Jinglebob
Well-known member
Sure seems like it Sandhusker. Oh wait, I think I hear SH growling now! :lol:
R-CALF bashers question
- Thread starter Sandhusker
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Sandhusker you say--Put yourself in R-CALF's place. You are greatly concerned about the USDA's catering to the big packers and feel that if the trend continues, it will be devestating to the US cowman. The USDA just did the AMI's dirtywork on Creekstone, and now they're falling all over themselves trying to get the Canadian border reopened for them - even to the point of ignoring their own rules. What would you do?
I say that R-Calf is more concerned with stopping cattle trade with Canada and they want to maintain the staus quo of selling all cattle thru the auction barn . They don't want producer - packer alliances that gives the impression of captive supply. R-CALF is opportunists and have jumped on the BSE bandwagon just to promote their cause at any cost.
I say that R-Calf is more concerned with stopping cattle trade with Canada and they want to maintain the staus quo of selling all cattle thru the auction barn . They don't want producer - packer alliances that gives the impression of captive supply. R-CALF is opportunists and have jumped on the BSE bandwagon just to promote their cause at any cost.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sand: "You didn't say anything about the problem...the USDA."
USDA is not the problem, R-CULT is the problem.
Sand: "Canadian imports have NOTHING to do with Japanese exports,....."
In a world market, Canadian beef will be absorbed by that world market. If Canadian imports of beef and live cattle are not absorbed by the U.S., they will EVENTUALLY be absorbed by our export markets making it a wash.
You have to be able to see world trade past the back of a Canadian pot load of fat cattle. I know that's difficult for industry blamers to do.
Sand: "It is the USDA's job to work with Canada - not any trade organization."
That's what USDA was doing before R-CULT started telling their lies about the safety of Canadian beef.
Sand: "A reduction in Canadian imports will mean the same reduction in Japanese exports? Only if we continue to cater to the AMI and allow that to happen."
The U.S. and AMI has no influence on trade between Canada and Japan. That's between them.
Sand: "Japan isn't taking Canadian beef now, yet we could of been sending them beef for over a year."
Japan may be taking Canadian beef in the future and you still have not provided one stitch of evidence that the Japanese parliament would allow imports of U.S. beef from cattle less than 24 months of age under the false safety net of 100% testing. You just hang on for dear life to your Creekstone position when you cannot even back it. Imagine that!
Jinglebob, did you have anything of substance to add or just the usual wave of the pom poms?
~SH~
USDA is not the problem, R-CULT is the problem.
Sand: "Canadian imports have NOTHING to do with Japanese exports,....."
In a world market, Canadian beef will be absorbed by that world market. If Canadian imports of beef and live cattle are not absorbed by the U.S., they will EVENTUALLY be absorbed by our export markets making it a wash.
You have to be able to see world trade past the back of a Canadian pot load of fat cattle. I know that's difficult for industry blamers to do.
Sand: "It is the USDA's job to work with Canada - not any trade organization."
That's what USDA was doing before R-CULT started telling their lies about the safety of Canadian beef.
Sand: "A reduction in Canadian imports will mean the same reduction in Japanese exports? Only if we continue to cater to the AMI and allow that to happen."
The U.S. and AMI has no influence on trade between Canada and Japan. That's between them.
Sand: "Japan isn't taking Canadian beef now, yet we could of been sending them beef for over a year."
Japan may be taking Canadian beef in the future and you still have not provided one stitch of evidence that the Japanese parliament would allow imports of U.S. beef from cattle less than 24 months of age under the false safety net of 100% testing. You just hang on for dear life to your Creekstone position when you cannot even back it. Imagine that!
Jinglebob, did you have anything of substance to add or just the usual wave of the pom poms?
~SH~
Sandhusker said:
Can you really believe that the AMI is the only one that will beneifit if the Canadian border was to open. Would it not help the US cattlemen to have the border open if it means that it may normalize trade with other countries and keep the small US slaughter plants viable so they are there to compete with the big packers for your cattle. You are concentrating so hard on the USDA/AMI that you are not seeing the big picture of what the border closure is doing to the US cattlemen that will have to haul their cattle a long distance to slaughter because plants are closing. Take the blinders off and look around and see what the true effects of the border being closed is having on the economy in the US. You are putting your industry in a very dangerous situation by setting a trade ban precedence on Canada. As is the US is sitting in the same risk catagory so every word coming out of R-CALFs mouth about the safety of Canadian beef is putting doubt in the minds of your trading partners (IE Japan consumers asking their government not to lift testing restriction for the US.)
I have heard R-CALF leaders say many times this is not about the Canadian cattlemen, we don't want to hurt them and we feel for them. This is about the USDA and the Packing industry in the US. But then they turn right around and tell anyone that will listen the Canadian beef is unsafe. They have even filed injunctions to stop boxed beef from UTM cattle. By saying our UTM boxed beef is unsafe and a risk of death to US consumer what are you telling your trading partners that you want to ship UTM beef to if you are considered in the same risk catagory as we are. Why if this is a true health issue has R-CALF said the USDA can open the border once the US export markets open back up? Where will the health issue disappear to Sandhusker? How is stopping boxed beef from Canada helping your economy, export market negoitations or consumers? You have a shortage of beef in the US and if you can't supply beef at a reasonable price to your consumers they will just STOP EATING BEEF. That will really teach the USDA and the AMI to mess with R-CALF won't it? Who will really be hurt by R-CALF statements about the safety of the beef supply?
