R-CALF on new rule

[Sandhusker]

Washington, D.C. – R-CALF USA recently sent a formal letter to each Member of Congress to ask that they co-sponsor and support Resolutions of Disapproval against the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) plan to allow Canadian cattle over-30-months (OTM) of age, provided the animals were born after March 1, 1999, into the U.S. beginning Nov. 19. Also to be allowed into the U.S. are beef and blood products from Canadian cattle of any age.



The agency's plan commonly is referred to as the OTM Rule. R-CALF USA supports the Resolutions of Disapproval introduced by both chambers of Congress on Oct. 3 because Canada continues to have ongoing problems with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease. R-CALF USA is asking Congress to enforce its mandate to USDA to prevent the introduction of BSE into the United States.



"We are committed to ensuring the highest quality and safety beef for U.S. consumers, and we need your help," wrote R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group's animal health committee. "R-CALF USA respectfully asks you to help protect the U.S. cattle herd and U.S. consumers by both co-sponsoring and voting 'Yes' on either S.J. Res. 20 or H.J. Res. 55, whichever is appropriate…

"It is important to note that five of the seven new cases of BSE detected in Canada since the beginning of last year were found in animals born well after this 1999 date," the letter continued.

Of particular concern to R-CALF USA is the agency's own risk model, which forecasts that from 19 to 105 cases of BSE could be introduced into the United States.

"Other countries with BSE, principally European nations and Japan, practice far stricter mitigation measures than Canada," Thornsberry wrote. "Specifically, they test older cattle before slaughter, they ban more tissues and blood from all animal feed, and they remove high-risk tissues from cattle at a much younger age to protect human health.

"The international standard-setting body (OIE) criticized the U.S. feed ban for being inadequate to stop the spread of BSE (yet) USDA is defying the OIE, claiming the U.S. does not need to improve its feed ban prior to allowing higher-risk Canadian cattle, beef, and blood into the United States," the letter warned. "Contrary to USDA's claim that Canada's BSE-risk profile is similar to the U.S., the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Canadian cattle are 26 times more likely to test positive for BSE than cattle born and raised in the United States."

"R-CALF USA members voted overwhelmingly to stop USDA from allowing the importation of over- 30-month cattle and beef from any BSE-affected country and Congress' Resolution of Disapproval would accomplish this objective," Thornsberry said.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Several senators have recently introduced resolutions to block older Canadian cattle and beef products from crossing the border again on Nov. 19. However, even if the resolutions were to be approved by Congress – by no means a certainty – President George Bush would veto them and there would not be the votes to override that action, congressional sources said. USDA said last month it wants to resume imports of Canadian cattle and products from cattle over thirty months of age. Younger Canadian cattle have been allowed into the U.S. since July 2005.

"American beef is the safest in the world, but increased importation of higher risk Canadian beef and cattle would undermine the confidence of our trading partners and cause further damage to our domestic beef industry," said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.). Montana Republican Denny Rehberg, who co-sponsored the House measure, said Canada "hasn't taken the necessary steps to protect its herd from the spread of BSE."

U.S. officials say the threat from Canadian products is "negligible," despite the country's 10 BSE cases. The American risk assessment assumes Canada will have more in the future. There have been three cases in the U.S..

Officials said they expect only about 75,000 Canadian cows will actually cross the border in the first year, down from an early estimate of 650,000, partly because of the challenges of proving their age. The U.S. considers March 1999 to be the date when a feed ban in Canada to halt the spread of the disease became effective, so cows born after that are welcome.

Introducing the resolution of disapproval in the Senate were Sens. Dorgan, John Enzi (R-Wyo.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Tim Johnson, (D-S.D.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), John Tester (D-Mont.), and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).

Background on the Congressional Review Act (CRA): The CRA allows Congress to review every new federal regulation issued by the government agencies and, by passage of a joint resolution, overrule a regulation. The CRA, passed in 1996 as part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, allows Congress 60 in-session days to review and possibly reject new federal regulations issued by the regulatory agencies. Under the CRA, the regulatory agencies are required to submit all new rules to the leaders of both the House and Senate. In addition, the General Accounting Office (GAO) provides to those congressional committees related to the new regulation, a detailed report on each new major rule. Should any member of Congress object to a new regulation, he or she can introduce a "Resolution of Disapproval" to have the regulation rejected. Should the resolution pass both House and Senate by simple majority votes, and the president signs it, the regulation basically vanishes.

