Interesting Lunch Discussion

[burnt]

At lunch today, we had the privilege of hosting 3 international students from the college that our kids attend. They are young Koreans who are here to study and learn to speak English well since it seems to be the "universal' language of business.

You will seldom see such well mannered young people from our own culture - they literally jumped to their feet with heads slightly bowed when I walked into the room and after introductions, would not sit down until I "gave them permission" to sit after I had taken my own seat.

My daughter has volunteered to tutor a number of Asian students in English and when they learned that she is a farm girl, they wished to see what a Canadian farm looks like. At 150 acres, my farm is very small scale, but representative of the larger scale eastern Canadian farms around us which run from 500 to 5000+ acres.

When they learned that we farm 150 acres, they were completely blown away by the "immense" size of it, slapping their foreheads in disbelief. I made it clear that 150 acres is tiny in Ontario. "Well", they said,"you would be the richest man in Korea!"

The part that got interesting was when the discussion turned to our beef production and the export market. They quickly and enthusiastically came around to the recent Korean protests against U.S. beef being sold in their homeland.

"We don't trust the Americans" was one of their emphatic statements. "They are not honest. They say they do not have B.S.E. but we know they do. They are just quiet about it." (Many hush hush hand motions here) "When Canada finds one, you are open, you do not cover it up. You tell everyone even if it is not good for you. The Americans are not honest . . . ." . . . and on they went, momentarily shedding their usual reserve. Methinks the U.S. has much more than just a little P.R. work to do.

I found it hard to argue against what they were saying. And I will find out if they are willing to put their faith in our system to the test when, for supper, I offer them prime rib from the steer we just got butchered.

Just thought this encounter might be of interest to y'all.

 

[Anonymous]

burnt

"We don't trust the Americans" was one of their emphatic statements. "They are not honest. They say they do not have B.S.E. but we know they do. They are just quiet about it." (Many hush hush hand motions here) "When Canada finds one, you are open, you do not cover it up. You tell everyone even if it is not good for you. The Americans are not honest . . . ." . . . and on they went, momentarily shedding their usual reserve. Methinks the U.S. has much more than just a little P.R. work to do.

Yep- From what I've heard from folks travelling all over the world- the US's credibility is at about the lowest point in history... I think we need a whole housecleaning in D.C. to get this prevailing scheme of secrecy, censorship, and disception expunged - including much of the high level of all what is supposed to be oversight Departments....

I think with the changing tone and direction that is looking like it will take over D.C. you will see all food product safety and oversight (including beef) put under one broad agency built on the model of the FDA-- with the USDA being relegated to regulation of Ag programs and promotion of product-cut out of the safety oversight picture- and hopefully all of them with less influence of the Big Corporate Lobbists- altho I don't have high expectations that will happen...

As can be seen- what we're doing isn't working- we need a CHANGE.....

 

[Sandhusker]

For NCBA and MRJ's records, did you ask them how much they were paid to say that and by whom?

 

[Faster horses]

Let me tell you, OT, the FDA is not the answer.

We have worked with them regarding adding products to mineral
and it is time-consuming and very expensive...only to have them
allow an additive in one product and not the other. But you can hand
mix it--nto against the law to do that--they just won't allow the
company to mix it. :???:

FDA is still government. Burdensome, bureaucratic government.

 

[Anonymous]

Let me tell you, OT, the FDA is not the answer.

We have worked with them regarding adding products to mineral
and it is time-consuming and very expensive...only to have them
allow an additive in one product and not the other. But you can hand
mix it--nto against the law to do that--they just won't allow the
company to mix it. :???:

FDA is still government. Burdensome, bureaucratic government.

I don't know if any of them are the answer-- but it is highly skeptical situation when you have the agency in charge of promotion and marketing of the product- also being in charge of the oversight of support for the production and safety of the manufacturing/processing of the product....And that oversight Dept (USDA) is made up of so many former industry people that yo-yo back and forth between jobs...It does not exude a great deal of confidence to consumers or producers- especially when so many questionable incidents continue arising....Too much conflict of interests....