So my answer to your question of what is R-CALF to do is, truly look at what some of their reckless health issue statements are/will be costing the US beef industry domestically with consumer confidence and long term demand, not to mention in credibility world wide. STOP making those statement to further their agenda of protecting high cattle prices which in the long term could effect the prices by destroying demand for your product. And focus on doing everything possible to normalize trade so the rest of the WORLD sees you believe the science you want them to believe about your beef. You can't have it both ways. Either beef from minimal risk countries like Canada and the US can be traded when the precautions are taken or it can't. R-CALF making blanket statements about the safety of our beef is hurting every beef producer and the lawsuit against the USDA if Judge Cebull rules in R-CALF's favor is handing every anti beef group in the world the gun to shut all beef producers in the head. I would suggest they shut up and stop trying to make a name for themselves over BSE at the expense of consumer confidence and demand. They are not helpping anyone with their fear mongering about the safety of the beef supply, certainly not the Beef industry. Go after the USDA and the packers if you must but just stop putting the idea that beef is not safe to eat in the minds of beef consumers worldwide while you battle out domestic squabbles.
don
Well-known member
Put yourself in R-CALF's place. You are greatly concerned about the USDA's catering to the big packers and feel that if the trend continues, it will be devestating to the US cowman.
r-calf should step back and ask themselves what effect has to come to american cattlemen in order for things to be better and how american cattlemen can be positioned to have more power in their dealings with usda and large packers. their strategy so far has in the medium and long terms weakened their position because they have handed more strength to cargill and tyson to squeeze out the smaller independents south of the border. canadian cattlemen see the same problem here as you see down there (only to a greater extent) and are going to have to dig ourselves out of our own mess. by campaigning to exclude canadian live cattle from the american market, r-calf has been a great ally to cargill and tyson (far better than usda has been). american cattlemen need a more diversified market just as canadian catlemen need a more diversified export market. these new markets don't magically appear; they have to be developed by the people who will be best served - the cattlemen. r-calf would do more for cattlemn by asking for the capital and commitment to develop these markets, just as is happening up here. the shortcoming in r-calf's theatrics so far has been that they are just against issues like captive supplies, concentration of ownership and voluntary cool; they have yet to come up with alternatives that work.
r-calf should step back and ask themselves what effect has to come to american cattlemen in order for things to be better and how american cattlemen can be positioned to have more power in their dealings with usda and large packers. their strategy so far has in the medium and long terms weakened their position because they have handed more strength to cargill and tyson to squeeze out the smaller independents south of the border. canadian cattlemen see the same problem here as you see down there (only to a greater extent) and are going to have to dig ourselves out of our own mess. by campaigning to exclude canadian live cattle from the american market, r-calf has been a great ally to cargill and tyson (far better than usda has been). american cattlemen need a more diversified market just as canadian catlemen need a more diversified export market. these new markets don't magically appear; they have to be developed by the people who will be best served - the cattlemen. r-calf would do more for cattlemn by asking for the capital and commitment to develop these markets, just as is happening up here. the shortcoming in r-calf's theatrics so far has been that they are just against issues like captive supplies, concentration of ownership and voluntary cool; they have yet to come up with alternatives that work.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Tam, thanks for for an honest and civil reply.
I disagree that opening the border will help normalize trade. In fact, I think it will do just the opposite. It will put us in the contradictory position of telling the world to "get the good stuff here", yet accepting beef they won't. Would you frequent a high-dollar restaurant if you knew they used products that McDonald's deemed as unsafe?
Tam, "You are putting your industry in a very dangerous situation by setting a trade ban precedence on Canada."
A trade ban with Canada is policy, not precidence. It is the policy of virtually every country in the world to close their borders to BSE positive countries CANADA INCLUDED. How can we be setting a precidence when we closed to each of the 22 countries who contracted BSE before you? How can we be setting precidence when most of the world, INCLUDING CANADA, did the exact same thing? The dangerous sitiation is a precidence of abanding world-wide accepted policy at the behest of the AMI.
Tam, "(IE Japan consumers asking their government not to lift testing restriction for the US.)"
Each and every request the Japanese make is for the Japanese. They want assurances of safety. They want tested beef.
Tam, "Why if this is a true health issue has R-CALF said the USDA can open the border once the US export markets open back up? "
Remember the other day I nudged you about confusing policy of USDA, R-CALF, and NCBA? That is NCBA's policy. :wink: (anyway, it's the NCBA's member's policy, the brass seem to be supporting another policy :lol: )
Tam, "But then they turn right around and tell anyone that will listen the Canadian beef is unsafe."
They're doing that to illustrate the USDA's dropping the ball on their duties to protect the US consumers and businesses. They can say virtually whatever they want to about Canadian cattle and the USDA can't refute anything because they didn't to the homework they are supposed to before making a decision on whether or not to open the border.
You say R-CALF's acts are causing long term consumer confidence problems - I counter by saying the USDA is the outfit causing the problems. They ignored the advice of their own panel, filed to quantify the risk, and thus were unable to measure that risk against their stated goal of protecting the nation's herd health and food safety. Judge Cebull asked them how much risk was there in accepting Canadian product. They said "low". What is low? Low compared to what? They could only say "low" because they didn't know, as is their job to know! Is that a confidence builder for the US consumer? The USDA claimed that their case was based on science and their answer is "low"? :roll: Can you imagine if Dr. Oppenheimer would of told President Truman that the atomic bombs being built for Japan had only a "low" risk of going off before they were out of the country?
I disagree that opening the border will help normalize trade. In fact, I think it will do just the opposite. It will put us in the contradictory position of telling the world to "get the good stuff here", yet accepting beef they won't. Would you frequent a high-dollar restaurant if you knew they used products that McDonald's deemed as unsafe?
Tam, "You are putting your industry in a very dangerous situation by setting a trade ban precedence on Canada."
