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

Deliberate Sabotage?

Bill

Well-known member
Renegades Engage in Deliberate Sabotage
Colorado Springs, CO Sept. 16, 2006

Bill Bullard is no dummy. He must know Specified Risk Material (SRM) removal at slaughter ensures that beef from any animal – with or without BSE – is safe to eat. He must know the ruminant feed ban breaks the cycle of re-infection among cattle and has no direct connection with food safety. He also must know testing cattle for BSE is a measure to monitor disease prevalence in the cattle herd and has no direct human safety connection.

So when Bullard points to testing methods that detect BSE in a live animal eight months before clinical symptoms appear instead of two months prior, when he implies that there is a danger to the human food chain, he knows what he is doing. He knows he is deliberately distorting, twisting together two separate issues and attempting to scare beef consumers to the detriment of their well-being and the beef industry’s welfare. Like twisting two hot electrical circuits together, he is creating a flash and the chance of fire.

In referring to the ability to detect BSE eight months prior to clinical symptoms in a cow, Bullard said, “This would suggest that Canada, if it would dramatically increase BSE testing of its cattle herd, could detect the disease in animals that are not exhibiting clinical symptoms, but are destined for the human food chain,” Bullard said in a recent news release.

It is assumed most cattle are headed for the human food chain. That’s why we perform SRM removal on all of them ... to handle the infinitesimal chance that any particular animal could be infected, wherever it came from. We even go beyond that, allowing no downer animals and no sick animals ... two more levels of safeguards. On top of that, science and experience have shown there is a huge species barrier to BSE infecting humans.

Bullard sounds like Carol Tucker Foreman (Consumer Federation of America) or Patty Lovera (Public Citizen). This begs the question ... whose side is he on, anyway? He is certainly not on the consumer’s side, because he is feeding them distorted information, implying false risk and creating an unwarranted fear. Consumers don’t want or need that.

He is certainly not on the cattlemen’s side, because he is risking consumer confidence in beef supply safety for no legitimate reason ... something nobody but the renegades in the beef production chain want to do. The beef industry has worked hard to maintain the factual credibility and honest reputation it has had with consumers for decades. R- CALF has had no part in building or maintaining that reputation, and seems to place no value on it. It certainly has no qualms about risking it.

So what motivates such self-sacrifice? Attempting to destroy an industry just so you can change a small aspect of it to your liking -- ignoring the fact that there could be no industry left -- can only be described as suicidal. We don’t pretend to be able to explain it, as much as we try to fathom such behavior. But then, R-CALF admitted their failure to convince the majority of cattlemen of their views and motivations when they split off from mainstream national and state organizations.

Deliberate sabotage of your own industry is not just unexplainable ... it puts everyone at risk.
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Bill ; Liberal activist groups stop at absolutely nothing and every action is permissable in their minds to achieve their aims.......... perhaps Bullard should lobby to change his employers name to R-CLAG!!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"He must know Specified Risk Material (SRM) removal at slaughter ensures that beef from any animal – with or without BSE – is safe to eat. "


Good 'ol Dittmer didn't make it past his second sentence without making an ignorant ass out of himself again. I guess with all the practice he gets, he's just getting better and faster.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
"He must know Specified Risk Material (SRM) removal at slaughter ensures that beef from any animal – with or without BSE – is safe to eat. "

Good 'ol Dittmer didn't make it past his second sentence without making an ignorant ass out of himself again. I guess with all the practice he gets, he's just getting better and faster.

I think I recall you mentioning once that we must set policy based on "what we know". In this case, 99% of the world's scientists feel that SRM removal leaves beef completely safe for consumption. Thats what we currently know, and there is no strong evidence to suggest anything else.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
"He must know Specified Risk Material (SRM) removal at slaughter ensures that beef from any animal – with or without BSE – is safe to eat. "

Good 'ol Dittmer didn't make it past his second sentence without making an ignorant ass out of himself again. I guess with all the practice he gets, he's just getting better and faster.

I think I recall you mentioning once that we must set policy based on "what we know". In this case, 99% of the world's scientists feel that SRM removal leaves beef completely safe for consumption. Thats what we currently know, and there is no strong evidence to suggest anything else.