From the examples I'm seeing coming out of Congress now- Business/Industry has had a horrid history of overseeing and providing safety inspection/testing of their products, which has been seen with the large number of massive recalls and health issues investigations- and they believe both USDA and FDA are too tied to that Big business and needs to brought back to doing the proper oversight they were supposed to do...

In the area of produce- they are looking at making industry pay that cost of the additional testing thru fees, since as we've seen with the huge number of recalls, business doesn't seem to want to do it adequately...

I also see a direction coming from Congress that is questioning all these imports- and why when domestic producers are required to follow all rules and regulations- all the imports are being allowed in uninspected- going only on the verification of some of the most corrupt governments existing- and are creating so many safety and health situations...

This latest tomato/pepper fiasco of an investigation that cost producers possibly 1/2 Billion $- while they (USDA/FDA) had no one inspecting imported products- or even investigating in Mexico for a month has really restirred the issue-- and brought back the idea of reorganization of both Departments....I haven't seen the legislation- but I know its laying out there just waiting for next year....

I think some of the problem might clear out with a new regime in place in D.C.- hopefully with much more openness and transparency than the current one---and one that actually believes in the importance of the laws and regulations on the books-and sees the harm done by secrecy and censorship, which usually eventually sees the light of day- and has ruined the credibility of this great country thruout the World...An administration that asks their departments to do their job rather than just shuffle paper and look like they are doing something....

 

[PORKER]

FEDERAL COURT UPHOLDS BAN ON GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED ALFALFA

Washington, D.C. (September 2, 2008) - In a decision handed down today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically-engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa pending a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Court determined that the planting of genetically modified alfalfa can result in potentially irreversible harm to organic and conventional varieties of crops, damage to the environment, and economic harm to farmers.

Although the suit was brought against United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); Forage Genetics and Monsanto Company entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors. In her opinion, Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder held that ìMonsanto and Forage Genetics contend that the District Court disregarded their financial losses, but the district court considered those economic losses and simply concluded that the harm to growers and consumers who wanted non-genetically engineered alfalfa outweighed the financial hardships to Monsanto and Forage Genetics and their growers.î

ìThis ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers, and most conventional farmers across the country,î said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. ìRoundup Ready Alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmersí livelihoods and the environment; the judge rightly dismissed Monsantoís claims that their bottom line should come before the rights of the public and Americaís farmers. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country.î

Todayís decision upholds District Court Judge Charles Breyerís earlier ruling of May 2007, in which he found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. Judge Schroederís decision affirms that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement. It also affirms that USDA failed to address the problem of Roundup-resistant ìsuperweedsî that could follow commercial planting of GE alfalfa.

The Center for Food Safety represented itself and the following co-plaintiffs in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms. For more information, please visit www.centerforfoodsafety.org .

 

[Tex]

Let me tell you, OT, the FDA is not the answer.

We have worked with them regarding adding products to mineral
and it is time-consuming and very expensive...only to have them
allow an additive in one product and not the other. But you can hand
mix it--nto against the law to do that--they just won't allow the
company to mix it. :???:

FDA is still government. Burdensome, bureaucratic government.

I bet this wouldn't even be an issue for Tyson to be able to do. We have a government that is controlled by big Ag. For everyone else, they are big and burdensome. We need to stop electing political leaders who allow this to happen.

 

[mrj]

Re. the Korean students, it might be interesting to ask them why they missed the fact that the USA has had, and admitted to having had a BSE cow.

Or to show them the protocol (actual, not the fantasyland some claim) for testing, STILL BEING FOLLOWED, which will find BSE if there are an extremely small number actuall in the USA.

The fact that all cattle within the USA which had been imported from Europe and England were killed early in the US battle against BSE and that was not done as effectively in Canada (sorry folks, but it's fact).

As well, there was/is a ban on feeding ruminant by products to cattle in the USA.

There is effective SRM removal in all slaughtered cattle in the USA.

It might be interesting to ask if they knew that any more than they knew the scope and size of the farms in Canada.

It is rather interesting that the so called "Center for Food Safety" isn't really what the name claims it to be.

CFS is a project of the International Center for Technology Assessment, and it's leader was mentored by Jeremy Rifkin, possibly our most noted anti-technologist.

