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

Does Tam and Greg Know Canada's BSE History?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
After an admonishment to another poster, Tam showed just how much she knows about Canada's beef history.

Here is her post:

"Geez Econ you don't have to take Canadian history to know we had M"ID" in place pre BSE. all you have to do is read what we have been telling you right here on Ranchers. But you are so arrogant you probably wouldn't admit we know something about OUR INDUSTRY that you don't. That little fact as you called it took us years to design and fully implement and was a big factor on how successful our investigations were once BSE was found. I ask if it is such a little fact why are the US producers fight tooth and nail about that very issue and the USDA thinking the US might have a system of their own up and running by 2009 if that soon....."

Here is Greg's Post:
"
greg said:
Personally why Tam doesn't get more cranky trying to get ANYTHING through econs little pea brain is beyond me, he has no clue what any of us Canadians do for our industry but trys to bait us into argueing with him ,I don't argue doesn't do any good to argue with someone whos mind won't open enuff to hear facts....there you go i'm in a pissy mood today and said what i think of econ :mad:
"


Here are the facts:


Beware of mad cow

September 12, 2002 The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo) by Bradford Duplisea

Mike Buis, president of the Ontario Cattleman's Association would have Canadians believe that Canada is "BSE-free" and that government and industry are doing everything they can to prevent the spread of this hideous disease, as he wrote in his Aug. 22 letter, Canadians Can Rest Assured That Beef Is Safe.

If only this were true.

Not too long ago Germany, France, Belgium and Italy had all pronounced they, too, were "free" of mad cow disease. Mad cow disease has since been documented in all those countries and many more. If Canada is, indeed, "free" of mad cow disease, it is a small miracle indeed. According to Britain's U.K. Customs and Excise Agency, throughout the 1990s, Canada imported 125,000 kilograms of British meat and bone meal after it had been identified as a "likely" cause of mad cow disease.

Worse yet, Statistics Canada documentation shows that more than 2.8 million kilograms of this potentially contaminated animal feed material was imported after 1996 -- after it was established that humans could contract new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) from eating infected cattle.

Alberta actually imported a live cow with mad cow disease back in 1993. The Canadian government raced to destroy the "mad" cow -- along with more than 400 other cattle from the same herd -- but some cattle slipped through the cracks.

A report by the European Union's scientific committee noted that "11 imported cattle that were found to be carrying a risk of being infected (with mad cow disease) entered the Canadian food or feed chain."

The Globe and Mail recently reported that CFIA officials were sent "scrambling" to track down 20 cattle imported from Japan, which had been diagnosed with its first case of mad cow disease. Once again, Ottawa failed to track down all the animals. It was later realized that four of the suspect cattle had been slaughtered and may have entered the Canadian food supply.

Buis said Canada's level of testing for mad cow disease exceeded international recommendations.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Shockingly, only 900 cattle were tested last year for mad cow disease. That is less than 0.0001 per cent of Canada's beef cattle herd which numbers 11 million.

To put this in perspective, European countries were testing up to 20,000 cattle per week in an attempt to detect and eradicate the horrific disease. By only testing 900 cattle a year, we are putting Canadians at risk.

Buis also claimed that cannibalistic feeding practices that spread mad cow disease were illegal in Canada. This, too, is patent nonsense. Under Canadian law it is presently legal for cattle to be fed a diet derived from mammal "blood, gelatin, rendered animal fat or their products."

In other words, cattle blood and other materials are still being processed into feed.

It is also legal for pigs and chickens, fed on rendered cattle materials, to be rendered and fed back to cattle.

Don't listen to the Ontario Cattleman, the threat of mad cow disease is real.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Econ101 said:
After an admonishment to another poster, Tam showed just how much she knows about Canada's beef history.

Here is her post:

"Geez Econ you don't have to take Canadian history to know we had M"ID" in place pre BSE. all you have to do is read what we have been telling you right here on Ranchers. But you are so arrogant you probably wouldn't admit we know something about OUR INDUSTRY that you don't. That little fact as you called it took us years to design and fully implement and was a big factor on how successful our investigations were once BSE was found. I ask if it is such a little fact why are the US producers fight tooth and nail about that very issue and the USDA thinking the US might have a system of their own up and running by 2009 if that soon....."

Here is Greg's Post:
"
greg said:
Personally why Tam doesn't get more cranky trying to get ANYTHING through econs little pea brain is beyond me, he has no clue what any of us Canadians do for our industry but trys to bait us into argueing with him ,I don't argue doesn't do any good to argue with someone whos mind won't open enuff to hear facts....there you go i'm in a pissy mood today and said what i think of econ :mad:
"


Here are the facts:


Beware of mad cow

September 12, 2002 The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo) by Bradford Duplisea

Mike Buis, president of the Ontario Cattleman's Association would have Canadians believe that Canada is "BSE-free" and that government and industry are doing everything they can to prevent the spread of this hideous disease, as he wrote in his Aug. 22 letter, Canadians Can Rest Assured That Beef Is Safe.

If only this were true.

Not too long ago Germany, France, Belgium and Italy had all pronounced they, too, were "free" of mad cow disease. Mad cow disease has since been documented in all those countries and many more. If Canada is, indeed, "free" of mad cow disease, it is a small miracle indeed. According to Britain's U.K. Customs and Excise Agency, throughout the 1990s, Canada imported 125,000 kilograms of British meat and bone meal after it had been identified as a "likely" cause of mad cow disease.

Worse yet, Statistics Canada documentation shows that more than 2.8 million kilograms of this potentially contaminated animal feed material was imported after 1996 -- after it was established that humans could contract new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) from eating infected cattle.

Alberta actually imported a live cow with mad cow disease back in 1993. The Canadian government raced to destroy the "mad" cow -- along with more than 400 other cattle from the same herd -- but some cattle slipped through the cracks.

A report by the European Union's scientific committee noted that "11 imported cattle that were found to be carrying a risk of being infected (with mad cow disease) entered the Canadian food or feed chain."

The Globe and Mail recently reported that CFIA officials were sent "scrambling" to track down 20 cattle imported from Japan, which had been diagnosed with its first case of mad cow disease. Once again, Ottawa failed to track down all the animals. It was later realized that four of the suspect cattle had been slaughtered and may have entered the Canadian food supply.

Buis said Canada's level of testing for mad cow disease exceeded international recommendations.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Shockingly, only 900 cattle were tested last year for mad cow disease. That is less than 0.0001 per cent of Canada's beef cattle herd which numbers 11 million.

To put this in perspective, European countries were testing up to 20,000 cattle per week in an attempt to detect and eradicate the horrific disease. By only testing 900 cattle a year, we are putting Canadians at risk.

Buis also claimed that cannibalistic feeding practices that spread mad cow disease were illegal in Canada. This, too, is patent nonsense. Under Canadian law it is presently legal for cattle to be fed a diet derived from mammal "blood, gelatin, rendered animal fat or their products."

In other words, cattle blood and other materials are still being processed into feed.

It is also legal for pigs and chickens, fed on rendered cattle materials, to be rendered and fed back to cattle.

Don't listen to the Ontario Cattleman, the threat of mad cow disease is real.

