• 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...

Mike

Well-known member
Murgen said:
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.

YOU ARE DEAD ASS WRONG MURGEN!

EUROPE ALLOWED PRIVATE TESTING IN SOME COUNTRIES THAT DID NOT HAVE BSE!

GUESS WHAT? THEY STARTED FINDING THEM IN THE PRIVATE LABS!!!!!!!!!

I'LL POST THE PROOF WHEN I CAN GET TO THE OFFICE AND GET OFF THIS DIAL-UP.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Here's one article from the Wall Street Journal:

'Mad-Cow' Disease Cases Jump Despite EU Increased Testing
GEOFF WINESTOCK / WALL STREET JOURNAL 8jan01
BSE in Europe

Number of cases of BSE detected in cattle in Europe, through 2000
Britain 179,216
Ireland 540
Portugal 473
Switzerland 364
France 231
Belgium 18
Germany 7
Netherlands 6
Spain 2
Denmark 1
Italy 0
Note: Figures for Germany, France, Belgium and Spain run through 2000; figures for other countries run through mid-November.
Source: European Union



The stepped-up testing program for "mad-cow" disease that was launched by the European Union last week to calm consumers has so far only raised more fear and confusion -- especially in Germany and Spain, which have recorded sharp rises in cases.

Germany announced on Friday plans to broaden its testing program to cover younger animals, after a private testing company found a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in a 28-month-old cow.

The EU testing program, which started Jan. 1, requires BSE testing for all animals older than 30 months, but the German Health Ministry now wants to lower the threshold to 24 months.

In both Spain and Germany, where the first cases of the disease were only detected in November, increased testing has seen a sharp jump in the number of cattle detected with the disease. After the first week of compulsory testing, Spain announced three new cases of BSE Friday, taking its total to five. Germany, which started its testing program a month early in an effort to calm consumer panic, has recorded seven cases, including the young cow last week.

So far, the testing measures haven't arrested the slide in beef sales, which has ranged from 20% to 50% in Spain, Italy, France and Germany. Beef sales for Christmas, although slightly higher than in previous weeks, were still way down compared with previous years, according to EU figures.

European Commission agricultural spokesman Gregor Kreuzhuber said he didn't expect an immediate recovery in the beef market. "It will likely take several weeks before consumers see that the measures are really working," he said.

BSE has been linked to a brain disease that has killed 80 people, almost all in Britain.

Across Europe, the 475 million euro ($455 million) testing program is causing backlogs and confusion at slaughterhouses, which lack the technical capacity to perform the tests. In France, health officials closed down an abattoir in Besancon on Friday after it was found to have breached safeguards on accurate labeling of the brain samples used for testing and botched procedures for excluding cattle from the food chain until test results are confirmed. In Italy, an association of agricultural producers, Confagricoltura, issued a warning that veterinary officials can't keep up with demand for tests.

Mr. Kreuzhuber said the EU had expected initial problems in the testing program, which was announced only a month ago. To tide farmers over until the program is in place, the EU has promised compensation for cattle that cannot be tested and must be destroyed. Most governments want to switch to testing as soon as possible because, even with this aid, it is still cheaper for them to carry out a test at a cost of about 15 euros than to destroy an animal. In Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark, governments have refused to destroy cattle, for ethical reasons.

The German proposal for testing all cattle from the age of 24 months would increase the burden of testing substantially and could split EU governments, which have struggled to develop a coordinated approach in fighting BSE. German Health Minister Andrea Fischer said Friday that Germany would proceed with the measure unilaterally, even if it isn't approved by the EU as a whole. Also, Germany's Agriculture Ministry announced its support for a database designed to track and identify meat products based on tissue samples taken from calves.
Lost Opportunities

How European countries ignored warning signs on BSE, or mad-cow disease

1996:
Link between BSE and human brain disease established in Britain

1997:
Prionics AG of Switzerland develops first efficient test kit

1998:
January: Switzerland starts widespread testing program; number of BSE cases there immediately doubles
April: EU countries agree to start random testing for BSE, but follow-up inspections by European Commission show major flaws in testing program

1999:
March: European Commission issues draft report warning that BSE has likely spread from Britain. Other EU countries attack report and delay publication.

2000:
February: Denmark discovers its first case of BSE, one month after starting a widespread testing program
June: France steps up testing; its number of BSE cases surges
August: European Commission finally publishes report on risk of spread of BSE
November: German private lab discovers country's first case of BSE; government orders widespread testing, and six more cases are quickly discovered
November: Spain discovers first cases of BSE
November: EU countries agree on a massive testing program of all sick and older animals
 

Mike

Well-known member
Murgen said:
If I am wrong, then I stand corrected. Were they accredited labs by the government, or private citizens?

From what I understand they were just private entities concerned about the goverment cover-ups (sound familiar?) and just started testing on their own.

By the way, they allowed the postives to be confirmed by the goverment labs.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
I think I mentioned a long time ago, that they should be confirmed by a world body lab.