CFS's current focus in large-scale agriculture, specifically, food technology, and receives funding from the organic foodindustry. and often participates in food scare projects managed by a Washington, DC public relations firm.

CFS has earmarks of a blackmarketing campaign, run on behalf of organic and 'natural' foods and runs campaigns trashing biotechnology and conventional agriculture, according to ActivistCash.com.

mrj

 

[gcreekrch]

If there is a ban on feeding ruminant by-products to cattle, why are you still feeding beef fat and other "accepted" by produts in various feedlot rations and prepared feeds?

 

[burnt]

Re. the Korean students, it might be interesting to ask them why they missed the fact that the USA has had, and admitted to having had a BSE cow.

Or to show them the protocol (actual, not the fantasyland some claim) for testing, STILL BEING FOLLOWED, which will find BSE if there are an extremely small number actuall in the USA.

The fact that all cattle within the USA which had been imported from Europe and England were killed early in the US battle against BSE and that was not done as effectively in Canada (sorry folks, but it's fact).

As well, there was/is a ban on feeding ruminant by products to cattle in the USA.

There is effective SRM removal in all slaughtered cattle in the USA.

It might be interesting to ask if they knew that any more than they knew the scope and size of the farms in Canada.

It is rather interesting that the so called "Center for Food Safety" isn't really what the name claims it to be.

CFS is a project of the International Center for Technology Assessment, and it's leader was mentored by Jeremy Rifkin, possibly our most noted anti-technologist.

CFS's current focus in large-scale agriculture, specifically, food technology, and receives funding from the organic foodindustry. and often participates in food scare projects managed by a Washington, DC public relations firm.

CFS has earmarks of a blackmarketing campaign, run on behalf of organic and 'natural' foods and runs campaigns trashing biotechnology and conventional agriculture, according to ActivistCash.com.

mrj

mrj, perhaps you should ask Ben H if he got his downer cow tested.


mrj, is poultry litter still being fed to cattle in the US?


mrj, your "one" cow was revealed only after an inquiry was forced by fillus fongus (or whatever . . . .)

That type of admission doesn't do much for credibility in anyone's eyes, not to mention an already justifiably skeptical, hyper-sensitive, Asian consumer.

A little transparency goes a long way.

Or, you can do it the American way, impose your standards, shove it down their throats and if they choke, threaten retaliation . . . . .


Somewhere between your "facts" and their opinion lies the truth, I would assume.

 

[Sandhusker]

Can you guess how much exposure to marketing that MRJ has? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Tex]

Re. the Korean students, it might be interesting to ask them why they missed the fact that the USA has had, and admitted to having had a BSE cow.

Or to show them the protocol (actual, not the fantasyland some claim) for testing, STILL BEING FOLLOWED, which will find BSE if there are an extremely small number actuall in the USA.

The fact that all cattle within the USA which had been imported from Europe and England were killed early in the US battle against BSE and that was not done as effectively in Canada (sorry folks, but it's fact).

As well, there was/is a ban on feeding ruminant by products to cattle in the USA.

There is effective SRM removal in all slaughtered cattle in the USA.

It might be interesting to ask if they knew that any more than they knew the scope and size of the farms in Canada.

It is rather interesting that the so called "Center for Food Safety" isn't really what the name claims it to be.

CFS is a project of the International Center for Technology Assessment, and it's leader was mentored by Jeremy Rifkin, possibly our most noted anti-technologist.

CFS's current focus in large-scale agriculture, specifically, food technology, and receives funding from the organic foodindustry. and often participates in food scare projects managed by a Washington, DC public relations firm.

CFS has earmarks of a blackmarketing campaign, run on behalf of organic and 'natural' foods and runs campaigns trashing biotechnology and conventional agriculture, according to ActivistCash.com.

mrj

mrj, perhaps you should ask Ben H if he got his downer cow tested.


mrj, is poultry litter still being fed to cattle in the US?


mrj, your "one" cow was revealed only after an inquiry was forced by fillus fongus (or whatever . . . .)

