• 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- USDA Must Rescind Final Rule

A

Anonymous

Guest
July 13, 2006 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected]



Canada’s Latest BSE Case in Youngest Animal Yet;

USDA Must Rescind Final Rule



Billings, Mont. – Today the Canadian government confirmed its fourth positive case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) detected this year, Canada’s ninth BSE case overall. Canada’s first case was detected in 1993 in a cow imported from the United Kingdom (UK). Eight other cases followed in Canadian-origin cattle, including the December 2003 case in Washington state that was detected in a cow imported from Canada.



This latest case occurred in a 50-month-old cow, the youngest Canadian animal yet – barely over 4 years old – that was born well after 1997 when Canada implemented its feed ban. Unfortunately, this case like most others found in Canada came from the Province of Alberta, the source of a large percentage of the cattle and beef products imported into the U.S. from Canada.



“Canada has had a high level of BSE infectivity circulating within its domestic cattle herd as recently as 2002,” said R-CALF USA President and Region V Director Chuck Kiker. “BSE has now been confirmed in eight other Canadian-born cattle from a sample of only about 115,000 Canadian cattle tested since 2003, which represents one positive case detected for every 15,000 cattle tested, versus one case per 400,000 U.S.-origin cattle tested.”



Canada’s limited voluntary testing program proves that key assumptions used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to support its Final Rule to relax U.S. import standards for Canadian beef and cattle were wrong.



“USDA must now acknowledge that the principal assumptions used to support its Final Rule are no longer valid and that much more needs to be done to mitigate the heightened BSE risks presented by Canadian beef and cattle,”
Kiker continued.



The invalid key assumptions that underpinned USDA’s Final Rule include:



1. USDA’s assumption that there was only a low level of BSE infectivity circulating in Canada before its 1997 feed ban: USDA believed the BSE incubation period in Canada was longer than the BSE incubation period in countries like the UK, where the average incubation period was estimated to be 4.2 years. USDA used this erroneous argument when in 2005 the agency tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) to reduce the required duration of Canada’s feed ban from 8 years to only 5 years. USDA assumed Canadian BSE cases would be detected only in older Canadian cattle born prior to Canada’s 1997 feed ban.



“The fact that Canada is detecting BSE in cattle from 4 to 6 years of age confirms that Canada’s BSE incubation period is similar to that found in the UK and elsewhere in Europe,” Kiker said. “By USDA’s logic, this indicates that Canadian cattle were being exposed, long after its feed ban, to levels of infectivity in feed comparable to the high levels found in feed in the European Union (EU). It also confirms the folly of USDA’s efforts to reopen our border to Canadian cattle in January 2005, when already there was evidence Canada’s feed ban hadn’t prevented exposure to tainted feed later than the fall of 1997.”



2. USDA assumed the prevalence of BSE in Canada is “very low,” based principally on its finding that that the three cases of BSE detected in Canadian-origin cattle before the Final Rule was signed were all born prior to the implementation of Canada’s feed ban. The agency also assumed 95 percent of infected Canadian cattle would exhibit clinical signs in less than 7 years, resulting in few, if any, remaining infected cattle in Canada.



“These new facts that reveal almost three times the number of infected Canadian cattle, four of which were born since Canada’s 1997 feed ban,” Kiker explained. “This proves Canada’s prevalence rate is now considerably higher than USDA assumed and cannot be considered low. USDA calculated Canada’s prevalence at the time of the Final Rule at only .04 cases per million adult cattle, but with four BSE-positive cases this year, Canada’s known prevalence, based on its adult cattle herd size of approximately 6 million cattle, is now at 0.7 cases per million head of adult cattle, or almost twice what USDA assumed.”



3. USDA assumed Canada’s 1997 feed ban was effectively enforced, as well as effective at preventing the further spread of BSE, as the agency stated in its Final Rule.



“This assumption is now effectively disproved by Canada’s multiple BSE-positive cattle born years after its feed ban,” Kiker noted. “Canada recently recognized the ineffectiveness of its feed ban and announced changes to make the feed ban more protective.”



4. USDA assumed Canada’s BSE problem is not comparable to the BSE problem experienced in European countries – countries USDA considered to have “widespread exposure” to BSE.



