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

Japan - Canada relationship

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Once again, I would like someone to explain to me the arguement that states Japan won't take our beef unless we take Canada's live cattle. Tam answered previously that she saw it as a lack of confidence in our packing plants, but I have never seen any big whigs (NCBA, AMI, USDA, etc...) that stumped this arguement say "Japan won't take our beef unless we take Canadian cattle BECAUSE......." Anybody have that information?
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
Canada, Japan take step toward free trade
Agriculture seen as biggest obstacle

EST Tuesday, March 08, 2005

TOKYO -- Canadian and Japanese officials have quietly begun negotiating the terms of a study that could lead to a free-trade agreement within the next several years.

The road to a potential deal is still risky and obstacle-strewn, but it could allow Canada to leapfrog ahead of the United States and become one of the first Western countries to secure a free-trade agreement with Japan.

Agriculture, as always, is looming as the biggest threat to a possible deal. Some analysts say Japan is unlikely to drop its traditional policy of shielding its farmers from foreign competition, despite its agreement to study a Canadian deal.

But Japan has become much more open to free-trade deals in the past two years, and there are hints it might be willing to consider one with Canada. It recently signed a free-trade agreement with Mexico, for example, despite disputes over agricultural issues. And it has launched free-trade talks with 10 Asian countries at an accelerated pace -- partly because of concerns that China might otherwise become the Asian economic leader.

Prime Minister Paul Martin and his Japanese counterpart, Junichiro Koizumi, agreed to the trade study in January when Mr. Martin was in Tokyo during his Asian tour. But the announcement was buried at the end of a vague and lengthy statement on economic issues, and it never actually used the words "free trade" -- to avoid putting any pressure on the Japanese, who want to keep the option of rejecting the free-trade route.

The agreement between Mr. Martin and Mr. Koizumi specifies that the trade study will have a one-year deadline. The terms of reference for the study are due to be negotiated by July at the latest, so the study should be completed by the summer of 2006.

The study is significant because it is normally the first step toward a free-trade agreement between Japan and any other country, and it often leads to a full-fledged negotiation on free trade.

"It's a real coup for us," a Canadian official said. "It would put us ahead of the Europeans, for example. It means we'll actually be talking about improving our trade relations in a very detailed way, and about a possible free-trade agreement in the not-too-distant future. It has fundamentally changed where we stand with the Japanese."

Other analysts, however, are skeptical an agreement can be reached in the next two years -- even if the agricultural issue is removed from the negotiations. Japan is too preoccupied with its free-trade talks with its Asian neighbours to be able to focus on Canada, some observers say.

"The pipeline is full," said Neil Moody, executive director of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Japan. "There are too many economic partnership agreements already in the works."

Much of Japan's trade agenda is driven by a fear of losing ground to China, which has launched its own free-trade negotiations with the nations of southeast Asia. Japan does not want to see China taking over the Japanese role as the regional economic power in Asia.

But to move beyond the developing world and into a possible deal with an industrialized Western economy such as Canada could be too big a leap for Japan to contemplate at the moment.

Instead, the Canadian officials are hoping the events of the next 18 months -- including the World Trade Organization negotiations and the current trade talks between Japan and Australia -- could resolve some of the agricultural issues that would otherwise block a Canada-Japan deal. If all goes well on those fronts, the climate for a bilateral free-trade deal could be much better by mid-2006, when the trade study is finished.

With the second-richest economy in the world, Japan is still considered a key market for Canadian goods. But Canada's trade with Japan has slipped in recent years. Canada has only a 2-per-cent share of the Japanese import market today, compared with 3.2 per cent in 1995.

Ottawa is hoping that the new study will create momentum to revitalize the trade relationship.

Canada's chief exports to Japan -- including agricultural, forestry and fish products -- are some of the most sensitive industries in Japan, where domestic pressures have created barriers to imports.

Business lobby groups such as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives are among those who have lobbied hard for a trade agreement between Canada and Japan.

Thomas d'Aquino, president of the CCCE, said the group is "extremely pleased" with the announcement of the trade study, which he called an "important development" that could pave the way for improved trade relations between the two countries.

But other analysts caution that a free-trade negotiation might not be the best solution to the barriers Canadian exports are facing.

