New Creekstone Proposal

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Is the question too uncomfortable for you to answer? Are those examples based on sound science or not? This is a yes/no question. Is organic based on sound science? Is hormone free?"

This little ankle biting question is hardly uncomfortable, the question is stupid because science cannot apply WHERE SCIENCE DOESN'T APPLY.

This is a classic example of your worthless arguments.

Sandbag: "Tell us why US consumers would want tested beef becasue the Japanese got it, but why they would not want 20 month beef becasue the Japanese got it."

Here's another of your many stupid arguments.

BSE testing was a food safety issue. "IF" it was justified for Japan, it would be justified for the U.S. It wasn't justified for Japan and that is why Japan allowed beef without testing. The U.S. wouldn't demand it BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER JUSTIFIED FOR JAPAN.

The 20 month rule was their rule, not ours.

You got nothing here!

Sandbag: "Great answer. Now how much is the cost?"

Thank you!

Cost of what? Your college education? Not much I presume.

Sandbag: "It took two years of threats to get them to take non-tested beef. Why do you find it so easy to ignore their laws and culture?"

First, YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN THAT THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE EVER ALLOWED TESTED BEEF.
'
Second, IF THEIR GOVERNMENT ALLOWED BSE TESTED BEEF, THEY WOULD EXPECT THOSE TESTS TO REVEAL BSE PRIONS IF THEY WERE THERE. THAT WAS NOT CREEKSTONE'S PLANS, CREEKSTONE WANTED TO DECEIVE THE JAPANESE CONSUMER WITH TESTS THAT WOULD NOT REVEAL PRIONS EVEN IF THEY WERE THERE.

Sandbag: " Tested beef would cost them more to purchase as well."

Japanese consumers would not pay more for tested beef once they found out that the tests that were being used would not reveal BSE prions even if they were there. MOOT POINT ANYWAY. No proof that the Japanese government would have ever allowed it and they took our beef without testing.

Talk about barking up an empty tree.

Sandbag: "I see by your comments that you beleive organic product is not based on sound science. That gets back to the top of the page. If it is not based on sound science, how can it be allowed?"

Another stupid argument. Sound science applies to organic from the standpoint that science based tests can reveal whether hormones or antibiotics were used. Organic is not creating an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY" like Creekstone's BSE tests planned to. Another of your many worthless apples to trailerhouse comparisons.

Why do I subject myself to arguing with an idiot?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH: "Why do I subject myself to arguing with an idiot?"

Because you can't keep from talking to yourself.

 

[Sandhusker]

You know, SH, for someone who's self-proclaimed "only bias is the truth", you sure have a hard time with it.

The truth is that hormone free, organic, Kosher and Halal product is not based on sound science. However USDA denied Creekstone because tested product is not based on sound science. The USDA went against established protocol. No matter how much you stomp, snort, and evade my questions to you - it's still there and it's true.

What also is true is that organic product costs more to raise than standard product - it costs the retailer more - and the costs are passed to the consumer. The customer has the choice to pony up or buy something else. There is absolutley no reason to think tested beef would be any different.

You STILL have not addressed the inconsistancies of the "US consumers will want what Japan gets - now they won't" tale.

Your deception arguement.... laughable.

You've had three stabs at bringing anything to the table that made sense - you've only diverted, changed topics, and re-argued lame excuses that defy logic. Give it up and get back to gopher trapping - this warm weather has got them working.

 

[fedup2]

Econ, first let me say that I have tried to stay open minded on most topics here. I don't agree with some of your posts because there are times I feel you are on some kind of mission and are 'grasping' at to many posts to prove a point. (meant to be constructive criticism)

With that said, you made a statement on another topic that summed up my feelings about the Creekstone deal. {"you have to stop espousing the benefits of the free market while at the same time supporting policies that stop it from working."}
Some here are saying that the government is doing a fine job of policing the packers and has no right to stick their nose in the packers business other than enforcing the written rules. I will leave that statement alone but will add, by the same token, they had no right to stick their nose in Creekstone's business either! This has always had an odor to it.
Have a great week.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "You know, SH, for someone who's self-proclaimed "only bias is the truth", you sure have a hard time with it."

Illusions of the truth is not the truth.

Sandbag: "The truth is that hormone free, organic, Kosher and Halal product is not based on sound science."

The truth is that organic is based on sound science because organic cannot contain hormones or antibiotics.

