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

NCBA Rep on BSE Tests

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Here is the unedited response from Gary Weber of the NCBA:


April 3, 2001

I rarely take time to comment on articles I see...but I must make an exception to one you recently published. I found your article quite off track and full of gross errors and obvious biased..

You extensive use of information and opinion provided by Moser is one example.

"Dr. Markus Moser, a molecular biologist and guest researcher at Oxford University in England, heads the Swiss company Prionics, which developed a rapid-response test for BSE, called the Prionics Check Test. The Check Test costs about $40 per cow, and Moser says it has found cases of mad cow in tests of "healthy" cattle which otherwise would have entered the food chain."

Come on ..of course a guy who is set to make millions off selling "his" test...is going to bash what we do...here are the facts..

The IHC test being used by APHIS was the first such test fully tested and verified in the world. It is as sensitive as the prionics test...it just takes more time. In fact..it provides less false positives...an error that requires many more confirmatory steps..time and expense. Pit our IHC test against the prionics..side by side and the only difference will be lots of false positives..extra tests with Prionics...no difference in true ability to detect the prion protein. It seems you were victimized by a sales pitch.

Long before Moser even knew what BSE was...the U.S. had already started surveillance..already banned the importation of cattle and products that could carry the BSE agent.

You need to be more suspicious of the views of so called "European Experts." If they were so "smart" why did they continue to import live cattle and contaminated feed from the UK after we banned it in 1989..ask Moser that!


Why did Europe continue to sell BSE contaminated feed to 3rd world countries long after we banned the importation of cattle and all feeds that could carry BSE from ALL of Europe into the US in 1997?

Why was PCB/dioxin contaminated feed fed to pigs and chickens in Europe and why did the government cover it up??

Why did FMD [foot and mouth disease] spread across the UK and then Europe?

If you want to do a story that is objective...ask these questions.

What you will find is Europeans have lost sight of how to regulate agriculture... their arrogance and failure to invest in and apply science in agriculture is outrageous. It is even more outrageous that anyone from Europe would have the guts to criticize what we have done here. Dr. Moser and European officials should be embarrassed at their behavior and their consumer constituents outraged.

In the US we have never cut corners on BSE prevention..we have aggressively pursued prevention...LONG before Europe ever did.

You might say "sure Dr. Weber takes this position...he works for the cattle industry." The fact is, I eat beef, my wife and 4 children eat beef...my 107 year old great aunt eats it...neither I nor any of our members will tolerate anything other than strict regulations and enforcement of BSE prevention strategies.

The fact we ARE BSE FREE is no accident...the fact Europe is NOT is no surprise to any of us who know how they do business.

Gary Weber
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
1301 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 300
Washington DC 20004-1701
202-347-0228
http://hill.beef.org

***************************************************
Update; After MILLIONS of tests with the Prionic's test, THERE HAVE BEEN NO FALSE POSITIVES.

FACT: This letter by Dr. Weber is full of lies and innuendo.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
So while acknowleding Prionics was faster, meaning many many more cattle could be tested in the U.S. versus using the current IHC method, Weber objected to it because, he said, it could show the presence of BSE in a cow when confirmatory testing would show this to be a wrong result (a "false positive").

Here is the unedited response to Mr. Weber from Dr. Moser of Prionics:


April 8, 2001

BSE Surveillance is a very complex issue and the points raised in Mr Nelson's article "USDA Strategy: Don't Look, Don't Find," as well as the letter by Mr. Weber of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association deserve some detailed comments on the questions regarding the quality of both BSE-tests and BSE-surveillance.

Mr. Weber claims that unlike the classical method used for BSE-analysis by the USDA (the so-called immunohistochemistry or IHC), the Prionics-Check would produce false positive results.

He must have confused the Prionics-Check test with other rapid tests, which indeed bear the problem of false positive results. I agree that it does not make sense to use unreliable tests in a country which so far has not detected any BSE: This would only add confusion rather than clarity. But Prionics-Check has been used now for over two years in Switzerland for continuous BSE-surveillance, and during all this time there has not been a single incidence of a false positive analysis.

Prionics-Check has been developed focusing on its performance under field conditions. It uses a technology that is not prone to false positive results. In the BSE-test evaluation conducted by the European Commission (EC) in 1999 it has been the only test that reached 100% sensitivity and specificity without having to repeat tests. In other words: Prionics-Check was the only test that diagnosed all samples correctly in one go.
The EC evaluation contained a small second part in which dilutions of liquefied tissues were analyzed. The author of the VegSource article erroneously concluded from the results of this study that the Bio-Rad test must be more sensitive than the Prionics-Check.

In fact, the EC never made such a claim and furthermore clarified in an FAQ sheet published on the internet (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/bse21_en.html) that dilution experiments represent an artificial system falling short in certain ways to represent the natural situation.

The reason for this is twofold: The first reason has to do with the fact that BSE-tests detect prion protein aggregates. The aggregates as formed in visibly ill cattle do not adequately mimic the rare aggregates formed during earlier stages of the disease. Therefore, dilutions of aggregates from visibly ill cattle do not in many ways represent the situation in BSE-infected animals at earlier disease stages. The second reason why the dilution study does not reflect field performance lies with the technical specifications of Prionics-Check: the innovative process of Prionics-Check already starts at the tissue preparation using special proprietary solutions. The dilution-tests were performed with standard liquefaction and not according to the Prionics-Check procedure used in the field.

An adequate method of determining a test's performance is the parallel testing in the field with a gold standard (e.g. immunohistochemistry) and the BSE-test which has to be evaluated. Such an evaluation, however, is extremely time- and cost intensive, but it tells you exactly how the test performs under field conditions and with naturally infected BSE animals.

Such an evaluation was done with Prionics-Check under the supervision of the Swiss Veterinary Office (it took roughly a year to get the whole Swiss evaluation done as compared to an afternoon to test the few dilutions of the EC). The extensive comparative field evaluation demonstrated that the Prionics-Check test is at least as sensitive as optimally performed immunohistochemistry in spotting naturally infected BSE animals under field conditions. Such a study has not been done for the Bio-Rad test, however, even in an experimental system performed under optimal conditions on experimentally infected animals, this test was not more sensitive than immunohistochemistry.

Reliability was a key-feature of Prionics-Check to convince European countries to follow the Swiss BSE-surveillance model and to introduce Prionics-Check for mass screening. The screening was pioneered by France and Denmark, the other countries followed.

