Packer May Sue Inspectors
- Thread starter HAY MAKER
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Econ101 said:
Why do we or you in the case of the packers need to blame anyone? As I see it this is an INDUSTRY problem and each and everyone in the beef supply chain needs to take responibility for their own part in producing the safest beef in the World. To me you blaming the packers is not different than the US producers blaming the Canadian Producers for their lose of export markets. We may have produced the dairy cow but it was a US dairy operator that bought her and a US slaughter house that slaughtered her and sold her into the US food chain which was where she was recalled from. Which resulted in the lose of the US export markets because foreign market were taking a chance of importing meat from the US that was processed from cattle in the US that were infected with BSE. And since the US had no way of finding all the imported cattle even the OIE told them to stop looking and clean up the whole system. Now that the US has found BSE in their native herd blaming our cattle for the risk of spreading BSE in the US is not going to cut it either, as it is their feed system that will be spreading the BSE from native cattle as well as imported. If everyone in the industry would do their part and stop blaming others for the mess maybe we could get a handle on it. If we all blamed the packers like you do and they were the only ones forced to take responibility would that stop the rule breakers in the rest of the sectors? I choose not to blame any of the sectors more than the next for this BSE mess because we are all in this together. If anyone of those eight steps i mentioned wouldn't have happened the second cow would not have been infected. So why do you need to put the responibility of the whole beef industry squarely on the heads of one, the packers?
rkaiser said:
If you DO NOT BELIEVE THE FEED TRANSMISSION THEORY why are you supporting Econ's blaming the packers for BSE? could it be because I want him to prove his accusation and you dislike me so much that you are sticking your nose it to a conversation that goes against what you believe just because I'm on the other side asking for proof? :wink:
Let me see if I understand?
It hasn't been proven where or how BSE is transmitted? Or where it came from?
Packers are to blame?
Producers are to blame?
Feed companies are to blame?
Government and associations are to blame?
Why are we producing beef? Someone is at blame, so we might as well stop producing. The truth is going to come out eventually, and dollars are the real reason! So, it doesn't matter who in this discussion is right, we're all just a bunch of greedy individuals trying to take advantage.
I guess this makes the industry look better to the un-informed!
Thanks for the insight!!!!!!!
It hasn't been proven where or how BSE is transmitted? Or where it came from?
Packers are to blame?
Producers are to blame?
Feed companies are to blame?
Government and associations are to blame?
Why are we producing beef? Someone is at blame, so we might as well stop producing. The truth is going to come out eventually, and dollars are the real reason! So, it doesn't matter who in this discussion is right, we're all just a bunch of greedy individuals trying to take advantage.
I guess this makes the industry look better to the un-informed!
Thanks for the insight!!!!!!!
rkaiser
Well-known member
Is Econo blaming the packers for BSE Tam? Doesn't sound like it to me.
He is simply making a point, which is easily understood, that packers producer MBM and sell it. They also sold the beef from the cow that could have been tested at their plant had they supported BSE testing.
I agree with Murgen however that blaming packers, or in Tam's case, blaming producers, is useless. Especially since the MBM thing is garbage anyway.
If you are going to take over from SH and be the only bearer of truth on this site Tam, you need to research your topic a bit more. :roll: There is no proof to the MBM theory that you just so happen to believe in.
I guess it is my job to (as Tam says)
He is simply making a point, which is easily understood, that packers producer MBM and sell it. They also sold the beef from the cow that could have been tested at their plant had they supported BSE testing.
I agree with Murgen however that blaming packers, or in Tam's case, blaming producers, is useless. Especially since the MBM thing is garbage anyway.
If you are going to take over from SH and be the only bearer of truth on this site Tam, you need to research your topic a bit more. :roll: There is no proof to the MBM theory that you just so happen to believe in.
I guess it is my job to (as Tam says)
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
ECON 101 wrote"Tam, Are you saying that packers were not feeding animal proteins to ruminiants? Traceback and accountablility in this industry is lacking. The packers did start animal proteins in ruminant feed. They are continuing it today in their poultry feed operations.
Can BSE be traced back to this practice? Of course it can. Now where is the accountability?
Loks to me Randy that ECON is saying that feeding MBM is the cause of BSE. Maybe you should enlighten him.
Can BSE be traced back to this practice? Of course it can. Now where is the accountability?