A trade ban with Canada is policy, not precidence. It is the policy of virtually every country in the world to close their borders to BSE positive countries CANADA INCLUDED. How can we be setting a precidence when we closed to each of the 22 countries who contracted BSE before you? How can we be setting precidence when most of the world, INCLUDING CANADA, did the exact same thing? The dangerous sitiation is a precidence of abanding world-wide accepted policy at the behest of the AMI.
Tam, "(IE Japan consumers asking their government not to lift testing restriction for the US.)"
Each and every request the Japanese make is for the Japanese. They want assurances of safety. They want tested beef.
Tam, "Why if this is a true health issue has R-CALF said the USDA can open the border once the US export markets open back up? "
Remember the other day I nudged you about confusing policy of USDA, R-CALF, and NCBA? That is NCBA's policy. :wink: (anyway, it's the NCBA's member's policy, the brass seem to be supporting another policy :lol: )
Tam, "But then they turn right around and tell anyone that will listen the Canadian beef is unsafe."
They're doing that to illustrate the USDA's dropping the ball on their duties to protect the US consumers and businesses. They can say virtually whatever they want to about Canadian cattle and the USDA can't refute anything because they didn't to the homework they are supposed to before making a decision on whether or not to open the border.
You say R-CALF's acts are causing long term consumer confidence problems - I counter by saying the USDA is the outfit causing the problems. They ignored the advice of their own panel, filed to quantify the risk, and thus were unable to measure that risk against their stated goal of protecting the nation's herd health and food safety. Judge Cebull asked them how much risk was there in accepting Canadian product. They said "low". What is low? Low compared to what? They could only say "low" because they didn't know, as is their job to know! Is that a confidence builder for the US consumer? The USDA claimed that their case was based on science and their answer is "low"? :roll: Can you imagine if Dr. Oppenheimer would of told President Truman that the atomic bombs being built for Japan had only a "low" risk of going off before they were out of the country?
don
Well-known member
sandhusker: They can say virtually whatever they want to about Canadian cattle and the USDA can't refute anything because they didn't to the homework they are supposed to before making a decision on whether or not to open the border.
this is one of those instances where r-calf can make all kinds of wild accusations about canadian beef and it's best to not refute them because the raising of the issues can be embarassing to american regulations and practices. consumer confidence would only be damaged by getting into a long debate about them. if r-calf was taken to task on all the crap they throw and canadian traceback, srm handling and segregated kill lines were compared to american practices it would only make canada's precautions look obviously superior to american practices. the debate could damage confidence and reduce demand. usda is put in the position of having to let the lies pass.
this is one of those instances where r-calf can make all kinds of wild accusations about canadian beef and it's best to not refute them because the raising of the issues can be embarassing to american regulations and practices. consumer confidence would only be damaged by getting into a long debate about them. if r-calf was taken to task on all the crap they throw and canadian traceback, srm handling and segregated kill lines were compared to american practices it would only make canada's precautions look obviously superior to american practices. the debate could damage confidence and reduce demand. usda is put in the position of having to let the lies pass.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Don,
Maybe the USDA needs to do the the job they're entrusted and paid to do...
Maybe the USDA needs to do the the job they're entrusted and paid to do...
don
Well-known member
sandhusker: Maybe the USDA needs to do the the job they're entrusted and paid to do...
or maybe cattlemen are going to have to take responsibility for themselves. i didn't think americans liked entrusting their fate to the government. r-calfers are going to have to decide what the solution is before they can get there. so far they just like to throw crap at packers, canadians and anybody who doesn't feel sorry for them.
or maybe cattlemen are going to have to take responsibility for themselves. i didn't think americans liked entrusting their fate to the government. r-calfers are going to have to decide what the solution is before they can get there. so far they just like to throw crap at packers, canadians and anybody who doesn't feel sorry for them.
Cal
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
What the hell is factual? R-cult has their fund raising schemes at sale barns by scaring the hell out of everyone there with lies of gloom and doom, contaminated Canadian Beef, a flood of cattle waiting to come over the boarder to ruin it all for us, 'we don't need trade because we can't supply our own country', government save us, and on and on. Agman, SH, MRJ, many Canadians and others have spelled it all out for you time and time again and you don't get it. You just eat up what R-cult feeds you and buy into the USDA "conspiracy" crap while continuously ignoring the logic that an educated man like yourself should posess while we watch our packers move north. The whole R-cult MO is an embarassment to our industry. But wait, maybe if you can get real sappy and sniffle on cue you can go on Oprah!
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Cal said:
I didn't say there was a conspiracy, I said the USDA was doing the AMI's bidding. How can you not see it? Look at Creekstone - who wanted them denied? It wasn't the producers, feeders, consumers, or even small packers - it was the big packers. Now look at the reasoning "not based on sound science"! How rediculous! Do you buy that? How many things can you buy today that are not based on sound science? Name me ONE thing the USDA has denied on the basis of "sound science". ONE!
How about the Canadian border deal? Again, who was leaning on the USDA to get the border open? What did they do then? An agency charged with protecting the health of our herd and consumer's food supply didn't even take the time to determine the risk level to measure any possible effects a deadly disease that decimated Europe's cattle industry might have in this country. Instead, they abandoned a policy they had earlier told congress was integral to keeping BSE out of here, broke their own rules, and tried to open the border as fast as they could. Now you tell me if any of this is non-factual. Please point out what didn't happen.
Show me where I'm wrong.
I joined R-CALF just this January. Prior to that, I was listening to both sides. They didn't tell me anything, I could see it for myself. I joined them because they see it too. Why you can't is beyond me. I guess you don't want to see?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sand: "I didn't say there was a conspiracy, I said the USDA was doing the AMI's bidding."
Unsupported baseless allegation!
Sand: "Look at Creekstone - who wanted them denied? It wasn't the producers, feeders, consumers, or even small packers - it was the big packers."