Hey Econ, is this where you found your "facts"? (this is the only place google could find your article on the net)

www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/canada91202.cfm

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Tool. :D
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
TimH said:
Econ101 said:
After an admonishment to another poster, Tam showed just how much she knows about Canada's beef history.

Here is her post:

"Geez Econ you don't have to take Canadian history to know we had M"ID" in place pre BSE. all you have to do is read what we have been telling you right here on Ranchers. But you are so arrogant you probably wouldn't admit we know something about OUR INDUSTRY that you don't. That little fact as you called it took us years to design and fully implement and was a big factor on how successful our investigations were once BSE was found. I ask if it is such a little fact why are the US producers fight tooth and nail about that very issue and the USDA thinking the US might have a system of their own up and running by 2009 if that soon....."

Here is Greg's Post:
"
greg said:
Personally why Tam doesn't get more cranky trying to get ANYTHING through econs little pea brain is beyond me, he has no clue what any of us Canadians do for our industry but trys to bait us into argueing with him ,I don't argue doesn't do any good to argue with someone whos mind won't open enuff to hear facts....there you go i'm in a pissy mood today and said what i think of econ :mad:
"


Here are the facts:


Beware of mad cow

September 12, 2002 The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo) by Bradford Duplisea

Mike Buis, president of the Ontario Cattleman's Association would have Canadians believe that Canada is "BSE-free" and that government and industry are doing everything they can to prevent the spread of this hideous disease, as he wrote in his Aug. 22 letter, Canadians Can Rest Assured That Beef Is Safe.

If only this were true.

Not too long ago Germany, France, Belgium and Italy had all pronounced they, too, were "free" of mad cow disease. Mad cow disease has since been documented in all those countries and many more. If Canada is, indeed, "free" of mad cow disease, it is a small miracle indeed. According to Britain's U.K. Customs and Excise Agency, throughout the 1990s, Canada imported 125,000 kilograms of British meat and bone meal after it had been identified as a "likely" cause of mad cow disease.

Worse yet, Statistics Canada documentation shows that more than 2.8 million kilograms of this potentially contaminated animal feed material was imported after 1996 -- after it was established that humans could contract new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) from eating infected cattle.

Alberta actually imported a live cow with mad cow disease back in 1993. The Canadian government raced to destroy the "mad" cow -- along with more than 400 other cattle from the same herd -- but some cattle slipped through the cracks.

A report by the European Union's scientific committee noted that "11 imported cattle that were found to be carrying a risk of being infected (with mad cow disease) entered the Canadian food or feed chain."

The Globe and Mail recently reported that CFIA officials were sent "scrambling" to track down 20 cattle imported from Japan, which had been diagnosed with its first case of mad cow disease. Once again, Ottawa failed to track down all the animals. It was later realized that four of the suspect cattle had been slaughtered and may have entered the Canadian food supply.

Buis said Canada's level of testing for mad cow disease exceeded international recommendations.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Shockingly, only 900 cattle were tested last year for mad cow disease. That is less than 0.0001 per cent of Canada's beef cattle herd which numbers 11 million.

To put this in perspective, European countries were testing up to 20,000 cattle per week in an attempt to detect and eradicate the horrific disease. By only testing 900 cattle a year, we are putting Canadians at risk.

Buis also claimed that cannibalistic feeding practices that spread mad cow disease were illegal in Canada. This, too, is patent nonsense. Under Canadian law it is presently legal for cattle to be fed a diet derived from mammal "blood, gelatin, rendered animal fat or their products."

In other words, cattle blood and other materials are still being processed into feed.

It is also legal for pigs and chickens, fed on rendered cattle materials, to be rendered and fed back to cattle.

Don't listen to the Ontario Cattleman, the threat of mad cow disease is real.

Hey Econ, is this where you found your "facts"? (this is the only place google could find your article on the net)

www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/canada91202.cfm

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Tool. :D

Tim H., Do you deny it? Tam already claimed it was true. Does it matter? Why argue the small stuff?
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Saskatchewan
Econ: I asked you earlier today to do more research on Canadian issues; I guess I should have clarified "credible research"!Organic consumers are definately not a credible source! :mad:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Econ101 said:
1) Canada imported 125,000 kilograms of British meat and bone meal after it had been identified as a "likely" cause of mad cow disease.

2) Worse yet, Statistics Canada documentation shows that more than 2.8 million kilograms of this potentially contaminated animal feed material was imported after 1996 -- after it was established that humans could contract new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) from eating infected cattle.

3) The Globe and Mail recently reported that CFIA officials were sent "scrambling" to track down 20 cattle imported from Japan, which had been diagnosed with its first case of mad cow disease. Once again, Ottawa failed to track down all the animals. It was later realized that four of the suspect cattle had been slaughtered and may have entered the Canadian food supply.

4) Buis also claimed that cannibalistic feeding practices that spread mad cow disease were illegal in Canada. This, too, is patent nonsense. Under Canadian law it is presently legal for cattle to be fed a diet derived from mammal "blood, gelatin, rendered animal fat or their products."

Econ, I think the greenies stretched things a bit when they wrote this article. A few scare tactics just to try and advance some kind of agenda. I'd like to touch on a couple points:

1) Likely how? Did it contain SRMs? Or just simply likely because it came from a country that had a huge BSE crisis going on? Sure, we probably shouldn't have imported it, but unless it contained SRMs, the chance of any infection was pretty minimal.

2) Again, potentionally contaminated? In 1996, before mad cow hit the UK with a vengeance?

3) I think we're seeing a little sensationalism here. The CFIA would call out all stops if it were made aware of an animal coming from a country with BSE. Or at least I hope they'd scramble like mad.

4) Hmmmm, this article was written in 2002, well after our feed ban was enacted. As far as I know the mentioned animal by products were not loopholes, but I could be wrong on that. I've never fed anything like that to my animals, so I didn't pay alot of attention to the feed bans. They may be carnivorous, but they only like cowboy meat.

In a way Econ, you are correct. Our M-ID program was enacted in response to a BSE crisis, but it was the European crisis (and/or the Japanese BSE crisis), not the Canadian one, which hadn't yet occured.

Rod
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Here are the facts:


Beware of mad cow

September 12, 2002 The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo) by Bradford Duplisea
This according to what I understand in my research was a letter to the editor written by a Canadian Health Coalition (CHC )researcher who by the way got a letter from the CCA on the misinformation in the letter.
Let us look at some of the so called facts
Not too long ago Germany, France, Belgium and Italy had all pronounced they, too, were "free" of mad cow disease. Mad cow disease has since been documented in all those countries and many more. If Canada is, indeed, "free" of mad cow disease, it is a small miracle indeed. According to Britain's U.K. Customs and Excise Agency, throughout the 1990s, Canada imported 125,000 kilograms of British meat and bone meal after it had been identified as a "likely" cause of mad cow disease.
I looked on CHC's own website and found this .