BSE-cases started to shoot up as a result of the increased surveillance (the interested reader finds a short document on the milestones leading to the general acceptance of BSE-surveillance by mass screening at http://www.prionics.ch/PDF/surveillance_milestones.pdf). Over 2.5 million Prionics-Check tests have been sold so far throughout Europe of which over one million tests have already been carried out. Germany and Italy, two countries which previously had been allegedly BSE-free, had to face the first BSE-cases shortly after the introduction of mass screening using Prionics-Check.

Should we be afraid of introducing Prionics-Check mass testing in countries without a previous record of BSE? After all, the general picture Prionics-Check created in Europe is that whoever introduces the test will have to face a harsh reality!

So why introduce the test?

Well, not every country that introduces testing will necessarily find BSE: some may instead produce excellent evidence that they are in fact BSE-free. Let's have a look at Europe again: Both Italy and Germany were classified by the European Commission as countries with a relatively high BSE-risk, even before Prionics-Check detected the first BSE cases. This classification was based on an analysis of the two countries import and feeding practises. It was therefore not a big surprise for scientists when the first BSE-cases were found.

In contrast, both the U.S.A and Austria are classified as having a low BSE-risk (The interested reader finds the detailed risk analysis for the U.S.A. at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out137_en.pdf). Austria has introduced Prionics-Check in January 2001 and has tested so far over 30,000 animals without a single BSE-case showing up. (In Germany a cow exported from Austria recently tested falsely positive with a competitive rapid test, which caused quite a crisis for a few days until it was clear that the result was false positive. This episode of course confirmed Austria in their decision to exclusively use Prionics-Check).

Although in a Europe with open internal borders it cannot be excluded that isolated rare BSE-cases might also show up in Austria, the results of the mass screening program already demonstrates that the country is essentially BSE-free compared to its neighboring countries.

Prionics-Check therefore does not only bring the bad news of BSE, it may as well serve to demonstrate a country's BSE-free status. The risk of detecting BSE versus the advantage of demonstrating the absence of BSE - you can't have one without the other!

Dr. Markus Moser
Prionics AG
University of Zurich
Switzerland
http://www.prionics.ch
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Mike said:
Here is the unedited response from Gary Weber of the NCBA:


April 3, 2001

I rarely take time to comment on articles I see...but I must make an exception to one you recently published. I found your article quite off track and full of gross errors and obvious biased..

You extensive use of information and opinion provided by Moser is one example.

"Dr. Markus Moser, a molecular biologist and guest researcher at Oxford University in England, heads the Swiss company Prionics, which developed a rapid-response test for BSE, called the Prionics Check Test. The Check Test costs about $40 per cow, and Moser says it has found cases of mad cow in tests of "healthy" cattle which otherwise would have entered the food chain."

Come on ..of course a guy who is set to make millions off selling "his" test...is going to bash what we do...here are the facts..

The IHC test being used by APHIS was the first such test fully tested and verified in the world. It is as sensitive as the prionics test...it just takes more time. In fact..it provides less false positives...an error that requires many more confirmatory steps..time and expense. Pit our IHC test against the prionics..side by side and the only difference will be lots of false positives..extra tests with Prionics...no difference in true ability to detect the prion protein. It seems you were victimized by a sales pitch.

Long before Moser even knew what BSE was...the U.S. had already started surveillance..already banned the importation of cattle and products that could carry the BSE agent.

You need to be more suspicious of the views of so called "European Experts." If they were so "smart" why did they continue to import live cattle and contaminated feed from the UK after we banned it in 1989..ask Moser that!


Why did Europe continue to sell BSE contaminated feed to 3rd world countries long after we banned the importation of cattle and all feeds that could carry BSE from ALL of Europe into the US in 1997?

Why was PCB/dioxin contaminated feed fed to pigs and chickens in Europe and why did the government cover it up??

Why did FMD [foot and mouth disease] spread across the UK and then Europe?

If you want to do a story that is objective...ask these questions.

What you will find is Europeans have lost sight of how to regulate agriculture... their arrogance and failure to invest in and apply science in agriculture is outrageous. It is even more outrageous that anyone from Europe would have the guts to criticize what we have done here. Dr. Moser and European officials should be embarrassed at their behavior and their consumer constituents outraged.

In the US we have never cut corners on BSE prevention..we have aggressively pursued prevention...LONG before Europe ever did.

You might say "sure Dr. Weber takes this position...he works for the cattle industry." The fact is, I eat beef, my wife and 4 children eat beef...my 107 year old great aunt eats it...neither I nor any of our members will tolerate anything other than strict regulations and enforcement of BSE prevention strategies.

The fact we ARE BSE FREE is no accident...the fact Europe is NOT is no surprise to any of us who know how they do business.

Gary Weber
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
1301 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 300
Washington DC 20004-1701
202-347-0228
http://hill.beef.org

***************************************************
Update; After MILLIONS of tests with the Prionic's test, THERE HAVE BEEN NO FALSE POSITIVES.

FACT: This letter by Dr. Weber is full of lies and innuendo.


Mike, is this thread in response to another thread?

If not, when you state: "here is the unedited response from Gary Weber of the NCBA", to what was Dr. Weber responding? Would you please point out the "lies and innuendo" you claim Dr. Weber has in his "response"?

What is the connection between this post of information from 2001 with todays' BSE conditions?

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Gary weber wrote:

The IHC test being used by APHIS was the first such test fully tested and verified in the world. It is as sensitive as the prionics test...it just takes more time. In fact..it provides less false positives...an error that requires many more confirmatory steps..time and expense. Pit our IHC test against the prionics..side by side and the only difference will be lots of false positives..extra tests with Prionics...no difference in true ability to detect the prion protein.

This statement is an outright lie.
1- The IHC is not as sensitive as the Prionic's test as proved by the "Texas" cow.
2-The Prionic's test has NEVER had a false positive.



Long before Moser even knew what BSE was...the U.S. had already started surveillance..already banned the importation of cattle and products that could carry the BSE agent.

Another lie. Moser was in on the ground floor in the BSE investigations in Europe.

The fact we ARE BSE FREE is no accident..

Another obvious lie. We had BSE in the US herd and didn't know it.


Gary Webber's response was to an article that accused the US of covering up BSE.

Dr. Moser was asked if the U.S. was using proper techniques in BSE surveillance. He stated that if the U.S. was employing IHC testing only that the tests were limited in that they require an absolutely clean sample with no autolysis. In short, they would false diagnose many positives as negative. Personally, I had rather have a false positive than a false negative.

