• 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 Shows Growth in 2005

Help Support Ranchers.net:

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I guess you are saying that the Japanese are decieving their own public with BSE testing Hey SH?

If they are, I guess it is working. Japanese people eat Japanese beef after all.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
SH, "How is USDA being led by the packer. Give me an example."

Banning private BSE testing on grounds it is not based on sound science when other products that clearly are not based on sound science do not have that same requirement.

Abandoning standing health policy that was used on 22 countries without any problems because applying the same to country number 23 would cause the packers economic damage.

Exclusions in reporting that render the original legislation virtually worthless (per the author of the legislation).

You want any more examples?

Sandhusker if the USDA had stood on the idea all beef coming from a country that has the same and in some cases stricted safeguards than the US, is unsafe, how would you expect them to sell your beef? Since you could not prove what were import cattle and what weren't your BSE issue started in DEC 2003 not 2005. So if all beef from Canada was a genuine risk of death shouldn't that also mean US beef was a genuine risk of death if eaten by domestic consumer too. Just how many cattle would you be selling to the packers if nobody was buying beef from them?

Tam, does the EU have stricter BSE safeguards than the US? Are we importing from them?

EU Bans Feeding Animals to animals in the wake of mad cow crisis. New York Times Tuesday, December 5, 2000
In a special emergency session the union's Agricultural minister's voted to ban the use of feed laced with animal products, not just for cattle but for all farm animals, for at least six months.
Now look at the date of which they ban feeding animal to animal and compare that with the date of which they found BSE. Then compare the date of 1997 when Canada and the US banned feeding ruminant to ruminant and the date of which Canada included further restrictions to the feed ban in 1998 to the date of which BSE was found in NORTH AMERICA. Then compare the actual years of incubation to the years the feed bans have been in place in both the EU and North America. Then just maybe you will see why Canada is not as big of a risk as the EU. We had precautionary safeguards, the EU like Japan and even the UK had reactionary safeguards. Which means Sandhusker they were trying to clean up something that was already spreading in their herds and we were preventing for years already it from gettiing a foot hold in our herds Big Different.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RK: "I guess you are saying that the Japanese are decieving their own public with BSE testing Hey SH?"

If they are using testing methodology that will not reveal BSE prions in UTM cattle, then yes, it is consumer deception. Typical of those like Sandman who place money over honesty.



~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Money over Honesty. That's a good one Super Hero. But the packers saying no to testing because it will cost money is nowhere near that concept hey.

Who is it the made you the person who decides if testing is about honesty?

What a joke. Go trap some gophers.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
2
Location
Montgomery, Al
If they are using testing methodology that will not reveal BSE prions in UTM cattle, then yes, it is consumer deception. Typical of those like Sandman who place money over honesty.

If they don't use the "GOLD STANDARD" test that you so highly touted, time after time after time, they can find prions in ANY age animal, just as long as they are there and in the brain.

The only deception is the USDA when caught using these tests and claiming all the time they were the best!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Oh, I see, so Creekstone's Fielding saying that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE" was not the truth?

USDA's denial of Creekstone's testing request was based on the LACK OF sound science that Creekstone's Fielding admitted to.

"BY GAWD CREEKSTONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECEIVE JAPANESE CONSUMERS IF THEY WANT TO BE DECEIVED!"

I know your position well. Give it a rest, you got nothing!



~SH~

And here we are again. What sound science is Kosher and Halal based on? How about Free Range or organic?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "If they don't use the "GOLD STANDARD" test that you so highly touted, time after time after time, they can find prions in ANY age animal, just as long as they are there and in the brain."

Mike, you know darn well that when Creekstone wanted to test, the test they were going to use WOULD NOT have revealed prions in cattle under 24 months so why Sandhusker this by creating the illusion they would have?

Don't tell me you are going down the same road of deception.

Had this not been the case, Creekstone's Fielding would not have said that "BSE TESTED does not mean BSE FREE" WOULD HE?????


Mike: "The only deception is the USDA when caught using these tests and claiming all the time they were the best!"

I see, let's BWAME USDA for not using BSE tests that were not fully approved yet. TYPICAL!


Sandman: "What sound science is Kosher and Halal based on?"

