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

R-Calf "Myths"

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Myths and Facts about BSE and Trade (source NCBA eUpdate)

R-CALF myths
1. The only specified risk material (SRM) removed from under-30 month cattle in Canada are tonsils and small intestine.

The facts.
Tonsil and distal ileum are EXACTLY the same SRM that the United States removes from cattle under 30 months of age. R-CALF says Canada's SRM list should be expanded because that country hasn't had a feed ban in effect for more than eight years-neither has the U.S. The Canadian feed ban was initiated at the same time as the U.S. feed ban; both countries will have had a feed ban for eight years in August 2005.
Why would a group that claims to represent independent cattlemen suggest that U.S. standards to protect human health are not adequate?

2. Canada doesn't qualify as a minimal-risk country under current OIE guidelines.

The facts.
In a signed affidavit, OIE publicly corrected R-CALF's mis-representation of OIE guidelines (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/ranchers.pdf). USDA followed up with a rare document that responded to R-CALF directly and in science based terms, yet R-CALF continues to lie about what OIE says. Canada's incidence rate is well below OIE standards for minimal risk because Canada has never exceeded the minimal risk standard over a consecutive 12-month period (or two cases per million population within a consecutive 12-month period). Further, OIE code has never recommended banning trade of cattle or their products, even from countries with high BSE risk, if the country has effective control mechanisms in place, as Canada does.
Why would a cattlemen's group continually and willfully misrepresent international trading standards?

3. Live cattle entering the U.S. will not have appropriate SRMs removed because of Canadian rules.

The facts.
The USDA Final Rule would only permit live cattle younger than 30 months for immediate slaughter or for feed-to-slaughter. These animals, already defined by international BSE authorities as low-risk because they are under-30 months of age, would be processed according to U.S. SRM removal requirements, under the same FSIS inspection process as U.S. cattle.
Why would a cattlemen's group question the safety of U.S. processes?

4. Beef from Canada is unsafe for U.S. consumers-and puts the U.S. food supply at risk for BSE.

The facts.
Boneless beef from Canadian cattle younger than 30 months is already permitted into the United States. Approximately 1.1 billion pounds of boneless beef, more than ever before in history, entered the U.S. in 2004, and was eaten by U.S. consumers as part of our safe, wholesome food supply.
Why would a cattlemen's group question the safety of the current U.S. beef supply?

5. Canada hasn't had a feed ban in place for long enough to qualify as a minimal risk country.

The facts.
The feed ban is one of many risk mitigating factors that the OIE asks a country to consider as it evaluates minimal risk. USDA performed a Canadian risk assessment as outlined in the OIE code and found Canada to be minimal risk. The OIE has said the feed ban is not the only mitigation measure necessary to protect human and animal health. If it were, the United States should also be challenged on the same grounds that R-CALF challenges Canada, since the U.S. feed ban has been in place for the same amount of time as Canada's. Neither country's feed ban has been in place for a complete eight years. The eight-year marker will be reached in three months (August 2005) the United States and Canada.
Why would a cattlemen's group question the safety of U.S. beef, by casting doubt on Canada's feed ban-which is the same as ours?

6. Canada's risk mitigation measures for BSE are the weakest in the world.

The facts.
Since Canada's risk mitigation measures (including SRM removal and the feed ban) are effectively equivalent to the United States, labeling Canada's measures "the least stringent" or the "weakest" in the world certainly suggests to consumers and others that U.S. measures are inadequate as well. The multiple firewalls the United States has in place to eliminate the risk of this disease exceed OIE standards and have been recognized as 'robust' by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
Why would a cattlemen's group want consumers to think either U.S. or Canada's mitigation measures are inadequate, when they are scientifically justified?

7. Canada should test all cattle for BSE.

The facts.
Science says testing cattle younger than 30 months is useless. First, the tests are not sensitive enough to determine disease presence in animals this young. More importantly, scientific data from cattle around the world reveal this disease is extremely rare in younger animals. When it does appear in younger animals, it is because the exposure to feed containing BSE was very high. Neither the Canadian, nor the U.S., cowherd has been highly exposed to BSE, as is evidenced by age of the few positive cases (younger age at onset means higher exposure as a calf). If we expect useless testing of cattle of under 30 months from Canada, the world will expect it from us.
Why would a cattlemen's group want packers to discount U.S. cattle for a useless test?