However, since going into effect in 1996, the Congressional Review Act has been successfully invoked exactly once. On March 7, 2001, Congress gave it's final approval to Senate Joint Resolution 6 disapproving the controversial final regulations on ergonomics created by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration's (OSHA) and set to take effect in October, 2001.

The discharge petition is the next step in the procedural process under the CRA to ensure the resolution is considered by the full Senate. The resolution of disapproval will be referred to the appropriate committee. If the resolution of disapproval is not acted on by the committee, then a discharge petition signed by 30 senators will automatically discharge the resolution. If 30 senators submit a petition for this purpose, the measure is automatically discharged and placed on the Senate calendar, from which it may be called up for floor consideration. Though the CRA is not explicit, the Senate has treated motions to take up and consider disapproval resolutions, by whomever makes such a motion, as privileged matters that are not debatable. That would assure a Senate vote on the resolution.

 

[Sandhusker]

I hope they go thru with it and let Bush veto it and then let him explain how trade is more important than safety and how the agency responsible for keeping disease out - a deadly potentially industry devestating disease - is knowingly letting it in.

The priorities of this administration are beyond insane.

 

[Silver]

I hope they go thru with it and let Bush veto it and then let him explain how trade is more important than safety and how the agency responsible for keeping disease out - a deadly potentially industry devestating disease - is knowingly letting it in.

The priorities of this administration are beyond insane.

Puuuhhhhhlease.... you know damn well its money and not safety that this issue has been about from day one. If you were worried about safety you'd be wondering what happened to those hundreds of cases of BSE the USDA DIDN'T find.

 

[Sandhusker]

I hope they go thru with it and let Bush veto it and then let him explain how trade is more important than safety and how the agency responsible for keeping disease out - a deadly potentially industry devestating disease - is knowingly letting it in.

The priorities of this administration are beyond insane.

Puuuhhhhhlease.... you know damn well its money and not safety that this issue has been about from day one. If you were worried about safety you'd be wondering what happened to those hundreds of cases of BSE the USDA DIDN'T find.

I haven't seen you voicing any concern about the cases you haven't found, aren't we supposed to have the same thing? :roll: If we've got hundreds of cases, you've got to have more than 10....

 

[Brad S]

The US is insulated from home grown BSE due to the miniscule sheep industry here, and the disconnect between sheep slaughter locations and feed manufacturing sites. Its plain irresponsible (and many things worse) to completely manufacture information and present it as fact - control the surprise, another example of the honorable Silver exhibiting his code of ethics.

 

[Longcut]

The US is insulated from home grown BSE due to the miniscule sheep industry here, and the disconnect between sheep slaughter locations and feed manufacturing sites. Its plain irresponsible (and many things worse) to completely manufacture information and present it as fact - control the surprise, another example of the honorable Silver exhibiting his code of ethics.

Most people would argue that 9/11 showed us all that the US is not insulated from anything. There are at least 6 times as many sheep in the US as Canada. What's your point or are you doing what you accuse Silver of?

 

[Silver]

The US is insulated from home grown BSE due to the miniscule sheep industry here, and the disconnect between sheep slaughter locations and feed manufacturing sites. Its plain irresponsible (and many things worse) to completely manufacture information and present it as fact - control the surprise, another example of the honorable Silver exhibiting his code of ethics.

Most people would argue that 9/11 showed us all that the US is not insulated from anything. There are at least 6 times as many sheep in the US as Canada. What's your point or are you doing what you accuse Silver of?

Well Longcut, the first thing you have to realize is that these characters, while possibly well meaning, are far more interested in pointing their fingers outward and attempting to cast a shadow of doubt upon others than being the least bit introspective. It has become very apparent on here that Brad S is the last person one should recieve ethics instruction from.

