Hey Sandhusker

[Sandhusker]

What do you all think the no. per million should be? There was talk of 0 but that went by the wayside after the texas cow. Do you think our trade partners think we only have 1 or do you think they believe we SHOULD find more if we are dilagent about the search?

If countries do what they want to anyway, which I feel they have the right to, what good is setting any number?

I think it is obvious our trade partners aren't taking any chances on that Texas cow being the only one with BSE. Until we prove otherwise, they shouidn't.

 

[Anonymous]

I was blaming the employees at the USDA for the bungling and like the Montana Guv says "a bunch of stooges"- especially after this inspectors Japan screwup.. But then the more I think of it- I think it all has to go back to the leadership and administration...I wonder how high the morale is in the USDA :???:

Look at it as if you worked for the USDA- You spend years developing a BSE and TSE prevention procedure, just to have it all thrown out the door in a few months by politics and packer lobbying...You go out and start a good solid PSA investigation and are told by administration to stop it- don't want to rock the boat- just shuffle paper to make it look good...
You make feedban recommendations just to have your work thrown aside and all decisions made by which industry paid the most to which lobbyist..

You could go on and on...Several good USDA employees started working to find the best way for M-COOL to work- to have all their work stymied by one well paid Congressman and a USDA director that dances to the tune of Big Industry.....

Must be a hell of a place to work...

 

[Tam]

Tam, "Sandhusker consider this my answer even if you don't believe it and think I'm full of crap. Wouldn't it be logical that any country that qualified for "mimimal risk" including the US would resume exporting to other countries say JAPAN AND KOREA at the same time Canada did? Is that a real stretch?"

Yes that is a stretch and not logical. The reason is because "minimal risk" is an OIE GUIDELINE, and nobody has to follow those guidelines if they choose not to. Haven't you noticed that Japan has ignored them and have instituted their own requirements?

Gee Sandhusker now they are guidelines and countries have a right to use them as such, but when it came to R-CALF's battle with the USDA they were written in stone recommendations that had to be follow to the letter of which they were written. Remenber this one NO exports from a country affect by BSE until they have had an EFFECTIVE FEED BAN in place for at least 7 years no matter what other safeguards have been implemented.( at least that is how R-CALF read it) Even R-CALF argues that the US feedbans have loopholes that have left the US cattle open to risk, so is your feed ban EFFECTIVE? Or does the US fit into the same catagory as Canada because of other factors. The fact that we are both sitting in the minimal risk catagory puts us at one level of negotiation abilities but trust in the exporting countries systems is another issue and that is why countries set their own requirements. And if you don't fit you may not be let in. As in Japan we were both let in but the US screwed up and now the Japanese government doesn't trust you to follow the rules that were negotiated so more restrictions may be put on your system if you want to export to them. It wasn't your risk status that change things it was the trust issue.

Tam, if all you want to do is fight, we have code word for that now.

R-CALF asked the USDA to follow the recommendations of the OIE because that is what the USDA was preaching. The wanted them to practice what they preached. Were they out of line for that?

Why are you trying to hammer R-CALF on the feed ban? Ours needs work. You, R-CALF and I AGREE on that. However, the question arises, is Canada's effective? You just found a cow not even 6 years old that was positive. That wasn't supposed to happen with a working feed ban, was it?

I'm sure the Japanese don't trust us much. I wouldn't either. The USDA can't decide if positives are positives or show much of an interest in actually finding out. They would rather lower standards than increase effort and have shown that trade is the most important factor in setting policy. They think might makes right and have no respect for any other country's wants or preferences.

I think the reason most countries don't follow the "minimal risk" status the USDA pushed is because it is a poorly disguised efford to simply BS people and reduce concern. Consider this; you qualify for "minimal risk" if you have less than 2 cases per million head in a year. The US has a herd of 90 some million animals. That means we could have 179 positives in one year and still be minimal risk. That is more than one every other day even if you count the weekends. Now, realisticly, who is going ho-hum that? Mimimal risk is a farce and most countries see it for what it is. The USDA should be ashamed for pushing it. It's a tell to the hand they're playing.

first efford is not a word Sandhusker.
Secondly The problem I have with R-CALF is we all know including You and R-CALF that your standards aren't as high as those in Canada as why are you asking to implement the same safeguards Canada has if you thought ours weren't higher and working. But that NEVER STOP THEM from buying a Washington Post Ad claiming your standards were the highest in the World and it didn't stop them from claiming all beef from a country affect with BSE is tainted and unsafe for human consumption and then flipping to this little comment on the chance you had BSE

"we know if we are going to keep consumer confidence we are going to maintain some of the highest standards in the world to make sure that BSE is not introduced into this country. And we are going to make sure we have the best meat and bone meal ban in this country in place. So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue. If we look them right in the eye and say that I will guarantee they will keep eating beef".