You don't trust the USDA to do lab testing do you?
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
You know, I find it interesting that many people feel that only government labs can be trusted to do testing. Does this mean that you guys feel that only government workers are qualified? No-one else in the entire world is capable of performing a tissue gathering sample?

:roll: :roll:

Rod
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Rod, I would be more worried about safety and theft from private labs, than I would be about competency of the staff.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
I'd be less worried about private labs than goverment labs. From the few years of government service I had, its, as a general rule, a dumping ground of university grads trying to make their way up to private industry, or good for nothings who couldn't make it in private industry and need the security of a union to ensure they don't get their butts fired.

Now, before any government workers chew me a new one, I realize there are some very well qualified government workers out there, however there can be no denying the history of idiocy and incompetence of our government institutions in this country.

Rod
 

Mike

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Rod, I would be more worried about safety and theft from private labs, than I would be about competency of the staff.

All of our hospitals here in the US have private labs that do HUMAN testing on all diseases.

If you think goverment can do everything better, then move to Russia, China, or North Korea for a while.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
If you think goverment can do everything better, then move to Russia, China, or North Korea for a while

Is that what I said? In fact, I don't trust your USDA to do the testing at all.

I've been saying that for years, since this all started in NA.

and just for the record, I believe in testing the OTM's, but I don't think testing the under 21 months will do a dang thing, except spend $$.

If we had started to test under 21 month animals, yes it might have opened the Japanese market a little sooner, but how much unnecessary $$, would be spent in the long term?

Once you agree to those types of stipulations for trade, do you think you can just stop?

If you start testing for Japan, (UTM), you are being manipulated into future trade barriers without scientific justification.
 

Mike

Well-known member
If we had started to test under 21 month animals, yes it might have opened the Japanese market a little sooner, but how much unnecessary $$, would be spent in the long term?

The Kansa State Research Paper said it would have been a "NET" effect last year! How much more "Net" would it be by now?

The NCBA says we are losing $175 per head per year.

And you are questioning cost?

Scott's argument about the age holds more water than your argument about cost.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Mike, I think I mentioned future costs associated with artificial trade barriers.

The Kansa State Research Paper said it would have been a "NET" effect last year! How much more "Net" would it be by now?

What may the long term effects on costs be, if you set a standard of meeting requirements without scientific merit?

Here is what the Japanese found on testing UTM, while doing their risk assesments. (the "T" in this incidence stands for 20)

Concerning cattle aged 20 months or younger as of March 2005, which would be cattle born in or after July 2003, it is believed that the prevalence of infection is “very low,”
and the amount of BSE prion accumulation in infected cattle is “small.” Furthermore, at present, the BSE contamination rate in meat as a result of the slaughtering process is believed to be “very low,” and the amount of contamination to be between “negligible” and “very small.”
If BSE testing is changed from blanket testing to testing cattle aged 21 months or older, the risk remains unchanged, provided there are no BSE-infected cattle aged 20 months or younger with amount of BSE prion accumulation that exceeds the detection limit.
Should such infected cattle exist, an increase in the risk would be undeniable. Nevertheless, the BSE prion contamination rate of meat can still be considered to be “very low” and the amount of contamination to be between “negligible” and “very small.”
 

Mike

Well-known member
What may the long term effects on costs be, if you set a standard of meeting requirements without scientific merit?

The question here is "WHOSE" scientific merit do we use?

Science has not settled in BSE causatives and transmissions.

The USDA has already caved on their "Scientific Merit".

You want to know why Cargill ain't interested in shipping to Japan from the USA?

Cargill Beef Australia opens new $36 million Wagga Wagga processing plant

CARGILL Beef Australia began operating its new $36 million Wagga Wagga processing plant at Bomen on October 6, 2005. The expansion will increase the daily processing capacity to 1,200 cattle from 850-900 and employment will grow to 625 from 500. “The increased capacity will be distributed to our dedicated customers in key export markets and here in Australia,” said Dick Kelley, general manager of Cargill Beef Australia.

“One of the key factors that made this upgrade possible has been the commitment from our employees in Wagga Wagga,” Mr Kelley said. “The commitment from our employees has created the flexibility to meet and exceed our customers’ requirements and provide an environment where we can be competitive in the beef processing sector. “Significant benefits that have been realised through our employees have been the improvement in productivity and safety.” New efficiencies in product flow, installation of plate freezers, carton blast chillers and Video Image Analysis equipment are just a few of the technologies and quality management process improvements incorporated in the upgrade. The new plant will also introduce the table-method of boning which will result in greatly improved ergonomics for employees.

Mr Kelley said the upgrade included a new meat-boning room, carcase sortation coolers, boxed-beef handling, chilling and freezing systems, as well as new environmental management systems. Also installed was a biofilter designed to filter air coming from the plant. Capital was also dedicated to new wastewater pre-treatment equipment.
Mr Kelley said local tradespeople have been used during much of the construction phase which started 12 months ago.

Cargill acquired the processing facility in Wagga Wagga in 1991. Cargill Beef Australia also operates a beef facility in Tamworth, which opened in 1998.

