Primer on how to kill a market

[Big Muddy rancher]

Here's the letter again sandhusker, Tim and i already proved you wrong before.

Creekstone Responds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S.-headquartered natural beef company responds with a letter to USDA's decision to deny its request for private BSE testing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two executives of Creekstone Farms Premium Beef LLC, Arkansas City, Kansas – CEO John Steward and COO Bill Felding – sent a letter USDA Secretary Ann Veneman, USDA chief of staff Dale Moore and USDA undersecretaries J.B. Penn and Bill Hawks, arguing the company's case to conduct its own testing of cattle it processes for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Last December USDA confirmed that one cow in Washington state was infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Almost immediately, more than three dozen, including Japan and South Korea, countries closed their markets to imported U.S. beef. Although no additional U.S. cattle have been diagnosed with BSE and USDA has stiffened regulations designed to keep BSE infective tissue out of the food supply, Japan is insisting that the U.S. test all cattle presented for slaughter for BSE. The U.S. argues that scientific evidence does not support testing 100 percent of the cattle.

In February, Creekstone Farms said it would be willing to test 100 percent of its own cattle. The company added that Japan would accept privately tested cattle. Last week, USDA denied Creekstone's request to conduct private BSE testing.

The letter from Steward and Felding reads:

On behalf of Creekstone Farms I want to thank you for the opportunity to have met with you in Washington, D.C. last Thursday, April 8. We had hoped for a different outcome to the meeting, however, and are very disappointed with USDA 's decision not to allow Creekstone Farms to voluntarily test all of the cattle we process for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). As we have discussed in the various meetings held with the USDA over the past several weeks, BSE testing of our cattle is something our export customers and consumers are asking for, and we feel we should be able to provide it to them.

Creekstone Farms will challenge the USDA's decision, and are currently analyzing our legal options. We are challenging USDA's authority to control the sales of BSE diagnostic tests in the United States and your decision to prohibit companies like Creekstone Farms from conducting 100 percent testing of young animals that would meet our customers' needs and requirements.

We are hopeful there will be a resolution to the current U.S. beef trade embargo with Japan. It is imperative to companies such as ours that trade be resumed. However, we understand the position of our Japanese customers, consumers and their government, as well as the challenges their staunch positions represent. They are requesting 100% testing of all beef bound for their market as the precursor to the resumption of trade. The USDA's current plan to test only older U.S. cattle for BSE will not meet this requirement. On Monday, Japanese Vice Agriculture Minister Mamoru Ishihara announced that the "U.S. government's decision not to accept [Creekstone's] offer is, frankly speaking, regrettable."

Creesktone Farms has received a tremendous amount of support during the past few weeks for our proposal to test all of our cattle for BSE. We will continue to work with our senators and congressmen, as well as industry experts, to help find a solution to this recent USDA decision. Please understand our situation as well as our consternation over why the USDA will not embrace our plan. Creekstone Farms plans to test more cattle than the USDA, at a lower cost. If our plan were to be implemented, we would test over 300,000 head of cattle over the course of a year, versus the USDA proposed cattle population of approximately 220,000 head. As well, the USDA is planning on spending a minimum of $72 million of taxpayer money to conduct these tests. The Creekstone Farms' plan will cost less than $6 million using the identical test kit, and our customers are willing to pay for the cost of the testing.

We ask that the USDA reverse its decision of last week and allow Creekstone Farms to test our beef for BSE. In addition, Creekstone Farms is asking for USDA approval of the following secondary options:

* Expand the USDA's surveillance program to involve 1 million head of young animals.

* Approve the procedure whereby Creekstone Farms is allowed to ship brain stem samples to Japan for BSE testing in their laboratories.

* Approve Kansas State University as an official USDA laboratory with direction to establish Creekstone Farms as a satellite laboratory.