Rod

I would like you to post these quotes from the scientists that says SRM removal leaves beef completely safe...Out of these 99%- find one....

I think the highest figure I have seen is that SRM removal removes 99% of the infected material--IF done correctly by the slaughterhouse people- and IF all the correct SRM material is removed- which at this time is differing and debatable by many of the countries and scientists of the world as to what exactly should be included as an SRM....

And as the testing gets better- they are finding that the prions are in more parts of the body- at differing stages of the disease....

From what I've read and been told tho by those that have watched the SRM removal performed is that their is a big area which can allow cross contamination during the removal by erring slaughter plant workers....

The best line of defense still is not to be slaughtering any BSE infected cattle- and one of our best ways the US can keep from doing that is to not import from BSE higher risk countries...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
"He must know Specified Risk Material (SRM) removal at slaughter ensures that beef from any animal – with or without BSE – is safe to eat. "

Good 'ol Dittmer didn't make it past his second sentence without making an ignorant ass out of himself again. I guess with all the practice he gets, he's just getting better and faster.

I think I recall you mentioning once that we must set policy based on "what we know". In this case, 99% of the world's scientists feel that SRM removal leaves beef completely safe for consumption. Thats what we currently know, and there is no strong evidence to suggest anything else.

Rod

I would like you to post these quotes from the scientists that says SRM removal leaves beef completely safe...Out of these 99%- find one....

I think the highest figure I have seen is that SRM removal removes 99% of the infected material--IF done correctly by the slaughterhouse people- and IF all the correct SRM material is removed- which at this time is differing and debatable by many of the countries and scientists of the world as to what exactly should be included as an SRM....

And as the testing gets better- they are finding that the prions are in more parts of the body- at differing stages of the disease....

From what I've read and been told tho by those that have watched the SRM removal performed is that their is a big area which can allow cross contamination during the removal by erring slaughter plant workers....

The best line of defense still is not to be slaughtering any BSE infected cattle- and one of our best ways the US can keep from doing that is to not import from BSE higher risk countries...

Oldtimer if you truly believe your little speal then how can you support selling ANY beef domestically or for export? or did you forget that the US HAS BSE in their native herd and the testing the US does is second rate at best. BTW if you read the OIE report to the US it states that SRM is the first and main step to ensure food safety and testing is not a food safety issue. And since they are the ones that set the rules for all countries I would say they probably know more than Bill or you. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
I think I recall you mentioning once that we must set policy based on "what we know". In this case, 99% of the world's scientists feel that SRM removal leaves beef completely safe for consumption. Thats what we currently know, and there is no strong evidence to suggest anything else.

Rod

I would like you to post these quotes from the scientists that says SRM removal leaves beef completely safe...Out of these 99%- find one....

I think the highest figure I have seen is that SRM removal removes 99% of the infected material--IF done correctly by the slaughterhouse people- and IF all the correct SRM material is removed- which at this time is differing and debatable by many of the countries and scientists of the world as to what exactly should be included as an SRM....

And as the testing gets better- they are finding that the prions are in more parts of the body- at differing stages of the disease....

From what I've read and been told tho by those that have watched the SRM removal performed is that their is a big area which can allow cross contamination during the removal by erring slaughter plant workers....

The best line of defense still is not to be slaughtering any BSE infected cattle- and one of our best ways the US can keep from doing that is to not import from BSE higher risk countries...

Oldtimer if you truly believe your little speal then how can you support selling ANY beef domestically or for export? or did you forget that the US HAS BSE in their native herd and the testing the US does is second rate at best. BTW if you read the OIE report to the US it states that SRM is the first and main step to ensure food safety and testing is not a food safety issue. And since they are the ones that set the rules for all countries I would say they probably know more than Bill or you. :wink:

Tammy- Daily living is a risk--As we see, even spinach can kill you...Every day you take some risk and evaluate those risks and try to alleviate the risk... When you see a curve in the road marked 50mph you normally slow to that speed to take the corner- or slower if you want to eliminate more of the risk...You know you could probably and have taken it at 65 but that would be higher risk.....When old Big Muddy goes out on a cold rainy windy morning he could take the 4 year old colt or the 10 year old proven trooper- anymore I take the old trooper on those days to alleviate the risk of my body hitting the ever so harder ground....