After the two newspapers in the UK published figures from newly released government document showing that from 93 to 96 the UK had exported 125 tons of meat bone meal, made up of partly of BSE contaminated cow remains to Canada. The CFIA assigned Lori Tracy the task of going through 10 years of import documents. While it was clear something had been imported, Tracy and her CFIA bosses were quite certain that something was not meat bone meat, but instead some non infectious animal material, which had been mislabeled as meat bone meal by an imprecise and clumsy customs classifiation system. In the end Tracy spent four months going through 150 boxes containing more than 5,000 documents, tens of thousands of pages of information. All kinds of strange matter had been listed as meat bone meal, such as ground sturgeon bladders for use as a wine additive and pig ears and bull penises to be used to make pet food. But Tracy found not one example of meat bone meal being imported to feed any farm animals. "I felt relieved" she now says." I was glad that everything turned out as I expected it would. Tracy's report failed to sway enviromental and consumer activist who continue to insist infectious meat bone meal was imported here. But her work convinced the European Food Safety Authority. In a later report EFSA concluded that reports of imports of potenially infectious meat bone meal to Canada were unfounded.


Alberta actually imported a live cow with mad cow disease back in 1993. The Canadian government raced to destroy the "mad" cow -- along with more than 400 other cattle from the same herd -- but some cattle slipped through the cracks.

A report by the European Union's scientific committee noted that "11 imported cattle that were found to be carrying a risk of being infected (with mad cow disease) entered the Canadian food or feed chain."
According to Canada's Chief vet the story goes like this
In Canada 68 of the original 191 imported cattle had been slaughtered before 1993, when the rest were removed from the herd destroyed and tested all testing negative, Of the 68 imported cattle that were slaughtered CFIA knew the 59 were routinely slaughtered at a federal or provincial plant. Those processed after 1992 were screened for BSE. The other 9 died on farm. Then the UK authorities told the CFIA that only 10 of the 59 slaughtered cattle came from farms in the UK that had reported cases of BSE. And it was highly unlikely that all ten of the exposed cattle were actually carrying the BSE prion.
Just a thought Econ if you want to sensationalize a story I guess you could say all of the imported cattle carried the risk they were from the UK. .
The Globe and Mail recently reported that CFIA officials were sent "scrambling" to track down 20 cattle imported from Japan, which had been diagnosed with its first case of mad cow disease. Once again, Ottawa failed to track down all the animals. It was later realized that four of the suspect cattle had been slaughtered and may have entered the Canadian food supply.
Gee did a google and the only article that I could find stateing anything about Japanese cattle was this one.

Buis said Canada's level of testing for mad cow disease exceeded international recommendations.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Shockingly, only 900 cattle were tested last year for mad cow disease. That is less than 0.0001 per cent of Canada's beef cattle herd which numbers 11 million.
To bad but the number we were testing was exceeding the OIE recommendation for a country that was in the BSE free statis. And according to this, this article was written in Sept 2002 so last year would have been 2001 and we didn't test 900 in 2001 we tested 1,581. and Econ before you say anything about what we were testing I think you should look at the numbers the USDA was testing and explain to us why they were not testing more (2001 USDA numbers 5,272 this was about half of what Canada was testing percentagewise)
To put this in perspective, European countries were testing up to 20,000 cattle per week in an attempt to detect and eradicate the horrific disease. By only testing 900 cattle a year, we are putting Canadians at risk.
Gee I wonder if the writer of this knew this in 2002 Canada had no reported cases of native BSE and this was an article about the EU's problem
"The number of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) cases in the European Union (EU) has further declined. In 1998 (January to October), it came down to 1 567 reported cases. Last year, 4 454 new cases had been reported, compared to 37 301 new cases at the peak of the BSE disease in 1992."
I wonder why the EU was testing so many. Gee once we found BSE our test number when from 3,377 in 2002 to over 57,000 in 2005.
It's getting late and I think I have made my point about the information in this so called fact based article of yours ECON.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Econ101 said:
1) Canada imported 125,000 kilograms of British meat and bone meal after it had been identified as a "likely" cause of mad cow disease.

2) Worse yet, Statistics Canada documentation shows that more than 2.8 million kilograms of this potentially contaminated animal feed material was imported after 1996 -- after it was established that humans could contract new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) from eating infected cattle.

3) The Globe and Mail recently reported that CFIA officials were sent "scrambling" to track down 20 cattle imported from Japan, which had been diagnosed with its first case of mad cow disease. Once again, Ottawa failed to track down all the animals. It was later realized that four of the suspect cattle had been slaughtered and may have entered the Canadian food supply.
.
4) Buis also claimed that cannibalistic feeding practices that spread mad cow disease were illegal in Canada. This, too, is patent nonsense. Under Canadian law it is presently legal for cattle to be fed a diet derived from mammal "blood, gelatin, rendered animal fat or their products."

Econ, I think the greenies stretched things a bit when they wrote this article. A few scare tactics just to try and advance some kind of agenda. I'd like to touch on a couple points:

1) Likely how? Did it contain SRMs? Or just simply likely because it came from a country that had a huge BSE crisis going on? Sure, we probably shouldn't have imported it, but unless it contained SRMs, the chance of any infection was pretty minimal.

2) Again, potentionally contaminated? In 1996, before mad cow hit the UK with a vengeance?

3) I think we're seeing a little sensationalism here. The CFIA would call out all stops if it were made aware of an animal coming from a country with BSE. Or at least I hope they'd scramble like mad.

4) Hmmmm, this article was written in 2002, well after our feed ban was enacted. As far as I know the mentioned animal by products were not loopholes, but I could be wrong on that. I've never fed anything like that to my animals, so I didn't pay alot of attention to the feed bans. They may be carnivorous, but they only like cowboy meat.

In a way Econ, you are correct. Our M-ID program was enacted in response to a BSE crisis, but it was the European crisis (and/or the Japanese BSE crisis), not the Canadian one, which hadn't yet occured.

Rod

Very good points, Rod. Thanks for the post. Good start to a discussion on the lawsuit and why/how govt. handled BSE and whether or not they were effective. Tam likes to get riled up and sometimes I like to oblige her. It is only with real answers to what happened with BSE that we will find ways to erradicate it. If it came from Brittain and was spread through feeding downer cattle, it would be useful information for erradicating it.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Econ, I think the greenies stretched things a bit when they wrote this article.

This article was written by a "Kitchener Record" news reporter. It probably is a stretch and suited the greenies agenda. But it's no different than what was reported by all the media outlets at that time.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Econ101 said:
1) Good start to a discussion on the lawsuit and why/how govt. handled BSE and whether or not they were effective.

2) It is only with real answers to what happened with BSE that we will find ways to erradicate it. If it came from Brittain and was spread through feeding downer cattle, it would be useful information for erradicating it.

1) I haven't read much about the lawsuit up here but what I've read thus far leaves me with the impression that its someone just trying to get a few bucks out of government with no real solid case. But then, I don't think I've read more than a couple paragraphs. I'm not even sure where to begin finding the court documents to make my decisions.

2) This is the ringer right here. If that lawsuit had some kind of clause in it stating that the awarded monies would go to BSE research, I'd consider supporting it. While I may not agree with the reasons given in the lawsuit, I don't believe our government did do enough on the world stage after all countries slammed their borders shut to our beef. This may not illegal, and was one of the reasons the Tories just won the west, but I still think the government should pony up some cash for some BSE research.

