violating its own science?

 

[mrj]

$20 bucks say they give it the green light. "They" meaning leadership - thought I had better qualify my statement since leadership doesn't always do what membership says.

Wasn't that one of the things that brought about the NCBA President's "I guess we weren't listening to our membership" famous/infamous quote before :???:

One of the only things I could believe coming out of an NCBA leaders mouth that year :wink: :lol:

What I was referring to was the reversal of the 11 points.

The action taken on the 11 points was not a reversal, but acknowledgement that movement was going in the right direction, and further, it was NOT a decision by NCBA leadership alone, but with approval of a majority of the state affiliate association leaders via teleconference, approved by the membership at the following meeting. A viable, active association needs some well defined flexibility to allow action between meetings.

Do your organizations' membership call a special meeting each time a decision is needed between annual meetings? Or is it that, since your outfit doesn't change leadership for years at at time, they can speak for you however they want?

BTW, ocm, since when did you guys bother with "science". You will find the internationally accepted science is what NCBA and most of the world uses in decision making. Granted there may be differing ideas of "science", but there has to be some place to draw the line and say "this is what we understand to be the case" re. BSE or any other disease or condition. NCBA aligns with the majority of the world and is open to new, peer reviewed, credible information.

MRJ

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ:

BTW, ocm, since when did you guys bother with "science". You will find the internationally accepted science is what NCBA and most of the world uses in decision making. Granted there may be differing ideas of "science", but there has to be some place to draw the line and say "this is what we understand to be the case" re. BSE or any other disease or condition. NCBA aligns with the majority of the world and is open to new, peer reviewed, credible information.

Do our major trading partners accept the USDA's "sound science"?

 

[ocm]

BTW, ocm, since when did you guys bother with "science". You will find the internationally accepted science is what NCBA and most of the world uses in decision making. Granted there may be differing ideas of "science", but there has to be some place to draw the line and say "this is what we understand to be the case" re. BSE or any other disease or condition. NCBA aligns with the majority of the world and is open to new, peer reviewed, credible information.

MRJ

MRJ

Very funny. Currently it is the USDA neglecting its own science. I will repeat. The USDA supposedly used "science" to establish Canada as a minimal risk region. Canada no longer meets those qualifications established by the USDA that were based on the USDA's science. Now the USDA is ignoring its own science. Will the NCBA allow the USDA to ignore its own science? Or will it stand pat on the USDA's previous science.

Which is the true science. The science that established the minimal risk region or the science that wishes to ignore the standards established for it?

 

[Sandhusker]

BTW, ocm, since when did you guys bother with "science". You will find the internationally accepted science is what NCBA and most of the world uses in decision making. Granted there may be differing ideas of "science", but there has to be some place to draw the line and say "this is what we understand to be the case" re. BSE or any other disease or condition. NCBA aligns with the majority of the world and is open to new, peer reviewed, credible information.

MRJ

MRJ

Very funny. Currently it is the USDA neglecting its own science. I will repeat. The USDA supposedly used "science" to establish Canada as a minimal risk region. Canada no longer meets those qualifications established by the USDA that were based on the USDA's science. Now the USDA is ignoring its own science. Will the NCBA allow the USDA to ignore its own science? Or will it stand pat on the USDA's previous science.

Which is the true science. The science that established the minimal risk region or the science that wishes to ignore the standards established for it?

Or was it the science that established the first policy that was adhered to 22 times over the course of 10+ years?

 

[Econ101]

Its the best science money can buy.

A $20 test could change everything.

 

[Anonymous]

Lying King: "A $20 test could change everything.

How stupid to recommend a bse test on cattle under 24 months of age WHEN THE APPROVED TESTS WOULD NOT REVEAL BSE PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE.

Nobody is asking for testing. As we speak, Japan is importing non tested beef from the US and Canada. Why would you be so ignorant as to recommend a $20 expense that is unjustified and nobody is asking for?

Hey wait, your the same Lying King who recommends unenforceable country of origin labeling to segregate 5% of our US beef consumption as imported beef giving that foreign beef a clear advantage from a novelty standpoint and adding that expense to our industry when consumers are not asking for it either. Never mind, forgot who I was talking to.