Another, totally unsubstantiated baseless allegation.
THERE WAS NOTHING TO STOP THE LARGE PACKERS FROM DOING THE SAME THING CREEKSTONE WANTED TO DO.
Creekstone didn't have the corner on the Japanese market. The only reason the large packers didn't support 100% testing for the Japanese market is because it's "false advertising" and they would not support "false advertising".
You can't offer one stitch of evidence to support your "large packer" conspiracy theory on this. NOT ONE STITCH!
Why the heck would the large packers deny creekstone the same opportunity that they had themselves if it was a valid marketing opportunity?????
You can't even reason it out can you?
Give me one good reason why the Large packers wouldn't have had the same marketing opportunity if it didn't involve false advertising.
You can't even begin to answer that question because you just repeat what you hear. You don't back anything.
Sand: "Now look at the reasoning "not based on sound science"! How rediculous! Do you buy that?"
You show me where testing of cattle less than 30 months of age assures the safety of that product???
Creekstone's own Fielding even stated that 100% testing does not assure food safety SO WHY THE HECK WOULD ANYONE DO IT??????
To create the "PERCEPTION" of food safety, that's why!
"FALSE ADVERTISING" and that's why USDA did not allow it!
You are a deceptive individual who puts money ahead of principle and that is why you support it.
Sand: "Again, who was leaning on the USDA to get the border open?"
The broad minded Bush Administration and the American consumer.
Who was lying about the safety of Canadian beef to keep it closed?
R-CULT!
Sand: "An agency charged with protecting the health of our herd and consumer's food supply didn't even take the time to determine the risk level to measure any possible effects a deadly disease that decimated Europe's cattle industry might have in this country."
Another absolutely baseless allegation!
USDA's number one priority is the safety of the U.S. Consumer, not to the packer and not to the producer.
Sand: "Instead, they abandoned a policy they had earlier told congress was integral to keeping BSE out of here, broke their own rules, and tried to open the border as fast as they could."
THE RUMINANT FEED BAN WAS PUT IN PLACE
BSE SURVEILANCE TESTING WAS INCREASED
ALL SRMs WERE REMOVED FROM CATTLE OVER 30 MONTHS OF AGE.
The same exact standards that the U.S. has taken. Those are the measures that assure food safety, not catering to those who are "AFWAID TO TWADE" by keepin the Canadian border closed.
ARE YOU GOING TO REMAIN CONSISTANT IN YOUR ARGUMENTS IF WE HAVE A DOMESTIC CASE OF BSE?????
ARE YOU GOING TO BE CRITICIZING USDA FOR ENCOURAGING FOREIGN COUNTRY'S TO OPEN THEIR MARKETS TO US BECAUSE OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES WE HAVE TAKEN OR ARE YOU GOING TO BE SAYING USDA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT FOOD SAFTEY AND ARE BREAKING THEIR RULES, YADA, YADA??????
No, you are going to do just like Leo did, deceptively pretend that we have taken different precautionary measures than Canada because that's what deceptive people do.
Sand: "Now you tell me if any of this is non-factual."
There is none of it that's factual.
It's all a bunch of baseless, unsupported rhetorical allegations.
You couldn't be more empty handed to support your position.
Sand: "Show me where I'm wrong."
Show you were you are wrong?????
It doesn't do any good. You are so blinded by the R-CULT blaming doctrine you can't see how wrong you are.
SAME-O YOU!
~SH~
Unsupported baseless allegation!
Sand: "Look at Creekstone - who wanted them denied? It wasn't the producers, feeders, consumers, or even small packers - it was the big packers."
Another, totally unsubstantiated baseless allegation.
THERE WAS NOTHING TO STOP THE LARGE PACKERS FROM DOING THE SAME THING CREEKSTONE WANTED TO DO.
Creekstone didn't have the corner on the Japanese market. The only reason the large packers didn't support 100% testing for the Japanese market is because it's "false advertising" and they would not support "false advertising".
You can't offer one stitch of evidence to support your "large packer" conspiracy theory on this. NOT ONE STITCH!
Why the heck would the large packers deny creekstone the same opportunity that they had themselves if it was a valid marketing opportunity?????
You can't even reason it out can you?
Give me one good reason why the Large packers wouldn't have had the same marketing opportunity if it didn't involve false advertising.
You can't even begin to answer that question because you just repeat what you hear. You don't back anything.
Sand: "Now look at the reasoning "not based on sound science"! How rediculous! Do you buy that?"
You show me where testing of cattle less than 30 months of age assures the safety of that product???
Creekstone's own Fielding even stated that 100% testing does not assure food safety SO WHY THE HECK WOULD ANYONE DO IT??????
To create the "PERCEPTION" of food safety, that's why!
"FALSE ADVERTISING" and that's why USDA did not allow it!
You are a deceptive individual who puts money ahead of principle and that is why you support it.
Sand: "Again, who was leaning on the USDA to get the border open?"
The broad minded Bush Administration and the American consumer.
Who was lying about the safety of Canadian beef to keep it closed?
R-CULT!
Sand: "An agency charged with protecting the health of our herd and consumer's food supply didn't even take the time to determine the risk level to measure any possible effects a deadly disease that decimated Europe's cattle industry might have in this country."
Another absolutely baseless allegation!
USDA's number one priority is the safety of the U.S. Consumer, not to the packer and not to the producer.
Sand: "Instead, they abandoned a policy they had earlier told congress was integral to keeping BSE out of here, broke their own rules, and tried to open the border as fast as they could."
THE RUMINANT FEED BAN WAS PUT IN PLACE
BSE SURVEILANCE TESTING WAS INCREASED
ALL SRMs WERE REMOVED FROM CATTLE OVER 30 MONTHS OF AGE.
