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

Criminal Prosecution?

Mike

Well-known member
Government Threatens To Prosecute Private Company Who Does A Better Job

What's wrong with this picture? Consider this: A meatpacking company in Kansas wants to test every cow it slaughters for Mad Cow Disease, but if it does, then the USDA has threatened to institute criminal prosecution proceedings. That's right. Go back and read that second sentence again. A private company wants to do more than it's required to do to protect consumers, but the government won't let it.

According to Kansas meatpacker Creekstone Farms, its Japanese customers insist that every cow be tested for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, which we know as Mad Cow Disease. The company cites "a December 2005 poll by the Kyodo News Service[, which] found that more than half of Japanese consumers want U.S. beef to be tested for BSE." The company also said, "Creekstone simply wants to satisfy its customers," according to its press release. Somewhat surprisingly, the USDA has for two years refused to allow Creekstone access to the BSE test kits, claiming that it has exclusive authority to conduct testing. The testing would add about 10 cents to each pound of beef sold, or $20.00 per cow.

To fight back, the company, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, LLC filed suit in Washington, D.C. challenging the USDA's ban. The USDA website has no immediate response to the lawsuit, but did post this press release about its visit to Japan asking the Japanese government to reopen its borders to American beef. The USDA reports, "Japan reopened its market to U.S. beef on December 11, 2005 but halted U.S. beef imports on January 20, 2006 after receiving a shipment of U.S. beef that posed no food safety risk but did not meet the specifications of the U.S. export agreement with Japan."

Am I missing something here?

Let's recap. We know that Japan wants all of its imported beef tested for BSE. All of it. All the time. Every single cow. Since it's not, Japan banned US beef imports.

In response to that ban, two things happened. First, a US beef exporting company voluntarily offered to test for BSE, but the USDA won't permit it. Not only will the government agency not permit the testing (which would also make beef safer for US consumers), but the USDA has also threatened to criminally prosecute the US company if it tries to test in order to comply with its customer's demands.

Second, and somewhat incongruously, the USDA has dispatched a team of negotiators to Japan to convince the Japanese government that importing US beef is safe. The only clue we have about this apparent disconnect on the government's part is a thinly-stated position that the USDA has prepared a "thorough report" showing the safety of US beef. Not even a claim that the Japanese have agreed in a treaty to allow the sporadic level of testing we have now.

MIPTC votes to prosecute the USDA for its ___________ (you fill in the blank).

Printer friendly page Permalink Posted by J. Craig Williams on Saturday, March 25, 2006 at 12:38 Comments (1) | Trackback (0)
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The criminals are working at the USDA. They have identified the wrong criminals to prosecute (or in JoAnn's case, formerly working at the USDA).
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The best thing for Creekstone to do might be to go ahead with their plans and let the USDA prosecute. That would sure generate some publicity, especially if a TV crew is on hand when the cops come. Widespread publicity might have more octane than a court case - we've seen how effective the courts are...
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Here is what Kruse has to say about this. I thought it was interesting.


# The NCBA opposes allowing Creekstone Farms to test animals for BSE for export to Japan. NCBA economist Greg Doud touted NCBA opposition on NPR radio. R-Calf supports Creekstone Farms in its legal battle to voluntarily test for BSE. Here we go again. You get to choose.

I believe NCBA is wrong on mandatory price reporting reform, COOL implementation, opposing APHIS packers and stockyards enforcement, and trade policy on Japan, and R-Calf is right on these issues. I think the NCBA policies have cost U.S. cattlemen literally hundreds of millions of dollars. An NCBA membership is not a neutral thing.

R-Calf wrote, backing Creekstone, saying, "R-Calf USA supports Creekstone in these efforts, because voluntary testing for BSE likely would help reopen and maintain certain export markets for U.S. beef, which in turn, would certainly benefit the thousands of independent cattle producers this organization represents. The U.S. economy is based on free enterprise, and Creekstone is simply trying to meet the demands of it’s customers - a key objective for any successful business. Instead of thwarting innovation, USDA should be applauding and facilitating Creekstone's entrepreneurial spirit.
Creekstone is leading the beef processing industry into a new era- one that is predicated on meeting the needs and wants of its customers, and in so doing, Creekstone has discovered a reasonable, efficient and timely means for resuming export trade with Japan. Other like-minded meat processors are sure to follow if Creekstone's efforts attract financial rewards.

