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

Court Shortens Creekstone Suit Time

Econ101

Well-known member
Judge speeds Creekstone's USDA suit



BY PHYLLIS JACOBS GRIEKSPOOR

The Wichita Eagle

May. 26, 2006

Kansas, US



Arkansas City beef processor Creekstone Farms has won a court ruling that will speed up a hearing date in its lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.



U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson approved a schedule allowing Creekstone to file for summary judgment in the company's suit, which challenges the USDA's authority to deny the company's request to test all cattle it slaughters for mad cow disease.

The judge's ruling will allow Creekstone to file a motion by June 23 and sets Sept. 15 as a deadline for all parties to respond.



Creekstone president and chief executive John Stewart said that could shave months off the wait for a hearing.



Creekstone filed the suit in March after the USDA refused to allow it to conduct the testing, which the USDA says is unnecessary and contrary to the sound science policy adopted by the government.



Creekstone produces high-end premium beef under its Premium Black Angus Beef program, one of the few branded programs certified by the Agricultural Marketing Service.



It had sought to test every animal as a way to regain its customers in Japan.



Creekstone built a private lab in its Ark City plant and sent employees to France to be trained in the proper use of the test. It also agreed to work with the testing laboratory at Kansas State University, which is part of the USDA network.



But the USDA contends that blanket testing is not sound science and that allowing one company to do it would give the impression that it was necessary.



Company officials said they agree that the tests are not necessary for food safety and agree that the cattle it slaughters, generally between 16 and 20 months of age, are too young for the disease to be detected. But, they said, they were willing to pay for the tests anyway because testing is what their customers want and the loss of those customers has cost them more money than the testing would cost.





kansas.com
 

Tam

Well-known member
But the USDA contends that blanket testing is not sound science and that allowing one company to do it would give the impression that it was necessary.
Company officials said they agree that the tests are not necessary for food safety and agree that the cattle it slaughters, generally between 16 and 20 months of age, are too young for the disease to be detected. But, they said, they were willing to pay for the tests anyway because testing is what their customers want and the loss of those customers has cost them more money than the testing would cost.

So can we all agree that Creekstone knows the test will not show anything on the animals they plan on testing?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Tam said:
But the USDA contends that blanket testing is not sound science and that allowing one company to do it would give the impression that it was necessary.
Company officials said they agree that the tests are not necessary for food safety and agree that the cattle it slaughters, generally between 16 and 20 months of age, are too young for the disease to be detected. But, they said, they were willing to pay for the tests anyway because testing is what their customers want and the loss of those customers has cost them more money than the testing would cost.

So can we all agree that Creekstone knows the test will not show anything on the animals they plan on testing?

No, we don't know enough about the particular test yet to make that determination. There could be a lot of factors that determine which test to use but since it goes beyond the very very low standards that the USDA sets, anything would be an improvement, and might actually be beneficial. At least the Japanese have a little input (if it hasn't been sold out by back room politics already) and should help open the Japanese market.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
But the USDA contends that blanket testing is not sound science and that allowing one company to do it would give the impression that it was necessary.
Company officials said they agree that the tests are not necessary for food safety and agree that the cattle it slaughters, generally between 16 and 20 months of age, are too young for the disease to be detected. But, they said, they were willing to pay for the tests anyway because testing is what their customers want and the loss of those customers has cost them more money than the testing would cost.

So can we all agree that Creekstone knows the test will not show anything on the animals they plan on testing?

No, but we can all agree that you keep posting chicken headed posts like this one. If you are in a leadership position in your cattle association, I feel sorry for the members.

You posted it and you don't even believe what you posted. :roll: Did you miss the part where is says Company officials said they agree that the tests are not necessary for food safety and agree that the cattle it slaughters, generally between 16 and 20 months of age, are too young for the disease to be detected. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Talk about necessary Tam. Is it necessary that Cargill and Tyson continue to profit from the captive market created by not testing.

Nothing about BSE is scientific Tam. It's all about money. And if you were to finally admit it - the money is draining from your pocket as well.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Kaiser is right and you are right, Tam. The language around bse is getting silly, but the economic consequences to producers is not.

