A
Anonymous
Guest
Are you suggesting that there has never been beef sold in the U.S. without the USDA having inspected it?
TREED AGAIN!
Why don't you just stay up there?
~SH~
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NO USDA GRADE ON IMPORTED MEAT
- Thread starter HAY MAKER
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Are you suggesting that there has never been beef sold in the U.S. without the USDA having inspected it?
TREED AGAIN!
Why don't you just stay up there?
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Sandman: "Why do you need assurance? If the meat is being sold in the US, it's a given the USDA approved it."
Are you suggesting that there has never been beef sold in the U.S. without the USDA having inspected it?
TREED AGAIN!
Why don't you just stay up there?
~SH~
And how much do you think of that product was sold? :roll: How much do you think you have eaten?
You want to address the question of why grocers would advertise their beef as USDA inspected when that is all they can sell in the first place?
~SH~ said:Sandman: "....you have no problem with grocers advertising their beef as "USDA inspected" when it is all inspected anyway?"
What better assurance that beef is inspected by USDA than for a stamp to appear on the beef stating that it is inspected by USDA?
Would you like to add a disclaimer suggesting that there is a 5% chance this beef might be imported? Would that save consumers from themselves?
You import blamers raise flags over absolutely nothing!
~SH~
SH, We do need to protect consumers from all sorts of things. I am a consumer and I appreciate it when that job is being done well and at a low cost. I am really upset when industry interferes with those actions for their own benefit.
You asked me before why would I be interested in feeder's own mechanisms. Feeders are competing for cattle. I always like more competition whenever I sell something. If the packers can run feeders out, then I lose a potential buyer. Do you not understand that?
Why is it so laborious for you to admit that testing for BSE should be a right for anyone who wants to do it. Is there any harm? The Japanese are demanding it. Why not? What is the problem? Don't you believe in the free world?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandman: "And how much do you think of that product was sold? How much do you think you have eaten?"
"RED HERRING"
Doesn't matter how much was sold or how much I have eaten the fact remains, if the meat does not say USDA inspected, nobody knows whether it was inspected by USDA or not.
Suddenly we are back to trusting those LARGE, EVIL CORPORATIONS AGAIN. You just can't keep your arguments straight can you?
One day they are hiding foreign beef behind the USDA stamp and the next day they are trustworthy enough not to market any beef that hasn't been inspected if the inspection stamp is not required.
What a hypocrite!
Sandman: "You want to address the question of why grocers would advertise their beef as USDA inspected when that is all they can sell in the first place?"
Why? To divert from your hypocrisy?
Elementary: "SH, We do need to protect consumers from all sorts of things. I am a consumer and I appreciate it when that job is being done well and at a low cost. I am really upset when industry interferes with those actions for their own benefit."
Does that mean you support leaving the USDA inspection stamp so consumers know that the beef has been inspected by USDA?
Elementary: "You asked me before why would I be interested in feeder's own mechanisms. Feeders are competing for cattle. I always like more competition whenever I sell something. If the packers can run feeders out, then I lose a potential buyer. Do you not understand that?"
How are the packers running feeders out?
What makes you think the feeding industry needs arrogant ol' you to save them from their pricing mechanisms when they are selling fat cattle and would be "RUN OUT" of business by the packers, NOT YOU!
Elementary: "Why is it so laborious for you to admit that testing for BSE should be a right for anyone who wants to do it. Is there any harm? The Japanese are demanding it. Why not? What is the problem? Don't you believe in the free world?"
Listen to you! The proponent of more government regulation wants to lecture me on the free world. What a hypocrite!
I wouldn't have any problem with Creekstone using LEGITIMATE BSE TESTS that would reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age with USDA oversight of that testing. That isn't what was being offered. What was being offered was BSE testing that would not reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "One day they are hiding foreign beef behind the USDA stamp and the next day they are trustworthy enough not to market any beef that hasn't been inspected if the inspection stamp is not required. What a hypocrite!"
Hiding foreign beef under the USDA stamp is not illegal - matter of fact, it is mandatory. Marketing beef not inspected is illegal. What an idiot.
Quote:
Sandman: "You want to address the question of why grocers would advertise their beef as USDA inspected when that is all they can sell in the first place?"
SH, "Why? To divert from your hypocrisy?"
Don't like to answer when it exposes you foolishness, do you?
SH, "I wouldn't have any problem with Creekstone using LEGITIMATE BSE TESTS that would reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age with USDA oversight of that testing. That isn't what was being offered. What was being offered was BSE testing that would not reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age. "
Then don't buy it. Who are you to tell me that I can't?
Hiding foreign beef under the USDA stamp is not illegal - matter of fact, it is mandatory. Marketing beef not inspected is illegal. What an idiot.
Quote:
Sandman: "You want to address the question of why grocers would advertise their beef as USDA inspected when that is all they can sell in the first place?"
SH, "Why? To divert from your hypocrisy?"
