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

Is No-One Except USA Proud Enough to Label

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
(Billings, Mont.) – Last week’s decision by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) to replace its five categories of risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) with only three may undermine basic import standards for food safety and public health by downwardly harmonizing these standards.


"If this change in risk categories means OIE believes BSE-affected countries need fewer protections in place to export their beef, then that’s a step backward for OIE, and is not in step with its mission to ensure basic health and safety standards, while at the same time, promoting trade," said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.


"The most effective way to strengthen a nation’s ability to export beef products is to ensure the safety of those products, and today, most BSE-affected countries do exactly that," Bullard continued. "The majority of BSE-affected countries already have adopted science-based risk mitigation measures even stricter than what OIE required before this change, with the only exception being Canada – which still wants to adopt the least stringent risk-mitigation standards – even with four cases of BSE during the past two years.


Bullard emphasized the OIE decision will make implementation of the United States’ Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (M-COOL) law that much more important, to make certain domestic consumers have the ability to know where the beef they purchase is from, and that those consumers have a choice about which beef to purchase.


"The U.S., Canada and Mexico were driving forces behind OIE’s action," Bullard pointed out. "If the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is now going to tell U.S. consumers that our borders are going to be opened to more cuts of beef from BSE-affected countries, then they deserve to know where those beef products are from."


Congress passed M-COOL in the 2002 Farm Bill, yet USDA has continued to delay its implementation. As a result of recent legislation passed in the U.S. House of Representatives’ Appropriations Committee by Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, it is possible that funding could again be delayed. The vote on the House floor will take place next week.


"Additionally, the prospect of resuming beef trade with countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, and France – where BSE infection has been the greatest – highlights the need for Congress to ensure that Mandatory COOL be implemented quickly," Bullard said. "Otherwise, consumers will be unable to choose for themselves whether to purchase beef from countries that have had, and possibly continue to have, significant BSE problems."


Bullard also said R-CALF USA may have additional comments on OIE’s rule changes after more detailed information is available from that international body.


"It’s been difficult to determine exactly what the United States, Canada and Mexico proposed, and how OIE will implement those suggestions because we don’t have the details on the new risk-mitigation measures," noted Bullard.


One purpose of OIE is to minimize trade disruptions in the face of global animal diseases, with particular emphasis on helping underdeveloped nations maintain adequate animal-health standards so they can participate in international trade. However, the risk categories and standards OIE has advocated are not binding on any country’s policy-making, as demonstrated by the fact that all BSE-affected countries – with the exception of Canada – have implemented tougher standards and more protective standards.


Pre-existing OIE guidelines called for less stringent practices for countries with only a few cases of BSE and that also had an effectively enforced feed ban in place for eight years. It is important to compare those guidelines with OIE’s recommendations for countries with larger outbreaks. One finds that the actual practices adopted by every BSE-affected country – except Canada – include more rigorous feed bans, far broader testing programs, and more s extensive programs for removing high-risk tissues known as Specified Risk Materials (SRMs) than OIE recommended.


"For example, every country in the world where BSE has been detected has implemented a mandatory BSE testing program for all high-risk cattle, with most countries also mandating testing for cattle over a certain age that enter the food chain," Bullard explained. "Also, every country in the world has, at a minimum, required SRM removal from cattle over 12 months of age, and all of these countries have taken additional measures to prevent cross-contamination of ruminant feed, including the implementation of a ruminant feed ban, and this, of course, reflects the desire of these countries to maximize food safety based on the most current scientific information available."


Because OIE standards are not enforceable, some countries – like the United States and Canada – have argued that OIE rules are not actually standards, but in fact guidelines, designed to allow flexibility for countries like Canada, which restricted the age of cattle eligible for export as a risk-mitigation measure.


USDA’s, and subsequently, OIE’s proclivity to compromise the pre-existing OIE standards was highlighted within R-CALF USA’s Jan. 10, 2005, lawsuit against the agency, particularly when no other major exporting countries except the United States and Mexico bought into the notion that Canada should be classified as a BSE minimal-risk country. R-CALF USA claimed the risk category associated with the least stringent risk-mitigation measures was reserved for countries that had an effectively enforced feed ban in place for the previous eight years. Both USDA and Canada have claimed that OIE’s pre-existing standards were not standards, but only guidelines, and this attitude has politicized those standards.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,149
Reaction score
24
Location
BC
There we have it. We now have indisputable proof that Bullard has absolutely no grasp of the situation in Canada OR the US. And even worse, some people are actually so lacking in common sense and basic brain function as to actually believe him.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
"The U.S., Canada and Mexico were driving forces behind OIE’s action," Bullard pointed out. "

Hate to tell you this Bullard but it was R-Calf's actions that were the driving force between the OIE decision. No one to thank but yourself.

