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

Congressmen with common sense

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Foreign Trade
Congressmen Push For More Canada Access To U.S.
Nine Congressmen asked USDA this week to expedite a rule to permit the importation of cattle more than 30 months of age for slaughter and meat from such cattle. The members say the continued border closure for this type of cattle is having a negative impact on U.S. plants.

The letter said "border closure has led some beef processing plants to significantly reduce hours or close indefinitely to absorb the increasing pressure of the current situation, resulting in job loss, reductions in workers' take home pay, and plant closures."

Representatives signing the letter included John Boehner (R-OH), Mike Conaway (R-TX), Charles Dent (R-PA), Charles Gonzalez (D-TX), Mark Green (R-WI), Gil Gutknecht (R-MN), John Peterson (R-PA), Paul Ryan (R-WI), and Don Sherwood (R-PA).
-- P. Scott Shearer, Washington, D.C.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
NOT unless those animals have records that match their ear tags and the premises they have traveled in their lifetime.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Why is it that the US producer aren't to be burden with the cost of proving where their beef comes from but any animal imported into that country has to have complete histories available? Does the US not have BSE in their herd that could do just as much damage as a Canadian cow? All we hear about is a fair playing field but what is fair about saddleing the Canadian producers with the cost of proof when the US is just as much a risk to the US herd and consumers as we are? :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam said:
Why is it that the US producer aren't to be burden with the cost of proving where their beef comes from but any animal imported into that country has to have complete histories available? Does the US not have BSE in their herd that could do just as much damage as a Canadian cow? All we hear about is a fair playing field but what is fair about saddleing the Canadian producers with the cost of proof when the US is just as much a risk to the US herd and consumers as we are? :roll:

First of all, Tam, it's our country so we should be able to make our own laws without your approval :p . Secondly, we DO NOT have the same BSE risk. For us to have the same risk as you, we would of had to have 28 cases. Remember your statistics class?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Why is it that the US producer aren't to be burden with the cost of proving where their beef comes from but any animal imported into that country has to have complete histories available? Does the US not have BSE in their herd that could do just as much damage as a Canadian cow? All we hear about is a fair playing field but what is fair about saddleing the Canadian producers with the cost of proof when the US is just as much a risk to the US herd and consumers as we are? :roll:

First of all, Tam, it's our country so we should be able to make our own laws without your approval :p . Secondly, we DO NOT have the same BSE risk. For us to have the same risk as you, we would of had to have 28 cases. Remember your statistics class?

Yes Sandhusker and this is our country and the OIE has this to say.

“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”

So what makes you think you can force us to prove the histories on every animal when you aren't proving them on your cattle. Not that the US has ever really cared about what the OIE or WTO has to say about trade issue. unless it fits their agenda :wink:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tam, this whole BSE thing has been mismanaged by the USDA and their counter parts in Canada for either political reasons or incompetence. If we really had a NAFTA agreement, this issue and lumber and a whole lot of other issues would not even be issues. We deserve better than what we are getting. From my point of view, the strings on these issues are being pulled by the people who can buy those strings, and it isn't the average producers in either Canada or the U.S.

On one hand you have producers like Jason (Jason, I don't know you and with this example I am not making a personal judgement) who can say that in a major market manipulation case, there only has to be one or two other buyers for their to be competition, and on the other hand we get all this flack on the U.S. not being one of Canada's customers. You cattlemen have to look beyond these type of issues and get some common ground. There is only one master on one side of many of these issues and many producers on the other. Divide and conquer. Maybe you want to be conqured.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Why is it that the US producer aren't to be burden with the cost of proving where their beef comes from but any animal imported into that country has to have complete histories available? Does the US not have BSE in their herd that could do just as much damage as a Canadian cow? All we hear about is a fair playing field but what is fair about saddleing the Canadian producers with the cost of proof when the US is just as much a risk to the US herd and consumers as we are? :roll:

First of all, Tam, it's our country so we should be able to make our own laws without your approval :p . Secondly, we DO NOT have the same BSE risk. For us to have the same risk as you, we would of had to have 28 cases. Remember your statistics class?
That's it Sandhusker, keep denying the problems the US has.
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Ontario
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Why is it that the US producer aren't to be burden with the cost of proving where their beef comes from but any animal imported into that country has to have complete histories available? Does the US not have BSE in their herd that could do just as much damage as a Canadian cow? All we hear about is a fair playing field but what is fair about saddleing the Canadian producers with the cost of proof when the US is just as much a risk to the US herd and consumers as we are? :roll:

First of all, Tam, it's our country so we should be able to make our own laws without your approval :p . Secondly, we DO NOT have the same BSE risk. For us to have the same risk as you, we would of had to have 28 cases. Remember your statistics class?
That's it Sandhusker, keep denying the problems the US has.