“Canada’s ratio of positive BSE cases under its enhanced testing program over the past 12 months is now 0.72 cases per 10,000 cattle tested, higher than the 12-month ratios reported by many EU countries for 2004, which is the latest data available,” said Kiker. “A comparison of Canada’s BSE statistics with data compiled for each EU member shows Canada’s ratio of BSE-positive cattle for the past 12 months is now comparable to, or higher than, the 2004 ratios reported by 18 of the 25 EU members, including the Czech Republic, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, and the Netherlands – all countries with known BSE problems.”



5. USDA implicitly assumed Canada’s BSE risk profile is no different from that of the U.S.



“That assumption was never logical because Canada had confirmed BSE in a cow imported from the UK in 1993, and apparently slaughtered and rendered numerous other cattle from the same UK farm,” Kiker commented. “But clearly, this assumption by USDA is even more wrong now, with Canada’s detection of BSE in four cattle born after its feed ban, versus the only two cases in the U.S., which were in cattle born long before our domestic feed ban.



“In order to protect the U.S. cattle herd and U.S. beef consumers, USDA must immediately rescind its Final Rule, close the Canadian border to all beef and cattle, and work with Canada to scientifically determine the full scope of Canada’s BSE problem through mandatory testing of at least every high-risk animal in Canada,” Kiker emphasized. “Once Canada’s true risk profile is scientifically known, Canada should implement the internationally recommended risk mitigation measures necessary to address its specific risk profile. Only then should the U.S. consider resuming trade, strictly in only boneless beef from Canadian cattle under 30 months of age, and only if Canadian beef is clearly distinguished with a country-of-origin label.



“Because of BSE’s long incubation period, the U.S. needs to wait for perhaps several years before resuming trade in live Canadian cattle, as it would take this long to monitor the effectiveness of Canada’s newly implemented risk mitigation measures,” Kiker continued. “We have very recent reminders that commingling Canadian cattle and beef with domestic cattle and beef is hurting the reputation and marketability of U.S. beef.”
 

don

Well-known member
and all along you have the japanese et al knowing full well how many cattle have crossed the border in both directions over the last thirty years and knowing that regulations and practices have been pretty much harmonized asking, 'if the canadians can find bse why can't the americans?' they know your program is bogus and that's why they're taking canadian and not american. maybe they suspect your incidence rate is even higher.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Please explain to us Oldtimer if Canada has such a high rate of BSE then why has the US only found it in one of the Canadian cows that reside in the US?
Shouldn't they be finding a few more if your enhanced surveillance system is working like it should?
And if they are missing the Canadian cows how many US cows have they missed?
Isn't it true that Feed ban violation don't have to happen in the US, as you can spread BSE legally STILL?
what has feeding Chicken litter made from those missed cows done to your BSE levels?
Will we EVER KNOW?????
If R-CALF wants this border to close until all their question are answered do they also support no US exporting of BEEF or marketing of beef domestically until the truth is known about the US industry's TRUE BSE RATE?
Has Dennis got you to vote by mail on his "no marketing of beef from cattle over 20 months" resolution yet?
what was the voting results?
If R-CALF was truly concerned about the consumer health they would not be selling US beef to them until the US BSE levels are KNOWN. The best way to help the USDA in finding the truth is by making sure they test the right cattle, not healthy slaughter cattle. Have you had any of your 4D cattle tested Oldtimer? Or do you still shoot shovel and brag about how the US has no BSE? :wink:

Come on Oldtimer if you want us to answer questions it's only fair we get a few of ours answered after all we are taking your cattle and beef.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam- I also don't agree with USDA's testing and safeguard policy- and their credibility-- but just because you have the problem of one rattlesnake living under the porch that you can't get rid of, doesn't mean you go out and import a dozen more...
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Well Ot, I dont think your going ot outsmart the Japanese because they will never import US beef until R-calf shuts their big fat mouths and their followers!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Well Ot, I dont think your going ot outsmart the Japanese because they will never import US beef until R-calf shuts their big fat mouths and their followers!

Well USDA's current course of action hasn't worked for the past 3 years...
 

TimH

Well-known member
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Go ahead and snap the border to shut tight to everything OT. OTM/UTM, boxed beef.....everything.
Slaughter capacity up here has increased over 20% since 2003. Japan and many other countries are WILLINGLY buying our beef products.
Slam 'er shut you R-clowns. See if I give a rat's ass!!! :D :D
You will see a rise in the US retail price of of beef and a subsequent drop in tonnage consumed at that price. You will have gained nothing.
Ignorance is bliss. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I don't know how you could be any more retarded .