8. U.S. borders remain closed because other countries don't think Canadian beef is safe.

The facts.
Our trading partners have reportedly stated that R-CALF's efforts to keep the Canadian border closed are hurting the United States' ability to negotiate for open borders elsewhere-in the press and in other venues. R-CALF's litigation has hampered foreign trade negotiations-and extended the industry's (including independent cattle producers') losses incalculably. Further, if this were true, why do some countries, like Hong Kong, choose to accept Canadian beef, but not U.S. beef?
Why would a cattlemen's group categorically oppose our industry's ability to base international trade on scientifically sound criteria? Why do they wish to shrink our markets, instead of expand them for future generations?

9. NCBA supports packers to the detriment of independent cattlemen.

The facts.
NCBA is made up of packers and not cattlemen. Over 93 percent of NCBA's 25,000 members are independent cattlemen speaking for the industry, with more than 50 state and breed affiliates representing over 230,000 cattlemen across the United States. The remaining 7 percent of NCBA's membership is comprised of voting members representing the livestock market, dairy and processing segments. Through an inclusive voting process involving the board and membership, independent cattlemen set policy for NCBA.
Other, non-voting members include individuals and businesses with a vested interest in the cattle industry such as local feed stores, veterinarians, main street businesses and agriculture lenders.

NCBA's structure demands that new leaders be elected by the membership each year, so that NCBA is a true and dynamic representation of the wishes of independent cattlemen. Any claim of organizational misrepresentation coming from R-CALF, an organization that has had the same, monopolistic leadership since its inception, is difficult to swallow.

How many independent cattlemen have really had a voice in R-CALF's leadership? Why doesn't R-CALF allow many different voices in its leadership? Why does R-CALF brand anyone who disagrees with their policy as "packer aligned?"

10. U.S. consumers will question the safety of beef if we allow Canadian beef into the U.S.

The facts.
Canadian beef is already entering the U.S. in record amounts, in boxed form. The beef supply remains safe, and consumer confidence in the safety of beef from BSE remains higher than at pre-BSE levels. Consumers know that effective mitigation measures in both the U.S. and Canada mean beef is safe. In both Canada and the U.S., consumer demand for beef increased after BSE was found.

Why would a cattlemen's group say consumers question the safety of U.S. or Canadian beef-when they don't?


11. BSE is a contagious disease.

The facts.
Scientists have found that the only way BSE can be spread is through infected feed. BSE is not a contagious disease, and cannot be spread through animal-to-animal contact, or animal-to-human contact.
Why would a cattlemen's group perpetuate alarming mis-information about BSE?

12. The human form of BSE, called vCJD, can be contracted through tongue piercing.


The facts.
Although R-CALF's veterinarian has warned his audiences against the dangers of tongue-piercing, BSE cannot be spread to humans through the piercing of any body part.
Why would a cattlemen's group tell crowds of people that they are in danger of acquiring vCJD from unusual and completely unproven sources?

13. Because of the closed border, U.S. cattlemen are experiencing historically high cattle prices.


The facts.
The U.S. fed cattle price had appreciated significantly prior to May 20, 2003 (Canada's first BSE case.) U.S. prices did jump between May 20 and Sept 8, 2003 when all beef and cattle trade with Canada was stopped but fed cattle prices continued to increase to record levels afterward. Prevention of live cattle trade with Canada had very little immediate impact on prices and no measurable impact whatsoever on the obvious, multi-year upward trend in prices-a trend driven by improved beef demand combined with reduced domestic beef production in 2004 and thus far in 2005, not by keeping Canadian fed cattle out of the U.S.
Why would a cattlemen's group take sole credit for high prices when the industry's total effort, over the long term, is really the reason for success?

14. NCBA and American Farm Bureau inflated the number of agricultural families represented by these two organizations.


The facts.
NCBA and American Farm Bureau stand by the membership numbers cited in the Amicus brief. American Farm Bureau represents a wide range of farm families, not simply beef cattle production families. Many farms in this country support multiple families including multiple owners, part-owners, operators, tenants, hired workers and their families. We're sure R-CALF doesn't count its membership in farm units, rather than people, and neither do American Farm Bureau, or the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.


Why can't we stick to the facts?
 

Bull Burger

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
Location
Fruited Plains of western SD
Why can't we stick to the facts?


R-CALF doesn't know what facts are!


