R CALF Seek Rehearing of CourtDecision

[Anonymous]

R-CALF said Canadian beef is "high risk" due to BSE in their native herd.

R-CALF said U.S. beef is the "safest beef in the world" after we had BSE in our native herd.

Tell me why Canadian beef is "high risk" and our beef is "the safest in the world" when we both have had BSE in our native herd.

That was the question and you will divert again. Guaranteed!



~SH~

 

[ocm]

R-CALF said Canadian beef is "high risk" due to BSE in their native herd.

R-CALF said U.S. beef is the "safest beef in the world" after we had BSE in our native herd.

Tell me why Canadian beef is "high risk" and our beef is "the safest in the world" when we both have had BSE in our native herd.

That was the question and you will divert again. Guaranteed!



~SH~

When you were in school did you have a class where they taught the concept of percent?

Did you learn it?

Can you apply it in real life situations?

Ta Daaaa!

 

[Econ101]

As compared to "full of SH**" and "hawker"?

Yup, you shor got the high ground there SANDMAN!

Answer my question and quit diverting!

What a couple of cowards.



~SH~

You reap what you sow, SH.

I will repeat what I said earlier-- BSE has the chance to destroy this industry so everyone better try to isolate it and destroy it. The known causes and remedies are not that difficult to swallow compared to the alternative.

 

[Murgen]

I will repeat what I said earlier-- BSE has the chance to destroy this industry so everyone better try to isolate it and destroy it. The known causes and remedies are not that difficult to swallow compared to the alternative.

Who says it hasn't been isolated and eliminated? How many cases in North America? Econ101, your comparison to the UK, does not cut it.

We had the benefit of learning from the UK experience, took precautions, and were unfortunately burdened with a few cases. That says to me that we were successfull in NA of stopping it before it got rolling full speed, or that there is the possibility of spontaneous cases that might pop up now and then.

The only chance that BSE will destroy this industry will come from those groups and individuals that instill fear in the consumer that the safeguards that have protected us so far are not adequate.

Improvements in those safeguards can be accomplished without fear mongering and the industry would be better served by Orgs. that it approach it in a constructive manner and not a political one.

 

[Econ101]

I will repeat what I said earlier-- BSE has the chance to destroy this industry so everyone better try to isolate it and destroy it. The known causes and remedies are not that difficult to swallow compared to the alternative.

Who says it hasn't been isolated and eliminated? How many cases in North America? Econ101, your comparison to the UK, does not cut it.

We had the benefit of learning from the UK experience, took precautions, and were unfortunately burdened with a few cases. That says to me that we were successfull in NA of stopping it before it got rolling full speed, or that there is the possibility of spontaneous cases that might pop up now and then.

The only chance that BSE will destroy this industry will come from those groups and individuals that instill fear in the consumer that the safeguards that have protected us so far are not adequate.

Improvements in those safeguards can be accomplished without fear mongering and the industry would be better served by Orgs. that it approach it in a constructive manner and not a political one.

I hope you are right about that one. The key here is that the government has to be able to detect it and eliminate it, not sweep it under the rug. The consumers are not so dumb as to think that a case here or there is a threat. The real threat would be a government that hid the facts and did not protect the public. That is what happened in Brittain. With the USDA and its actions on these issues so far, the USDA may lose credibility. That is the concern, not fear mongering.

No matter what happens with the USDA, I will still be able to raise my own beef or buy it from a local farmer. I don't mind eating my own but my kids grimace when they named it and pet it.

 

[flounder]

>>>Can anyone show me where Kindergarten Econ. pointed out the difference between the BSE precautionary measures taken in Canada and the BSE precautionary measures taken in the U.S. to justify R-CULT's position? <<<

>>>Anyone? <<<


======================================================


EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA)
Publication date: 20 August 2004
Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)

Report

Summary
Summary of the Scientific Report

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.