Rather than tariffs and quotas, regulatory barriers are the main problem for most Canadian exports.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker: "Once again, I would like someone to explain to me the arguement that states Japan won't take our beef unless we take Canada's live cattle."

It wouldn't do any good for anyone to explain it anyway. Your mind is made up. For the sake of those who are more objective, I'll present the following facts.........

1. BSE was found in the United States which initiated Japan's ban.
2. Canada and the U.S. have taken the exact same precautionary measures to address BSE.
3. Canadian cattle are in the U.S. system currently.
4. We are currently importing Beef from Canada.
5. Japan knows that the U.S. and Canadian cattle industries are intertwined.

ALL FACTS!!!!!

WHAT IS NOT TO UNDERSTAND?????

Japan knows we had BSE, they know we have Canadian cattle, they know we have traded cattle and feed with Canada, they know we are importing Canadian beef, they know we have taken the same precuationary BSE measures as Canada.

R-CULT's lies to the contrary will not change the truth!

If we can't trust Canadian cattle under 30 months, WHY THE HELL SHOULD JAPAN TRUST THE U.S.???? It's a clear no brainer. Meanwhile, R-CULT is telling producers that the Canadian cattle would jeoprodize our export markets with Japan which is another of R-CULT's many bold faced lies.

The reasons mentioned above is precisely why South Korea said they would not take our beef if we were unwilling to take Canadian cattle.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandhusker: "Once again, I would like someone to explain to me the arguement that states Japan won't take our beef unless we take Canada's live cattle."

It wouldn't do any good for anyone to explain it anyway. Your mind is made up. For the sake of those who are more objective, I'll present the following facts.........

1. BSE was found in the United States which initiated Japan's ban.
2. Canada and the U.S. have taken the exact same precautionary measures to address BSE.
3. Canadian cattle are in the U.S. system currently.
4. We are currently importing Beef from Canada.
5. Japan knows that the U.S. and Canadian cattle industries are intertwined.

ALL FACTS!!!!!

WHAT IS NOT TO UNDERSTAND?????

Japan knows we had BSE, they know we have Canadian cattle, they know we have traded cattle and feed with Canada, they know we are importing Canadian beef, they know we have taken the same precuationary BSE measures as Canada.

R-CULT's lies to the contrary will not change the truth!

If we can't trust Canadian cattle under 30 months, WHY THE HELL SHOULD JAPAN TRUST THE U.S.???? It's a clear no brainer. Meanwhile, R-CULT is telling producers that the Canadian cattle would jeoprodize our export markets with Japan which is another of R-CULT's many bold faced lies.

The reasons mentioned above is precisely why South Korea said they would not take our beef if we were unwilling to take Canadian cattle.



~SH~

I didn't ask for your opinion or selected facts, SH. You'll defend virtually any AMI or USDA position just to be contrary. I want to know the reasoning of the people who started the notion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Sandhusker: "Once again, I would like someone to explain to me the arguement that states Japan won't take our beef unless we take Canada's live cattle."

It wouldn't do any good for anyone to explain it anyway. Your mind is made up. For the sake of those who are more objective, I'll present the following facts.........

1. BSE was found in the United States which initiated Japan's ban.
2. Canada and the U.S. have taken the exact same precautionary measures to address BSE.
3. Canadian cattle are in the U.S. system currently.
4. We are currently importing Beef from Canada.
5. Japan knows that the U.S. and Canadian cattle industries are intertwined.

ALL FACTS!!!!!

WHAT IS NOT TO UNDERSTAND?????

Japan knows we had BSE, they know we have Canadian cattle, they know we have traded cattle and feed with Canada, they know we are importing Canadian beef, they know we have taken the same precuationary BSE measures as Canada.

R-CULT's lies to the contrary will not change the truth!

If we can't trust Canadian cattle under 30 months, WHY THE HELL SHOULD JAPAN TRUST THE U.S.???? It's a clear no brainer. Meanwhile, R-CULT is telling producers that the Canadian cattle would jeoprodize our export markets with Japan which is another of R-CULT's many bold faced lies.

The reasons mentioned above is precisely why South Korea said they would not take our beef if we were unwilling to take Canadian cattle.



~SH~

I didn't ask for your opinion or selected facts, SH. You'll defend virtually any AMI or USDA position just to be contrary. I want to know the reasoning of the people who started the notion.

