R-CALF goes Back to Court

[rkaiser]

OCM -

The USDA is the one trying to impose two separate standards. Canada does not import from countries with BSE. The US does!!!


Tam's Reply - Bull, Canada imports beef from the US and we never stop taking your beef and cattle for slaughter. If you really want to know the truth the US was told by the OIE to take the leadership roll in establishing import/export rules but the US was already followers in that as Canada set import rules that never did punish you when you found BSE in your Herd. Did we take the CFIA to court to stop your imports No because we looked at the facts about BSE and the safeguards we have in place and found we were at no bigger risk. Unlike you, you looked at your safeguards and decided you were at risk no just from our cattle but NOW FROM YOUR OWN CATTLE AS YOU HAVE BSE TOO.

Is it all right if I agree with your post 100% Tam?

 

[rkaiser]

Missed yours Oldtimer -

I can't speak for Tam here but I think you are correct to say that the USDA should move to add safegaurds and impose the law, without adding the economic aspect of a closed border.

Come on Oltimer - you have to see the hypocracy in your line of thinking.

Your arguement is over. The United States of America is a BSE nation period period period.

 

[Econ101]

Missed yours Oldtimer -

I can't speak for Tam here but I think you are correct to say that the USDA should move to add safegaurds and impose the law, without adding the economic aspect of a closed border.

Come on Oltimer - you have to see the hypocracy in your line of thinking.

Your arguement is over. The United States of America is a BSE nation period period period.

May be the 20 billion dollar lawsuit should have members on both sides of the border suing both sides of the border. Is there an action under NAFTA that would provide this action?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "According to McDonald's, it doesn't. But, hey, why should their opinion be given any credence. It's not like they buy much beef or anything."

Where did McDonalds state that the U.S.'s precautionary measures are inadequate?

BRING IT!

Watch the dance folks...............

Sandbag: "Why can't there be two sets of standards? If you look at trade rules with Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Egypt, you see the USDA has 4 different sets of standards. All of them supposedly based on "sound science""

No wonder you are so confused. You just got done arguing that Canada does not import beef from BSE countries but we do. Now you are asking why there can't be two sets of standards.

WHICH WAY IS IT?????

Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Egypt's standards are not out standards. They are their standards.

Sandbag: "A question for you, SH; What is your definition of an isolationist? R-CALF certainly doesn't fit Webster's."

Someone who is afraid of the impact of Canadian imports on our market but not smart enough to realize that banning Canadian imports will not remove them from the world market.


~SH~

 

[Tam]

Tam
"Can you tell us how many herdmate there was to the Texas cow and if any of them ate the same feed as she did? Can you tell us if the USDA ever found all of the herdmates? Can you tell us whether or not any of them were made in to chicken feed and fed back to cattle as in chicken litter? As I see it the US can't really claim post feed ban BSE cases because of the loopholes you have in your feed ban. All cases found born after 1997 can be explained away by the fact it legally ate chicken litter even ones that you could find 8 years from now. So I think if R-CALF really wants to follow the rules the USDA should close all loopholes and then from that date your export markets should be closed for an additional 8 years."
------------------------------------------------------------

So you do agree that R-CALF is right in trying to get the USDA to put in the additional safeguards and enforce the law.....

Oh I agree they should but R-CALF also has said that our border should be kept closed until our STRICTED feed bans have been in place for 8 years. Since your 1997 feed bans were insufficient I think you should have to update to close the loopholes and then start the 8 year time table R-CALF so wants imposed on the Canadian Beef industry. By the time you are able to export again the world will be enjoying great tasting Canadian beef and you will have a very hard time getting your exports back. What makes me mad is how R-CALF slammed our rules for being insufficient and non complied to and we were the big risk when this all started. But in fact it is your safeguards that are insufficent and you yourself admit it now as you see the blame Canada thing didn't work the way you thought it would.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "According to McDonald's, it doesn't. But, hey, why should their opinion be given any credence. It's not like they buy much beef or anything."

Where did McDonalds state that the U.S.'s precautionary measures are inadequate?

BRING IT!

Watch the dance folks...............


~SH~

Group: U.S. not protected against mad cow
LIBBY QUAID
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Researchers and the nation's No. 1 burger seller say the
government is not fully protecting animals or people from mad cow disease.

Stronger steps are needed to keep infection from entering the food chain for
cattle, the critics wrote in comments to the Food and Drug Administration.

The group includes McDonald's Corp., seven scientists and experts and a
pharmaceutical supplier, Serologicals Corp.