Funny thing is, I've maintained from the start (2003 bse case) that we should test every animal in the country for bse until we know fully well what the instance of the disease is in this country. I made this case at cattlemans meetings and on one occasion was told by a bureaucrat that "we don't want to raise the bar too high for the Americans"

Unfortunately, it appears as though the bar WAS raised too high, as our pitiful testing program was apparently far superior to what went on down there, and as a result guys like Sandhusker get to jump up on their stump and make big claims about the safety of the Canadian herd while having no clue as to what is in his own back yard. And that works out fine for guys like him because while he gets to spew garbage about food safety his real agenda is tilting the playing field for a competitive advantage in contravention of treaties signed by his 'by the people for the people' gov't.


But I'm sure Brad S could expound on this much further as he seems to be the ethics commisioner on this site.

 

[PPRM]

The US is insulated from home grown BSE due to the miniscule sheep industry here, and the disconnect between sheep slaughter locations and feed manufacturing sites. Its plain irresponsible (and many things worse) to completely manufacture information and present it as fact - control the surprise, another example of the honorable Silver exhibiting his code of ethics.

Most people would argue that 9/11 showed us all that the US is not insulated from anything. There are at least 6 times as many sheep in the US as Canada. What's your point or are you doing what you accuse Silver of?

Well Longcut, the first thing you have to realize is that these characters, while possibly well meaning, are far more interested in pointing their fingers outward and attempting to cast a shadow of doubt upon others than being the least bit introspective. It has become very apparent on here that Brad S is the last person one should recieve ethics instruction from.

Funny thing is, I've maintained from the start (2003 bse case) that we should test every animal in the country for bse until we know fully well what the instance of the disease is in this country. I made this case at cattlemans meetings and on one occasion was told by a bureaucrat that "we don't want to raise the bar too high for the Americans"

Unfortunately, it appears as though the bar WAS raised too high, as our pitiful testing program was apparently far superior to what went on down there, and as a result guys like Sandhusker get to jump up on their stump and make big claims about the safety of the Canadian herd while having no clue as to what is in his own back yard. And that works out fine for guys like him because while he gets to spew garbage about food safety his real agenda is tilting the playing field for a competitive advantage in contravention of treaties signed by his 'by the people for the people' gov't.


But I'm sure Brad S could expound on this much further as he seems to be the ethics commisioner on this site.

I agree with the 100% testing and have posted a pretty long dissertation as to why I believe it would workif that was a voluntary option...Basically, we would hae the ASian Rim Business (The US and Canadian Companies choosing to do so)....And, it would simplify a lot while giving both countries a trueer sense of the scope of the problem.....

Meanwhile, "sound science" has delivered the Asian Market to Australia and New Zealand while still leaving us uncertain

PPRM

 

[Sandhusker]

Silver, "Unfortunately, it appears as though the bar WAS raised too high, as our pitiful testing program was apparently far superior to what went on down there, and as a result guys like Sandhusker get to jump up on their stump and make big claims about the safety of the Canadian herd while having no clue as to what is in his own back yard. And that works out fine for guys like him because while he gets to spew garbage about food safety his real agenda is tilting the playing field for a competitive advantage in contravention of treaties signed by his 'by the people for the people' gov't. "

Unfortunately, guys like you can't deny what guys like me are saying. I've had the question out for a month now for ANYBODY to explain how the new rule wouldn't spread Canadian BSE down here - hasn't happened - just "guys like Sandhusker" lip flapping. You want to take a stab at it, Silver? Come on up and explain it.

You chide us for not knowing what is in our back yard, but you don't have a clue what you have in your back yard, either. If you don't know the extent of the disease in your country, how can you chide us for thinking thinking it unwise to take your product? You obviously can't know whether it is safe to import or not, but that doesn't seem to slow your critisizm.

That "treaty" you're so proud of should never of been signed - it's illegal as written. Maybe you're not concerned about government following the law - I am. Money comes first, eh?