Rod
 

blackjack

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
Location
west central Alberta
...i would like to add...the m'id did not just manufacture around bse... there was a foot and mouth and anthrax scare here in canada in late 90's or early oo's ...do not remember what year for sure...but remember going to listen to a federal vet tell us that our industry had better get a way to traceback other than branding...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Quote: "Alberta actually imported a live cow with mad cow disease back in 1993."


Question:

1. What was the date that this cow was discovered as having BSE as opposed to the date it was imported?

2. What was the date that Canada first implemented their "M"ID program?


I commend Canada for doing the right thing and looking for BSE even though they are faced with the wrath of the R-CULT isolationists every time they find one. Nobody said doing the right thing was going to be easy just like it would be much easier for me to join the packer blamers than support the facts.


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
~SH~ said:
Quote: "Alberta actually imported a live cow with mad cow disease back in 1993."


Question:

1. What was the date that this cow was discovered as having BSE as opposed to the date it was imported?

2. What was the date that Canada first implemented their "M"ID program?


I commend Canada for doing the right thing and looking for BSE even though they are faced with the wrath of the R-CULT isolationists every time they find one. Nobody said doing the right thing was going to be easy just like it would be much easier for me to join the packer blamers than support the facts.


~SH~

The 1993 positive cow was imported from Britain to Canada in 1987.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,074
Reaction score
296
Location
Big Muddy valley
Thru most of the Nineties you could read about the development of individual animal ID. It became law in 2000, after a adjustment time to allow producers to start complying.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
Working Group Report on

the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of

CANADA

2004



snip...



- 2 -

2. EXTERNAL CHALLENGES

2.1 Import of cattle from BSE-Risk2 countries

An overview of the data on live cattle imports is presented in table 1 and is based on

data as provided in the country dossier (CD) and corresponding data on relevant exports

as available from BSE risk countries that exported to Canada. Only data from risk

periods are indicated, i.e. those periods when exports from a BSE risk country already

represented an external challenge, according to the SSC opinion on the GBR (SSC July

2000 and updated January 2002).

• According to the CD, 231 cattle were imported from UK during the years 1980 to

1990 and no cattle imports from UK were recorded after 1990.

• According to Eurostat, altogether 198 cattle have been imported from the UK during

the years 1980 to 1990, Additionally 500 were recorded in 1993; this import is

1 For the purpose of the GBR assessment the abbreviation "MBM" refers to rendering products, in particular

the commodities Meat and Bone Meal as such; Meat Meal; Bone Meal; and Greaves. With regard to imports

it refers to the customs code 230110 "flours, meals and pellets, made from meat or offal, not fit for human

2 BSE-Risk countries are all countries already assessed as GBR III or IV or with at least one confirmed

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-14 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 3 -

mentioned in Eurostat and the updated UK export statistic as male calves, but not

mentioned in the original UK export statistics. According to the CD, detailed

investigations were carried out and it is very unlikely that the 500 calves have been

imported. Therefore, they were not taken into account.

• According to the CD, in 1990 all cattle imported from UK and Ireland since 1982

were placed in a monitoring program.

• Following the occurrence of the BSE index case in 1993 (imported from UK in 1987

at the age of 6 months), an attempt was made to trace all other cattle imported from

UK between 1982 and 1990.

• Of the 231 cattle imported from the UK between 1980 and 1990, 108 animals had

been slaughtered and 9 had died. From the remaining, 37 were exported, 76 were

sent to incineration and one was buried; these were not entering the rendering system

and therefore not taken into account.

• According to the CD, 16 cattle were imported from Ireland (according to Eurostat

20), of which 9 were slaughtered, 3 died. The remaining 4 were incinerated and did

therefore not enter the rendering system. According to the CD, the 6 animals which

were imported in 1990 according to Eurostat, were never imported.

• Moreover 22 cattle have been imported from Japan (through USA), of which 4 were

exported (excluded from the table) and 14 were destroyed and therefore not entering

the rendering system, 4 were slaughtered.

• Of 28 imported bovines from Denmark, 1 was destroyed and 1 was exported. Of the

19 buffalos imported in 2000, 1 was incinerated and the others were ordered to be

destroyed.

• Additionally in total 264 cattle according to the CD (276 according to other sources)

were imported from Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands and

Switzerland.

• The numbers imported according to the CD and Eurostat are very similar. Some

discrepancies in the year of import can be explained by an extended quarantine;

therefore it is likely that imports according to Eurostat in 1980 and imports

according to the CD in 1981 are referring to the same animals.

• Additionally, between 16.000 and 340.000 bovines have annually been imported

from US, almost all are steers and heifers. In total, between 1981 and 2003,

according to the CD more than 2.3 million, according to other sources 1.5 million

cattle have been imported.

• According to the CD, feeder/slaughter cattle represent typically more than 90% of

the imported cattle from the USA; therefore, only 10% of the imported cattle have

been taken into account.



snip...



Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

2.2 Import of MBM or MBM-containing feedstuffs from BSE-Risk

countries

An overview of the data on MBM imports is presented in table 2 and is based on data

provided in the country dossier (CD) and corresponding data on relevant exports as

available from BSE risk countries that exported to Canada. Only data from risk periods

are indicated, i.e. those periods when exports from a BSE risk country already

represented an external challenge, according to the SSC opinion on the GBR (SSC, July

2000 and updated January 2002).

According to the CD, no imports of MBM took place from UK since 1978 (initially

because of FMD regulations).

• According to Eurostat data, Canada imported 149 tons MBM from the UK in the

period of 1993 to 2001. According to up-dated MBM statistics from UK (August

2001) no mammalian MBM was exported to Canada from 1993 – 1996. As it was

illegal to export mammalian meat meal, bone meal and MBM from UK since

27/03/1996, exports indicated after that date should only have included nonmammalian

MBM. Therefore, these imports were not taken into account.

• According to the CD, imports of MBM have taken place from Denmark, Germany,

France, Japan and US.

• According to Eurostat Canada imported MBM from Denmark, Belgium, France and

Ireland.

• According to the CD further investigations concluded that all imported MBM from

Denmark consisted of pork and poultry origin and was directly imported for

aquaculture, the imported MBM from France was feather meal, the imported MBM

from Germany was poultry meal for aquaculture and the imported MBM from

Belgium was haemoglobin; therefore these imports were not taken into account.

• The main imports of MBM were of US origin, according to the CD around 250.000

tons, according to other sources around 310.000 tons between 1988 and 2003.



snip...



2.3 Overall assessment of the external challenge

The level of the external challenge that has to be met by the BSE/cattle system is

estimated according to the guidance given by the SSC in its final opinion on the GBR of

July 2000 (as updated in January 2002).

Live cattle imports:

In total the country imported according to the CD more than 2.3 million, according to

other data 1.5 million live cattle from BSE risk countries, of which 231 (CD)

respectively 698 (other sources) came from the UK. The numbers shown in table 1 are

the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted imports for the assessment of

the external challenge. Broken down to 5 year periods the resulting external challenge is

as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account the different aspects discussed

above that allow to assume that certain imported cattle did not enter the domestic

BSE/cattle system, i.e. were not rendered into feed. In the case of Canada, the 500 cattle

imported from UK according to Eurostat were not taken into account and it is assumed

that all incinerated, buried, exported animals and the animals still alive did not enter the

rendering system and were therefore excluded from the external challenge.