The cost to U.S. cattle producers and many of our packers has been in the billions of dollars. On top of that, even if USDA quits obstructing these market requests, it will be years until the U.S. fully recovers these export markets from competing sources. Much has been lost due to delays USDA has inflicted on our industry's commerce.
The agency has forced Creekstone into a corner, causing this particular processor to seek a last-resort solution through litigation. R-Calf calls upon USDA to resolve the matter by immediately reversing its policy on voluntary BSE testing." I think you know where I stand on this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "Let's recap. We know that Japan wants all of its imported beef tested for BSE. All of it. All the time. Every single cow. Since it's not, Japan banned US beef imports."

If that was truly the case, Japan would not have already accepted untested beef from the US. Actions speak louder than cheap talk.



I believe NCBA is wrong on mandatory price reporting reform,

Meanwhile the packer blamers are filing lawsuits against the packers due to USDA's reporting problems with MPR. HOW IRONIC!!!!


COOL implementation,

COOL is a joke. Segregating 5% of the US beef as imported WHICH MAKES IT A NOVELTY ITEM at the cost of labeling all beef then prohibit "M"ID making the law enforceable. "M"COOL is an absolute joke.


opposing APHIS packers and stockyards enforcement,

Believing in the "PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE". The packer blamers had their day in court and they lost because they couldn't prove market manipulation. NCBA opposes wasting time chasing market manipulation conspiracy theories when we have bigger fish to fry.


and trade policy on Japan,

NCBA is working to reopen our borders with Japan BUT NOT BY DECEIVING THEIR CONSUMERS INTO BELIEVING THAT BSE TESTS ON CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE, WITH TESTS THAT WILL NOT REVEAL PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS, MEANS THE BEEF IS "BSE FREE".

NCBA does not support consumer deception whether it's foreign or abroad.


and R-Calf is right on these issues.

R-CALF is wrong on everything. That's why they can't win a court case.


I think the NCBA policies have cost U.S. cattlemen literally hundreds of millions of dollars.

CHEAP TALK with no supporting evidence.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "NCBA is working to reopen our borders with Japan BUT NOT BY DECEIVING THEIR CONSUMERS INTO BELIEVING THAT BSE TESTS ON CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE, WITH TESTS THAT WILL NOT REVEAL PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS, MEANS THE BEEF IS "BSE FREE". NCBA does not support consumer deception whether it's foreign or abroad."

In order for there to be deception, the customer has to be unaware they they are not getting what they think they are. You don't know that. You don't know what the Japanese know and don't know about testing. Considering the fact that they have had over 10 times the number of cases we have had, a government cover up that was big news that brought the issue to the forefront, and the fact that they are the ones making the request, I find it extremely unlikely there is any deception going on. But, go ahead and defend the USDA without considering any facts - we expect that from you.


If you want to talk about deception, consider doctoring a package of beef with gas unbeknownst to the consumer, sell it under a "fresh" banner, and let them think they're getting what the sign says even though it's been sitting there two weeks. :roll:

How can any being capable of abstract thought call selling tested beef at the request of a consumer deception, but then defend the process of adding gas to packaging behind the consumer's back?
 

fedup2

Well-known member
If the meat you are shipping is ‘Unsafe‘, testing with a possible inconclusive test to sell this ‘Unsafe’ meat may be taken as an illusion of safety.
If the meat you are selling is ‘Safe‘, no amount of testing of any kind can create an ‘Illusion’ of safety, because the meat is ‘safe‘! Hell, test it for termites if that’s what the customer wants! There cannot be any Illusions because the meat IS safe!

