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

Cattlemens Competitive Marketing Project files amicus brief

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
CONSUMER GROUPS BLAST SAFETY OF U.S. BEEF SUPPLY

Denver, Colo. - The Cattlemen's Competitive Marketing Project (CCMP) filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of R-CALF USDA's challenge to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Minimal Risk Rule. CCMP is a lobbying organization operated by the Organization for Competitive Marketing (OCM) and R-CALF.

Cosigners to the amicus brief include consumer activist groups Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and Public Citizen. "It is a historic and sad day when cattle producers provide an open mic to activist groups who have worked 20 years to take beef off Americas' plates," said Jim McAdams, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

During the call, neither CFA or Public Citizen discussed the Canadian food safety system or it's BSE mitigation measures. Their statements were wholly directed at what these groups claim are failings in the United States beef production system.

CFA spokesperson Chris Waldrop said that since the first cow was found in Washington state, USDA has failed to protect U.S. consumers from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Waldrop called the USDA regulations and enforcement "little more than promise and paper checks" to keep the beef supply safe. He said the USDA rule on specified risk materials (SRM) removal is inadequate, and the FDA feed ban still allows "infectious materials" to be fed to cattle.

Waldrop concluded this "does not inspire confidence that our government is protecting public health."

Public Citizen's representative Patricia Loverna agreed, saying, "Given that we have these concerns with the domestic system, it doesn't make sense to open the border."


I thought R-CULT said we had the safest beef in the world?

I thought Leo McDonnel said we could look consumers right in the eye and tell them our beef is safe because we have these firewalls in place?


Looks like R-CULT's "anti beef" bed partner activist groups have a different story to tell the nation.

More proof that R-CULT will do and say whatever it takes to stop Canadian imports. More proof that R-CULT will partner up with anyone that says what they need to hear at that moment that fits their agenda at that moment. Then when/if the U.S. is faced with the same BSE situation that Canada finds themselves in, R-CULT will flip flop by suggesting that the firewalls we have in place are adequate to ensure the safety of U.S. beef consumers. The same exact firewalls that Canada has in place.

This kind of deception is precisely why I detest this two faced organization called R-CULT/OCM/CCMP.


Yesterday, "USDA doesn't care about food safety"

Yesterday, "The large packers didn't care about food safety and only care about the money"

Today, "we have the safest beef in the world"

Today, "we can look consumers right in the eye and tell them we have had these firewalls in place"

Tomorrow, "we will allow CFA and Public Citizen to attack USDA's domestic food safety policies so we don't have to contradict ourselves"

Pathetic!


~SH~
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
Today, "we can look consumers right in the eye and tell them we have had these firewalls in place"

Tomorrow, "we will allow CFA and Public Citizen to attack USDA's domestic food safety policies so we don't have to contradict ourselves"

Pathetic!


~SH~ *********FDA DOES the domestic food safety policies and FIREWALLS last I knew.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
PORKER said:
Today, "we can look consumers right in the eye and tell them we have had these firewalls in place"

Tomorrow, "we will allow CFA and Public Citizen to attack USDA's domestic food safety policies so we don't have to contradict ourselves"

Pathetic!


~SH~ *********FDA DOES the domestic food safety policies and FIREWALLS last I knew.

Direct quote from Leo during a ICON meeting that was broadcast via the internet

“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 tell us Porker how will R-CALF justify their bed partners comments about "that since the first cow was found in Washington state, USDA has failed to protect U.S. consumers from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)." and "the USDA regulations and enforcement "little more than promise and paper checks" to keep the beef supply safe." and "the USDA rule on specified risk materials (SRM) removal is inadequate, and the FDA feed ban still allows "infectious materials" to be fed to cattle." and "this does not inspire confidence that our government is protecting public health."

Public Citizen's representative Patricia Loverna agreed, saying, "Given that we have these concerns with the domestic system, it doesn't make sense to open the border."

