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

Joe Knows.

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
R-CALF Quick To Take Credit For Voluntary NAIS
USDA's announcement to forever retain the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) as a voluntary program at the federal level wasn't a big surprise. And I'll take USDA at its word that, at the federal level at least, NAIS will always remain voluntary.

Still, you know as well as I do that word definitions are much more fluid in government use than in general society. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe the folks at USDA are honorable, trustworthy folks; it's just that administrations change, and events can quickly reshape priorities.

After all, we can all recall Bill Clinton's shifty explanation about what "is" is. And there's no better historical lesson regarding the shelf life of government pronouncements than what happened to Native Americans when a young nation decided to reach across the continent for its Manifest Destiny.

More surprising to me about the USDA pronouncement was R-CALF's claiming of credit for it. In a Dec. 1 news release following the USDA announcement, R-CALF president Chuck Kiker said:

"Several R-CALF leaders have worked for many months with various USDA officials to prevent implementation of a mandatory animal identification system, and USDA's recent decision shows that this organization has made progress."

What's interesting is that in February 2006, another R-CALF release had Kiker criticizing his National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) counterpart, Mike John, for declaring a voluntary national ID program was even feasible.

"To imply to cattle producers that the NAIS has any chance of being voluntary is not 'straight talk,' Kiker wrote. "The USDA had made it clear that a voluntary program would not achieve the results it desires. The voluntary checkoff program didn't work; voluntary COOL (country-of-origin labeling) hasn't worked; and voluntary animal ID won't work."

Now, that's some tap-dancing that would cock the eyebrow of Fred Astaire; a flippity flop worthy of the best freshly beached carp. It isn't, however, particularly surprising given R-CALF's history.

Folks might recall how R-CALF teamed up with anti-meat groups in a June 2004 Washington, D.C., media event aimed at retaining closure of the U.S. to trade in Canadian live cattle. At that time, the U.S. had but one case of BSE, but it was in a Washington state cow of Canadian origin.

Intended to woo U.S. legislators and consumers to its cause, the press conference -- and the national advertising that accompanied it -- invoked such phrases as "mad cow," "fatal disease" and "high-risk."

At the same time R-CALF was spreading the alarm about "dangerous" Canadian cattle, even the consumer media reported some R-CALF members were buying up cattle in Canada, where prices had tanked following closure of the U.S. border. At that time, Canada had little packing capacity of its own and was almost totally geared for export, something it has since remedied.

Later that fall, the first "domestic" case of BSE was found in the U.S. Luckily, consumers rejected R-CALF's posturing like a vending machine spitting out a tin slug, and a brilliant crisis-management plan by USDA and NCBA minimized the domestic impact.

In fact, beef consumption continued to rise, with U.S. beef producers realizing record prices and profitability in the ensuing years. R-CALF took credit for that, too.
-- Joe Roybal
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"Joe" is starting to play semantics with lines taken out of context like Dittmer-- the NCBA/Packer folks must be on his butt to get their moneys worth back out of him- and this is the best he can do....
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
RCalf took credit for high cattle prices, now we are getting past the peak of the cycle, who are they going to blame when cattle prices start dropping?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
"Joe" is starting to play semantics with lines taken out of context like Dittmer-- the NCBA/Packer folks must be on his butt to get their moneys worth back out of him- and this is the best he can do....



PROVE IT.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
So where in this article does R-CALF take credit? Does Kiker say "R-CALF stopped the USDA"? If you're pushing hard to get the government to do something, and they do it, you haven't made progess? Where is the flip flop? Roybal accused Kiker of dancing, but it looks to me like Roybal is hallucinating.

R-CALF teamed up with anti-meat groups? Baloney. Those groups R-CALF joined the podium with are not anti-beef. Some moron put that label on them and he's just repeating a buzz phrase without checking if they are anti-beef or not. I invite everybody to get on these group's websites and see for yourselves if they are anti-beef.

If he wants to play the association game, he should mention when NCBA partnered with the Nature Conservancy. NCBA has also stood with the AMI, and don't we all remember that comment from them about ranchers needing to quit worrying about their checkbooks.

