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

Excuse me????????

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
US Cattle Group Cites USDA 'Failures' In Beef Recall

KANSAS CITY (Dow Jones)--A large U.S. cattle producer organization has criticized the events leading up to a Monday recall of 1,856 pounds of bone-in beef because the animal that led to the recall came from Canada and was older than current rules allow, citing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "failures."

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America said in a release that it "was deeply disappointed to learn that an unauthorized Canadian cow, over 30 months of age, was imported into the U.S. and slaughtered and processed at a Wisconsin packing facility on Aug. 4.

"And although the processing facility, Green Bay Dressed Beef, voluntarily recalled the bone-in beef at issue, the recall was not initiated until Aug. 19, more than two weeks after this cow was processed," the R-CALF release said.

In the recall notice, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service said the recalled products could contain portions of the 31-month-old cow's vertebral column, one of several body parts classified as specified risk materials and not allowed into the human food chain, as part of mitigation measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease. An audit of the cow's health certificate by Canadian officials discovered the information was not accurate, and authorities with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said they have taken action in response to the audit's findings.

"(The) USDA is trying to argue this cow was just one month over the age limit, but how many other Canadian cattle have come into the U.S. in violation of the age constraints, and how much past 30 months of age are they," asked Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA president. "This incident shows a failure of several key BSE firewalls USDA claims exist for Canadian cattle imports.

"First, (the) USDA's requirement for determining the age of Canadian cattle has failed as cattle over 30 months of age are prohibited from entering the United States, and second, the U.S. requirement that only Canadian cattle under 30 months of age may be slaughtered in the U.S. failed because this over-30-month animal was slaughtered in a U.S. packing house," McDonnell said.

"Third, the U.S. requirements for the removal of SRMs failed in this instance, as all cattle over 30 months of age are required to have their vertebral columns removed, and fourth, USDA has failed to be transparent and reveal what happened to the remainder of this particular cow."

This animal's brain and other tissues may have been rendered and used in animal feed, but not cattle feed, the R-CALF release said.

These failures highlight the lack of justification for USDA's claim that it is acceptable to import cattle from countries where BSE is known to exist, like Canada, because of the supposedly "impenetrable barrier" of USDA regulations, R-CALF charged.

"(The) USDA convinced the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the United States was protected from the possibility of contaminated tissue entering the U.S. food supply because the U.S. had 'created a virtually impenetrable barrier to the introduction or spread of BSE,' and obviously, USDA was wrong," McDonnell said.

Terry Stokes, CEO of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said in an e-mailed response to questions that "Cattle over 30 months of age should not be entering the United States from Canada.

"While there is no reason to think the beef from this animal is unsafe, recalling the bone-in beef was the right thing to do," Stokes said. "When violations occur, cattle producers expect the government to uphold the law. For these reasons, the recall action taken by Green Bay Dressed Beef is the right way to address the situation, and we support their action.

"NCBA supports the 30-month age limitation on both cattle and boxed-beef imports from Canada, and opposes expansion beyond this age limit until animal health standards for animals older than 30 months are harmonized between both countries," Stokes said.
"until animal health standards for animals older than 30 months are harmonized between both countries,"When do you think the US will be able to meet Canadian standards Mr Stokes?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
I will repeat myself, This would never have happened with the www.ScoringAg.com Site-Specific Recordkeeping system.

"(The) USDA is trying to argue this cow was just one month over the age limit, but how many other Canadian cattle have come into the U.S. in violation of the age constraints, and how much past 30 months of age are they?????????????????????????????
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
Another question might be how many OTM cattle slipped past CFIA inspectors in Canadian plants? Tyson and Cargill aren't going to turn themselves in because they think OTM live cattle should be shipped into the USA!

Here is something to read and think about...

"What has happened to the USDA?"

The Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, has just recently been quoted in the agriculture media, and I paraphrase: "The BSE (Mad Cow Disease) issue has been given too much press. BSE has been blown out of proportion, considering its very low level of risk." Previous to this apparent position about the low risk of BSE exposure and introduction into the United States, the USDA had rules in place to prevent the importation of cattle from any country that had a proven positively identified case of BSE. This rule was in place for a number of years (from the late 1980's until 2004) and stated that a country which had identified a case of BSE must be BSE free for 7 years before imports of beef or live animals from that country into the United States could resume. This rule was compatible with other zero tolerance polices enacted by USDA-APHIS (United States Department of Agriculture-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service). There were rules in place to make contamination with E. coli O157:H7 incompatible with food service. There is a Listeria monocytogenes control program in place to make contamination with Listera spp. incompatible with food service. These rules are complex, but have worked well to prevent exposure of these treatable disease-causing organisms to humans.



