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

Producers Pleased with OIE BSE Change

A

Anonymous

Guest
May 30, 2006



Producers Pleased with OIE Change to BSE Regulations; Canada Still Poses Significant Disease Risk



(Billings, Mont.) – R-CALF USA was pleased to learn that member countries of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) last week voted unanimously to revise the three definitions of risk categories for countries affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE): negligible, controlled, and undetermined.



Previously, a country that discovered a case of BSE had to wait seven years from the date of its latest discovery before being eligible to be classified as a “negligible risk” country, the category for countries with the least amount of risk from the disease.



Under these guidelines, the U.S. would have had to wait until the year 2013 to be classified as a negligible risk country after the March 2006 discovery of a BSE-infected cow in Alabama.



Now, as a result of OIE’s decision, countries work from the date of birth of the animal discovered to be infected with the BSE agent – a significant change that more accurately reflects the scientific knowledge surrounding the disease.



“Scientists have determined that BSE is caused by feeding contaminated animal-based feed to cattle, and that cattle are most likely to become infected with BSE during the first year of their lives, so using the infected animal’s birth date as a reference point allows countries to determine how recently contaminated feed may have been circulating within their feed system,” explained R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “OIE’s decision also allows countries to determine how effective their feed bans have been in arresting the spread of BSE within their borders.



“OIE is now saying countries with adequate testing programs that detect no cases in cattle born within the past 11 years should be considered as a negligible risk for BSE because there is no evidence the disease has been recycling in the feed supplies of those countries,” Bullard continued..



By applying this new reference point to the United States, which has tested over 720,000 cattle since June 2004 and detected two BSE-infected animals born more than 10 years ago, the scientific evidence suggests that while the disease may have been prevalent before the U.S. implemented its 1997 feed ban, the fact that no cases have been detected in cattle born after the feed ban suggests that the U.S. has effectively halted the continued recycling of the BSE agent,” Bullard said. “The risk in Canada, however, is inherently greater given this new standard.



“Of the six BSE cases detected in Canada after testing less than 110,000 cattle since 2004, half of Canada’s BSE cases were born after the 1997 implementation of its feed ban, which suggests a continuing BSE problem in that country,” Bullard explained. “Canada will have to wait until the year 2011 before OIE would even consider placing that country in the negligible-risk category.



“This suggests that the United States needs to rethink its trading position with Canada if the U.S. intends to restore confidence in the minds of international export customers,” Bullard continued. “It is irrational for the U.S. to continue commingling Canadian beef and Canadian cattle with U.S. beef and U.S. cattle when the rest of the world knows that Canada has an inherently higher risk for BSE. The U.S. is presently accepting Canadian beef products and cattle into the United States that U.S. export customers will not accept.



“For example, the countries of Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan, Egypt, and Hong Kong will not accept any ground beef from BSE-affected countries,” Bullard said. “Yet, not only is the U.S. allowing Canadian ground beef into the United States, but the U.S. also is allowing in imports of Canadian cattle that are eventually made into ground beef. It is clear, that for more than two years, this practice has complicated the reopening of U.S. export markets and is hurting the financial viability of the U.S. cattle industry.”



# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA’s membership consists primarily of cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members – over 18,000 strong – are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Is Bullard on crack these days?

First he says:
Scientists have determined that BSE is caused by feeding contaminated animal-based feed to cattle

Which is fine. Undoubtedly feed transmission is the biggest risk.

Then he says:

“It is irrational for the U.S. to continue commingling Canadian beef and Canadian cattle with U.S. beef and U.S. cattle when the rest of the world knows that Canada has an inherently higher risk for BSE.[/b]

First, there is no evidence that BSE can be transmitted from animal to animal. While I agree that anything is possible, and that the scientists don't know all there is to know, what risk is there to placing Canadian cattle into a feedlot and then slaughtering them? All animals in a feedlot are destined to be slaughtered.

Then he says:

"The U.S. is presently accepting Canadian beef products and cattle into the United States that U.S. export customers will not accept."