The same exact standards that the U.S. has taken. Those are the measures that assure food safety, not catering to those who are "AFWAID TO TWADE" by keepin the Canadian border closed.
ARE YOU GOING TO REMAIN CONSISTANT IN YOUR ARGUMENTS IF WE HAVE A DOMESTIC CASE OF BSE?????
ARE YOU GOING TO BE CRITICIZING USDA FOR ENCOURAGING FOREIGN COUNTRY'S TO OPEN THEIR MARKETS TO US BECAUSE OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES WE HAVE TAKEN OR ARE YOU GOING TO BE SAYING USDA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT FOOD SAFTEY AND ARE BREAKING THEIR RULES, YADA, YADA??????
No, you are going to do just like Leo did, deceptively pretend that we have taken different precautionary measures than Canada because that's what deceptive people do.
Sand: "Now you tell me if any of this is non-factual."
There is none of it that's factual.
It's all a bunch of baseless, unsupported rhetorical allegations.
You couldn't be more empty handed to support your position.
Sand: "Show me where I'm wrong."
Show you were you are wrong?????
It doesn't do any good. You are so blinded by the R-CULT blaming doctrine you can't see how wrong you are.
SAME-O YOU!
~SH~
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Sandhusker , Creekstone wanted access to Canadian cattle. R-CALF is dening them that.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Excellent point Big Muddy!
What a bunch of hypocrites huh?
~SH~
What a bunch of hypocrites huh?
~SH~
Mike
Well-known member
SH:"Creekstone's own Fielding even stated that 100% testing does not assure food safety SO WHY THE HECK WOULD ANYONE DO IT??????"
SH you're twisting the truth again. Can you show us a direct quote where Fielding said this? I don't think you can!
What he said was that because of the USDA's foot dragging [My words, not his] on approval of rapid tests he had to use the Bio-Rad's. (Which was the only one with USDA approval at the time and with a history of false positives.)
He had made arrangements with the Japs to send brain samples on each and every slaughtered animal to them for a Prionic's testing procedure. Without the latter he could not make any guarantees.
I can assure you that he never said, "100% testing does not assure food safety."
SH you're twisting the truth again. Can you show us a direct quote where Fielding said this? I don't think you can!
What he said was that because of the USDA's foot dragging [My words, not his] on approval of rapid tests he had to use the Bio-Rad's. (Which was the only one with USDA approval at the time and with a history of false positives.)
He had made arrangements with the Japs to send brain samples on each and every slaughtered animal to them for a Prionic's testing procedure. Without the latter he could not make any guarantees.
I can assure you that he never said, "100% testing does not assure food safety."
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "THERE WAS NOTHING TO STOP THE LARGE PACKERS FROM DOING THE SAME THING CREEKSTONE WANTED TO DO."
They don't want to do it if they don't have to.
SH, "Creekstone didn't have the corner on the Japanese market. The only reason the large packers didn't support 100% testing for the Japanese market is because it's "false advertising" and they would not support "false advertising".
:lol: :lol: Let's see you back that one up! A quote, please. :roll:
False advertising? All Creekstone wanted to do was say it was tested, and it would be testd. On top of that, their customers know exactly what they are getting.
SH,""FALSE ADVERTISING" and that's why USDA did not allow it! "
Do some homework. The USDA said "sound science".
SH,"You are a deceptive individual who puts money ahead of principle and that is why you support it."
Now that is a laugher! :lol: Why are you in favor of gutting existing health laws just because all of a sudden our bigest trade partner is effected? Want to talk money ahead of principle? :roll:
The broad minded Bush Administration and the American consumer.
Show me one stitch of evidence the American consumer demanded the border be reopened. You're just plain making crap up.
Sand: "An agency charged with protecting the health of our herd and consumer's food supply didn't even take the time to determine the risk level to measure any possible effects a deadly disease that decimated Europe's cattle industry might have in this country."
SH,"Another absolutely baseless allegation!"
Fine, show me the study. It would of been done between May and August, 2003. Prove me wrong.
Sand: "Instead, they abandoned a policy they had earlier told congress was integral to keeping BSE out of here, broke their own rules, and tried to open the border as fast as they could."
SH,"THE RUMINANT FEED BAN WAS PUT IN PLACE BSE SURVEILANCE TESTING WAS INCREASED ALL SRMs WERE REMOVED FROM CATTLE OVER 30 MONTHS OF AGE. '
Yep, but that's not the policy they told congress about, now is it?
They don't want to do it if they don't have to.
SH, "Creekstone didn't have the corner on the Japanese market. The only reason the large packers didn't support 100% testing for the Japanese market is because it's "false advertising" and they would not support "false advertising".
:lol: :lol: Let's see you back that one up! A quote, please. :roll:
False advertising? All Creekstone wanted to do was say it was tested, and it would be testd. On top of that, their customers know exactly what they are getting.
SH,""FALSE ADVERTISING" and that's why USDA did not allow it! "
Do some homework. The USDA said "sound science".
SH,"You are a deceptive individual who puts money ahead of principle and that is why you support it."
Now that is a laugher! :lol: Why are you in favor of gutting existing health laws just because all of a sudden our bigest trade partner is effected? Want to talk money ahead of principle? :roll:
The broad minded Bush Administration and the American consumer.
Show me one stitch of evidence the American consumer demanded the border be reopened. You're just plain making crap up.
Sand: "An agency charged with protecting the health of our herd and consumer's food supply didn't even take the time to determine the risk level to measure any possible effects a deadly disease that decimated Europe's cattle industry might have in this country."
SH,"Another absolutely baseless allegation!"
Fine, show me the study. It would of been done between May and August, 2003. Prove me wrong.
Sand: "Instead, they abandoned a policy they had earlier told congress was integral to keeping BSE out of here, broke their own rules, and tried to open the border as fast as they could."