For the record:


"Canadian beef is diseased beef and I will not eat it and I will not feed it to my kids and I will not feed it to my grandkids"

Dennis Hanson, Fort Pierre Livestock Auction "market report" April 25, 2005 on KBHB 810 AM radio out of Sturgis, SD
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,977
Reaction score
76
Location
Big Muddy valley
Hey Sandhusker what do have to say now. 'I didn't read it so it can't be true. R-CALF wouldn't lie to ME. But but but Leo said it was so.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bull Burger said:
Why can't we stick to the facts?


R-CALF doesn't know what facts are!


For the record:


"Canadian beef is diseased beef and I will not eat it and I will not feed it to my kids and I will not feed it to my grandkids"

Dennis Hanson, Fort Pierre Livestock Auction "market report" April 25, 2005 on KBHB 810 AM radio out of Sturgis, SD


My kids and grandkids wouldn't eat it either if they had a way to differentiate-- Just a matter of risk assessment..........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bull Burger said:
Oldtimer said:
My kids and grandkids wouldn't eat it either if they had a way to differentiate-- Just a matter of risk assessment..........


Why do you trust getting your Rx from Canada then?

I don't- and FDA says they don't meet US standards- anyway thats the reason they say they are shutting down the internet and mail order imports from Canada and other third world areas.........
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Bill said:
Myths and Facts about BSE and Trade (source NCBA eUpdate)

R-CALF myths
1. The only specified risk material (SRM) removed from under-30 month cattle in Canada are tonsils and small intestine.

The facts.
Tonsil and distal ileum are EXACTLY the same SRM that the United States removes from cattle under 30 months of age. R-CALF says Canada's SRM list should be expanded because that country hasn't had a feed ban in effect for more than eight years-neither has the U.S. The Canadian feed ban was initiated at the same time as the U.S. feed ban; both countries will have had a feed ban for eight years in August 2005.
Why would a group that claims to represent independent cattlemen suggest that U.S. standards to protect human health are not adequate?

But that is what OIE states for countries that have BSE homegrown, that all SRM's are removed.

2. Canada doesn't qualify as a minimal-risk country under current OIE guidelines.

The facts.
In a signed affidavit, OIE publicly corrected R-CALF's mis-representation of OIE guidelines (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/ranchers.pdf). USDA followed up with a rare document that responded to R-CALF directly and in science based terms, yet R-CALF continues to lie about what OIE says. Canada's incidence rate is well below OIE standards for minimal risk because Canada has never exceeded the minimal risk standard over a consecutive 12-month period (or two cases per million population within a consecutive 12-month period). Further, OIE code has never recommended banning trade of cattle or their products, even from countries with high BSE risk, if the country has effective control mechanisms in place, as Canada does.
Why would a cattlemen's group continually and willfully misrepresent international trading standards?

3. Live cattle entering the U.S. will not have appropriate SRMs removed because of Canadian rules.

The facts.
The USDA Final Rule would only permit live cattle younger than 30 months for immediate slaughter or for feed-to-slaughter. These animals, already defined by international BSE authorities as low-risk because they are under-30 months of age, would be processed according to U.S. SRM removal requirements, under the same FSIS inspection process as U.S. cattle.
Why would a cattlemen's group question the safety of U.S. processes?

4. Beef from Canada is unsafe for U.S. consumers-and puts the U.S. food supply at risk for BSE.

The facts.
Boneless beef from Canadian cattle younger than 30 months is already permitted into the United States. Approximately 1.1 billion pounds of boneless beef, more than ever before in history, entered the U.S. in 2004, and was eaten by U.S. consumers as part of our safe, wholesome food supply.
Why would a cattlemen's group question the safety of the current U.S. beef supply?

If we have a problem with the feed ban then in my opinon we don't need more possible cattle than could tranmit it going into feed.

5. Canada hasn't had a feed ban in place for long enough to qualify as a minimal risk country.

The facts.
The feed ban is one of many risk mitigating factors that the OIE asks a country to consider as it evaluates minimal risk. USDA performed a Canadian risk assessment as outlined in the OIE code and found Canada to be minimal risk. The OIE has said the feed ban is not the only mitigation measure necessary to protect human and animal health. If it were, the United States should also be challenged on the same grounds that R-CALF challenges Canada, since the U.S. feed ban has been in place for the same amount of time as Canada's. Neither country's feed ban has been in place for a complete eight years. The eight-year marker will be reached in three months (August 2005) the United States and Canada.
Why would a cattlemen's group question the safety of U.S. beef, by casting doubt on Canada's feed ban-which is the same as ours?