The government proposed new safeguards two months ago, but researchers said
that effort "falls woefully short" and would continue to let cattle eat
potentially infected feed, the primary way mad cow disease is spread.

"We do not feel that we can overstate the dangers from the insidious threat
from these diseases and the need to control and arrest them to prevent any
possibility of spread," the researchers wrote.

McDonald's said the risk of exposure to the disease should be reduced to
zero, or as close as possible. "It is our opinion that the government can
take further action to reduce this risk," wrote company Vice President Dick
Crawford.

In people, eating meat or cattle products contaminated with mad cow disease
is linked to a rare but fatal nerve disorder, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob
Disease.

No one is known to have contracted the disease in the United States. The
disease has turned up in two people who lived in the U.S., but it's believed
they were infected in the United Kingdom during an outbreak there in the
1980s and 1990s.

The U.S. has found two cases of mad cow disease in cows. Since the first
case, confirmed in December 2003 in a Canadian-born cow in Washington state,
the government has tested more than half a million of the nation's 95
million cows. The second case was confirmed last June in a Texas-born cow.

"While this surveillance has not uncovered an epidemic, it does not clear
the U.S. cattle herd from infection," the researchers said.

The primary firewall against mad cow disease is a ban on using cattle
remains in cattle feed, which the U.S. put in place in 1997. However, the
feed ban has loopholes that create potential pathways for mad cow disease.
For example, using restaurant plate waste is allowed in cattle feed.

The Food and Drug Administration proposed in October to tighten the rules,
but critics said glaring loopholes would remain.

The FDA, which regulates animal feed, accepted public comments on the
proposal through last month. An agency spokeswoman said Wednesday it would
be inappropriate to respond to those comments.

The critics said their biggest concern is that tissue from dead animals
would be allowed in the feed chain if brains and spinal cords have been
removed. Brains and spinal cords are tissues that can carry mad cow disease.

In dead cattle that had the disease, infection had spread beyond brains and
spinal cords. Leaving tissue from dead cattle in the feed chain would negate
FDA's attempt to strengthen its safeguards, the critics said.

The most effective safeguards, they said, would be to:

_Ban from animal feed all tissues considered "specified risk materials" by
the Agriculture Department, which requires that such materials be removed
from meat that people eat. This includes tissues beyond the brain and spinal
cord, such as eyes or part of the small intestine.

_Ban the use of dead cattle in animal feed.

_Close loopholes allowing plate waste, poultry litter and blood to be fed
back to cattle.

Within the meat industry, many say the FDA proposal is effective, although
some companies contend new rules are unneeded. The American Meat Institute
Foundation, which represents meat processing companies, backs the FDA
proposal.

"To take out the most potentially infected material, and that would be
brains and spinal cords, that removes about 90 percent of the potential
infectivity that is in an animal - if it's infected," said Jim Hodges, AMI
Foundation president.

Mad cow disease is the common name for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or
BSE, a degenerative nerve disease in cattle.

 

[Anonymous]

So what OT???

McDonalds has an "OPINION" that supports your USDA blaming opinion. That doesn't mean they are right. The USDA is responsible for human safety. I'm sure their scientists know a hell of a lot more about this issue than you do or the "fast buck artists" trying to sell a BSE test.

The BSE precautionary measures that need to be in place, are in place and that's precisely why BSE is not showing up.

Opinions do not become scientific fact just because someone has an agenda.

Your leader, Leo McDonnell, says we have the safest beef in the world due to the firewalls we have in place. Perhaps you should take this matter up with him since you obviously disagree with him. Perhaps it's time to take out another add in the Washington Post and frighten consumers away from eating beef so you can blame USDA.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

SH- Are you DANCING? :???: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Gophers must have give you bad information this time....

 

[Anonymous]

Why would I be dancing?

You presented an opinion by McDonald's Corporation. WHOOPDI DO!

You think that trumps USDA's scientists tasked with the protection of the U.S. consumer? Get real!


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah Yeah SH- You're so full of it--If it don't fit your dream world you just make it up to fit :wink: :lol: :lol: ...

Show you a fact- and you make it in to an opinion...But the fact exists that MacDonalds stated that the US's precautionary measures are inadequate......

No wonder no one believes a word of the babble you spout in your dreamworld rants........

 

[Econ101]

Why would I be dancing?

You presented an opinion by McDonald's Corporation. WHOOPDI DO!

You think that trumps USDA's scientists tasked with the protection of the U.S. consumer? Get real!


