Ridley to appeal decision on BSE action

[flounder]

Ridley to appeal decision on BSE action 02.22.2006
(Staff) — Winnipeg feedmaker Ridley Inc. said Friday it's seeking to appeal an Ontario court ruling that allows a massive, proposed class-action suit against the firm to proceed to its next preliminary stage.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 5 rejected a motion from Ridley asking for early dismissal of the proposed suit filed against the company in that province.
The company faces proposed class-action suits on behalf of cattlemen in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Quebec, all making similar claims that the company's "inaction and negligence" prior to Canada's 1997 ban on using rendered ruminants in cattle feed contributed to the BSE crisis.
The proposed class actions, filed last April, had also named the federal government, individual unnamed federal bureaucrats and Ridley Corp. Ltd., the company's Australian parent, and claimed general, special, aggravated and punitive damages running into several hundreds of millions of dollars.
The three other suits had been on hold, pending a decision in Ontario on the preliminary motion for dismissal that Ridley filed in October. Ridley had argued that the Ontario claims "presented no reasonable cause of action under Canadian law."
The company announced Friday that it's filing a notice of motion with the Divisional Court of Ontario, seeking leave to appeal the Superior Court's decision. Ridley, in a release, said it believes the Superior Court decision "conflicts with Supreme Court of Canada case law and other court decisions."
The Superior Court ruling doesn't impact on the merits of the case itself but simply allows the Ontario suit to proceed to its next stages — including decisions on whether it can be certified as a class action, the company said.
The Ontario suit, if certified, would include cattlemen from Manitoba and the five other provinces as members of its "class." Cattleman Bill Sauer of Niagara Falls is the Ontario suit's representative plaintiff.
The Quebec suit alleges calf starter made by a Ridley plant in the months before the 1997 feed ban took effect was the probable source of BSE infection for "Cow Zero" — the BSE-positive Alberta cow whose detection led to the U.S. and other countries shutting their borders to Canadian beef and live cattle.
It also alleges that Ridley kept using rendered ruminants in its feed up until Canada's feed ban, even though its parent firm had joined a voluntary feed ban in Australia the year earlier. It further alleges the Canadian government was negligent in not imposing its feed ban earlier.
The company noted that the Ontario court struck all the suit's claims against Ridley Corp. Ltd., its Australian parent firm, although the claims against the Canadian government remain.


http://www.agcanada.com/custompages/multistory.aspx?mid=154#1087



STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995

snip...

To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed
compounders.

To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through adverse publicity.

To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by
maintaining the availability of meat and bone meal as a raw
material in animal feeds, and ensuring time is available to make any
changes which may be required.

snip...

THE FUTURE

4..........

MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at
handling potentially explosive issues.

5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which
contain illegal traces of ruminant protein. More likely, a few positive
test results will turn up but proof that a particular feed mill knowingly
supplied it to a particular farm will be difficult if not impossible.

6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed
compounders are free of it. The longer we can avoid any direct
linkage between feed milling _practices_ and actual BSE cases,
the more likely it is that serious damage can be avoided. ...

SEE full text ;


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/08/24002001.pdf


TSS

 

[PORKER]

Ridley asking for early dismissal of the proposed suit filed against the company in that province.
The company faces proposed class-action suits on behalf of cattlemen in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Quebec, all making similar claims that the company's "inaction and negligence.

Anybody remember the Dioxon poison that a feed company in Germany passed to all of its buyers farms.Even the Gov. paid for that mess.

 

[rkaiser]

How about another twist for you Terry. Night be too much for your one track mind, but here goes anyway.

I converse with the lead lawyer on this case fairly regularly and am personally one of the plaintiffs. I was originally contacted by this fellow after suggesting that he may be ambushed by the Feds when they choose to bail on the feed transmission theory and suggest that (as Prusiner says) BSE can also be brought on spontaneously. Even I don't like the word spontaneous, but it very well could come out when this case proceeds.

As with my support for the pee test, I suport the efforts of Pallett and crew. http://www.bseclassaction.ca/english/index_en.htm

Anyone with clear intentions of ending this BSEconomic situation is good **** in my books.

As with the pee test, the truth may actually come out in support of something other than this faulty feed transmission theory which is simply holding us all back from calling beef a healthy nutritious food, and looking at ways of cleanig up the environment in which we raise this wonderfully natural wholesome food.

If the lawsuit is successful, at least the rancher will be partially reimbursed for the personal losses he faced. I see it as a win win, and the lead lawyer on the case is bright enough to see it that way as well.

Can you understand this train of thought Terry, or are you going to follow up with another ten pages of support for the feed transmission theory wherby Factor X allows misfolded prions to replicate. :lol: :lol:

 

[flounder]

rkaiser wrote;

>>>As with the pee test, the truth may actually come out in support of something other than this
faulty feed transmission theory which is simply holding us all back from calling beef a healthy nutritious
food, and looking at ways of cleanig up the environment in which we raise this wonderfully natural
wholesome food. <<<


the only thing holding back calling beef a healthy nutritious food, are those that ignore amplification and transmission,
over there environmental quest, and whatever that may be, in which most of the time i am in support of. but you have come
up with zzzzzzilch, as evidence of metals/ops being transmissible. talk to me then valentine


and i support fully the rancher being reimbursed fully. the gov should pay, accept where they can prove negligence with feed
OR OPS and METALS :shock: :shock: :shock:


what do ya think about that valentine
:heart:

 

[rkaiser]

the only thing holding back calling beef a healthy nutritious food, are those that ignore amplification and transmission,
over there environmental quest, and whatever that may be, in which most of the time i am in support of. but you have come
up with zzzzzzilch, as evidence of metals/ops being transmissible. talk to me then valentine


and i support fully the rancher being reimbursed fully. the gov should pay, accept where they can prove negligence with feed
OR OPS and METALS


what do ya think about that valentine

How on earth does not agreeing with amplification through transmission hold you or anyone else back Terry? Those who disagree are as apparent as a misfolded prion in a cup of pee. We are holding you back from nothing, and in fact are supporting testing in a very vocal way. Our voice clearly states that beef is safe to eat, and that those who talk of transmission of a misfolded prion and species leaping of this little beggar are on the wrong track.