Sound science doesn't apply to a religious practice. Typical apples to melons comparison again. Same ridiculous argument you have been using since Shep was a pup. Never heard of Halal! Did you make that up?


Sandman: "How about Free Range or organic?"

For food to be labeled as organic it has to meet certain specifications. If beef is labled as antibiotic and growth hormone free, that better be what they are or there is false advertising consequences. Perhaps you'd like to visit with Jorgensons about that.

You still got nothing!


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
2
Location
Montgomery, Al
I see, let's BWAME USDA for not using BSE tests that were not fully approved yet. TYPICAL!

But they WERE fully approved! Just not by the USDA, which was at least 5 years behind the rest of the world in testing methods!

The EU had been using the Western Blot for years with phenomenal results. Can you believe that when the Washington cow was found the USDA had not approved ANY Rapid tests, including the Western Blot?

This is purely speculative, but I sincerely believe that Fielding said he could not "Guarantee" BSE testing because the tests would have been done under USDA guidances. He now has been proven correct!

Germany and Switzerland both proved that it took private testing to uncover cases not found by the government. :???: :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I get it, Mike knows more about BSE testing than USDA's best scientists and researchers who are responsible for food safety.

Thanks for clarifying that!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Had this not been the case, Creekstone's Fielding would not have said that "BSE TESTED does not mean BSE FREE" WOULD HE????? "

Fielding is just being honest. They're not wanting to sell BSE free beef, only BSE tested beef, which is exactly what they are stating. Why do you feel the government needs to save Creekstone from ourselves? Why do you support more government intrusion in private business? I thought you said you were a Republican?


SH, "Sound science doesn't apply to a religious practice. Typical apples to melons comparison again. Same ridiculous argument you have been using since Shep was a pup. Never heard of Halal! Did you make that up?"

:) So who said that? I'll bet you my $100 check to NCBA against your $100 check to R-CALF that the USDA (the folks that count) didn't say that. :roll: How many other exclusions are there? Can you post from the USDA website? :shock:

You've never heard of Halal. Look it up. You can find information on it on the USDA website while you're coming up with that exclusion list.

SH, "For food to be labeled as organic it has to meet certain specifications. If beef is labled as antibiotic and growth hormone free, that better be what they are or there is false advertising consequences. Perhaps you'd like to visit with Jorgensons about that. "

Nice strawman, but so what? Is it based on sound science?

SH, "You still got nothing! "

For someone who claims to only search for the truth, I would think that when you have to set up strawmen and make up exclusions to back your position you would get a hunch you're wrong.



_________________
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "Why do you feel the government needs to save Creekstone from ourselves? Why do you support more government intrusion in private business? I thought you said you were a Republican?"

The government is already involved in food safety issues and food safety issues are not going to be compromised so a private company can make a quick buck off the ignorance of the Japanese consumer.


Sandman: "So who said that? I'll bet you my $100 check to NCBA against your $100 check to R-CALF that the USDA (the folks that count) didn't say that. How many other exclusions are there? Can you post from the USDA website?"

Explain to me where sound science involving food safety issues would apply to a religious practice. Let's hear it.


Sandman: "Is it based on sound science?"

Yes! It has to be what the label says it is.


I would think that someone like you who insists that everyone else back their position when you never back your position would realize how big of a hypocrite you are to everyone reading your posts.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "The government is already involved in food safety issues and food safety issues are not going to be compromised so a private company can make a quick buck off the ignorance of the Japanese consumer."

How is BSE tested beef compromising safety? Why does the US feel the need to legislate requirement for another sovereign nation?


SH, "Explain to me where sound science involving food safety issues would apply to a religious practice. Let's hear it."

It doesn't SH. That's my point! Kosher and Halal are not based on sound science, but yet have the USDA's blessing. With that in mind, how can they possibly deny anyproduct on sound science?


Quote:
Sandman: "Is it based on sound science?"


SH, "Yes! It has to be what the label says it is."

You didn't answer the question. My question was not on labeling. Is free range, hormone-free, and organic based on sound science?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "How is BSE tested beef compromising safety?"

The BSE tests Creekstone wanted to use only created the "ILLUSION" of safety, it didn't offer safety. That is fraud and that is why USDA would not support it. It's understandable why you would support it because deception is second nature to you.