Ummmm, we're currently exporting to more countries than the US is. That should read: "Canada is presently accepting US beef products and cattle into Canada that Canadian export customers will not accept"

Then he says:

“For example, the countries of Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan, Egypt, and Hong Kong will not accept any ground beef from BSE-affected countries,” Bullard said

We're exporting to Japan, Mexico, Phillipines, and Hong Kong. I'm unsure of Egypt and Taiwan.

Come on guys. I know R-Calf is trying to protect their herds, but having the leader of your organization outright lying is just simply wrong and it hurts your credibility.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Rod, "First, there is no evidence that BSE can be transmitted from animal to animal. While I agree that anything is possible, and that the scientists don't know all there is to know, what risk is there to placing Canadian cattle into a feedlot and then slaughtering them? All animals in a feedlot are destined to be slaughtered."

Until we get our loopholes in the feed ban closed, there is a risk. Some excuses that I've heard from up there trying to explain your post ban positives are "calves getting into the chicken feed", "switching animal feeds in the bins without completely cleaning them out", etc... If there is any truth to those, our feed ban won't protect us from those happenings, either.

"For example, the countries of Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan, Egypt, and Hong Kong will not accept any ground beef from BSE-affected countries,” Bullard said

Rod, "We're exporting to Japan, Mexico, Phillipines, and Hong Kong. I'm unsure of Egypt and Taiwan"

Bullard specified ground beef. You sure you're talking apples and apples?

I don't see any lies, Rod. Not picking up "ground beef" changes the message quite a bit. I think you've been wrangling with SH so much, his reading comprehension skills are wearing on you! :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
OIE has become like the UN- a worthless organization that means nothing- thanks to countries like France, Canada, Japan, etc. etc....

Nobody follows what they say- not even the US-- and they only exist to suck in more US taxpayers funding
take a wild guess at who posted this.

Oldtimer, you bring the OIE up when you think it will help you but when you are asked about rules that go against you they are a worthless organization that means NOTHING. :roll: So I ask you who cares what rules this worthless organization changes? :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
OIE has become like the UN- a worthless organization that means nothing- thanks to countries like France, Canada, Japan, etc. etc....

Nobody follows what they say- not even the US-- and they only exist to suck in more US taxpayers funding
take a wild guess at who posted this.

Oldtimer, you bring the OIE up when you think it will help you but when you are asked about rules that go against you they are a worthless organization that means NOTHING. :roll: So I ask you who cares what rules this worthless organization changes? :wink:

Tam- Personally I think OIE should be thrown in the same rathole as the UN- but many in the pull think it is quite important....Especially those that have to agree with any rules changes that USDA should make to the Canadian OTM border rule when/if they still propose it- like Congress...

Unless CFIA can come up with sources for the 3 POST feedban cases it will be a huge argument to convince anyone that Canada qualifys for "controlled" status- as it creates great doubt on whether Canada has an effective feed ban......
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Rod, "We're exporting to Japan, Mexico, Phillipines, and Hong Kong. I'm unsure of Egypt and Taiwan"

Bullard specified ground beef. You sure you're talking apples and apples?

I don't see any lies, Rod. Not picking up "ground beef" changes the message quite a bit. I think you've been wrangling with SH so much, his reading comprehension skills are wearing on you! :wink:

Yeah, I didn't pick up on the ground beef, sorry about that. :( Oops. Get into a hurry, look what happens? Foot in mouth.

Rod
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
OIE has become like the UN- a worthless organization that means nothing- thanks to countries like France, Canada, Japan, etc. etc....

Nobody follows what they say- not even the US-- and they only exist to suck in more US taxpayers funding
take a wild guess at who posted this.

Oldtimer, you bring the OIE up when you think it will help you but when you are asked about rules that go against you they are a worthless organization that means NOTHING. :roll: So I ask you who cares what rules this worthless organization changes? :wink:

Tam- Personally I think OIE should be thrown in the same rathole as the UN- but many in the pull think it is quite important....Especially those that have to agree with any rules changes that USDA should make to the Canadian OTM border rule when/if they still propose it- like Congress...