The OIE inspection report on Canada encouraged the US to resume trade with Canada. USDA was simply agreeing with the experts and now it looks like the OIE made it simpler for even R-Calf to understand the risk catagories by reducing the number from 5 to 3 with the US being the same as Canada. Thanks R-Calf.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bullard: "USDA’s, and subsequently, OIE’s proclivity to compromise the pre-existing OIE standards was highlighted within R-CALF USA’s Jan. 10, 2005, lawsuit against the agency........."

R-CULT uses the previous OIE position to criticize the current OIE position that doesn't happen to support their isolationist trade agenda.


Look at this political double talk:

Bullard: "The U.S., Canada and Mexico were driving forces behind OIE’s action," Bullard pointed out. "If the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is now going to tell U.S. consumers that our borders are going to be opened to more cuts of beef from BSE-affected countries, then they deserve to know where those beef products are from."

Bullard: "Because OIE standards are not enforceable, some countries – like the United States and Canada – have argued that OIE rules are not actually standards, but in fact guidelines, designed to allow flexibility for countries like Canada, which restricted the age of cattle eligible for export as a risk-mitigation measure."


The U.S., Canada, and Mexico were the driving forces behind OIE's actions that we now disagree with?????

Ahhhhh.....ok?


Let's not forget to throw in a plug for flawed COOL that exempts 75% of the imported beef and prohibits the means to enforce it when consumers aren't asking for it and there's nothing to prevent anyone from marketing U.S. beef now........


Quote: "Bullard also said R-CALF USA may have additional comments on OIE’s rule changes after more detailed information is available from that international body."

Can't wait! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Bullard: "Pre-existing OIE guidelines called for less stringent practices for countries with only a few cases of BSE and that also had an effectively enforced feed ban in place for eight years. It is important to compare those guidelines with OIE’s recommendations for countries with larger outbreaks."

Translation: It is important to compare Canada to those countries with larger BSE outbreaks so we can continue our BSE "fear mongering" to keep the Canadian border closed to live cattle because we are misinformed as to the financial impact of Canadian live cattle imports that are now coming down in boxes.


What a pathetic, deceptive bunch.

PETA or R-CULT, what's the difference? Both groups will lie and deceive at any cost to further their agenda.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Why is the US, Canada, and Mexico and the OIE relaxing standards on BSE? Is the disease less deadly? Has it been contained or eradicated? Is there an anti-dote? Nope. It was done for money. Guess who profits the most?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker: "Why is the US, Canada, and Mexico and the OIE relaxing standards on BSE?"

To consider the precautionary measures that have been taken by these countries which would play to our benefit if Canada's BSE shoe were on our foot. Something R-CULTers can't understand with their shallow view of world trade.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandhusker: "Why is the US, Canada, and Mexico and the OIE relaxing standards on BSE?"

To consider the precautionary measures that have been taken by these countries which would play to our benefit if Canada's BSE shoe were on our foot. Something R-CULTers can't understand with their shallow view of world trade.


~SH~

Canada's BSE shoe IS on our foot. In case you haven't noticed, there are a few countries who don't take our product.... :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Sandhusker: "Why is the US, Canada, and Mexico and the OIE relaxing standards on BSE?"

To consider the precautionary measures that have been taken by these countries which would play to our benefit if Canada's BSE shoe were on our foot. Something R-CULTers can't understand with their shallow view of world trade.


~SH~

Canada's BSE shoe IS on our foot. In case you haven't noticed, there are a few countries who don't take our product.... :roll:

And on top of that Japan says they don't care what OIE says- they say the changes are nonbinding and are still going to make their own decisions based on their beliefs and research....So what good is OIE :?
 

don

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
0
Location
saskatchewan
oldtimer i guess oie is as much good to you regaining the japanese market as they were to us reopening your border when you refused to listen to reason and logic. is all this protectionism going to work in the medium to longterm?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Sandhusker: "Why is the US, Canada, and Mexico and the OIE relaxing standards on BSE?"