Don't like to answer when it exposes you foolishness, do you?
SH, "I wouldn't have any problem with Creekstone using LEGITIMATE BSE TESTS that would reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age with USDA oversight of that testing. That isn't what was being offered. What was being offered was BSE testing that would not reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age. "
Then don't buy it. Who are you to tell me that I can't?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandman: "Hiding foreign beef under the USDA stamp is not illegal - matter of fact, it is mandatory. Marketing beef not inspected is illegal. What an idiot."
Without a USDA inspection stamp, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU TELL IF IT WAS INSPECTED BY USDA! What an idiot!
Sandman: "Don't like to answer when it exposes you foolishness, do you?"
The foolishness is in thinking that consumers can tell if beef was inspected by USDA without a USDA inspection stamp.
Sandman: "Then don't buy it. Who are you to tell me that I can't?"
Because implying BSE FREE with a test that will not reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age is false advertising and false advertising is illegal!
Who are you to tell me how to market my fat cattle?
Who are you to tell retailers how to market beef?
Who are you to tell feeders how to report prices?
Damn hypocrite!
~SH~
Mike
Well-known member
SH wrote:
BS, TOTAL BS! What makes the test not "LEGITIMATE"? The USDA approved the test! (We both know they are inadequate in the latest testing methods but Creekstone only asked for "approved" test kits)
How would you know that the tests won't reveal prions in cattle under 24 months if they are not tested. (At least you are coming around some though, you used to say "30 MONTHS")
Creekstone ASKED for USDA for "Oversight" and they refused :???:
How can you keep making crap up and expect others to believe you?
SH, "I wouldn't have any problem with Creekstone using LEGITIMATE BSE TESTS that would reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age with USDA oversight of that testing. That isn't what was being offered. What was being offered was BSE testing that would not reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age. "
BS, TOTAL BS! What makes the test not "LEGITIMATE"? The USDA approved the test! (We both know they are inadequate in the latest testing methods but Creekstone only asked for "approved" test kits)
How would you know that the tests won't reveal prions in cattle under 24 months if they are not tested. (At least you are coming around some though, you used to say "30 MONTHS")
Creekstone ASKED for USDA for "Oversight" and they refused :???:
How can you keep making crap up and expect others to believe you?
Actually,
SH, I support less regulations. It is unfortunate that we have such an incompetent system to redress wrongs that we have to write new regulations for judges who do not understand the business. It shows the incompetence of our system for just rulings. It is amazing to me that they totally missed the RPA example in the ruling. Sometimes judges are just people too.
Usually case law takes its place but Tyson likes to run that bill way up to the Supreme Court like they did the worker's issue where the Court decided unanimously against Tyson. I suppose the "efficiency" argument has its limits with the highest court in the land.
SH, I support less regulations. It is unfortunate that we have such an incompetent system to redress wrongs that we have to write new regulations for judges who do not understand the business. It shows the incompetence of our system for just rulings. It is amazing to me that they totally missed the RPA example in the ruling. Sometimes judges are just people too.
Usually case law takes its place but Tyson likes to run that bill way up to the Supreme Court like they did the worker's issue where the Court decided unanimously against Tyson. I suppose the "efficiency" argument has its limits with the highest court in the land.
A
Anonymous
Guest
It's not BS Mike,
Creekstone's own Fielding admitted that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE". That was the game Creekstone wanted to play.
They weren't dealing with a test that would reveal prions in cattle under 24 months and damn few between 24 and 30 months.
You just keep supporting this fraud.
~SH~
Creekstone's own Fielding admitted that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE". That was the game Creekstone wanted to play.
They weren't dealing with a test that would reveal prions in cattle under 24 months and damn few between 24 and 30 months.
You just keep supporting this fraud.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "Creekstone's own Fielding admitted that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE"."
Then where's the deception?
Then where's the deception?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Fielding's statement is not on the label! That's where the fraud is.
NEXT!
~SH~
NEXT!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Fielding's statement is not on the label! That's where the fraud is.
NEXT!
~SH~
What if Fielding's statement was put on the label?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Yeah, SH, I think we all know that. :roll: But what if the following was put on the label on each package of BSE tested beef;
DISCLAIMER: BSE testing does not guarantee the product is BSE free.
Would you finally support the government getting out of the way of a transaction between willing and knowledeble participants that in no way effects others?
Jason
Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:Japanese testing doesn't guarantee BSE free either. There would have been no diff between USDA and Creekstone testing in terms of scientific methods. Creekstone would have tested EVERY animal. Creekstone would have had incentives to test and to have a reliable testing program (business incentives) whereas it appears that the USDA's incentives are to NOT test since that is not what the meat packer lobby wants since it adds cost and complexity.
I am not following SH's argument at all, less than usual.
It could be argued that Creekstone has less incentive because of business incentives NOT to find any animals carrying BSE.