~SH~

Again, another example of a packer backer not listening to one of the largest buyers of beef. You don't listen to anyone unless they agree with you. You will never know "the truth".

Are you saying that the scientists at the USDA caught the BSE positive without the help of Phyllis Fong? Another example of USDA policy makers protecting industry interests instead of truth.

 

[Anonymous]

Tam
"Can you tell us how many herdmate there was to the Texas cow and if any of them ate the same feed as she did? Can you tell us if the USDA ever found all of the herdmates? Can you tell us whether or not any of them were made in to chicken feed and fed back to cattle as in chicken litter? As I see it the US can't really claim post feed ban BSE cases because of the loopholes you have in your feed ban. All cases found born after 1997 can be explained away by the fact it legally ate chicken litter even ones that you could find 8 years from now. So I think if R-CALF really wants to follow the rules the USDA should close all loopholes and then from that date your export markets should be closed for an additional 8 years."
------------------------------------------------------------

So you do agree that R-CALF is right in trying to get the USDA to put in the additional safeguards and enforce the law.....

Oh I agree they should but R-CALF also has said that our border should be kept closed until our STRICTED feed bans have been in place for 8 years. Since your 1997 feed bans were insufficient I think you should have to update to close the loopholes and then start the 8 year time table R-CALF so wants imposed on the Canadian Beef industry. By the time you are able to export again the world will be enjoying great tasting Canadian beef and you will have a very hard time getting your exports back. What makes me mad is how R-CALF slammed our rules for being insufficient and non complied to and we were the big risk when this all started. But in fact it is your safeguards that are insufficent and you yourself admit it now as you see the blame Canada thing didn't work the way you thought it would.

Tam- I almost missed your and kaisers post--Got too caught up watching SH dance around his usual version of FACTS :lol: I guess he must have went out to find a different prairie dog to talk to and get his FACTS from :wink: :lol: :lol:

Personally- I had heard no mention or no-one even suggesting for R-CALF leadership to refile the court action against USDA until they came out with the unrestricted border opening for Japanese beef- And then I heard everyone screaming for it (maybe other members will correct me if they heard different).... I think that put the handwriting on the wall that USDA was choosing politics over safety....Remember even some in NCBA have questioned the OTM border opening to live cattle...

In some of the member e-mails I have received from R-CALF they state they would not have and would not continue the court action if USDA and FDA would fill the loopholes and enforce the M-COOL law that passed years ago....I think this was also in one of the press releases...

We can argue forever on who's beef is safest and who has the most BSE- but I've always said put in all the safeguards, enforce the M-COOL that has been signed into law so the individual consumers can make their own decision-- make sure all imported cattle are IDed--then open her up.......Let everything go north or south........

 

[Juan]

R-CALF, R-CALF R-CALF Gotta keep the lawyers workin. R-CALF. now insert the sound of a whip crackin' They keep pushing this thing just like Gil Favor and Rowdy Yates on Rawhide :cowboy:

What other option does one have if the government isn't doing their job?

Ever hear of the ballot box"Sandbag"?

 

[Econ101]

R-CALF, R-CALF R-CALF Gotta keep the lawyers workin. R-CALF. now insert the sound of a whip crackin' They keep pushing this thing just like Gil Favor and Rowdy Yates on Rawhide :cowboy:

What other option does one have if the government isn't doing their job?

Ever hear of the ballot box"Sandbag"?

Juan, the strategy that has developed in our political leaders has been to raise enough money to beat out any opponents with the ensuing propaganda machine. The elections have become more about money than votes.

 

[rkaiser]

Econo -

Juan, the strategy that has developed in our political leaders has been to raise enough money to beat out any opponents with the ensuing propaganda machine. The elections have become more about money than votes.

Get outa town Econo!

 

[Sandhusker]

R-CALF, R-CALF R-CALF Gotta keep the lawyers workin. R-CALF. now insert the sound of a whip crackin' They keep pushing this thing just like Gil Favor and Rowdy Yates on Rawhide :cowboy:

What other option does one have if the government isn't doing their job?

Ever hear of the ballot box"Sandbag"?

When is the last time you elected anybody in the USDA?

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "According to McDonald's, it doesn't. But, hey, why should their opinion be given any credence. It's not like they buy much beef or anything."

Where did McDonalds state that the U.S.'s precautionary measures are inadequate?

BRING IT!

Watch the dance folks...............