SH,"THE RUMINANT FEED BAN WAS PUT IN PLACE BSE SURVEILANCE TESTING WAS INCREASED ALL SRMs WERE REMOVED FROM CATTLE OVER 30 MONTHS OF AGE. '
Yep, but that's not the policy they told congress about, now is it?
A
Anonymous
Guest
The exact quote.
Fielding: " "We are only saying the beef has been tested. We are not saying it is BSE-free. We are only doing what the customer asked."
Now tell me Mike, does saying "we are not saying it is bse free" speak to the safety of beef or that testing does not assure food safety" from the standpoint of BSE?
You can not dance around what Fielding stated. Those are his exact words.
BSE testing of cattle younger than 30 months of age is "false advertising" because, as Fielding stated, it does not assure that the beef is BSE free. That is why USDA would not support the practice while deceivers do.
Sand: "They don't want to do it if they don't have to."
Ridiculous!
SO WHY WOULD CREEKSTONE AND NOT THEM?????
What's stopping them from the same opportunity?
NOTHING other than the fact that it's not justified in any way, shape, or form.
Sand: "Why are you in favor of gutting existing health laws just because all of a sudden our bigest trade partner is effected? Want to talk money ahead of principle?"
SRM REMOVAL
INCREASED SURVEILANCE
RUMINANT FEED BAN
Hardly "gutting existing health laws" THAT YOU ARE UNWILLLING TO LIVE BY IF THE BSE SHOE WAS ON OUR FOOT.
You hypocrite!
Sand: "Show me one stitch of evidence the American consumer demanded the border be reopened. You're just plain making crap up."
I talked to numerous consumers that said that the closed Canadian border is helping to raise the price of beef to where they couldn't afford it and they turned to chicken and pork instead.
Sand: "Fine, show me the study. It would of been done between May and August, 2003. Prove me wrong."
No way! I'm not playing your "burden of proof falls on the accused" game. You are the accuser! You prove your allegation against USDA that they did not "take the time to determine the risk level to measure any possible effects a deadly disease that decimated Europe's cattle industry might have in this country."
Your allegation is total bullsh*t!
The obvious is that we have a feed ban, we have SRM removal, and we increased surveilance. Only a complete babbling idiot would suggest that these measures came about from an agency that didn't take the time to determine the risk level of BSE. To the contrary, the cult organization you support showed their true hypocritical "food safety" concerns by prohibiting "M"ID from "M"COOL because they wanted "country of origin not farm of origin".
Then act like you have the high ground on food safety, give me a break!
YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING CRAP UP and you accuse me of it.
Why don't you address the double standard Sandhusker????
You know you'll apply a double standard to the precautionary measures the U.S. has taken if BSE is discovered here again just like Leo McDonnell deceptively tried to.
You, like your fellow culters, are willing to risk the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption to stop the importation of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption based on a standard that you are unwilling to live by if the BSE shoe is on our foot.
You are a hypocrite and that's all there is to it unless you are willing to state that U.S. beef will be unsafe for export market in the event that BSE is discovered here.
Either the BSE precautionary measures taken by both countries assure the safety of the beef in both countries or they assure the safety of the beef in neither country. IT'S THAT DAMN SIMPLE FOR ANYONE WITH ANY DEGREE OF INTEGRITY!
~SH~
Fielding: " "We are only saying the beef has been tested. We are not saying it is BSE-free. We are only doing what the customer asked."
Now tell me Mike, does saying "we are not saying it is bse free" speak to the safety of beef or that testing does not assure food safety" from the standpoint of BSE?
You can not dance around what Fielding stated. Those are his exact words.
BSE testing of cattle younger than 30 months of age is "false advertising" because, as Fielding stated, it does not assure that the beef is BSE free. That is why USDA would not support the practice while deceivers do.
Sand: "They don't want to do it if they don't have to."
Ridiculous!
SO WHY WOULD CREEKSTONE AND NOT THEM?????
What's stopping them from the same opportunity?
NOTHING other than the fact that it's not justified in any way, shape, or form.
Sand: "Why are you in favor of gutting existing health laws just because all of a sudden our bigest trade partner is effected? Want to talk money ahead of principle?"
SRM REMOVAL
INCREASED SURVEILANCE
RUMINANT FEED BAN
Hardly "gutting existing health laws" THAT YOU ARE UNWILLLING TO LIVE BY IF THE BSE SHOE WAS ON OUR FOOT.
You hypocrite!
Sand: "Show me one stitch of evidence the American consumer demanded the border be reopened. You're just plain making crap up."
I talked to numerous consumers that said that the closed Canadian border is helping to raise the price of beef to where they couldn't afford it and they turned to chicken and pork instead.
Sand: "Fine, show me the study. It would of been done between May and August, 2003. Prove me wrong."
No way! I'm not playing your "burden of proof falls on the accused" game. You are the accuser! You prove your allegation against USDA that they did not "take the time to determine the risk level to measure any possible effects a deadly disease that decimated Europe's cattle industry might have in this country."
Your allegation is total bullsh*t!
The obvious is that we have a feed ban, we have SRM removal, and we increased surveilance. Only a complete babbling idiot would suggest that these measures came about from an agency that didn't take the time to determine the risk level of BSE. To the contrary, the cult organization you support showed their true hypocritical "food safety" concerns by prohibiting "M"ID from "M"COOL because they wanted "country of origin not farm of origin".
Then act like you have the high ground on food safety, give me a break!
YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING CRAP UP and you accuse me of it.
Why don't you address the double standard Sandhusker????
You know you'll apply a double standard to the precautionary measures the U.S. has taken if BSE is discovered here again just like Leo McDonnell deceptively tried to.