A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90's when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.


http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/573_en.html

SUMMARY

Summary of Scientific Report
http://www.efsa.eu.int
1 of 1
Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority
on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of
United States of America (USA)
Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083
Adopted July 2004
Summary of scientific report
The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the
Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR)
were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on
the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more
cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific
report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period
1980-2003.
The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in
the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered
in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible
that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to
an internal challenge in the early nineties.
A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk
countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some
imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90's when
domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of
the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from
BSE risk countries.
EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed
that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as
there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very
unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the
BSE-agent persistently increases.
Key words: BSE, geographical risk assessment, GBR, USA, third countries

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_summary_en1.pdf

REPORT (6 PAGES)

snip...

EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 3, 1-6 on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk of
Conclusions
The European Food Safety Authority concludes:
1. The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic
cattle in the middle of the eighties. This cattle imported in the mid eighties could have
been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early
nineties. It is possible that meat and bone meal (MBM) imported into the USA
reached domestic cattle and lead to an internal challenge in the early nineties.
2. A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE
risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together
with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the
mid 90's when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing.
Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued
imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.
3. The current geographical BSE risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed
that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent.
4. This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion, 2000) because
at that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk.
5. It is also worth noting that the current GBR conclusions are not dependent on the large
exchange of imports between USA and Canada. External challenge due to exports to
the USA from European countries varied from moderate to high. These challenges
indicate that it was likely that BSE infectivity was introduced into the North American
continent.
6. EFSA and its Scientific Expert Working group on GBR are concerned that the
available information was not confirmed by inspection missions as performed by the
Food and Veterinary office (FVO – DG SANCO) in Member States and other third
countries. They recommend including, as far as feasible, BSE-related aspects in
future inspection missions.
Expected development of the GBR
As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains
extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically)
infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.
A table summarising the reasons for the current assessment is given in the table below

snip...

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf



Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-14 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

European Food Safety Authority

Scientific Expert Working Group on GBR

Working Group Report on

the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of

CANADA

2004



Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-14 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 2 -

1. DATA

• The available information was sufficient to carry out the qualitative assessment of

the GBR.

• Reasonable worst case assumptions have been used in cases were the available

information was not fully adequate.

Sources of data

• Country dossier (CD) consisting of information provided from the country's

authorities in 1998-2004, including the study entitled "Risk assessment on BSE in

cattle in Canada" of December 2002.

Other sources:

• EUROSTAT data on export of "live bovine animals" and on "flour, meal and pellets

of meat or offal, unfit for human consumption; greaves" (customs code 230110),

covering the period 1980 to 2003.

• UK-export data (UK) on "live bovine animals", and on "Mammalian Flours, Meals

and Pellets" MBM1, 1980-1996.

• Available export data from other BSE-risk countries.

2. EXTERNAL CHALLENGES

2.1 Import of cattle from BSE-Risk2 countries

An overview of the data on live cattle imports is presented in table 1 and is based on

data as provided in the country dossier (CD) and corresponding data on relevant exports

as available from BSE risk countries that exported to Canada. Only data from risk

periods are indicated, i.e. those periods when exports from a BSE risk country already

represented an external challenge, according to the SSC opinion on the GBR (SSC July

2000 and updated January 2002).

• According to the CD, 231 cattle were imported from UK during the years 1980 to

1990 and no cattle imports from UK were recorded after 1990.

• According to Eurostat, altogether 198 cattle have been imported from the UK during

the years 1980 to 1990, Additionally 500 were recorded in 1993; this import is

1 For the purpose of the GBR assessment the abbreviation "MBM" refers to rendering products, in particular

the commodities Meat and Bone Meal as such; Meat Meal; Bone Meal; and Greaves. With regard to imports

it refers to the customs code 230110 "flours, meals and pellets, made from meat or offal, not fit for human

consumption; greaves".

2 BSE-Risk countries are all countries already assessed as GBR III or IV or with at least one confirmed

domestic BSE case.