But that is a long way from March.

6. Canada's risk mitigation measures for BSE are the weakest in the world.

The facts.
Since Canada's risk mitigation measures (including SRM removal and the feed ban) are effectively equivalent to the United States, labeling Canada's measures "the least stringent" or the "weakest" in the world certainly suggests to consumers and others that U.S. measures are inadequate as well. The multiple firewalls the United States has in place to eliminate the risk of this disease exceed OIE standards and have been recognized as 'robust' by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
Why would a cattlemen's group want consumers to think either U.S. or Canada's mitigation measures are inadequate, when they are scientifically justified?

7. Canada should test all cattle for BSE.

Any beef over 30 months of age in the future that USDA will let them send should be tested. Same for us if we get a BSE case in our own.


The facts.
Science says testing cattle younger than 30 months is useless. First, the tests are not sensitive enough to determine disease presence in animals this young. More importantly, scientific data from cattle around the world reveal this disease is extremely rare in younger animals. When it does appear in younger animals, it is because the exposure to feed containing BSE was very high. Neither the Canadian, nor the U.S., cowherd has been highly exposed to BSE, as is evidenced by age of the few positive cases (younger age at onset means higher exposure as a calf). If we expect useless testing of cattle of under 30 months from Canada, the world will expect it from us.
Why would a cattlemen's group want packers to discount U.S. cattle for a useless test?

How about the packers discounting beef over the age of 30 months? How about the discount for not testing for Japan on a voluntary basis?

8. U.S. borders remain closed because other countries don't think Canadian beef is safe.

The facts.
Our trading partners have reportedly stated that R-CALF's efforts to keep the Canadian border closed are hurting the United States' ability to negotiate for open borders elsewhere-in the press and in other venues. R-CALF's litigation has hampered foreign trade negotiations-and extended the industry's (including independent cattle producers') losses incalculably. Further, if this were true, why do some countries, like Hong Kong, choose to accept Canadian beef, but not U.S. beef?
Why would a cattlemen's group categorically oppose our industry's ability to base international trade on scientifically sound criteria? Why do they wish to shrink our markets, instead of expand them for future generations?

9. NCBA supports packers to the detriment of independent cattlemen.

The facts.
NCBA is made up of packers and not cattlemen. Over 93 percent of NCBA's 25,000 members are independent cattlemen speaking for the industry, with more than 50 state and breed affiliates representing over 230,000 cattlemen across the United States. The remaining 7 percent of NCBA's membership is comprised of voting members representing the livestock market, dairy and processing segments. Through an inclusive voting process involving the board and membership, independent cattlemen set policy for NCBA.
Other, non-voting members include individuals and businesses with a vested interest in the cattle industry such as local feed stores, veterinarians, main street businesses and agriculture lenders.

NCBA's structure demands that new leaders be elected by the membership each year, so that NCBA is a true and dynamic representation of the wishes of independent cattlemen. Any claim of organizational misrepresentation coming from R-CALF, an organization that has had the same, monopolistic leadership since its inception, is difficult to swallow.

How many independent cattlemen have really had a voice in R-CALF's leadership? Why doesn't R-CALF allow many different voices in its leadership? Why does R-CALF brand anyone who disagrees with their policy as "packer aligned?"

Members vote on the track we go. I disagree with some of what Bill says.
NCBA gets their marching orders from the members and then doesn't follow it.
10. U.S. consumers will question the safety of beef if we allow Canadian beef into the U.S.

Most still think we have a ban on Canadian cattle. It is not labeled, except with the USDA stamp. When they remove that, then we will see.
By the way why does NCBA want to remove the USDA stamp from Canadain or any boxed beef?
The facts.
Canadian beef is already entering the U.S. in record amounts, in boxed form. The beef supply remains safe, and consumer confidence in the safety of beef from BSE remains higher than at pre-BSE levels. Consumers know that effective mitigation measures in both the U.S. and Canada mean beef is safe. In both Canada and the U.S., consumer demand for beef increased after BSE was found.

Thanks to the adkin's diet.

Why would a cattlemen's group say consumers question the safety of U.S. or Canadian beef-when they don't?