Sandhusker the spin doctor. " . . .we do not have . . .", ". . . lower risk . . .", and save the best one for last - "did not have sex with that woman . . ."

Hey Sandhusker maybe redneck Billy had more influence on you than you realize. Keep on fooling yourself there, buddy. It shouldn't be to hard.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
First of all, Tam, it's our country so we should be able to make our own laws without your approval :p . Secondly, we DO NOT have the same BSE risk. For us to have the same risk as you, we would of had to have 28 cases. Remember your statistics class?
That's it Sandhusker, keep denying the problems the US has.

Sandhusker the spin doctor. " . . .we do not have . . .", ". . . lower risk . . .", and save the best one for last - "did not have sex with that woman . . ."

Hey Sandhusker maybe redneck Billy had more influence on you than you realize. Keep on fooling yourself there, buddy. It shouldn't be to hard.
:lol: :lol: Maybe Sandhusker should be a politican.

I finally figured out the problem with R-Calf and it's believers. In Canada the 4-D population means taking all samples from dead, down, diseased, and dieing cattle while the Leo and his PTL believers think it stands for deceive, deny, divert, and denounce. :lol:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
Necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection Porker? You bloody hypocrite. ***YUP and were going to as fast as we can!!!

Remember FDA 2002 LAWS start in DEC.this year and those animals will have records that match their ear tags and the premises they have traveled in their lifetime at any point between the field and the grocery if you are a foreign person who transport ,sell
food in the United States, should include
typical fresh produce post-harvest farming operations such as packing/
packaging, washing, grading, waxing, sizing, cooling, application of
inventory control items (e.g., price lookup stickers (PLUs) or
universal product codes (UPCs)), conventional storage, controlled-
atmosphere storage, transportation from the fields, transportation to
storage or processing facilities, and transportation from the farm.
According to the comments, these activities should be included in the
definition of ``farm'' whether they are conducted in the field or in a
packinghouse. *****SO ,the FD&C Act
is consistent with the language of section 306 of the Bioterrorism Act.
Section 306 Recordkeeping ,does not contain language qualifying the meaning of food.
Furthermore, section 414(b) of the FD&C Act authorizes the Secretary to
require certain records to identify the immediate previous sources and
recipients of ``food, including its packaging.'' In addition, section
306(b) of the Bioterrorism Act amended section 704(a) of the FD&C Act,
governing factory inspections, to provide that in the case of persons
engaging in covered activities with regard to ``foods, the inspection
shall extend to all records and other information described in section
414* * *.'' The inspection referenced in section 306(b) of the
Bioterrorism Act is one of ``any factory, warehouse or establishment in
which [food] is manufactured, processed, packed or held* * *.'' FDA's
longstanding interpretation is that ``food'' in section 704 of the FD&C
Act has the same meaning as in section 201(f) of the FD&C Act.

.

I see that you are not ready like most of us in the US are not.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
PORKER said:
Necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection Porker? You bloody hypocrite. ***YUP and were going to as fast as we can!!!

Remember FDA 2002 LAWS start in DEC.this year and those animals will have records that match their ear tags and the premises they have traveled in their lifetime at any point between the field and the grocery if you are a foreign person who transport ,sell
food in the United States,
should include
typical fresh produce post-harvest farming operations such as packing/
packaging, washing, grading, waxing, sizing, cooling, application of
inventory control items (e.g., price lookup stickers (PLUs) or
universal product codes (UPCs)), conventional storage, controlled-
atmosphere storage, transportation from the fields, transportation to
storage or processing facilities, and transportation from the farm.
According to the comments, these activities should be included in the
definition of ``farm'' whether they are conducted in the field or in a
packinghouse. *****SO ,the FD&C Act
is consistent with the language of section 306 of the Bioterrorism Act.
Section 306 Recordkeeping ,does not contain language qualifying the meaning of food.
Furthermore, section 414(b) of the FD&C Act authorizes the Secretary to
require certain records to identify the immediate previous sources and
recipients of ``food, including its packaging.'' In addition, section
306(b) of the Bioterrorism Act amended section 704(a) of the FD&C Act,
governing factory inspections, to provide that in the case of persons
engaging in covered activities with regard to ``foods, the inspection
shall extend to all records and other information described in section
414* * *.'' The inspection referenced in section 306(b) of the
Bioterrorism Act is one of ``any factory, warehouse or establishment in
which [food] is manufactured, processed, packed or held* * *.'' FDA's
longstanding interpretation is that ``food'' in section 704 of the FD&C
Act has the same meaning as in section 201(f) of the FD&C Act.