Face it MRJ, the U.S. has been covering up BSE since the beginning. I do not like to say this but it's true. Why do you think the Japs are so leery?

BSE is not going to go away on it's own. Ever.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
mike posts about gary weber is very true. he cares nothing about keeping the BSE/TSE agent out of the USA. he only cares about the bottom dollar.
this has been proven time and time again over the years.

a very fine example below;


NCBA in short (lie some more)


snip...

Summary
The NCBA has and remains completely dedicated to following a science and
risk analysis based
program to prevent the introduction, amplification and spread of BSE.
However, at this time,
more than 15 years of action, information and analysis, and in particular
data from the expanded
BSE surveillance program indicate that no data exists to support the FDA
altering the existing
feed regulations.

snip...


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000500-01-vol40.pdf



bozo's like the head of the NCBA are exactly why we are in this mess. ...



here is the big mac attack on the USDA et al


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273_emc-000134-02.pdf



AND this old one i forgot to post from the 7 scientists (AN INTERESTING
VERSION, you might want to download this one...TSS)


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf


and how oblivious can some of these folks be ;


Chairman: B. D. Meador Members: Billie Hurt
Vice-Chainnan: Frank Smith Tommy Long
Secretary: Randy Harston William McClure
Treasurer:: Maxie Brown Dist. A&. Sec.: Linda Smith

snip...

I feel there is no need for additional feed restrictions based on current
compliance. The current nmrinant to ruminant
feed ban created in 1997 has been in force longer than most living animals
and within two years will have survived all
living cattle. The current USSDA Surveillance Program clearly shows we do
not have a BSE risk to the United States
cattle populations and support the data of the Harvard Risk Analysis Study.
The FDA must maintain its regulatory
decisions based on science, not political or international trade influence

snip...


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000523-vol40.pdf



they have no idea, or they are bought and paid for by your local cattle
dealers/buyers/feeders/packers etc. etc.



oblivious members of USA congress on mad cow, one of the reasons the agent
continues to spread ;


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000518-01-vol40.pdf




brain dead feeders, want brain dead consumers


American Feed Indusuy Association
Comments to FDA on Docket 2002N-0273
December 19,2005
192 1 TO 13018276870 rj. 04,'04
4
concerns as are scientiIically justified through previous actions banning
the use of SRMs and
downers in the food supply and related products.

In summary, AFIA generally supports FDA’s proposed rule, but believes the
proposal
should be amended to allow in animal feed brains and spinal cords from dead
and nonambulatory
cattle less than 30 month of age.

FDA should pursue testing methodologies to detect
B/SC in feed. The rendering industry should be required to keep additional
records, and
rendering industry customers shouId not have a duplicative recordkeeping
burden. FDA and
other federal agencies, in concert with state and industry interests, must
address and develop
practical and responsible alternatives and funding for disposal of
additional carcasses and SRM
material produced under this proposal.
AFL4 appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments.
Sincerely,
Richard Sellers
Vice President, Feed Control & Nutrition
American Feed Industry Association
1501 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209
703/524-0810


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000482-vol40.pdf




Darling International

snip...

Darling supports science-based rulemaking to address animal health issues.
Based on results of the enhanced BSE surveillance program administered by
APHIS, however, BSE is not an animal health issue in the United States and
additional safeguards, such as those proposed, are not necessary to further
protect animal health. ...

snip...


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000462-01-vol39.pdf



TAKE THIS TO THE BANK, this will come back to haunt them;



North American Spray Dried Blood and Plasma Producers
Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
Response to Docket No. 2002N-0273, Proposed Rule Substances Prohibited From
Use in Animal
Food or Feed
Executive Summary
The North American Spray Dried Blood and Plasma Producers Association agrees
with the
conclusion of the FDA that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that
BSE infectivity is
present in bovine blood. Banning the use of bovine blood or blood fractions
in ruminant
rations will not reduce the risk of exposure of humans or animals to BSE
infectivity. Animal
health will be compromised if the use of bovine blood or blood proteins in
ruminant feeds is
restricted..........

snip...


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC202-Attach-1.pdf



TSS
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
NCBA flip flops with the corporate whim of the day....

At one time they said the US's Number 1 safeguard against BSE was to ban bringing in cattle, meat, or material from countries that have BSE-


http://images.beef-mag.com/files/13/bse%2021.pdf


The United States has prevented BSE
from entering here through restrictions on importing
cattle and any feed ingredients capable of carrying the
infectious agent from any country suspected of having
the disease, or at risk to have the disease.

2. The government, the cattle industry and allied
industries have put stringent safeguards in place to

Although there is no evidence the BSE agent has ever
entered the United States, achieving 100 percent
compliance with the feed regulation is the government
and industry goal. The most important regulation with
respect to BSE prevention is keeping this foreign
animal disease out of the United States. The feed ban
is an extra level of protection and it is our goal to
rapidly achieve 100 percent compliance with this
important regulation.

 
A

Anonymous

Guest
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000500-01-vol40.pdf

The interesting part of this letter to the FDA, dated December 2005, opposing strengthening the feedban is maybe not what it includes- but instead what is absent.....

The entire letter talks of the absence of BSE in the US and the record of the US herd...No where did I see where it took into account or even mentioned Canadian OTM cattle or beef...

Does this mean NCBA will oppose opening the Canadian border to OTM's :???: ...
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
All for the Protection of the Status Quo at the expense of the small cow /calf man and the population of the US and its trade partners.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH is the self-appointed Minister of Truth, you would of though he would of pointed those lies out.... :lol:
 

G Weber

New member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Location
Washington, DC
Well, I heard that I was once again in the news on the net...and sure enough, the folks as www.vegsource.com have been busy forwarding my 2001 critique of some European "experts" view that the U.S. BSE situation was "just like Europe's" so we needed to test everything.

Keep in mind that vegsource.com's motto is "Friendly support 25 hours a day 8 days a week for your healthy vegitarian lifestyle." Yes folks...25 hours a day..8 days a week and as my kids would say, "Whats up with that?

Anyway, that may give you some indication of the motivation to distribute my criticism of any "expert" who tried to damage reputation of the U.S. beef industry while promoting a test he may have had a financial interest in.

So how about some facts since that 2001 article?

Well, since 2001 the development of rapid tests has advanced to the point that many are licensed by the USDA and 2 are used in the BSE screening program.

These tests are for screening use only and the IHC test, coupled with Western Blot testing when there are questions about differences between a screening test and the IHC. This is the recommendation of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). We fully support following OIE guidelines.