For BSE (Mad Cow Disease) the USDA has enacted a program they term as "Risk Based Trade". This program allows trade in beef and live ruminant animals with countries that previously had been prohibited from exporting either beef or live ruminant animals into the Untied States. Presently, the new set of rules allows trade with countries that have any number of positive cases of BSE, if that country can document the age of the animal or meat, and if that country will remove a minimum number of Specified Risk Materials (SRM's). In the case of Canada, the SRM's required to be removed are the tonsils and small intestine. The spinal chord and the tissues surrounding the spinal chord, the primary source of BSE infectivity, are not required to be removed at this point in time from animals 30 months of age or less. Other countries with positive BSE cases can now follow the lead of Canada. They will be allowed to export both live animals less than 30 months of age, and meat from animals that have had certain SRM's removed at slaughter, regardless of the number of positive cases of BSE previously identified within that specific country.



In August the USDA published potential rules whereby they intend to allow Japan to export boneless cuts of beef into the United States. Japan is a different issue from Canada because Japan does not allow any bovine animal to enter the human food chain unless it has tested negative for BSE. This is an excellent safeguard. Unfortunately, Japan has identified 20 or more cases of BSE in a much smaller population of cattle than the US, and in some very young cattle. Nothing in the rule states that importation of beef into the US will cease if Japan decides that universal testing for BSE is no longer warranted. Not only will there then be a potential danger to humans consuming the meat items imported into the US at that time, but plate waste from restaurants serving high-end Japanese specialty meats could potentially provide a method for BSE prion introduction into the animal food chain.



Ironically, Japan prohibits the feeding of plate waste to animals, but the USDA and the FDA have not issued a rule preventing its utilization within the US. I say all that, to say this. Once the USDA opened the border with Canada to animals younger than 30 months of age and boxed beef from animals less than 30 months of age, it essentially opened the border to any country wishing to export beef into the US, regardless of that particular country's BSE infectivity status. It was thought that these newly "approved for export countries" would have to meet the same "Minimal Risk" qualifications as Canada, but that does not appear to be the case.



The concept of "Risk Based Trade" with countries that have the potential to send to the United States diseases that were eradicated, or nearly eradicated, from livestock, poultry, and wildlife, is a very new issue. I first heard these words from the mouth of a USDA-APHIS veterinarian who gave a speech on disease control issues at the annual meeting of the Kansas Cattleman's Association in January 2004. The whole idea revolves around knowing that a risk of introduction of a disease is evident, although low, but the dollars generated from that trade are more important than zero risk of disease introduction. It is a concept difficult to understand for a veterinarian trained in disease control and eradication.



Not only has USDA-APHIS taken a "Risk Based Trade" stance on the subject of BSE-- a disease that is not highly contagious from animal to animal or animal to human-- I believe the USDA is preparing to take a similar stance towards other more traditional disease conditions that are contagious from animal to animal and animal to human. Take, for example, the free trade agreements that are being negotiated with South American countries by the US government. All the countries south of Panama regularly identify Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in their ruminant populations. FMD is a viral disease that infects cloven-hoofed animals, including swine. FMD is very contagious and spreads quickly among the population of livestock in a given geographical location. The disease rarely causes death in its victims, but does cause loss of weight and condition. Currently, the disease is considered a Level 1 threat for Bio-Terrorism. South American countries have vaccinated against FMD for years, but have been unsuccessful in its eradication. USDA-APHIS is well aware that to have free trade with South American countries, the subject of FMD will have to be addressed. Instead of requiring a country to be FMD free, the USDA has identified regions of a country that are FMD free. Eventually, most of these FMD free regions have identified new cases of FMD and have lost their FMD free status.



Modern veterinary science has identified the genetic code of the FMD virus and can distinguish the identity of several different strains of FMD virus. Scientists can also distinguish between the naturally occurring virus, and the virus utilized in modern vaccines. To have free trade, the USDA will have to accept the risk of introducing FMD into the US from South America and other regions of the world.