Read more about Cargill Beef Australia in this special expansion publication


.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Another Japanese quote from their risk assesment.

The possibility has always been high that there have been BSE-infected cattle in the cohorts of cattle aged 20 months or younger. However, no cattle aged 20 months or younger has ever tested positive for BSE infection. Even if one BSE-infected cattle is present in this cohort of cattle, the cattle tests negative for infection because the BSE
prion accumulation is below the test’s detection limit. As a result, risk reduction is dependent on the removal of SRMs. Under these circumstances, should the age of cattle targeted for BSE testing be set at 21 months or older, the risk of human exposure to BSE remains unchanged.

Wouldn't it be better to spend a little money on educating the public, instead of fueling the fire of fear?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Another Japanese quote from their risk assesment.

The possibility has always been high that there have been BSE-infected cattle in the cohorts of cattle aged 20 months or younger. However, no cattle aged 20 months or younger has ever tested positive for BSE infection. Even if one BSE-infected cattle is present in this cohort of cattle, the cattle tests negative for infection because the BSE
prion accumulation is below the test’s detection limit. As a result, risk reduction is dependent on the removal of SRMs. Under these circumstances, should the age of cattle targeted for BSE testing be set at 21 months or older, the risk of human exposure to BSE remains unchanged.

Wouldn't it be better to spend a little money on educating the public, instead of fueling the fire of fear?

Thank you Murgen, You have made my point in testing. When the USDA started negotiations with japan, they were adamant on the 30 month animals being safe. They have now changed their stance by shipping under 21 month olds to Japan.

In other words, the Japs have proved them wrong on the 30 month rule, but they allow it to be the standard in N. America.?

They have screwed the whole mess up now and it's probably too late.

Us testing advocates called this when they denied Creekstone.

Just let the MARKET decide who is right and who is wrong. It would have sorted itself out.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Another Japanese quote from their risk assesment.

The possibility has always been high that there have been BSE-infected cattle in the cohorts of cattle aged 20 months or younger. However, no cattle aged 20 months or younger has ever tested positive for BSE infection. Even if one BSE-infected cattle is present in this cohort of cattle, the cattle tests negative for infection because the BSE
prion accumulation is below the test’s detection limit. As a result, risk reduction is dependent on the removal of SRMs. Under these circumstances, should the age of cattle targeted for BSE testing be set at 21 months or older, the risk of human exposure to BSE remains unchanged.

Wouldn't it be better to spend a little money on educating the public, instead of fueling the fire of fear?

What the hell are you proposing?

Opening a "Beef Disease" college in Japan?

Just open the rules and let the market decide. Simple.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
I find it funny that a small group is all for "give the consumer what they want"

But when it has been shown time and again, the consumer wants beef to be traceable right back to the farm, what you get in response is "COOL" is good enough.

Under 21 months in Canada means you have to have records right back to the farm. (read my post on JAS) That's why they take our beef, not because it is tested. It's a level of trust.

South Korea is asking for the same, TRACEabilty. How will you distinguish the American from the Canadian, you need records right back to the farm/ranch. Watch, when/if you were to give into the request, there will be further requests of individual animal traceabilty.


Why would you be willing to test everything and spend more money on that than you would on traceabilty?
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Its the producer who will end up paying the bill for bse testing. Look at our ID system up here, its producers who are paying for it.
If we start bse testing then its a done deal. Once we start there is no getting rid of it. Even 50 years from now producers will be paying for it.
Im not saying we should not do it. Im suggesting we better make sure its going to help before we ever did it.
Another question
I have been lead to believe that labs have tried to create bse and the human form of it in labs by feeding mice contaminated feed. I have been lead to believe that all tests have failed to create bse. Is this true or just a rumor?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Murgen said:
I find it funny that a small group is all for "give the consumer what they want"

But when it has been shown time and again, the consumer wants beef to be traceable right back to the farm, what you get in response is "COOL" is good enough.

Under 21 months in Canada means you have to have records right back to the farm. (read my post on JAS) That's why they take our beef, not because it is tested. It's a level of trust.

South Korea is asking for the same, TRACEabilty. How will you distinguish the American from the Canadian, you need records right back to the farm/ranch. Watch, when/if you were to give into the request, there will be further requests of individual animal traceabilty.


Why would you be willing to test everything and spend more money on that than you would on traceabilty?

You are talking two different scenarios here Murgen. You can't lump Korea with Japan. They are two different markets.

The BEV documentations applies to Korea, Japan, and Timbuktu.

We have all that covered now!

In fact I read just a few days ago that the US has many many more source verified animals than Canada does. (Not percentagewise, but more sheer numbers)

The Koreans never asked for tested beef. To my knowledge.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike, "Just open the rules and let the market decide. Simple."

AMEN! Nobody HAS to test! Nobody HAS to buy tested beef! If this testing issue was over mandatory testing, you would have an arguement, but NOBODY HAS to do anything!
 

Latest posts

Top