Tam said:Sandhusker said: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:
Could you list those countries and tell us what more stringent measures they have taken? No need to mention countries with FMD or ones who are not actually beef exporters.Sandhusker said:Tam said:Sandhusker said: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:
I know I should let a sleeping dog lie, especially one that has "issues", but I feel the need to point something out to you, Tam.
You want us to be able to export to the US, but yet there are many countries you won't import from - countries that have taken much more stringent measures than Canada. You want to talk about two sets of rules?
Sandhusker said:Tam said:Sandhusker said: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:
I know I should let a sleeping dog lie, especially one that has "issues", but I feel the need to point something out to you, Tam.
You want us to be able to export to the US, but yet there are many countries you won't import from - countries that have taken much more stringent measures than Canada. You want to talk about two sets of rules?
By the way Sandhusker when did they take the more stringent measure before or AFTER they found BSE in their NATIVE HERDS?countries that have taken much more stringent measures than Canada.
I too would like to see a list of the beef exporting countries that have the exact and in some cases more stringent safeguards for as long as the US has had them. Please remember we have been testing for BSE since the very early 90's, a higher percentage of our herd than the US has. Canada implemented a feedban in 1997 like the US did BUT CANADA IMPROVED IT IN 1998 which made it even more effective. We also have compliance records that show we COMPLIED to the feedban. Canada also eliminated all imported cattle from the UK when we found the first IMPORTED CASE of BSE back in 1993. But didn't the OIE review find the US hadn't found all the Imported cattle from either Canada or the UK?
Canada implemented a feedban in 1997 like the US did BUT CANADA IMPROVED IT IN 1998 which made it even more effective.
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.
Oldtimer said:Yep-- short term Big Corporate economics have overruled long term safety from day one in this BSE fiasco...
But I won't explain that to Tam either as it too will be way above here head :wink:
Sandhusker said:Where do you get your information that the majority of the US wants Canadian beef? I think that is only your opinion. My opinion is that the majority of US consumers don't even know we get beef from Canada. Why would they?
England takes much more stringent measures against BSE than Canada does. Why doesn't Canada take product from them? Why do you demand the US take your product when you won't take England's? Isn't that the two different sets of rules you were accusing R-CALF of having?
Why are you bragging so much on your feed ban? Your last two cases of BSE up there were post-feed ban. The last was born nearly two years after the feed ban and the Canadian government's own summary was that it was probably came from infected feed. Yet, you brag on how effective it is? That last cow is proof otherwise.
R-CALF has never backed away from testing. They've been a proponent of it. You're trying to condemn them, but don't even know what their policies are. This isn't the first time. They're also trying to get the loopholes you rant about closed. You have exhibited a lack of knowledge time and time again on what R-CALF actually is pushing - yet you are compelled to bash them at the drop of a hat.
I can't believe you are still claiming the US needs to treat others the way we want to be treated in the face of overwhelming REALITY that proves this is a policy that will not work. Do some thinking on that. Make a list of all the countries that take our product as we take yours and make a list of countries that have more stringent requirements. Which list is the longest? What do you conclude from this little observation? Anything?
Does it matter what I claim Sandhusker what should matters to you and all US producers is how the US trading partners (ie Japan and Korea) see the US. If they see the US banning imports from a country that is in the EXACT same risk Catagory but have more stringent safeguards and firewalls than the US has. Add to that ,the US has a Beef organiztion trying to prove that all beef coming from a country affected by BSE is tainted and a genuine risk of death in a court of law just what is the likelyhood of them openning their borders to the US beef now that you are affected TOO. :roll: You can say your beef is the safest in the World, all you want as talk is cheap but if your trading partners see you treating our beef as tainted and unsafe they aren't going to see yours as safe with the loophole you have. R-CALF was warned many time that their court action was not in the best interest to the US beef industry but they were blind to it because all they cares about was protecting the cattle prices you were recieveing. Now that you have joined the countries affected by BSE, R-CALF's court actions are coming back to bite US producers. BUT still the R-CALF leadership and supporters are not smart enough to drop it and agree that the science the rest of the world makes the rules to protect the world beef consumers may know more than they do.Sandhusker said:Where do you get your information that the majority of the US wants Canadian beef? I think that is only your opinion. My opinion is that the majority of US consumers don't even know we get beef from Canada. Why would they?