There are other diseases to consider with "Risk Based Trade". A number of contagious animal diseases have been eradicated from the US. These animal diseases are usually viral in nature and are contagious from animal to animal or animal to human. It has taken millions of tax payer dollars to deal with these diseases, most of which are alive and well in Central and South America, not to mention endemic in Africa, India, and much of Asia. If we are going to have free trade with these regions, disease control issues will have to take a back seat to trade issues. Therein lies the danger.



The USDA has worked diligently to eradicate bovine Brucellosis from the cattle population of the United States. The US government has just ratified the Central America Free Trade Agreement. The countries that are involved in this agreement have a Brucellosis incidence that may exceed 10% of adult reproductive age cattle. I discovered this fact while visiting Costa Rica, Honduras, and Nicaragua this summer. I have no idea what the incidence of tuberculosis is within these countries, but if these countries are like other tropical countries with an abundance of feral poultry, the incidence could be quite high. In all the negotiations, discussions, and press surrounding CAFTA, not one thing was mentioned about these two communicable diseases.



R. M. Thornsberry, D.V.M.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Keep reading this BS or open your eyes folks. The world is running out of excuses for science based BSE regulations. Not only is Johanns correct about the overblown press, he should also come out and admit that the whole world is too busy making new rules to feed the frenzy,

Continue to eat up this BS, while your ultimate goal is protectionist economics and then ask the Japanese why they test all beef in their own country and take untested beef from countries in the world like Australia and New Zealand. If these two countries, along with many more tested for BSE in any substantial way, they would find a few cases as well. Is anything making sense yet? Feed the population fear in the media to keep the game going. 150 humans now dead (More BS).

Every country in the world is playing the game including Canada. BSEconomics is the easiest sell in the world right now. Jump on the protectionist, trade game bandwagon. Everyone is doing it. Mutinational packers are smiling, Rcalf thinks they have the ultimate protectionist tool, and Japan is sticking it in America's face.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
rkaiser wrote:
Feed the population fear in the media to keep the game going.

The numerous mistakes have not helped the case for BSE either Randy. The only way I see to quieten the media masses is to test. Yes, it will be a more expensive endeavor and certainly less convenient, but the only way I see out of it and save our consumer confidence, long term.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
Isn't it amusing now, how these organizations have been caught in their own trap!

The reason USDA and Johanns, and all the rest of these food safety groups are not concerned about BSE is because they understand the truth. But then, they must play the game which the British government started and wishes everyone to continue.

The British government withheld 30% of the information they had on BSE from the BSE Inquiry, stating reasons of "national security". Yes, the nation would certainly be in a position of financial ruin, if it became known that their mandated use of OPs, was the prime trigger for a massive BSE crisis. (OPs chelate copper from the animal's system).

The British government, and those how espouse their propaganda, made statements about Mark Purdey's hypothesis, like - the epidemiology of the use of OPs (PHOSMET) did not match the pattern of the BSE outbreak. However, in their own words within the BSE Inquiry - they admit that all the records for the use/sale of PHOSMET by the manufacturer were LOST!

Mark spoke to the farmers and ranchers, himself. He knows who used this stuff and who didn't. Not only did they use OPs as a warblecide, the UK authorities used it on pigs, and treated grains for mites with it as well. When the levels of OP were too high for animal consumption (in the grain stores) - the UK government simply raised the acceptable limits.

Being caught in the trap, is just a small price to pay for co-operating with our British allies. No pain, no gain. Don't worry, it won't be long before you forget all about this little BSE problem. "It will pass soon enough, and sooner than it should no doubt".

Sorry, about the last remark, but I couldn't help using a line from my favorite movie, (from the BBC no less), "Pride and Prejudice".
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Kathy wrote:
Yes, the nation would certainly be in a position of financial ruin, if it became known that their mandated use of OPs, was the prime trigger for a massive BSE crisis. (OPs chelate copper from the animal's system).

Kathy, I respect your opinions and think your points are well studied by you.

But I fail to see how the "OP" theory would financially ruin the UK more than the "Rendering" theory, simply because the government controls them also? They would have lost credibility either way.

I'm not arguing that the OP theory is wrong but couldn't they both be intertwined? The timing of both are not insignificant.

Although not proven a prion disease then, sheep have been having CWD for years. The environmental factor, plus the OP's, and the rendering procedures may have fallen in lockstep at exactly the right time.

Just thinking out loud.