.

I see that you are not ready like most of us in the US are not.

“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”

Why is it that the US keeps missing this high lighted part of the OIE statement.

Where in your statement does it say the domestic person who transport ,sell food in the United States..... ? All I see is a statement about a foreign person who transport ,sell food in the United States!!!!! DOESN'T THAT MAKE THIS IN VIOLATION OF THE OIE RULES ON TRADE?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
PORKER said:
Necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection Porker? You bloody hypocrite. ***YUP and were going to as fast as we can!!!

Remember FDA 2002 LAWS start in DEC.this year and those animals will have records that match their ear tags and the premises they have traveled in their lifetime at any point between the field and the grocery if you are a foreign person who transport ,sell
food in the United States,
should include
typical fresh produce post-harvest farming operations such as packing/
packaging, washing, grading, waxing, sizing, cooling, application of
inventory control items (e.g., price lookup stickers (PLUs) or
universal product codes (UPCs)), conventional storage, controlled-
atmosphere storage, transportation from the fields, transportation to
storage or processing facilities, and transportation from the farm.
According to the comments, these activities should be included in the
definition of ``farm'' whether they are conducted in the field or in a
packinghouse. *****SO ,the FD&C Act
is consistent with the language of section 306 of the Bioterrorism Act.
Section 306 Recordkeeping ,does not contain language qualifying the meaning of food.
Furthermore, section 414(b) of the FD&C Act authorizes the Secretary to
require certain records to identify the immediate previous sources and
recipients of ``food, including its packaging.'' In addition, section
306(b) of the Bioterrorism Act amended section 704(a) of the FD&C Act,
governing factory inspections, to provide that in the case of persons
engaging in covered activities with regard to ``foods, the inspection
shall extend to all records and other information described in section
414* * *.'' The inspection referenced in section 306(b) of the
Bioterrorism Act is one of ``any factory, warehouse or establishment in
which [food] is manufactured, processed, packed or held* * *.'' FDA's
longstanding interpretation is that ``food'' in section 704 of the FD&C
Act has the same meaning as in section 201(f) of the FD&C Act.

.

I see that you are not ready like most of us in the US are not.

“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”

Why is it that the US keeps missing this high lighted part of the OIE statement.

Where in your statement does it say the domestic person who transport ,sell food in the United States..... ? All I see is a statement about a foreign person who transport ,sell food in the United States!!!!! DOESN'T THAT MAKE THIS IN VIOLATION OF THE OIE RULES ON TRADE?

Homeland Security and food safety should take precedence over any international trade laws--already many countries are having to adapt to the US standard for passports and other travel regulations....US citizens have had to face many restrictions and invasions of our rights because of the war with the Muslim extremists-ex the Patriot Act-- about time Canada and all the nations that want to profit from importing into the land of milk and honey did too.....
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Keep up the homeland security and safety issue Old boy, it's getting you closer to the nuthouse every day.

Land of Milk and Honey. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just like your Oil, most of that milk and honey probably comes from Canada as well.

Comparing trade with invassion of your rights makes it hard to even post a reply to your spew Oldtimer. Get yourself on track, or you are going to force them to come and get you before your time. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rkaiser said:
Land of Milk and Honey. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Must be--the way the extremists want to bring us down...and the way Tam crys and whines it sounds like Canada can't exist without the US dollars :wink:

But I bet this time Homeland Security wins out- either that or over 2000 of our boys are dying fighting a war over nothing.......
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill, "That's it Sandhusker, keep denying the problems the US has."

I didn't deny anything, Bill, I simply stated a fact. Have you ever had a course on statistics? You've had 4 times the number of cases in a population 1/7 the size. That could change tomorrow, but that's the way it is today. We're not talking rocket science here.

Let me take a guess and bet you have never worked as an insurance underwriter.... :wink:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Bill, "That's it Sandhusker, keep denying the problems the US has."

I didn't deny anything, Bill, I simply stated a fact. Have you ever had a course on statistics? You've had 4 times the number of cases in a population 1/7 the size. That could change tomorrow, but that's the way it is today. We're not talking rocket science here.

