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

Cattle Producers Endorse Proposed Traceback Bill

A

Anonymous

Guest
R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America


“Fighting for the U.S. Cattle Producer”



For Immediate Release Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator
February 28, 2008 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected]



Cattle Producers Endorse Proposed Traceback Bill





Washington, D.C. – In letters sent to Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., this week, R-CALF USA relayed that the organization has endorsed and supports what is referred to as The Traceback Bill, a proposal by John Munsell of Montana to achieve traceback of beef products to their point of slaughter, and requested that the trio consider carrying the proposed legislation forward to both chambers of Congress.



“One reason for our endorsement of this proposal is the recent E.coli recalls in America,” wrote R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian. “Subsequent news media reports show that consumers’ confidence has been shaken, which could reduce consumer demand for our beef products. R-CALF USA is concerned that continuing recalls will occur until USDA forces the slaughter plants, which are the origin of E.coli and Salmonella-contaminated meat, to implement effective corrective actions.


“If passed, The Traceback Bill proposal would require USDA to trace back to the plant of pathogen contamination, and force noncompliant plants to change production practices to reduce the likelihood of shipping contaminated meat into commerce,” he continued. “R-CALF USA firmly believes that USDA enforcement actions must be directed toward plants that are the source of contamination, not at downstream facilities, which are merely the destination of previously contaminated meat.”



R-CALF USA’s member-approved policy asserts that the current HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) form of meat inspection “has failed to protect the consuming public and thereby hurts beef demand.” R-CALF USA members are calling for an immediate reform of HACCP to “return to a ‘hands-on’ method of inspection rather than HACCP’s ‘hands-off’ type of non inspection.” The member-established policy also calls for accurate tracebacks of meat products to slaughtering plants, as would be achieved by The Traceback Bill proposal.



Note: To view the letters and the language of the proposal, visit the “Animal Health” link at www.r-calfusa.com, or contact R-CALF USA Communications Coordinator Shae Dodson at the phone number or e-mail address listed above.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The Traceback Bill, a proposal by John Munsell of Montana to achieve traceback of beef products to their point of slaughter, thats what ScoringAg does.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
The Traceback Bill, a proposal by John Munsell of Montana to achieve traceback of beef products to their point of slaughter, thats what ScoringAg does.

Well during the food safety hearings the in the House food safety committee the members were sure echoing their support for it (Repubs and Dems)...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
PORKER said:
The Traceback Bill, a proposal by John Munsell of Montana to achieve traceback of beef products to their point of slaughter, thats what ScoringAg does.

Well during the food safety hearings the in the House food safety committee the members were sure echoing their support for it (Repubs and Dems)...

They've only had since 2002- How long do they need :???:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Not Long When this happens;
Title
A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the sale of meat from animals produced by cloning.
Body
Be it enacted by the Council as follows:
Section 1. Section 20-676 of Title 20 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new subdivision d, to read as follows:
(d) “Cloning” Laboratory assisted asexual reproduction that produces genetically identical organisms.
§2. Section 20-677 of Title 20 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended, to read as follows:
§20-677 Sales at retail. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale, at retail, any pickled, pumped, cured or otherwise processed meats or meat products which shall contain added curing solution or any other liquid more than ten percent, by weight, of the total weight of the meat, except that pickled, pumped, cured or otherwise processed beef brisket shall not contain more than twenty percent, by weight, of added curing solution or any other liquid.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale, at retail, any meats or meat products that come from animals produced by cloning that are not clearly labeled as such.
§3. Section 20-678 of Title 20 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended to read as follows:
§20-678 Sales at wholesale. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, or offer for sale at wholesale, any pickled, pumped, cured or otherwise processed meats or meat products which shall contain added curing solution or any other liquid more than ten percent, by weight, of the total weight of the meat, except that pickled, pumped, cured or otherwise processed beef brisket shall not contain more than twenty percent, by weight, of added curing solution or any other liquid.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale, at wholesale, any meats or meat products that come from animals produced by cloning that are not clearly labeled as such.
§4. Section 20-681 of Title 20 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended, to read as follows:
§20-681 Punishment. (a) Any person who shall violate any provisions of this subchapter shall be liable to forfeit and pay a civil penalty in the sum of not more than [one] two-hundred dollars for each violation.
(b) Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this subchapter shall be guilty of an offense and punishable by a fine of not less than [twenty-five] fifty dollars nor more than [two-hundred-fifty] five hundred dollars, for each offense, or by imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days, or both.
§5. This local law shall take effect one hundred twenty days after it shall have been enacted into law except that prior to such effective date the commissioner of consumer affairs may promulgate rules or take any other action necessary for implementation of this local law.