* Approve the purchase of young Canadian cattle that would be BSE tested at our processing plant in Arkansas City, Kansas.* Approve labeling domestic product BSE tested due to increased consumer concern in the U.S.

This letter is also giving notice to the USDA that our loss in revenue is a minimum of $200,000 per day. We will continue to track this loss on a daily basis to determine damages. Additionally, we have nine important questions that we would appreciate having USDA address and respond to immediately. Please be advised we will be sharing this with the media.

Sincerely,

John Steward, CEO

Bill Felding, COO


Web posted: April 14, 2004
Category: Food Safety,Legislation and Regulation,Marketing,Processor News,Trade
Chris Harris, Editor[

 

[Sandhusker]

Where does it say the Canadian cattle would be headed to Japan?

 

[Sandhusker]

Since you're understandably stumped there, BMR, I"ll give you something else to think on. R-CALF supported Creekstone's efforts to BSE test for the Japanese market. That is well documented and there is no "rest of the story". R-CALF did not issue a blanket approval of everything and anything Creekstone wanted.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Strange that Creekstone is still a member of the AMI. Thought they might have quit them in protest.


So we don't know what Creekstone was to do with the Canadian Cattle. But it did say that they wanted to import Canadian cattle to test.


You guys say R-CALF supported Creekstone. But it couldn't have been much because they were in court trying to keep the Canadian border closed. Gee with friends like R-CALF who need enemies.


By the way looks like Creekstone might have found something new to latch on to. Humane Beef. :cowboy:

 

[Econ101]

Strange that Creekstone is still a member of the AMI. Thought they might have quit them in protest.


So we don't know what Creekstone was to do with the Canadian Cattle. But it did say that they wanted to import Canadian cattle to test.


You guys say R-CALF supported Creekstone. But it couldn't have been much because they were in court trying to keep the Canadian border closed. Gee with friends like R-CALF who need enemies.


By the way looks like Creekstone might have found something new to latch on to. Humane Beef. :cowboy:

BMR, it is much better to support rules or laws than companies or crooks.

 

[Anonymous]

So we don't know what Creekstone was to do with the Canadian Cattle. But it did say that they wanted to import Canadian cattle to test.


You guys say R-CALF supported Creekstone. But it couldn't have been much because they were in court trying to keep the Canadian border closed. Gee with friends like R-CALF who need enemies.

Maybe this shows the true concern R-CALF had for safety and the health concerns presented by Canadian beef and the USDA rules...Tested they wouldn't oppose because the concern and danger wasn't there...

 

[Tam]

So we don't know what Creekstone was to do with the Canadian Cattle. But it did say that they wanted to import Canadian cattle to test.


You guys say R-CALF supported Creekstone. But it couldn't have been much because they were in court trying to keep the Canadian border closed. Gee with friends like R-CALF who need enemies.

Maybe this shows the true concern R-CALF had for safety and the health concerns presented by Canadian beef and the USDA rules...Tested they wouldn't oppose because the concern and danger wasn't there...

What known danger is there in UTM cattle Oldtimer and if there is any danger why are US producers still selling UTM cattle for market since you also have BSE in your native herd. And don't say we had more because Creekstones offer was in 2004 after just one case of BSE was found with in our borders.

 

[Sandhusker]

BMR, "You guys say R-CALF supported Creekstone. But it couldn't have been much because they were in court trying to keep the Canadian border closed. Gee with friends like R-CALF who need enemies."

Dang it, BMR, I explained it right before you posted. Here we go again.....R-CALF supported Creekstone's efforts to BSE test for the Japanese market. That is well documented and there is no "rest of the story". R-CALF did not issue a blanket approval of everything and anything Creekstone wanted.

Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Anonymous]

Here's the blamer's rhetoric:

Within a month and a half of the discovery of BSE in the U.S. herd, Creekstone Farms submitted a request to USDA to be allowed to conduct private BSE testing at their plant in Arkansas City, Kan. The Japanese were willing to cover the extra testing cost and open their market to Creekstone's product. If the USDA had permitted Creekstone to test all of the animals it sent to Japan, U.S. exports could have resumed quickly giving the Australians little time to move into that market.