OCM: "Very funny. Currently it is the USDA neglecting its own science. I will repeat. The USDA supposedly used "science" to establish Canada as a minimal risk region. Canada no longer meets those qualifications established by the USDA that were based on the USDA's science. Now the USDA is ignoring its own science. Will the NCBA allow the USDA to ignore its own science? Or will it stand pat on the USDA's previous science.

Which is the true science. The science that established the minimal risk region or the science that wishes to ignore the standards established for it?"

USDA is not ignoring it's own science, it's own science considers the MBM feed ban, increased bse surveilance testing on older cows, SRM removal, and other bse precauctionary measures that have gone into effect since your outdated risk designation.

It's you hypocritical R-CULTers that are caught in your time warp risk designation in your feeble attempt to use bse as a non tarriff trade barrier to stop Canadian imports because you are too narrow minded to understand that our export markets could use that same narrow minded approach to stop imports from the US.

EXPORTS.....The R-CULT forgotten side of trade.

OCM it must be difficult to support an organization that says "Canadian beef is high risk and contaminated" and "USDA does not care about food safety" due to Canada having bse in their native herd then turn around, like Leo McDonnell did, and claim "we have the safest beef in the world due to our bse firewalls" when we had bse in our native herd.

What I wouldn't give to ask one of you bse hypocrites in a public forum to explain the difference between the bse precautionary measures in Canada and the bse precautionary measures in the US to justify your contradicting positions. "Well....ah.....gee.....ahh.....spit....sputter....."

Damn hypocrites!

The correct thing for USDA to do is to determine when the Canadian ruminant feed ban and the phase out period cattle have cleared the system and allow Canadian cow imports after that period. The only risk of Canadian cow imports is those cows that may have consumed ruminant by products during the phase out period. Once those cows have safely passed that time period, open er' up. You can't justify keeping the border closed beyond that point any more than you can justify keeping the Canadian border closed to cattle under 30 months (as you import blamers found out at the 9th circuit level). The impact of Canadian cows on our market is minimal and anyone with any knowledge of this industry knows that.

The R-CULTers who claim that closing the Canadian border is the reason for higher cattle prices stand there with blank looks on their faces when they can't explain why 2005 feeder cattle prices were higher with an opened Canadian border than in 2004 with a closed Canadian border. It just doesn't register. The obvious is just too obvious for the import blamer.

Bottom line, you can't impose restrictions on Canada that you are not willing to live by with our export markets. Unlike R-CULT, NCBA has the integrity to not change their stories on bse to fit the application. NCBA will be guided by CURRENT SCIENCE instead of outdated risk designations.


R-CULT position when Canada had bse in their native herd......

"Canadian beef is high risk and contaminated due to Canada having bse in their native herd"

"USDA does not care about food safety"

R-CULT position when the US had bse in their native herd.....

"We have the safest beef in the world due to the bse firewalls we have in place"

FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP

Like a fish in a boat.........


Must be difficult to pass the red faced test when you can't keep your stories straight on BSE. I suppose that would explain why you don't see R-CULTers engage in debate. It's a lot more comfortable to simply make statements than justify flip flopping positions.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "USDA is not ignoring it's own science, it's own science considers the MBM feed ban, increased bse surveilance testing on older cows, SRM removal, and other bse precauctionary measures that have gone into effect since your outdated risk designation."

Do some actual research and thinking, Scotty. Pull up the USDA's requirements for a country to be Minimal Risk. See if Canada qualifies.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Pull up the USDA's requirements for a country to be Minimal Risk. See if Canada qualifies."

Anything to stop Canadian imports then you hypocrites would try to play a different card with Japan if the US was in Canada's situation.

That's why R-CULT has no credibility in Washington D.C.

Canada is minimal risk due to their precautionary measures which changes the old risk designation JUST AS IT WOULD FOR US IF WE WORE THOSE SAME SHOES.

You R-CULTers can't have it both ways but you can't see past the word "IMPORT".


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Pull up the USDA's requirements for a country to be Minimal Risk. See if Canada qualifies."

Anything to stop Canadian imports then you hypocrites would try to play a different card with Japan if the US was in Canada's situation.

That's why R-CULT has no credibility in Washington D.C.

Canada is minimal risk due to their precautionary measures which changes the old risk designation JUST AS IT WOULD FOR US IF WE WORE THOSE SAME SHOES.

You R-CULTers can't have it both ways but you can't see past the word "IMPORT".