The member-established policy also calls for accurate tracebacks of meat products to slaughtering plants, as would be achieved by The Traceback Bill proposal.
They will need traceback for meat!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Strange how Cattle producers want to impose a "Traceback"on packers but don't want a" Traceback"imposed on themselves. :roll:

The traceback they are trying to impose on producers would do nothing for beef safety-- as when the head/hide comes off- the tracking ends....As long as that hide is on- they already have the tracking/traceability capability....
 

Mike

Well-known member
The traceback they are trying to impose on producers would do nothing for beef safety--

Yes it would. I have a friend who is a slaughter cow buyer for Shapiro Packing in Augusta, Ga.

There are withdrawal limits on several medications and each one of those older cows are tested by a strip test first, then if positive they have to be isolated and tested farther.

He told me a few weeks ago that approx 1 in 100 test positive, and are rendered, and they usually cannot even trace back thru the sale barn from yesterdays' sale. :roll:

This forces him to lower his bid price for all cull animals he buys.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
ScoringAg already runs in packing plants. They require RFID boluses in each animal,No RFID buttons , keeps every producer honest ,as I have been told by ScoringAg staff. Problems as Mike has told above as told by SA staff went to zero after every animal had RFID. This instance was not in the US. either.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
ScoringAg already runs in packing plants. They require RFID boluses in each animal,No RFID buttons , keeps every producer honest ,as I have been told by ScoringAg staff. Problems as Mike has told above as told by SA staff went to zero after every animal had RFID. This instance was not in the US. either.

They've been tracking down and charging antibiotics/pharmaceutical violators for years- using brands and backtags....Some still do it anyway....They will still have to test the animals- and dispose of those that don't pass...

Under the current NAIS rule as proposed - I don't think the NAIS could be legally used by a government agency/corporate entity for such traceback- as it does not concern a threat to an animal disease issue-- altho that is the concern of many producers that don't trust the honesty of either the corporate world or the government -- as the longterm plan as to where the Packers want it to go- so they can put any liability that arises down the line, back onto the cattleman/producer that doesn't have the cribs full of attorneys the Corporate world has to challenge them.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
PORKER said:
ScoringAg already runs in packing plants. They require RFID boluses in each animal,No RFID buttons , keeps every producer honest ,as I have been told by ScoringAg staff. Problems as Mike has told above as told by SA staff went to zero after every animal had RFID. This instance was not in the US. either.

They've been tracking down and charging antibiotics/pharmaceutical violators for years- using brands and backtags....Some still do it anyway....They will still have to test the animals- and dispose of those that don't pass...

Under the current NAIS rule as proposed - I don't think the NAIS could be legally used by a government agency/corporate entity for such traceback- as it does not concern a threat to an animal disease issue-- altho that is the concern of many producers that don't trust the honesty of either the corporate world or the government -- as the longterm plan as to where the Packers want it to go- so they can put any liability that arises down the line, back onto the cattleman/producer that doesn't have the cribs full of attorneys the Corporate world has to challenge them.....

You're a fool, OT. Yes they will still have to test, but those animals should be traced back to the sale barn and make the sale barn liable for indiscrimate medications and the sale barn will have records so that they can backcharge the seller for being dishonest to start with. Or ban him from further selling there.

Yes, branding might work, but that's the whole point....EVERYONE DOES NOT BRAND!!!!!

Can you imagine the scream from the animal rights folks when and if the Feds make branding all cattle MANDATORY??

Besides, it's not an "Animal" health issue to test cattle for medications, it's a "Human" health issue that would trump.

There are many issues true ID could solve. But a just "Herd" brand won't do it.

I prefer the ear tattoo myself.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yes, branding might work, but that's the whole point....EVERYONE DOES NOT BRAND!!!!!