Here's the facts:

1. Creekstone's BSE tests would not have revealed prions in the cattle they were testing. Consumer fraud.

2. Nowhere did anyone confirm that Japan would have taken our beef with testing.

3. Japan's offer to pay for testing would have been offset by the price they paid for the beef.

4. Japan's willingness to accept "NON TESTED" beef from the U.S. confirms that Japan has accepted the science instead of the blamer's rhetoric.

5. BSE testing does not come without a cost.


None of these facts can be refuted.

1. Creekstone admitted that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE".

2. Self explanatory.

3. Talk is cheap!

4. Japanese exports resumed without testing.

5. Why test when prions wouldn't be revealed anyway?


The blamer's beat goes on......and their beat goes on..........


Tommy,

You still haven't brought anything of relevance to the table. Wow, a copied report from lying Mike! WHOOPDI DO!


~SH~

 

[ocm]

Here's the blamer's rhetoric:

Within a month and a half of the discovery of BSE in the U.S. herd, Creekstone Farms submitted a request to USDA to be allowed to conduct private BSE testing at their plant in Arkansas City, Kan. The Japanese were willing to cover the extra testing cost and open their market to Creekstone's product. If the USDA had permitted Creekstone to test all of the animals it sent to Japan, U.S. exports could have resumed quickly giving the Australians little time to move into that market.

Here's the facts:

1. Creekstone's BSE tests would not have revealed prions in the cattle they were testing. Consumer fraud.

2. Nowhere did anyone confirm that Japan would have taken our beef with testing.

3. Japan's offer to pay for testing would have been offset by the price they paid for the beef.

4. Japan's willingness to accept "NON TESTED" beef from the U.S. confirms that Japan has accepted the science instead of the blamer's rhetoric.

5. BSE testing does not come without a cost.


None of these facts can be refuted.

1. Creekstone admitted that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE".

2. Self explanatory.

3. Talk is cheap!

4. Japanese exports resumed without testing.

5. Why test when prions wouldn't be revealed anyway?


The blamer's beat goes on......and their beat goes on..........


Tommy,

You still haven't brought anything of relevance to the table. Wow, a copied report from lying Mike! WHOOPDI DO!


~SH~

Lies, all lies. Untruths. Factually inaccurate. Balderdash. Diversion.

Why did the USDA agree with Japan to exclude spinal columns on cattle under 6 months of age---------consumer fraud.

All the reasons USDA gave for not allowing Creekstone to test, they violated when they agreed to the concessions Japan wanted regarding removal of SRMs even on younger cattle.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "Lies, all lies. Untruths. Factually inaccurate. Balderdash. Diversion."

Hahaha!

More cheap talk from the cheap seats!

Did OCM prove my facts incorrect OR DID HE CREATE A "SANDHUSKER ILLUSION"???? See for yourself. These blamers never have anything but "ILLUSIONS" and cheap talk.

OCM: "Why did the USDA agree with Japan to exclude spinal columns on cattle under 6 months of age---------consumer fraud."

Because that is what Japan requested. Doesn't matter whether science supports that request or not.

If they agreed with Japan to exclude spinal columns in cattle under 6 months of age, WHAT HAPPENED TO THEIR SO CALLED DESIRE FOR BSE TESTED BEEF OCM??? Hmmm???

Hello? Hello? I think OCM hung up again!

OCM: "All the reasons USDA gave for not allowing Creekstone to test, they violated when they agreed to the concessions Japan wanted regarding removal of SRMs even on younger cattle."

USDA doesn't set Japan's rules, Japan does.