Sandhusker- You will find it NO-where because this was another theory dreamt up by those that wanted the border opened--Same as I never heard the term "North American beef" until after the border closed.. All I have heard is that Japan and the Asian market were requesting that we could prove their were no Canadian cattle going into the market-- asking again for proof of segregation--but again, just as Judge Cebull said, the USDA has been super secretive and have not released any of that "trade info"... Same way they set on the identity and origin of the Washington cow for days, letting the markets play their way out, until half the nation already knew by the rumor mill........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Keep ignoring the facts and drinking that R-CULT kool Aid OT.

You are too much of a follower to base your decisions on truth.

Lies and blame are more your style.



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
Keep ignoring the facts and drinking that R-CULT kool Aid OT.

You are too much of a follower to base your decisions on truth.

Lies and blame are more your style.



~SH~

~SH~ Show me where Japan or any other country has said if we take all Canadian beef they will take ours-- Show me where the USDA has said that... Even NCBA has learned that one of the reason we have no export trade with the Asian market is because of the term "North American Beef" that the Canadians coined after the BSE issue and NCBA and USDA immediatley jumped upon..... Like Judge Cebull said- the USDA immediatley decided they needed to reopen the border- then worked backwards to hope the science was there.... Neither the health issue (cattle and human) science or the ecomomic science is there....

I always love it when you call me a liar and blamer-- means you have no proof or argument-- Sat in court hundreds of times and when they went after me personally, it meant the evidence was there and I'd won the case.......
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Consider this, OT. When any country showed BSE, we closed the border to them and that was that. It was an action to protect our herd and consumers. Canada announced BSE on May 23 and on May 25, the USDA was already talking about opening the border. The rest of the world has BSE and it is a health matter - Canada has BSE and suddenly it is an economic matter. Now you tell me Bullard isn't right on. SH talks about ignoring the facts.... I think he needs a good swig of R-CALF Kool-aid!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker- Theres an old rule of law that after the crime has been commited or the event has occurred you can't go back and change the law and make it retroactive for that event--- That is what the USDA has done and its going to burn them in the butt... If they wanted to reduce the standards for importing from BSE countries why didn't they do it BEFORE Canada got BSE? Why didn't they do it for Britain ( an ally in the war against terrorism by the way) or Switzerland or any other BSE country?

They only came up with the idea after the packers got shut down from their supply of unlabeled generic beef from Canada- that they could take and stick a USDA lablel on and pass of as US product for a larger profit........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT: "~SH~ Show me where Japan or any other country has said if we take all Canadian beef they will take ours-- Show me where the USDA has said that..."

They don't have to say it OT.

That's like saying , "the sun is in the sky". IT'S A GIVEN!!!!

You cannot change the facts.

FACT #1. BSE was discovered in the U.S.
FACT #2. We have Canadian cattle in our system
FACT #3. We have no traceback system
FACT #4. We have traded cattle with Canada for years and our industries are integrated accordingly.

WHY WOULD JAPAN NEED TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS?????

It's the R-CULT "illusionists" like you that are living in your fantasyworld of "Bwame Canada" for our unified problem.


OT: "Even NCBA has learned that one of the reason we have no export trade with the Asian market is because of the term "North American Beef" that the Canadians coined after the BSE issue and NCBA and USDA immediatley jumped upon....."

Terminology of "North American Beef Industry" has no bearing on the above facts. NONE! It's an R-CULT "RED HERRING"!


OT: "Like Judge Cebull said- the USDA immediatley decided they needed to reopen the border- then worked backwards to hope the science was there.... Neither the health issue (cattle and human) science or the ecomomic science is there.... "

The science has remained constant. What has changed is the political posturing of R-CULT to stab the Canadian producers in the back for smalltime gain while they "bwame USDA".


OT: "I always love it when you call me a liar and blamer-- means you have no proof or argument-- Sat in court hundreds of times and when they went after me personally, it meant the evidence was there and I'd won the case......."

I didn't call you a liar and a blamer. I said "lies and blame are more your style" which is true. You repeat R-CULT's lies and you blame USDA!

I have caught you in a lie before though. You were too arrogant to admit it.