Sound science does not apply to religious practices.

Sandbag: "However USDA denied Creekstone because tested product is not based on sound science."

Understandably! Creekstone even admitted that BSE TESTED DOES NOT MEAN BSE FREE but certainly never admitted to including that label on their beef HAD THEY EVEN BEEN ALLOWED TO EXPORT TO JAPAN which you have failed to prove.

Sandbag: "The USDA went against established protocol."

Haha! What protocol?

Sandbag: "What also is true is that organic product costs more to raise than standard product - it costs the retailer more - and the costs are passed to the consumer. The customer has the choice to pony up or buy something else. There is absolutley no reason to think tested beef would be any different."

Another stupid comparison.

Organic beef is a small niche market. Only a handful of consumers are willing to pay the added costs of organic beef. Consumers have a choice on organic beef because they can buy commodity beef.

In comparison, if BSE testing was protocol DUE TO BEING JUSTIFIED, all beef would be bse tested FORCING ALL CONSUMERS TO PAY UP OR FIND OTHER CHEAPER PROTEIN SOURCES.

Consumers wouldn't have the choice between tested and non tested beef AS NON TESTED BEEF WAS NOT GOING TO BE AN OPTION.

Typical of your apples to watertower comparisons.

Sandbag: "You STILL have not addressed the inconsistancies of the "US consumers will want what Japan gets - now they won't" tale."

If BSE testing was justified for Japan, it would be justified for the U.S. Since BSE testing is not justified for the U.S., it's not justified for Japan either. That's why Japan is accepting non tested beef making your argument laughable.

Sandbag: "You've had three stabs at bringing anything to the table that made sense - you've only diverted, changed topics, and re-argued lame excuses that defy logic."

Like a typical R-CULTer, you accuse others of what it is that you do best.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

I don't even know where to start, SH. I'm sure rational people can read what I wrote and what you did and figure it out.

 

[fedup2]

I'm curious SH. In virtually every post you have backed the packer and his right to operate without government interference. Why the exception in the Creekstone case? You repeatedly state that bse tested does not mean bse free. Does USDA inspected mean e-coli free? It can't because thousands of pounds are recalled from retailers each year. Why is one ok but not the other. Don't tell me this is apples to oranges because it is not.
If you want the government to stay out of the packers business, then they should stay out of them all, not just pick and choose who the rules apply to.
BSE tested does not imply one thing more than usda inspected. Neither is a guarantee of anything. I totally disagree with you on this one SH. Lets forget about all the illusion, deceive, protect the poor Japanese consumers, yada, yada, bs and move some cattle! The producers, packer, feedlots, and Canadians all win if this happens. Test them and sell them!

 

[Anonymous]

Fedup,


1. JAPAN IS TAKING BEEF WITHOUT TESTING so why absorb the unnecessary costs of bse testing.

2. The test that Creekstone planned to use would not reveal prions in the young cattle they wanted to test EVEN IF THEY WERE THERE. Creekstone's BSE tests would not assue that the beef was BSE free and Creekstone admitted that. Labeling beef as "BSE TESTED" implies BSE FREE, if it's not BSE free, it's consumer fraud to suggest that it is!

THERE IS LAWS AGAINST FALSE ADVERTISING.

3. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED BSE TESTED BEEF MAKING YOUR WHOLE POINT MOOT! The fact that Japan is taking non tested beef proves your argument to be bogus.

USDA was right to follow the science that suggests that BSE testing is unnecessary. If it was justified for Japan, it would be justified for U.S. beef as well. Either the science supports testing all beef in countries that have had BSE or it doesn't.

Disagree all you want, you're wrong to deceive Japanese consumers with a bse test that wouldn't reveal prions even if they were there. It is never the right position to deceive even if someone is asking for bse testing UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT ASSURES SAFETY.

You're placing "ASSUMED" $$$$$$ ahead of principle.




~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Dang it, I just can't resist .....

SH, "1. JAPAN IS TAKING BEEF WITHOUT TESTING so why absorb the unnecessary costs of bse testing. "

How much did we send them this week? What are the projected numbers for next week?