Sandman: "Why does the US feel the need to legislate requirement for another sovereign nation?"

The U.S. is not going to support setting a presidence of creating an "ILLUSION" of safety in any country.


Sandman: "It doesn't SH. That's my point! Kosher and Halal are not based on sound science, but yet have the USDA's blessing. With that in mind, how can they possibly deny anyproduct on sound science?"

What a ridiculous argument.

WHY DOESN'T USDA USE SOUND SCIENCE WHERE SOUND SCIENCE DOES NOT APPLY?????????

You gotta be kidding me?

NEXT!


Sandman: "Is free range, hormone-free, and organic based on sound science?"

Free Range - No. As in the case of Kosher, sound science does not apply to free range.

Hormone free - Yes. The science is in the testing that can prove whether or not it actually is hormone free.

Organic - Yes. The science is in the testing that can prove whether or not it is antibiotic and implant free.


Now since I answered your questions, you can answer mine:

Why would sound science need to apply where it doesn't apply?

Since BSE is a human health and safety issue, should private companies be allowed to test and approve drugs for profit or should drug testing and approval be left in the hands of the FDA?



~SH~
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
SH said:
The BSE tests Creekstone wanted to use only created the "ILLUSION" of safety, it didn't offer safety. That is fraud and that is why USDA would not support it. It's understandable why you would support it because deception is second nature to you.

SH, after the Greeley meat recall, FSIS started a program of more intense E.coli testing. I asked an inspector, that now that my beef was being tested, could I claim on my label that my beef was "E.coli free". His answer was no, because 100% of beef couldn't be tested to claim "E.coli free". I then asked if I could claim "E.coli tested". He said no, because a percent of all beef is tested.

So, did this increase in E.coli testing just create the illusion of safety?

The testing has RAISED the level of safety and made it harder for tainted meat to get into the market.

Creekstone's BSE testing, just like FSIS's E.coli testing, isn't meant to claim "BSE free", but IS meant to RAISE the level of safety to meet the requirements of a customer. FSIS's Certified Organic Program is meant to meet the requirements of a group of consumers and raise the level of safety, in the minds of that group. The only reason not to allow Creekstone to BSE test for the Japanese market, is that it would undercut the political leverage to force Japan to take untested meat and save the large packers the cost of implementing BSE testing to follow Creekstone into that market.

You should brush up on your FSIS labeling claims before you make false statements.

There is no such claim as "hormone free"...all meats have hormones. :wink:

The label claims you are referring to are protocol driven and backed with signed affidavits. Any testing for label claims is minimal, if at all!
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
794
Reaction score
0
Once again, I have way more questions than answers on this discussion.
SH says “The BSE tests Creekstone wanted to use only created the "ILLUSION" of safety, it didn't offer safety“.

In their letter to the USDA Creekstone said:
“If our plan were to be implemented, we would test over 300,000 head of cattle over the course of a year, versus the USDA proposed cattle population of approximately 220,000 head. As well, the USDA is planning on spending a minimum of $72 million of taxpayer money to conduct these tests. The Creekstone Farms’ plan will cost less than $6 million ‘using the identical test kit‘, and our customers are willing to pay for the cost of the testing.”

If the USDA is using the exact same tests as Creekstone wanted to use, are they also just creating the “illusion” of safety? Why are they spending $72 million to create this illusion when Creekstone could do it for free?

When Creekstone was denied, they requested to be allowed to ship brain stem samples to Japan for BSE testing in their laboratories. If the Japanese were still willing to take our cattle and requested that the brain stem samples were sent, what possible argument could the USDA have against this? It would not create the illusion of safety like some are claiming Creekstone & the USDA are doing. It would not be fooling the Japanese consumers! It could only be described as exporting cattle. Is there something wrong with exporting cattle?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "The BSE tests Creekstone wanted to use only created the "ILLUSION" of safety, it didn't offer safety. That is fraud and that is why USDA would not support it. It's understandable why you would support it because deception is second nature to you."

The USDA denied because of "sound science". They did not deny because of "fraud", you're making that up. (doesn't that tell you something about your position?) If Creekstone puts "BSE Tested" on their boxes of BSE tested beef, where is the fraud? Where is the deception? Where is the illusion?