Your question concerning the transmission of metals/OP's shows your utter lack of knowledge on the topic. You have not spent one moment of your time allowing yourself to see the merits of the Purdey theory. I appreciate your tenacity, but can't understand someone who supposedly has the ability to learn but won't.

Metal contamination is the cause of misfolded prions. This will be proven with time.

With the billions poured in to try to prove the theory that you stand behind Terry, you also have zzzzilch. If the theory was so widely accepted, why has the pee test not been accepted and applied to millions of people. It is the proof that you need. It will either prove or disprove the theory that you follow. Why do you not concentrate on that for a while Terry. You have the LARGE majority on your side already. How many more do you need to convince before you actually do something with what you have found?

I'm not holding you back Terry. In fact I would love for you to move to the next step. I would love for you to prove to the world that you can eliminate this problem with feed regulations.

I don't believe you can, but that's just me.

I follow the feed regulations and even exceed them. It will not hut me a bit if you turn out to be right. So move ahead and prove that you are right with bse testers test.

I realise that 8 years has left you with tunnel vision, and one situation that you feel can solve this problem. The metal contamination theory is not your enemy Terry and I assure you that it will some day be the truth that solves this mystery of TSE's. If you feel that you need to waste another 8 years of your life trying to prove the USDA and the rest of the world at fault for ignoring feed restriction guidelines that is your choice. I won't argue with your ambition. It may help, but not in the way that you feel it will help.

I apologize for your inability to understand my words. It is a pretty simple issue which become complex. Made even more complex by the millions of dollars and millions of words that came from those dollars in support of a faulty transmission theory.

and i support fully the rancher being reimbursed fully. the gov should pay, accept where they can prove negligence with feed
OR OPS and METALS

Last but not least, I would like to understand this grade school statement of yours. Are you saying that if a farmer is found to have intentionally fed BSE "infected" :roll: feed to his cows, he should not receive government compensation? Where is this terrorist going to find that feed Terry?

And are you also suggesting that those of us that intentionally feed our cattle metals or treat them with excessive OP's should also be disqualified.

You are a mental case Terry. These statements are as ridiculous as you asking me to be your valentine. I think you should just go back to posting other peoples words. Yours are hardly worth the time.

Randy

 

[bse-tester]

Randy wrote:

With the billions poured in to try to prove the theory that you stand behind Terry, you also have zzzzilch. If the theory was so widely accepted, why has the pee test not been accepted and applied to millions of people.

The simple answer Randy is that Governments who make the decisions to allow a test to be used are simply not going to do it for at least 2 reasons: The first being that it has to be validated and then approved at the EFSA and then OIE level. Secondly, the USDA and the CFIA have both been well aware of our test for at least 3 years and they both have come right out and stated that there is no interest to use a test that has not been validated and that it would certainly be problematic to use it. That is to say that there is a very good chance of the discovery of more BSE in the national herds of both Canada and the USA and the producers do not need to go through that all over again (3 years ago at least). The sad part of this attitude is this - If we can identify an animal as a carrier/host of PrPsc, then it can be quickly and effectively removed from the herd and thusly elliminate all chance of it getting into the human food chain well before the onset of any clinical symptoms of BSE. For some strange reason, both our governments are thinking with their collective rear-ends instead of what God gave them - their brains. They have the entire protocol back-ass-wards. Testing, positive identification and determination of health status, ellimination and risk management of the herds will get rid of BSE and the potential threat of vCJD.

Or of course, the other and possibly better explaination is simply that nobody, until now, has even come up with a working urine test that is not only effective, but incredibly inexpensive and are prepared to have it validated.

 

[rkaiser]

That is to say that there is a very good chance of the discovery of more BSE in the national herds of both Canada and the USA and the producers do not need to go through that all over again

You simply cannot believe this kind of rhetoric can you Ron. The survailance system we have will find more cases. And this is the reason for urgency. The beef industry (at least at the producer level) is paying a hefty price due to BSE every day. The potential sales of beef offshore are enormous, not to mention the effect this crap is having on our domestic consumers. The governments are draggin this out for no other reason than money. If they are truly scared for the producer, then drop the survailance program completely and forget about exports. All the survailance program does is keep the terror alert level bobbing back and forth between Red and Orange.

If our government is lacking the will to test, it is only for the economic advantage of those other than producers. Talking about producers going through anything is a cop out, another red herring for the media to latch on to.

 

[PORKER]

If we can identify an animal as a carrier/host of PrPsc, then it can be quickly and effectively removed from the herd and thusly elliminate all chance of it getting into the human food chain well before the onset of any clinical symptoms of BSE.

This is the Only Way we will be able to rid TSE's from North America ,US.Can,and Mexico.

To Many Status Quo to break?Packers that is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!