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

More on R-Calf from AFF

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Stacking Falsities on Top of Each Other

More False Statements and Incorrect Implications from R-CALF's Position Paper on Canada's Surveillance
Colorado Springs, CO May 21, 2005 We've covered R-CALF's misrepresentation in its position paper* on Canada's surveillance program that it doesn't meet international standards - it not only does meet them, it exceeds them by a huge margin. We've also shown that testing patterns in other countries show no significant correlation between percentage of cattle population tested and BSE cases found. .

What other claims in R-CALF's position paper should you be aware of? The paper states that Canada has not tested enough cattle, "to confidently detect a rate of one case of BSE per million cattle." The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) - the internationally recognized authority - disagrees.

R-CALF then attempts to build on a false assumption that Canada doesn't test enough, saying that, because it doesn't test enough and has found four BSE cases, that must mean Canada's infection rate must be much higher than other people think - higher than one per million.

Of course, neither claim is true. In fact, Canada, using R-CALF's own charts, has one of the lowest raw numbers of cases, from a total cow population that greatly exceeds all the other countries on R- CALF's comparison list (2003 data). Canada's mature cow population, at 5.5 million for that year, is 70 percent larger than Poland (with 26 cases), more than 2.5 times Japan (16 cases then, 18 now), 3.8 times Belgium (26 cases) and 19 times Slovakia (9 cases). Canada has shown that it has fewer cases from a much larger population, while testing far more numbers than the OIE says is necessary.

R-CALF also claims in its report that the OIE recommends, "countries with Canada's risk profile not only increase testing, but also, that such countries begin testing the subpopulation of cattle that enters the human food chain." This is patently false.

The OIE recommends that testing occur first from subpopulations of animals displaying clinical signs and then those we would refer to as "downers."

"Any shortfall in the first two subpopulations (recommended minimum of 336 animals annually for Canada), should be addressed by the sampling of normal cattle over 30 months of age at slaughter," the OIE document specifies. Thus R-CALF's claim that the OIE recommends Canada should be testing large numbers of normal slaughter cattle is not true. Canada tests vastly more cattle in the high-risk categories than the minimum the OIE recommends. In fact, the OIE makes it very clear that testing should occur on the two high-risk classifications of animals first, and that exclusive dependence on testing of normal slaughter cattle is not recommended.

R-CALF has also used the technique of piling false conclusions on false assumptions regarding Canada's classification as a "minimal risk" country. They claim that Canada would not meet OIE criteria for minimal risk countries. OIE recommendations say that, in addition to other factors such as an appropriate risk- management program and a surveillance-testing program as Canada has implemented, to meet minimal risk classification a country should have found fewer than two cases per million head of adult population in each of the last four 12-month periods. That would mean that Canada, with a total cowherd population now exceeding six million, would have to have discovered fewer than 12 cases in each of the last four 12-month periods to qualify for minimal risk. Having two total cases in 2003, one in 2004 and one in 2005, it is obvious that Canada is nowhere near the limits for minimal risk classification, despite R- CALF's claims they have exceeded them.

But R-CALF instead claims they're sure Canada would find more cases if they just tested an adequate number of cattle. But since the claim that Canada doesn't test enough cattle is false in the first place, their conclusion is false. And their implication that Canada has already discovered too many cases to qualify for minimal risk category is also false.

R-CALF's hue and cry that if Canada tested more, they would find more cases is similar to the Liberal Activists Group (LAG) philosophy that we ought to reduce or eliminate beef consumption because we might find some correlation to some disease in the future, so just to be on the safe side, we should quit now. After all, we "all know" that beef eating is not good for us - this just gives us an excuse, if we need one.

The fact is, we don't "all know" that Canada has a higher rate of BSE in its animal herd than most of the world believes. R-CALF just wants us to think it is so. That doesn't make it true. Repeating a falsity over and over is a LAG technique. It doesn't change the facts.


We understand some of you are also having difficulty accessing files on R-CALF's Web site. Therefore, we are providing a link to the PDF of R- CALF's report through the AFF Web site.


Here is R-CALF's Position Paper on the supposed inadequacies of the Canadian surveillance program (PDF on AFF site). AFF does not endorse their opinions. We provide this as a convenient reference for our readers only.

*"Inadequacy of Canada's BSE Surveillance Program," R-CALF, 4/28/05

Next time: Non-existent Testing Program & the Iceberg Fear
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
R-CULT misuses a Colorado University Poll on consumers regarding country of origin labeling.

CSU has to address R-CULT's misuse of their data.