What a biased article. Bill Clinton would be proud.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Here is a picture of ole "joe"actually it's a picture of big dummie's mama,she/he like big dummie goes from male to female,big dummie one day tam the next,...........just call her/him "joe mama''
clinton.jpg

Would you believe anything this liar has ta say,been hangin around those clintons,he looks like em..................good luck
 

santana

New member
Here's a short bio on each of the "anti-meat groups that joined R-CALF in its Washington, D.C. press conference:


The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) opposes irradiation for food safety and has pushed for the reduction of beef in the school lunch program. CFA's founder, Carol Tucker Foreman, is well known for her anti-beef rhetoric and efforts to stir up hysteria about the safety of our product.

Tucker Foreman oversaw food safety and nutrition programs for Pres. Jimmy Carter. The 1977 release of the “Dietary Goals for the U.S.” served as a wellspring of negative sentiment against the beef industry, of which a key element of advice was “Decrease consumption of meat, and increase consumption of poultry and fish.” As USDA assistant secretary, Tucker Foreman was one of the biggest proponents of the Dietary Goals.

The Consumers Union (CU) and CFA have been two of the leading groups pushing since Dec. 23, 2003, the message that beef is unsafe. CU and its leader, Michael Hansen, have also led the crusade against biotechnology and genetically modified organisms.

In fact, former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once referred to Hansen's rhetoric this way: “Unfortunately, a few fringe groups are using misleading statements and blatant falsehoods as part of a long-running campaign to scare consumers about a perfectly safe food … it is necessary to condemn these attacks … for what they are: baseless, manipulative and completely irresponsible.”

Public Citizen (PC) gets "credibility" through founder Ralph Nader, and is best known for its membership in the Global Safe Food Alliance, formed by such animal rights organizations as Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the Western Organization of Resource Councils, Farm Sanctuary, etc., to put out anti-meat messages. If you want more information on PC, just go to its Web site at www.citizen.org, check out the “Meatrix” at www.themeatrix.com
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Thank you Santana. The R-CALFers don't like to hear and read these things. They only beleive what they want to beleive not the truth.



Notice Haymaker even put up his mothers picture for a diversion.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Thank you Santana. The R-CALFers don't like to hear and read these things. They only beleive what they want to beleive not the truth.



Notice Haymaker even put up his mothers picture for a diversion.

Probably looks more like your mother,as liberal as you are,might be your sister? Maybe she is the one that pretends to be tam one day and bmr the next.............good luck
PS These so called anti beef groups that some of these liars are talkin about ,probably eat more beef in a day that all the packer partners eat in a year :wink:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Thank you Santana. The R-CALFers don't like to hear and read these things. They only beleive what they want to beleive not the truth.



Notice Haymaker even put up his mothers picture for a diversion.

Probably looks more like your mother,as liberal as you are,might be your sister? Maybe she is the one that pretends to be tam one day and bmr the next.............good luck
PS These so called anti beef groups that some of these liars are talkin about ,probably eat more beef in a day that all the packer partners eat in a year :wink:[/quote]


PROVE IT.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Here's some truth on those "anti-beef" folks.

Consumers Union supported California SB 1585 which was a bill to notify everybody who could of received tainted beef and chicken. Wouldn't an anti-beef outfit spin tainted beef into a "Beef is unsafe" campaign?

Consumer's Union supports additional BSE testing. Wouldn't an anti-beef outfit spin BSE into telling people beef isn't safe to eat, instead of pushing for a mechanism that would enhance consumer's perceptions of beef safety?

Consumer's Union told their members that if they're afraid of BSE to BUY organic beef. Wouldn't an anti-beef group say to not eat beef?

CFA got on the USDA about lax inspections at Nebraska beef. They want the beef inspected properly. Wouldn't an anti-beef group spin that into "beef isn't inspected properly, don't eat it"?

CFA supports COOL because, "Many consumers may wish to purchase meat from animals born and raised in the United States". This is a statement from an anti-beef group?

From a release from Public Citizen, "In light of the findings, Public Citizen and GAP recommend that microbial tests be taken daily, large plants be subject to more testing than small plants, the government test routinely for other pathogens and the government take action as soon as a plant fails enough tests to fail a set." We've got an anti-beef group advocating measures that would increase beef safety?

Now all that I posted are from anti-beef groups? Wouldn't common sense tell you that somewhere there would be a "don't eat beef" message? What you are seeing are groups concerned with food safety. They don't always buy what the USDA says and does, so they're anti-beef. :roll: BMR, it took me 10 minutes to find what I did here. It seems to me that you anti-R-CALFers are the ones who don't want to believe the truth.