~SH~

Quit babbling and do your homework. I thought truth was your "only bias".

 

[Econ101]

Lying King: "A $20 test could change everything.


How stupid to recommend a bse test on cattle under 24 months of age WHEN THE APPROVED TESTS WOULD NOT REVEAL BSE PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE.

Nobody is asking for testing. As we speak, Japan is importing non tested beef from the US and Canada. Why would you be so ignorant as to recommend a $20 expense that is unjustified and nobody is asking for?

Hey wait, your the same Lying King who recommends unenforceable country of origin labeling to segregate 5% of our US beef consumption as imported beef giving that foreign beef a clear advantage from a novelty standpoint and adding that expense to our industry when consumers are not asking for it either. Never mind, forgot who I was talking to.

SH, the Japanese and the Koreans are not taking our beef, base on little things like a bone fragment, because we refuse to allow even private companies to produce the goods suitable for import into their countries with bse testing. That minimal is bse testing. We have to have bse testing because the USDA was not successful in stopping bse from crossing our borders and not stopping its transmissability through MBM contamination.

When will you ever stop backing the multinational companies and start backing regular producers?

As far as MCOOL, you come up with every excuse you can, don't you?

You are not a problem solver, you are a problem maker.

 

[Anonymous]

Lying King: "SH, the Japanese and the Koreans are not taking our beef, base on little things like a bone fragment, because we refuse to allow even private companies to produce the goods suitable for import into their countries with bse testing."

You are so incredibly stupid. The Japanese are taking our beef and they are taking it UNTESTED.

Guess who sent Korea the bone fragment? CREEKSTONE!

Japan is not requesting bse testing, they are requesting age verification and SRM removal.

There is no proof that Japan wants or ever wanted 100% bse testing. If they had, it would have been part of the negotiation process.

Lying King: "We have to have bse testing because the USDA was not successful in stopping bse from crossing our borders and not stopping its transmissability through MBM contamination."

Wrong! The USDA has been successful with SRM removal, the ruminant feed ban, and increased surveilance.

Nobody would have been served by a bse test on cattle under 24 months of age WHICH WOULD NOT REVEAL BSE PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE YOU MORON.

Lying King: "When will you ever stop backing the multinational companies and start backing regular producers?"

No producer is served by your lies and baseless allegations towards the packing industry. You cannot fathom the concept of "PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE" which applies to all individuals and all companies equally. Our judicial system doesn't punish large corporations based on lies just because some thumb sucking anti corporate packer blamer needs to believe he's being screwed.

Lying King: "As far as MCOOL, you come up with every excuse you can, don't you?"

Facts are not excuses, they are facts. "M"COOL, as written, is unenforceable, is unjustifiable, will add unnecessary costs to the industry, is not being asked for by consumers, and will make a novelty item of foreign beef.

"M"COOL, as written, is a total joke supported only in concept by import blamers.

Lying King: "You are not a problem solver, you are a problem maker."

You are everybody's problem because you are a compulsive liar. Nobody is served by lies and baseless allegations.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH, the real test to the validity of the USDA's and your arguments is in the sales of U.S. beef. It has been anemic at best and outright rejected by many.

The USDA and NCBA may be able to rule the U.S, market because of the packer lackeys in Congress, but our international customers just are not buying it.

As I said, the test is in the sales. Not there yet.

You still haven't answered my question about the Australians feeding MBM back to cattle. Do you know anything about the cattle business or is this just another stumper for you?

 

[Anonymous]

Lying King: "SH, the real test to the validity of the USDA's and your arguments is in the sales of U.S. beef. It has been anemic at best and outright rejected by many."

Due to having bse in our native herd (no thanks to R-CULT considering that situation as contaminated and high risk beef) not due to not adopting fraudulent testing practices.

Lying King: "The USDA and NCBA may be able to rule the U.S, market because of the packer lackeys in Congress, but our international customers just are not buying it."

Oh, I suppose that would explain why Japan is importing our beef huh?

Lying King: "As I said, the test is in the sales. Not there yet."

Due to bse, not due to not adopting fraudulent bse testing.

Lying King: "You still haven't answered my question about the Australians feeding MBM back to cattle. Do you know anything about the cattle business or is this just another stumper for you?"

What about Australia?


Do you know what you are talking about THIS TIME or is this just another lie from you?


~SH~