If I ask either side of this issue, “can you prove beyond a doubt that your beef is safe or unsafe, could anyone do it?”
Is the NCBA saying that our beef is unsafe therefore testing for bse would be an illusion of safety? Is R-Calf saying to test the beef because it is safe so no problem or it is unsafe so needs to be tested? There has been so much double talk on this issue, its hard to figure what the reasoning behind the different stands are. :???:

This is kind of like the guy who goes for an examination and requests that his Doctor uses two fingers when he checks out his ‘lower unit’ cause he’d like a second opinion right away! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
fedup2 said:
Here is what Kruse has to say about this. I thought it was interesting.


# The NCBA opposes allowing Creekstone Farms to test animals for BSE for export to Japan. NCBA economist Greg Doud touted NCBA opposition on NPR radio. R-Calf supports Creekstone Farms in its legal battle to voluntarily test for BSE. Here we go again. You get to choose.

I believe NCBA is wrong on mandatory price reporting reform, COOL implementation, opposing APHIS packers and stockyards enforcement, and trade policy on Japan, and R-Calf is right on these issues. I think the NCBA policies have cost U.S. cattlemen literally hundreds of millions of dollars. An NCBA membership is not a neutral thing.

R-Calf wrote, backing Creekstone, saying, "R-Calf USA supports Creekstone in these efforts, because voluntary testing for BSE likely would help reopen and maintain certain export markets for U.S. beef, which in turn, would certainly benefit the thousands of independent cattle producers this organization represents. The U.S. economy is based on free enterprise, and Creekstone is simply trying to meet the demands of it’s customers - a key objective for any successful business. Instead of thwarting innovation, USDA should be applauding and facilitating Creekstone's entrepreneurial spirit.
Creekstone is leading the beef processing industry into a new era- one that is predicated on meeting the needs and wants of its customers, and in so doing, Creekstone has discovered a reasonable, efficient and timely means for resuming export trade with Japan. Other like-minded meat processors are sure to follow if Creekstone's efforts attract financial rewards.

The cost to U.S. cattle producers and many of our packers has been in the billions of dollars. On top of that, even if USDA quits obstructing these market requests, it will be years until the U.S. fully recovers these export markets from competing sources. Much has been lost due to delays USDA has inflicted on our industry's commerce.
The agency has forced Creekstone into a corner, causing this particular processor to seek a last-resort solution through litigation. R-Calf calls upon USDA to resolve the matter by immediately reversing its policy on voluntary BSE testing." I think you know where I stand on this.

fedup2--Its interesting to note that their are becoming few of the major Ag journalists and columnists that support the USDA's ruling against Creekstone- except for a couple of the died in the wool NCBA old fogies....

USDA and NCBA screwed up big time on this one but are too bullheaded to back down......Thanks to them it will cost the industry multi- Billions $ before its over.... :roll: :( :mad:
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
NCBA is working to reopen our borders with Japan BUT NOT BY DECEIVING THEIR CONSUMERS INTO BELIEVING THAT BSE TESTS ON CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE, WITH TESTS THAT WILL NOT REVEAL PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS, MEANS THE BEEF IS "BSE FREE".

NCBA does not support consumer deception whether it's foreign or abroad.

How simple does one have to write this to get the truth across?? The tests that are being used today to detect BSE (PrPsc) are typically being done by the analysis of brain tissue. The brain tissue will reveal the presence of vacuoles that contain the clusters of PrPsc. The more vacuoles there are means simply that the animal was likely to have had the PrPsc (prion) for quite some time. Having said that, it is generally accepted that when an animal has none of these vacuoles (holes or 'dead spaces' swiss cheese effect in the brain) it can be figured that the animal is free of BSE. But that is not necessarily the case. An animal can be infected with the infectious prion (PrPsc) and not have clusters in the brain tissue by virtue of having only been infected for a short time. The PrPsc can be manifested in various parts of the body, including the brain tissue, spine, lymphatic and vascular systems and not show up in the typical brain tissue review. But, if the PrPsc is present in the animal, REGARDLESS OF THE AGE OF THE ANIMAL, it can be detected by using a sensitive enough test. A test that can take an isolated sample of urine from an animal and then be subjected to a series of procedural tests that lead to using the Western Blot Test to screen the final assay. In as little as 1ml of urine, it is possible to detect the smallest amount of PrPsc.