Folks who really want to know if these groups are anti-beef or not don't have to take Santana, Roybal, BMR, or even my word here. It's pretty dang easy to do a google search and you can get the info from the horse's mouth. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who labels these groups as anti-beef either is just repeating what they heard without taking 10 minutes to find the truth or they simply would rather stoop low to bash R-CALF. Either way, their credibilty is suspect to say the least.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Michael Hansen is an intelligent, knowledgeable, and conscientious man who I have had the honor of meeting various times

Taken from Michael Hansen's comments to the USDA.
USDA states that Canada meets this surveillance criterion. However the level of surveillance in Canada is far less than proposed level of surveillance in the US. As pointed out in the USDA's explanatory note, Canada plans to test approximately 8,000 cattle in 2004. Given that Canada's herd size of about 13 million (1999 figures), This represents plans to test less than .062 percent of the Canadian herd. The US, on the other hand has proposed testing at least 200,000 cattle. Given the herd size in 2002 of 96.1 million, this presents at least .21 percent of the US herd. Thus the US proposed surveillance will be at least 3.5 times larger than Canada's.

Now let us look at the facts for the time frame Michael was using.
Canada PLANNED to test 8,000 in 2004 BUT PROPOSED increasing that number to 30,000 in following YEARS , IE 2005, 2006, 2007 etc..
Compare that with the USDA statement about the USDA's surveillance.
"Under the enhanced program, using statistically geographic modeling, sampleing 268,000 animals would allow for the detection of BSE at a rate of 1 positives in 10 million adults cattle with a 99 percent confidence level. In other words the enhanced program could detect BSE even if there were only five positives animals in the entire country. Sampling some 201,000 animals would allow for detection of BSE at the same rate at a 95 percent confidence level. USDA will begin immediately to prepare for the increase testing, with the anticipation that the program will be ready to fully implement June 1, 2004, In the meantime, BSE testing will continue at the current rate, which is based on a plan to test 40,000 animals in FY 2004.
Notice how he compared our planned 8,000 head testing numbers but failed to mention our proposed increase for the following YEARS? Notice how he also failed to state that the USDA test quota of 200,000 was a ONE TIME SHOT? And that the US test numbers would go back to the 40,000 quota while Canada's will stay at 30,000 per year for X number of years in a herd he admits is 7.4 times smaller? (13 mil. compare to 96.1mil.)

Now let's compare Apples to Apples
2004 Canada tested 23,500 (quota 8,000)
2005 Canada tested an additional 57768 (quota 30,000)
2006 Canada has tested an additional 50,286(quota 30,000)
for a total of 131,604 tested to date in Canada

Compare that to the US's ONE TIME SHOT test number of 200,000, where they actually tested 787,711 to date
Now take our test number and times it by the 7.4 and you should have the number the US SHOULD HAVE TESTED TO BE TESTING THE SAME PERCENTAGE
131,604 x 7.4 = 973,870
subtract the actual number tested to date by the US of 787,711
973,870 - 787,711 = 186,159
Which makes the US SHORT by some 186,159 from being at the same percentage and every year the US will fall farther behind as they have announced the decease back to 40,000.
Comparing Planned testing to planned testing or proposed testing to the truly proposed testing, puts a bit different light on Michael's claim that the US testing rate will be 3.5 times larger than Canada's doesn't it? :wink:

This was not the only Michael Hansen comment I took offence to, but it does proves his need to be a bit more conscientious when comparing the US system to another country that does test a high percentage of the right catagory of cattle using the correct testing protocol . :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Here's some truth on those "anti-beef" folks.

Consumers Union supported California SB 1585 which was a bill to notify everybody who could of received tainted beef and chicken. Wouldn't an anti-beef outfit spin tainted beef into a "Beef is unsafe" campaign?

Consumer's Union supports additional BSE testing. Wouldn't an anti-beef outfit spin BSE into telling people beef isn't safe to eat, instead of pushing for a mechanism that would enhance consumer's perceptions of beef safety?

Consumer's Union told their members that if they're afraid of BSE to BUY organic beef. Wouldn't an anti-beef group say to not eat beef?

CFA got on the USDA about lax inspections at Nebraska beef. They want the beef inspected properly. Wouldn't an anti-beef group spin that into "beef isn't inspected properly, don't eat it"?

CFA supports COOL because, "Many consumers may wish to purchase meat from animals born and raised in the United States". This is a statement from an anti-beef group?

