- Feb 10, 2005
- Reaction score
- Montgomery, Al
This is exactly what we USA producers do not need.
Bull Burger said:Mike,
Check out: http://www.newstarget.com/beef.html Looks like a vegetarian leaning site.
R-Calf said:reader (the Second) said:The article (again, fringe and conspiracy oriented) says: "The USDA's mad cow disease testing program is a sham: it doesn't test many cows showing neurological symptoms, it falsified records of one cow to make sure it received "downer" status, and it doesn't test healthy-looking cattle at all! These are the accusations from the USDA's own inspector general and various Senators who are hammering the USDA for its lackluster practices."
If the USDA were testing a significant number of 4D, it would be doing EXACTLY what is recommended by the most knowledgeable TSE experts, so I don't think confining most of the testing to 4D is wrong. However, they have to test in the hundreds of thousands annually. According to the quote from Lisa Ferguson I posted yesterday, there are up to 600,000 downers. And they have to incentivize the producers to notify of 4D cattle. And they have to test on the farm. Unfortunately, I don't believe that this is being done and the 40,000 to be tested in 2005 is WAY too small a number in such a large high risk population.
If we can't butcher the 4D animals then they don't need to be tested for they will never enter the food supply. Is it worth shaking consumer confidence over a potential postive BSE cow when that cow would never enter the food supply? You and the Canucks are so hell bent for the US to find a case of BSE it makes me sick.
R-Calf said:If we can't butcher the 4D animals then they don't need to be tested for they will never enter the food supply. Is it worth shaking consumer confidence over a potential postive BSE cow when that cow would never enter the food supply? You and the Canucks are so hell bent for the US to find a case of BSE it makes me sick.
reader (the Second) said:Anonymous said:"I'm fairly sure that he's doing R-CALF a disservice by his posts since what he just implied was that his position is ONLY based on economic protectionism, not on BSE.
I haven't looked at R-CALF's releases recently but I assume they are in favor of continued increased testing of 4D in the U.S. to prove to the world that the U.S. does not have a problem. Otherwise, they really are blatant protectionists."
R-Calf has not said they are in favour of increased testing of 4-Ds and without a doubt their position is quite clearly based on economic protectionism. That is why they were founded and why their supporters continue to support them. They sure aren't donating calves to fund lobbying for increased testing of 4Ds but to keep the border to Canada closed.
I give Nebrusker credit for his honesty in this thread.
Interesting. Thanks. Let's see what others think. I can see that R-CALF is representing what they think is best economically for U.S. producers. I don't think that's how they are pitching it however (or not openly).
Our ability to export will continue to be impacted negatively as it has been until we come in line with OIE and common practice in Europe/Japan.
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec03/031215i.aspIn fact, the United States, Canada, and Mexico are among the countries that have not completely followed the OIE standards, Dr. Fernandez said. All three countries have trade regulations that are more restrictive than the OIE guidelines recommend. He said the U.S. BSE measures tried to take into account the scientific understanding of BSE and public safety;
Anonymous said:Businessweek USA MARCH 7, 2005 • Editions: N. America | Europe | Asia | Edition Preference
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Mad Cow's Stubborn Mystery
Scientists still know far too little about it -- and the feds are making rules in the dark