To bad the BSE agent had already been introduced to the US just like it was in Canada but that said OUR FIREWALLS WERE STONGER. I have asked this question many times too Sandhusker, maybe you would like to try answer it. If the firewalls that LEO spouts about in this Comment at the ICON meeting were/are protecting the US consumers why can't those same firewalls protect them from IMPORTED CATTLE?

And Sandhusker the Minimal risk rate of two per million per year, is not on the whole herd it is on the OTM cattle if you are following OIE recommendations. The thing is every time we find ONE we are threatened. We are doing the testing and we are finding additional cases just like we said we MIGHT but all the threats of banning our beef again is doing is encouraging cheating on the testing. Do you want the truth from countries that are affect from BSE or are you just out to see how far you can push them until they start doing what the US is doing which is cheating the testing so none are ever found?

 

[Sandhusker]

You're wearing me out, Tam. This is all pretty simple and straight forward if you take things for what they are instead of trying to find fault.

Tam, our standards WERE the highest in the world. We HAD a zero-tolerance policy. How much higher can you get than that?

That Leo quote you brought forward is the truth. Read it again, he is not saying we HAVE the highest standards, best feed ban, firewalls. He is saying we NEED them. He starts by saying, "we know that IF we...." He's saying that IF we do these things, we can look the customer in the eye. You're not reading it to understand what he is saying, you're reading it trying to pick a fight, and your understanding is suffering because of it.

I won't argue about the 2 million being OTM, you may be right. Does that really change the perception at all? Say the US ONLY finds 1 case a week. What do you think consumers both worldwide and domestic would say about that? The USDA would be standing there saying, "But, we're within OIE guidelines for minimal risk", and everybody would just shake their heads. Then we ALL would need to find a different line of work.

One of the reasons you are being threatened is because your latest case was born way after the feed ban was imposed. With a working feed ban, that wasn't supposed to happen. You've got a problem that needs to be addressed.

It would be nice that if I thought any country was hiding from the truth, I could avoid their product. Since we don't have COOL, I can't do that. Everbody will suffer when I only eat locally grown beef and the other questioning individuals eat chicken, pork,or fish. If you were convinced Canada is playing it straight and the US is not, I would think you would support COOL down here so your product would be able to be purchased. But, R-CALF is behind COOL so you can't possibly support anything they do.

 

[Econ101]

I have a question, Tam. What are they doing with the MBM from the operations in Canada? Is Tyson shipping it down to their poultry operations in the deep south?

 

[TimH]

I have a question, Tam. What are they doing with the MBM from the operations in Canada? Is Tyson shipping it down to their poultry operations in the deep south?

Golly Gee Econ, the current rule states that only whole boneless muscle cuts of meat from animals 30 months of age or younger are allowed into the US from Canada. This would obviously exclude any ground beef or MBM products.(Hint--- the "B" in MBM stands for bone).
Are you really that far out of the "loop" or are you just playing dumb??? Never mind. :roll:



What a tool!!

 

[Econ101]

I have a question, Tam. What are they doing with the MBM from the operations in Canada? Is Tyson shipping it down to their poultry operations in the deep south?

Golly Gee Econ, the current rule states that only whole boneless muscle cuts of meat from animals 30 months of age or younger are allowed into the US from Canada. This would obviously exclude any ground beef or MBM products.(Hint--- the "B" in MBM stands for bone).
Are you really that far out of the "loop" or are you just playing dumb??? Never mind. :roll:



What a tool!!

Tim, whether MBM comes from Canada or the U.S., it does not matter. If it is still being used in feed operations for poultry formulations and hence on farms that have cattle and poultry in the U.S. , there is a big loophole in the feed ban rule. I am not taking a stance against Canada here, I am asking to control possible BSE spread through feeding it to poultry and then to U.S. cattle that live on those farms. I don't know if rkaiser is correct on the feed not being the problem or not. If it is a possible way of transmitting BSE, the loophole needs to be closed.

I asked a simple question, is any of the ofal (or MBM) from Canadian plants being imported to the U.S. for poultry feed or any other animal feed? What are they doing with those remains? SH has already claimed the use of the waste has resulted in economic efficiencies at plants that have found ways to use the remains. How are they being used by Tyson and Cargill? Are they making feed and feeding it to salmon?

 

[Tam]

You're wearing me out, Tam. This is all pretty simple and straight forward if you take things for what they are instead of trying to find fault.

Tam, our standards WERE the highest in the world. We HAD a zero-tolerance policy. How much higher can you get than that?

That Leo quote you brought forward is the truth. Read it again, he is not saying we HAVE the highest standards, best feed ban, firewalls. He is saying we NEED them. He starts by saying, "we know that IF we...." He's saying that IF we do these things, we can look the customer in the eye. You're not reading it to understand what he is saying, you're reading it trying to pick a fight, and your understanding is suffering because of it.