Looks to me as if ~SH~ is right they say one thing then hand the mic to the anti beef groups to say what ever they want. Leo even said that R-CALF was using these groups because of the media attention they recieve. With comments like The "USDA failed to protect the US consumer" and "we have these concerns with the domestic system" do you think handing them the mic is going to help or hurt the US beef industry. R-CALF shot you the minute they brought these groups into the mix and if they file anything it will not be friendly to the beef industry you can bet you last cow on that.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
In you and SH's haste to condemn R-CALF, you didn't notice that Leo was pointing out several things that would need to be done so we could look consumers in the eye - several things the USDA is dropping the ball on.

The USDA HAS failed to protect the US consumer. They clearly put the AMI's interests over the US consumer's. Consumer groups have a valid complaint. Judge Cebull saw that a mile off. He asked the USDA if there was any risk in opening the border - they replied "yes". He asked them the degree of risk, they could only say "low". :roll: Low compared to what? Don't you think the USDA, if they were protecting the US consumer, would have a better answer than "low"? After all, we're not talking about pink-eye - this is a disease that wiped out an industry in Europe and is linked to consumer deaths.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
"The USDA HAS failed to protect the US consumer. They clearly put the AMI's interests over the US consumer's."

-How is that? Is it because of lapses in the American system? America ....and 62 other countries ... seem to have faith in the Canadian system, as does the Canadian consumer. You trust our beef, but not our cattle. That says a lot.

Consumer groups have a valid complaint.

- Is a court case involving an import ruling the place to be arguing domestic food safety issues? How about having a court case that is specifically for domestic food safety issues? Seems to me that these consumer groups are using us as a platform to further their anti-meat
agendas. I find that offensive, and so should American cattlemen. This is opportunism.

Judge Cebull saw that a mile off.
-Who knows what he sees. Don't even want to guess.

He asked the USDA if there was any risk in opening the border - they replied "yes". He asked them the degree of risk, they could only say "low". Low compared to what? Don't you think the USDA, if they were protecting the US consumer, would have a better answer than "low"?

- According to current science, that's the only answer possible. To say zero would be irresponsible. This disease can occur spontaneously. Therefore zero risk DOES NOT EXIST.

After all, we're not talking about pink-eye - this is a disease that wiped out an industry in Europe and is linked to consumer deaths.

-Pink-eye is contagious. BSE is not. The disease wiped out an industry in Europe because it became established before anyone knew what they were dealing with, and no safeguards were in place until after the damage was done. The disease was wiped out in the hysteria that followed. That is not the case in North America. Safeguards have been in place for almost eight years now. We have learned from their terrible experience, and actually have a shot at bringing sanity and perspective to the subject of BSE.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I find it offensive and unacceptable that more study goes into the impact of draining a swamp than what the USDA put in on deciding whether or not to accept beef from a BSE positive country.

"Low" is not an acceptable answer when dealing with an issue the magnitude of BSE. "Low" can be translated as "we really don't know". It tells you nothing. A 20% chance of rain is low, is a 20% chance of bringing BSE into the country the same low? Is that acceptable?

Another point; England has more stringent safeguards in place than Canada has. If safeguards are the sure bet, why hasn't Canada opened up to them?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sand: "In you and SH's haste to condemn R-CALF, you didn't notice that Leo was pointing out several things that would need to be done so we could look consumers in the eye - several things the USDA is dropping the ball on."

Sand: "The USDA HAS failed to protect the US consumer."

Ok, you disagree with Leo when he says that we have the safest beef in the world.

Glad we cleared that up!

Taking your position, one would also have to assume that Japan should not take our beef until USDA takes care of those things that you say, "need to be done" first. Unless of course you don't think their consumers count.

Are you going to be consistant in your position or are you going to try to R-CALF this by picking and chosing when our beef is safe?