If you want to understand the NCBA view of the US BSE situation, feel free to read our comments relative the recent FDA proposed rule to increase BSE prevention measures. You can access these comments at
www.beefusa.org/uDocs/feedrulecomments122005.pdf.

Lets also consider the BSE situation in Europe in 2001 when I wrote the note about criticism of the US situation. In 2001 the EU was finding a case of BSE, confirmed by IHC in 1 out of every 3.3 neurological suspects. They were also testing every healthy animal at processing and were finding 1 case out of every 27,492 cattle.

Ok, jump forward to 2006. In the US we have been testing neurological suspect cattle since 1990 for BSE and we have never found a case in that catagory of high risk cattle.

We have also tested, as of January 22, 2006 597,863 downer cattle and we have found 1 case of BSE. IN 2001 in Europe, they were finding 1 case of BSE out of every 1,037 animals..YES virtually 1/1,000. If you extrapolate from the EU test results ....and our BSE risk, we woudl then have a BSE prevalence rate in cattle of less than 1 case in over 15,000,000 cattle. That is low risk, and getting lower every day.

So there should be no question that the US situation is very different than the EU. This is beacuse we started taken all necessary steps to stop BSE BEFORE we ever had our first case. These steps started in 1989. We have been, consistently, the first country in the world to take preventative steps at every turn. Cattlemen lead the charge on takign these steps, asking government to analyze the situation and to put regulations in place, and fully enforce them, if the analysis supported such action.

Lets hit on one other point, the Texas cow. Keep in mind that this cow was dead, she never was intended to enter the human food chain...even if she was a downer she would not be allowed in the human food supply. Once she showed up as a suspect case on the rapid BSE screening tests, the carcass was held, and the samples sent to Ames. There, apparently, the IHC test was negative. In this case, according to the OIE guidelines, the sample should have been run on the Western Blot. We supported that then and now. However, even though there was debate on how to handle this sample, animal health and public health were protected and in the end, the OIE process was reafirmed.

Thanks Mike and vegsource.org for the reminder of this situation and giving me a chance to share the facts with you.

Oh, one last thing....BSE is well on its way to being eradicated from the US, make no mistake about that!! Sorry vegsource, you will have to attack the beef industry with some other smear tactic...but consumer demand for our products continues to grow..they believe cattlemen rather than vegitarian activists.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
G Weber said:
Well, I heard that I was once again in the news on the net...and sure enough, the folks as www.vegsource.com have been busy forwarding my 2001 critique of some European "experts" view that the U.S. BSE situation was "just like Europe's" so we needed to test everything.

Keep in mind that vegsource.com's motto is "Friendly support 25 hours a day 8 days a week for your healthy vegitarian lifestyle." Yes folks...25 hours a day..8 days a week and as my kids would say, "Whats up with that?

Anyway, that may give you some indication of the motivation to distribute my criticism of any "expert" who tried to damage reputation of the U.S. beef industry while promoting a test he may have had a financial interest in.

So how about some facts since that 2001 article?

Well, since 2001 the development of rapid tests has advanced to the point that many are licensed by the USDA and 2 are used in the BSE screening program.

These tests are for screening use only and the IHC test, coupled with Western Blot testing when there are questions about differences between a screening test and the IHC. This is the recommendation of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). We fully support following OIE guidelines.

If you want to understand the NCBA view of the US BSE situation, feel free to read our comments relative the recent FDA proposed rule to increase BSE prevention measures. You can access these comments at
www.beefusa.org/uDocs/feedrulecomments122005.pdf.

Lets also consider the BSE situation in Europe in 2001 when I wrote the note about criticism of the US situation. In 2001 the EU was finding a case of BSE, confirmed by IHC in 1 out of every 3.3 neurological suspects. They were also testing every healthy animal at processing and were finding 1 case out of every 27,492 cattle.

Ok, jump forward to 2006. In the US we have been testing neurological suspect cattle since 1990 for BSE and we have never found a case in that catagory of high risk cattle.

We have also tested, as of January 22, 2006 597,863 downer cattle and we have found 1 case of BSE. IN 2001 in Europe, they were finding 1 case of BSE out of every 1,037 animals..YES virtually 1/1,000. If you extrapolate from the EU test results ....and our BSE risk, we woudl then have a BSE prevalence rate in cattle of less than 1 case in over 15,000,000 cattle. That is low risk, and getting lower every day.

So there should be no question that the US situation is very different than the EU. This is beacuse we started taken all necessary steps to stop BSE BEFORE we ever had our first case. These steps started in 1989. We have been, consistently, the first country in the world to take preventative steps at every turn. Cattlemen lead the charge on takign these steps, asking government to analyze the situation and to put regulations in place, and fully enforce them, if the analysis supported such action.

Lets hit on one other point, the Texas cow. Keep in mind that this cow was dead, she never was intended to enter the human food chain...even if she was a downer she would not be allowed in the human food supply. Once she showed up as a suspect case on the rapid BSE screening tests, the carcass was held, and the samples sent to Ames. There, apparently, the IHC test was negative. In this case, according to the OIE guidelines, the sample should have been run on the Western Blot. We supported that then and now. However, even though there was debate on how to handle this sample, animal health and public health were protected and in the end, the OIE process was reafirmed.

Thanks Mike and vegsource.org for the reminder of this situation and giving me a chance to share the facts with you.

Oh, one last thing....BSE is well on its way to being eradicated from the US, make no mistake about that!! Sorry vegsource, you will have to attack the beef industry with some other smear tactic...but consumer demand for our products continues to grow..they believe cattlemen rather than vegitarian activists.

G. Weber,

Why has the USDA kept the BSE testing under its control?

Why can't you convince the Japanese of the integrity of the U.S. herd?

How can you claim BSE is on its way to being erradicated under these conditions?

I like beef and I like to eat beef all the time. Many family ranchers depend on their cattle sales. The credibility of the USDA in administering the programs (AMS, BSE testing, GIPSA investigations) has shown to have major flaws and indeed designed coverups. These issues have hurt the credibility of the USDA, not the questions from cattlemen.

Remember, the world was once thought to be flat. Questions only help to uncover the truth.

I am less worried about vegan's claims than the USDA's.

Given the recent happenings in this admistration and this congress, a Washington D.C. address does not help the credibility issue.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
G Weber said:
Well, I heard that I was once again in the news on the net...and sure enough, the folks as www.vegsource.com have been busy forwarding my 2001 critique of some European "experts" view that the U.S. BSE situation was "just like Europe's" so we needed to test everything.