SH, "2. The test that Creekstone planned to use would not reveal prions in the young cattle they wanted to test EVEN IF THEY WERE THERE. Creekstone's BSE tests would not assue that the beef was BSE free and Creekstone admitted that. Labeling beef as "BSE TESTED" implies BSE FREE, if it's not BSE free, it's consumer fraud to suggest that it is! THERE IS LAWS AGAINST FALSE ADVERTISING. "

Creekstone was going to use whatever test their customers wanted. Are there laws now on implications? :roll: How can Creekstone be imply BSE tested beef is BSE free and false advertise when they said, "BSE tested does not necessarily mean BSE free". What is that statement implying, SH? Good grief.....

SH, "3. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED BSE TESTED BEEF MAKING YOUR WHOLE POINT MOOT! The fact that Japan is taking non tested beef proves your argument to be bogus."

When negotiations first started, where was the proof Japan would take 20 month old cattle? Come to think of it, how much are they taking now? :roll:

SH, "USDA was right to follow the science that suggests that BSE testing is unnecessary. If it was justified for Japan, it would be justified for U.S. beef as well. Either the science supports testing all beef in countries that have had BSE or it doesn't."

Science also says organic and hormone free is also unnecessary. Why isn't the USDA following that science? Since when does our export products have to be based on sound science? If a limit of 20 month old cattle is justified for Japan, why isn't it justified for the US?

SH, "Disagree all you want, you're wrong to deceive Japanese consumers with a bse test that wouldn't reveal prions even if they were there. It is never the right position to deceive even if someone is asking for bse testing UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT ASSURES SAFETY."

Your "deception" arguement got rejected a long time ago, SH. Look up the definition of "deception".

SH, "You're placing "ASSUMED" $$$$$$ ahead of principle."

You're putting big packer interests ahead of common sense and free enterprise.

Your arguement on this topic can be shot down from from a multitude of angles. This has gone from debate to comedy.

 

[Tam]

Dang it, I just can't resist .....

SH, "1. JAPAN IS TAKING BEEF WITHOUT TESTING so why absorb the unnecessary costs of bse testing. "

How much did we send them this week? What are the projected numbers for next week?

SH, "2. The test that Creekstone planned to use would not reveal prions in the young cattle they wanted to test EVEN IF THEY WERE THERE. Creekstone's BSE tests would not assue that the beef was BSE free and Creekstone admitted that. Labeling beef as "BSE TESTED" implies BSE FREE, if it's not BSE free, it's consumer fraud to suggest that it is! THERE IS LAWS AGAINST FALSE ADVERTISING. "

Creekstone was going to use whatever test their customers wanted. Are there laws now on implications? :roll: How can Creekstone be imply BSE tested beef is BSE free and false advertise when they said, "BSE tested does not necessarily mean BSE free". What is that statement implying, SH? Good grief.....

SH, "3. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED BSE TESTED BEEF MAKING YOUR WHOLE POINT MOOT! The fact that Japan is taking non tested beef proves your argument to be bogus."

When negotiations first started, where was the proof Japan would take 20 month old cattle? Come to think of it, how much are they taking now? :roll:

.

Gee Japan is taking Beef from Canada and we aren't 100% testing. The reason Japan is not taking beef from the US has nothing to do with whether it is tested or not, it has to do with SRM's Even if the US had tested do you think the Japanese would be taking beef from you if they found SRM's in the tested beef. The rules are NO SRM's are to be included in shipments to any country including Japan.

Creekstone was going to use the test Japan uses, they proved the test doesn't work on younger animals didn't they?

And I doubt the label was going to say BSE TESTED but it doesn't mean BSE free. and if it didn't then it was leaving it open to assumptions of meaning BSE FREE which is false advertizing.


By the way if counties that are affected by BSE are not to export beef why are you supporting Creekstone in their attempts to reopen an EXPORT MARKET? Looks to me as if there are two rules one for you which included exporting and one for the other 23 countries which includes NO EXPORTING.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Gee Japan is taking Beef from Canada and we aren't 100% testing. The reason Japan is not taking beef from the US has nothing to do with whether it is tested or not, it has to do with SRM's Even if the US had tested do you think the Japanese would be taking beef from you if they found SRM's in the tested beef. The rules are NO SRM's are to be included in shipments to any country including Japan."

Nobody knows for sure if Japan would of taken tested beef because the USDA wouldn't even consider it. However, considering their existing law and consumer attidudes, it isn't a big reach to consider they would of. It would of opened up their markets for boths of us much sooner. You claim to represent producers?

Tam, "Creekstone was going to use the test Japan uses, they proved the test doesn't work on younger animals didn't they?"

No. Actually, the opposite is true. I think it was Mike and BSE tested that brought some good information.