Besides the chance of finding one under the 30 months is very slim.
Only 2 cases have ever been reported and neither of them were allowed to be examined out of Japan.
Health testing needs to remain with the gov't agency. Proof of more than a lax attitude or an honest mistake would be needed to collapse the agency.
USDA has people that will make mistakes, same as every other company or agency. How they change the rules after the mistakes are found shows if they are following protocol. They switched to the Western Blot test after the Texas cow was confirmed. A move that eventually will give them a return of confidence.
It is funny how R-calf says packers are always bad but suddenly Creekstone is above reproach, and the major packers will enforce COOL with no slips and no way to prove the source of those cattle.
Jason, What are you talking about?
The whole discussion is about a company's ability to test for something that the USDA is supposed to test for and doesn't do enough of it.
Why should the USDA say they can't? Why is voluntary testing out?
Seems ridiculous that you should lecture us on the USDA. We already know the issues. Some on the board may not.
Nobody is trying to collapse the USDA, we just want some accountability. All we are getting are political appointments that kiss the packers on the last part that goes over the fence.
The whole discussion is about a company's ability to test for something that the USDA is supposed to test for and doesn't do enough of it.
Why should the USDA say they can't? Why is voluntary testing out?
Seems ridiculous that you should lecture us on the USDA. We already know the issues. Some on the board may not.
Nobody is trying to collapse the USDA, we just want some accountability. All we are getting are political appointments that kiss the packers on the last part that goes over the fence.
Jason
Well-known member
You are the biggest anti packer on the board Econ. How come you jump in and support Creekstone?
USDA needs to do their job. They have switched the BSE test to the same one everyone else uses. They claim to be testing sufficient numbers. If that isn't the case then Canada has higher testing standards than the US.
Pick a stance. Is the USDA testing enough or not?
You claim the packers own USDA, apperantly someone forgot to inform Creekstone of that.
The packers want the border trade normalized, the USDA hasn't done it yet.
Seems like the packers don't have much control over the office you say they own.
Maybe their phones were tapped. Yeah that's it. :roll:
USDA needs to do their job. They have switched the BSE test to the same one everyone else uses. They claim to be testing sufficient numbers. If that isn't the case then Canada has higher testing standards than the US.
Pick a stance. Is the USDA testing enough or not?
You claim the packers own USDA, apperantly someone forgot to inform Creekstone of that.
The packers want the border trade normalized, the USDA hasn't done it yet.
Seems like the packers don't have much control over the office you say they own.
Maybe their phones were tapped. Yeah that's it. :roll:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
There's a hell of a difference between Creekstone Foods and Tyson, Jason. I'm dismayed that you are trying to paint both with the same brush.
Jason said:You are the biggest anti packer on the board Econ. How come you jump in and support Creekstone?
USDA needs to do their job. They have switched the BSE test to the same one everyone else uses. They claim to be testing sufficient numbers. If that isn't the case then Canada has higher testing standards than the US.
Pick a stance. Is the USDA testing enough or not?
You claim the packers own USDA, apperantly someone forgot to inform Creekstone of that.
The packers want the border trade normalized, the USDA hasn't done it yet.
Seems like the packers don't have much control over the office you say they own.
Maybe their phones were tapped. Yeah that's it. :roll:
Jason, I don't necessarily support any one party. It depends on the issue, not the people involved. "Bad" people can be right some of the time and "good" people can be wrong some of the time. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
Packers are not necessarily bad but they do some illegal things sometimes and make it cost a whole lot to get a little justice. The Supreme Court just had a unanimous decision against a case Tyson was involved in on labor issues. Tyson (and others) made that whole thing drag on and on and it ended up hurting a lot of regular workers.
If someone wants to test for something, they should be allowed to. If they are not lying about their advertising on it, they should be able to advertise that in their product.
I have ample reason to believe that the USDA has other agendas than food safety. It doesn't make sense for them to ban that kind of testing. Quality control over and above that required by law should be encouraged unless it is fradulant.
Jason
Well-known member
Should Merek or other drug manufacturers be allowed to test the safety of their drugs?
No one has ever seen a country agree to importing US or Canadian beef if it was tested. This is a jump by some who think Japan is really concerned about the safety of North American beef. It is being used as a veiled trade barrier, much as R-calf used BS(E) as a not so veiled trade barrier.
So not all companies are the same, I can buy that. From your statements Tyson could not be trusted to uphold COOL. Guess 1 big player can control the market. They will force COOL to have MID before they can be trusted.
No one has ever seen a country agree to importing US or Canadian beef if it was tested. This is a jump by some who think Japan is really concerned about the safety of North American beef. It is being used as a veiled trade barrier, much as R-calf used BS(E) as a not so veiled trade barrier.
So not all companies are the same, I can buy that. From your statements Tyson could not be trusted to uphold COOL. Guess 1 big player can control the market. They will force COOL to have MID before they can be trusted.