Loks to me Randy that ECON is saying that feeding MBM is the cause of BSE. Maybe you should enlighten him.
rkaiser[quote said:"]Is Econo blaming the packers for BSE Tam? Doesn't sound like it to me.
He is simply making a point, which is easily understood, that packers producer MBM and sell it. They also sold the beef from the cow that could have been tested at their plant had they supported BSE testing.
Quotes from ECON
.
.
Tell me how these are not accusation pointed at blaming the packers for BSE Randy.
So why are you defending ECON, Randy? if He is simply making a point, which is easily understood, that packers producer MBM and sell it. what harm is there in selling it and what should they be held accountable for if you believe the MBM thing is garbage anyway? Why don't you tell him that the MBM thing is garbage and that the packers have nothing to be held accountable for in selling it?
Read these quotes again RANDY
I think the industry as a whole needs to take responibility for the mess and clean it up and stop the blaming one another as that does us no good and hasn't helped in getting the industry out of the mess it is in. Can I say that any clearer so you can understand it? I don't care for any of the blaming as it does us NO GOOD.
Randy you need to look back and see where I have said more than once that I don't think that MBM is the only theory that holds any weight. I have said before that these other theories would explain the first cases. But the fact that when we stopped feeding MBM and the rate of new cases drop, you have to admit that did put some weight behind the feed transmission theory TOO.
When are you going to start Randy. And remember opinion and statements don't count, facts count.
Tam,
As I told Kathy, I don't know the whole BSE answer ----yet. I just make the point that the packers sold MBM for use in ruminant and poultry feed and they did not do the testing required to make sure those feeds were safe. There is a lot of evidence that the MBM eaten by ruminants is/was the problem. SH has argued that the packers sell MBM and that makes them more "efficient". More "efficient" does not always mean better. Sometimes these type of efficiencies have other costs associated with them that are not paid for by the ones who should have the liabiltiy.
If there is a question of whether BSE is transmitted through MBM, then a study could easily be accomplished to find out. If that study has not been done, and I would suppose that it probably has, then it needs to be done. This is the responsibility of the USDA. If they are waiting to do these type of studies so they don't hurt the "efficiency" of meat packing industry, then we have a some really big issues in regards to our governmental agencies being smart enough to provide food safety. On this issue, I defer to others who have studied it and know a lot more than I do. Go ask BSE tester and others who are actively involved in this field.
I know that if I was the owner of a packing plant and was making money off of feeding MBM to herbavores and there was a potential for liability, and I was one of the bigger players, I would do my own tests to make sure that it was safe to prevent a lawsuit instead of hide behind the USDA and wait for some regulation. If the industry is not sufficiently scared of a lawsuit under those circumstances, we have some food safety issues in the industry.
I do know that Tyson has had a similar problem and currently (last time I checked) lawsuit regarding the feeding of an organo-arsenic under the name of Roxarasone to their poultry for "increased efficiency". Their studies and the manufactorer of the feed additave had a set of data that suggested a certain amount of arsenic in the poultry that was low. An independent study found that the arsenic levels in their poultry were much higher than the "inside" studies of arsenic concentration in their poultry.
There was a big outcry about it with some of the enviromental and medical/researcher types and the new research required one of two things: 1) The arsenic compound had to be taken out of the feed or 2) The recomended allowable allowance of arsenic for humans had to be increased to higher levels.
Of course #2 allows the poultry companies to weigh their profits and or political power against the public's welfare in regards to food safety. This route was actually tried. To me, this whole issue shows some of the problems in the food industry and why some of these "organic" food people may have the right answer when it comes to requiring higher standards than our cheap food policy in the U.S. delivers.
Get caught up in the arguments if you want to. I don't chose to leave behind the issues of food safety to such greedy interests. It simply is not worth it. Sometimes these type of issues should cost the people who are making and considering such rotten decisions some real money. It is only after that happens that our food supply will truely become the highly touted "safest food in the world". Allowing companies that have real liability to have no accountability is a mistake in the long run. Look at all of the large companies that have failed recently and you will see this as a common denominator.
I may pound the issue a lot, but that is because I believe a lot of people are not smart enough to see through the "spin" that is thrown around in this industry and supported with almost uncountered lobbying on the hill.
