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

Reply to thread

Message

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.

<blockquote data-quote="Sandhusker" data-source="post: 86649" data-attributes="member: 65">Dang it, I just can&#039;t resist .....SH, &quot;1. JAPAN IS TAKING BEEF WITHOUT TESTING so why absorb the unnecessary costs of bse testing. &quot;How much did we send them this week?&nbsp; What are the projected numbers for next week?SH, &quot;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&#039;s BSE tests would not assue that the beef was BSE free and Creekstone admitted that. Labeling beef as &quot;BSE TESTED&quot; implies BSE FREE, if it&#039;s not BSE free, it&#039;s consumer fraud to suggest that it is!&nbsp; THERE IS LAWS AGAINST FALSE ADVERTISING. &quot;Creekstone was going to use whatever test their customers wanted.&nbsp; Are there laws now on implications? :roll:&nbsp;&nbsp; How can Creekstone be imply BSE tested beef is BSE free and false advertise when they said, &quot;BSE tested does not necessarily mean BSE free&quot;.&nbsp; &nbsp; What is that statement implying, SH?&nbsp; Good grief.....SH, &quot;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.&quot;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:&nbsp; SH, &quot;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&#039;t.&quot;Science also says organic and hormone free is also unnecessary.&nbsp; Why isn&#039;t the USDA following that science?&nbsp;&nbsp; Since when does our export products have to be based on sound science?&nbsp; If a limit of 20 month old cattle is justified for Japan, why isn&#039;t it justified for the US? SH, &quot;Disagree all you want, you&#039;re wrong to deceive Japanese consumers with a bse test that wouldn&#039;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.&quot;Your &quot;deception&quot; arguement got rejected a long time ago, SH.&nbsp; Look up the definition of &quot;deception&quot;.SH, &quot;You&#039;re placing &quot;ASSUMED&quot; $$$$$$ ahead of principle.&quot;You&#039;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.&nbsp; &nbsp; This has gone from debate to comedy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sandhusker, post: 86649, member: 65"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What city in Missouri has a big arch?