Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
I offered to bet you whether or not R-CALF will have to pay a dime, Tam, a week or so. That offer still stands.
If you ask me Sandhusker they have already started to pay maybe not in dimes but better yet
CREDIBILITY with statements like
R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada."
Just what did that little Statement cost them in credibility? I don't care if I ever get back the $20 I gave Fair Market Beef That statement alone was worth $20. It proved to me they are lieing to a Judge in a court of law in Montana, three Judges in California, the US consumers, more than a few Congressmen, a few consumer groups and their membership. They have been telling anyone and everyone that will listen to them, that Canadian beef is tainted and a risk to human and animal health if allowed to be imported for months.
Sandhusker what do you think Judge Cebull thinks of his comment about Canadian beef presents a genuine risk of death to US consumers after R-CALF told the Court of Appeals "R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada." AND On top of that R-CALF leadership defended R-CALF supporters rights to buy Canadian cattle and sell the processed meat into the US. Wouldn't that R-CALF owned beef present the same genuine risk of death Sandhusker?
I've been looking all over the net to find that quote from Bullard, and guess what? The only place I can find it is on the website of a paid hack.
I should of realized the first time I saw it that it needed verified. Until you can show me another source, I'll consider where it came from and consider it pure BS as the rest of the "foundation's" "releases".
R-CALF doesn't own any Canadian beef, Tam. Never has. If a R-CALF MEMBER bought Canadian cattle with the idea of bringing it down here, it would be their right. It is absolutely rediculous to demand that a member of any trade org, political party, etc... toe the party line. Do you do exactly as your political party suggests? What happens if two orginizations that you belong to take opposite stands on an issue?
I think Reader has it right. So many of you hate R-CALF so much, you lose all rational thought whenever they are concerned.
Taken from Cow Calf Weekly.
R-CALF Backs Away From Food Safety Claim
The National Meat Association (NMA) filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals its response brief in R-CALF v. USDA. NMA argues there is ample evidence in the record to sustain a finding that USDA's Final Rule presented no substantial risk to human health and that the preliminary injunction should never have been entered.
But, R-CALF's response filed with the Ninth Circuit last week makes this surprising admission, NMA says: "R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada."
In the aftermath of this statement, NMA is asking: "If R-CALF has never argued there's a great risk to human health from resumed imports, what was the purpose of the advertisement it took out in the Washington Post, which clearly linked the Canadian BSE situation to U.S. beef safety? Don't they believe their own rhetoric?"
NMA says no one may be more surprised than the Billings, MT, District Court that delayed the border reopening on the basis of "an increased risk to human health," even describing a "genuine risk of death for U.S. consumers" in its decision.
"R-CALF's latter-day admission that there is no great risk to human health from resumed imports of Canadian cattle and beef utterly undermines the basis for the District Court's decision," NMA says.
Instead, NMA says R-CALF now claims USDA didn't do a proper quantitative analysis.
"Apparently R-CALF failed to read the Harvard Risk Assessment. Authored by leading world experts, that assessment is the quantitative analysis of risk with which USDA supported its Rule," NMA says.
See the brief at www.nmaonline.org/html/pr4_4_05.htm.
-- NMA's Lean Trimmings newsletter