SH, "And I doubt the label was going to say BSE TESTED but it doesn't mean BSE free. and if it didn't then it was leaving it open to assumptions of meaning BSE FREE which is false advertizing."

Saying tested beef is BSE free could be false advertising if you can prove the test has problems. Creekstone was just saying their beef would be BSE tested, with is the truth. Assumptions are totally subjective. How many court cases have been won on assumptions? Don't you know what happens when you ash/U/ME?

Tam, "By the way if counties that are affected by BSE are not to export beef why are you supporting Creekstone in their attempts to reopen an EXPORT MARKET? Looks to me as if there are two rules one for you which included exporting and one for the other 23 countries which includes NO EXPORTING."

I never said BSE countries should not export. You are ash/U/meing something there. See how assumptions can be incorrect? I'm not telling other countries what they can and can't do - the USDA thinks that is their job. I pointed out that before Canada got BSE, the USDA told Congress that border closures were the first line of defense. The changed because all of a sudden it cost the big packers money for the the US to have a certain safety policy. The health of the herd and US citizens all of a sudden wasn't quite so imporant.

 

[Mike]

Creekstone was going to use the test Japan uses, they proved the test doesn't work on younger animals didn't they?

Where in heck did you read that? Who proved it didn't work?

Time for some more Midol Tam. :???: :???: :???: :???:

 

[Tam]

Tam, "Gee Japan is taking Beef from Canada and we aren't 100% testing. The reason Japan is not taking beef from the US has nothing to do with whether it is tested or not, it has to do with SRM's Even if the US had tested do you think the Japanese would be taking beef from you if they found SRM's in the tested beef. The rules are NO SRM's are to be included in shipments to any country including Japan."

Nobody knows for sure if Japan would of taken tested beef because the USDA wouldn't even consider it. However, considering their existing law and consumer attidudes, it isn't a big reach to consider they would of. It would of opened up their markets for boths of us much sooner. You claim to represent producers?

Tam, "Creekstone was going to use the test Japan uses, they proved the test doesn't work on younger animals didn't they?"

No. Actually, the opposite is true. I think it was Mike and BSE tested that brought some good information.

SH, "And I doubt the label was going to say BSE TESTED but it doesn't mean BSE free. and if it didn't then it was leaving it open to assumptions of meaning BSE FREE which is false advertizing."

Saying tested beef is BSE free could be false advertising if you can prove the test has problems. Creekstone was just saying their beef would be BSE tested, with is the truth. Assumptions are totally subjective. How many court cases have been won on assumptions? Don't you know what happens when you ash/U/ME?

Tam, "By the way if counties that are affected by BSE are not to export beef why are you supporting Creekstone in their attempts to reopen an EXPORT MARKET? Looks to me as if there are two rules one for you which included exporting and one for the other 23 countries which includes NO EXPORTING."

I never said BSE countries should not export. You are ash/U/meing something there. See how assumptions can be incorrect? I'm not telling other countries what they can and can't do - the USDA thinks that is their job. I pointed out that before Canada got BSE, the USDA told Congress that border closures were the first line of defense. The changed because all of a sudden it cost the big packers money for the the US to have a certain safety policy. The health of the herd and US citizens all of a sudden wasn't quite so imporant.

You are so full of it, you support a group that has used the stand all beef coming from Canada is tainted and not fit for human consumption and if our cattle and beef are imported they will put your feed system and Consumers in danger. They even took the USDA to court to stop the importation of beef and cattle from Canada a BSE affected country and you have the nerve to say you never said a country with BSE should not EXPORT. I guess the US should beable to just not Canada right Sandhusker.

And if the test worked on young animals Mike why did the Japanese drop the testing requirement for young animals? They said themselves they have never found BSE in animals less than 20 months. So does that mean there were no animals under 20 months that had BSE? I thought BSE was contracted at a VERY YOUNG AGE AND INCUBATED FOR A LONG TIME. So most if not all future positives must have had BSE at the younger that 20 month age. So why didn't Japan find a few cases during their 100% testing protocol if the test works Mike?