That is what happens we allow the substutition of words for logic and then logic for truth.

That is why The Man spoke in parables.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
I will take my stand which is .It depends which BSE test Creekstone uses.*********Company officials said they agree that the tests are not necessary for food safety and agree that the cattle it slaughters, generally between {16 and 20 months of age, are too young for the disease to be detected}.Depends on which test is being used and if the test is 2006 technology or outdated 2003 technology.

Same thing goes for cost and total time of get results. So we could have a $5.00 test and a 5 hr turnaround time if technology is the newest. bse-tester test could be the one or pronics blood test. Go GUESS !!!
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
PORKER said:
I will take my stand which is .It depends which BSE test Creekstone uses

Part of me is wondering if this isn't Creekstone's intent. Get their foot in the door for BSE testing, then suggest a new kit that is much better than the existing. Force whoever it is in the US who does this kind of thing to start validating these other tests that other countries appear to feel work just fine. If so, I hope they succeed. I grow weary of watching other governments outpace us at every step.

Rod
 

Econ101

Well-known member
BEEF STOCKS STILL TIGHT IN JAPAN



Chris Harris, Editor

Bryan Salvage, Editorial Director

Meat News

May 26, 2006



JAPAN: Australian beef is still expected to be needed on the Japanese market to fill the gap left by the ban on U.S. beef.



As at the end of March, Japanese beef stocks remained threadbare according to analysts at Meat and Livestock Australia.



While record Australian shipments throughout March may have added to stocks in April, it is likely that stocks are still small, MLA said. Low stocks and the continued absence of U.S. beef, until at least late July, suggest that Japanese buyers need to maintain their purchasing of Australian product over the next few months, particularly in the lead-up to the Obon holiday peak-demand period in early August.



Total beef stocks for March were at 68,746 metric tons (boneless equivalent) – down by two percent compared to March 2005 levels, with stocks less than half of the high levels reached in March 2002, of 141,744 metric tons. These high stocks in 2002 were before the major disruption caused to the Japan market by the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United States.



Relative to consumption levels, Japan’s beef stocks appear tight. During March, stocks were virtually equivalent to the March consumption level of 68,078 metric tons. Prior to the discovery of the first case of BSE in the United States in December 2003, beef stocks ranged between one and three month’s beef consumption.



MLA added that limited supply – and the subsequent high retail prices – are constraining Japanese beef consumption levels. The likely return of U.S. beef to the market in July should see both supply and consumption levels begin to recover.





meatnews.com
 

Econ101

Well-known member
What will be interesting to me is if Creekstone will be allowed to profit from its "innovation" and ability to be in tune with its customer base or if the other packers will make sure that USDA policy does not allow anyone but their good old boys to gain from comparative advantages in policy as rkaiser has suggested.

When the govt. picks winners and losers for no real good reason, the free market is a loser. The politicians who allow this to happen profit at the expense of an innovative and robust free market and sell out our best economic attribute for their own self interest.

Tam, I took out the "rudeness" from my first response to your post. Sorry.
 

Tam

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Talk about necessary Tam. Is it necessary that Cargill and Tyson continue to profit from the captive market created by not testing.

Nothing about BSE is scientific Tam. It's all about money. And if you were to finally admit it - the money is draining from your pocket as well.

How are Tyson and Cargill continuing to profit from the captive market created by not testing less than 20 month old animals? Animals that even Creekstone admits are "too young for the disease to be detected " with the test they will be using. (If they weren't going to use a test that didn't detect it why would they make the statement that eCON posted?) And you are right it is all about the money that is why Creekstone is willing to set a precedent of testing for the Japanese without a thought of what impression that will leave on untested beef that will be sold to domestic consumers. Personally I would think our customers deserve more than an illusion that testing under aged cattle will create. So why not spend our money on true food safety issues instead of wasting it on the illusion Creekstone wants to sell. Why not spend that money on inspections of slaughter plants to see to it that they are not violating the SRM removal rules? Why not spent it on inspecting feed mills in a timely manner to make sure the feed ban is not being violated? Why not spend it on inspecting BONELESS boxed beef before it leaves North America? These are things that will save us in the long run and will not set a precedent that a country can demand unjust testing of our product just so we can export to them. If we do this unjust testing what will be the next demand just so we can get our foot in the door?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
I will take my stand which is .It depends which BSE test Creekstone uses.*********Company officials said they agree that the tests are not necessary for food safety and agree that the cattle it slaughters, generally between {16 and 20 months of age, are too young for the disease to be detected}.Depends on which test is being used and if the test is 2006 technology or outdated 2003 technology.