OK, let me have it.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
Hey guys, isn't everyone forgetting something here? The U.S. also has BSE! :shock:

Why do you not have inspectors at the U.S. plants looking at EVERY animal, including American ones to make sure they are ALL under 30 months? :shock: We do.

At Canadian plants there is a CFIA inspector looking at the animals on the way in to make sure they are young. Why don't you check yours???? Eh???? What's going on down there? Has everyone already forgotten the Texas cow? American cattle over 30 months are the same risk as Canadian cattle. :!: Why are you not checking?

Why are SRMs being processed in American plants where all animals are not checked for age? Why are over and under 30 month cattle being processed together?

It's so easy to dump it all on us isn't it. America is a minimal risk BSE country, just like us. Is that so hard to understand? Get with the program!

This is pathetic. :? Japan is taking notes. Don't forget that.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Bill said:
US Cattle Group Cites USDA 'Failures' In Beef Recall

KANSAS CITY (Dow Jones)--A large U.S. cattle producer organization has criticized the events leading up to a Monday recall of 1,856 pounds of bone-in beef because the animal that led to the recall came from Canada and was older than current rules allow, citing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "failures."

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America said in a release that it "was deeply disappointed to learn that an unauthorized Canadian cow, over 30 months of age, was imported into the U.S. and slaughtered and processed at a Wisconsin packing facility on Aug. 4.

"And although the processing facility, Green Bay Dressed Beef, voluntarily recalled the bone-in beef at issue, the recall was not initiated until Aug. 19, more than two weeks after this cow was processed," the R-CALF release said.

In the recall notice, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service said the recalled products could contain portions of the 31-month-old cow's vertebral column, one of several body parts classified as specified risk materials and not allowed into the human food chain, as part of mitigation measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease. An audit of the cow's health certificate by Canadian officials discovered the information was not accurate, and authorities with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said they have taken action in response to the audit's findings.

"(The) USDA is trying to argue this cow was just one month over the age limit, but how many other Canadian cattle have come into the U.S. in violation of the age constraints, and how much past 30 months of age are they," asked Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA president. "This incident shows a failure of several key BSE firewalls USDA claims exist for Canadian cattle imports.

"First, (the) USDA's requirement for determining the age of Canadian cattle has failed as cattle over 30 months of age are prohibited from entering the United States, and second, the U.S. requirement that only Canadian cattle under 30 months of age may be slaughtered in the U.S. failed because this over-30-month animal was slaughtered in a U.S. packing house," McDonnell said.

"Third, the U.S. requirements for the removal of SRMs failed in this instance, as all cattle over 30 months of age are required to have their vertebral columns removed, and fourth, USDA has failed to be transparent and reveal what happened to the remainder of this particular cow."

This animal's brain and other tissues may have been rendered and used in animal feed, but not cattle feed, the R-CALF release said.

These failures highlight the lack of justification for USDA's claim that it is acceptable to import cattle from countries where BSE is known to exist, like Canada, because of the supposedly "impenetrable barrier" of USDA regulations, R-CALF charged.

"(The) USDA convinced the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the United States was protected from the possibility of contaminated tissue entering the U.S. food supply because the U.S. had 'created a virtually impenetrable barrier to the introduction or spread of BSE,' and obviously, USDA was wrong," McDonnell said.

Terry Stokes, CEO of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said in an e-mailed response to questions that "Cattle over 30 months of age should not be entering the United States from Canada.

"While there is no reason to think the beef from this animal is unsafe, recalling the bone-in beef was the right thing to do," Stokes said. "When violations occur, cattle producers expect the government to uphold the law. For these reasons, the recall action taken by Green Bay Dressed Beef is the right way to address the situation, and we support their action.

"NCBA supports the 30-month age limitation on both cattle and boxed-beef imports from Canada, and opposes expansion beyond this age limit until animal health standards for animals older than 30 months are harmonized between both countries," Stokes said.
"until animal health standards for animals older than 30 months are harmonized between both countries,"When do you think the US will be able to meet Canadian standards Mr Stokes?

Bill, can you say "Anaplasmosis" and "Blue Tongue" ? What about the protective regulations Canada has against some cattle diseases?

I notice that story does not say that it was other regulations than BSE Stokes was referencing.

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Bill said:
US Cattle Group Cites USDA 'Failures' In Beef Recall

KANSAS CITY (Dow Jones)--A large U.S. cattle producer organization has criticized the events leading up to a Monday recall of 1,856 pounds of bone-in beef because the animal that led to the recall came from Canada and was older than current rules allow, citing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "failures."