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-14 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 3 -

mentioned in Eurostat and the updated UK export statistic as male calves, but not

mentioned in the original UK export statistics. According to the CD, detailed

investigations were carried out and it is very unlikely that the 500 calves have been

imported. Therefore, they were not taken into account.

• According to the CD, in 1990 all cattle imported from UK and Ireland since 1982

were placed in a monitoring program.

• Following the occurrence of the BSE index case in 1993 (imported from UK in 1987

at the age of 6 months), an attempt was made to trace all other cattle imported from

UK between 1982 and 1990.

• Of the 231 cattle imported from the UK between 1980 and 1990, 108 animals had

been slaughtered and 9 had died. From the remaining, 37 were exported, 76 were

sent to incineration and one was buried; these were not entering the rendering system

and therefore not taken into account.

• According to the CD, 16 cattle were imported from Ireland (according to Eurostat

20), of which 9 were slaughtered, 3 died. The remaining 4 were incinerated and did

therefore not enter the rendering system. According to the CD, the 6 animals which

were imported in 1990 according to Eurostat, were never imported.

• Moreover 22 cattle have been imported from Japan (through USA), of which 4 were

exported (excluded from the table) and 14 were destroyed and therefore not entering

the rendering system, 4 were slaughtered.

• Of 28 imported bovines from Denmark, 1 was destroyed and 1 was exported. Of the

19 buffalos imported in 2000, 1 was incinerated and the others were ordered to be

destroyed.

• Additionally in total 264 cattle according to the CD (276 according to other sources)

were imported from Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands and

Switzerland.

• The numbers imported according to the CD and Eurostat are very similar. Some

discrepancies in the year of import can be explained by an extended quarantine;

therefore it is likely that imports according to Eurostat in 1980 and imports

according to the CD in 1981 are referring to the same animals.

• Additionally, between 16.000 and 340.000 bovines have annually been imported

from US, almost all are steers and heifers. In total, between 1981 and 2003,

according to the CD more than 2.3 million, according to other sources 1.5 million

cattle have been imported.

• According to the CD, feeder/slaughter cattle represent typically more than 90% of

the imported cattle from the USA; therefore, only 10% of the imported cattle have

been taken into account.



snip...



Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 13 -

On the basis of the available information, it has to be concluded that the country's

BSE/cattle system was extremely unstable until today, i.e., it would have recycled and

amplified BSE-infectivity very fast, should it have entered the system. The stability of the

BSE/cattle system in Canada overtime is as given in table 5 above.

4. CONCLUSION ON THE RESULTING RISKS

4.1 Interaction of stability and challenges

In conclusion, the stability of the Canada BSE/cattle system in the past and the external

challenges the system has coped with are summarised in the table 6.

INTERACTION OF STABILITY AND EXTERNAL CHALLENGE IN CANADA

Period Stability External Challenge Internal challenge

1980 to 1990 Low Unlikely but not excluded

1991 to 1995 High

1996 to 2000 Extremely high

Likely and rapidly growing

2001 to 2003

Extremely

unstable

Very high Confirmed at a lower level

Table 6: Internal challenge resulting from the interaction of the external challenge and stability. The

internal challenge level is determined according to guidance given in the SSC-opinion on the GBR of

July 2000 (as updated in 2002).

From the interaction of the two parameters "stability" and "external challenge" a

conclusion is drawn on the level of "internal challenge" that emerged and had to be met

by the system, in addition to external challenges that occurred.