Simply put, anyone, or any agency that states that animals younger than 20 months cannot be tested for BSE because of the age of the animal is basically lying through their collective shorts!!! Urine can be tested for the presence of the infectious prion and age is not a factor. It is generally believed that because of the age of the animal, it is impossible to test and get a favorable result. Not true. Age is only a factor in the accepted protocol that states that animals under the age of 30 months generally do not display symptoms of BSE and therefore most of the testing for many years was concentrated on older animals. Just because an animal doesn't display symptoms doesn't automatically give that animal a clean bill of health!! Next time you get on a crowded bus or train or aircraft, look around and ask yourself how many of those perfectly healthy looking people are carrying HEP A or B or C or HIV or some other form of disease. Sure, you may say this is all BS - and some of you will - but BSE doesn't give a damn how old the animal is. Neither does most any other transmissible disease!! Get used to the fact that age is not a factor - it was a factor when the governments here in North America tried to convince people that animals under the age of 30 months posed no risk!! Talk about BS!! Do you think that bird have to be a certain age to contract Avian Flu???
 

Mike

Well-known member
Good explanation Ron, but I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears.

Question: During the feed transmission studies in the UK, misfolded prions were found in the distal ileum just a few weeks or months after ingestion. Why could they not run a check on those parts for younger animals? Under twenty months.

Wells, Wilesmith, et al. I believe.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
SH, "NCBA is working to reopen our borders with Japan BUT NOT BY DECEIVING THEIR CONSUMERS INTO BELIEVING THAT BSE TESTS ON CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE, WITH TESTS THAT WILL NOT REVEAL PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS, MEANS THE BEEF IS "BSE FREE". NCBA does not support consumer deception whether it's foreign or abroad."

In order for there to be deception, the customer has to be unaware they they are not getting what they think they are. You don't know that. You don't know what the Japanese know and don't know about testing. Considering the fact that they have had over 10 times the number of cases we have had, a government cover up that was big news that brought the issue to the forefront, and the fact that they are the ones making the request, I find it extremely unlikely there is any deception going on. But, go ahead and defend the USDA without considering any facts - we expect that from you.


If you want to talk about deception, consider doctoring a package of beef with gas unbeknownst to the consumer, sell it under a "fresh" banner, and let them think they're getting what the sign says even though it's been sitting there two weeks. :roll:

How can any being capable of abstract thought call selling tested beef at the request of a consumer deception, but then defend the process of adding gas to packaging behind the consumer's back?

Sandhusker, I posted the correct information on atmospheric packaging long ago, but will try it again.

There is no deception. Check out the editorial in the Rocky Mountain News, March 16, 2006. Sorry I don't have a link, but am sure you can find it IF you are interested in facts.

Basically, it points out that consumer groups and a food-additive maker are creating the fuss. Consumer groups thrive by exploiting problems. Not solving them. That would end their income. The food additive company has another agenda. As some on this site are so fond of saying "follow the money"......his bottom line is hurting from the relatively new technology of atmospheric packaging......so like someone else who wants their agenda to change the industry......that company enlisted the 'help' of a consumer group to instill fears in consumers' minds over this improved packaging for meat. Not new, not particularly honest, but often quite effective!

Some facts from the Rocky Mountain editorial:

1. There is no credible link between trace levels of CO in packaging and health threats to the meat eating public, AND no one will HAVE to buy meat in such packages because retailers will heed customers desire for choice in this matter. However, banning harmless technologies is no way to serve consumers.

2. Several gases have been used in this modified atmospheric processing method, such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. They have been used to preserve and make safer salads, coffee, pasta, bottled water for decades. They present NO unique dangers. Using CO, the process allows case-ready cuts of beef to be packaged at the slaughterhouse rather than at the supermarket, keeping labor costs lower.