11. BSE is a contagious disease.

The facts.
Scientists have found that the only way BSE can be spread is through infected feed. BSE is not a contagious disease, and cannot be spread through animal-to-animal contact, or animal-to-human contact.
Why would a cattlemen's group perpetuate alarming mis-information about BSE?

12. The human form of BSE, called vCJD, can be contracted through tongue piercing.

Never heard this one before. I would say they had BSE first if they wanted to pierce thier tongue. When I bite mine it hurts bad enough. Or were they talking piercing the tongue of cattle? :oops:

The facts.
Although R-CALF's veterinarian has warned his audiences against the dangers of tongue-piercing, BSE cannot be spread to humans through the piercing of any body part.
Why would a cattlemen's group tell crowds of people that they are in danger of acquiring vCJD from unusual and completely unproven sources?

13. Because of the closed border, U.S. cattlemen are experiencing historically high cattle prices.

Well we are, short supply as the border being closed helped with the drough short supply.


The facts.
The U.S. fed cattle price had appreciated significantly prior to May 20, 2003 (Canada's first BSE case.) U.S. prices did jump between May 20 and Sept 8, 2003 when all beef and cattle trade with Canada was stopped but fed cattle prices continued to increase to record levels afterward. Prevention of live cattle trade with Canada had very little immediate impact on prices and no measurable impact whatsoever on the obvious, multi-year upward trend in prices-a trend driven by improved beef demand combined with reduced domestic beef production in 2004 and thus far in 2005, not by keeping Canadian fed cattle out of the U.S.
Why would a cattlemen's group take sole credit for high prices when the industry's total effort, over the long term, is really the reason for success?

Long term effort is the reason, I would say the Adkin's diet has done more for the success than the effort.

14. NCBA and American Farm Bureau inflated the number of agricultural families represented by these two organizations.


The facts.
NCBA and American Farm Bureau stand by the membership numbers cited in the Amicus brief. American Farm Bureau represents a wide range of farm families, not simply beef cattle production families. Many farms in this country support multiple families including multiple owners, part-owners, operators, tenants, hired workers and their families. We're sure R-CALF doesn't count its membership in farm units, rather than people, and neither do American Farm Bureau, or the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.


Why can't we stick to the facts?

I am not going to proof what I wrote, so good luck.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
What is your reason for claiming "NCBA gets their marching orders from the members and then doesn't follow them"?

MRJ
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
mj...What is your reason for claiming "NCBA gets their marching orders from the members and then doesn't follow them"?

Not speaking for rancher mj, but the 11 point resolution comes to mind. How do you explain NCBA's flipflop on that?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Oldtimer said:
Bull Burger said:
Oldtimer said:
My kids and grandkids wouldn't eat it either if they had a way to differentiate-- Just a matter of risk assessment..........


Why do you trust getting your Rx from Canada then?

I don't- and FDA says they don't meet US standards- anyway thats the reason they say they are shutting down the internet and mail order imports from Canada and other third world areas.........

What third world parts of Canada have you been to Oldtimer?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
rancher
I am not going to proof what I wrote, so good luck.

That is the problem with you R-CALFers none of you think you have to prove what you wrote or said, not even your leadership. :x But then how can you prove your lied and still have any credibility? :???:
 

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
I took Rancher's comment of not proofing what he wrote as that he wasn't going to proof read his comments for spelling errors or sentence structure. I might be way off but that is my thought
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
But that is what OIE states for countries that have BSE homegrown, that all SRM's are removed.

The US and Canada in the eyes of the OIE are the same minimal risk and this is a North American issue to them and the OIE said in their report that "Until the level of BSE risk has been estabilshed the subcommittee concedes the exclusion of the CNS, skull and vertebral column from cattle over 30 months and the intestines from cattle of all ages, for human food is a reasonable temporary compromise."

If we have a problem with the feed ban then in my opinon we don't need more possible cattle than could tranmit it going into feed

Can you use short falls in your system to punish other countries that have proven their system to all inspections. According to the OIE you can not put trade restriction on an importing nation that you do not have on the same domestic product. So if Canada hadn't been able to prove a feed ban just as old as yours and compliance to it. You may be able to use our feed ban against us but yours against us I question that.