I fart in your general direction!!! :D :D :D :D :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
don said:
and all along you have the japanese et al knowing full well how many cattle have crossed the border in both directions over the last thirty years and knowing that regulations and practices have been pretty much harmonized asking, 'if the canadians can find bse why can't the americans?' they know your program is bogus and that's why they're taking canadian and not american. maybe they suspect your incidence rate is even higher.

You came to the same conclusion that I came to reading the article -- if Canada has BSE in a significant way, the U.S. has it.

If any of you can refute this by facts showing that feed and live cattle did NOT cross from Canada into the U.S. in any great measure, I'd love to hear that. My understanding was there was exchange of feed and animals over a number of years. And if the assumption is that the Canadian BSE cases stem from live cattle imported from the UK in 1993, we are speaking about 13 years which is a long time that you would have to prove to me that the borders were NOT letting contaminated feed and infected animals across.

reader 2- Did you not read USDA's latest study? Did you miss the part were Johanns said we virtually have no BSE in the US cattle herd ? :wink:
US could qualify this year to be technically BSE free under the OIE rules USDA got changed... :wink:
 

TimH

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
don said:
and all along you have the japanese et al knowing full well how many cattle have crossed the border in both directions over the last thirty years and knowing that regulations and practices have been pretty much harmonized asking, 'if the canadians can find bse why can't the americans?' they know your program is bogus and that's why they're taking canadian and not american. maybe they suspect your incidence rate is even higher.

You came to the same conclusion that I came to reading the article -- if Canada has BSE in a significant way, the U.S. has it.

If any of you can refute this by facts showing that feed and live cattle did NOT cross from Canada into the U.S. in any great measure, I'd love to hear that. My understanding was there was exchange of feed and animals over a number of years. And if the assumption is that the Canadian BSE cases stem from live cattle imported from the UK in 1993, we are speaking about 13 years which is a long time that you would have to prove to me that the borders were NOT letting contaminated feed and infected animals across.

There you go again R2 asking someone to prove a negative. :D
Since circumstancial evidence seems to be enough for you and your's, read up on the mink TSE cases in Wisconsin,USA in the mid '80's. Where do you think that "infectivity" came from????
Don't ask me to post a link as I'm sure that someone like you,with access to "sophisticated data mining software" would have no problem finding info on the web.
Hell, even an uneducated hick like me can find out someones name address and home phone number using only "google" in about 20 minutes, right R2?? :D :D :D
 

TimH

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
TimH said:
reader (the Second) said:
You came to the same conclusion that I came to reading the article -- if Canada has BSE in a significant way, the U.S. has it.

If any of you can refute this by facts showing that feed and live cattle did NOT cross from Canada into the U.S. in any great measure, I'd love to hear that. My understanding was there was exchange of feed and animals over a number of years. And if the assumption is that the Canadian BSE cases stem from live cattle imported from the UK in 1993, we are speaking about 13 years which is a long time that you would have to prove to me that the borders were NOT letting contaminated feed and infected animals across.

There you go again R2 asking someone to prove a negative. :D
Since circumstancial evidence seems to be enough for you and your's, read up on the mink TSE cases in Wisconsin,USA in the mid '80's. Where do you think that "infectivity" came from????
Don't ask me to post a link as I'm sure that someone like you,with access to "sophisticated data mining software" would have no problem finding info on the web.
Hell, even an uneducated hick like me can find out someones name address and home phone number using only "google" in about 20 minutes, right R2?? :D :D :D

Gosh I was thinking about TME (transmissable mink encepalopathy) when I posted my comments. Seriously. Yep, I think infected material and animals went back and forth. I did not intend to point a finger exclusively at Canada.

Education and smarts are entirely separate things. You ought to know by now that I judge by smarts not education :wink: And yes, I know like you do that Google is a powerful tool.

By the way, couldn't find something tonight in Google which is the report on the radio from Traverse City, Michigan of a human with CWD. I'm pretty sure a doctor jumped to that conclusion and a reporter jumped on sensational news but still, report is the individual is 35 years old and an avid hunter.

Glad you are both intelligent AND discreet :wink: :wink:

:oops: :oops: :oops:

Excuse me, but I always blush when someone tries to blow smoke up my a$$. :D
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam- I also don't agree with USDA's testing and safeguard policy- and their credibility-- but just because you have the problem of one rattlesnake living under the porch that you can't get rid of, doesn't mean you go out and import a dozen more...

Oldtimer while you and R-CALF are distracted with beating back the rattlesnakes at the northern border, who is protecting the US consumers from the rattlesnake living under your porch? If you really cared about the US consumers health as you and R-CALF claim to, you would be voting for Dennis's resolution and protecting the consumers from ALL RATTLESNAKES. As there are more unanswered question about the preveilance of BSE in the US than there in in Canada. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam- I also don't agree with USDA's testing and safeguard policy- and their credibility-- but just because you have the problem of one rattlesnake living under the porch that you can't get rid of, doesn't mean you go out and import a dozen more...

Oldtimer while you and R-CALF are distracted with beating back the rattlesnakes at the northern border, who is protecting the US consumers from the rattlesnake living under your porch? If you really cared about the US consumers health as you and R-CALF claim to, you would be voting for Dennis's resolution and protecting the consumers from ALL RATTLESNAKES. As there are more unanswered question about the preveilance of BSE in the US than there in in Canada. :roll:

Looks to me like their are several consumer/health groups that are also questioning USDA's current BSE policy:

Coincidentally, the latest case comes on a day when representatives of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Director of the National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center met with U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns to discuss their concerns regarding current USDA policies for BSE.



A press release announcing the meeting said the group urged stronger safety measures to guard against BSE from getting into the U.S. food or feed chains
.

I could see where they could/should be more concerned about the human health issue- while much of R-CALF's focus has been more on US cattle herd health and US cattle industry viability....

I wonder if the coincidence of their meeting being the same day as Canada finds the youngest POST feed ban positive will have any more impact on Johanns.... :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam- I also don't agree with USDA's testing and safeguard policy- and their credibility-- but just because you have the problem of one rattlesnake living under the porch that you can't get rid of, doesn't mean you go out and import a dozen more...

Oldtimer while you and R-CALF are distracted with beating back the rattlesnakes at the northern border, who is protecting the US consumers from the rattlesnake living under your porch? If you really cared about the US consumers health as you and R-CALF claim to, you would be voting for Dennis's resolution and protecting the consumers from ALL RATTLESNAKES. As there are more unanswered question about the preveilance of BSE in the US than there in in Canada. :roll:

Looks to me like their are several consumer/health groups that are also questioning USDA's current BSE policy:

Coincidentally, the latest case comes on a day when representatives of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Director of the National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center met with U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns to discuss their concerns regarding current USDA policies for BSE.



A press release announcing the meeting said the group urged stronger safety measures to guard against BSE from getting into the U.S. food or feed chains
.

I could see where they could/should be more concerned about the human health issue- while much of R-CALF's focus has been more on US cattle herd health and US cattle industry viability....

I wonder if the coincidence of their meeting being the same day as Canada finds the youngest POST feed ban positive will have any more impact on Johanns.... :???:

If R-CALF is concerned about the US beef industry viability why are they in court trying to prove our beef is a genuine risk of death to CONSUMERS? Have they forgot the US herd is also affected by a strain of BSE that has even fewer answers than our strain. If R-CALF is successful in their appeal and win they will be telling US consumers your beef is a bigger risk as at least we have the proper testing protocol to find it, we know how ours is spread and we are trying to do something about it by strenghthing our feed bans AGAIN. Unlike your industry. Who is really risking the viability of your industry with media attention glabbing court cases? :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam, "If R-CALF is concerned about the US beef industry viability why are they in court trying to prove our beef is a genuine risk of death to CONSUMERS? Have they forgot the US herd is also affected by a strain of BSE that has even fewer answers than our strain. If R-CALF is successful in their appeal and win they will be telling US consumers your beef is a bigger risk as at least we have the proper testing protocol to find it, we know how ours is spread and we are trying to do something about it by strenghthing our feed bans AGAIN. Unlike your industry. Who is really risking the viability of your industry with media attention glabbing court cases?"

R-CALF is in court to prove the USDA didn't to their homework before deciding to open the border - get your facts straight.

R-CALF isn't going to tell our consumers we have a bigger or equal risk than Canada because we don't know that to be a fact. The USDA says our risk is virtually nothing, and they won't allow anybody else to do the testing that would be required to prove them wrong.

You think that R-CALF should just be quiet and allow the USDA to put our businesses at risk because it might generate some press? With leadership like yours, I can see why Canada is in the mess it's in.
 

Latest posts

Top