Unless CFIA can come up with sources for the 3 POST feedban cases it will be a huge argument to convince anyone that Canada qualifys for "controlled" status- as it creates great doubt on whether Canada has an effective feed ban......

So why don't you let those in the pull, post it and highlight the passage they think are important. :roll:
You seem to think the CFIA should come up with answers well I think the US should do the correct testing not just adequate testing. :wink: Then maybe we would really know what catagory the US should be in. :? As right now I feel you should be sitting in the UNDETERMINED. We know you have it we just don't know how wide spread it is because of the just barely adequate testing the US gets away with. And cuts to that JUST BARELY ADEQUATE TESTING have already been announced. :x

I seem to remember somebody I just can't remember who though post this
I wonder if the OIE Chairman being a USDA employee had any influence on the rule change
I would also like to know. Seems a pretty clear cut way of getting into the negligible risk catagory as long as the USDA can keep control on Phyllis. Sandhusker keeps harping on the fact the USDA changed the rules for the 23rd country well I guess that wasn't good enough the WORLD HAD TO CHANGE THE RULES FOR THE 24th COUNTRY. Can't have the country with the WORLD SAFEST BEEF sitting in the same catagory as everyone else that has a case of BSE now can we? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
I seem to remember somebody I just can't remember who though post this
I wonder if the OIE Chairman being a USDA employee had any influence on the rule change
I would also like to know. Seems a pretty clear cut way of getting into the negligible risk catagory as long as the USDA can keep control on Phyllis. Sandhusker keeps harping on the fact the USDA changed the rules for the 23rd country well I guess that wasn't good enough the WORLD HAD TO CHANGE THE RULES FOR THE 24th COUNTRY. Can't have the country with the WORLD SAFEST BEEF sitting in the same catagory as everyone else that has a case of BSE now can we? :roll:

Tam- Are you finally realizing what many of us on here have said for some time- science has had little to do with the BSE decisions USDA have made- most have been made on Packer economics...John Tyson has more influence over USDA's policy than Johanns will ever even wish to have......

Don't worry Tam, I'm sure Mr. Tyson has a way figured out to get Canada into the controlled risk category and the OTM rule overrode, even with no proof of an effective feedban- someday- when it suits his pocketbook...

But this rule change opens up a lot of questions.......
 

Tam

Well-known member
ranch hand said:
Tam, R-calf wants to test them all. You should be harping on MRJ and others on here that don't want the extra testing done.

How do you really know what R-CALF wants I doubt Bill or Leo know. :lol: One day they request testing the next they boost about how the US is doing a much better job at testing than Canada because they test 150,000 head more annually.BULL. If that lie wasn't bad enough I found where Bill said the US is meeting and exceeding all requested OIE testing requirements for countries that have not yet detected BSE which were to be 187,000 head regardless of herd size. But Canada was not meeting these requirements. We all know the US never tested that many before BSE was detected in the US but that never stops Bill from spouting it did it. I tried to find where it was a requirement and guess what I doubt it ever exsisted in anyplace but Bills mind.

One day they tell everyone that your firewalls have big loopholes that need to be closed if the US is to import cattle from Canada as the importation will put your herd and your consumers health at risk. BUT the next thing we know Leo is telling consumers we have these firewalls to protect you the only country prior to having BSE to have these firewalls. :roll: Which is it do you have them or don't you? If you got them why can't they protect from imported cattle are they magical and only work on domestic cattle? :wink: R-CALF's crediblity on issues would be much better if they would pick a side of the fight and stick to it. Their flip flopping makes it so you can't trust anything they say as it is sure to change tomorrow.

Personally I don't think we need to test them all we just need to test the CORRECT ONES, so the world knows if Leo's firewall that exclude chicken crap truly did protect the US herd from the spread of BSE that by the way is in the US. :wink:
 
Top