You reminded me of Saddam claiming victory as his blown up tanks are scattered over the desert and his troops are walking down the roads with their hands in the air.


OT: "Theres an old rule of law that after the crime has been commited or the event has occurred you can't go back and change the law and make it retroactive for that event--- That is what the USDA has done and its going to burn them in the butt... "

PROVIDE THAT LAW OT!!!!


Watch the former "law man" dance around this one or disappear...............




~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
OT: "~SH~ Show me where Japan or any other country has said if we take all Canadian beef they will take ours-- Show me where the USDA has said that..."

SH, "They don't have to say it OT. That's like saying , "the sun is in the sky". IT'S A GIVEN!!!! You cannot change the facts.

FACT #1. BSE was discovered in the U.S.
FACT #2. We have Canadian cattle in our system
FACT #3. We have no traceback system
FACT #4. We have traded cattle with Canada for years and our industries are integrated accordingly.

Omitted Fact: Japan took our beef between the times that Canada announced their first positive and the discovery of the cow in Washington without demanding that we take Canadian live cattle.



SH, "It's the R-CULT "illusionists" like you that are living in your fantasyworld of "Bwame Canada" for our unified problem."

Where did all 4 cases of BSE originate? If Canada is not central to argueing the source of the problem, why do you feel the need to point out that we have Canadian cattle in our system?


OT: "Even NCBA has learned that one of the reason we have no export trade with the Asian market is because of the term "North American Beef" that the Canadians coined after the BSE issue and NCBA and USDA immediatley jumped upon....."

SH, "Terminology of "North American Beef Industry" has no bearing on the above facts. NONE! It's an R-CULT "RED HERRING"! "

It sure has a lot to do with image, however.

OT: "Like Judge Cebull said- the USDA immediatley decided they needed to reopen the border- then worked backwards to hope the science was there.... Neither the health issue (cattle and human) science or the ecomomic science is there.... "

SH,"The science has remained constant. What has changed is the political posturing of R-CULT to stab the Canadian producers in the back for smalltime gain while they "bwame USDA"."

What has not remained constant is how the USDA has viewed BSE. You need to get out of your R-CALF blaming frenzy and stop ignoring this. BC (before Canadian occurance) we ran a zero tolerance policy and treated it as a health issue. AC (after CAnadian occurance), it suddenly was an economic issue. Are you going to deny that?


OT: "I always love it when you call me a liar and blamer-- means you have no proof or argument-- Sat in court hundreds of times and when they went after me personally, it meant the evidence was there and I'd won the case......."

SH, "I didn't call you a liar and a blamer. I said "lies and blame are more your style" which is true. You repeat R-CULT's lies and you blame USDA!
I have caught you in a lie before though. You were too arrogant to admit it."

And we've caught you full of nonsense before. You never admit it - just seem to quit posting on that topic.

OT: "Theres an old rule of law that after the crime has been commited or the event has occurred you can't go back and change the law and make it retroactive for that event--- That is what the USDA has done and its going to burn them in the butt... "

SH, "PROVIDE THAT LAW OT!!!!"

What he needs to provide you with is reading glasses! Read again, OT isn't mentioning a "law". The words "rule of" change the meaning.

SH, "Watch the former "law man" dance around this one or disappear...............




~SH~
 

don

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
0
Location
saskatchewan
oldtimer: because of the term "North American Beef" that the Canadians coined after the BSE issue and NCBA and USDA immediatley jumped upon....."

take a read off the link ot and you'll find the idea of n. am market integration was around long before may, 2003. i know you'd like to divorce the two markets; so would i but the rest of the world knows what has happened.




http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/1999/99-03LP/nafta.htm
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Ontario
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker- Theres an old rule of law that after the crime has been commited or the event has occurred you can't go back and change the law and make it retroactive for that event--- That is what the USDA has done and its going to burn them in the butt... If they wanted to reduce the standards for importing from BSE countries why didn't they do it BEFORE Canada got BSE? Why didn't they do it for Britain ( an ally in the war against terrorism by the way) or Switzerland or any other BSE country?

They only came up with the idea after the packers got shut down from their supply of unlabeled generic beef from Canada- that they could take and stick a USDA lablel on and pass of as US product for a larger profit........