Quote:
Sandman: "Why does the US feel the need to legislate requirement for another sovereign nation?"


SH, "The U.S. is not going to support setting a presidence of creating an "ILLUSION" of safety in any country."

When did the USDA say that? You're making things up again.


Quote:
Sandman: "It doesn't SH. That's my point! Kosher and Halal are not based on sound science, but yet have the USDA's blessing. With that in mind, how can they possibly deny anyproduct on sound science?"


SH, "What a ridiculous argument. WHY DOESN'T USDA USE SOUND SCIENCE WHERE SOUND SCIENCE DOES NOT APPLY????????? You gotta be kidding me? NEXT! "

You want to try to answer that again? Your non-answer reveals your difficulty.


Quote:
Sandman: "Is free range, hormone-free, and organic based on sound science?"


SH, "Free Range - No. As in the case of Kosher, sound science does not apply to free range."

If sound science does not apply, why is it not banned? Why is this non-sound science product allowed but Creekstone's disallowed?

SH, "Hormone free - Yes. The science is in the testing that can prove whether or not it actually is hormone free. Organic - Yes. The science is in the testing that can prove whether or not it is antibiotic and implant free. "

Again you skirt with answers to a question not asked. I didn't ask about verification, I asked about the sound science behind the product. Let's try a third time; Is hormone free and Organic product based on sound science?

SH, "Now since I answered your questions, you can answer mine: Why would sound science need to apply where it doesn't apply?"

Actually, you did more skirting than answering. However, I'll give you the courtesty of an answer hoping you will respond in kind.

Who decides when it should or should not apply? There have been no guidelines offered. The USDA is speaking of it as an absolute, yet practicing it as a variable. I think you are finally seeing their hypocracy and questionable policies. You can't ban a product on lack of sound science alone while allowing other products that also are not based on sound science.

SH, "Since BSE is a human health and safety issue, should private companies be allowed to test and approve drugs for profit or should drug testing and approval be left in the hands of the FDA?"

No comparison. BSE testing in no way effects the product. Nothing is manufactured or altered.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "The USDA denied because of "sound science". They did not deny because of "fraud", you're making that up. (doesn't that tell you something about your position?) If Creekstone puts "BSE Tested" on their boxes of BSE tested beef, where is the fraud? Where is the deception? Where is the illusion?"

Creekstone's own Fielding stated that BSE testing does not guarantee the meat is BSE FREE.

When you label beef as "BSE Tested" that sends the message to the consumer that the meat is "BSE FREE" when it's not. That is the fraud.

What is the relevance of testing for BSE if the test that was going to be used would not reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age?

TO CREATE THE "ILLUSION" OF BEING BSE FREE?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

USDA does not have to SAY Creekstone's testing is fraud for Creekstone's testing to BE fraud. I never claimed USDA made that statement. Another "red herring" argument (USDA didn't say it was fraud). First, you don't know whether USDA used the word fraud or not. Second, whether or not USDA used the word fraud is irrelevant to the fact that it is fraud.


Sandman: "If sound science does not apply, why is it not banned? Why is this non-sound science product allowed but Creekstone's disallowed?"

Why would USDA use the sound science argument where sound science does not apply?

Stupid argument. Considering the source!


Sandman: "Is hormone free and Organic product based on sound science?"

Yes! Testing could prove whether the product was implant free or contained antibiotics.

Already answered that but you still look for a different answer.


Sandman: "Who decides when it should or should not apply? There have been no guidelines offered. The USDA is speaking of it as an absolute, yet practicing it as a variable. I think you are finally seeing their hypocracy and questionable policies. You can't ban a product on lack of sound science alone while allowing other products that also are not based on sound science."

I am glad you are finally realizing the weaknesses in your arguments. Sound science does not apply where it doesn't apply.


Sandman: "No comparison. BSE testing in no way effects the product. Nothing is manufactured or altered."

Another "red herring". Whether or not it affects the product is irrelevant to sending out a false message that the meat is safe.


NEXT!



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Looks like the circus is back in town. :lol:

SH, "Creekstone's own Fielding stated that BSE testing does not guarantee the meat is BSE FREE. When you label beef as "BSE Tested" that sends the message to the consumer that the meat is "BSE FREE" when it's not. That is the fraud."