Tell us Sandhusker how many do the NMA and the AMI and the NCBA and all the other organizations that were in support of openning the border represent compared to R-CALF. And if what you call is the majority doesn't know you import from Canada then can you say they would or wouldn't vote to open the border if they knew that our beef is raised with higher standards than that in the US? Remember the loopholes Sandhusker. you remember the ones in the firewalls that Leo was talking about protecting the US consumers from BSE. The ones that Canada closed back in 1998 .
Gee again with the comparison of a country that had THOUSANDS OF CASE a year, to a country that has had 5 in three years . Could it be because they had an EPIDEMIC and we didn't. We learned from them and stopped it from happening. Remember the PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE THAT BOTH THE US AND CANADA IMPLEMENTED.England takes much more stringent measures against BSE than Canada does. Why doesn't Canada take product from them? Why do you demand the US take your product when you won't take England's? Isn't that the two different sets of rules you were accusing R-CALF of having?
And the same could be said for the US why are you forcing others to take your beef when you too are not taking beef from the likes of the UK. Wasn't it the US Senate that wanted trade sanctions applied to Japan if they didn't take US Beef? What has the US beef industry done to think they have the right to force anyone into taking your beef tested or not?
Why are you bragging so much on your feed ban? Your last two cases of BSE up there were post-feed ban. The last was born nearly two years after the feed ban and the Canadian government's own summary was that it was probably came from infected feed. Yet, you brag on how effective it is? That last cow is proof otherwise.
The feedban was the first line of defence which was to stop an epidemic from happening and I would say it worked as we only had a few cases. That said our second line of defence to protect the consumer was no allowing the infected cattle to reach our food chain Gee Sandhusker where were all cases of BSE IN CANADA FOUND compared to those found in the US.
Gee if they thought your system needed work why are they always telling people the US has the safest Beef in the World and it is raised to the highest standards in the world. Your standards are not as high as those that Canada has or yours wouldn't have the loopholes and holey firewalls that allowed a BSE infected cow to enter the Human food chain. If R-CALF feels your system needs work then explain these statementR-CALF has never backed away from testing. They've been a proponent of it. You're trying to condemn them, but don't even know what their policies are. This isn't the first time. They're also trying to get the loopholes you rant about closed. You have exhibited a lack of knowledge time and time again on what R-CALF actually is pushing - yet you are compelled to bash them at the drop of a hat.and this oneUnder no circumstances should the United States accept any cattle, beef or beef products, from countries that do not maintain identical or more stringent safeguard measures that is presently required or presently proposed in the United States which measures have been enforced for at least as long as the United States.doesn't sound as if R-CALF had a problem with the loopholes when these statement were made."we know if we are going to keep consumer confidence we are going to maintain some of the highest standards in the world to make sure that BSE is not introduced into this country. And we are going to make sure we have the best meat and bone meal ban in this country in place. So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue. If we look them right in the eye and say that I will guarantee they will keep eating beef".
I can't believe you are still claiming the US needs to treat others the way we want to be treated in the face of overwhelming REALITY that proves this is a policy that will not work. Do some thinking on that. Make a list of all the countries that take our product as we take yours and make a list of countries that have more stringent requirements. Which list is the longest? What do you conclude from this little observation? Anything?
This also is a complete farce. Two Feed Suppliers in Northern Alberta are still - that is AS I WRITE THIS - providing feed with animal protein in it!! They openly admit it and for those who wish to argue this matter, they can PM me and I will reveal them privately. They argue that the CFIA will not prosecute them as it is the responsibility of the end user to either destroy it (feed) or to violate the feed ban and feed it to their animals.