To consider the precautionary measures that have been taken by these countries which would play to our benefit if Canada's BSE shoe were on our foot. Something R-CULTers can't understand with their shallow view of world trade.


~SH~

Canada's BSE shoe IS on our foot. In case you haven't noticed, there are a few countries who don't take our product.... :roll:

And on top of that Japan says they don't care what OIE says- they say the changes are nonbinding and are still going to make their own decisions based on their beliefs and research....So what good is OIE :?

As these guidelines are non-binding, they does NOTHING to enhance exports. Japan is proof of that. The lobbying was done to enhance imports into the US. The AMI can say "These countries are following OIE's guidelines, you need to let their product in." It's much easier to lower your standards instead of raising your product's quality. :?

Folks, the good 'ol USDA and AMI have sold out the US producer once again. :mad: You don't believe me? Ask yourself if this in any way helps the US producer. Ask yourself if this in any way helps the US multi-nationals.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
Why is the US, Canada, and Mexico and the OIE relaxing standards on BSE? Is the disease less deadly? Has it been contained or eradicated? Is there an anti-dote? Nope. It was done for money. Guess who profits the most?

You are wrong again. This is becoming habit forming for you. The standards were relaxed because it is supported by the science. The risk is in not removing those parts known to be infected. As such previous trade restrictions based upon old standards for BSE are being altered. That is not too complicated to understand.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Why is the US, Canada, and Mexico and the OIE relaxing standards on BSE? Is the disease less deadly? Has it been contained or eradicated? Is there an anti-dote? Nope. It was done for money. Guess who profits the most?

You are wrong again. This is becoming habit forming for you. The standards were relaxed because it is supported by the science. The risk is in not removing those parts known to be infected. As such previous trade restrictions based upon old standards for BSE are being altered. That is not too complicated to understand.

True to your colors, you offer the "There's a perfectly good reason for all of this" straight from the AMI's public relations desk. I guess we're not supposed to take note that the science we have today is the same we had prior to May, 2003? We're not supposed to notice that the "old" standards appeared to be working fine until May, 2003? We're supposed to forget that the USDA testified to Congress that the "old" standards were integral to keeping BSE out of this country?

Need I point out that the "new" standard does absolutly nothing to enhance our exports as many countries (including our former best customer) wouldn't even take our product under the "old" stricter standards?

Your BS will only work on those who aren't paying attention. Science, my &%$ :roll:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,978
Reaction score
76
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Why is the US, Canada, and Mexico and the OIE relaxing standards on BSE? Is the disease less deadly? Has it been contained or eradicated? Is there an anti-dote? Nope. It was done for money. Guess who profits the most?

You are wrong again. This is becoming habit forming for you. The standards were relaxed because it is supported by the science. The risk is in not removing those parts known to be infected. As such previous trade restrictions based upon old standards for BSE are being altered. That is not too complicated to understand.

True to your colors, you offer the "There's a perfectly good reason for all of this" straight from the AMI's public relations desk. I guess we're not supposed to take note that the science we have today is the same we had prior to May, 2003? We're not supposed to notice that the "old" standards appeared to be working fine until May, 2003? We're supposed to forget that the USDA testified to Congress that the "old" standards were integral to keeping BSE out of this country?

Need I point out that the "new" standard does absolutly nothing to enhance our exports as many countries (including our former best customer) wouldn't even take our product under the "old" stricter standards?

Your BS will only work on those who aren't paying attention. Science, my &%$ :roll:


Sandhusker do you drive a model T ? Do you think improvements have been made to cars and safety of cars? Well do you think scientists know more about BSE then they did in the 1980's when these rules were made.?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Why is the US, Canada, and Mexico and the OIE relaxing standards on BSE? Is the disease less deadly? Has it been contained or eradicated? Is there an anti-dote? Nope. It was done for money. Guess who profits the most?

You are wrong again. This is becoming habit forming for you. The standards were relaxed because it is supported by the science. The risk is in not removing those parts known to be infected. As such previous trade restrictions based upon old standards for BSE are being altered. That is not too complicated to understand.

