• 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's partners

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Consumer Groups Blast Safety of U.S. Beef Supply
as part of CCMP Amicus Brief Filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

The The Cattlemen's Competitive Market Project (CCMP) today filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of R-CALF USA's challenge to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Minimal Risk Rule. CCMP is a lobbying organization operated by the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) and R-CALF.

Co-signers to the amicus brief include consumer activist groups Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and Public Citizen, who, during the group's telephone media conference, repeatedly discredited the U.S. systems that protect the U.S. beef supply and public health.

"It is a historic and sad day when cattle producers provide an open mic to activist groups who have worked 20 years to take beef off Americans' plates," said Jim McAdams, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

During the call, neither CFA nor Public Citizen discussed the Canadian food safety system or its BSE mitigation measures. Their statements were wholly directed at what these groups claim are failings in the United States beef production system.

CFA spokesperson Chris Waldrop said that since the first cow was found in Washington state, USDA has failed to protect U.S. consumers from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Waldrop called the USDA regulations and enforcement "little more than promise and paper checks" to keep the beef supply safe. He said the USDA rule on specified risk material (SRM) removal is inadequate, and the FDA feed ban still allows "infectious materials" to be fed to cattle.

Waldrop concluded this "does not inspire confidence that our government is protecting public health."

Public Citizen's representative Patricia Lovera agreed, saying, "Given that we have these concerns with the domestic system, it doesn't make sense to open the border."

Overlooked by the activist groups conducting the call were the following facts:

The United States has had a surveillance program that has met or exceeded OIE standards for 15 years and a feed ban for eight years as of August, 2005
More than 360,000 cattle were tested since June 1, 2004, with no cases of BSE
An aggressive system to remove specified risk material further protects public health
"The comments of these activist groups prove they are anti-beef and anti-cattle. I can't understand why anyone would embrace the clearly inaccurate and destructive statements of these two groups," said McAdams.

The statements made by CFA and Public Citizen come as no surprise. In January, 2004, CFA criticized the new USDA BSE regulations that further protect U.S. consumers by removing SRMs and preventing downed animals from entering the food supply: "I think that the new regulations have more holes in them than a mad cow's brain.. I can't help the paranoia of American cattlemen. They would like to not have the government in their lives at all."

Other CFA credits include:

"My concern is that I don't want a system that says you can have fecal matter all over it, and then irradiate it. Irradiated poop won't make you sick, but it's still poop." Carol Tucker Foreman, CFA, discussing beef on the PBS program Frontline.
When she was Assistant Secretary at USDA, Tucker Foreman also was one of the biggest proponents of the 1977 "Dietary Goals for the United States," which recommended Americans "decrease consumption of meat, and increase consumption of fish and poultry."
CFA also supports proposals to increase the amount of soy and reduce the amount of meat in the School Lunch Program.
Public Citizen was founded by familiar consumer activist Ralph Nader. This group has joined CFA's attacks on beef:

"Americans face a growing risk of eating feces, vomit and metal shards in meat and poultry because the U.S. Agriculture Department is allowing companies to perform more of their own food safety inspections," said Public Citizen in a CNN story.
In June, 2004, Public Citizen called the U.S. BSE Surveillance Program "nonsense" and said that it, "seems to be designed to give the public and would-be importers of American cattle false assurance."


"The objective of these groups is clear: to convince consumers that the U.S. beef supply is unsafe," said McAdams. "On today's media conference, these groups made no statements about Canada or even the USDA Rule. Rather, they attacked the U.S. beef supply and the people who produce it. And, to think, today, cattlemen groups like R-CALF and CCPM are giving them a platform to do so."
Opening comments were provided by R-CALF attorney David Domina, who also answered most of the reporter's questions. Domina dismissed multiple questions from reporters about how importation of live cattle under 30 months of age could pose more of a threat than beef from the same animals, which is already imported from Canada under a separate government rule. Domina also implied that BSE can be transmitted through the blood of infected cattle. This is a claim that, as reporters quickly pointed out, is not based in fact.
Domina said that if live cattle trade with Canada is resumed, "there is a near-statistical certainty that BSE will reach the United States in one year."

This is completely inaccurate, because the rule allows only cattle younger than 30 months of age to be imported. Cattle under 30 months of age are not a risk given the preventative measures that are in place in Canada and the United States. No animals under this age category, or even close to this age, have been diagnosed with BSE in Canada or the United States.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Bill said:
Consumer Groups Blast Safety of U.S. Beef Supply
as part of CCMP Amicus Brief Filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

The The Cattlemen's Competitive Market Project (CCMP) today filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of R-CALF USA's challenge to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Minimal Risk Rule. CCMP is a lobbying organization operated by the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) and R-CALF.

Co-signers to the amicus brief include consumer activist groups Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and Public Citizen, who, during the group's telephone media conference, repeatedly discredited the U.S. systems that protect the U.S. beef supply and public health.