An external challenge resulting from cattle import could only lead to an internal

challenge once imported infected cattle were rendered for feed and this contaminated

feed reached domestic cattle. Cattle imported for slaughter would normally be

slaughtered at an age too young to harbour plenty of BSE infectivity or to show signs,

even if infected prior to import. Breeding cattle, however, would normally live much

longer and only animals having problems would be slaughtered younger. If being 4-6

years old when slaughtered, they could suffer from early signs of BSE, being

approaching the end of the BSE-incubation period. In that case, they would harbour,

while being pre-clinical, as much infectivity as a clinical BSE case. Hence cattle imports

could have led to an internal challenge about 3 years after the import of breeding cattle

(that are normally imported at 20-24 months of age) that could have been infected prior

to import. In case of Canada this implies that cattle imported in the mid eighties could

have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the

early 90s.

On the other hand imports of contaminated MBM would lead to an internal challenge in

the year of import, if fed to cattle. The feeding system is of utmost importance in this

context. If it could be excluded that imported, potentially contaminated feed stuffs

reached cattle, such imports might not lead to an internal challenge at all. In case of

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

- 14 -

Canada this implies that it was possible that imported MBM reached domestic cattle and

lead to an internal challenge in the early 90s.

4.2 Risk that BSE infectivity entered processing

A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least

partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in

the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew

significantly in the mid 90's when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached

processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with

continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

4.3 Risk that BSE infectivity was recycled and propagated

A risk that BSE-infectivity was recycled and propagated exists since a processing risk

first appeared; i.e. in the early 90s. Until today this risk persists and increases fast

because of the extremely unstable BSE/cattle system in Canada.

5. CONCLUSION ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL BSE-RISK

5.1 The current GBR as function of the past stability and challenge

The current geographical BSE-risk (GBR) level is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level

that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent.

This assessment deviates from the previous assessment (SSC opinion, 2000) because at

that time several exporting countries were not considered a potential risk.

5.2 The expected development of the GBR as a function of the past and

present stability and challenge

• As long as the system remains unstable, it is expected that the GBR continues to

grow, even if no additional external challenges occur.

• Since recent improvements in the safety of MBM production in many countries or

significant recent reductions in the incidence of BSE are not taken into account for

the assessment of the external challenge, the external challenge assessed after 2001

could be overestimated and is the worst case assumption. However all current GBR

conclusions are not dependent on these assumptions in any of the countries assessed.

For future assessments and when the impact of the production, surveillance and true

incidence changes has been fully quantified, these developments should be taken

into account.

5.3 Recommendations for influencing the future GBR

• Enhancing the stability of the system, in particular by ensuring that cattle have no

access to mammalian MBM in combination with appropriate rendering and exclusion of

SRM and fallen stock from any feed chain could lead, over time, to a reduction of the

GBR.

• Improved passive and active surveillance, i.e. sampling of animals not showing

signs compatible with BSE from "at-risk" cattle populations, such as adult cattle in

Annex to the EFSA Scientific Report (2004) 2, 1-15 on the Assessment of the

Geographical BSE Risk of Canada

fallen stock and emergency slaughter, by means of rapid screening, would allow

monitoring the efficiency of stability enhancing measures.

country.

Acknowledgment.........



snip...



CANADA

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/efsa_scientific_reports/gbr_assessments/scr_annexes/563/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_annex_en1.pdf




TSS

 

[agman]

SH...R-CULT is a slap in the face to intelligent cattlemen in this industry.



Scott I would put the intelligence of R-CALF cattlemen up against the intelligence of NCBA cattlemen anyday. I would bet the R-CALF cattlemen are just as prosperous and knowlegeable as anyone else in the cattle industry.

That is a bet you would lose. It would not even be close.

 

[Tam]

R-CALF said Canadian beef is "high risk" due to BSE in their native herd.

R-CALF said U.S. beef is the "safest beef in the world" after we had BSE in our native herd.

Tell me why Canadian beef is "high risk" and our beef is "the safest in the world" when we both have had BSE in our native herd.

That was the question and you will divert again. Guaranteed!



~SH~

When you were in school did you have a class where they taught the concept of percent?

Did you learn it?

Can you apply it in real life situations?

Ta Daaaa!