Its all a gamble and risk... SRM removal only removes a percentage of that risk- a variable percentage depending on SRM interpretation and actual SRM removal procedure...Adding in testing would take away more of the risk...Not importing from higher risk countries (Canada) will also alleviate some of the risk....

Why should we take more risk by bringing these cattle/beef in from a higher risk area? There is nothing to gain in it for the US- and everything to lose... I wouldn't mind as much if, like the road signs above, there was some advisement for consumers so they could make an informed choice of the risks-- but the way things sit now with Canadian beef being allowed to be passed off as US product, the consumer can't even choose.... :(

And then as the other post this morning exhibits- some Canadians don't seem to think there is anything wrong with this type fraud and deception as long as it helps them sell their product!! :( :
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
I would like you to post these quotes from the scientists that says SRM removal leaves beef completely safe...Out of these 99%- find one....

I think the highest figure I have seen is that SRM removal removes 99% of the infected material--IF done correctly by the slaughterhouse people- and IF all the correct SRM material is removed- which at this time is differing and debatable by many of the countries and scientists of the world as to what exactly should be included as an SRM....

And as the testing gets better- they are finding that the prions are in more parts of the body- at differing stages of the disease....

From what I've read and been told tho by those that have watched the SRM removal performed is that their is a big area which can allow cross contamination during the removal by erring slaughter plant workers....

The best line of defense still is not to be slaughtering any BSE infected cattle- and one of our best ways the US can keep from doing that is to not import from BSE higher risk countries...

Oldtimer if you truly believe your little speal then how can you support selling ANY beef domestically or for export? or did you forget that the US HAS BSE in their native herd and the testing the US does is second rate at best. BTW if you read the OIE report to the US it states that SRM is the first and main step to ensure food safety and testing is not a food safety issue. And since they are the ones that set the rules for all countries I would say they probably know more than Bill or you. :wink:

Tammy- Daily living is a risk--As we see, even spinach can kill you...Every day you take some risk and evaluate those risks and try to alleviate the risk... When you see a curve in the road marked 50mph you normally slow to that speed to take the corner- or slower if you want to eliminate more of the risk...You know you could probably and have taken it at 65 but that would be higher risk.....When old Big Muddy goes out on a cold rainy windy morning he could take the 4 year old colt or the 10 year old proven trooper- anymore I take the old trooper on those days to alleviate the risk of my body hitting the ever so harder ground....

Its all a gamble and risk... SRM removal only removes a percentage of that risk- a variable percentage depending on SRM interpretation and actual SRM removal procedure...Adding in testing would take away more of the risk...Not importing from higher risk countries (Canada) will also alleviate some of the risk....

Why should we take more risk by bringing these cattle/beef in from a higher risk area? There is nothing to gain in it for the US- and everything to lose... I wouldn't mind as much if, like the road signs above, there was some advisement for consumers so they could make an informed choice of the risks-- but the way things sit now with Canadian beef being allowed to be passed off as US product, the consumer can't even choose.... :(

And then as the other post this morning exhibits- some Canadians don't seem to think there is anything wrong with this type fraud and deception as long as it helps them sell their product!! :( :

You know Oldtimer with all the attention you and R-CALF has put on the fact that risky Canadian beef is being passed off as US beef, you would have thought if the consumers cared at all they would stop eating beef altogether. Why chance getting a relabeled piece of meat? Just stop eating all beef and eat pork or chicken. :roll: Maybe it you and R-CALF would stop with the fear mongering about a label that means so little to the average consumer then more beef would be sold. You are risking the sale of all beef for such a small amount of meat that would actually be labeled :roll:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer wrote:
Its all a gamble and risk...

Exactly! That has been R-Klan's approach since May 20th 2003. They along with people such as yourself have risked consumer confidence with a scare campaign against Canadian beef since May 20th 2003 and Dittmer is once again calling a spade a spade.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Bill said:
Oldtimer wrote:
Its all a gamble and risk...