Keep in mind that vegsource.com's motto is "Friendly support 25 hours a day 8 days a week for your healthy vegitarian lifestyle." Yes folks...25 hours a day..8 days a week and as my kids would say, "Whats up with that?

Anyway, that may give you some indication of the motivation to distribute my criticism of any "expert" who tried to damage reputation of the U.S. beef industry while promoting a test he may have had a financial interest in.

So how about some facts since that 2001 article?

Well, since 2001 the development of rapid tests has advanced to the point that many are licensed by the USDA and 2 are used in the BSE screening program.

These tests are for screening use only and the IHC test, coupled with Western Blot testing when there are questions about differences between a screening test and the IHC. This is the recommendation of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). We fully support following OIE guidelines.

If you want to understand the NCBA view of the US BSE situation, feel free to read our comments relative the recent FDA proposed rule to increase BSE prevention measures. You can access these comments at
www.beefusa.org/uDocs/feedrulecomments122005.pdf.

Lets also consider the BSE situation in Europe in 2001 when I wrote the note about criticism of the US situation. In 2001 the EU was finding a case of BSE, confirmed by IHC in 1 out of every 3.3 neurological suspects. They were also testing every healthy animal at processing and were finding 1 case out of every 27,492 cattle.

Ok, jump forward to 2006. In the US we have been testing neurological suspect cattle since 1990 for BSE and we have never found a case in that catagory of high risk cattle.

We have also tested, as of January 22, 2006 597,863 downer cattle and we have found 1 case of BSE. IN 2001 in Europe, they were finding 1 case of BSE out of every 1,037 animals..YES virtually 1/1,000. If you extrapolate from the EU test results ....and our BSE risk, we woudl then have a BSE prevalence rate in cattle of less than 1 case in over 15,000,000 cattle. That is low risk, and getting lower every day.

So there should be no question that the US situation is very different than the EU. This is beacuse we started taken all necessary steps to stop BSE BEFORE we ever had our first case. These steps started in 1989. We have been, consistently, the first country in the world to take preventative steps at every turn. Cattlemen lead the charge on takign these steps, asking government to analyze the situation and to put regulations in place, and fully enforce them, if the analysis supported such action.

Lets hit on one other point, the Texas cow. Keep in mind that this cow was dead, she never was intended to enter the human food chain...even if she was a downer she would not be allowed in the human food supply. Once she showed up as a suspect case on the rapid BSE screening tests, the carcass was held, and the samples sent to Ames. There, apparently, the IHC test was negative. In this case, according to the OIE guidelines, the sample should have been run on the Western Blot. We supported that then and now. However, even though there was debate on how to handle this sample, animal health and public health were protected and in the end, the OIE process was reafirmed.

Thanks Mike and vegsource.org for the reminder of this situation and giving me a chance to share the facts with you.

Oh, one last thing....BSE is well on its way to being eradicated from the US, make no mistake about that!! Sorry vegsource, you will have to attack the beef industry with some other smear tactic...but consumer demand for our products continues to grow..they believe cattlemen rather than vegitarian activists.

G. Weber,

Why has the USDA kept the BSE testing under its control?

Why can't you convince the Japanese of the integrity of the U.S. herd?

How can you claim BSE is on its way to being erradicated under these conditions?

I like beef and I like to eat beef all the time. Many family ranchers depend on their cattle sales. The credibility of the USDA in administering the programs (AMS, BSE testing, GIPSA investigations) has shown to have major flaws and indeed designed coverups. These issues have hurt the credibility of the USDA, not the questions from cattlemen.

Remember, the world was once thought to be flat. Questions only help to uncover the truth.

I am less worried about vegan's claims than the USDA's.
You would tust an animal rights group funded by hype and fear over the USDA?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
G Weber said:
Well, I heard that I was once again in the news on the net...and sure enough, the folks as www.vegsource.com have been busy forwarding my 2001 critique of some European "experts" view that the U.S. BSE situation was "just like Europe's" so we needed to test everything.

Keep in mind that vegsource.com's motto is "Friendly support 25 hours a day 8 days a week for your healthy vegitarian lifestyle." Yes folks...25 hours a day..8 days a week and as my kids would say, "Whats up with that?

Anyway, that may give you some indication of the motivation to distribute my criticism of any "expert" who tried to damage reputation of the U.S. beef industry while promoting a test he may have had a financial interest in.

So how about some facts since that 2001 article?

Well, since 2001 the development of rapid tests has advanced to the point that many are licensed by the USDA and 2 are used in the BSE screening program.

These tests are for screening use only and the IHC test, coupled with Western Blot testing when there are questions about differences between a screening test and the IHC. This is the recommendation of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). We fully support following OIE guidelines.

If you want to understand the NCBA view of the US BSE situation, feel free to read our comments relative the recent FDA proposed rule to increase BSE prevention measures. You can access these comments at
www.beefusa.org/uDocs/feedrulecomments122005.pdf.

Lets also consider the BSE situation in Europe in 2001 when I wrote the note about criticism of the US situation. In 2001 the EU was finding a case of BSE, confirmed by IHC in 1 out of every 3.3 neurological suspects. They were also testing every healthy animal at processing and were finding 1 case out of every 27,492 cattle.

Ok, jump forward to 2006. In the US we have been testing neurological suspect cattle since 1990 for BSE and we have never found a case in that catagory of high risk cattle.

We have also tested, as of January 22, 2006 597,863 downer cattle and we have found 1 case of BSE. IN 2001 in Europe, they were finding 1 case of BSE out of every 1,037 animals..YES virtually 1/1,000. If you extrapolate from the EU test results ....and our BSE risk, we woudl then have a BSE prevalence rate in cattle of less than 1 case in over 15,000,000 cattle. That is low risk, and getting lower every day.

So there should be no question that the US situation is very different than the EU. This is beacuse we started taken all necessary steps to stop BSE BEFORE we ever had our first case. These steps started in 1989. We have been, consistently, the first country in the world to take preventative steps at every turn. Cattlemen lead the charge on takign these steps, asking government to analyze the situation and to put regulations in place, and fully enforce them, if the analysis supported such action.

Lets hit on one other point, the Texas cow. Keep in mind that this cow was dead, she never was intended to enter the human food chain...even if she was a downer she would not be allowed in the human food supply. Once she showed up as a suspect case on the rapid BSE screening tests, the carcass was held, and the samples sent to Ames. There, apparently, the IHC test was negative. In this case, according to the OIE guidelines, the sample should have been run on the Western Blot. We supported that then and now. However, even though there was debate on how to handle this sample, animal health and public health were protected and in the end, the OIE process was reafirmed.