True to your colors, you offer the "There's a perfectly good reason for all of this" straight from the AMI's public relations desk. I guess we're not supposed to take note that the science we have today is the same we had prior to May, 2003? We're not supposed to notice that the "old" standards appeared to be working fine until May, 2003? We're supposed to forget that the USDA testified to Congress that the "old" standards were integral to keeping BSE out of this country?

Need I point out that the "new" standard does absolutly nothing to enhance our exports as many countries (including our former best customer) wouldn't even take our product under the "old" stricter standards?

Your BS will only work on those who aren't paying attention. Science, my &%$ :roll:

Go play in your sandbox and be certain you have your sun bonnet on!!! The sun has been getting to you lately.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Why is the US, Canada, and Mexico and the OIE relaxing standards on BSE? Is the disease less deadly? Has it been contained or eradicated? Is there an anti-dote? Nope. It was done for money. Guess who profits the most?

You are wrong again. This is becoming habit forming for you. The standards were relaxed because it is supported by the science. The risk is in not removing those parts known to be infected. As such previous trade restrictions based upon old standards for BSE are being altered. That is not too complicated to understand.

Like we adhere to "sound science"! When the OIE panel suggested to Veneman that we remove SRM's from all cattle over 12 months! Did we go along with that? Nooooooooooooo

It's pick and choose your science with the USDA.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
BMR, "Sandhusker do you drive a model T ? Do you think improvements have been made to cars and safety of cars? Well do you think scientists know more about BSE then they did in the 1980's when these rules were made.?"

Do you think scientists know more about BSE now than they did in May, 2003? You don't think it odd that things suddenly needed to be changed after that date?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Do you think scientists know more about BSE now than they did in May, 2003? You don't think it odd that things suddenly needed to be changed after that date?

Sandhusker, you're goto person, Reader, has posted all the work that has been done since May 2003, a pretty thick folder if printed and stored in one place. I think if you're honest you will agree that, when something happens to the US, BSE border closures, there is all of a sudden urgency to figure out the Science. Did't really matter much when it was in Europe, now did it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Murgen, "I think if you're honest you will agree that, when something happens to the US, BSE border closures, there is all of a sudden urgency to figure out the Science. Did't really matter much when it was in Europe, now did it."

Yeah, I'll agree with you that that when anything happens to us, it suddenly becomes a much large problem and we demand attention. We seem to think there is no problem until it is our problem - then it is the world's problem. Yet, what do we know about prions, SRM's etc.... that we didn't know on May, 2003?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Why is the US, Canada, and Mexico and the OIE relaxing standards on BSE? Is the disease less deadly? Has it been contained or eradicated? Is there an anti-dote? Nope. It was done for money. Guess who profits the most?

Sandhusher as the US has been effected by BSE as BSE was found within the US borders and the US has had a feed ban although be it less stringent than Canada's they have had one for less than eight years, you are not testing ALL the highest risk cattle but you are testing a large number of cattle, and you are removing the OIE agreed to SRM's for a country of minimal risk. I ask you Do you sell your cattle for human consumption? According to you and R-CALF all beef coming from a country that has been effected by BSE is tainted and a genuine risk of death to consumers, no matter what a country has done to protect the consumers. Do you feel good about selling your cattle to US consumer and negoitating with other countries to take your beef when it is at just as much risk of killing someone as any cattle sold in Canada? Does your record high cattle prices make you sleep better at night even though someone may die according to you and R-CALF if they eat your beef ? OR do you believe that the precautions that the US industry have put in place to protect your consumers are working and by selling your beef you are not putting anyone in genuine risk of death if they eat your beef? Canada has the same and in some cases more stringent precautions in place we are both effected by BSE and you seem to think it is just find if US consumer foreign or domestic eat your beef but will surely die if they eat ours. Why is that. :???:
And yes the Packers will see some profit from the imports and export markets openning up but will the US producers not also see an increase in demand for their produce which will result in cattle prices staying strong?

One more question Sandhusker why is R-CALF taking this to court isn't it really about the money that the US producer are recieving for their cattle? I love when you put the Packer profits on the table as the main reason they want the border open and that is bad but you forget the reason R-CALF is doing all of this is because of the US Producer profits and that is to make us all believe that is OK then.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, according to R-CALF, our beef is not diseased - we haven't had a domestic case of BSE ever. Until we find one, I have to agree.
 

Latest posts

Top