And Mike how old are you? Comments like "Time for some midol" sound like something a pre-teenager would say, not something a full grown man would say. It's not funny and is in bad inmature taste. Grow up why don't you :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "You are so full of it, you support a group that has used the stand all beef coming from Canada is tainted and not fit for human consumption and if our cattle and beef are imported they will put your feed system and Consumers in danger. They even took the USDA to court to stop the importation of beef and cattle from Canada a BSE affected country and you have the nerve to say you never said a country with BSE should not EXPORT. I guess the US should beable to just not Canada right Sandhusker"

I have never said a BSE country should not export. I stand by that and challenge you to dig thru the archives and prove otherwise. I'll say my position again for the umpteenth time and I'll probably have to restate it after your next post.

ANY COUNTRY SHOULD DO WHAT THEY WANT TO. That means they can import to anybody that will take their product. That also means any country can refuse to import from any country they want to.

THE US SHOULD NOT IMPORT FROM A BSE COUNTRY. The USDA told Congress a zero-tolerance policy was the way to go after doing their research. The facts that they used to reach their conclusions haven't changed - so why should the policy.

If you don't like it, sell your beef to somebody else. What's holding you up? Haven't your packer backer buddies explained to you that 90 some percent of the world's population lives outside the US? Surely the leadership up there hasn't set you up so you're totally dependant on one customer?

 

[Mike]

Tam:Creekstone was going to use the test Japan uses, they proved the test doesn't work on younger animals didn't they?

This is your statement that I questioned Tam.
1-Who is "They"?
2-How old is a younger animal?
3- How did "They" prove it?

Your question leaves a wide open hole for more questions. This why I asked you to take some Midol. Relax. It was very confusing.

OK, so now you say a "younger animal" is less than 20 months? 30 months used to be the argument, but now it's 20. OK

Prions have been found in the distal ileum (at the small intestine) soon after ingestion. Those prions hitch a ride on a "Ferritin" molecule by moving through the wall of the intestines just as we digest food, then make their way to the brain via the spinal cord and the best guess is at
about 1 mm per week, I believe. Now, who knows how long it will take for them to get to the brain.......no one knows for sure.

The Japs have had no cattle under 20 months to test positive because they test the "Brainstem". But that doesn't mean there are no prions in their system making their way to the brain at 20 months or less. This why the Japs take "NO SPINAL COLUMN" from us.

The Bio-Rad Platelia test is an overly sensitive test that will detect misfolded prions when the brain sample is run through the system. It will have false positives, but that's the nature of the beast when you have a test this sensitive. This is why there is a confirmatory test.

The answer to your question is no, no one has proved the test will not work on younger animals because they aren't testing anything but the Brainstem. Why? I do not know for sure, but I believe it is because they are not concentrated enough to detect and it is impossible to test the whole spinal column and all nerve endings, plus brain, etc.

Believe me when I say, the Japs want tested beef from the U.S. because they don't trust our past testing methods and the scams they have seen the USDA try to cover up. You just had a list of them posted on here today. You know what I'm speaking of.

Besides, why are YOU against us testing? It's no skin off your teeth. :???:

 

[Tam]

Tam, "You are so full of it, you support a group that has used the stand all beef coming from Canada is tainted and not fit for human consumption and if our cattle and beef are imported they will put your feed system and Consumers in danger. They even took the USDA to court to stop the importation of beef and cattle from Canada a BSE affected country and you have the nerve to say you never said a country with BSE should not EXPORT. I guess the US should beable to just not Canada right Sandhusker"

I have never said a BSE country should not export. I stand by that and challenge you to dig thru the archives and prove otherwise. I'll say my position again for the umpteenth time and I'll probably have to restate it after your next post.

ANY COUNTRY SHOULD DO WHAT THEY WANT TO. That means they can import to anybody that will take their product. That also means any country can refuse to import from any country they want to.

THE US SHOULD NOT IMPORT FROM A BSE COUNTRY. The USDA told Congress a zero-tolerance policy was the way to go after doing their research. The facts that they used to reach their conclusions haven't changed - so why should the policy.

If you don't like it, sell your beef to somebody else. What's holding you up? Haven't your packer backer buddies explained to you that 90 some percent of the world's population lives outside the US? Surely the leadership up there hasn't set you up so you're totally dependant on one customer?

Your words ANY COUNTRY SHOULD DO WHAT THEY WANT TO. That means they can import to anybody that will take their product.