But that is a long way from March

Go ahead try use the fact we are 4 months short of an eight year old feed ban then we will look at the feed bans themselves I.E. CHICKEN LITTER. and the GAO report on compliance verses CFIA's USDA verified records of compliance.
What is protecting the US consumer from your non compliance feed system, the OIE reported they now know that the Infective agent of BSE is in the US system. If you think our 4 month short of 8 years old feed ban is a problem then what should your export markets think when you say "If we have a problem with the feed ban then in my opinon we don't need more possible cattle than could tranmit it going into feed" Should Japan and South Korea and the US consumer be eating US beef until you get those feed ban problems fixed and has been in place and complied to for eight years?


7. Canada should test all cattle for BSE.

Any beef over 30 months of age in the future that USDA will let them send should be tested. Same for us if we get a BSE case in our own.

[R-CALF said all cattle Rancher. But will the US be testing all OTM cattle, whether you find a case or not. As by OIE trade restrictions if you expect Canada to you have to be doing it too. R-CALF also said if you find another cases of BSE in the US herd you shouldn't be marketing beef from cattle over 20 months. So if you support R-CALF maybe you won't have to worry about cattle over 30 months or Will you still be supporting them if they stand on the statement?

10. U.S. consumers will question the safety of beef if we allow Canadian beef into the U.S.

Most still think we have a ban on Canadian cattle. It is not labeled, except with the USDA stamp. When they remove that, then we will see.
By the way why does NCBA want to remove the USDA stamp from Canadain or any boxed beef?

So none of the US consumers know they are eating imported meat. I guess they don't pay much attention to the news broadcast in the US that say the US is importing record amounts of boxed beef and they never listen to R-CALF when they took the USDA to court to stop the increase in beef product to the US last spring. Thank goodness maybe they aren'y listening to you now either while you and your judge tell them that importing UTM cattle from Canada to be processed in US slaughter plants is a genuine risk of death to them? And just maybe they haven't heard about the Washington cow that was in your food chain. or the non compliance of the US feed system that is putting the whole US herd in danger,or the fact that your are testing slaughter animals instead of the on farm dead, dieing and downers that the OIE recommended. it is funny how the Japanese consumer has hear about these things but you own consumer haven't.

[
13. Because of the closed border, U.S. cattlemen are experiencing historically high cattle prices.

Well we are, short supply as the border being closed helped with the drough short supply.

The facts.
The U.S. fed cattle price had appreciated significantly prior to May 20, 2003 (Canada's first BSE case.) U.S. prices did jump between May 20 and Sept 8, 2003 when all beef and cattle trade with Canada was stopped but fed cattle prices continued to increase to record levels afterward. Prevention of live cattle trade with Canada had very little immediate impact on prices and no measurable impact whatsoever on the obvious, multi-year upward trend in prices-a trend driven by improved beef demand combined with reduced domestic beef production in 2004 and thus far in 2005, not by keeping Canadian fed cattle out of the U.S.
Why would a cattlemen's group take sole credit for high prices when the industry's total effort, over the long term, is really the reason for success?

Long term effort is the reason, I would say the Adkin's diet has done more for the success than the effort.

You agree then R-CALF's claims of the border being closed has little to do with the prices?

Why didn't you answer the question about your monopolistic leadership? do the membership of R-CALF really have a say. Why isn't R-CALF like other membership organizations that elect new officers every so often?
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
reader (the Second) said:
feeder said:
I took Rancher's comment of not proofing what he wrote as that he wasn't going to proof read his comments for spelling errors or sentence structure. I might be way off but that is my thought

Yep, that's how I took it too.

Thanks Feeder and Reader the second, some people read things with out twisting it. I did mean the spelling and sentence structure. But some people are here just to jump down someone's throat for no reason.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
rancher said:
reader (the Second) said:
feeder said:
I took Rancher's comment of not proofing what he wrote as that he wasn't going to proof read his comments for spelling errors or sentence structure. I might be way off but that is my thought

Yep, that's how I took it too.

Thanks Feeder and Reader the second, some people read things with out twisting it. I did mean the spelling and sentence structure. But some people are here just to jump down someone's throat for no reason.

Can you prove the statements you made, because from what I see the OIE rules are different from your opinion of how things should be run.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Tommy said:
mj...What is your reason for claiming "NCBA gets their marching orders from the members and then doesn't follow them"?

Not speaking for rancher mj, but the 11 point resolution comes to mind. How do you explain NCBA's flipflop on that?[/quote

What is your basis for claiming there is any flip-flop on the 11 points? I see it as a work in progress. Some points have been achieved, and maybe some are still in the works. Do you have any proof to the contrary? You surely access the beef.org website, and can see that for yourself, don't you?