Thanks Mike and vegsource.org for the reminder of this situation and giving me a chance to share the facts with you.

Oh, one last thing....BSE is well on its way to being eradicated from the US, make no mistake about that!! Sorry vegsource, you will have to attack the beef industry with some other smear tactic...but consumer demand for our products continues to grow..they believe cattlemen rather than vegitarian activists.

G. Weber,

Why has the USDA kept the BSE testing under its control?

Why can't you convince the Japanese of the integrity of the U.S. herd?

How can you claim BSE is on its way to being erradicated under these conditions?

I like beef and I like to eat beef all the time. Many family ranchers depend on their cattle sales. The credibility of the USDA in administering the programs (AMS, BSE testing, GIPSA investigations) has shown to have major flaws and indeed designed coverups. These issues have hurt the credibility of the USDA, not the questions from cattlemen.

Remember, the world was once thought to be flat. Questions only help to uncover the truth.

I am less worried about vegan's claims than the USDA's.
You would tust an animal rights group funded by hype and fear over the USDA?

Bill, it is not an either /or answer. You can distrust them both.

Do you have to be duped by such a question?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
G Weber said:
Well, I heard that I was once again in the news on the net...and sure enough, the folks as www.vegsource.com have been busy forwarding my 2001 critique of some European "experts" view that the U.S. BSE situation was "just like Europe's" so we needed to test everything.

Keep in mind that vegsource.com's motto is "Friendly support 25 hours a day 8 days a week for your healthy vegitarian lifestyle." Yes folks...25 hours a day..8 days a week and as my kids would say, "Whats up with that?

Anyway, that may give you some indication of the motivation to distribute my criticism of any "expert" who tried to damage reputation of the U.S. beef industry while promoting a test he may have had a financial interest in.

So how about some facts since that 2001 article?

Well, since 2001 the development of rapid tests has advanced to the point that many are licensed by the USDA and 2 are used in the BSE screening program.

These tests are for screening use only and the IHC test, coupled with Western Blot testing when there are questions about differences between a screening test and the IHC. This is the recommendation of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). We fully support following OIE guidelines.

If you want to understand the NCBA view of the US BSE situation, feel free to read our comments relative the recent FDA proposed rule to increase BSE prevention measures. You can access these comments at
www.beefusa.org/uDocs/feedrulecomments122005.pdf.

Lets also consider the BSE situation in Europe in 2001 when I wrote the note about criticism of the US situation. In 2001 the EU was finding a case of BSE, confirmed by IHC in 1 out of every 3.3 neurological suspects. They were also testing every healthy animal at processing and were finding 1 case out of every 27,492 cattle.

Ok, jump forward to 2006. In the US we have been testing neurological suspect cattle since 1990 for BSE and we have never found a case in that catagory of high risk cattle.

We have also tested, as of January 22, 2006 597,863 downer cattle and we have found 1 case of BSE. IN 2001 in Europe, they were finding 1 case of BSE out of every 1,037 animals..YES virtually 1/1,000. If you extrapolate from the EU test results ....and our BSE risk, we woudl then have a BSE prevalence rate in cattle of less than 1 case in over 15,000,000 cattle. That is low risk, and getting lower every day.

So there should be no question that the US situation is very different than the EU. This is beacuse we started taken all necessary steps to stop BSE BEFORE we ever had our first case. These steps started in 1989. We have been, consistently, the first country in the world to take preventative steps at every turn. Cattlemen lead the charge on takign these steps, asking government to analyze the situation and to put regulations in place, and fully enforce them, if the analysis supported such action.

Lets hit on one other point, the Texas cow. Keep in mind that this cow was dead, she never was intended to enter the human food chain...even if she was a downer she would not be allowed in the human food supply. Once she showed up as a suspect case on the rapid BSE screening tests, the carcass was held, and the samples sent to Ames. There, apparently, the IHC test was negative. In this case, according to the OIE guidelines, the sample should have been run on the Western Blot. We supported that then and now. However, even though there was debate on how to handle this sample, animal health and public health were protected and in the end, the OIE process was reafirmed.

Thanks Mike and vegsource.org for the reminder of this situation and giving me a chance to share the facts with you.

Oh, one last thing....BSE is well on its way to being eradicated from the US, make no mistake about that!! Sorry vegsource, you will have to attack the beef industry with some other smear tactic...but consumer demand for our products continues to grow..they believe cattlemen rather than vegitarian activists.

G. Weber,

Why has the USDA kept the BSE testing under its control?

Why can't you convince the Japanese of the integrity of the U.S. herd?

How can you claim BSE is on its way to being erradicated under these conditions?

I like beef and I like to eat beef all the time. Many family ranchers depend on their cattle sales. The credibility of the USDA in administering the programs (AMS, BSE testing, GIPSA investigations) has shown to have major flaws and indeed designed coverups. These issues have hurt the credibility of the USDA, not the questions from cattlemen.

Remember, the world was once thought to be flat. Questions only help to uncover the truth.

I am less worried about vegan's claims than the USDA's.

Given the recent happenings in this admistration and this congress, a Washington D.C. address does not help the credibility issue.
]

Econ, I'm curious about your thinking here. Why do you ask Gary Weber to speak for USDA? He may or may not have answers to your questions, but in any case, it isn't his place to speak for USDA, is it?

When you ask Weber "why can't you convince the Japanese of the integrity of the US herd?" are you asking him personally, NCBA officially, or what? Isn't that really a question only the Japanese can answer?

I believe the Japanese have been presented the factual, current science and ALL information available so that they can determine the integrity of the US herd........and obviously they did so and determined that it was up to their standards when they resumed trade. The shipment of material not allowed was a stupid mistake at best, appears it possibly could have been a set-up or sabotage at worst, and under OIE rules the material is not a risk to humans. The problem was overblown, IMO, and the culprits should have been disciplined and possibly prevented from further trade with Japan. IMO again, after checking all beef shipped and finding it an isolated incident, trade should not have stopped. The Japanese can and will do whatever they choose, and maybe it is time we played hardball on trade with them. We work hard at following the rules. There are, and should be, thorough inspections. BOTH SIDES in trade should follow the rules. International trade is something you or I might change, but current rules should be followed until changed.