MBM imports:

In total the country imported according to the CD around 300.000 tons, according to

other sources nearly 360.000 tons of MBM from BSE risk countries, of which 149 tons

came from the UK. The majority consisted of MBM imported from the US. The

numbers shown in table 2 are the raw import figures and are not reflecting the adjusted

imports for the assessment of the external challenge. Broken down to 5 year periods the

resulting external challenge is as given in table 3. This assessment takes into account

the different aspects discussed above that allow to assume that certain imported MBM

did not enter the domestic BSE/cattle system or did not represent an external challenge

for other reasons. As it was illegal to export mammalian meat meal, bone meal and

MBM from UK since 27/03/1996, exports indicated after that date should only have

included non-mammalian MBM. In the case of Canada all imported MBM from UK,

Germany, Belgium, Denmark and France was not taken into account.



snip...



3. STABILITY

3.1 Overall appreciation of the ability to avoid recycling of BSE

infectivity, should it enter processing

Feeding

The annual Canadian production of MBM is approximately 575,000 tons of which

approx. 40,000 tons are exported each year, mainly to USA.

Use of MBM in cattle feed

• Before the feed ban, dairy cattle received supplementary feed containing MBM

during their productive life (maximum 200-400 g MBM per day). Beef cattle in the

western part of the country do not usually receive complementary feed. Beef cattle

in the eastern part receive normally no supplement protein but the calves could have

access to creep feeds containing MBM, after weaning the ratios may have contained

supplemental protein containing MBM (100-400 g per day).

• According to the CD, MBM is mainly fed to pigs and poultry and included in pet

food.

• According to the CD, only a proportion of dairy cattle may have received MBM.

Feed bans

• Before 1997, there was no legal restriction to include MBM into cattle feed.

• An MBM-ban was introduced in August 1997; it is forbidden since to feed

mammalian MBM to ruminants except if of pure porcine, equine and non

mammalian origin, i.e. in practice a ruminant-to-ruminant ban (RMBM-ban).

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 9 -

Potential for cross-contamination and measures taken against

• Cross-contamination in the about 600 feed mills is assumed to be possible as long as

cattle and pig feed is produced in the same production lines, and premises.

• Cross-contamination during transport is possible, particularly if the same trucks are

used for transporting ruminant MBM (RMBM) and non-ruminant MBM (porcine or

poultry MBM which still might be included into cattle feed) or for transporting

pig/poultry feed and cattle feed.

• On-farm cross-contamination is regarded to be possible.

• Cross-contamination of cattle feed with RMBM can not be excluded. Hence, as

reasonable worst case scenario, it has to be assumed that cattle, in particular dairy

cattle, can still be exposed to RMBM and hence to BSE-infectivity, should it enter

the feed chain.

Control of Feed bans and cross-contamination

• With the introduction of the RMBM ban (1997) the feed mills (approximately 600)

were checked for compliance with the ban, including good manufacturing practices

(GMP) and record keeping, i.e. the separation in production of MBM containing

ruminant material (RMBM) from non-ruminant MBM.

• The feed mills had previously – since 1983 – been regularly checked in relation to

production of medicated feed.

• No examinations are performed to assess cross-contamination with RMBM of the

protein (e.g. non ruminant MBM) that enters cattle feed. Differentiation would

anyway be difficult.

Rendering

Raw material used for rendering

• Ruminant material is rendered together with material from other species, but

according to the CD only in the production of MBM prohibited for use in ruminant

feeds.

• Slaughter by-products, including specified risk material (SRM) and fallen stock are

rendered.

• The country expert estimated that 20% of the rendering plants, processing 20% of

the total amount of raw material, are connected to slaughterhouses. Their raw

material is more than 98 % animal waste from these slaughterhouses while less than

2 % is fallen stock. No estimation was given for the remaining 80% of the rendering

capacity.

• There are 32 rendering plants of which 3 are processing blood exclusively.

Rendering processes

• The rendering systems (parameters) were specified for 6 plants producing mixed

MBM, none of these fulfilled the 133/20/3 standard. Of these, 5 have dedicated

facilities to produce products for use in ruminant feed and products not permitted for

use in ruminant feed.

• The remaining plants process porcine or poultry material exclusively.

SRM and fallen stock

• There is an SRM ban for human food in place since 2003.

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 10 -

• However, SRM are rendered together with other slaughter waste and fallen stock.

However, according to the CD, MBM with SRM is not permitted to be fed to

ruminants.

Conclusion on the ability to avoid recycling

• Between 1980 and 1997 the Canadian system would not have been able to avoid

recycling of the BSE-agent to any measurable extent. If the BSE-agent was

introduced into the feed chain, it could have reached cattle.

• Since 1997 this ability gradually improved with the introduction of the ruminant

MBM ban and its implementation.

• Since cross-contamination cannot be excluded, and as SRM is still rendered by

processes unable to significantly reduce BSE-infectivity, the system is still unable to

avoid recycling of BSE-infectivity already present in the system or incoming.

3.2 Overall appreciation of the ability to identify BSE-cases and to

eliminate animals at risk of being infected before they are processed

Cattle population structure

• Cattle population: 12.15 Million in 1988 increasing to 14.6 Million in 2001;

• Of the total cattle population, 2.2 million are dairy cattle and 12.4 million are beef.

• The cattle population above 24 months of age: approx. 6.0 Million.

• Of the approximately 2.2 Million dairy cattle 2 Million are located in the two eastern

provinces Ontario and Quebec.

• Mixed farming (cattle and mono-gastric species) is usually not practiced; the

country expert estimated the proportion of mixed farming to be less than 1%.

• Individual regions traditionally have ID systems under provincial authorities. Brand

inspectors are present when cattle are assembled. It is estimated by the Canadians

that the level of a national, uniform ID for cattle is less than 10%; most of those

individual pedigree animals. Mandatory ID for the milk-fed veal sector was

implemented in Quebec in 1996, but does not contain information on the herd of

origin. An agreement of the relevant industries to develop a national cattle ID and

trace back strategy was reached on 1 May 1998 (starting in 2001).Since 2002, a

national identification program is existing. Al cattle leaving any farm premises must

be uniquely identified by ear tag.

BSE surveillance

• BSE was made notifiable in 1990.

• Every cow over one year of age exhibiting central nervous system signs suggestive

of BSE submitted to a laboratory or presented at an abattoir is subjected to a BSE

laboratory diagnostic test (histology and over the past years also PrPSc-based

laboratory tests).

• In addition, cattle submitted for rabies examination and found rabies negative are

examined for BSE. Samples are prepared immediately upon arrival to the federal

laboratory responsible for the rabies diagnostic for possible later BSE examination,

i.e. formalin fixation.

• Since the 1940’s, a rabies control program has been in place, where farmers,

veterinarians and the general public are well educated about this neurological

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 11 -

disease. In 1990, when BSE was made notifiable, this awareness was extended to

suspicions of BSE.

• Since 1993 the number of brains examined per year did exceed the number

recommended by OIE (300 - 336 for countries with a cattle population over 24

months of age of 5.0 to 7.0 Million) in all years, except in 1995 (table 4).

year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

samples 225 645 426 269 454 759 940 895 1´020 1´581 3´377 3´361

Table 4: Number of bovine brains annually examined for CNS diseases, including BSE.