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Bill said:
Myths and Facts about BSE and Trade (source NCBA eUpdate)

R-CALF myths
1. The only specified risk material (SRM) removed from under-30 month cattle in Canada are tonsils and small intestine.

The facts.
Tonsil and distal ileum are EXACTLY the same SRM that the United States removes from cattle under 30 months of age. R-CALF says Canada's SRM list should be expanded because that country hasn't had a feed ban in effect for more than eight years-neither has the U.S. The Canadian feed ban was initiated at the same time as the U.S. feed ban; both countries will have had a feed ban for eight years in August 2005.
Why would a group that claims to represent independent cattlemen suggest that U.S. standards to protect human health are not adequate?

2. Canada doesn't qualify as a minimal-risk country under current OIE guidelines.

The facts.
In a signed affidavit, OIE publicly corrected R-CALF's mis-representation of OIE guidelines (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/ranchers.pdf). USDA followed up with a rare document that responded to R-CALF directly and in science based terms, yet R-CALF continues to lie about what OIE says. Canada's incidence rate is well below OIE standards for minimal risk because Canada has never exceeded the minimal risk standard over a consecutive 12-month period (or two cases per million population within a consecutive 12-month period). Further, OIE code has never recommended banning trade of cattle or their products, even from countries with high BSE risk, if the country has effective control mechanisms in place, as Canada does.
Why would a cattlemen's group continually and willfully misrepresent international trading standards?

3. Live cattle entering the U.S. will not have appropriate SRMs removed because of Canadian rules.

The facts.
The USDA Final Rule would only permit live cattle younger than 30 months for immediate slaughter or for feed-to-slaughter. These animals, already defined by international BSE authorities as low-risk because they are under-30 months of age, would be processed according to U.S. SRM removal requirements, under the same FSIS inspection process as U.S. cattle.
Why would a cattlemen's group question the safety of U.S. processes?

4. Beef from Canada is unsafe for U.S. consumers-and puts the U.S. food supply at risk for BSE.

The facts.
Boneless beef from Canadian cattle younger than 30 months is already permitted into the United States. Approximately 1.1 billion pounds of boneless beef, more than ever before in history, entered the U.S. in 2004, and was eaten by U.S. consumers as part of our safe, wholesome food supply.
Why would a cattlemen's group question the safety of the current U.S. beef supply?

5. Canada hasn't had a feed ban in place for long enough to qualify as a minimal risk country.

The facts.
The feed ban is one of many risk mitigating factors that the OIE asks a country to consider as it evaluates minimal risk. USDA performed a Canadian risk assessment as outlined in the OIE code and found Canada to be minimal risk. The OIE has said the feed ban is not the only mitigation measure necessary to protect human and animal health. If it were, the United States should also be challenged on the same grounds that R-CALF challenges Canada, since the U.S. feed ban has been in place for the same amount of time as Canada's. Neither country's feed ban has been in place for a complete eight years. The eight-year marker will be reached in three months (August 2005) the United States and Canada.
Why would a cattlemen's group question the safety of U.S. beef, by casting doubt on Canada's feed ban-which is the same as ours?

6. Canada's risk mitigation measures for BSE are the weakest in the world.

The facts.
Since Canada's risk mitigation measures (including SRM removal and the feed ban) are effectively equivalent to the United States, labeling Canada's measures "the least stringent" or the "weakest" in the world certainly suggests to consumers and others that U.S. measures are inadequate as well. The multiple firewalls the United States has in place to eliminate the risk of this disease exceed OIE standards and have been recognized as 'robust' by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
Why would a cattlemen's group want consumers to think either U.S. or Canada's mitigation measures are inadequate, when they are scientifically justified?

7. Canada should test all cattle for BSE.

The facts.
Science says testing cattle younger than 30 months is useless. First, the tests are not sensitive enough to determine disease presence in animals this young. More importantly, scientific data from cattle around the world reveal this disease is extremely rare in younger animals. When it does appear in younger animals, it is because the exposure to feed containing BSE was very high. Neither the Canadian, nor the U.S., cowherd has been highly exposed to BSE, as is evidenced by age of the few positive cases (younger age at onset means higher exposure as a calf). If we expect useless testing of cattle of under 30 months from Canada, the world will expect it from us.
Why would a cattlemen's group want packers to discount U.S. cattle for a useless test?