~SH~
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker where in what Leo said did it say "we could have said this if the USDA wouldn't have drop the ball" . :???:
Leo said "If we look them right in the eye and say that I will guarantee they will keep eating beef”. How can he really think they would still eat beef if what you say is true.and the USDA messed up the firewalls that you have had in place for so many years and the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have them in place for so many years.
Is Leo WRONG. :shock: and the firewalls haven't protected the US beef supply to the point where he can GUARANTEE US consumers will still eat beef if BSE is found in the US herd? Or are you and the anti beef groups that R-CALF brought into the issue wrong and the USDA firewalls have protected you and consumers will still eat beef if BSE is found. :? Which way is it Leo's right and Beef is safe or you are right and Beef is unsafe thanks to the USDA firewalls?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I DO think we have the safest beef in the world. I eat it almost daily. Do we have things that we need to work on? Of course. We need 100% compliance with the bone meal ban, we need to stop feeding chicken crap, we need to have the highest import standards in the world, etc...
 

don

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
0
Location
saskatchewan
more amicus curiae status granted


Canadian Cattle Groups Granted Status In Border Appeal
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) has learned that its request for amicus curiae "friend of the court" status in the USDA appeal of the preliminary injunction keeping the U.S. border closed to live Canadian cattle has been granted.
Amicus curiae status was granted yesterday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco. Requests for amicus curiae status filed by Alberta Beef Producers (ABP), the Government of Canada, American Farm Bureau and National Cattlemen's Beef Association were also granted.
Amicus curiae briefs permit those affected by the outcome of a case to provide relevant information for consideration by the judge or judges deciding the matter.
The CCA's brief notes that CCA has both a significant economic interest in the outcome of the proceeding, and an equal and related interest in how the U.S. structures and implements its BSE regulations.
For more click here:
http://www.cnw.ca/en/releases/archive/June2005/07/c8958.html
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Sandhusker said:
we need to have the highest import standards in the world, etc...

You mean as high as the Japs? That would be almost unattainable. Their foodborne illness rate is the lowest in the world, per capita, too.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
don said:
more amicus curiae status granted


Canadian Cattle Groups Granted Status In Border Appeal
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) has learned that its request for amicus curiae "friend of the court" status in the USDA appeal of the preliminary injunction keeping the U.S. border closed to live Canadian cattle has been granted.
Amicus curiae status was granted yesterday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco. Requests for amicus curiae status filed by Alberta Beef Producers (ABP), the Government of Canada, American Farm Bureau and National Cattlemen's Beef Association were also granted.
Amicus curiae briefs permit those affected by the outcome of a case to provide relevant information for consideration by the judge or judges deciding the matter.
The CCA's brief notes that CCA has both a significant economic interest in the outcome of the proceeding, and an equal and related interest in how the U.S. structures and implements its BSE regulations.
For more click here:
http://www.cnw.ca/en/releases/archive/June2005/07/c8958.html

The list of granted amicus status also includes Tyson, AMI, North American Meat Processors, National Pork Producers, and 29 state and cattle organizations. Lets all hope that the court of Appeal will listen to the truth instead of the twisted story of R-CALF.

CCA and ABP also filed an appeal for the denial of their request for intervenor status in R-CALFs case for a permanent injunction by Judge Cebull. Looks like the Old Judge may have to listen to a bit more testimony that he cares to. He better hold off in writing his ruling up until after the trial this time, as there were more than a few that didn't care for his ruling being copied from the R-CALF brief like it was.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
What is the truth, Tam? Can you provide any risk/analysis study the USDA made prior to their decision to open the border?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
I DO think we have the safest beef in the world. I eat it almost daily. Do we have things that we need to work on? Of course. We need 100% compliance with the bone meal ban, we need to stop feeding chicken crap, we need to have the highest import standards in the world, etc...