I won't argue about the 2 million being OTM, you may be right. Does that really change the perception at all? Say the US ONLY finds 1 case a week. What do you think consumers both worldwide and domestic would say about that? The USDA would be standing there saying, "But, we're within OIE guidelines for minimal risk", and everybody would just shake their heads. Then we ALL would need to find a different line of work.

One of the reasons you are being threatened is because your latest case was born way after the feed ban was imposed. With a working feed ban, that wasn't supposed to happen. You've got a problem that needs to be addressed.

It would be nice that if I thought any country was hiding from the truth, I could avoid their product. Since we don't have COOL, I can't do that. Everbody will suffer when I only eat locally grown beef and the other questioning individuals eat chicken, pork,or fish. If you were convinced Canada is playing it straight and the US is not, I would think you would support COOL down here so your product would be able to be purchased. But, R-CALF is behind COOL so you can't possibly support anything they do.

Tam, our standards WERE the highest in the world. We HAD a zero-tolerance policy.

You also HAD BSE circulating within the US borders because of trade you did before you implemented your Zero tolerance policy. So now that we all know your ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY DIDN"T STOP BSE FROM BEING INTRODUCED to the US HERD, it's time you face the facts and realize that your policies have to change to match the situation you are in NOW. :nod:
Let us just look at what Leo said

"we know if we are going to keep consumer confidence we are going to maintain some of the highest standards in the world to make sure that BSE is not introduced into this country. And we are going to make sure we have the best meat and bone meal ban in this country in place. So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue. If we look them right in the eye and say that I will guarantee they will keep eating beef".

we are going to maintain some of the highest standards in the world

Now according to the dictionary MAINTAIN means to keep or keep up continue with or carry on. so tell us Sandhusker how are you doing to maintain or keep up or carry on with if you don't have the highest standards in the world. and you NEED them

to make sure that BSE is not introduced into this country

looks as if he thought that BSE hadn't been introduced but we all know it had been.

we are going to make sure we have the best meat and bone meal ban in this country in place

to late to say anything about the best meat and bone meal ban as R-CALF already admitted yours is not the best. And that they want one like Canada has.

So if for some reason we did find a case

this comment was after the US found the Washington cow and the OIE told the US they couldn't consider her a imported case as you could not find all cattle from Canada or the UK so what did he mean by SO IF?

we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say,

didn't he mean lie without batting an eye. :liar:

don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years,

Hey Sandhusker where is the part about those firewalls have holes and how those firewalls can't protect the US consumers from imported cattle. :liar:

the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years.

:liar: :liar: :liar: Canada had them in just as long and ours were strengthened in 1998 but the US's weren't. Only now after BSE was discovered is the US announcing they want to upgrade their firewalls to mimic Canada's.

And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue.

NON ISSUE :shock: It wasn't a NON ISSUE in Canada with our stricter firewalls after the first case. R-CALF was writing the Congess within the first week demanding action be taken to quarantine Canada and not allow any beef be imported from a country known to have BSE. But one case in Texas with your weaker non-complied to feedban is a non issue. :roll:
I ask again if these firewalls that Leo was talking about maintaining were good enough to protect the US consumers from US BSE, that is/ WAS in the US when this speech was made, why aren't they strong enough to protect the US consumers from imported cattle? :???:

The USDA would be standing there saying, "But, we're within OIE guidelines for minimal risk", and everybody would just shake their heads.

They are shaking their heads now and you only found one case. The reason they are shaking their heads is because you had these firewalls but they didn't stop the Washington cow from having to be recalled from the food chain and you have these rules about no downers but the Texas cow was reported found dead on a truck at no other than the doors of a slaughter plant. You have a top notch surveillance system to test for BSE but it took 7 months and a demanded retest to prove the Texas cow was positive. You have these world highest standards but you have loopholes in your feedbans that make it impossible for you to import cattle as they may infect the US herd via the US feed system. You have export regulations but not all packing plants know what they are and it doesn't look as if the USDA inspectors do either. And last but certainly not least you have a BEEF ORGANIZATION and their puppet judge spouting how beef from a country affected by BSE is a genuine risk of death and then telling their consumers but we have these firewalls in place to protect you. Those are some of the reasons people are shaking their heads. and laughing as it is a bit hard to trust you. :wink:
And again about COOL just how much of the imported meat will be labeled Sandhusker? when the prepared and processed can't be as it is a mix of imported and domestic and none of the food service food is labeled and that is where the MAJORITY of imported meat goes. I just don't see the need to worry about labeling the meat in the meat counter as 95% of it will have a US label. If R-CALF is so worried about the cost of things to the US producers why don't they put their money behind something that really will pay like M"ID" So if you have another case of BSE you will beable to find the herd of origin as fast as Canada did instead of being told by the OIE to just forget it as you will likely never find them all. Besides Sandhusker I doubt consumers care where the beef comes from as long as it passes the same high standards that domestic beef has to pass and it is at a price they can afford.