Exactly! That has been R-Klan's approach since May 20th 2003. They along with people such as yourself have risked consumer confidence with a scare campaign against Canadian beef since May 20th 2003 and Dittmer is once again calling a spade a spade.

Ronald Reagan said ,"Don't be afraid to see what you see." R-CALF has not been afraid to tell it like it is.

Like Sandhusker implied, removing SRM's cannot be said to be an absolutely foolproof method of reducing risk. SRM removal in North America is not even the same protocol as SRM removal in Europe.

Let's not say anything about E. Coli and spinach lest we spoil peoples confidence in vegetables.

R-CALF's approach is better than that of ostriches.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
There is absolutely no proof that the trace amounts of prions found in other areas of the animal are dangerous.

Interesting story for you OT: I'm "sorta" allergic to tomatoes. In other words, I can eat them, but if I eat too many over an extended period of time, the acid (or whatever I'm allergic to) builds up and my body is unable to get rid of it fast enough. Then I break out.

I believe that these trace amounts of bad prions will end being the same way. We'll discover that we've been eating this stuff for years and years, but in such minute quantities that the body has been able to eliminate it with no ill effects.

So once again, I'll have to quote Sandhusker: "We can only go by what we know". The other stuff you've posted OT are theories with little support or so new that no-one has had a chance to study them appropriately. RCalf's systematic destruction of the beef market in a thinly veiled protectionist act is nothing short of criminal.

Rod
 

ocm

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
There is absolutely no proof that the trace amounts of prions found in other areas of the animal are dangerous.

Interesting story for you OT: I'm "sorta" allergic to tomatoes. In other words, I can eat them, but if I eat too many over an extended period of time, the acid (or whatever I'm allergic to) builds up and my body is unable to get rid of it fast enough. Then I break out.

I believe that these trace amounts of bad prions will end being the same way. We'll discover that we've been eating this stuff for years and years, but in such minute quantities that the body has been able to eliminate it with no ill effects.

So once again, I'll have to quote Sandhusker: "We can only go by what we know". The other stuff you've posted OT are theories with little support or so new that no-one has had a chance to study them appropriately. RCalf's systematic destruction of the beef market in a thinly veiled protectionist act is nothing short of criminal.

Rod

The difference between your approach and that of R-CALF seems to be who has the burden of proof. Does somebody have the burden to prove that beef with a few known prions is unsafe or does somebody else have the burden to prove it is safe?

If we are to make a mistake, which way should we be leaning? What approach is better for the long term consumer confidence in the safety of beef?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "Ronald Reagan said ,"Don't be afraid to see what you see." R-CALF has not been afraid to tell it like it is."

Oh bullcrap!

R-CALF tells it how they want it to be AT THAT SPECIFIC TIME.

Yesterday R-CALF will claim that "USDA does not care about food safety".
Yesterday R-CALF will claim that "USDA has not gone far enough to assure the safety of our beef".
Yesterday R-CALF will claim that "Canadian beef is contaminated and high risk due to having BSE in their native herd".

When BSE hits the US, then suddenly, "WE HAVE THE SAFEST BEEF IN THE WORLD DUE TO OUR FIREWALLS".

FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP like a fish in a boat.

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE KIDDING OCM????

Yesterday R-CALF will claim that consumers have the right to know where their beef comes from.
Today R-CALF will claim "don't burden me with traceback" when they come to the realization that a traceback system is required to enforce "M"COOL.

R-CALF's concern with Canadian beef has everything to do with reducing beef supplies in the US and nothing to do with the safety of Canadian beef based on their ignorance of the fact that stopping Canadian imports would not remove Canadian beef from the GLOBAL MARKET.

The absolute dumbest political move I have ever seen in my life was R-CULT's antics to stop Canadian imports using BSE "FEAR MONGERING" as a catalyst. They risked the integrity of 80% of our US beef consumption by lying about the safety of Canadian beef to stop 5% of our US beef consumption (Canadian live cattle imports) due to their ignorance of the affect of Canadian imports on the global beef market. Thank God the US media did not look to R-CULT as a credible source of information on bse or they could have greatly decreased the confidence of US consumers in the safety of US beef.

