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

I just don't get it...

Jason

Well-known member
USDA blocked Creekstone because they can't start allowing rogue testing for any reportable disease.

It has proven to be hard for the USDA to get it 100% right, if they start allowing every lab that has a financial agenda to muddy the waters it will never get cleaned up.

Most people would trust a gov't lab over a company lab trying to sell their product.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
USDA blocked Creekstone because they can't start allowing rogue testing for any reportable disease.

It has proven to be hard for the USDA to get it 100% right, if they start allowing every lab that has a financial agenda to muddy the waters it will never get cleaned up.

Most people would trust a gov't lab over a company lab trying to sell their product.

In Creekstone's case we are not talking about most people. We are talking about their educated customer, Japan.

The lab was to have USDA oversight.

It seems you have a few very important factors out of the equation, Jason.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Jason, "USDA blocked Creekstone because they can't start allowing rogue testing for any reportable disease."

"Rogue testing"? What makes Creekstone's proposal "rogue"?

Jason, "It has proven to be hard for the USDA to get it 100% right, if they start allowing every lab that has a financial agenda to muddy the waters it will never get cleaned up."

How are they muddying the waters? Creekstone would be handling the testing per the Japanese' standards. The Japanese have higher standards that we do - but the waters will be muddied? I'd say the waters are the consistency of mud right now. The Japanese consumers don't trust the USDA, you Canucks think we're not testing right and covering up positives and Johanns wants to reduce testing! How the heck can the water get any muddier?

Jason, "Most people would trust a gov't lab over a company lab trying to sell their product."

Then they don't have to buy the product tested by a private company, do they? Creekstone isn't trying to force anything down anybody's throats. They're only trying to meet a customer's demands. Who are you to say what is acceptable in a foreign country?

I was going to feed my kids some hot-dogs for dinner - is that OK with you? They're Kosher, which I realize is not based on sound science and now everybody will want Kosher and the extra costs associated with Kosher will be passed to the producer and every rogue packer will start doing their own Kosher now. I won't even mention the implications these Kosher hot dogs place on non-Kosher. Do you have a form that I need to fill out to get your approval?
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Roper/Ron-- I don't know what Canadas import laws were- but I do know that back in the 60's,70's, 80's during the big trend to go to continental breeds-- while Canadians were importing cows and bulls, down here you could only get the semen for quite some time... While many Canadian purebred raisers imported the start of their herds, cows and bulls- US purebred continental raisers did it by AI-- why the US breed associations let them register 1/2's, than 3/4's, then 7/8's and eventually called them purebred...

So there must have been some major differences in the import laws on live cattle from Europe-- maybe someone else knows or remembers...Back then the last thing I had on my mind was import laws- rodeo and wimmen came first- Canada was just a place where they drank lots of beer at the rodeos, you couldn't walk around the bars with a drink, and they paid your winnings in funny colored money :wink: :lol: .......

OT I was riding with a guy today who told me that yes the exotics <stuff besides beefmaster and hereford>where brought into Canada when Americans could only AI. However the Americans bought the calves of these exotics.
He also pointed out about all the feeder cattle that come from the NW States into Alberta every summer and are<where> then taken south again.
If exotics where the cause of BSE then you have it to. If Canadian cows where exposed to contaminated rendered feed then your cows where to.
 

CattleRMe

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Question
Why is it that rcalfers keep posting negative crap about Alberta Beef on the on the Ranching Threads that should be on Bull Session?
The only time they do this is when they figgure they have ammo against Canada.


If this is directed at the article I posted in the ranchers thread I addressed it there.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT I was riding with a guy today who told me that yes the exotics <stuff besides beefmaster and hereford>where brought into Canada when Americans could only AI. However the Americans bought the calves of these exotics.

That could be correct-- And it was these exotics that Canada first imported (like the 93 Saler) that they are saying were infected- rendered- and went into the cattle feed that started the spread thruout Canada- which caused it to multiply for so much longer which is manifesting itself today...

I see where some of the USDA officials are also proclaiming this now as a theory for why Canada has so many cases appearing...

But I have heard none from either CFIA or USDA offer any theory on why the Canadian feedban hasn't worked...
 

Jason

Well-known member
Creekstone testing young animals with an unapproved test might as well be saying if the sky is blue all our animals will be negative for BSE today.

The government agencies in place have the responsibility to say what tests and which labs are ok.

Kosher meats is a religious practice and has nothing to do with food safety. Organic production is a system of production with less chemicals, not a food safety issue. Some might like to portray them as more for profit motivated reasons, but the truth is they are not safer food.

Why aren't packers allowed to grade their own carcasses? Why not give them the roll stamp and let them go to town? It would save all that taxpayer money and the hassle of training inspectors.

There are checks and balances in place for reasons.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
Creekstone testing young animals with an unapproved test might as well be saying if the sky is blue all our animals will be negative for BSE today.

The government agencies in place have the responsibility to say what tests and which labs are ok.

Kosher meats is a religious practice and has nothing to do with food safety. Organic production is a system of production with less chemicals, not a food safety issue. Some might like to portray them as more for profit motivated reasons, but the truth is they are not safer food.

Why aren't packers allowed to grade their own carcasses? Why not give them the roll stamp and let them go to town? It would save all that taxpayer money and the hassle of training inspectors.

There are checks and balances in place for reasons.