That type of admission doesn't do much for credibility in anyone's eyes, not to mention an already justifiably skeptical, hyper-sensitive, Asian consumer.

A little transparency goes a long way.

Or, you can do it the American way, impose your standards, shove it down their throats and if they choke, threaten retaliation . . . . .


Somewhere between your "facts" and their opinion lies the truth, I would assume.

Tyson wants to keep U.S. supplies captive. That is exactly what is happening.

 

[PORKER]

Talk about Marketing;
Sept. 12/08
IFA welcomes Boel's tough stance on beef import standards into EU

By Ray Ryan, Agribusiness Correspondent
THE strong stance taken by European agriculture and rural development commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel at the World Meat Congress in Cape Town regarding the standards for beef imports into the EU has been welcomed by the Irish Farmers Association.


Livestock committee chairman Michael Doran, speaking from South Africa, said Mrs Fischer Boel declared that it is essential that anyone who wants to trade into the EU must meet its safety standards.

He said the commissioner was sharing a platform with the Brazilian deputy minister for agriculture Inacio Alfonso Koretz when she made her unequivocal statement in her defence of EU standards.

Mr Doran said Brazilian minister Koretz made no reference to the EU ban at all or Brazil's capacity to meet EU standards on traceability or food safety.

He said the minister spoke on the generality of meeting sanitary and hygiene standards and the problems and difficulties foot and mouth disease created for Brazil.

Mr Doran said minister Koretz told the congress that Brazil was making significant progress in controlling foot and mouth with the active participation of producers and that 60% of Brazilian territory was free of the disease with vaccination.

"There must be a level playing field on standards for all EU imports. As producers we meet the high standards set by EU consumers.

"Imports must match these standards on traceability, food safety, animal welfare and environmental controls," he said

Non of these South American Countries can Match the US. COOL rules either!

 

[mrj]

I may have used the wrong term, "ruminant by-products", when I meant SRM's, which are not allowed in feed. I do not know if fats are allowed, since gcreekrch didn't show a source for his comment indicating it is.

burnt, you may not have been on the site at the time, but I believe the cow in question was a difficult diagnosis and the British people who determined that it probably was positive indicated it was a questionnable call. Does that prove reluctance to admit to a positive? I believe it further highlights the difficulty of determining the presence of BSE. With SRM removal, it is a moot point. I don't know if anyone still feeds poultry litter. That is a regional thing, and I'm not in that region. Personally, I think the only reason not to feed properly prepared litter is the "Yuk factor", which trumps science all too often.

According to some often held up on this site as exemplary (grass fed beef and organic producer groups in particular) all you have to do to prevent the possiblity of getting "human Mad Cow disease" is eat only organically grown food. Bogus as it can be, scientifically, but believable to the gullible!

mrj

 

[gcreekrch]

I may have used the wrong term, "ruminant by-products", when I meant SRM's, which are not allowed in feed. I do not know if fats are allowed, since gcreekrch didn't show a source for his comment indicating it is.

burnt, you may not have been on the site at the time, but I believe the cow in question was a difficult diagnosis and the British people who determined that it probably was positive indicated it was a questionnable call. Does that prove reluctance to admit to a positive? I believe it further highlights the difficulty of determining the presence of BSE. With SRM removal, it is a moot point. I don't know if anyone still feeds poultry litter. That is a regional thing, and I'm not in that region. Personally, I think the only reason not to feed properly prepared litter is the "Yuk factor", which trumps science all too often.

According to some often held up on this site as exemplary (grass fed beef and organic producer groups in particular) all you have to do to prevent the possiblity of getting "human Mad Cow disease" is eat only organically grown food. Bogus as it can be, scientifically, but believable to the gullible!

mrj

Unless things have changed from Dec 2007, the US was still using beef fat in feedlot rations. David P. Price a consulting nutritionist from the States wrote an artical discussing the benifits of fat for the Canadian Cattlemens Magazine in Nov or Dec last year.
I wrote a letter to CC Mag questioning why they would even print such an article for cattle producers that live in a country where ALL animal by-products are not allowed in feed for any livestock or poultry.