 

[Longcut]

Silver, "Unfortunately, it appears as though the bar WAS raised too high, as our pitiful testing program was apparently far superior to what went on down there, and as a result guys like Sandhusker get to jump up on their stump and make big claims about the safety of the Canadian herd while having no clue as to what is in his own back yard. And that works out fine for guys like him because while he gets to spew garbage about food safety his real agenda is tilting the playing field for a competitive advantage in contravention of treaties signed by his 'by the people for the people' gov't. "

Unfortunately, guys like you can't deny what guys like me are saying. I've had the question out for a month now for ANYBODY to explain how the new rule wouldn't spread Canadian BSE down here - hasn't happened - just "guys like Sandhusker" lip flapping. You want to take a stab at it, Silver? Come on up and explain it.

You chide us for not knowing what is in our back yard, but you don't have a clue what you have in your back yard, either. If you don't know the extent of the disease in your country, how can you chide us for thinking thinking it unwise to take your product? You obviously can't know whether it is safe to import or not, but that doesn't seem to slow your critisizm.

That "treaty" you're so proud of should never of been signed - it's illegal as written. Maybe you're not concerned about government following the law - I am. Money comes first, eh?

At times you almost seem disappointed there hasn't been a full blown BSE epidemic. In 4 and a half years there has been what, 12 cases in North America?

 

[Silver]

Sandhusker: Unfortunately, guys like you can't deny what guys like me are saying. I've had the question out for a month now for ANYBODY to explain how the new rule wouldn't spread Canadian BSE down here - hasn't happened - just "guys like Sandhusker" lip flapping. You want to take a stab at it, Silver? Come on up and explain it.

HAHAHAHAHA did you read what you wrote???? Canadian BSE is different from American BSE???? HAHAHA. C'mon man. After all the millions of cattle that have crossed the 49th going both ways over the last ohhh... say 200 years..... not to mention the millions of tons of feed.... do you honestly believe in you cold little heart that 1: there is a signifigant difference in the incidence of bse between our two countries, or 2: that controlling / mitigating the problem would not better be handled by not only harmonizing our standards (granted, it would be very difficult for you reach our proverbial bar now....) but by also working together to improve food safety?

Sandhusker: You chide us for not knowing what is in our back yard, but you don't have a clue what you have in your back yard, either. If you don't know the extent of the disease in your country, how can you chide us for thinking thinking it unwise to take your product? You obviously can't know whether it is safe to import or not, but that doesn't seem to slow your critisizm.

It would seem to me that it is allways safer to import from a country with higher standards than your own.

Sandhusker: That "treaty" you're so proud of should never of been signed - it's illegal as written. Maybe you're not concerned about government following the law - I am. Money comes first, eh

Treaty that I'm proud of? Huuuuuuh????? That treaty was a sell out of the Canadian people to the Americans by our own gov't. It has done more to diminish our sovereignity than anything else in my lifetime. From just an agricultural perspective, it has ruined our packing industry and severely damaged the beef retail business. However, the treaty is the treaty and must be honoured until someone has the intestinal fortitude to quash it.
Money comes first, huh

 

[Sandhusker]

Unless you think BSE has been here 200 years, your arguement about cattle crossing the border for 200 years has no merit. All you have is theories. The facts are two different strains, a higher rate up there, and 5 post-ban cases to none.

Yeah, I read what I wrote. I read what you wrote too, or didn't write - an explaination of how the final rule won't spread Canadian BSE.

You also didn't explain why it was wise for us to take your cattle when you don't know the extent of your infection. You're not much of a salesman.

 

[Silver]

Unless you think BSE has been here 200 years, your arguement about cattle crossing the border for 200 years has no merit. All you have is theories. The facts are two different strains, a higher rate up there, and 5 post-ban cases to none.

Yeah, I read what I wrote. I read what you wrote too, or didn't write - an explaination of how the final rule won't spread Canadian BSE.

You also didn't explain why it was wise for us to take your cattle when you don't know the extent of your infection. You're not much of a salesman.

Show me your proof that bse hasnt been here for 200 years. I think you actually believe that if you don't look for something then it doesn't exist. At least that appears to be the basis to all of your arguments. Which makes your arguments worthless. Like your silly assertation that we have a higher rate up here. I think it would be better for you to admit that all that has been proved is that our methods of detection are better.
Do we know the extent of our infection? Honestly, I feel we know as close as we can without 100% testing. Do we know yours? No. No one does. Not even you.
The more you talk the more obvious it is that your heart is not in the safety argument. Its just about stepping on your neighbours toes while trying to look like the good guy. :roll:

Now, how about that proof as to how long bse has been around..... HUH?