I do find it quite interesting that the Tyson's of the meat packing industry have such willing fighters for their spin at very little cost. Somehow they have obviously convinced some of you people that if they go out of business, then the producers will suffer. This may be the case in the short run, but in the long run this might be the best thing that has ever happened to this industry for the producers.
As I told Kathy, I don't know the whole BSE answer ----yet. I just make the point that the packers sold MBM for use in ruminant and poultry feed and they did not do the testing required to make sure those feeds were safe. There is a lot of evidence that the MBM eaten by ruminants is/was the problem. SH has argued that the packers sell MBM and that makes them more "efficient". More "efficient" does not always mean better. Sometimes these type of efficiencies have other costs associated with them that are not paid for by the ones who should have the liabiltiy.
If there is a question of whether BSE is transmitted through MBM, then a study could easily be accomplished to find out. If that study has not been done, and I would suppose that it probably has, then it needs to be done. This is the responsibility of the USDA. If they are waiting to do these type of studies so they don't hurt the "efficiency" of meat packing industry, then we have a some really big issues in regards to our governmental agencies being smart enough to provide food safety. On this issue, I defer to others who have studied it and know a lot more than I do. Go ask BSE tester and others who are actively involved in this field.
I know that if I was the owner of a packing plant and was making money off of feeding MBM to herbavores and there was a potential for liability, and I was one of the bigger players, I would do my own tests to make sure that it was safe to prevent a lawsuit instead of hide behind the USDA and wait for some regulation. If the industry is not sufficiently scared of a lawsuit under those circumstances, we have some food safety issues in the industry.
I do know that Tyson has had a similar problem and currently (last time I checked) lawsuit regarding the feeding of an organo-arsenic under the name of Roxarasone to their poultry for "increased efficiency". Their studies and the manufactorer of the feed additave had a set of data that suggested a certain amount of arsenic in the poultry that was low. An independent study found that the arsenic levels in their poultry were much higher than the "inside" studies of arsenic concentration in their poultry.
There was a big outcry about it with some of the enviromental and medical/researcher types and the new research required one of two things: 1) The arsenic compound had to be taken out of the feed or 2) The recomended allowable allowance of arsenic for humans had to be increased to higher levels.
Of course #2 allows the poultry companies to weigh their profits and or political power against the public's welfare in regards to food safety. This route was actually tried. To me, this whole issue shows some of the problems in the food industry and why some of these "organic" food people may have the right answer when it comes to requiring higher standards than our cheap food policy in the U.S. delivers.
Get caught up in the arguments if you want to. I don't chose to leave behind the issues of food safety to such greedy interests. It simply is not worth it. Sometimes these type of issues should cost the people who are making and considering such rotten decisions some real money. It is only after that happens that our food supply will truely become the highly touted "safest food in the world". Allowing companies that have real liability to have no accountability is a mistake in the long run. Look at all of the large companies that have failed recently and you will see this as a common denominator.
I may pound the issue a lot, but that is because I believe a lot of people are not smart enough to see through the "spin" that is thrown around in this industry and supported with almost uncountered lobbying on the hill.
I do find it quite interesting that the Tyson's of the meat packing industry have such willing fighters for their spin at very little cost. Somehow they have obviously convinced some of you people that if they go out of business, then the producers will suffer. This may be the case in the short run, but in the long run this might be the best thing that has ever happened to this industry for the producers.
You admit you don't know the whole BSE issue but yet you are telling those in the industry we are not smart enough to know what the truth or not. Well I think we are smart enough to realize your spin is the packers are to blame for BSE even though you are not sure their selling of MBM even caused the problem.
Hey Randy are you going to tell him that the MBM theory is just garbage now? or are you going to just let this comment pass too? :wink:
All along you have been claiming it was the packers fault because they sold MBM and now you admit you don't even know if MBM causes BSE. And did you know that BSE was found in the UK in 86 and ever since there have been sciencist all over this world we live in trying to find out the answers. If it was as eazy as just running a test don't you think one of those hundreds of sciencist would have a positive answer for us? But I guess they aren't smart enough to think of doing the eazy test you are talking about.
Do you think that a test done by a big player in the packing industry would show us more than those done by the hundreds of expert sciencists trained in research around the world that have been working on solving the mysteries behind BSE and its transmission since it was first found?