Creekstone addmitted to their consumer fraud scam when they admitted that "BSE TESTING" does not mean "BSE FREE". They were trying to sell an "ILLUSION" of food safety much like you are doing now. You blamers are all the same. Your need to blame is placed ahead of honesty and integrity.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

The man who thinks supplying tested beef to a consumer who asks for it is deception, but supports adding CO to packaged beef unbeknowest to conusmers to give it the appearance of freshness when it is not has just spoken. :roll:

You used to be funny, SH. Now your act is getting real old.

 

[Tommy]

SH...Wow, a copied report from lying Mike! WHOOPDI DO!

Another contridiction from you Scott! The article was from Darryll E. Ray.

Daryll E. Ray holds the Blasingame Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Policy, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, and is the Director of the UT's Agricultural Policy Analysis Center.

Pretty good credentials I think. Are yours as good?

 

[Econ101]

BMR, "You guys say R-CALF supported Creekstone. But it couldn't have been much because they were in court trying to keep the Canadian border closed. Gee with friends like R-CALF who need enemies."

Dang it, BMR, I explained it right before you posted. Here we go again.....R-CALF supported Creekstone's efforts to BSE test for the Japanese market. That is well documented and there is no "rest of the story". R-CALF did not issue a blanket approval of everything and anything Creekstone wanted.

Why is that so hard to understand?

It is hard to understand because he is a leader in the Canadian cattle industry. This is the kind of "smarts" in the old guard cattle organizations that has caused the packer frauds in Canada and the U.S. to proliferate.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

BMR, "You guys say R-CALF supported Creekstone. But it couldn't have been much because they were in court trying to keep the Canadian border closed. Gee with friends like R-CALF who need enemies."

Dang it, BMR, I explained it right before you posted. Here we go again.....R-CALF supported Creekstone's efforts to BSE test for the Japanese market. That is well documented and there is no "rest of the story". R-CALF did not issue a blanket approval of everything and anything Creekstone wanted.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Well Sandhusker start bring up some documents then Prove a point for once.

 

[Sandhusker]

BMR, "You guys say R-CALF supported Creekstone. But it couldn't have been much because they were in court trying to keep the Canadian border closed. Gee with friends like R-CALF who need enemies."

Dang it, BMR, I explained it right before you posted. Here we go again.....R-CALF supported Creekstone's efforts to BSE test for the Japanese market. That is well documented and there is no "rest of the story". R-CALF did not issue a blanket approval of everything and anything Creekstone wanted.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Well Sandhusker start bring up some documents then Prove a point for once.

If I have to prove this to you, you haven't been paying much attention around here.

http://www.r-calfusa.com/News%20Releases/043004-r-calf.htm

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

From R-CALF letter of support to Creekstone.


The letter from R-CALF USA President Leo McDonnell Jr., applauded Creekstone Farms Premium Beef and its entrepreneurial spirit.

"Creekstone is leading the beef processing industry into a new era -- one that is predicated on meeting the needs and wants of its customers," the letter states.


In Creekstone letter it said it wanted to import UTM cattle from Canada to to test. No where did it say in Creekstone's letter that the Canadian cattle would be for just domestic or export
R-CALF's letter suported Creekstone's "ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT" while going to court to prevent them from acting on it.

I would say Creekstone was doomed from the start With the USDA saying NO. The AMI as you guys say lobbying agaisnt them and R-CALF going to court to keep the border closed to limit their supply of cattle.

Like I said with friends like that who needs enemies.

 

[Econ101]

From R-CALF letter of support to Creekstone.


The letter from R-CALF USA President Leo McDonnell Jr., applauded Creekstone Farms Premium Beef and its entrepreneurial spirit.

"Creekstone is leading the beef processing industry into a new era -- one that is predicated on meeting the needs and wants of its customers," the letter states.


In Creekstone letter it said it wanted to import UTM cattle from Canada to to test. No where did it say in Creekstone's letter that the Canadian cattle would be for just domestic or export
R-CALF's letter suported Creekstone's "ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT" while going to court to prevent them from acting on it.