 

[Sandhusker]

Nobody knows how long BSE has been here, we don't even know where it originated. If BSE has been here for 200 years, don't ya think you'd have more than 10 cases to show today?

No, neither one of us knows the true extent of infection in either country. What both of us do know is that you've found 5 times the animals in a herd 1/7th the size. That is roughly a rate of 1/1.5M for you and 1/45M for us. Is your testing 30 times greater than ours? If so, you've got a point. If not, you're just wildly speculating.

 

[Silver]

Nobody knows how long BSE has been here, we don't even know where it originated. If BSE has been here for 200 years, don't ya think you'd have more than 10 cases to show today?

No, neither one of us knows the true extent of infection in either country. What both of us do know is that you've found 5 times the animals in a herd 1/7th the size. That is roughly a rate of 1/1.5M for you and 1/45M for us. Is your testing 30 times greater than ours? If so, you've got a point. If not, you're just wildly speculating.

Then I will consider my point made.

 

[Sandhusker]

Nobody knows how long BSE has been here, we don't even know where it originated. If BSE has been here for 200 years, don't ya think you'd have more than 10 cases to show today?

No, neither one of us knows the true extent of infection in either country. What both of us do know is that you've found 5 times the animals in a herd 1/7th the size. That is roughly a rate of 1/1.5M for you and 1/45M for us. Is your testing 30 times greater than ours? If so, you've got a point. If not, you're just wildly speculating.

Then I will consider my point made.

I have no idea what you think your point was, but if it makes you feel good....

 

[Silver]

Nobody knows how long BSE has been here, we don't even know where it originated. If BSE has been here for 200 years, don't ya think you'd have more than 10 cases to show today?

No, neither one of us knows the true extent of infection in either country. What both of us do know is that you've found 5 times the animals in a herd 1/7th the size. That is roughly a rate of 1/1.5M for you and 1/45M for us. Is your testing 30 times greater than ours? If so, you've got a point. If not, you're just wildly speculating.

Then I will consider my point made.

I have no idea what you think your point was, but if it makes you feel good....

I wouldn't have expected you to grasp such a simple concept so I'll spell it out for you.
We found 5 times the animals in a herd 1/7 the size because we tested the proper animals with a superior test. You didn't. Didn't you ever wonder why all your 'inconclusive' tests ended up being negative (and you were getting 'inconclusives' on a regular basis until the USDA decided not to publish any results of it's testing unless they were confirmed positive..... maybe you don't find that suspicious) while ours turned up positive? Haven't you ever wondered why the one animal that existed and had been deemed a 'negative' when tested with the Gold standard (?) test actually turned out to be positive?
You continue to rant on and on about the incompetence of the USDA but seem very happy to accept their findings (or lack thereof) if it benefits you. That either makes you a hypocrite or just dishonest.
But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Sandhusker]

Silver, "We found 5 times the animals in a herd 1/7 the size because we tested the proper animals with a superior test. You didn't."

You're misinformed. You use the same procedures we do - use a rapid test and then IHC on inconclusives. We also test the same population, with the US throwing in 20,000 healthy looking old cows for a "what if".

I don't accept the USDA's word on anything. I compare you at roughly 1 case in 1.5 million to our 1 in 45 million because those are the only hard numbers either of us have. Those numbers will hold in court. Your assertions of a huge problem down here is just an opinion. If you think your finding 30 times the cases up there is a result of better testing, you have to show a testing regimen 30 times better - and you can't. It's the same test on the same cattle.

I'll write off your comment about me being dishonest or a hypocrite as just coming from somebody uncomfortable with or igorant of the facts.

 

[don]

sandhusker: You use the same procedures we do - use a rapid test and then IHC on inconclusives. We also test the same population, with the US throwing in 20,000 healthy looking old cows for a "what if".

if you believe usda has had a credible testing program you're at the very least wilfully ignorant or maybe certifiably insane. you make a farce out of every serious discussion you get in on.