What does this have to do with the fact the Creekstone would have been using the same test Japan uses and showing the same results that Japan did. Your test will only show it if Japan and Creekstone are using it but they are not. So by selling BSE tested beef using the BSE test that Japan uses and Creekstone would be using proves nothing in under 20 month animals. When and IF you can get the Japanese and Creekstone under Japans OK to us your test then maybe it will show something but until then it WON"T.bse-tester said:Tam wrote:
I too would like to see a list of the beef exporting countries that have the exact and in some cases more stringent safeguards for as long as the US has had them. Please remember we have been testing for BSE since the very early 90's, a higher percentage of our herd than the US has. Canada implemented a feedban in 1997 like the US did BUT CANADA IMPROVED IT IN 1998 which made it even more effective. We also have compliance records that show we COMPLIED to the feedban. Canada also eliminated all imported cattle from the UK when we found the first IMPORTED CASE of BSE back in 1993. But didn't the OIE review find the US hadn't found all the Imported cattle from either Canada or the UK?
Would or could you back this statement up as I have an article that was in the Cattlemens that competely contradict your statement. In fact it saysIt is an absolute fact that of the original herd that came from England back in the late 80's and early 90's, not all have been accounted for. Of those that we found, BSE was found to be rampant in them. As for the whereabouts of the others - who can say.
it goes on to say of the ones the CFIA didn't retreve, only 10 of them had even come from farms in the UK that had reported BSE. A bit of a different story would you say.By 1994 all the remaining cattle 123 in total, were either destroyed and incinerated or shipped back to the UK. The CFIA also incinerated the herd in which the saler animal was found and all of her progeny that were alive at the time. As each of these imported animals was euthanized the brain tissues were tested using the best technology at the time. Just to be sure, the CFIA pulled those 10 year old samples out of cold storage last year and ran them through again using more modern tests. Again they all came back NEGATIVE
As for Canada actually conducting testing for BSE, that is true, but the numbers have been way less than the US and to a degree that is so low it is laughable. Now we test approximately 30,000 head per yer. The USA identifies 300,000 downers per year and that alone makes our standards look stupid - which they are. Also, the test that the CFIA has been using is full of errors and can only be validated by the VLA in Weybridge, UK. A number of times this has been shown to be opposite to that which the CFIA suspected.
Laughable are they BSE TESTER would you like to compare US number and Canadian numbers Please remember that the US has a herd 7 to 8 times larger than that of Canada. So The US if their herd was only 7 times the size should have tested at least 114, 037 head while we were testing 16,291 did they? no they fell short by 56,890 almost half percentage wise. If we are to test 30,000 a year why did the US announce a 200,000 head quota over 18 months. Grant you we both tested far more than we said we would but Canada has agreed to test at least 30,000 a year for how many years while the US agreed to a one time shot of 200,000 in a 18 month test. Beside that we are to test 30,000 but the Canadian producers turned over almost 60,000 head of 4D cattle to be tested in 2005.1992 Canada tested 225 The US tested 251
1993 Canada tested 645 The US tested 736
1994 Canada Tested 426 The Us tested 692
1995 Canada tested 269 The US tested 744
1996 Canada tested 454 The US tested 1,143
1997 Canada tested 759 The US tested 2,713
1998 Canada tested 940 The US tested 1,080
1999 Canada tested 895 The US tested 1,302
2000 Canada Tested 1,020 The US tested 2,681
2001 Canada tested 1,581 The US tested 5,272
2002 Canada tested 3,377 The US tested 19,990
2003 Canada Tested 5,700 The Us tested 20,543
So Canada tested 16,291 and the US tested 57,147 animals in the time frame before and shortly after the new testing systems were put in place.
Source of Canadian test number - CFIA
Source of U.S. test numbers – USDA
Tam wrote:
Canada implemented a feedban in 1997 like the US did BUT CANADA IMPROVED IT IN 1998 which made it even more effective.
Tell us BSE tester what are the animal proteins and what kind of animal feed are we talking about here. If the CFIA will not prosecute maybe the plants are making legal feed as in Pig and Chicken feed. And the plant is right they can't be prosecuted if the producer uses it as it was not intended. But if you have prove they are making ruminant by products into cattle feed and selling it as cattle feed then by all means tell the Cattle industry leaders in Alberta as I would think they would want to know and stop it by what ever means possible.This also is a complete farce. Two Feed Suppliers in Northern Alberta are still - that is AS I WRITE THIS - providing feed with animal protein in it!! They openly admit it and for those who wish to argue this matter, they can PM me and I will reveal them privately. They argue that the CFIA will not prosecute them as it is the responsibility of the end user to either destroy it (feed) or to violate the feed ban and feed it to their animals.