8. U.S. borders remain closed because other countries don't think Canadian beef is safe.

The facts.
Our trading partners have reportedly stated that R-CALF's efforts to keep the Canadian border closed are hurting the United States' ability to negotiate for open borders elsewhere-in the press and in other venues. R-CALF's litigation has hampered foreign trade negotiations-and extended the industry's (including independent cattle producers') losses incalculably. Further, if this were true, why do some countries, like Hong Kong, choose to accept Canadian beef, but not U.S. beef?
Why would a cattlemen's group categorically oppose our industry's ability to base international trade on scientifically sound criteria? Why do they wish to shrink our markets, instead of expand them for future generations?

9. NCBA supports packers to the detriment of independent cattlemen.

The facts.
NCBA is made up of cattlemen and not packers. Over 93 percent of NCBA's 25,000 members are independent cattlemen speaking for the industry, with more than 50 state and breed affiliates representing over 230,000 cattlemen across the United States. The remaining 7 percent of NCBA's membership is comprised of voting members representing the livestock market, dairy and processing segments. Through an inclusive voting process involving the board and membership, independent cattlemen set policy for NCBA.
Other, non-voting members include individuals and businesses with a vested interest in the cattle industry such as local feed stores, veterinarians, main street businesses and agriculture lenders.

NCBA's structure demands that new leaders be elected by the membership each year, so that NCBA is a true and dynamic representation of the wishes of independent cattlemen. Any claim of organizational misrepresentation coming from R-CALF, an organization that has had the same, monopolistic leadership since its inception, is difficult to swallow.

How many independent cattlemen have really had a voice in R-CALF's leadership? Why doesn't R-CALF allow many different voices in its leadership? Why does R-CALF brand anyone who disagrees with their policy as "packer aligned?"

10. U.S. consumers will question the safety of beef if we allow Canadian beef into the U.S.

The facts.
Canadian beef is already entering the U.S. in record amounts, in boxed form. The beef supply remains safe, and consumer confidence in the safety of beef from BSE remains higher than at pre-BSE levels. Consumers know that effective mitigation measures in both the U.S. and Canada mean beef is safe. In both Canada and the U.S., consumer demand for beef increased after BSE was found.

Why would a cattlemen's group say consumers question the safety of U.S. or Canadian beef-when they don't?


11. BSE is a contagious disease.

The facts.
Scientists have found that the only way BSE can be spread is through infected feed. BSE is not a contagious disease, and cannot be spread through animal-to-animal contact, or animal-to-human contact.
Why would a cattlemen's group perpetuate alarming mis-information about BSE?

12. The human form of BSE, called vCJD, can be contracted through tongue piercing.


The facts.
Although R-CALF's veterinarian has warned his audiences against the dangers of tongue-piercing, BSE cannot be spread to humans through the piercing of any body part.
Why would a cattlemen's group tell crowds of people that they are in danger of acquiring vCJD from unusual and completely unproven sources?

13. Because of the closed border, U.S. cattlemen are experiencing historically high cattle prices.


The facts.
The U.S. fed cattle price had appreciated significantly prior to May 20, 2003 (Canada's first BSE case.) U.S. prices did jump between May 20 and Sept 8, 2003 when all beef and cattle trade with Canada was stopped but fed cattle prices continued to increase to record levels afterward. Prevention of live cattle trade with Canada had very little immediate impact on prices and no measurable impact whatsoever on the obvious, multi-year upward trend in prices-a trend driven by improved beef demand combined with reduced domestic beef production in 2004 and thus far in 2005, not by keeping Canadian fed cattle out of the U.S.
Why would a cattlemen's group take sole credit for high prices when the industry's total effort, over the long term, is really the reason for success?

14. NCBA and American Farm Bureau inflated the number of agricultural families represented by these two organizations.


The facts.
NCBA and American Farm Bureau stand by the membership numbers cited in the Amicus brief. American Farm Bureau represents a wide range of farm families, not simply beef cattle production families. Many farms in this country support multiple families including multiple owners, part-owners, operators, tenants, hired workers and their families. We're sure R-CALF doesn't count its membership in farm units, rather than people, and neither do American Farm Bureau, or the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.


Why can't we stick to the facts?
 

Latest posts

Top