Knowing that BSE is spread by feeding infected ruminant materials back to ruminants, and knowing the BSE agent is in the US as it has been found within your borders. And with the lack of 100% compliance to the feed bans and the feeding of chicken crap and damaged pet food that is made from condemned ruminants back to your cattle, will you stand up and tell your consumers that there is no risk to eating US beef? The US consumers are at just as much risk as most other BSE effected countrys consumers. Following the OIE rules on SRM removal, true surveilance, and a clean up of the industry is what will protect not claims of the Safest beef in the world backed up by faulty testing that is designed not to find the problem. The reason you need the highest import standards in the world is to compensate for the lack of high standards and compliance to standards in your own domestic industry. Those high import standards are not going to protect you and your consumers from what is already floating around in the US. But Standards designed to clean up the US system and compliance to them will.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Sandhusker said:
What is the truth, Tam? Can you provide any risk/analysis study the USDA made prior to their decision to open the border?

I guess that would be a NO! Sandhusker. Same old holier-than-thou attitude though. I don't guess Canada has made any mistakes. :???: Whoops, I forgot about the ranchers suing the guvment for allowing BSE to spread.
We've been through all this a thousand times over.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
What is the truth, Tam? Can you provide any risk/analysis study the USDA made prior to their decision to open the border?

You know I find it funny the R-CALF can go on about how the Harvard risk accessment proved the US is not a risk because they had all these firewalls and safeguards in place but that same risk accessment said Canada was doing the same to protect the industry is not good enough. Just like the standards that Canadian producers live by produced tainted, unsafe, a genuine risk of death beef but the weaker standards that the US live by produces the Safesty beef in the WORLD, when both countries know they have the BSE agent floating around their systems. The US firewalls if BSE was found in the US herd would protect the US consumers and it will be a NON-ISSUE in the US, but stricted versions of the same firewalls made BSE a big issue in Canada. Flip Flop Flip FLop Sandhuskers where is the truth in R-CALFS claims for the day.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
What is the truth, Tam? Can you provide any risk/analysis study the USDA made prior to their decision to open the border?

I guess that would be a NO! Sandhusker. Same old holier-than-thou attitude though. I don't guess Canada has made any mistakes. :???: Whoops, I forgot about the ranchers suing the guvment for allowing BSE to spread.
We've been through all this a thousand times over.

You know Mike you mention the ranchers are sueing the government but I took the time to ask around and read a bit and email those that claim they are sueing on behalf of the 100,000 ranchers in Canada and what I found out was CCA doesn't seem to know anything about this group and SSGA doesn't seem to know who they are. So I went on the web site posted about the class action lawsuit on our behalf and got the email address of the lawyer that is to represent the Sask producers. I emailed him to ask if he was sueing on our behalf why the CCA and the SSGA had never heard from him or of him other than what has been released to the media? I asked him to explain to me how he could be representing us if we as Sask producers had never heard of him. And guess what I emailed him on the 15 of May and I still haven't heard from the lawyers that claims to be representing all Cattle producers with an explanation. So to say the ranchers are sueing I would really like to know what ranchers are involved as our largest beef organization which represents around 90,000 producers has never been approached about the lawsuit.
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Saskatchewan
Tam......you were expecting a straight answer from a lawyer??? Especially one that is sacrificing everything just to make you rich!!!! :twisted: :wink: :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sand: "I DO think we have the safest beef in the world."

You just said the USDA has failed to protect the U.S. consumer!

WHICH WAY IS IT SANDHUSKER?????

Is our beef safe or isn't it?

Pick a position and quit R-CALFing!



~SH~
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
cowsense said:
Tam......you were expecting a straight answer from a lawyer??? Especially one that is sacrificing everything just to make you rich!!!! :twisted: :wink: :wink:

Any answer would be nice at least then you could debate the issue and see just what is being done on our behalf. But I didn't get one so I feel he isn't representing as many ranchers as the Media has lead us to believe. Maybe just a few Lawyers looking for a windfall, no matter what it cost the Canadian Producers. What is the Lawyers share of 7 billion dollars? :???:
 

Latest posts

Top