R-CULT misuses USDA's retail to fat cattle price spread data.

USDA has to correct R-CULT on the misuse of their data.


R-CULT misuses OIE health standards.

OIE states that R-CULT is misusing their data.


R-CULT's history of lies, deception, and half truths is a time honored tradition. What's disheartening is that so many producers follow these lies rather than searching for the truth.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oh just wait OT and Sandy will come up with some lame excuse. :cowboy:

Ol Dittmer and AFF are so off in left field they're not worth answering...I just wish their was some way to see how much money the packers are putting into into this organizations pockets......
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,033
Reaction score
123
Location
Big Muddy valley
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oh just wait OT and Sandy will come up with some lame excuse. :cowboy:

Ol Dittmer and AFF are so off in left field they're not worth answering...I just wish their was some way to see how much money the packers are putting into into this organizations pockets......


What did I tell you :!: Nothing to refute this article with so OT diverts and discredits. Why don't you refute these claims.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
OT, Haymaker and Snadhusker, ever heard of a guy named Gary C. Smith?, just wondering what you think of him?

How about Hughes, Garrett, Ritchie,Ishmael, mostck, Blackwell,.

I'll write more later, maybe in the mean time you can research a little bit, so you can have your answers pre-thought out! :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT: "Ol Dittmer and AFF are so off in left field they're not worth answering...I just wish their was some way to see how much money the packers are putting into into this organizations pockets......"

That would be the Discredit part of R-CULT's 4D MO.

Typical!

If it doesn't support R-CULT's blaming bias, it has to be a conspiracy.

Did anyone see OT refute anything stated?

Did anyone see OT provide proof of the packer payoff???

More of the same from the "factually defenseless"!



~SH~
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oh just wait OT and Sandy will come up with some lame excuse. :cowboy:

Ol Dittmer and AFF are so off in left field they're not worth answering...I just wish their was some way to see how much money the packers are putting into into this organizations pockets......

Well the paid PR man card again what a surprise. :roll: Come on Oldtimer why don't you prove to us why you think Dittmer is so far out in left field. If you have something to prove your statement bring it to the debate but don't be like others and discredit just because the man may be a PR man. It does you no good to discredit without proof as it just proves Dittmer is telling the truth and you can't handle the truth. :wink:
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
There is nothing wrong with testing, in consideration of today's political and economical situation.

However, it is pointless to compare the various country's levels of testing when all the facts aren't on the table.

Certainly, in some countries all animals over 30 months were banned from the food chain entirely and all of them were tested. Not to mention, the rancher/dairyman was compensated appropriately (not the peanuts offered to Canadian ranchers).

Also, you need to compare feeding practices. Canada has the natural resources (grass and grain) that allow ranchers, like myself, to raise their cattle as naturally as possible. Once they go into feedlots, not to many operators would need to use supplemental protein that is not from grain. Agriculture in countries like Japan, the Netherlands and UK is way, way more concentrated and has much longer historical use of a limited land base.

As for your statement:

I have more exposure to the researchers and public health organizations than any of you and have read as much as I could on this subject.

We are talking about credibility here, and your refusal to identify yourself and provide details of your employment (which you claim gives you the upper hand on all of us), tends to discredit your statements.

As I said before, for all I know your name is Terry S... from the vegetarian site "vegosource". This fellow lost his mother to CJD and now spends all his time running a website that promotes vegetarianism. Much of his posted information is slandering the cattle industry through various means. He is the only other person I have found, that is not a rancher, and spends as much time as you do trying to convince the world eating meat causes vCJD.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
Experience is definitely the most effective teacher.

I haven't slandered you, but I question why you post articles that always link BSE to vCJD, or CWD to CJD.

Find evidence which does not use inoculated animals. Where are the feeding trials that used the supposedly contaminated MBM (created in the realistic rendering processes of industry) - they don't exist!

Reader stated:
I should be applauded in that I refrain from rabid vegan diatribes

The fact that you used the word "refrain" tells me that you want to say these things, but you hold yourself back.

Why you harp at ranchers on this site, when clearly your efforts would be more fruitful/effective aimed at government organizations, is a mystery to me. No group is more aware of this situation than ranchers whose livelihood has been devastated by the BSE situation. Individual circumstances such as your own, have given you incentive and passion, which I do applaude. (I sincerely regret that you had to go through such pain).

But do you, or do you not, believe that people should stop eating meat from the grocery store, if it is:
a) not tested
b) or, not raised organically
 

Latest posts

Top