I am sure the Japanese would have required the test to be approved by them.

Our govt. agencies are using the policy of the U.S. to give producers the shaft and benefit certain big packers.

Your govt. did the same thing, Jason.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Creekstone testing young animals with an unapproved test might as well be saying if the sky is blue all our animals will be negative for BSE today.

Where did you get the "Unapproved" part of your question?

When Creekstone first petitioned the USDA they were planning on using the Bio-Rad Platelia test (the one the Japs used) but the USDA had not approved it "AT THAT TIME", simply because they had not approved ANY Rapid tests. They were still relying on the inaccurate 1980's tests. But just a few weeks after they denied Creekstone, the USDA APPROVED that test for their use, in their labs only.

Creekstone also asked for USDA oversight (to pay USDA lab inspectors) in their testing facilities. If any test might have been positive - or - false positive, the sample would have been sent to the USDA lab for conformation.

The rest of the world was using the test Jason, with better results than the USDA has had.

And you say it was "Unapproved"?
 

Jason

Well-known member
the USDA had not approved it "AT THAT TIME", simply because they had not approved ANY Rapid tests.

a few weeks after they denied Creekstone, the USDA APPROVED that test for their use, in their labs only.

Not approved means unapproved.

In their labs only means not in Creekstone's lab.

Need more clarification Mike?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Can't stop Progress ,There will be Better BSE,TSE tests coming every DAY and into the future like the URINE and BLOOD BSE live TESTS.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Jason said:
the USDA had not approved it "AT THAT TIME", simply because they had not approved ANY Rapid tests.

a few weeks after they denied Creekstone, the USDA APPROVED that test for their use, in their labs only.

Not approved means unapproved.

In their labs only means not in Creekstone's lab.

Need more clarification Mike?

Jason, you must be a little slow. I'll spell it out for you slower.

The USDA was being pushed to test more cows than could be tested using the IHC method. This was after the Washington cow and the pressure was on.

The only answer was to select some "Rapid" tests. The USDA was in the process of selecting a test when Creekstone asked to test beef for Japan.

At the same time Creekstone asked to use the Bio-Rad test because the Japs used it, along with every other country in Europe. The USDA said no, then turned right around and selected the BIO-Rad test for their own use.

It was "Approved" for USDA use, but "Unapproved" for Creekstone use.

When you say the test was "Unapproved" you are wrong. It was NOT "Unapproved", they had selected and ordered it and had full intentions of using it.

Double standard here. The "Unapproved" you are talking about is not for an individual test, but for private testing in general.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Keep up with your own statements Mike.

They (USDA) wanted to test COWS not young fed cattle.

Creekstone wanted to use an unapproved test (not proven for young cattle, not approved for private labs).

If there was a solid market for tested beef at a profit, the big packers would have been pushing for it as well.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Jason said:
Keep up with your own statements Mike.

They (USDA) wanted to test COWS not young fed cattle.

Creekstone wanted to use an unapproved test (not proven for young cattle, not approved for private labs).

If there was a solid market for tested beef at a profit, the big packers would have been pushing for it as well.

Creekstone wanted to use a test that their "Customers Approved" of.

What do you think caught the 21 and 23 month cattle in Japan?
Which by the way WAS validated by the OIE!


They (USDA) wanted to test COWS not young fed cattle.

Exactly correct. That's why Japan wanted them tested by Creekstone.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Makes you wonder if the BSE is so powerful in Canada that its now manifesting itself in 50 month olds- could it be in Canadian cattle as young as 30 months or 20 month olds like Japan is finding?

But if you don't test any that age you will never know.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Jason, "The government agencies in place have the responsibility to say what tests and which labs are ok. "

Doesn't Japan have any government agencies of their own? Why does the USDA feel the responsibility to say what is OK for the Japanese consumer?

Jason, "Kosher meats is a religious practice and has nothing to do with food safety."

What does food safety have to do with it? The USDA talked about "sound science", not food safety.

Jason, " Organic production is a system of production with less chemicals, not a food safety issue."

And you don't think those who buy organic don't equate less chemicals with safer food? Come on, Jason. You're just like the USDA. You're trying to base facts on a decision instead of a decision based on facts.
You're the SH of the North! :lol:
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Mike said:
Jason said:
Keep up with your own statements Mike.

They (USDA) wanted to test COWS not young fed cattle.

Creekstone wanted to use an unapproved test (not proven for young cattle, not approved for private labs).

If there was a solid market for tested beef at a profit, the big packers would have been pushing for it as well.

Creekstone wanted to use a test that their "Customers Approved" of.

What do you think caught the 21 and 23 month cattle in Japan?
Which by the way WAS validated by the OIE!

They (USDA) wanted to test COWS not young fed cattle.

Exactly correct. That's why Japan wanted them tested by Creekstone.

My understanding is they were just getting false positives in cattle under 24 months. Are you saying they have confirmed cases in cattle under 24 months?
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Makes you wonder if the BSE is so powerful in AMERICA that its now manifesting itself in 50 month olds- could it be in AMERICAN cattle as young as 30 months or 20 month olds like Japan is finding?

But if you don't test any CATTLE at ANY age you will never know....
 

Murgen

Well-known member
No one in the world has done individual testing that is not carried out by government agencies. So the price on individual tests (charged to independent testers) would not be known.
 

Latest posts

Top