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America said in a release that it "was deeply disappointed to learn that an unauthorized Canadian cow, over 30 months of age, was imported into the U.S. and slaughtered and processed at a Wisconsin packing facility on Aug. 4.

"And although the processing facility, Green Bay Dressed Beef, voluntarily recalled the bone-in beef at issue, the recall was not initiated until Aug. 19, more than two weeks after this cow was processed," the R-CALF release said.

In the recall notice, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service said the recalled products could contain portions of the 31-month-old cow's vertebral column, one of several body parts classified as specified risk materials and not allowed into the human food chain, as part of mitigation measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease. An audit of the cow's health certificate by Canadian officials discovered the information was not accurate, and authorities with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said they have taken action in response to the audit's findings.

"(The) USDA is trying to argue this cow was just one month over the age limit, but how many other Canadian cattle have come into the U.S. in violation of the age constraints, and how much past 30 months of age are they," asked Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA president. "This incident shows a failure of several key BSE firewalls USDA claims exist for Canadian cattle imports.

"First, (the) USDA's requirement for determining the age of Canadian cattle has failed as cattle over 30 months of age are prohibited from entering the United States, and second, the U.S. requirement that only Canadian cattle under 30 months of age may be slaughtered in the U.S. failed because this over-30-month animal was slaughtered in a U.S. packing house," McDonnell said.

"Third, the U.S. requirements for the removal of SRMs failed in this instance, as all cattle over 30 months of age are required to have their vertebral columns removed, and fourth, USDA has failed to be transparent and reveal what happened to the remainder of this particular cow."

This animal's brain and other tissues may have been rendered and used in animal feed, but not cattle feed, the R-CALF release said.

These failures highlight the lack of justification for USDA's claim that it is acceptable to import cattle from countries where BSE is known to exist, like Canada, because of the supposedly "impenetrable barrier" of USDA regulations, R-CALF charged.

"(The) USDA convinced the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the United States was protected from the possibility of contaminated tissue entering the U.S. food supply because the U.S. had 'created a virtually impenetrable barrier to the introduction or spread of BSE,' and obviously, USDA was wrong," McDonnell said.

Terry Stokes, CEO of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said in an e-mailed response to questions that "Cattle over 30 months of age should not be entering the United States from Canada.

"While there is no reason to think the beef from this animal is unsafe, recalling the bone-in beef was the right thing to do," Stokes said. "When violations occur, cattle producers expect the government to uphold the law. For these reasons, the recall action taken by Green Bay Dressed Beef is the right way to address the situation, and we support their action.

"NCBA supports the 30-month age limitation on both cattle and boxed-beef imports from Canada, and opposes expansion beyond this age limit until animal health standards for animals older than 30 months are harmonized between both countries," Stokes said.
"until animal health standards for animals older than 30 months are harmonized between both countries,"When do you think the US will be able to meet Canadian standards Mr Stokes?

Bill, if you saw the entire quote from Stokes, you would realize he was referring to Canadian protectionist rules regarding cattle diseases OTHER than BSE. Do Anaplasmosis and Blue Tongue ring a bell????

Surely you do realize NCBA has treated Canada very fairly in this whole BSE debacle, don't you?

BTW, what is Canadian criteria for determining age of cattle? Do you use dentition, verified age records, or how is it done if not either of these?

MRJ
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
Cattle here are verified by dentition. For now.

Direct quote from the CFIA handbook for export inspection.

"For the purposes of export certification of cattle and bison to the USA, an animal will be considered to be 30 months or older if either tooth of the second set of incisors has begun to erupt through the gums."

All cattle to be exported are required to have a veterinarian physically inspect their mouths.

This is the same standard used at the slaughter plants.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
MRJ said:
Bill said:
US Cattle Group Cites USDA 'Failures' In Beef Recall

KANSAS CITY (Dow Jones)--A large U.S. cattle producer organization has criticized the events leading up to a Monday recall of 1,856 pounds of bone-in beef because the animal that led to the recall came from Canada and was older than current rules allow, citing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "failures."

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America said in a release that it "was deeply disappointed to learn that an unauthorized Canadian cow, over 30 months of age, was imported into the U.S. and slaughtered and processed at a Wisconsin packing facility on Aug. 4.