 

[burnt]

I may have used the wrong term, "ruminant by-products", when I meant SRM's, which are not allowed in feed. I do not know if fats are allowed, since gcreekrch didn't show a source for his comment indicating it is.

burnt, you may not have been on the site at the time, but I believe the cow in question was a difficult diagnosis and the British people who determined that it probably was positive indicated it was a questionnable call. Does that prove reluctance to admit to a positive? I believe it further highlights the difficulty of determining the presence of BSE. With SRM removal, it is a moot point. I don't know if anyone still feeds poultry litter. That is a regional thing, and I'm not in that region. Personally, I think the only reason not to feed properly prepared litter is the "Yuk factor", which trumps science all too often.

According to some often held up on this site as exemplary (grass fed beef and organic producer groups in particular) all you have to do to prevent the possiblity of getting "human Mad Cow disease" is eat only organically grown food. Bogus as it can be, scientifically, but believable to the gullible!

mrj

mrj - how strange - "a difficult diagnosis"? How do you expect the Asian consumer or other onlookers to respond to that silly statement? "Oh, okay, it was a difficult situation, let's just overlook it for this time!" :lol: :lol: :lol: Yup, that builds rapport with your customer!

And forget about bringing in the silly "typical" or "atypical" red herrings! :wink:

The only thing that was difficult about it was the collective arrogance and state of denial that stood in the way of a clean diagnosis.

Well, perhaps another little technicality was encountered when they had to verify that the sample actually came from the correct part of the brain - thus, demonstrating incompetence as well! :lol: :lol: :lol:


As to the difficulty in determining the presence of BSE, you and your compatriots don't seem to have any difficulty in accepting as bona fide the open declarations of positives in Canada and Europe.

You are well programmed, girl. Are you sure you are not ready to apply for r-cult membership?

Also, remember one other little detail, it was projected by one of your own scientists over a year ago that the Americans were likely eating about 2600 BSE ridden cattle per year because of the undetected prevalence of it in the "native" American herd.

I do not think you help yourself by bashing Ben's or RM's products either. They are producing a specific product for a market that is there. Just like you are doing. So what's wrong with that?

If you want to save a bit of face, you could remove your above post.

 

[Sandhusker]

Talk about Marketing;
Sept. 12/08
IFA welcomes Boel's tough stance on beef import standards into EU

By Ray Ryan, Agribusiness Correspondent
THE strong stance taken by European agriculture and rural development commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel at the World Meat Congress in Cape Town regarding the standards for beef imports into the EU has been welcomed by the Irish Farmers Association.


Livestock committee chairman Michael Doran, speaking from South Africa, said Mrs Fischer Boel declared that it is essential that anyone who wants to trade into the EU must meet its safety standards.

He said the commissioner was sharing a platform with the Brazilian deputy minister for agriculture Inacio Alfonso Koretz when she made her unequivocal statement in her defence of EU standards.

Mr Doran said Brazilian minister Koretz made no reference to the EU ban at all or Brazil's capacity to meet EU standards on traceability or food safety.

He said the minister spoke on the generality of meeting sanitary and hygiene standards and the problems and difficulties foot and mouth disease created for Brazil.

Mr Doran said minister Koretz told the congress that Brazil was making significant progress in controlling foot and mouth with the active participation of producers and that 60% of Brazilian territory was free of the disease with vaccination.

"There must be a level playing field on standards for all EU imports. As producers we meet the high standards set by EU consumers.

"Imports must match these standards on traceability, food safety, animal welfare and environmental controls," he said

Non of these South American Countries can Match the US. COOL rules either!

Where are the "protectionist" jeers?

 

[PORKER]

COFCO's significant step
The huge Chinese company's investment in Smithfield Foods establishes a foothold in the U.S. industry


(MEATPOULTRY.com, September 12, 2008)
by Steve Bjerklie

The purchase of 7 million shares of Smithfield Foods common stock by COFCO, a company owned by the Chinese government, last July "represents a significant step" in cementing Smithfield's relationship with COFCO for the long term, a Smithfield investment executive told MEATPOULTRY.com.