Mike wrote:
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 urine test combined with the Western Blot technique doesn't care one bit what the age of the animals is that the urine came out of. If the PrPsc is present in the animal, the test will identify it as being there - period
I too would like to see a list of the beef exporting countries that have the exact and in some cases more stringent safeguards for as long as the US has had them. Please remember we have been testing for BSE since the very early 90's, a higher percentage of our herd than the US has.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Investigation Results of Texas Cow That Tested Positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Aug. 30, 2005
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have completed their investigations regarding a cow that tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in June 2005. The agencies conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Texas Animal Health Commission and the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service.
Our results indicate that the positive animal, called the index animal, was born and raised on a ranch (termed the "index farm") in Texas. It was a cream colored Brahma cross approximately 12 years old at the time of its death. It was born prior to the implementation of the 1997 feed ban instituted by FDA to help minimize the risk that a cow might consume feed contaminated with the agent thought to cause BSE. The animal was sold through a livestock sale in November of 2004 and transported to a packing plant. The animal was dead upon arrival at the packing plant and was then shipped to a pet food plant where it was sampled for BSE. The plant did not use the animal in its product, and the carcass was destroyed in November 2004.
APHIS attempted to trace all adult animals that left the index farm after 1990, as well as all progeny born within 2 years of the index animal's death. Together, these animals are called animals of interest.
During the course of the investigation, USDA removed and tested a total of 67 animals of interest from the farm where the index animal's herd originated. All of these animals tested negative for BSE. 200 adult animals of interest were determined to have left the index farm. Of these 200, APHIS officials determined that 143 had gone to slaughter, two were found alive (one was determined not to be of interest because of its age and the other tested negative), 34 are presumed dead, one is known dead and 20 have been classified as untraceable. In addition to the adult animals, APHIS was looking for two calves born to the index animal. Due to record keeping and identification issues, APHIS had to trace 213 calves. Of these 213 calves, 208 entered feeding and slaughter channels, four are presumed to have entered feeding and slaughter channels and one calf was untraceable.
To determine whether contaminated feed could have played a role in the index animal's infection, FDA and the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service conducted a feed investigation with two main objectives: 1) to identify all protein sources in the animal=s feed history that could potentially have been the source of the BSE agent, and 2) to verify that cattle leaving the herd after 1997 were identified by USDA as animals of interest and were rendered in compliance with the 1997 BSE/ruminant feed rule.
The feed history investigation identified 21 feeds or feed supplements that were used on the farm since 1990. These feed ingredients were purchased from three retail feed stores and were manufactured at nine feed mills. This investigation found that no feed or feed supplements used on the farm since 1997 were formulated to contain prohibited mammalian protein. Due to this finding, FDA has concluded that the animal was most likely infected prior to the 1997 BSE/ruminant feed rule.
The investigation into the disposition of herd mates from this farm involved visits to nine slaughter plants and eight rendering plants. The investigation found that all of the rendering plants were operating in compliance with the BSE/ruminant feed rule. A review of the inspection history of each of these rendering firms found no violations of the FDA feed ban rule.
APHIS and FDA are very pleased with the results of their investigations, which show the animals of interest did not present a threat to livestock and that the ruminant feed rule is being followed. The U.S. maintains an interlocking system of safeguards designed to prevent BSE from entering the human and animal food chain. USDA also remains vigilant in its attempt to find BSE in the United States. To date, there have been more than 450,000 animals tested in the last 14 months and only two BSE positive animals found in this country.
bse-tester said:Tam Wrote:
I too would like to see a list of the beef exporting countries that have the exact and in some cases more stringent safeguards for as long as the US has had them. Please remember we have been testing for BSE since the very early 90's, a higher percentage of our herd than the US has.
I am not trying to embarrass Tam here, but I would suggest that statements posted be at least leaning toward accurate. The percentages are way different and obviously, a little more homework is needed to get the facts straight and the math right!
Having stated that, Tam is saying that Canada tests far more than the USA. That is not true. Canada continues to test approximately 30,000 animals per year taken from random sampling of already slaughtered animals - for the most part - on a test and hold protocol as well as those animals that are suspected of harboring BSE or some other disease. The USA however, as shown below, has tested and continues to test far more than the Canadian number of 30,000 animals. Check the last sentence.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Investigation Results of Texas Cow That Tested Positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Aug. 30, 2005
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have completed their investigations regarding a cow that tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in June 2005. The agencies conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Texas Animal Health Commission and the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service.