"It is a historic and sad day when cattle producers provide an open mic to activist groups who have worked 20 years to take beef off Americans' plates," said Jim McAdams, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

During the call, neither CFA nor Public Citizen discussed the Canadian food safety system or its BSE mitigation measures. Their statements were wholly directed at what these groups claim are failings in the United States beef production system.

CFA spokesperson Chris Waldrop said that since the first cow was found in Washington state, USDA has failed to protect U.S. consumers from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Waldrop called the USDA regulations and enforcement "little more than promise and paper checks" to keep the beef supply safe. He said the USDA rule on specified risk material (SRM) removal is inadequate, and the FDA feed ban still allows "infectious materials" to be fed to cattle.

Waldrop concluded this "does not inspire confidence that our government is protecting public health."

Public Citizen's representative Patricia Lovera agreed, saying, "Given that we have these concerns with the domestic system, it doesn't make sense to open the border."

Overlooked by the activist groups conducting the call were the following facts:

The United States has had a surveillance program that has met or exceeded OIE standards for 15 years and a feed ban for eight years as of August, 2005
More than 360,000 cattle were tested since June 1, 2004, with no cases of BSE
An aggressive system to remove specified risk material further protects public health
"The comments of these activist groups prove they are anti-beef and anti-cattle. I can't understand why anyone would embrace the clearly inaccurate and destructive statements of these two groups," said McAdams.

The statements made by CFA and Public Citizen come as no surprise. In January, 2004, CFA criticized the new USDA BSE regulations that further protect U.S. consumers by removing SRMs and preventing downed animals from entering the food supply: "I think that the new regulations have more holes in them than a mad cow's brain.. I can't help the paranoia of American cattlemen. They would like to not have the government in their lives at all."

Other CFA credits include:

"My concern is that I don't want a system that says you can have fecal matter all over it, and then irradiate it. Irradiated poop won't make you sick, but it's still poop." Carol Tucker Foreman, CFA, discussing beef on the PBS program Frontline.
When she was Assistant Secretary at USDA, Tucker Foreman also was one of the biggest proponents of the 1977 "Dietary Goals for the United States," which recommended Americans "decrease consumption of meat, and increase consumption of fish and poultry."
CFA also supports proposals to increase the amount of soy and reduce the amount of meat in the School Lunch Program.
Public Citizen was founded by familiar consumer activist Ralph Nader. This group has joined CFA's attacks on beef:

"Americans face a growing risk of eating feces, vomit and metal shards in meat and poultry because the U.S. Agriculture Department is allowing companies to perform more of their own food safety inspections," said Public Citizen in a CNN story.
In June, 2004, Public Citizen called the U.S. BSE Surveillance Program "nonsense" and said that it, "seems to be designed to give the public and would-be importers of American cattle false assurance."


"The objective of these groups is clear: to convince consumers that the U.S. beef supply is unsafe," said McAdams. "On today's media conference, these groups made no statements about Canada or even the USDA Rule. Rather, they attacked the U.S. beef supply and the people who produce it. And, to think, today, cattlemen groups like R-CALF and CCPM are giving them a platform to do so."
Opening comments were provided by R-CALF attorney David Domina, who also answered most of the reporter's questions. Domina dismissed multiple questions from reporters about how importation of live cattle under 30 months of age could pose more of a threat than beef from the same animals, which is already imported from Canada under a separate government rule. Domina also implied that BSE can be transmitted through the blood of infected cattle. This is a claim that, as reporters quickly pointed out, is not based in fact.
Domina said that if live cattle trade with Canada is resumed, "there is a near-statistical certainty that BSE will reach the United States in one year."

This is completely inaccurate, because the rule allows only cattle younger than 30 months of age to be imported. Cattle under 30 months of age are not a risk given the preventative measures that are in place in Canada and the United States. No animals under this age category, or even close to this age, have been diagnosed with BSE in Canada or the United States.

{Bill, is this current? Like today? Or is it something from a while back? It is amazing to see people in the cattle/beef industry so dedicated to attacking the best system in the world; the one that the rest of the world sees as being the North American Beef Industry. That is not to say it is perfect, but where is one that is comparable and produces food of comparable quality for so many people?

MRJ

MRJ}
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
MRJ said:
Bill said:
Consumer Groups Blast Safety of U.S. Beef Supply
as part of CCMP Amicus Brief Filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

{Bill, is this current? Like today? Or is it something from a while back? It is amazing to see people in the cattle/beef industry so dedicated to attacking the best system in the world; the one that the rest of the world sees as being the North American Beef Industry. That is not to say it is perfect, but where is one that is comparable and produces food of comparable quality for so many people?


This news conference was held today. It is amazing the lengths R-Calf will go through to further their protetionist agenda. BTW, have you noticed the fed cattle market has declined $10/cwt and the boarder is still closed?