From a release from Public Citizen, "In light of the findings, Public Citizen and GAP recommend that microbial tests be taken daily, large plants be subject to more testing than small plants, the government test routinely for other pathogens and the government take action as soon as a plant fails enough tests to fail a set." We've got an anti-beef group advocating measures that would increase beef safety?

Now all that I posted are from anti-beef groups? Wouldn't common sense tell you that somewhere there would be a "don't eat beef" message? What you are seeing are groups concerned with food safety. They don't always buy what the USDA says and does, so they're anti-beef. :roll: BMR, it took me 10 minutes to find what I did here. It seems to me that you anti-R-CALFers are the ones who don't want to believe the truth.

Folks who really want to know if these groups are anti-beef or not don't have to take Santana, Roybal, BMR, or even my word here. It's pretty dang easy to do a google search and you can get the info from the horse's mouth. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who labels these groups as anti-beef either is just repeating what they heard without taking 10 minutes to find the truth or they simply would rather stoop low to bash R-CALF. Either way, their credibilty is suspect to say the least.

Sandhusker Wouldn't an anti-beef outfit spin tainted beef into a "Beef is unsafe" campaign?
Do you mean like how R-CALF spun all beef coming from a country affect by BSE was tainted therefore unsafe for human consumption and based their whole KEEP THE BORDER CLOSED campaign on it? Funny how that R-CALF spin, spun out of control when BSE was found in the US and it was suddenly spun into Just imported beef is unsafe and the US had the safest beef in the world campaign? :roll:
Wouldn't an anti-beef group say to not eat beef?
Do you mean like the R-CALF's leader that proclaimed he would rather not eat beef at all as to take a chance on eating Canadian beef due to BSE? What were the US consumers suppose to think of that statement once BSE was found in the US? :?
CFA supports COOL because, "Many consumers may wish to purchase meat from animals born and raised in the United States". This is a statement from an anti-beef group?
This sounds like an R-CALF statement too but I have to ask Sandhusker if the beef is labeled with the COOL label will it suddenly be safe? where is the assumed health risk this "CONSUMER GROUP" is so worried about when commenting about how unsafe beef coming from a country affect by BSE is?

Sandhusker Can you tell me if any of these "consumer groups", that support R-CALF's efforts to continue the banning Canadian beef due to the health risk it MAY represent, are demanding or supporting banning the importing/exporting of Vegetables due to the health risk that HAS BEEN associated with them? What about Lettuce, 71 US consumers got sick from eating lettuce at Taco Bell? Or are they demanding banning the imports/exports of Spinach do to the 3 that died and 200 others that got sick from it? Are any of them supporting banning the importing/exporting of Tomatoes as 400 got sick due to the salmonella in them? These are all recent cases Sandhusker, If they are so concerned about the consumer food safety where is their objections to these contaminated Veggies being fed to US consumers both domestic and foreign?
I agree that BSE is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with but so is any other food safety issue that consumers face so Why did these "Consumer Groups" choose to make public comments supporting banning Canadian BEEF, a food that has puts North American consumers at FAR LESS risk than a US HOMEGROWN SALAD when they have yet to ask for banning of these veggies? :?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam- A risk analysis expert would laugh you off the witness stand...One thing you and all Canadians forget to figure into your testing comparisons is that you also have found 5 times the positive animals in a herd 1/7th the size......Then you have to factor in age of positive animals- numbers exposed to known MBM material, etc. etc. to determine a true risk factor...

And when this is done correctly it always comes up showing that Canadian cattle are much higher risk...........................
 

don

Well-known member
ot: One thing you and all Canadians forget to figure into your testing comparisons is that you also have found 5 times the positive animals in a herd 1/7th the size...

ot the world is laughing at you guys. they know your testing program was a farce and that's why korea and japan are giving you a hard time in spite of all the blustering coming out of washington. yeah yeah sandhusker said you have to use usda's numbers because they are the only ones available but as a lawman used to building a case you know that crap evidence loses the trial and that's why korea and japan are laughing at you now. the guys with the biggest grins on their faces are probably in australia (for the time being) because you have played right into the hands of the packers. just saying something is true doean't make it so. keep pushing the propaganda. when you start in on this i think of stephen colbert; same logic as him except his is satire.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
don said:
ot: One thing you and all Canadians forget to figure into your testing comparisons is that you also have found 5 times the positive animals in a herd 1/7th the size...

ot the world is laughing at you guys. they know your testing program was a farce and that's why korea and japan are giving you a hard time in spite of all the blustering coming out of washington. yeah yeah sandhusker said you have to use usda's numbers because they are the only ones available but as a lawman used to building a case you know that crap evidence loses the trial and that's why korea and japan are laughing at you now. the guys with the biggest grins on their faces are probably in australia (for the time being) because you have played right into the hands of the packers. just saying something is true doean't make it so. keep pushing the propaganda. when you start in on this i think of stephen colbert; same logic as him except his is satire.