Let me take a guess and bet you have never worked as an insurance underwriter.... :wink:
Good guess Sanhusker, me along with what do you think 99.5% of the population? :lol: :lol: I haven't had the pleasure of being a banker either. I have found however that statistics are not always an absolute value. The thing to keep in mind with any measurement is to also work accuracies.

Obviously the US BSE testing process done on healthy animals just to pad the numbers and the way they have denied and diverted suspicious and positive animals is accuarate enough for you. I have much more confidence in the thorough job being done in Canada.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
PORKER said:
Necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection Porker? You bloody hypocrite. ***YUP and were going to as fast as we can!!!

Remember FDA 2002 LAWS start in DEC.this year and those animals will have records that match their ear tags and the premises they have traveled in their lifetime at any point between the field and the grocery if you are a foreign person who transport ,sell
food in the United States,
should include
typical fresh produce post-harvest farming operations such as packing/
packaging, washing, grading, waxing, sizing, cooling, application of
inventory control items (e.g., price lookup stickers (PLUs) or
universal product codes (UPCs)), conventional storage, controlled-
atmosphere storage, transportation from the fields, transportation to
storage or processing facilities, and transportation from the farm.
According to the comments, these activities should be included in the
definition of ``farm'' whether they are conducted in the field or in a
packinghouse. *****SO ,the FD&C Act
is consistent with the language of section 306 of the Bioterrorism Act.
Section 306 Recordkeeping ,does not contain language qualifying the meaning of food.
Furthermore, section 414(b) of the FD&C Act authorizes the Secretary to
require certain records to identify the immediate previous sources and
recipients of ``food, including its packaging.'' In addition, section
306(b) of the Bioterrorism Act amended section 704(a) of the FD&C Act,
governing factory inspections, to provide that in the case of persons
engaging in covered activities with regard to ``foods, the inspection
shall extend to all records and other information described in section
414* * *.'' The inspection referenced in section 306(b) of the
Bioterrorism Act is one of ``any factory, warehouse or establishment in
which [food] is manufactured, processed, packed or held* * *.'' FDA's
longstanding interpretation is that ``food'' in section 704 of the FD&C
Act has the same meaning as in section 201(f) of the FD&C Act.

.

I see that you are not ready like most of us in the US are not.

“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”

Why is it that the US keeps missing this high lighted part of the OIE statement.

Where in your statement does it say the domestic person who transport ,sell food in the United States..... ? All I see is a statement about a foreign person who transport ,sell food in the United States!!!!! DOESN'T THAT MAKE THIS IN VIOLATION OF THE OIE RULES ON TRADE?

Homeland Security and food safety should take precedence over any international trade laws--already many countries are having to adapt to the US standard for passports and other travel regulations....US citizens have had to face many restrictions and invasions of our rights because of the war with the Muslim extremists-ex the Patriot Act-- about time Canada and all the nations that want to profit from importing into the land of milk and honey did too.....

Can you tell us Oldtimer where the terrorists that highjacked the planes that took down the Twin Towers were trained to fly planes? Wasn't it in the US. Just give a pilot school in Florida cash and they won't ask any question will they? Were did they board the planes that they Hijacked OldTimer was that not also in the US? Using Homeland Security to justify overriding WTO rules is a joke considering your largest terrorist attack was stage right in the good old USA, right under your noses. What will happen if the terrorists decide to buy a herd of cattle infect them with something and then sell them to a producer that also sells the to another producer and that producer sells them to a buy of a slaughter house that is sitting in the stands of the local auction house. How will knowing where our cattle spend time verses being able to tell when the US cattle spent time beable to speed the capture of the terrorist that infected the cattle under the watchful eye of Homeland Security?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam you are quite right that we were very lax in many areas which helped to make the 9/11 attacks possible....That is the very reason we need to do everything possible to shut down these holes- and that includes to tighten border security which includes imported food products...As the former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said- "imported food products are very vulnerable."

This country has an ongoing Ag antiterrorism program going which is involving everyone in Agriculture and law enforcement- developed by the FBI--It may or may not prevent future problems, but at least it is a start- at least there is much more awareness...But we still must set up requirements and restrictions on imports from countries that hardly even acknowledge a danger exists....

Just like with 9/11- it was not IF something would happen- it was WHEN---people in the know had been predicting it for 10 years while Billy fiddled (or whatever he did with Monica).....Hopefully we will have enough barriers in place to prevent most attempts.....
 

Latest posts

Top