Ta Daaaa nothing, you have BSE in your native herd. R-CALF didn't wait until the second and third cases in Canada to start with their lies about the safety of our beef. They started the minute the first case was found. But after the FIRST CASE in the US was found the US still had the safest beef in the world. Inspite of the firewalls that R-CALF claims, have so many holes that the US can't afford to import cattle and beef from Canada as they and it will put the US beef herd at risk. Tell me OCM how can processed beef from Canada put your cattle at risk. And tell me if those firewalls can't protect from the spread of BSE from imported cattle how are they protecting you from the spread of the native BSE? Ta Daaaa it can't, so you are at as much risk from your own herd as you are from ours. And try remember this OCM just because Canada has found more doesn't really mean we have more!!!!! All it proves is we are finding it with our testing and admitting we have it. Which also means we are probably doing more to clean it up.

 

[Tam]

Econ.,

Explain to me the difference between the BSE precuationary measures taken in Canada and the BSE precautionary measures taken in the U.S. to justify R-CULT's position that Canadian beef is "high risk" and our beef "is the safest in the world" when we both had BSE in our native herds?

Go ahead, make a statement unrelated to the question and divert again. I would expect nothing less from you.


~SH~

All the beef industry has a stake in this one, in Canada and in the U.S. We should be careful that self interest doesn't kill the beef industry. BSE should be stopped everywhere and every way. Try to sell anything else to the consumer and you all lose. Tyson's poultry division would love that to happen.

There is a difference between truth (t) and SH--(s). I am glad to have taught you that difference in our discussion.

If the Canadians can not make their beef market more competitive and the U.S. can not make its markets work more efficiently with their enforcement of existing laws then we all suffer the consequences.

Stop squeeling SH-- , I thought you were a sheep farmer.

Go answer Sandhusker's question since it goes to the heart of your defenses.

Are you scared?

All the beef industry has a stake in this one, in Canada and in the U.S. We should be careful that self interest doesn't kill the beef industry. BSE should be stopped everywhere and every way. Try to sell anything else to the consumer and you all lose.

First this is what we have been trying to tell R-CALF all along, that the fear mongering has to stop, but did they listen NO. They just keep up with their lies about food safety to protect your high cattle prices. If the US consumer had believed R-CALF about all beef from a country with a case of BSE is tainted and a genuine risk of death the US industry would have been on the same down hill slope they tried to put us on.

If the Canadians can not make their beef market more competitive

I thought it was the competition from Canada that R-CALF is trying to avoid with their injunctions. No Canadian trade, no competition for US markets and the US packers have no choice but to deal with US ranchers. R-CALF way to protect the high prices they claim were because of the border being closed.

 

[ocm]

Ta Daaaa nothing, you have BSE in your native herd. R-CALF didn't wait until the second and third cases in Canada to start with their lies about the safety of our beef. They started the minute the first case was found. But after the FIRST CASE in the US was found the US still had the safest beef in the world. Inspite of the firewalls that R-CALF claims, have so many holes that the US can't afford to import cattle and beef from Canada as they and it will put the US beef herd at risk. Tell me OCM how can processed beef from Canada put your cattle at risk. And tell me if those firewalls can't protect from the spread of BSE from imported cattle how are they protecting you from the spread of the native BSE? Ta Daaaa it can't, so you are at as much risk from your own herd as you are from ours. And try remember this OCM just because Canada has found more doesn't really mean we have more!!!!! All it proves is we are finding it with our testing and admitting we have it. Which also means we are probably doing more to clean it up.

Did you have trouble with percentages in school, too?