3. Interestingly, Kalsec, the company making the complaing along with the Consumer Federation of America went to the FDA to stop this process in beef even though they use the SAME TECHNOLOGY with oxygen to preserve meats, ONLY after losing their contract with Tyson. They asked Washington to put their competitors out of business!

4. While the red color may remain in spoiled meat, the odor of the meat will stink when spoiled, and labeling regarding proper refrigeration and care, and expiration date of the meat mean consumers who follow the instructions will not eat spoiled meat, nor will they be deceived in any way.

Personally, as a consumer, I want the meat handled by as few hands as possible in the processing, retail, and food preparation entities. Every time it is handled by humans in one more opportunity for contamination of that meat. Keeping the color normal for the duration of viable shelf life is a consumer benefit, IMO. There are choices readily available in the same store for those who do not feel the same. This deal reeks almost as badly as placing ads in city newspapers erroneously claiming meat is "tainted" with BSE.

MRJ
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Mike Wrote:

Question: During the feed transmission studies in the UK, misfolded prions were found in the distal ileum just a few weeks or months after ingestion. Why could they not run a check on those parts for younger animals? Under twenty months.

The simple answer Mike is that the origin of the smoke and mirror campaign that put forward the idea that animals under 30 months are nothing to worry about was within the British Government. They ran their dog and pony show for years to convince the British public that animals under the age of 30 months need not be tested since they typically never displayed any symptoms of having the disease. This of course was, and is due to the fairly long incubation period of the disease. As you know Mike, it takes a while for the PrPsc to manifest itself into sufficient numbers in the brain to disrupt normal brain activity by causing a breakdown in the transmission of electical impulses that control motor movement and/or other essential functions. Therefore, the animals could not, in the eyes of the untrained staff within MAFF, (by untrained, I mean those folks who had little or no experience with this fairly new and developing disease) and the fact that symptoms were only appearing in older animals, laid the foundation to the idea of younger animals being somewhat safe and disease free! Of course, we now know that this is certainly not the case and that younger animals may be just as infected and simply not manifesting the symptoms of the disease due to the small amounts of PrPsc in their systems. But, those animals are still completely contaminated. It is somewhat like saying that a woman who is pregnant is only "a little bit pregnant!!!" I heard of a study that showed that cattle infected with leg-worm showed PrPsc inside the leg worm itself. Also in bloodworms and tapeworm. Any blood sucker will be subject to infection I would think. Better invest in a few dozen fly-swatters Mike.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
bse tester,

Why has this test not been approved by USDA if it can do what you say it can. I am more proned to believe USDA than a bse-tester with $$$ in his eyes.


Sandbag: "In order for there to be deception, the customer has to be unaware they they are not getting what they think they are. You don't know that. You don't know what the Japanese know and don't know about testing."

You know darn well the Japanese consumers believe that "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE" OTHERWISE WHY THE HECK WOULD THEY EVEN REQUEST TESTING????

Another idiotic statement and more of your "illusionist" bullsh*t!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
bse tester,

Why has this test not been approved by USDA if it can do what you say it can. I am more proned to believe USDA than a bse-tester with $$$ in his eyes.


Sandbag: "In order for there to be deception, the customer has to be unaware they they are not getting what they think they are. You don't know that. You don't know what the Japanese know and don't know about testing."

You know darn well the Japanese consumers believe that "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE" OTHERWISE WHY THE HECK WOULD THEY EVEN REQUEST TESTING????

Another idiotic statement and more of your "illusionist" bullsh*t!



~SH~

SH, maybe you should go over and save all the Japanese from themselves and their testing procedures.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "You know darn well the Japanese consumers believe that "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE" OTHERWISE WHY THE HECK WOULD THEY EVEN REQUEST TESTING???? Another idiotic statement and more of your "illusionist" bullsh*t!"

I don't know that. I think they want testing because they've been royally screwed on BSE by their own government, they've got a very big infection rate in their herd, and they don't want to take any chances if theny don't have to. For what it costs to run a test, why not test and feel a little better. Who are you to tell them they're wrong? When has Japan interfered with your food supply?
 