And if the packing industry is to blame like you think and you were just a small player would you not be just as liable as the big player? wouldn't you want to be sure that you were not the liable one for the damages caused by your MBM sales? or is that the responibility of the BIG PLAYERS, you know the TYSON's of the packing industry?
And dont you think that if the Tysons of the packing industry were to shut down they would just be replaced by someone just like them? The cattle industry needs slaughter plants to harvest our animals and if Tyson doesn't do it someone else is going to.
Tam said:
Tam, it is the responsibility of the company selling the product to make sure of the suitability of its use. If we are to assume you are correct, there would never be any liability on anything.
Those type of policies have dire consequences for all of us. I am sorry that you are so interested in your self interest that you can not see the full picture. Companies that show due diligence like some of the things I mentioned above, should not be held as accountable than some one who knowingly sell faulty products.
I have not seen an attorney go through discovery to find these answers or argue the case. Every case is separate and distinct. I want to point out where the possible liability is and why it should not be skirted under the rug. There are economic consequences when this happens and Canadians have seen them. You seem to want to back anything the packers do to be able to process and sell your product. That type of policy is short sighted.
To your knowledge have any of the packers tested for transmission of BSE through feedstuff to make sure their product is safe for the intended use? The liability can surely be traced back to them if BSE is passed on through the feed. The question then becomes whether or not the companies used due diligence before selling their product for such a purpose.
Go back to packer never does wrong theory if you want to keep seeing issues like BSE play themselves out in international trade. Just don't keep crying when it does.
The question of packer liability on this issue is interesting and I don't think it has been fully explored. Companies should always be cognizant of making mistakes that cost some one else injury. Not having liability in such cases will just allow economic inefficiencies in judgement to occur.
Econ101 said:
Let us look at this as a drug company. If You legally sold me a raw material that was legal to be used in some of the drugs I was producing with no ill side affects and then all of a sudden a person comes down with something that may or may not be from an effect of the drug I made can you as the seller of the raw material be named in the lawsuit for damages? YES or NO Or I'm I responible for the effect of the product I produced and sold?
Their are Sciencist that have been try for years to prove one way or another if BSE is the result of feeding Ruminant MBM back to a Ruminant but as of yet some (even Randy) thinks that theory is garbage. So how can you hold the packers responible for BSE when the theory that you want to punish them with is still not validated by the expert Scencist that have been researching the many theories surrounding the cause and spread of BSE?
If this is true then why did you say this
or this
or this
I would think you would have had proof of liability before making such strong insistant remarks.
rkaiser
Well-known member
You sure are getting worled up on this one Tam. I am sorry that I brought a different angle to this debate and it has become to much for you to handle.
I would first like to discuss a phone call that came to me from one of the lawyers involved with the Feedrite/Ridley lawsuit. When asked, I expalined that the feed company and even the packer who produced the MBM still have an out when it comes to BSE. That out being the FACT that feed transmission is a THEORY. If push came to shove,the defendents, LIKE TAM would use this as an out, and the case would be thrown out. This may very well still be the outcome. IF the case ever goes to court.
And now on a completely seperate issue. Get that TAM, completely seperate. Why would a company that produces a product (MBM in this case) not be responsible for insuring the safety of this product, when they knew all along that the THEORY of feed transmission was the ACCEPTED THEORY of the day.
Try hard to keep the two issues seperate Tam. You will always have the fact that feed transmission is only theory as your last defense, just like your packer buddies. But try hard to leave that alone for now and understand that packers knew the potential within the conventional theory and still chose money and efficiency over potential safety. (If you choose to follow the conventional theory)
Are you going to be okay Tam. :wink:
I would first like to discuss a phone call that came to me from one of the lawyers involved with the Feedrite/Ridley lawsuit. When asked, I expalined that the feed company and even the packer who produced the MBM still have an out when it comes to BSE. That out being the FACT that feed transmission is a THEORY. If push came to shove,the defendents, LIKE TAM would use this as an out, and the case would be thrown out. This may very well still be the outcome. IF the case ever goes to court.
And now on a completely seperate issue. Get that TAM, completely seperate. Why would a company that produces a product (MBM in this case) not be responsible for insuring the safety of this product, when they knew all along that the THEORY of feed transmission was the ACCEPTED THEORY of the day.