In answer to your question as to why the USDA wants to change this law.... well OT, to anyone outside of the US and quite a few within, the answer is pretty clear - it's because of the HIGH PROBABILITY that the US has BSE in its herd as well as Canada due to the "small" matter of identical feeding practices and herd intermingling for decades.

So, the real reason for this change is for the purpose of covering your own American a$$e$ when the presence of BSE in your herd is finally admitted.

But when you finally understand this, don't feel bad about your stubborn refusal to see the truth, OT. We all understand how scary it must be for you to admit your vulnerability.
 

canadian angus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
760
Reaction score
0
Location
Northwest Saskatchewan
Funny thing about the Japanese, they are in the process of buying a private golf course near here. Buying all theland around it. Cheaper to fly here for a week and play golf, than play one round in Japan.

Question is will they eat our beef. Probably,and will enjoy it.

:roll:

CA
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker: "Where did all 4 cases of BSE originate? If Canada is not central to argueing the source of the problem, why do you feel the need to point out that we have Canadian cattle in our system?"

Why do I feel the need to point out that we have Canadian cattle in our system you ask?

Because R-CULT says Canadian beef is unsafe. If Canadian beef is unsafe then our beef is unsafe because we have Canadian cattle in our system and we are also taking in boxed beef from Canada.

I am pointing out R-CULT's never ending hypocrisy!

To suggest that Canadian cattle are unsafe while we import Canadian boxed beef is insanity!


Sandhusker: "BC (before Canadian occurance) we ran a zero tolerance policy and treated it as a health issue. AC (after CAnadian occurance), it suddenly was an economic issue. Are you going to deny that?"

Why would I deny that it was an economic issue to R-CULT????

Of course it's an economic issue to them while they use BSE "fear mongering" as their catalyst to keep the border closed.

OIE "guidelines" and USDA "policy" is not etched in stone and needs to consider the effectiveness of the efforts that have been taken to rid the U.S. and Canada of BSE.

What you narrow minded R-CULTers fail to realize is that the presidence you are trying to set for 5% of our domestic beef consumption (Canadian live cattle imports), we will have to live by in the even that BSE is discovered here in a domestic animal. Oh, wait......silly me, I forgot I am talking to somone who supports and organization that contradicts themselves daily and forgets what they said yesterday.

R-CULT's priority is not with food safety. R-CULT's priority is with their "PERCEIVED" economic impact of Canadian live cattle that are now coming down in boxes. Look no further than "M"ID prohibited from "M"COOL to see where R-CULT stands on food safety.


Sandhusker: "And we've caught you full of nonsense before. You never admit it - just seem to quit posting on that topic."

Name the topic!

On Rapid Diagnostic Tests, I admitted I could be wrong and may have read faulty information.

On the issue of "competition", you were wrong to state that "competition" has nothing to do with large packers buying up smaller ones". Consider that your lying organization has stated repeatedly that large packers are buying out their competition. You were obviously wrong and you were too arrogant to admit it. Typical of the deceptive lying ways of your chosen organization.


Allow me once again to show you what a pathetic, deceptive individual you are.

OT (previous: "Theres an old rule of law that after the crime has been commited or the event has occurred you can't go back and change the law and make it retroactive for that event--- That is what the USDA has done and its going to burn them in the butt... "

SH (in response): "PROVIDE THAT LAW OT!!!!"

Sandhusker (running to OT's defense): "What he needs to provide you with is reading glasses! Read again, OT isn't mentioning a "law". The words "rule of" change the meaning."

What part of "YOU CAN'T GO BACK AND CHANGE THE LAW" do you not comprehend???

How "Clintonian" of you.

You should know better than to try to get away with that here.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandhusker: "Where did all 4 cases of BSE originate? If Canada is not central to argueing the source of the problem, why do you feel the need to point out that we have Canadian cattle in our system?"

Nice diversion away from yourself, SH. You know what my point was.


Sandhusker: "BC (before Canadian occurance) we ran a zero tolerance policy and treated it as a health issue. AC (after CAnadian occurance), it suddenly was an economic issue. Are you going to deny that?"

Would you mind not diverting away and answer the question? Let me point out for you my statement focuses solely on how the USDA flip-flopped a long-standing policy in a matter of two days.


SH, "What you narrow minded R-CULTers fail to realize ....