What I wouldn't give to hear you R-CULTers try to justify the difference between the BSE precautionary measures in the US and the BSE precautionary measures in Canada to justify your isolationist antics.

Unfortunately most producers never hear the truth on these issues. All they hear is LMA representatives giving their distorted version of the truth during market reports and Leo and Bill contradicting what they said yesterday. Blind leading the blind.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
There is absolutely no proof that the trace amounts of prions found in other areas of the animal are dangerous.

Interesting story for you OT: I'm "sorta" allergic to tomatoes. In other words, I can eat them, but if I eat too many over an extended period of time, the acid (or whatever I'm allergic to) builds up and my body is unable to get rid of it fast enough. Then I break out.

I believe that these trace amounts of bad prions will end being the same way. We'll discover that we've been eating this stuff for years and years, but in such minute quantities that the body has been able to eliminate it with no ill effects.

So once again, I'll have to quote Sandhusker: "We can only go by what we know". The other stuff you've posted OT are theories with little support or so new that no-one has had a chance to study them appropriately. RCalf's systematic destruction of the beef market in a thinly veiled protectionist act is nothing short of criminal.

Rod

Here's what we know, Rod. Prions are found in nerve tissue. Nerve tissue is found in every ounce of meat. Do you really need a scientific study to connect the two?
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Here's what we know, Rod. Prions are found in nerve tissue. Nerve tissue is found in every ounce of meat. Do you really need a scientific study to connect the two?

But there is no evidence that remotely suggests these trace amounts of prions are even remotely dangerous. They may even occur in every single animal walking, and only concentrated doses may result in BSE or vCJD. Fact is, we simply don't know, so should we completely stop selling all beef until we know for sure?

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
Here's what we know, Rod. Prions are found in nerve tissue. Nerve tissue is found in every ounce of meat. Do you really need a scientific study to connect the two?

But there is no evidence that remotely suggests these trace amounts of prions are even remotely dangerous. They may even occur in every single animal walking, and only concentrated doses may result in BSE or vCJD. Fact is, we simply don't know, so should we completely stop selling all beef until we know for sure?

Rod

We should stop making irresponsible statements like "SRM removal INSURES safety".
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
Here's what we know, Rod. Prions are found in nerve tissue. Nerve tissue is found in every ounce of meat. Do you really need a scientific study to connect the two?

But there is no evidence that remotely suggests these trace amounts of prions are even remotely dangerous. They may even occur in every single animal walking, and only concentrated doses may result in BSE or vCJD. Fact is, we simply don't know, so should we completely stop selling all beef until we know for sure?

Rod

We should stop making irresponsible statements like "SRM removal INSURES safety".


Another R-CLAG classic position.......protectionism overrides KNOWN science!!!!!!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
cowsense said:
Sandhusker said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
But there is no evidence that remotely suggests these trace amounts of prions are even remotely dangerous. They may even occur in every single animal walking, and only concentrated doses may result in BSE or vCJD. Fact is, we simply don't know, so should we completely stop selling all beef until we know for sure?

Rod

We should stop making irresponsible statements like "SRM removal INSURES safety".


Another R-CLAG classic position.......protectionism overrides KNOWN science!!!!!!!!

Protectionism my fat butt. I suggest you grab a dictionary and learn what the definition of the word is. That word gets applied to R-CALF incorrectly so much its rediculous.

Does KNOWN science KNOW that SRM removal INSURES safety?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
cowsense said:
Sandhusker said:
We should stop making irresponsible statements like "SRM removal INSURES safety".


Another R-CLAG classic position.......protectionism overrides KNOWN science!!!!!!!!

Protectionism my fat butt. I suggest you grab a dictionary and learn what the definition of the word is. That word gets applied to R-CALF incorrectly so much its rediculous.

Does KNOWN science KNOW that SRM removal INSURES safety?

Ya guys ignore the OIE scientists and trust the banker from Gordon Nebraska, He knows more.
 
Top