Sandbag: "Why can't there be two sets of standards? If you look at trade rules with Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Egypt, you see the USDA has 4 different sets of standards. All of them supposedly based on "sound science""

No wonder you are so confused. You just got done arguing that Canada does not import beef from BSE countries but we do. Now you are asking why there can't be two sets of standards.

WHICH WAY IS IT?????

Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Egypt's standards are not out standards. They are their standards.

Sandbag: "A question for you, SH; What is your definition of an isolationist? R-CALF certainly doesn't fit Webster's."

Someone who is afraid of the impact of Canadian imports on our market but not smart enough to realize that banning Canadian imports will not remove them from the world market.


~SH~

I saw the dance on the McDonalds question - nice two-step, SH. You call that the "Packer Reel"? :roll: :lol:

I did NOT say Canada does not import from BSE countries - READING COMPREHENSION - PLEASE GET SOME HELP.

The rest of the country uses Webster's for definitions. Your personal definitions mean nothing to anybody other than yourself.

 

[Tam]

Tam
"Can you tell us how many herdmate there was to the Texas cow and if any of them ate the same feed as she did? Can you tell us if the USDA ever found all of the herdmates? Can you tell us whether or not any of them were made in to chicken feed and fed back to cattle as in chicken litter? As I see it the US can't really claim post feed ban BSE cases because of the loopholes you have in your feed ban. All cases found born after 1997 can be explained away by the fact it legally ate chicken litter even ones that you could find 8 years from now. So I think if R-CALF really wants to follow the rules the USDA should close all loopholes and then from that date your export markets should be closed for an additional 8 years."
------------------------------------------------------------

So you do agree that R-CALF is right in trying to get the USDA to put in the additional safeguards and enforce the law.....

Oh I agree they should but R-CALF also has said that our border should be kept closed until our STRICTED feed bans have been in place for 8 years. Since your 1997 feed bans were insufficient I think you should have to update to close the loopholes and then start the 8 year time table R-CALF so wants imposed on the Canadian Beef industry. By the time you are able to export again the world will be enjoying great tasting Canadian beef and you will have a very hard time getting your exports back. What makes me mad is how R-CALF slammed our rules for being insufficient and non complied to and we were the big risk when this all started. But in fact it is your safeguards that are insufficent and you yourself admit it now as you see the blame Canada thing didn't work the way you thought it would.

Tam- I almost missed your and kaisers post--Got too caught up watching SH dance around his usual version of FACTS :lol: I guess he must have went out to find a different prairie dog to talk to and get his FACTS from :wink: :lol: :lol:

Personally- I had heard no mention or no-one even suggesting for R-CALF leadership to refile the court action against USDA until they came out with the unrestricted border opening for Japanese beef- And then I heard everyone screaming for it (maybe other members will correct me if they heard different).... I think that put the handwriting on the wall that USDA was choosing politics over safety....Remember even some in NCBA have questioned the OTM border opening to live cattle...

In some of the member e-mails I have received from R-CALF they state they would not have and would not continue the court action if USDA and FDA would fill the loopholes and enforce the M-COOL law that passed years ago....I think this was also in one of the press releases...

We can argue forever on who's beef is safest and who has the most BSE- but I've always said put in all the safeguards, enforce the M-COOL that has been signed into law so the individual consumers can make their own decision-- make sure all imported cattle are IDed--then open her up.......Let everything go north or south........

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America

Organization Explores Legal Options Available in Dispute with USDA
BILLINGS, MONT. (August 2, 2005) Please attribute the following statement to R-CALF USA President and Co-Founder Leo McDonnell:

"The recent opinion issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that temporarily reopened the Canadian border to live cattle sets a very troublesome precedent. It suggests that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is subject to little or no constraints when it decides whether to allow importation of agricultural products from countries affected by disease. This is a concern not just for today. In the future, when USDA chooses to favor trade over protecting U.S. agriculture, concerned citizens will have little real opportunity to express disagreement with those polices and then challenge such USDA decisions.

"Despite the 9th Circuit decision eliminating the preliminary injunction that had protected the U.S. from immediate imports of Canadian cattle, we remain confident that USDA's Final Rule on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the establishment of 'minimal risk regions' is premature and does not adequately protect the U.S. cattle industry from the risks of introducing the disease from BSE-affected countries. It is important to remember that only because of R-CALF USA's successful court action in April 2004 was our industry protected from USDA's improper action of allowing higher-risk beef products, including products from Canadian cattle over 30 months of age, into the United States.