So since I and some areas of the country have IDed our cattle for over 113 years- with a system that has worked for over those years and is still working today- we should be penalized and asked to go to additional work/expense for your and some of the other areas failure to develop or adopt a workable system :???:

Even according to Bruce Knight in testimony to Congress when he asked them not to mandate the NAIS plan-- the technology to be economically efficient and ability to work at the speed of commerce is not yet available.....

We live in two totally different worlds- climate and production methods... Most cattle up here never see a salesbarn....
 

PORKER

Well-known member
There are many issues true ID could solve. But a just "Herd" brand won't do it. You still need single animal ID traceback if you want zero liability ,it's still the best risk management solution.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
There are many issues true ID could solve. But a just "Herd" brand won't do it. You still need single animal ID traceback if you want zero liability ,it's still the best risk management solution.

I know you and the foreign owned company your working with/promoting would like everyone to utilize your services- as that means profit in your/their pockets...

But then you should realize that the economical benefit to the cattle producers has still not been shown to be worth the capital outlay- especially when many areas already have a working system.....

In other words- just like you want to profit from the system- so do the cattlemen....If its so important, the beef/packing industry should be paying the premiums to make it profitable to the cattleman...

Not the current method of using $Millions/Billions of taxpayer dollars promoting a government funded propoganda program....
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Oldtimer, Should ScoringAg be free and corrupt ,or safe from packers knowing every animal you own has privacy an being cheap enough that the 3rd-4th world farmers can use it too. Mr. Kanitz preaches this to every one of his sale reps including me.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Strange how Cattle producers want to impose a "Traceback"on packers but don't want a" Traceback"imposed on themselves. :roll:

You think a traceback to producers is useful is stopping e-coli? Explain your rationale.
 

Shaft

Well-known member
You think a traceback to producers is useful is stopping e-coli? Explain your rationale.

SH, I don't know about Big Muddy's rationale, but I can give you mine.

E-coli is an enteric bacteria found as a matter of course in the intestines of most mammals, including chickens, pigs, sheep, cattle and us. It is not the E-coli itself that is the problem, we are all packed with the little critters. It is the particular type of S-toxin that any given strain of E-coli secretes that causes the problems. Like Montezuma's revenge, for example. E-coli secreting an S-toxin that we are not used to. Trots. Big time. Been there, done that.

Sometimes a strain of E-coli pops up that secretes a particularly nasty S-toxin and/or has a particularly strong antibiotic resistance. Then part of the solution to the problem becomes tracing the nasty little critter to the source and eliminating it. The Walkerton water supply scandal in Ontario for example. People died because the water supply became contaminated with a particularly nasty E-coli subtype that was antibiotic resistant.

So, it is certainly possible that a cattle traceback to the producer could locate the ranch from whence the little bugger came in the first place in an effort to treat the source, rather than the symptom.

Now before you get started on the lecture on well-shocking protocols etc. remember that these little buggers can mutate so that one day all is well, and the next you have an E-coli strain secreting an S-toxin that is bad, bad, bad.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Our beef customers want traceback also:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - McDonald's Corp., the leading global food service retailer, said on Wednesday it had exceeded its 2004 goal of tracing 10 percent of all U.S. beef purchases back to the farms where the animals originated.

Tracing U.S. cattle back to their birthplace has become a greater issue since the discovery of mad cow disease in the United States in 2003.

"We do set the targets ourselves," Maura Havenga, senior vice president for North America Supply Chain Management at McDonald's Corporation, said at a Reuters Food Summit.

"We have small targets set, it is kind of an evolution, for 2005, 2006, 2007. It is something again that is very internally driven. It is something that we are trying to challenge ourselves and challenge our suppliers with," she said.

McDonald's is the largest single buyer of United States beef, buying nearly one billion pounds a year.

"We want to work neck-and-neck with the government, as well as helping them increase traceability in the U.S." Havenga added.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Strange how Cattle producers want to impose a "Traceback"on packers but don't want a" Traceback"imposed on themselves. :roll:

You think a traceback to producers is useful is stopping e-coli? Explain your rationale.

Do you think e-coli is the only reason to traceback to the producer??
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Strange how Cattle producers want to impose a "Traceback"on packers but don't want a" Traceback"imposed on themselves. :roll:

You think a traceback to producers is useful is stopping e-coli? Explain your rationale.

Do you think e-coli is the only reason to traceback to the producer??

That's kind of what the topic of this thread is...
 
Top