 

[Tam]

Ta Daaaa nothing, you have BSE in your native herd. R-CALF didn't wait until the second and third cases in Canada to start with their lies about the safety of our beef. They started the minute the first case was found. But after the FIRST CASE in the US was found the US still had the safest beef in the world. Inspite of the firewalls that R-CALF claims, have so many holes that the US can't afford to import cattle and beef from Canada as they and it will put the US beef herd at risk. Tell me OCM how can processed beef from Canada put your cattle at risk. And tell me if those firewalls can't protect from the spread of BSE from imported cattle how are they protecting you from the spread of the native BSE? Ta Daaaa it can't, so you are at as much risk from your own herd as you are from ours. And try remember this OCM just because Canada has found more doesn't really mean we have more!!!!! All it proves is we are finding it with our testing and admitting we have it. Which also means we are probably doing more to clean it up.

Did you have trouble with percentages in school, too?

One Case is one case when R-CALF claimed All beef coming from a country that has been affect with BSE is tainted and unsafe for human consumption. Can you deny they said that? How can all US beef be the safest beef in the world after one case if one case caused all Canadian beef to be tainted and unsafe? Either all beef including US beef is unsafe after one case of BSE or R-CALF lied about our beef. which is it OCM?

 

[Bill]

This issue is NOT cattle prices as those who can not see the big picture think. The issue is NOT Canada.

I honestly thought you were smarter than that Sandhusker. Thanks for the chuckle :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "This issue is NOT cattle prices as those who can not see the big picture think. The issue is NOT Canada."

Bill,

That is what you call "conscience cleansing". Sandman learned this deception from Leo.

I suppose the dumping case was not about prices or Canada either huh?

These guys actually start to believe their own bullsh*t after awhile.


OCM,

Percentages has nothing to do with it. Percentages is just R-CULT's cheesy excuse to justify their lies. That's why they got slam dunked at the 9th circuit level.

Either the precautionary measures that have been taken are sufficient for both countries or they are not sufficient for neither country.

R-CULT has removed any integrity that our industry may once have had.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, haven't you previously said the USDA is accountable to the public?

 

[Econ101]

Ta Daaaa nothing, you have BSE in your native herd. R-CALF didn't wait until the second and third cases in Canada to start with their lies about the safety of our beef. They started the minute the first case was found. But after the FIRST CASE in the US was found the US still had the safest beef in the world. Inspite of the firewalls that R-CALF claims, have so many holes that the US can't afford to import cattle and beef from Canada as they and it will put the US beef herd at risk. Tell me OCM how can processed beef from Canada put your cattle at risk. And tell me if those firewalls can't protect from the spread of BSE from imported cattle how are they protecting you from the spread of the native BSE? Ta Daaaa it can't, so you are at as much risk from your own herd as you are from ours. And try remember this OCM just because Canada has found more doesn't really mean we have more!!!!! All it proves is we are finding it with our testing and admitting we have it. Which also means we are probably doing more to clean it up.

Did you have trouble with percentages in school, too?

One Case is one case when R-CALF claimed All beef coming from a country that has been affect with BSE is tainted and unsafe for human consumption. Can you deny they said that? How can all US beef be the safest beef in the world after one case if one case caused all Canadian beef to be tainted and unsafe? Either all beef including US beef is unsafe after one case of BSE or R-CALF lied about our beef. which is it OCM?

Tam,
Don't you think this could have all been cleared up with accurate testing of all slaughter and or at risk cattle? Why did the USDA stop some private slaughter houses from doing this? It sounds like SH is talking out two sides of his mouth on government control. He just doesn't think government should have laws which control packer actions.

I don't have anything against Canadian beef. I am against the concentration in the industry and its affects on the market for cattle producers. The Canadians were caught in the crossfire on that one. We have a problem in the US with the USDA and Canada beef has a problem with market concentration also. These problems are not good for cattlemen on either side of the border.

 

[Tam]

Did you have trouble with percentages in school, too?

One Case is one case when R-CALF claimed All beef coming from a country that has been affect with BSE is tainted and unsafe for human consumption. Can you deny they said that? How can all US beef be the safest beef in the world after one case if one case caused all Canadian beef to be tainted and unsafe? Either all beef including US beef is unsafe after one case of BSE or R-CALF lied about our beef. which is it OCM?