I would say Creekstone was doomed from the start With the USDA saying NO. The AMI as you guys say lobbying agaisnt them and R-CALF going to court to keep the border closed to limit their supply of cattle.

Like I said with friends like that who needs enemies.

BMR, if the science is there in tests like bse-tester's test to detect BSE even when it is not symptomatic, and it provides a safety for the BSE problem, why should anyone be against it?

You can come up with a lot of scenarios that are complicated but it still doesn't answer the above question.

As far as Canadian or other cattle coming into the U.S., the trade agreements should provide the same protections that the PSA provides producers here in the U.S. to those we are trading with and those protections should be able to be litigated by producers from both sides of the border to protect the markets from market frauds. If you want there to be a North American herd, you have to have North American rules. Right now, we don't.

 

[Sandhusker]

From R-CALF letter of support to Creekstone.


The letter from R-CALF USA President Leo McDonnell Jr., applauded Creekstone Farms Premium Beef and its entrepreneurial spirit.

"Creekstone is leading the beef processing industry into a new era -- one that is predicated on meeting the needs and wants of its customers," the letter states.


In Creekstone letter it said it wanted to import UTM cattle from Canada to to test. No where did it say in Creekstone's letter that the Canadian cattle would be for just domestic or export
R-CALF's letter suported Creekstone's "ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT" while going to court to prevent them from acting on it.

I would say Creekstone was doomed from the start With the USDA saying NO. The AMI as you guys say lobbying agaisnt them and R-CALF going to court to keep the border closed to limit their supply of cattle.

Like I said with friends like that who needs enemies.

Why not come clean and just say your intent is to interpret anything between Creekstone and R-CALF as antagonistic.

You choose to ignore that Creekstone's first plea to the USDA was to allow them to test for the Japanese market, which R-CALF supported. Had that common-sense request been granted, everything else would be moot.

Another thing you should think about - Creekstone didn't request that Canadian cattle be brought down here until AFTER they had a testing facility built and gathering dust. If the lack of Canadian cattle was limiting their supply, don't you think something would of been said before?

I appreciate you and Tam knocking R-CALF the way you do. Your weak arguements and transparent motives only serve to allow us members the opportunity to explain what R-CALF is doing to more people.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

From R-CALF letter of support to Creekstone.


The letter from R-CALF USA President Leo McDonnell Jr., applauded Creekstone Farms Premium Beef and its entrepreneurial spirit.

"Creekstone is leading the beef processing industry into a new era -- one that is predicated on meeting the needs and wants of its customers," the letter states.


In Creekstone letter it said it wanted to import UTM cattle from Canada to to test. No where did it say in Creekstone's letter that the Canadian cattle would be for just domestic or export
R-CALF's letter suported Creekstone's "ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT" while going to court to prevent them from acting on it.

I would say Creekstone was doomed from the start With the USDA saying NO. The AMI as you guys say lobbying agaisnt them and R-CALF going to court to keep the border closed to limit their supply of cattle.

Like I said with friends like that who needs enemies.

BMR, if the science is there in tests like bse-tester's test to detect BSE even when it is not symptomatic, and it provides a safety for the BSE problem, why should anyone be against it?

You can come up with a lot of scenarios that are complicated but it still doesn't answer the above question.

As far as Canadian or other cattle coming into the U.S., the trade agreements should provide the same protections that the PSA provides producers here in the U.S. to those we are trading with and those protections should be able to be litigated by producers from both sides of the border to protect the markets from market frauds. If you want there to be a North American herd, you have to have North American rules. Right now, we don't.

Econ if and when BSE TESTER gets the urine test for live cattle working I will support a eradication program. I have already tested cattle in the CFIA program. A live test is all together differnt scenario then testing at slaughter. The USA and Canada have NAFTA that covered the trade of cattle between the countries . If the USA wanted the PSA enacted in Canada they should have done it when NAFTA was signed.