You, like your fellow culters, are willing to risk the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption to stop the importation of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption based on a standard that you are unwilling to live by if the BSE shoe is on our foot.
You are a hypocrite and that's all there is to it unless you are willing to state that U.S. beef will be unsafe for export market in the event that BSE is discovered here.
Either the BSE precautionary measures taken by both countries assure the safety of the beef in both countries or they assure the safety of the beef in neither country. IT'S THAT DAMN SIMPLE FOR ANYONE WITH ANY DEGREE OF INTEGRITY!
~SH~
Mike
Well-known member
You missed my point. Fielding is not saying that tested meat is BSE free and he could not guarantee it because his hands were tied with testing methods and USDA protocol.
If the Japs tested the samples and they BELIEVE it to be BSE free then THEY are the ones to make the call. Who's to tell them it's NOT?
Your "false advertising" claim is a joke. I guess the Japs have been "falsely advertising" for years now, huh? The Japs are not completely ignorant people as you must think they are. This is all about "going the extra mile" for your customer
If the Japs tested the samples and they BELIEVE it to be BSE free then THEY are the ones to make the call. Who's to tell them it's NOT?
Your "false advertising" claim is a joke. I guess the Japs have been "falsely advertising" for years now, huh? The Japs are not completely ignorant people as you must think they are. This is all about "going the extra mile" for your customer
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH,"BSE testing of cattle younger than 30 months of age is "false advertising" because, as Fielding stated, it does not assure that the beef is BSE free. That is why USDA would not support the practice while deceivers do."
Again, it is very easy to find, what was the USDA's stated reason in denying Creekstone? Quit making crap up and present the facts.
SH, "SO WHY WOULD CREEKSTONE AND NOT THEM????? "
Creekstone sees this as their niche. Also, a much larger portion of Creekstone's business was Japan. They were losing their biggest customer. However, what difference does it make? Why should Tyson have any say in what Creekstone does?
SH, "NOTHING other than the fact that it's not justified in any way, shape, or form."
When have US businesses had to justify their marketing to the government?
SH, "SRM REMOVAL, INCREASED SURVEILANCE RUMINANT FEED BAN"
Again, NOT WHAT THEY TOLD CONGRESS!
SH,"I talked to numerous consumers that said that the closed Canadian border is helping to raise the price of beef to where they couldn't afford it and they turned to chicken and pork instead."
:lol: :lol: SOME PROOF! "My brother in law said....." :lol: :lol: :lol:
SH, "No way! I'm not playing your "burden of proof falls on the accused" game. You are the accuser! You prove your allegation against USDA that they did not "take the time to determine the risk level to measure any possible effects a deadly disease that decimated Europe's cattle industry might have in this country." Your allegation is total bullsh*t! "
So you're asking me to show you a study that wasn't done? How does one do that? Like the time you wanted me to prove somebody didn't say someting? :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
SH, "The obvious is that we have a feed ban, we have SRM removal, and we increased surveilance. Only a complete babbling idiot would suggest that these measures came about from an agency that didn't take the time to determine the risk level of BSE."
Yep, we've got all those things, but it is NOT what they presented to Congress, is it? If they took the time to determing the risk of BSE, there would of been a study that you would be waving in my face, but, alas, there is not
SH, "YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING CRAP UP and you accuse me of it. Why don't you address the double standard Sandhusker????"
Like you backing your "consumers demanding the border be opened" arguement with "I talked to several people"? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
SH, "You, like your fellow culters, are willing to risk the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption to stop the importation of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption based on a standard that you are unwilling to live by if the BSE shoe is on our foot."
Hey, Smartie, let's compare standards. What is the USDA asking of Canada and what is Taiwan, Egypt, etc... asking of us? WE ALREADY ARE LIVING BY A HIGHER STANDARD!!!
Again, it is very easy to find, what was the USDA's stated reason in denying Creekstone? Quit making crap up and present the facts.
SH, "SO WHY WOULD CREEKSTONE AND NOT THEM????? "
Creekstone sees this as their niche. Also, a much larger portion of Creekstone's business was Japan. They were losing their biggest customer. However, what difference does it make? Why should Tyson have any say in what Creekstone does?
SH, "NOTHING other than the fact that it's not justified in any way, shape, or form."
When have US businesses had to justify their marketing to the government?
SH, "SRM REMOVAL, INCREASED SURVEILANCE RUMINANT FEED BAN"
Again, NOT WHAT THEY TOLD CONGRESS!
SH,"I talked to numerous consumers that said that the closed Canadian border is helping to raise the price of beef to where they couldn't afford it and they turned to chicken and pork instead."
:lol: :lol: SOME PROOF! "My brother in law said....." :lol: :lol: :lol:
SH, "No way! I'm not playing your "burden of proof falls on the accused" game. You are the accuser! You prove your allegation against USDA that they did not "take the time to determine the risk level to measure any possible effects a deadly disease that decimated Europe's cattle industry might have in this country." Your allegation is total bullsh*t! "
So you're asking me to show you a study that wasn't done? How does one do that? Like the time you wanted me to prove somebody didn't say someting? :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
SH, "The obvious is that we have a feed ban, we have SRM removal, and we increased surveilance. Only a complete babbling idiot would suggest that these measures came about from an agency that didn't take the time to determine the risk level of BSE."
Yep, we've got all those things, but it is NOT what they presented to Congress, is it? If they took the time to determing the risk of BSE, there would of been a study that you would be waving in my face, but, alas, there is not
SH, "YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING CRAP UP and you accuse me of it. Why don't you address the double standard Sandhusker????"