Tam,
Don't you think this could have all been cleared up with accurate testing of all slaughter and or at risk cattle? Why did the USDA stop some private slaughter houses from doing this? It sounds like SH is talking out two sides of his mouth on government control. He just doesn't think government should have laws which control packer actions.

I don't have anything against Canadian beef. I am against the concentration in the industry and its affects on the market for cattle producers. The Canadians were caught in the crossfire on that one. We have a problem in the US with the USDA and Canada beef has a problem with market concentration also. These problems are not good for cattlemen on either side of the border.

Yes it may have been cleared up but when you don't have the testing capacity to test everything what do you do? The OIE recommended testing the 4 D catagory of cattle and that is exactly what Canada did to more than the recommended amount, but according to R-CALF that wasn't good enough. The OIE also told Canada that if we were to test healthy animals we would have to test 100 times as many to get the same picture as testing 30,000 4D cattle. we choose to test the 4 D as we DON'T have the testing capabilities to test 3 million animals a year.

I am against the concentration in the industry and its affects on the market for cattle producers.

Can you Please explain what affect the closed border has had on this problem in the US. Isn't it true that because of R-CALF fighting to hold the border closed slaughter plants have cut shifts and other plants have closed their doors for good. US economist have gone on record saying that this border closure has cost the US slaughter industry thousands of jobs that will probably never be seen again. Just what do you think that has done to the concentration of the US beef industry. As I see it Concentration is a problem for Canada but if we get more of these plants open in Canada that are in the works since the border closed that will not be as big of a problem in Canada as it was. But for every plant that opens in Canada is one less needed in the US. Those US plants that slaughtered Canadian cattle to stay viable also competed for your cattle but you lost some of them because of R-CALF, which added to your CONCENTRATION.

The Canadians were caught in the crossfire on that one. We have a problem in the US with the USDA

Yes we got caught in the cross fire but it wasn't unintentional. If it was why all the lies about our industry that had nothing to do with the USDA.

Canada still processes downer and the US doesn't,

Where was the Positive Texas cow hauled to first and found dead on the truck?

Canada has a chronic feed ban problem and that 70 % of our feed had unauthorized animal protein found in it.

According to the CFIA not all the samples originated in Canada. The ones that did were investigated and found to be birds and rodents and small critters that go through a combine during the fall harvest. Beside it was the CFIA that was looking through the micoscope to find them according to the FDA their inspections consist of checking paper work

The US tests 150,000 more head annually than Canada does and the US does a better job at testing

. The US tested only 57,147 head from 1992 to 2003. That is a far cry from 150,000 more annually, and it took a reinvestigation of the Texas cow 7 months later to find she was positive after all.

The US has the highest standards in the world to raise beef.

You still feed chicken litter to your cattle among other things and the investigation into the Feed Bans in the US showed lots of NONCOMPLIANCE.

If we allow the import of Canadian beef the US will become a dumping ground for beef that no one else in the world wants.

Canada is shipping beef to over 50 countries including Mexico, and Mexico told the US they would only take from the US what the US was taking from Canada

or the classic lie

"we know if we are going to keep consumer confidence we are going to maintain some of the highest standards in the world to make sure that BSE is not introduced into this country. And we are going to make sure we have the best meat and bone meal ban in this country in place So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue.

Don't you have to have the highest standards in the world to MAINTAIN them? And sorry but by the looks of the age of your positive cow it looks as if BSE was introduced to the US before it was in Canada. And if those US firewalls, that are less strict than Canada's, are protecting the US from native BSE why can't they protect from imported cattle? And why is BSE a big issue under stricter firewalls in Canada but it is a Non issue in the US with your firewalls that also according to R-CALF are failing to protect you?

Looks to me as if everyone of these lies were pointed right at Canada and make the USDA look like they are doing a GREAT job until you hear the rest of the story. but R-CALFs problem is with the USDA not Canada :wink: