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

Mad-Cow Rule Breaches By Meat Packers Are Noted WSJ

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
I read it. Doesn't surprise me in the least. Bet all of it will be in Phyllis' report.

Wonder what the consequences are for not removing CNS material?

What's wrong with this picture?: The people who are in charge of protecting the cattle industry are also in charge of food safety. Seem like a conflict of interest to you?
 

mwj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
562
Reaction score
0
Location
central Illinois
Would you think that the piles of cattle were burned because of foot and mouth?????????????????????????? Are you trying to imply that it was a measure used to control bse?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
Still a JOKE!!! USDA maintains that, for the most part, mad-cow infection can only be found in cattle 30 months and older so most tissue capable of carrying the disease -- called specified risk material, or SRM -- only needs to be removed from older animals. If an animal is younger, those parts don't need to be removed. Some parts, such as tonsils and distal ileum, are considered SRM in cattle of all ages and must be removed.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Does anyone know if that report is available to "commoners" to read?

First, the vast majority of people in every segment of the beef industry realize that we all are best served by doing everything reasonably possible to provide the consumer, the ultimate customer of every one of us, the safest possible beef.

From the several stories about it, I know that the 1,036 non-compliance reports is .01% of cattle processed.

It has been stated that some "failures" are paper work or reporting mistakes, not in the procedures.

The fact that Public Citizen is taking the lead on this, their most recent assault on the beef business, concerns me.

It concerns me that someone in the cattle business says "The people who are in charge of protecting the cattle industry are also in charge of food safety. Seem like a conflict of interest to you?" Who would you put in control of protecting the safety of beef, Mike, the anti-beef activists?

Does anyone believe it is even possible to have every meat product that has no possibility of contamination from any source, given the amazing tonnage of beef coming out of our systems each and every day. Just consider the number of steps in the process from arrival of the calf through all the handlers till it gets to the packing plant. Add to that all the people whose hands each piece of meat pass through, both literally and figuratively, including those of the consumer who prepares and serves it? Doesn't it seem nearly impossible, with the possible exception of if every piece of meat were to be zapped with irradiation just before the consumer takes it home, that we should expect NEVER to have ANY contamination of any kind on the occasional piece of meat?

What are we to do.......shoot everyone in the entire beef industry who has ever made a mistake?

Isn't a "non-compliance" rate of ONE TENTH of ONE PERCENT quite remarkably wonderful? What other threat to humanity has been as openly, strongly and successfully addressed by the people with the most to lose (the cattle/beef industry, for those who hadn't noticed our efforts)?

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ- The rules violations are probably not anything - like you say- but what makes them into news and what makes them damning to the beef industry is that they were again hidden by USDA...

This is supposed to be open and public info- and the groups trying to get it were thwarted from access and had to threaten to sue under the FOIA. USDA's continuing behind the curtain actions for the packers is what creates it into a scandal and makes it seem much bigger than it is.......

USDA needs some new Public Information people......
 

mwj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
562
Reaction score
0
Location
central Illinois
reader (the Second) said:
mwj said:
Would you think that the piles of cattle were burned because of foot and mouth?????????????????????????? Are you trying to imply that it was a measure used to control bse?

They piled up corpses of animals that had BSE and incinerated them to get rid of them. They were afraid to bury them and pollute the ground water.

Some fear where the ash went also.

Every story I saw was during the hoof and mouth outbreak, so I would throw the BS flag if you are claiming these were all bse cattle. The piles that I saw burned were all ages and they didn't look like they had any post mortem testing done!!!
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
reader (the Second) said:
mwj said:
Would you think that the piles of cattle were burned because of foot and mouth?????????????????????????? Are you trying to imply that it was a measure used to control bse?

They piled up corpses of animals that had BSE and incinerated them to get rid of them. They were afraid to bury them and pollute the ground water.

Some fear where the ash went also.
When an animal tested positive they went in and killed the whole herd. Not all animals incinerated had BSE!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Bill said:
reader (the Second) said:
mwj said:
Would you think that the piles of cattle were burned because of foot and mouth?????????????????????????? Are you trying to imply that it was a measure used to control bse?

They piled up corpses of animals that had BSE and incinerated them to get rid of them. They were afraid to bury them and pollute the ground water.

Some fear where the ash went also.
When an animal tested positive they went in and killed the whole herd. Not all animals incinerated had BSE!

They had a buyout program and many cattlemen opted to kill them all. The prices dropped so dramatically they were worth more to destroy than to keep. They have, just recently, allowed OTM's for food.

Plus the fact that testing methods were slow. Many cattle were "visually" confirmed and it was thought no testing was needed.

The whole scene was horrible. And to have FMD on top of it was devastating. Mostly caused by gov't coverups, not the disease, but the extension of time before protective measures were taken.
 

Grassfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Alberta, Canada
I'm amazed at the misinformation surrounding the BSE and Foot and Mouth outbreaks in the UK. I'm pleased to see Reader the 2nd realises the nonsense they were talking about incinerating cattle with BSE - it never happened. Contrary to a follow up post no herd in the UK was ever depopulated following a positive BSE test. Individual animals were only killed if they were identified as BSE suspects by a vet. The claim that producers opted to kill their herds to gain compensation either because of BSE or Foot and Mouth disease is offensive and totally untrue. It never happened and could never have happened because the authorities would not have paid compensation on animals without veterinary proof that slaughter was necessary. What was the buyout program please? If you are referring to the OTM slaughter scheme it has been the only avenue available for UK farmers to slaughter OTM cattle since 1996. It includes a Government compensation payment but this has averaged out at considerably less than OTM cattle prices were pre-BSE.
I know because I was there.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
HERE is the link to the English rules ,OTM rules March 2005 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/agriculture/bsetfc-00.asp#a
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
I was referring to the OTM "buyout scheme" (as you put it) when I referred to the "buyout program".

It has been proposed for several months to allow OTM's back in the food chain. I thought it was being allowed at present because of the time since the proposal.

Sorry to get your dander up there. Are you gonna be OK?
 

Latest posts

Top