Our results indicate that the positive animal, called the index animal, was born and raised on a ranch (termed the "index farm") in Texas. It was a cream colored Brahma cross approximately 12 years old at the time of its death. It was born prior to the implementation of the 1997 feed ban instituted by FDA to help minimize the risk that a cow might consume feed contaminated with the agent thought to cause BSE. The animal was sold through a livestock sale in November of 2004 and transported to a packing plant. The animal was dead upon arrival at the packing plant and was then shipped to a pet food plant where it was sampled for BSE. The plant did not use the animal in its product, and the carcass was destroyed in November 2004.
APHIS attempted to trace all adult animals that left the index farm after 1990, as well as all progeny born within 2 years of the index animal's death. Together, these animals are called animals of interest.
During the course of the investigation, USDA removed and tested a total of 67 animals of interest from the farm where the index animal's herd originated. All of these animals tested negative for BSE. 200 adult animals of interest were determined to have left the index farm. Of these 200, APHIS officials determined that 143 had gone to slaughter, two were found alive (one was determined not to be of interest because of its age and the other tested negative), 34 are presumed dead, one is known dead and 20 have been classified as untraceable. In addition to the adult animals, APHIS was looking for two calves born to the index animal. Due to record keeping and identification issues, APHIS had to trace 213 calves. Of these 213 calves, 208 entered feeding and slaughter channels, four are presumed to have entered feeding and slaughter channels and one calf was untraceable.
To determine whether contaminated feed could have played a role in the index animal's infection, FDA and the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service conducted a feed investigation with two main objectives: 1) to identify all protein sources in the animal=s feed history that could potentially have been the source of the BSE agent, and 2) to verify that cattle leaving the herd after 1997 were identified by USDA as animals of interest and were rendered in compliance with the 1997 BSE/ruminant feed rule.
The feed history investigation identified 21 feeds or feed supplements that were used on the farm since 1990. These feed ingredients were purchased from three retail feed stores and were manufactured at nine feed mills. This investigation found that no feed or feed supplements used on the farm since 1997 were formulated to contain prohibited mammalian protein. Due to this finding, FDA has concluded that the animal was most likely infected prior to the 1997 BSE/ruminant feed rule.
The investigation into the disposition of herd mates from this farm involved visits to nine slaughter plants and eight rendering plants. The investigation found that all of the rendering plants were operating in compliance with the BSE/ruminant feed rule. A review of the inspection history of each of these rendering firms found no violations of the FDA feed ban rule.
APHIS and FDA are very pleased with the results of their investigations, which show the animals of interest did not present a threat to livestock and that the ruminant feed rule is being followed. The U.S. maintains an interlocking system of safeguards designed to prevent BSE from entering the human and animal food chain. USDA also remains vigilant in its attempt to find BSE in the United States. To date, there have been more than 450,000 animals tested in the last 14 months and only two BSE positive animals found in this country.
Tam said:Sandhusker said:Where do you get your information that the majority of the US wants Canadian beef? I think that is only your opinion. My opinion is that the majority of US consumers don't even know we get beef from Canada. Why would they?
Tell us Sandhusker how many do the NMA and the AMI and the NCBA and all the other organizations that were in support of openning the border represent compared to R-CALF. And if what you call is the majority doesn't know you import from Canada then can you say they would or wouldn't vote to open the border if they knew that our beef is raised with higher standards than that in the US? Remember the loopholes Sandhusker. you remember the ones in the firewalls that Leo was talking about protecting the US consumers from BSE. The ones that Canada closed back in 1998 .
Gee again with the comparison of a country that had THOUSANDS OF CASE a year, to a country that has had 5 in three years . Could it be because they had an EPIDEMIC and we didn't. We learned from them and stopped it from happening. Remember the PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE THAT BOTH THE US AND CANADA IMPLEMENTED.England takes much more stringent measures against BSE than Canada does. Why doesn't Canada take product from them? Why do you demand the US take your product when you won't take England's? Isn't that the two different sets of rules you were accusing R-CALF of having?