But this same USDA is using this same evidence/science as justification for them to open the Border to Canadian cattle/beef-- but then the Canadians give them a standing ovation and praise them :wink: :roll: :lol:

That is the reason I believe the courts should have allowed/allow ALL the evidence to be examined and the decision made by an impartial judger of facts.....
 

don

Well-known member
i'm not praising usda because the packer/usda union is costing cattlemen in canada and the states. they've got you by the short ones now ot because there are enough american cattlemen saying we have to stay the course because what would happen if the testing program became legitimate? could find enough bse in the american herd to shake consumer confidence???? besides the charade has gone on long enough that a change in program could raise some ugly questions from consumer watchdogs. we've been had and in letting it happen we've handed over even more control and equity.
 

don

Well-known member
r2: Canada will have more pressure to conform with whatever new measures the US puts in place.

believe me a lot of canadians feel we are being held back by american interests. the stranglehold a few american interests have on the n. american (and becoming global) meat market is not a good thing for either producers or consumers. i though such an erudite, travelled and articulate person such as yourself might realize that american standards are quite often surpassed in other parts of the world. i think the message from japan and korea (among others) is that the usa is not up to snuff.
 

Tam

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
It will take time but consumer pressure will eventually grow significant enough that with the right administration there will be a change. Right now the US has starved domestic programs to create DHS and fund increased intelligence and fight the war in Iraq. (By the way, I believe in increased intelligence so don't go throwing rocks.) So there's no money for an expanded USDA. The clamor for a food safety agency is growing. FDA and USDA are not doing a good enough job between outside interests and lack of money. One of these days Congress and the citizens and an administration slightly more in line with consumers will look long and hard at USDA and BSE (as well as other food and drug and medical instrument safety issues).

You are better off being forthright and educating yourselves as some of you are than hiding your heads in the sand. The two attitudes I read on this board that seem silly to me are (1) pretending that BSE is not an issue (Tam) and (2) claiming that consumers don't care and denying that the organic movement is growing by leaps and bounds.


All it will take is the right constellation and BSE will be a big issue here. Also when that happens, Canada will have more pressure to conform with whatever new measures the US puts in place.


Reader could you please explain how you came to the conclusion that I'm pretending BSE is not an issue? :roll: When just last night on this very thread I posted "I agree that BSE is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with but so is any other food safety issue that consumers face" Do you think that statement is somehow not true and that as long as there is BSE is out there we should turn are attentions away from those food borne Diseases that are actually taking lives in North America? :?
These so called Consumer Groups saw fit to request the banning of Canadian beef due to the assumed health risk but not one of them have asked for the banning of Veggies due to the deaths they have caused. Have any of these Consumer Groups asked for a ban on importing cars as people die in car accidents everyday? Have they asked for a ban on importing Liquor, people die from that everyday too? Come on Reader let's look at the PROVEN risk rate on some of these other things that are taking US lives EVERYDAY and ask ourselves why is beef taking the crap it is taking because of the ASSUMED RISK IT MAY PRESENT!!!!! I realize that BSE is a serious issue and IF it has caused one human death I'm sorry but if we really look at the dangers out there you are more likely to be hit by the truck hauling the cattle than you are from contracting vCJD from eating the beef on the truck. BSE has become the big issue it has due to media's misinformed attention grabbing headlines scaring people, Anti beef and vegetarian groups, organic producers, and a out to lunch Beef organization using it to further their agendas, and Governments using it for a negotiating tool to get something else from the exporting country. Throw in a few pity seekers for something that has nothing to do with BSE or Beef and you have the OVER BLOWN ISSUE that BSE has turned into. :x How about we put BSE back into persceptive by stopping the media and other from using misinformed attention grabbing headlines, offending terms including Human form of MAD COW and the pity parties to further their own agendas. :x
 
Top