"And although the processing facility, Green Bay Dressed Beef, voluntarily recalled the bone-in beef at issue, the recall was not initiated until Aug. 19, more than two weeks after this cow was processed," the R-CALF release said.

In the recall notice, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service said the recalled products could contain portions of the 31-month-old cow's vertebral column, one of several body parts classified as specified risk materials and not allowed into the human food chain, as part of mitigation measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease. An audit of the cow's health certificate by Canadian officials discovered the information was not accurate, and authorities with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said they have taken action in response to the audit's findings.

"(The) USDA is trying to argue this cow was just one month over the age limit, but how many other Canadian cattle have come into the U.S. in violation of the age constraints, and how much past 30 months of age are they," asked Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA president. "This incident shows a failure of several key BSE firewalls USDA claims exist for Canadian cattle imports.

"First, (the) USDA's requirement for determining the age of Canadian cattle has failed as cattle over 30 months of age are prohibited from entering the United States, and second, the U.S. requirement that only Canadian cattle under 30 months of age may be slaughtered in the U.S. failed because this over-30-month animal was slaughtered in a U.S. packing house," McDonnell said.

"Third, the U.S. requirements for the removal of SRMs failed in this instance, as all cattle over 30 months of age are required to have their vertebral columns removed, and fourth, USDA has failed to be transparent and reveal what happened to the remainder of this particular cow."

This animal's brain and other tissues may have been rendered and used in animal feed, but not cattle feed, the R-CALF release said.

These failures highlight the lack of justification for USDA's claim that it is acceptable to import cattle from countries where BSE is known to exist, like Canada, because of the supposedly "impenetrable barrier" of USDA regulations, R-CALF charged.

"(The) USDA convinced the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the United States was protected from the possibility of contaminated tissue entering the U.S. food supply because the U.S. had 'created a virtually impenetrable barrier to the introduction or spread of BSE,' and obviously, USDA was wrong," McDonnell said.

Terry Stokes, CEO of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said in an e-mailed response to questions that "Cattle over 30 months of age should not be entering the United States from Canada.

"While there is no reason to think the beef from this animal is unsafe, recalling the bone-in beef was the right thing to do," Stokes said. "When violations occur, cattle producers expect the government to uphold the law. For these reasons, the recall action taken by Green Bay Dressed Beef is the right way to address the situation, and we support their action.

"NCBA supports the 30-month age limitation on both cattle and boxed-beef imports from Canada, and opposes expansion beyond this age limit until animal health standards for animals older than 30 months are harmonized between both countries," Stokes said.
"until animal health standards for animals older than 30 months are harmonized between both countries,"When do you think the US will be able to meet Canadian standards Mr Stokes?

Bill, if you saw the entire quote from Stokes, you would realize he was referring to Canadian protectionist rules regarding cattle diseases OTHER than BSE. Do Anaplasmosis and Blue Tongue ring a bell????

Surely you do realize NCBA has treated Canada very fairly in this whole BSE debacle, don't you?

BTW, what is Canadian criteria for determining age of cattle? Do you use dentition, verified age records, or how is it done if not either of these?

MRJ
MR if you have the entire quote I would appreciate it but from the words Mr. Stokes used it is clear he is talking about animals over 30 months and that deals with only one thing, BSE.

We both know that there are as many restrictions between states as those placed upon the US by Canada over anaplas and bluetoungue so the "protectionist" charge you make holds little water.

NCBA was thought to be an ally through all of this and was portrayed to Canadian producers by our CCA to be a key part in getting the border reopened. CCA was ecstatic with the NCBA "inspection" team's glowing report and then at the Feb. convention NCBA went 180 degrees the opposite way largely to keep some of their members pacified and then have since came closer back to centre. They were actually beginning to walk the walk not just providing more talk.

With R-Calf we know exactly where we stand but one has to wonder when seeing misleading comments such as the one above what NCBA really stands for. I look forward to you showing that Stokes was mis-quoted or taken out of context as I want to believe he is smarter than that.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Bill said:
MRJ said:
Bill said:
"until animal health standards for animals older than 30 months are harmonized between both countries,"When do you think the US will be able to meet Canadian standards Mr Stokes?

Bill, if you saw the entire quote from Stokes, you would realize he was referring to Canadian protectionist rules regarding cattle diseases OTHER than BSE. Do Anaplasmosis and Blue Tongue ring a bell????

Surely you do realize NCBA has treated Canada very fairly in this whole BSE debacle, don't you?