"We are now looking at the best strategy to move forward to strengthen the United States' resistance to BSE, and this case is far from over. The 9th Circuit judges did not have all the facts before them when they reached the decision to reopen the Canadian border to live cattle. Importantly, they did not have the entire 13,000-page Administrative Record that contains the scientific evidence USDA ignored when the agency wrote its Final Rule. We are looking forward to the opportunity to present all of the merits of our case as we move forward with our request to obtain a permanent injunction against the USDA Final Rule.

Then 3 weeks later R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America

APHIS' Plan to Lift Japan Beef Ban Premature
BILLINGS, MONT. (August 22, 2005) R-CALF USA expressed disappointment with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) proposed rule titled "Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan,"

So you say that R-CALF wasn't going ahead with the refiling until the USDA came out with the Japanese deal. Maybe you should take a look at the dates of these two OFFICIAL R-CALF press releases AGAIN

I've always said put in all the safeguards, enforce the M-COOL that has been signed into law so the individual consumers can make their own decision-- make sure all imported cattle are IDed--then open her up.......Let everything go north or south

...
Again from R-CALF

Under no circumstances should the United States accept any cattle, beef or beef products, from countries that do not maintain identical or more stringent safeguard measures that is presently required or presently proposed in the United States which measures have been enforced for at least as long as the United States.

Can you explain why if we have had more stringent safeguards for the pass 7 years we should be taking your cattle and beef, just because you update your safeguards NOW? What happen to R-CALFs request of "For as long as"? What do you think R-CALF would have done if ours were the less stringent safeguards and we said OK boys we updated our safeguards to match yours now so open the border and let the cattle flow. You would have been the first one standing in line to scream about the FOR AS LONG AS. But now that the table is turned it is let us update and the let it rip. The only reason we aren't screaming is we know we have safeguards in place to protect our herd and consumers that WORK so it really makes no difference where the cattle come from.

 

[Anonymous]

OT: "Show you a fact- and you make it in to an opinion...But the fact exists that MacDonalds stated that the US's precautionary measures are inadequate...... "

You never showed me a fact YOU SHOWED ME MCDONALD'S OPINION. Just because it supports your USDA blaming bias does not make it a fact.

BRING THE DAMN PROOF TO BACK THIS OPINION LAW DOG!

PROVE THAT THE BSE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES THAT ARE IN PLACE ARE INADEQUATE!

It's bullsh*t. It's what you wanted to hear to support your desire to ban Canadian imports and that's it.

You got nothing here!

OT: "No wonder no one believes a word of the babble you spout in your dreamworld rants........"

Blah, blah, blah! Talk is so cheap from the blamer's camp. You only speak for you and a handful of other packer blamers who don't care about the truth.

When you got the facts to contradict anything I have stated, bring it. Until then, you got nothing but cheap talk.

Sandbag: "I did NOT say Canada does not import from BSE countries"

So where's this "so called" double standard you are imagining?

Sandbag: "The rest of the country uses Webster's for definitions. Your personal definitions mean nothing to anybody other than yourself."

Then why did you ask for my definition of an "isolationist" you @%^!@%* idiot?



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

OT: "Show you a fact- and you make it in to an opinion...But the fact exists that MacDonalds stated that the US's precautionary measures are inadequate...... "

You never showed me a fact YOU SHOWED ME MCDONALD'S OPINION. Just because it supports your USDA blaming bias does not make it a fact.

BRING THE DAMN PROOF TO BACK THIS OPINION LAW DOG!

PROVE THAT THE BSE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES THAT ARE IN PLACE ARE INADEQUATE!

It's bullsh*t. It's what you wanted to hear to support your desire to ban Canadian imports and that's it.

You got nothing here!

OT: "No wonder no one believes a word of the babble you spout in your dreamworld rants........"

Blah, blah, blah! Talk is so cheap from the blamer's camp. You only speak for you and a handful of other packer blamers who don't care about the truth.

When you got the facts to contradict anything I have stated, bring it. Until then, you got nothing but cheap talk.

Sandbag: "I did NOT say Canada does not import from BSE countries"

So where's this "so called" double standard you are imagining?

Sandbag: "The rest of the country uses Webster's for definitions. Your personal definitions mean nothing to anybody other than yourself."

Then why did you ask for my definition of an "isolationist" you @%^!@%* idiot?



~SH~

again you are blowing bull sh*t-- You questioned and doubted the FACT that MacDonalds had made the statement-- I showed you the FACT that they had....

You wouldn't know a FACT if you ever saw one....