The charges and claims about the status of BSE in the USA that differ from what Weber presented here may have more to do with anti-beef, and anti-Bush administration smear attacks than with factual information. And don't forget the longstanding efforts to create a whole new government department for food safety by setting FDA up as an independent office separated from USDA and the cattle and beef producers who know the industry, to be an adversarial entity. I do not believe that will serve consumers as well as the entire industry working with government to assure a safe, and wholesome food supply.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
G Weber said:
Well, I heard that I was once again in the news on the net...and sure enough, the folks as www.vegsource.com have been busy forwarding my 2001 critique of some European "experts" view that the U.S. BSE situation was "just like Europe's" so we needed to test everything.

Keep in mind that vegsource.com's motto is "Friendly support 25 hours a day 8 days a week for your healthy vegitarian lifestyle." Yes folks...25 hours a day..8 days a week and as my kids would say, "Whats up with that?

Anyway, that may give you some indication of the motivation to distribute my criticism of any "expert" who tried to damage reputation of the U.S. beef industry while promoting a test he may have had a financial interest in.

So how about some facts since that 2001 article?

Well, since 2001 the development of rapid tests has advanced to the point that many are licensed by the USDA and 2 are used in the BSE screening program.

These tests are for screening use only and the IHC test, coupled with Western Blot testing when there are questions about differences between a screening test and the IHC. This is the recommendation of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). We fully support following OIE guidelines.

If you want to understand the NCBA view of the US BSE situation, feel free to read our comments relative the recent FDA proposed rule to increase BSE prevention measures. You can access these comments at
www.beefusa.org/uDocs/feedrulecomments122005.pdf.

Lets also consider the BSE situation in Europe in 2001 when I wrote the note about criticism of the US situation. In 2001 the EU was finding a case of BSE, confirmed by IHC in 1 out of every 3.3 neurological suspects. They were also testing every healthy animal at processing and were finding 1 case out of every 27,492 cattle.

Ok, jump forward to 2006. In the US we have been testing neurological suspect cattle since 1990 for BSE and we have never found a case in that catagory of high risk cattle.

We have also tested, as of January 22, 2006 597,863 downer cattle and we have found 1 case of BSE. IN 2001 in Europe, they were finding 1 case of BSE out of every 1,037 animals..YES virtually 1/1,000. If you extrapolate from the EU test results ....and our BSE risk, we woudl then have a BSE prevalence rate in cattle of less than 1 case in over 15,000,000 cattle. That is low risk, and getting lower every day.

So there should be no question that the US situation is very different than the EU. This is beacuse we started taken all necessary steps to stop BSE BEFORE we ever had our first case. These steps started in 1989. We have been, consistently, the first country in the world to take preventative steps at every turn. Cattlemen lead the charge on takign these steps, asking government to analyze the situation and to put regulations in place, and fully enforce them, if the analysis supported such action.

Lets hit on one other point, the Texas cow. Keep in mind that this cow was dead, she never was intended to enter the human food chain...even if she was a downer she would not be allowed in the human food supply. Once she showed up as a suspect case on the rapid BSE screening tests, the carcass was held, and the samples sent to Ames. There, apparently, the IHC test was negative. In this case, according to the OIE guidelines, the sample should have been run on the Western Blot. We supported that then and now. However, even though there was debate on how to handle this sample, animal health and public health were protected and in the end, the OIE process was reafirmed.

Thanks Mike and vegsource.org for the reminder of this situation and giving me a chance to share the facts with you.

Oh, one last thing....BSE is well on its way to being eradicated from the US, make no mistake about that!! Sorry vegsource, you will have to attack the beef industry with some other smear tactic...but consumer demand for our products continues to grow..they believe cattlemen rather than vegitarian activists.

G. Weber,

Why has the USDA kept the BSE testing under its control?

Why can't you convince the Japanese of the integrity of the U.S. herd?

How can you claim BSE is on its way to being erradicated under these conditions?

I like beef and I like to eat beef all the time. Many family ranchers depend on their cattle sales. The credibility of the USDA in administering the programs (AMS, BSE testing, GIPSA investigations) has shown to have major flaws and indeed designed coverups. These issues have hurt the credibility of the USDA, not the questions from cattlemen.

Remember, the world was once thought to be flat. Questions only help to uncover the truth.

I am less worried about vegan's claims than the USDA's.

Given the recent happenings in this admistration and this congress, a Washington D.C. address does not help the credibility issue.
]

Econ, I'm curious about your thinking here. Why do you ask Gary Weber to speak for USDA? He may or may not have answers to your questions, but in any case, it isn't his place to speak for USDA, is it?

When you ask Weber "why can't you convince the Japanese of the integrity of the US herd?" are you asking him personally, NCBA officially, or what? Isn't that really a question only the Japanese can answer?

I believe the Japanese have been presented the factual, current science and ALL information available so that they can determine the integrity of the US herd........and obviously they did so and determined that it was up to their standards when they resumed trade. The shipment of material not allowed was a stupid mistake at best, appears it possibly could have been a set-up or sabotage at worst, and under OIE rules the material is not a risk to humans. The problem was overblown, IMO, and the culprits should have been disciplined and possibly prevented from further trade with Japan. IMO again, after checking all beef shipped and finding it an isolated incident, trade should not have stopped. The Japanese can and will do whatever they choose, and maybe it is time we played hardball on trade with them. We work hard at following the rules. There are, and should be, thorough inspections. BOTH SIDES in trade should follow the rules. International trade is something you or I might change, but current rules should be followed until changed.

The charges and claims about the status of BSE in the USA that differ from what Weber presented here may have more to do with anti-beef, and anti-Bush administration smear attacks than with factual information. And don't forget the longstanding efforts to create a whole new government department for food safety by setting FDA up as an independent office separated from USDA and the cattle and beef producers who know the industry, to be an adversarial entity. I do not believe that will serve consumers as well as the entire industry working with government to assure a safe, and wholesome food supply.

MRJ

So the term "conspiracy theorist" only applies to people who do not have your point of view, MRJ?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
G Weber said:
Well, I heard that I was once again in the news on the net...and sure enough, the folks as www.vegsource.com have been busy forwarding my 2001 critique of some European "experts" view that the U.S. BSE situation was "just like Europe's" so we needed to test everything.

Keep in mind that vegsource.com's motto is "Friendly support 25 hours a day 8 days a week for your healthy vegitarian lifestyle." Yes folks...25 hours a day..8 days a week and as my kids would say, "Whats up with that?

Anyway, that may give you some indication of the motivation to distribute my criticism of any "expert" who tried to damage reputation of the U.S. beef industry while promoting a test he may have had a financial interest in.