Like you backing your "consumers demanding the border be opened" arguement with "I talked to several people"? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
SH, "You, like your fellow culters, are willing to risk the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption to stop the importation of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption based on a standard that you are unwilling to live by if the BSE shoe is on our foot."
Hey, Smartie, let's compare standards. What is the USDA asking of Canada and what is Taiwan, Egypt, etc... asking of us? WE ALREADY ARE LIVING BY A HIGHER STANDARD!!!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sand: "Again, it is very easy to find, what was the USDA's stated reason in denying Creekstone?"
100% testing of cattle less than 30 months of age would not reveal anything. That was USDA's reason gave repeatedly.
Sand: "Creekstone sees this as their niche."
BWAHAHAHAHA!
So that is your reason why the larger packers didn't have this same opportunity?
You are such a goof!
Sand: "Also, a much larger portion of Creekstone's business was Japan. They were losing their biggest customer."
BWAHAHAHAHA again!
Oh, so that means the larger packers didn't have that same opportunity.
YOU GOT NOTHING AGAIN!
Sand: "However, what difference does it make? Why should Tyson have any say in what Creekstone does?"
Deception!
Tyson didn't have a say in what Creekstone did. USDA did!
Sand: "When have US businesses had to justify their marketing to the government?"
WHAT??????
Nutrition labels are mandated and enforced by the government.
There is laws to protect consumers from false advertising that are enforced by the government.
Drugs have to go through expensive research and testing before they can meet FDA approval.
Surgeon general warnings are mandated by the government.
WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?????
Sand: "Again, NOT WHAT THEY TOLD CONGRESS!"
Bullcrap!
USDA has continually stated to congress what BSE precautionary measures have been taken in the U.S. and referenced the research those measures were based on.
Quit lying about USDA.
Sand: "SOME PROOF! "My brother in law said....."
Discredit!
Sand: "So you're asking me to show you a study that wasn't done?"
You prove your allegation against USDA that they did not "take the time to determine the risk level to measure any possible effects a deadly disease that decimated Europe's cattle industry might have in this country."
You cannot back that allegation just like most of your baseless allegations.
Sand: "If they took the time to determing the risk of BSE, there would of been a study that you would be waving in my face, but, alas, there is not."
What you are saying is that you want ADDITIONAL research to prolong the opening of the Canadian border. Why don't you deceivers come clean for once?
Sand: "Like you backing your "consumers demanding the border be opened" arguement with "I talked to several people"?
More deception from you.
Your "who was leaning against USDA" question transforms into my "consumers demanding the border be opened" right before our very eyes.
Great job Sandbeenie, master illusionist.
You fooled yourself again.
Sand: "Hey, Smartie, let's compare standards. What is the USDA asking of Canada and what is Taiwan, Egypt, etc... asking of us? WE ALREADY ARE LIVING BY A HIGHER STANDARD!!!"
Divertion!
The issue is whether you are willing to live by the standards you set for Canada if their BSE shoe was on our foot. Not some other countries standards that were imposed on the U.S. to allow for our exports.
You have R-CULT's divertion and deception down to a science. You really should vie for an officer's position with R-CULT. Your divertion and deception tactics would be the envy of any deceptive organization.
~SH~
100% testing of cattle less than 30 months of age would not reveal anything. That was USDA's reason gave repeatedly.
Sand: "Creekstone sees this as their niche."
BWAHAHAHAHA!
So that is your reason why the larger packers didn't have this same opportunity?
You are such a goof!
Sand: "Also, a much larger portion of Creekstone's business was Japan. They were losing their biggest customer."
BWAHAHAHAHA again!
Oh, so that means the larger packers didn't have that same opportunity.
YOU GOT NOTHING AGAIN!
Sand: "However, what difference does it make? Why should Tyson have any say in what Creekstone does?"
Deception!
Tyson didn't have a say in what Creekstone did. USDA did!
Sand: "When have US businesses had to justify their marketing to the government?"
WHAT??????
Nutrition labels are mandated and enforced by the government.
There is laws to protect consumers from false advertising that are enforced by the government.
Drugs have to go through expensive research and testing before they can meet FDA approval.
Surgeon general warnings are mandated by the government.
WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?????
Sand: "Again, NOT WHAT THEY TOLD CONGRESS!"
Bullcrap!
USDA has continually stated to congress what BSE precautionary measures have been taken in the U.S. and referenced the research those measures were based on.
Quit lying about USDA.
Sand: "SOME PROOF! "My brother in law said....."
Discredit!
Sand: "So you're asking me to show you a study that wasn't done?"
You prove your allegation against USDA that they did not "take the time to determine the risk level to measure any possible effects a deadly disease that decimated Europe's cattle industry might have in this country."
You cannot back that allegation just like most of your baseless allegations.
Sand: "If they took the time to determing the risk of BSE, there would of been a study that you would be waving in my face, but, alas, there is not."
What you are saying is that you want ADDITIONAL research to prolong the opening of the Canadian border. Why don't you deceivers come clean for once?
Sand: "Like you backing your "consumers demanding the border be opened" arguement with "I talked to several people"?
More deception from you.
Your "who was leaning against USDA" question transforms into my "consumers demanding the border be opened" right before our very eyes.
Great job Sandbeenie, master illusionist.
You fooled yourself again.
Sand: "Hey, Smartie, let's compare standards. What is the USDA asking of Canada and what is Taiwan, Egypt, etc... asking of us? WE ALREADY ARE LIVING BY A HIGHER STANDARD!!!"
Divertion!
The issue is whether you are willing to live by the standards you set for Canada if their BSE shoe was on our foot. Not some other countries standards that were imposed on the U.S. to allow for our exports.
You have R-CULT's divertion and deception down to a science. You really should vie for an officer's position with R-CULT. Your divertion and deception tactics would be the envy of any deceptive organization.
~SH~