Mike

Well-known member
The UK Food Standards Agency today announced the appointment of an independent steering group to oversee an inquiry into recent failures to test some cattle for BSE.

Earlier this month, the FSA announced an investigation into an apparent failure by the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) to test some casualty cattle aged between 24 and 30 months for BSE before they entered the food chain.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag,

Who do you think you're kidding this time???

You know damn well that the bse tests Creekstone planned to use would not have revealed bse prions due to the age of the cattle being tested. You support creating an "ILLUSION" of safety because the Japanese consumers believe "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE" and in Creekstone's case, it wouldn't. It would only mean "BSE TESTED" and create the "ILLUSION OF SAFETY".

This is so typical of your deceptive pathetic ways.

Capitalize on the ignorance of Japanese consumers REGARDING the validity of the Creekstone's BSE tests for $$$ gain that Bullard says is not needed. You wonder why USDA refused to allow this consumer deception. It's no wonder why you would support it.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag,

Who do you think you're kidding this time???

You know damn well that the bse tests Creekstone planned to use would not have revealed bse prions due to the age of the cattle being tested. You support creating an "ILLUSION" of safety because the Japanese consumers believe "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE" and in Creekstone's case, it wouldn't. It would only mean "BSE TESTED" and create the "ILLUSION OF SAFETY".

This is so typical of your deceptive pathetic ways.

Capitalize on the ignorance of Japanese consumers REGARDING the validity of the Creekstone's BSE tests for $$$ gain that Bullard says is not needed. You wonder why USDA refused to allow this consumer deception. It's no wonder why you would support it.



~SH~

Are you going to go over and save the Japanese from themselves?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag,

Who do you think you're kidding this time???

You know damn well that the bse tests Creekstone planned to use would not have revealed bse prions due to the age of the cattle being tested. You support creating an "ILLUSION" of safety because the Japanese consumers believe "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE" and in Creekstone's case, it wouldn't. It would only mean "BSE TESTED" and create the "ILLUSION OF SAFETY".

This is so typical of your deceptive pathetic ways.

Capitalize on the ignorance of Japanese consumers REGARDING the validity of the Creekstone's BSE tests for $$$ gain that Bullard says is not needed. You wonder why USDA refused to allow this consumer deception. It's no wonder why you would support it.



~SH~

Once again, SH, you don't know the Japanese are ignorant. You don't know they are unaware of what they are asking for. You really don't know a heck of a lot.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
SH Wrote:

Why has this test not been approved by USDA if it can do what you say it can. I am more proned to believe USDA than a bse-tester with $$$ in his eyes.

Perhaps if you knew anything at all about BSE and how the test works, you might then wish to ask the USDA why they refused to even look at the test 3 years ago when the entire North American herd was in complete turmoil. They turned it down flat even after the Chairman of the European Food Safety Association (EFSA) had suggested that our test be validated by the USDA and the CFIA. But noooooo, the USDA blatantly decided that it was better to let the prospect of having BSE in the National Herd rather than test animals with a test that would bring consumer confidence back both domestically and internationally.

But then you know better than most I am sure.

Also, with the matter of me having $$$ in my eyes - It is a matter of public record that our company is in this for purely humanitarian reasons and all profits will go to prion research and setting up scholarships across Nroth America and Europe and in any other country that comes to the table with a valid lab and potential to train post-doctorate graduates who wish to pursue a career in prion research - so get that little fact straight and be aware of the truth before you make statements that are so far from the truth.

One last item for your information - our test was "Proven" at the United States National Prion Surveillance Center, in Cleveland, Ohio. It was done there by one of the world's leading prion researchers and his team of prion experts. It should be noted that Dr. Shu G. Chen, the Associate Director of Pathology at that lab, is often called upon by the USDA to administer assistance to their efforts when it comes to prion research. I think that basically quantifies the level of our test and how well it is being received throughout the "prion" community. But you of course are free to believe in whomever you wish as I simply do not care - but then I guess you still believe in the tooth fairy also huh?? Have a nice day!!
 
Top