So how about some facts since that 2001 article?

Well, since 2001 the development of rapid tests has advanced to the point that many are licensed by the USDA and 2 are used in the BSE screening program.

These tests are for screening use only and the IHC test, coupled with Western Blot testing when there are questions about differences between a screening test and the IHC. This is the recommendation of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). We fully support following OIE guidelines.

If you want to understand the NCBA view of the US BSE situation, feel free to read our comments relative the recent FDA proposed rule to increase BSE prevention measures. You can access these comments at
www.beefusa.org/uDocs/feedrulecomments122005.pdf.

Lets also consider the BSE situation in Europe in 2001 when I wrote the note about criticism of the US situation. In 2001 the EU was finding a case of BSE, confirmed by IHC in 1 out of every 3.3 neurological suspects. They were also testing every healthy animal at processing and were finding 1 case out of every 27,492 cattle.

Ok, jump forward to 2006. In the US we have been testing neurological suspect cattle since 1990 for BSE and we have never found a case in that catagory of high risk cattle.

We have also tested, as of January 22, 2006 597,863 downer cattle and we have found 1 case of BSE. IN 2001 in Europe, they were finding 1 case of BSE out of every 1,037 animals..YES virtually 1/1,000. If you extrapolate from the EU test results ....and our BSE risk, we woudl then have a BSE prevalence rate in cattle of less than 1 case in over 15,000,000 cattle. That is low risk, and getting lower every day.

So there should be no question that the US situation is very different than the EU. This is beacuse we started taken all necessary steps to stop BSE BEFORE we ever had our first case. These steps started in 1989. We have been, consistently, the first country in the world to take preventative steps at every turn. Cattlemen lead the charge on takign these steps, asking government to analyze the situation and to put regulations in place, and fully enforce them, if the analysis supported such action.

Lets hit on one other point, the Texas cow. Keep in mind that this cow was dead, she never was intended to enter the human food chain...even if she was a downer she would not be allowed in the human food supply. Once she showed up as a suspect case on the rapid BSE screening tests, the carcass was held, and the samples sent to Ames. There, apparently, the IHC test was negative. In this case, according to the OIE guidelines, the sample should have been run on the Western Blot. We supported that then and now. However, even though there was debate on how to handle this sample, animal health and public health were protected and in the end, the OIE process was reafirmed.

Thanks Mike and vegsource.org for the reminder of this situation and giving me a chance to share the facts with you.

Oh, one last thing....BSE is well on its way to being eradicated from the US, make no mistake about that!! Sorry vegsource, you will have to attack the beef industry with some other smear tactic...but consumer demand for our products continues to grow..they believe cattlemen rather than vegitarian activists.

Thank you for your reply. It is no doubt that that "veggies" agenda does not coincide with the U.S. cattle industry's. Motivational factors by both sides of the issue are completely understood by those of us here discussing cattle issues. We also understand the numerosity of the confirmed cases in the UK.

My question for you is why you would respond to an attack article with misinformation? Whether knowingly or unknowingly your response to the article only served as fodder for the other side.

Yes, we have tested a high number of animals in the U.S. since the Washington cow, but the numbers are that high only due to the "Liscensing", as you put it, of the rapid tests. It would have been an impossibilty to test the numbers of cattle that we have screened with as much accuracy without them.

For you to say that the Prionic's Test provides too many false positives, and is no more accurate than the IHC, and then for the U.S. to turn around and start using the Western Blot for a confirmatory test could only be seen as hypocrisy and short-sighted.

Especially since the "veggies" were probably the ones that persuaded Phyllis Fong into her course of action and the results that ensued.

Too many public information mistakes have been made Mr. Weber, my only fear is that they will continue to our detriment.

Mr. Weber wrote:
Well, since 2001 the development of rapid tests has advanced to the point that many are licensed by the USDA and 2 are used in the BSE screening program.

My point exactly, your being on record slamming the tests that are being used now is indicative of the misinformation presented to the public.

If your response to Markus Moser was a knee-jerk reaction that you would like to retract, just say so!
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
G. Weber,

Why has the USDA kept the BSE testing under its control?

Why can't you convince the Japanese of the integrity of the U.S. herd?

How can you claim BSE is on its way to being erradicated under these conditions?

I like beef and I like to eat beef all the time. Many family ranchers depend on their cattle sales. The credibility of the USDA in administering the programs (AMS, BSE testing, GIPSA investigations) has shown to have major flaws and indeed designed coverups. These issues have hurt the credibility of the USDA, not the questions from cattlemen.

Remember, the world was once thought to be flat. Questions only help to uncover the truth.

I am less worried about vegan's claims than the USDA's.
You would tust an animal rights group funded by hype and fear over the USDA?

Bill, it is not an either /or answer. You can distrust them both.

Do you have to be duped by such a question?

ECON wrote:
I am less worried about vegan's claims than the USDA's

Translation to 99.99% of the rest of the human population:
ECON trusts an animal rights group funded by hype and fear over the USDA.

:roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Bill, vegans have no control over me, what I buy, or what I eat. The USDA has all the control. Would you be concerned about something that did not matter so you could have no concerns over something that does?

This short sighted thinking will make you a piece of clay to be molded into what someone else wants all the time. Can you not think for yourself?

Do you sit in the corner thinking of threats that are not there so you don't have to think about the ones that are? Some of us are getting a little tired of that show.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
Bill, vegans have no control over me, what I buy, or what I eat. The USDA has all the control. Would you be concerned about something that did not matter so you could have no concerns over something that does?

This short sighted thinking will make you a piece of clay to be molded into what someone else wants all the time. Can you not think for yourself?

Do you sit in the corner thinking of threats that are not there so you don't have to think about the ones that are? Some of us are getting a little tired of that show.
Ever look in a mirror?

I trust USDA and CFIA a hell of a lot more than any vegan animal rights group or their supporters.

Thanks for making your position crystal clear ECON.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
Bill, vegans have no control over me, what I buy, or what I eat. The USDA has all the control. Would you be concerned about something that did not matter so you could have no concerns over something that does?

This short sighted thinking will make you a piece of clay to be molded into what someone else wants all the time. Can you not think for yourself?

Do you sit in the corner thinking of threats that are not there so you don't have to think about the ones that are? Some of us are getting a little tired of that show.
Ever look in a mirror?

I trust USDA and CFIA a hell of a lot more than any vegan animal rights group or their supporters.

Thanks for making your position crystal clear ECON.

Then you will always be in someone else's pocket.
 

Latest posts

Top