What you USDA and AMI blind followers (actually folowewER as you're the only person I know who defends them regardless) fail to realize is that this issue is much larger than Canada. It is about whether or not our trade policy will be guided by the AMI's bottom line or not.

SH,"R-CULT's priority is not with food safety. R-CULT's priority is with their "PERCEIVED" economic impact of Canadian live cattle that are now coming down in boxes. Look no further than "M"ID prohibited from "M"COOL to see where R-CULT stands on food safety."

So you're telling me USDA's priorities did not change immediately after May,23, 2003? Do some homework and open your eyes.

You mentioned "R-CULT" three times. What is "R-CULT"?


Sandhusker: "And we've caught you full of nonsense before. You never admit it - just seem to quit posting on that topic."

Sh,"Name the topic! On Rapid Diagnostic Tests, I admitted I could be wrong and may have read faulty information.

"Could be" and "may have" :roll:

SH,"On the issue of "competition", you were wrong to state that "competition" has nothing to do with large packers buying up smaller ones". Consider that your lying organization has stated repeatedly that large packers are buying out their competition. You were obviously wrong and you were too arrogant to admit it. Typical of the deceptive lying ways of your chosen organization. "

Which of my chosen organizations are you talking about? The Methodist Church? Fire Department? Go back and read that string again. I left you hog-tied in a contradiction. :wink:


SH,"Allow me once again to show you what a pathetic, deceptive individual you are."

Whan an effective debating style you have! Comments like that literally scream to the reader "I have credibility"!






~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker: "You know what my point was."

How can I know what your point was when you don't even know what your point was?


Sandhusker: "Would you mind not diverting away and answer the question? Let me point out for you my statement focuses solely on how the USDA flip-flopped a long-standing policy in a matter of two days."

USDA "policy" and OIE "guidelines" are constantly changing to acknowledge the BSE precautionary measures that have been taken.

Unlike R-CULT, the USDA recognizes that we would have to live by the same presidence we establish for Canada if it were not changing to acknowledge the precautionary measures that have been taken.


Sandhusker: "What you USDA and AMI blind followers (actually folowewER as you're the only person I know who defends them regardless) fail to realize is that this issue is much larger than Canada. It is about whether or not our trade policy will be guided by the AMI's bottom line or not."

I suppose that would explain why AMI filed suit against USDA too huh?

What happened with that suit Sandhusker??? Did USDA cave to allow importation of UTM cattle?

Hmmmmm???


Sandhusker: "Go back and read that string again. I left you hog-tied in a contradiction."

BWAHAHAHA!

Ok claim victory in obvious defeat. You said "competition" has nothing to do with larger packers buying smaller ones. You can stand on your ignorance.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandhusker: "You know what my point was."

How can I know what your point was when you don't even know what your point was?


Sandhusker: "Would you mind not diverting away and answer the question? Let me point out for you my statement focuses solely on how the USDA flip-flopped a long-standing policy in a matter of two days."

USDA "policy" and OIE "guidelines" are constantly changing to acknowledge the BSE precautionary measures that have been taken.

Unlike R-CULT, the USDA recognizes that we would have to live by the same presidence we establish for Canada if it were not changing to acknowledge the precautionary measures that have been taken.


Sandhusker: "What you USDA and AMI blind followers (actually folowewER as you're the only person I know who defends them regardless) fail to realize is that this issue is much larger than Canada. It is about whether or not our trade policy will be guided by the AMI's bottom line or not."

I suppose that would explain why AMI filed suit against USDA too huh?

What happened with that suit Sandhusker??? Did USDA cave to allow importation of UTM cattle?

Hmmmmm???


Sandhusker: "Go back and read that string again. I left you hog-tied in a contradiction."

BWAHAHAHA!

Ok claim victory in obvious defeat. You said "competition" has nothing to do with larger packers buying smaller ones. You can stand on your ignorance.



~SH~

Sandhusker: "Would you mind not diverting away and answer the question? Let me point out for you my statement focuses solely on how the USDA flip-flopped a long-standing policy in a matter of two days."

SH,"USDA "policy" and OIE "guidelines" are constantly changing to acknowledge the BSE precautionary measures that have been taken."

I see. Maybe you could tell us what OIE guideline changed between May 23, 2003 and May 25, 2003?
 
Top