How can there be fraud if the company itself says in plain English BSE Tested means just that and not BSE free? They can not be more forthcoming! You need to look up the word "fraud" in the dictionary.


SH, "USDA does not have to SAY Creekstone's testing is fraud for Creekstone's testing to BE fraud. I never claimed USDA made that statement. Another "red herring" argument (USDA didn't say it was fraud). First, you don't know whether USDA used the word fraud or not. Second, whether or not USDA used the word fraud is irrelevant to the fact that it is fraud."

Yes, I do know the USDA did not use the word fraud. You know it too, we all read the quote.

SH, "Why would USDA use the sound science argument where sound science does not apply? Stupid argument. Considering the source!"

So when does it apply and not apply? If they are going to use it as a requirement for one product and not others, don't you think there should be some guidelines?


Quote:
Sandman: "Is hormone free and Organic product based on sound science?"


SH, "Yes! Testing could prove whether the product was implant free or contained antibiotics. Already answered that but you still look for a different answer."

Still you do not answer the question! Testing is not the question, the product itself being based on sound science is. Answer the question.


Quote:
Sandman: "Who decides when it should or should not apply? There have been no guidelines offered. The USDA is speaking of it as an absolute, yet practicing it as a variable. I think you are finally seeing their hypocracy and questionable policies. You can't ban a product on lack of sound science alone while allowing other products that also are not based on sound science."


SH, "I am glad you are finally realizing the weaknesses in your arguments. Sound science does not apply where it doesn't apply."

Did you understand what I said? Read my statement again and then read your answer.

Nobody is saying BSE testing should be mandatory, only that if a customer wants it, a packer should be able to provide it. What is wrong with that? Isn't that free enterprise? Pass the costs to the consumer. If they see the value, they'll buy it, if not they won't. Here you have a case of somebody wanting something and somebody wanting to provide it - and it's no skin off anybody's back! What's the problem? You don't believe in free enterprise? You think the government needs to be involved in each transaction? What a liberal you are.










_________________
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "Looks like the circus is back in town."

Obviously, because the clown responding to my posts has the same worthless arguments he's always had.


Sandman: "How can there be fraud if the company itself says in plain English BSE Tested means just that and not BSE free? They can not be more forthcoming! You need to look up the word "fraud" in the dictionary."

It's not what the company says, it's what the label implies. If the label did not imply food safety there would be no reason to test for BSE.


Sandman: "Yes, I do know the USDA did not use the word fraud. You know it too, we all read the quote."

USDA doesn't have to say it's fraud for it to be fraud. Typical deceptive argument from the master illusionist.


Sandman: "So when does it apply and not apply? If they are going to use it as a requirement for one product and not others, don't you think there should be some guidelines?"

Sound science applies when it applies and not when it doesn't apply. Obviously in cases of food safety, it would apply. Obviously in cases of religious practices it would not HAVE TO apply. That would be obvious to anyone with any common sense but not an idiot.


Sandman: "Still you do not answer the question! Testing is not the question, the product itself being based on sound science is. Answer the question."

Already answered twice. The answer is yes!


Sandman: "Nobody is saying BSE testing should be mandatory, only that if a customer wants it, a packer should be able to provide it. What is wrong with that? Isn't that free enterprise? Pass the costs to the consumer. If they see the value, they'll buy it, if not they won't. Here you have a case of somebody wanting something and somebody wanting to provide it - and it's no skin off anybody's back! What's the problem? You don't believe in free enterprise? You think the government needs to be involved in each transaction? What a liberal you are."

Nobody mentioned anything about mandatory testing. More deception from you. If a customer wants BSE testing, they should be made aware that the testing they are asking for does not provide the safety they believe it does. You, of course, would be very quick to take advantage of someone for a quick buck. Nobody believes in the free enterprise system more until it takes advantage of people by implying food safety that it can not offer. We already have laws in place to address that. You, on the other hand, think we need "M"COOL to save consumers from themselves. Captive supply reform act to save feeders from their own pricing mechanisms. Mandatory price reporting to report price rather than what that price was based on. You are the true liberal.

"PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US LITTLE VICTIMS FROM OURSELVES".

Pathetic flea!


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top