• According to the CD approx. 98% of the examined cattle were older than 24 months

and approx. 90% exhibited neurological symptoms. Although the identification

system of Canada does not document the birth date or age of the animals, according

to the CD, examination of the dentition is used to ascertain the maturity of the

animals.

• The list of neurological differential diagnoses for the 754 brains examined in 1997

included encephalitis (70 cases), encephalomalacia (19), hemophilus (7),

hemorrhage (2), listeriosis (38), meningoencephalitis (36), rabies (22), tumors (2),

other conditions (135) and no significant findings (423).

• Compensation is paid for suspect BSE cases as well as for animals ordered to be

destroyed (90-95% of market value with a maximum of 2,500 Can$ per cow).

• Diagnostic criteria developed in the United Kingdom are followed at ADRI,

Nepean. According to the very detailed protocol for the collection, fixation and

submission of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) specimens at abattoirs

under inspection by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the specimen shall be

shipped to National Center for Foreign Animal Disease, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

• In 2003, around 3000 animals from risk populations have been tested.

• According to the CD, it is aimed to test a minimum of 8000 risk animals (animals

with clinical signs consistent with BSE, downer cows, animals died on farm animals

diseased or euthanized because of serious illness) in 2004 and then continue to

progressively increase the level of testing to 30,000.

• In May 2003, Canada reported its first case of domestic BSE. A second case was

detected in the US on 23 December 2003 and traced back to Canadian origin. Both

were born before the feed ban and originated from Western Canada.

3.3 Overall assessment of the stability

For the overall assessment of the stability, the impact of the three main stability factors

(i.e. feeding, rendering and SRM-removal) and of the additional stability factor,

surveillance, has to be estimated. Again, the guidance provided by the SSC in its

opinion on the GBR of July 2000 (as updated January 2002) is applied.

Feeding

Until 1997, it was legally possible to feed ruminant MBM to cattle and a certain fraction of

cattle feed (for calves and dairy cattle) is assumed to have contained MBM. Therefore

feeding was "Not OK". In August 1997 a ruminant MBM ban was introduced but feeding

of non-ruminant MBM to cattle remained legal as well as feeding of ruminant MBM to

non-ruminant animals. This makes control of the feed ban very difficult because laboratory

differentiation between ruminant and non ruminant MBM is difficult if not impossible.

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

Due to the highly specialised production system in Canada, various mammalian MBM

streams can be separated. Such a feed ban would therefore be assessed as "reasonably

OK", for all regions where this highly specialised system exists. However, several areas

in Canada do have mixed farming and mixed feed mills, and in such regions, an RMBM

ban would not suffice. Additionally, official controls for cattle feeds to control for the

compliance with the ban were not started until the end of 2003. Thus, for the whole

country, the assessment of the feeding after 1997 remains "Not OK".

Rendering

The rendering industry is operating with processes that are not known to reduce infectivity.

It is therefore concluded that the rendering was and is "Not OK".

SRM-removal

SRM and fallen stock were and are rendered for feed. Therefore SRM-removal is assessed

as "Not OK"



snip...



4.2 Risk that BSE infectivity entered processing

A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least

partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in

the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew

significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached

processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with

continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

4.3 Risk that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated

A risk that BSE-infectivity was recycled and propagated exists since a processing risk

first appeared; i.e. in the early 90s. Until today this risk persists and increases fast

because of the extremely unstable BSE/cattle system in Canada.

5. CONCLUSION ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL BSE-RISK

5.1 The current GBR as function of the past stability and challenge

The current geographical BSE-risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level

that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent.

This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion, 2000) because at

that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk.

snip...

full text;




http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/563/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_annex_en1.pdf



TSS
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Econ101 said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Econ101 said:
1) Canada imported 125,000 kilograms of British meat and bone meal after it had been identified as a "likely" cause of mad cow disease.

2) Worse yet, Statistics Canada documentation shows that more than 2.8 million kilograms of this potentially contaminated animal feed material was imported after 1996 -- after it was established that humans could contract new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) from eating infected cattle.

3) The Globe and Mail recently reported that CFIA officials were sent "scrambling" to track down 20 cattle imported from Japan, which had been diagnosed with its first case of mad cow disease. Once again, Ottawa failed to track down all the animals. It was later realized that four of the suspect cattle had been slaughtered and may have entered the Canadian food supply.
.
4) Buis also claimed that cannibalistic feeding practices that spread mad cow disease were illegal in Canada. This, too, is patent nonsense. Under Canadian law it is presently legal for cattle to be fed a diet derived from mammal "blood, gelatin, rendered animal fat or their products."

Econ, I think the greenies stretched things a bit when they wrote this article. A few scare tactics just to try and advance some kind of agenda. I'd like to touch on a couple points:

1) Likely how? Did it contain SRMs? Or just simply likely because it came from a country that had a huge BSE crisis going on? Sure, we probably shouldn't have imported it, but unless it contained SRMs, the chance of any infection was pretty minimal.

2) Again, potentionally contaminated? In 1996, before mad cow hit the UK with a vengeance?

3) I think we're seeing a little sensationalism here. The CFIA would call out all stops if it were made aware of an animal coming from a country with BSE. Or at least I hope they'd scramble like mad.

4) Hmmmm, this article was written in 2002, well after our feed ban was enacted. As far as I know the mentioned animal by products were not loopholes, but I could be wrong on that. I've never fed anything like that to my animals, so I didn't pay alot of attention to the feed bans. They may be carnivorous, but they only like cowboy meat.

In a way Econ, you are correct. Our M-ID program was enacted in response to a BSE crisis, but it was the European crisis (and/or the Japanese BSE crisis), not the Canadian one, which hadn't yet occured.