Keira Ullrich, who is in investment relations management at Smithfield's office in New York City, said Smithfield has been working closely with the Chinese firm, which is the largest agricultural trading and processing company in China. "COFCO is a widely respected leader in China 's food and agriculture industry. China is experiencing rapid growth in pork consumption and consumes more pork than the rest of the world combined. COFCO has introduced Smithfield to many opportunities in China and we look forward to continue working together," she wrote to MEATPOULTRY.com in an e-mail this week.
The $122 million Smithfield realized from the stock purchase was used by the company to pay down debt, she added, calling COFCO's investment "passive in nature." The purchase agreement contains standstill provisions and also restricts sales or other transfers of the shares by COFCO until July 9, 2009.

In a presentation made Sept. 3 at Lehman Bros.' second annual "Back to School Consumer Conference," Smithfield CEO C. Larry Pope noted sharply higher input costs in the U.S., including a 37% increase in the cost of feed over a year ago and a 3.5% increase in the price of hogs, have created "highly volatile and sharply higher markets" for raw materials as well as a difficult market for pricing packaged meats. An excellent market for exported U.S. pork has somewhat helped Smithfield's bottom line, he told the conference, but it has depended on a cheap U.S. dollar relative to other world currencies.

Ullrich does not expect to see Smithfield Foods use more of COFCO's money to make acquisitions of its own, even though the company has been active in recent years, especially in Eastern Europe. Pope, she wrote, "has said publicly that the company's main focus is on integrating the acquisitions we have made in the last few years and on paying down debt, not acquisitions."

 

[mrj]

burnt, what in the world makes you think I'm denigrating Ben or RM's product???? Unless, of course, you believe or know that they are guilty of false claims that their product cannot possibly have BSE because it is organically grown. I don't recall that either of them has said that on this site, which is the only place I've seen anything they say about their product.

I've frequently applauded the fact that there are people filling those niche markets.

I have no problem with anyone claiming they raise organically grown products UNTIL they make unverified and unverifiable claims about the safety of their product over conventionally produced beef.

Organically grown beef may taste better to some people, or it may have been processed in a way or at an age that makes it more tender than some other beef, but it does not test scientifically significantly better than other beef of comparable age and method of processing.

Some organic and natural producer groups and individuals have hired PR firms and lobbyists to protect their industry, including the Turning Point Project which ran a series of full-page ads in the NY Times which trashed biotechnlogy and conventional agriculture.

The Center for Food Safety, which has ties on their board with organic food lobbyists and the Turning Point Project has pushed the American mad cow disase scare pushing the viewpoint that the US beef supply is unsafe. You can check this out at www.ActicvistCash.com.

Are you saying it is not true that the British researcher said the diagnosis was difficult and he didn't fault the people in making the inconclusive call????

No, those activists in S.Korea will do what activist anywhere do.....twist the facts to serve their own political agenda.

I believe it more important to follow the safety protocol of removing the SRM's, don't you?

Apparently, you have not bothered to notice that I have not been a 'Canada Basher', believing that is simply a tragedy for your cattle producers that BSE was found there. With the exception of pointing out the fact that it is likely not all imported cattle were found and killed in Canada, as they were in Canada, I've never said anything against Canadian cattle, HAVE supported your exports to the USA, and HAVE defended you to others on this site and in this country to the point that our family businesses have received threats.

Everyone will be best served by getting over the fact that few BSE positives have been found in the US and getting on with life in the post BSE world.

Ignoring and denying the facts and science of the US protocol for testing and prevention, serves no one well.

If you are so certain of the validity of that scientist whom you say believes there have been over 2000 BSE positive US cattle consumed, would you please post his name? What about SRM removal? Don't you believe there is any reason to remove that material?

It is truly beyond ridiculous for you to say I might be an r-cult person, as I'm one of the more anti-R-CALF people you could even find in SD because I favor science based decisions, open financial reports, and term limited offices in cattle organizations, to name a few differences.

mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

That's real great, MRJ, except for the fact that science has no weighting in consumer's purchasing decisions. Learn about marketing. Get a book, do an internet search, read a pamphlet, something.

Please tell me how much science is in the shopper's decision making when they buy Angus beef over the lesser priced mystery meat in the cooler.