Same thing goes for cost and total time of get results. So we could have a $5.00 test and a 5 hr turnaround time if technology is the newest. bse-tester test could be the one or pronics blood test.

Go GUESS !!! If Creekstone wins,, There will be more than just them testing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Bill

Well-known member
Tam said:
rkaiser said:
Talk about necessary Tam. Is it necessary that Cargill and Tyson continue to profit from the captive market created by not testing.

Nothing about BSE is scientific Tam. It's all about money. And if you were to finally admit it - the money is draining from your pocket as well.

How are Tyson and Cargill continuing to profit from the captive market created by not testing less than 20 month old animals? Animals that even Creekstone admits are "too young for the disease to be detected " with the test they will be using. (If they weren't going to use a test that didn't detect it why would they make the statement that eCON posted?) And you are right it is all about the money that is why Creekstone is willing to set a precedent of testing for the Japanese without a thought of what impression that will leave on untested beef that will be sold to domestic consumers. Personally I would think our customers deserve more than an illusion that testing under aged cattle will create. So why not spend our money on true food safety issues instead of wasting it on the illusion Creekstone wants to sell. Why not spend that money on inspections of slaughter plants to see to it that they are not violating the SRM removal rules? Why not spent it on inspecting feed mills in a timely manner to make sure the feed ban is not being violated? Why not spend it on inspecting BONELESS boxed beef before it leaves North America? These are things that will save us in the long run and will not set a precedent that a country can demand unjust testing of our product just so we can export to them. If we do this unjust testing what will be the next demand just so we can get our foot in the door?
Tam what do you think about testing all OTMs?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"But the USDA contends that blanket testing is not sound science and that allowing one company to do it would give the impression that it was necessary"

They could say the same exact thing about organic product and it would be just as accurate. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Bill said:
Tam said:
rkaiser said:
Talk about necessary Tam. Is it necessary that Cargill and Tyson continue to profit from the captive market created by not testing.

Nothing about BSE is scientific Tam. It's all about money. And if you were to finally admit it - the money is draining from your pocket as well.

How are Tyson and Cargill continuing to profit from the captive market created by not testing less than 20 month old animals? Animals that even Creekstone admits are "too young for the disease to be detected " with the test they will be using. (If they weren't going to use a test that didn't detect it why would they make the statement that eCON posted?) And you are right it is all about the money that is why Creekstone is willing to set a precedent of testing for the Japanese without a thought of what impression that will leave on untested beef that will be sold to domestic consumers. Personally I would think our customers deserve more than an illusion that testing under aged cattle will create. So why not spend our money on true food safety issues instead of wasting it on the illusion Creekstone wants to sell. Why not spend that money on inspections of slaughter plants to see to it that they are not violating the SRM removal rules? Why not spent it on inspecting feed mills in a timely manner to make sure the feed ban is not being violated? Why not spend it on inspecting BONELESS boxed beef before it leaves North America? These are things that will save us in the long run and will not set a precedent that a country can demand unjust testing of our product just so we can export to them. If we do this unjust testing what will be the next demand just so we can get our foot in the door?
Tam what do you think about testing all OTMs?

I believe that there is a higher risk in the OTM cattle but as we have all witness the testing can be wrong (ie the TEXAS COW) I feel our best bet is to go above and beyong the testing that is required for surveillance which is the highest risk 4D cattle just like we have. To me this should show our trading partners and domestic consumers that we are doing more than what is asked of us to find the problems and fix them . BUT we still have to remove the SRM's from all cattle which is the real food safety measure we should be concentrating on. Why not spend all that money that it will take to build and run those labs to INSPECT slaughter plants and feed mills to make sure the measure we implement for true food safety and animal health are NOT VIOLATED.
 
Top