Rod

Very good points, Rod. Thanks for the post. Good start to a discussion on the lawsuit and why/how govt. handled BSE and whether or not they were effective. Tam likes to get riled up and sometimes I like to oblige her. It is only with real answers to what happened with BSE that we will find ways to erradicate it. If it came from Brittain and was spread through feeding downer cattle, it would be useful information for erradicating it.
Econ You and other think that the government didn't do enough and should be sued I would like to have you read something and tell us if the CFIA should have gone farther.
To combat the BSE menace, the Paris based world animal health agency, The OIE devised international guidelines in 1992 The OIE suggested all cattle producing countries should test for BSE. As Canada had no known cases of BSE, it had only to do minimal testing, 300 tests per year. In 1992 Canada did 225 tests, targeted at Alberta. ( USDA tested 251) In 1993, 645 tests were done. (USDA tested 736) One test in December 1993, on a cow imported from the U.K. to the Red Deer area in 1987, turned out positive. In early 1994, Agriculture Canada officials rounded up the remaining British imports, then slaughtered, tested and incinerated them. The same was done to the offspring of the infected Red Deer cow, along with other cows from the Red Deer herd. A storm of protest blew up, mainly from Canadian ranchers who owned prized British breeding cattle. Their bulls were worth $40,000 to $50,000, but the Canadian government had placed a maximum $2,500 payout for any lost animal. Some ranchers resisted. In Morinville, Agriculture Canada officials had to raid a farm at dawn in September 1994 to truck away a purebred Charolais bull which was under a death sentence. "They've proved to me they're dictators," the bull owner, Walter Jerram, said than of Agriculture Canada. I'm not going to put up with what they did. I've never been screwed like this before in my life." " It was not a happy time, Willis now says. "We were accused of being a little draconian in our approach. The charges were obviously troublesome. We felt we were taking the responible action to the best of our knowledge. We knew it was causing hardship." No further cases of BSE were found in the Red Deer herd or in any of the slaughtered imports. Canadian cattlemen could breathe again. Canada's BSE-free status was intact. "the belief was that we had one animal, that's all," Willis says. At the time, Willis himself believe that his department had been pushed to take overzealous action. "Actions were taken out of sheer paranoia with people significantly hyped by the media, he told the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association's convention in 1996. "We took actions that went way beyond ones that were scientifically justified" -----Critics such as Leiss suggested that the CFIA had moved far too slowly and that the consequences could be catastrophic. But with many convinced that Canada had no BSE, it was hard to persuade the cattle industry such a ban was needed. says Brian Evans, the CFIA's chief veterinarian. "People still thinking, You killed all those animals three years ago and they were negative(for BSE). Now your're bringing in the feed ban. You guys have really lost it here." Stephen Dealler, the British BSE expert, says the Canadian government did well to bring in the ban despite industry opposition. "It's very difficult for officials to take action when there in no proof and in something that is going to cost money."
Now the article didn't state the numbers the US tested so I added them so you could see just how Canada did compared to the numbers another BSE free country with a much larger herd did. I find it hard to believe that the CFIA is being sued now, when they fought the industry to the point of collecting the imported bull at the crack of dawn. Where were the neighbors to Walter to step in and tell him it was in the best interest of the whole industry that he surrender his imported bull. We would all like to believe that the government is at fault but they fought the industry in Canada just like the USDA is fighting the US industry to implement stronger safeguards now. If the industry themselves want to bring in new Safeguards ie the National M"ID" system, these were/are some in the industry that will say "No damn way an I going to tag my cattle, try make me". Look at the fight the US industry is having now about this very issue will we be seeing the USDA taken to court in a few years because they didn't step in sooner and force M"ID" on the US producers before BSE was discovered. Hindsight is great but that is exactly what is is HINDSIGHT
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Econ, I think the greenies stretched things a bit when they wrote this article. A few scare tactics just to try and advance some kind of agenda. I'd like to touch on a couple points:

1) Likely how? Did it contain SRMs? Or just simply likely because it came from a country that had a huge BSE crisis going on? Sure, we probably shouldn't have imported it, but unless it contained SRMs, the chance of any infection was pretty minimal.

2) Again, potentionally contaminated? In 1996, before mad cow hit the UK with a vengeance?

3) I think we're seeing a little sensationalism here. The CFIA would call out all stops if it were made aware of an animal coming from a country with BSE. Or at least I hope they'd scramble like mad.

4) Hmmmm, this article was written in 2002, well after our feed ban was enacted. As far as I know the mentioned animal by products were not loopholes, but I could be wrong on that. I've never fed anything like that to my animals, so I didn't pay alot of attention to the feed bans. They may be carnivorous, but they only like cowboy meat.

In a way Econ, you are correct. Our M-ID program was enacted in response to a BSE crisis, but it was the European crisis (and/or the Japanese BSE crisis), not the Canadian one, which hadn't yet occured.

Rod

Very good points, Rod. Thanks for the post. Good start to a discussion on the lawsuit and why/how govt. handled BSE and whether or not they were effective. Tam likes to get riled up and sometimes I like to oblige her. It is only with real answers to what happened with BSE that we will find ways to erradicate it. If it came from Brittain and was spread through feeding downer cattle, it would be useful information for erradicating it.
Econ You and other think that the government didn't do enough and should be sued I would like to have you read something and tell us if the CFIA should have gone farther.
To combat the BSE menace, the Paris based world animal health agency, The OIE devised international guidelines in 1992 The OIE suggested all cattle producing countries should test for BSE. As Canada had no known cases of BSE, it had only to do minimal testing, 300 tests per year. In 1992 Canada did 225 tests, targeted at Alberta. ( USDA tested 251) In 1993, 645 tests were done. (USDA tested 736) One test in December 1993, on a cow imported from the U.K. to the Red Deer area in 1987, turned out positive. In early 1994, Agriculture Canada officials rounded up the remaining British imports, then slaughtered, tested and incinerated them. The same was done to the offspring of the infected Red Deer cow, along with other cows from the Red Deer herd. A storm of protest blew up, mainly from Canadian ranchers who owned prized British breeding cattle. Their bulls were worth $40,000 to $50,000, but the Canadian government had placed a maximum $2,500 payout for any lost animal. Some ranchers resisted. In Morinville, Agriculture Canada officials had to raid a farm at dawn in September 1994 to truck away a purebred Charolais bull which was under a death sentence. "They've proved to me they're dictators," the bull owner, Walter Jerram, said than of Agriculture Canada. I'm not going to put up with what they did. I've never been screwed like this before in my life." " It was not a happy time, Willis now says. "We were accused of being a little draconian in our approach. The charges were obviously troublesome. We felt we were taking the responible action to the best of our knowledge. We knew it was causing hardship." No further cases of BSE were found in the Red Deer herd or in any of the slaughtered imports. Canadian cattlemen could breathe again. Canada's BSE-free status was intact. "the belief was that we had one animal, that's all," Willis says. At the time, Willis himself believe that his department had been pushed to take overzealous action. "Actions were taken out of sheer paranoia with people significantly hyped by the media, he told the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association's convention in 1996. "We took actions that went way beyond ones that were scientifically justified" -----Critics such as Leiss suggested that the CFIA had moved far too slowly and that the consequences could be catastrophic. But with many convinced that Canada had no BSE, it was hard to persuade the cattle industry such a ban was needed. says Brian Evans, the CFIA's chief veterinarian. "People still thinking, You killed all those animals three years ago and they were negative(for BSE). Now your're bringing in the feed ban. You guys have really lost it here." Stephen Dealler, the British BSE expert, says the Canadian government did well to bring in the ban despite industry opposition. "It's very difficult for officials to take action when there in no proof and in something that is going to cost money."
Now the article didn't state the numbers the US tested so I added them so you could see just how Canada did compared to the numbers another BSE free country with a much larger herd did. I find it hard to believe that the CFIA is being sued now, when they fought the industry to the point of collecting the imported bull at the crack of dawn. Where were the neighbors to Walter to step in and tell him it was in the best interest of the whole industry that he surrender his imported bull. We would all like to believe that the government is at fault but they fought the industry in Canada just like the USDA is fighting the US industry to implement stronger safeguards now. If the industry themselves want to bring in new Safeguards ie the National M"ID" system, these were/are some in the industry that will say "No damn way an I going to tag my cattle, try make me". Look at the fight the US industry is having now about this very issue will we be seeing the USDA taken to court in a few years because they didn't step in sooner and force M"ID" on the US producers before BSE was discovered. Hindsight is great but that is exactly what is is HINDSIGHT

Tam, I don't think you would have rcalf on your butt on the BSE issue like they are if Canada protected its producers from the packers abuses that happened under the BSE scare and the captive supply deal.