And the same could be said for the US why are you forcing others to take your beef when you too are not taking beef from the likes of the UK. Wasn't it the US Senate that wanted trade sanctions applied to Japan if they didn't take US Beef? What has the US beef industry done to think they have the right to force anyone into taking your beef tested or not?
Why are you bragging so much on your feed ban? Your last two cases of BSE up there were post-feed ban. The last was born nearly two years after the feed ban and the Canadian government's own summary was that it was probably came from infected feed. Yet, you brag on how effective it is? That last cow is proof otherwise.
The feedban was the first line of defence which was to stop an epidemic from happening and I would say it worked as we only had a few cases. That said our second line of defence to protect the consumer was no allowing the infected cattle to reach our food chain Gee Sandhusker where were all cases of BSE IN CANADA FOUND compared to those found in the US.
Gee if they thought your system needed work why are they always telling people the US has the safest Beef in the World and it is raised to the highest standards in the world. Your standards are not as high as those that Canada has or yours wouldn't have the loopholes and holey firewalls that allowed a BSE infected cow to enter the Human food chain. If R-CALF feels your system needs work then explain these statementR-CALF has never backed away from testing. They've been a proponent of it. You're trying to condemn them, but don't even know what their policies are. This isn't the first time. They're also trying to get the loopholes you rant about closed. You have exhibited a lack of knowledge time and time again on what R-CALF actually is pushing - yet you are compelled to bash them at the drop of a hat.and this oneUnder no circumstances should the United States accept any cattle, beef or beef products, from countries that do not maintain identical or more stringent safeguard measures that is presently required or presently proposed in the United States which measures have been enforced for at least as long as the United States.doesn't sound as if R-CALF had a problem with the loopholes when these statement were made."we know if we are going to keep consumer confidence we are going to maintain some of the highest standards in the world to make sure that BSE is not introduced into this country. And we are going to make sure we have the best meat and bone meal ban in this country in place. So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue. If we look them right in the eye and say that I will guarantee they will keep eating beef".
Does it matter what I claim Sandhusker what should matters to you and all US producers is how the US trading partners (ie Japan and Korea) see the US. If they see the US banning imports from a country that is in the EXACT same risk Catagory but have more stringent safeguards and firewalls than the US has. Add to that ,the US has a Beef organiztion trying to prove that all beef coming from a country affected by BSE is tainted and a genuine risk of death in a court of law just what is the likelyhood of them openning their borders to the US beef now that you are affected TOO. :roll: You can say your beef is the safest in the World, all you want as talk is cheap but if your trading partners see you treating our beef as tainted and unsafe they aren't going to see yours as safe with the loophole you have. R-CALF was warned many time that their court action was not in the best interest to the US beef industry but they were blind to it because all they cares about was protecting the cattle prices you were recieveing. Now that you have joined the countries affected by BSE, R-CALF's court actions are coming back to bite US producers. BUT still the R-CALF leadership and supporters are not smart enough to drop it and agree that the science the rest of the world makes the rules to protect the world beef consumers may know more than they do.I can't believe you are still claiming the US needs to treat others the way we want to be treated in the face of overwhelming REALITY that proves this is a policy that will not work. Do some thinking on that. Make a list of all the countries that take our product as we take yours and make a list of countries that have more stringent requirements. Which list is the longest? What do you conclude from this little observation? Anything?
I agree the US needs to close some loopholes but what will proving all beef coming from a country affected by BSE is tainted and a genuine risk of death in a court of law do to help you do that? Stop wasting the USDA's time and money and work with the Beef industry and government to implement the safeguards that will protect the consumers from all BSE import or DOMESTIC.
And Sandhusker I'm compelled to bash R-CALF every time I hear them trying to destroy consumer confidence in Beef. If they would stick to the truth and stick to helpping solve the problems instead of making them worst. I think that we would all be a lot better off.
The USA identifies 300,000 downers per year and that alone makes our standards look stupid
Canada continues to test approximately 30,000 animals per year taken from random sampling of already slaughtered animals
Also, the test that the CFIA has been using is full of errors and can only be validated by the VLA in Weybridge, UK.