Try hard to keep the two issues seperate Tam. You will always have the fact that feed transmission is only theory as your last defense, just like your packer buddies. But try hard to leave that alone for now and understand that packers knew the potential within the conventional theory and still chose money and efficiency over potential safety. (If you choose to follow the conventional theory)
Are you going to be okay Tam. :wink:
rkaiser said:
Well Randy if I was put on the witness stand I would just tell them "Well Randy Kaiser of Alberta Canada told me that the MBM Theory was garbage and I know he wouldn't just say that if it wasn't true. :wink:
rkaiser
Well-known member
Now you're gettin it Tam.
rkaiser said:Now you're gettin it Tam.
Yes I get it Randy you are backing the theory you don't believe in just to stir things up. If you had any integrity you would be going after Econ for blaming the packers for something that you think is garbage but instead you attack me for asking for his proof that they are guilty of anything. :roll:
rkaiser
Well-known member
It would get pretty boring around here if some of us didn't stir things up once in a while now wouldn't it Tam?
Why worry about what I think about the feed transmission theory Tam. Are you just using it as an excuse to back away from the fight.
"If" the feed transmission theory were true, could you go back and read my previous post and tell me what you think. In fact here Tam, let me help you out.
Why worry about what I think about the feed transmission theory Tam. Are you just using it as an excuse to back away from the fight.
"If" the feed transmission theory were true, could you go back and read my previous post and tell me what you think. In fact here Tam, let me help you out.
rkaiser said:
Randy I still say they sold a raw material that was and still is legal to use in other feeds so to say the Packer is responsible for what happen when the Feed manufacturer put their RAW MATERIAL into cattle feed instead of Pig or Chicken feed that later caused a problem is wrong.
Lets say a restaurant manager buys his food supplies from a wholesaler and after preparing the food a person comes down with food poisoning can the victim go back and sue the wholesaler for selling the restaurant the raw materials , if the restaurant was the one that maybe used the raw materials in a way that it shouldn't have been used?
Randy is the product that the packers sold safe to be used in feed other than ruminant feed if that feed is not misused by someone else ?
Tam said:
Tam, if a retailer did not handle a perishable product correctly and then sold it a food the retailer would be liable, not the farmer who sold the goods. If the packer processed a beef and found out that internally it was unfit for human consumption and then sold it for that use anyway, they would be responsible.
In every one of these cases the details are important to determine liability. I am not an expert on the details of BSE, as I have stated before, but it is funny how these issues in the beef industry have so much spin before they come out the door. I have stated many, many times that these issues are complicated, have a lot of nuances, require discovery that you nor I can accomplish on this forum, and are answers for a jury to decide. Intent is one of the elements that juries must decide. Most people do not excuse actions because they increase a processor's margins. Liability is not limited to the profits that a company has made. Liability is based on damages.
Tam, Let us stop arguing about this one because it really doesn't matter if either you or I win. I think I made my point. Sometimes efficiency is not really efficient if you don't include all of the costs- known or unknown. It is important that government does not take a hands off approach to some issues even if they cost someone some money. When packers influence the govt. so much that they get their way without the science behind it, there are economic inefficiencies that result. In the long run that hurts all of us. It goes to my argument that when companies cheat in the competition game, they should be caught and pay damages. Those assets will not disappear, contrary to what Jason might think, they may just change management. That might be a good thing for the concentration issues in this and other industries.
Classrooms where teachers (analogous to USDA) allow cheaters (analogous to packers) to cheat may make their test scores higher but they really degrade the quality of education (analogous to the beef industry). Pretty simple when you think about it. Companies that are run well have a disadvantage when compared to companies that cheat (Cheating in this instance is defined as political influence on members of Congress or the USDA).
Econ101 said:
Well we wouldn't have been in this argument if YOU had insisted in putting the blame of BSE on the heads of one sector of the whole beef industry, when as you say you are not an expert on the details of BSE.
Tell us when you are in your classroom and a know it all student pipes up and make an accusation that someone is cheating do you take the students word for it and punish the accused or do you ask for the accusers evidence to prove the cheating.
When a student accuses someone of wrong doing and they have no proof
does the accuser have the right to insist they be punished anyway just to prove his point.
You accused, you brought no proof of your accusations and now we are just to drop it because you think you made your point. I pity any student of yours that is wrongfully accused of cheating.