Also the Ninth Circuit set July 13th as the date for the appellate hearing. I am confident the Ninth Circuit Court will not be duped as judge Cebull was by R-Calf's BS. The Ninth Circuit Court has been made fully aware in the brief filed by the NMA that approximately 70% of Cebull's written opinion was verbatim R-Calf, including the same spelling errors. Is that not a hoot? Just as in the Pickett case, sooner or later the lies and deception of the plaintiffs will get exposed. The clock has started ticking.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Yes MRJ it is as current as it gets. As Agman writes and I mentioned in an earlier post, the March 8th report of Cebull's was a joke. To have a report of that length ready to present a day afer the "evidence" was presented in his courtroom is a mockery of the US system. Hopefully the July 13th date can help re-establish a bit of respect in the US judiciary.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Agman- "The Ninth Circuit Court has been made fully aware in the brief filed by the NMA that approximately 70% of Cebull's written opinion was verbatim R-Calf, including the same spelling errors. Is that not a hoot? "

Yup, that's a hoot, alright!!! :lol: :lol: A knee-slapper, even!!!!! :lol:
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Bill said:
Yes MRJ it is as current as it gets. As Agman writes and I mentioned in an earlier post, the March 8th report of Cebull's was a joke. To have a report of that length ready to present a day afer the "evidence" was presented in his courtroom is a mockery of the US system. Hopefully the July 13th date

can help re-establish a bit of respect in the US judiciary.

We can hope! Maybe the excellent Supreme Court decision on the Beef Checkoff will give that judge a little backbone........if not, maybe he is wise enough to recognize the valididty of the sciencc as basis of information from those who prefer that rather than politics as the determining factor in the border dispute.

And thank you for providing the date.

MRJ
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Isn't the court of appeal based on the backbone of three judges not just one? and these judges are from Washington not the home state of R-CALF. We can all hope they see the truth about the lies that R-CALF sold to Cebull to get the injunction.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Tam said:
Isn't the court of appeal based on the backbone of three judges not just one? and these judges are from Washington not the home state of R-CALF. We can all hope they see the truth about the lies that R-CALF sold to Cebull to get the injunction.

It will be a three judge panel that will hear and render and opinion in this case. Have a great day.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
agman said:
Tam said:
Isn't the court of appeal based on the backbone of three judges not just one? and these judges are from Washington not the home state of R-CALF. We can all hope they see the truth about the lies that R-CALF sold to Cebull to get the injunction.

It will be a three judge panel that will hear and render and opinion in this case. Have a great day.

And if normal procedure is followed, either party will have the option of appealing their decision to the full body of the 9th Circuit Court.....
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,977
Reaction score
76
Location
Big Muddy valley
More from R-CALFs partners.


The objective of these groups is clear -- to convince consumers that the U.S. beef supply is unsafe," McAdams says. "In today's media conference, these groups made no statements about Canada or even the USDA Rule. Rather, they attacked the U.S. beef supply and the people who produce it. And, to think, today, cattlemen groups like R-CALF and CCPM are giving them a platform to do so."

Looks like they have a foot in the door thanks to R-CALF Bye Bye Beef market.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Tam said:
Isn't the court of appeal based on the backbone of three judges not just one? and these judges are from Washington not the home state of R-CALF. We can all hope they see the truth about the lies that R-CALF sold to Cebull to get the injunction.


Miss Tam,I dont wanna make you mad,cuz this is just a rumor, I heard this morning from elmo,but he tells me one of the judges that sits on the appeals court is Cebull's brother in law.............good luck
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Ontario
HAY MAKER said:
Miss Tam,I dont wanna make you mad,cuz this is just a rumor, I heard this morning from elmo,but he tells me one of the judges that sits on the appeals court is Cebull's brother in law.............good luck

Aw gee, no, HAY MAKER, say it isn't so! Better stop digging in cebull's family tree or we might discover that this other judge is also his cousin and uncle! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
MRJ said:
Bill said:
Yes MRJ it is as current as it gets. As Agman writes and I mentioned in an earlier post, the March 8th report of Cebull's was a joke. To have a report of that length ready to present a day afer the "evidence" was presented in his courtroom is a mockery of the US system. Hopefully the July 13th date

can help re-establish a bit of respect in the US judiciary.

We can hope! Maybe the excellent Supreme Court decision on the Beef Checkoff will give that judge a little backbone........if not, maybe he is wise enough to recognize the valididty of the sciencc as basis of information from those who prefer that rather than politics as the determining factor in the border dispute.

And thank you for providing the date.

Are you aware that our U.S. Supreme Court this week sent the pork checkoff case, initially ruled unconstitutional by the Sixth CC back to the Sixth Circuit Court for further consideration in lieu of the ruling on the beef checkoff. Pro checkoff wins - plaintiffs can just suck their thumbs. It is a great day in this great country where "majority rule" still prevails.
 

Latest posts

Top