The US is willing to take our product and because the majority wasn't listening to R-CALF, The USDA was taken to court. Wasn't it one of the R-CALF leaders that said something to the effect that R-CAlf took the USDA to court as that is the only way they could get anyone to listen to them . If R-CALF has so little influence in the US Beef industry that no one listens to them, what gives them the right to tell the rest of the US who they can or can't trade with? The US was a willing trade partner but R-CALF tried to stop our imports because they felt our beef was a genuine risk of death to the US consumer but they supported Creekstones attempts to open your exports while your beef presented the exact same risk to your export market consumers. So why is there one rule for the US in R-CALFers eyes and another for the other 23 countries with BSE.

 

[Sandhusker]

Forget it, Tam. I laid it out as simply as I could.

 

[Tam]

Tam:Creekstone was going to use the test Japan uses, they proved the test doesn't work on younger animals didn't they?

This is your statement that I questioned Tam.
1-Who is "They"?
2-How old is a younger animal?
3- How did "They" prove it?

Your question leaves a wide open hole for more questions. This why I asked you to take some Midol. Relax. It was very confusing.

OK, so now you say a "younger animal" is less than 20 months? 30 months used to be the argument, but now it's 20. OK

Prions have been found in the distal ileum (at the small intestine) soon after ingestion. Those prions hitch a ride on a "Ferritin" molecule by moving through the wall of the intestines just as we digest food, then make their way to the brain via the spinal cord and the best guess is at
about 1 mm per week, I believe. Now, who knows how long it will take for them to get to the brain.......no one knows for sure.

The Japs have had no cattle under 20 months to test positive because they test the "Brainstem". But that doesn't mean there are no prions in their system making their way to the brain at 20 months or less. This why the Japs take "NO SPINAL COLUMN" from us.

The Bio-Rad Platelia test is an overly sensitive test that will detect misfolded prions when the brain sample is run through the system. It will have false positives, but that's the nature of the beast when you have a test this sensitive. This is why there is a confirmatory test.

The answer to your question is no, no one has proved the test will not work on younger animals because they aren't testing anything but the Brainstem. Why? I do not know for sure, but I believe it is because they are not concentrated enough to detect and it is impossible to test the whole spinal column and all nerve endings, plus brain, etc.

Believe me when I say, the Japs want tested beef from the U.S. because they don't trust our past testing methods and the scams they have seen the USDA try to cover up. You just had a list of them posted on here today. You know what I'm speaking of.

Besides, why are YOU against us testing? It's no skin off your teeth. :???:

1. Gee it was the test JAPAN USES and Creekstone didn't get the OK so I guess that means JAPAN must have been the ones that proved it didn't work on younger animals Mike.
2. And since we were talking about Japan and anyone up on the Japanese issues should know they have a 20 month rule so I guess that means 20 months MIKE
3. And I guess they proved it by 100% testing their herd and not finding any cases in cattle under 20 months with the test that Creekstone was going to use if they had got the OK.


Talk about confusing I said, they (the Japanese) have proved the test they (the Japanese) use in the way they ( the Japanese) use it and the same test Creekstone would be using doesn't work on younger animals as in 20 months and you go into a rant about how they aren't testing to find it in the other parts. What does that have to do with the test JAPAN WOULD BE ASKING CREEKSTONE TO USE? Would Creekstone find BSE in 20 month and under cattle using the same test as Japan and in the same way Japan uses it? NO. They would either have to use a different test or use the test in a way the JAPAN doesn't use it. That is not what Creekstone agreed to. They agreed to use the same test Japan uses. Which will show the same result and will not prove whether the Beef is BSE free or not.

Believe me when I say, the Japs want tested beef from the U.S. because they don't trust our past testing methods and the scams they have seen the USDA try to cover up.

That is the problem with failing credibility but Tell us why the Japanese agreed to take un-tested beef then, or has that changed recently? I thought the problem was a few SRM's in some veal. I didn't know that the tested rule changed. and again if the US was to test with the same test Japan uses in the same way Japan uses it will they get a different result so the Japanese will know that the 20 month and under beef they are importing is BSE free? If not what good is the test? :???:

And you can stop with your stupid Midol cracks I don't find it funny in fact I find it insulting and childish. :roll:

 

[Tam]

Forget it, Tam. I laid it out as simply as I could.

It is simple Sandhusker R-CALFers have two sets of rules, one that they want enforced on import markets and the other is for your export markets.
:roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Forget it, Tam. I laid it out as simply as I could.

It is simple Sandhusker R-CALFers have two sets of rules, one that they want enforced on import markets and the other is for your export markets.
:roll:

Yep, you've got us figured out dead to rights. Ain't no getting anything by you.