BTW, what is Canadian criteria for determining age of cattle? Do you use dentition, verified age records, or how is it done if not either of these?

MRJ
MR if you have the entire quote I would appreciate it but from the words Mr. Stokes used it is clear he is talking about animals over 30 months and that deals with only one thing, BSE.

We both know that there are as many restrictions between states as those placed upon the US by Canada over anaplas and bluetoungue so the "protectionist" charge you make holds little water.

NCBA was thought to be an ally through all of this and was portrayed to Canadian producers by our CCA to be a key part in getting the border reopened.
CCA was ecstatic with the NCBA "inspection" team's glowing report and then at the Feb. convention NCBA went 180 degrees the opposite way largely to keep some of their members pacified and then have since came closer back to centre. They were actually beginning to walk the walk not just providing more talk.

With R-Calf we know exactly where we stand but one has to wonder when seeing misleading comments such as the one above what NCBA really stands for. I look forward to you showing that Stokes was mis-quoted or taken out of context as I want to believe he is smarter than that.

If you want to partner with the mncba Billy boy yall need to buy a membership,nobody else will .............good luck ps they need members badly
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
Hey Mike, all questions are good. No one is out to let you have it.

Answer me this, how did a slight change in the temperature of the rendering process allow prions to pass into the feed differently than they did before the minor changes in this process. Remember that prions are protease resistant and are undestructable, except at very high temperatures - similar to the currie points of metals! (when metals lose their magnetic properties).

The change in temperature allowed more fats, which were contaminated with chemicals including OPs used on cattle, pigs and sheep, to flow through into the MBM. Not to mention, the use of chemicals in the rendering process itself.

The UK government mandated the use of Phosmet to eradicate warbles at a rate not approved, and a higher than ever used concentration than before. They also strongly suggested a follow-up half dose two weeks after the first.

At some point in time, the UK government realized that the OP was triggering the BSE illness, as well as other neurological disorders. At this time, the evidence was pretty clear from the courts perspective, that CJD had been spread to young people via growth hormone injections (harvested from cadeavors with CJD). Because of the "supposed link" suggested that BSE was causing vCJD, the government decided to blame the rendering process. They could claim that they knew better now and fixed the problem by changing slaughtering and rendering procedures. No one was at fault as the problem was corrected as soon as they figured it out.

But, the problem wasn't the prion passing into the MBM via the new rendering process. It involved many other aspects listed by Mark Purdey in many of his peer-reviewed and published papers, eg. OPs in the fats recycled into feed, chicken manure high in manganese feed to cattle, and high levels of manganese in milk replacers. Other factors of environmental pollutants played a part too, and don't forget the Chernobyl reactor blow-out which showered all these countries in Europe with radioactive particles. The OPs chelated the copper from the animals nervous system, then it snowballed.

How is the UK government negligent here. They, at some point, realized their error (the mandated use of OPs at super high concentrations, etc) and then they choose to cover it up. Once they hid the evidence and took an easier road to remedy the problem, they became negligent and responsible for the problem.

Sadly, had they admitted their "guilt" in forcing the use of OPs as a major contributing factor to the epidemic of this toxic disease - they might have wiggled their way out of paying compensation. But, they knew they had forced excessive use of the chemical. They were aware of the problem and this awareness without taking action to correct it, is what makes the OP thing different from the MBM thing.

Now, we are faced with the continued coverup of guilt. But, if they wait a 100 years or so, they may actually come out and admit their mistake, and offer a few peanuts of compensation to the living survivors, or their immediate relatives. Case in point, the Canadian government's treatment of their own soldiers during World War II, when they forced trainies to come into contact with Mustard Gas at the Suffield base in Alberta. Many died immediately. Some never felt the health effects for years after. All were sworn to secrecy, or be tried for treason. Now, in 2004-05, the Canadian gov. is offering each survivor $24,000.00 for the hardships they endured because of this "military experiment". My husband's uncle was one of them.

Canada also sent soldiers to the USA to witness, upclose and personal, the effects of nuclear detinations. These soldiers and their remaining families, are still fighting for recognition, let alone compensation - but most are already dead.

Governments are very capable of harming their own citizens. To them it isn't a case of not doing these things; it is only a matter of not getting caught!

Anyways, I've rambled. But anwser my first question. How did the changed rendering procedures allow the undestructable prion to suddenly become major problem?
 

Latest posts

Top