I just brought up the 1993 deal because you said BSE did not cause you to do all the things you did with M-ID. It was shown not to be the whole story. I still think Canadian producers were taken to the bank. Now you have an upstart cattle organization (r-calf) working against you because of the captive supply issues and no support from Canadians on the Pickett manipulation case. It seems you don't mind being captive supply for packers and how that hurts the markets for all producers. Better watch out for your long term interests, as (just like BSE) the short run can come home and bite you. Countries that export are more prone to these market closures (grain has its own deals with embargos and such).

Again, the average producers don't have anything to do with these issues but they affect them enormously.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
Very good points, Rod. Thanks for the post. Good start to a discussion on the lawsuit and why/how govt. handled BSE and whether or not they were effective. Tam likes to get riled up and sometimes I like to oblige her. It is only with real answers to what happened with BSE that we will find ways to erradicate it. If it came from Brittain and was spread through feeding downer cattle, it would be useful information for erradicating it.
Econ You and other think that the government didn't do enough and should be sued I would like to have you read something and tell us if the CFIA should have gone farther.
To combat the BSE menace, the Paris based world animal health agency, The OIE devised international guidelines in 1992 The OIE suggested all cattle producing countries should test for BSE. As Canada had no known cases of BSE, it had only to do minimal testing, 300 tests per year. In 1992 Canada did 225 tests, targeted at Alberta. ( USDA tested 251) In 1993, 645 tests were done. (USDA tested 736) One test in December 1993, on a cow imported from the U.K. to the Red Deer area in 1987, turned out positive. In early 1994, Agriculture Canada officials rounded up the remaining British imports, then slaughtered, tested and incinerated them. The same was done to the offspring of the infected Red Deer cow, along with other cows from the Red Deer herd. A storm of protest blew up, mainly from Canadian ranchers who owned prized British breeding cattle. Their bulls were worth $40,000 to $50,000, but the Canadian government had placed a maximum $2,500 payout for any lost animal. Some ranchers resisted. In Morinville, Agriculture Canada officials had to raid a farm at dawn in September 1994 to truck away a purebred Charolais bull which was under a death sentence. "They've proved to me they're dictators," the bull owner, Walter Jerram, said than of Agriculture Canada. I'm not going to put up with what they did. I've never been screwed like this before in my life." " It was not a happy time, Willis now says. "We were accused of being a little draconian in our approach. The charges were obviously troublesome. We felt we were taking the responible action to the best of our knowledge. We knew it was causing hardship." No further cases of BSE were found in the Red Deer herd or in any of the slaughtered imports. Canadian cattlemen could breathe again. Canada's BSE-free status was intact. "the belief was that we had one animal, that's all," Willis says. At the time, Willis himself believe that his department had been pushed to take overzealous action. "Actions were taken out of sheer paranoia with people significantly hyped by the media, he told the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association's convention in 1996. "We took actions that went way beyond ones that were scientifically justified" -----Critics such as Leiss suggested that the CFIA had moved far too slowly and that the consequences could be catastrophic. But with many convinced that Canada had no BSE, it was hard to persuade the cattle industry such a ban was needed. says Brian Evans, the CFIA's chief veterinarian. "People still thinking, You killed all those animals three years ago and they were negative(for BSE). Now your're bringing in the feed ban. You guys have really lost it here." Stephen Dealler, the British BSE expert, says the Canadian government did well to bring in the ban despite industry opposition. "It's very difficult for officials to take action when there in no proof and in something that is going to cost money."
Now the article didn't state the numbers the US tested so I added them so you could see just how Canada did compared to the numbers another BSE free country with a much larger herd did. I find it hard to believe that the CFIA is being sued now, when they fought the industry to the point of collecting the imported bull at the crack of dawn. Where were the neighbors to Walter to step in and tell him it was in the best interest of the whole industry that he surrender his imported bull. We would all like to believe that the government is at fault but they fought the industry in Canada just like the USDA is fighting the US industry to implement stronger safeguards now. If the industry themselves want to bring in new Safeguards ie the National M"ID" system, these were/are some in the industry that will say "No damn way an I going to tag my cattle, try make me". Look at the fight the US industry is having now about this very issue will we be seeing the USDA taken to court in a few years because they didn't step in sooner and force M"ID" on the US producers before BSE was discovered. Hindsight is great but that is exactly what is is HINDSIGHT

Tam, I don't think you would have rcalf on your butt on the BSE issue like they are if Canada protected its producers from the packers abuses that happened under the BSE scare and the captive supply deal.

I just brought up the 1993 deal because you said BSE did not cause you to do all the things you did with M-ID. It was shown not to be the whole story. I still think Canadian producers were taken to the bank. Now you have an upstart cattle organization (r-calf) working against you because of the captive supply issues and no support from Canadians on the Pickett manipulation case. It seems you don't mind being captive supply for packers and how that hurts the markets for all producers. Better watch out for your long term interests, as (just like BSE) the short run can come home and bite you. Countries that export are more prone to these market closures (grain has its own deals with embargos and such).

Again, the average producers don't have anything to do with these issues but they affect them enormously.
One of R-CALF's first actions after they organized was to take the Canadian beef industry to court with a Anti dumping case which they lost and for as long as they have exsisted they have been a thorn in the sides of every producer in Canada so to say "I don't think you would have rcalf on your butt on the BSE issue like they are---" show just how little you know about why R-CALF is in our faces. They are protectionist and the don't want to compete in an open market they want the border closed to us so the Packers are held captive by them and the packers have no choice but to buy their cattle even if it means the price of beef shy rockets.

You brought up the 93 deal to make it look as if your comment about BSE forced the Canadian industry into something we didn't need was right, but you were wrong. I proved, unintentionally, by this article the the Canadian cattlemen, our government and our trading parnters didn't believe there was a BSE problem. That is why our BSE free Status was INTACT or did you miss that little comment. I highlighted it for you this time just in case you missed it the fiirst time . That is why the industry fought the CFIA on implementing the feed bans back in 1997. three years after the imported case. So why would that case all of a sudden be the reason we would implement a National ID system. The responses from other Canadian posters said we implemented it because we saw a need to be able to trace our herd for other reasons also. like FMD and Antrax. NATIVE BSE NEVER FORCED THE ISSUE in Canada, the need to trace the herd to birth place for all reportable diseases did. And if the US industry wouldn't have had R-CALF getting M"ID" taken out of the M"COOL" bill they too wouldn't be being forced by NATIVE BSE into a M"ID" system.
Now let us look at another of your comments
Very good points, Rod. Thanks for the post. Good start to a discussion on the lawsuit and why/how govt. handled BSE and whether or not they were effective. Tam likes to get riled up and sometimes I like to oblige her. It is only with real answers to what happened with BSE that we will find ways to erradicate it. If it came from Brittain and was spread through feeding downer cattle, it would be useful information for erradicating it.
I bring an article about what the CFIA did and the problems they had to discuss and here you are bring up Pickett and captive supply . What does that have to do with what the CFIA or the USDA did to protect the Beef industries from BSE? You are in the Blame the packer mode Econ you should be in the blame the government for not protecting us from BSE mode. :wink:
 

Latest posts

Top