• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Six States Join R-CALF Effort

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Six States Join R-CALF Effort
To Block Canadian Live Cattle

BILLINGS, Mont. — Six states are joining a Montana-based livestock group’s effort to re-close the U.S. border to live cattle from Canada.

The attorneys general of New Mexico, Connecticut, West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana have filed amicus curiae briefs, or friend of the court briefs, in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking for a rehearing of R-CALF USA's petition to keep the Canadian border closed to live cattle and beef products because of reports of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in Canada.

The U.S. border with Canada was closed after Canada reported a BSE case in May 2003.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced after the first of the year that it would reopen the Canadian border and allow live cattle to move into the U.S. in March. R-CALF USA filed a lawsuit against the USDA to keep the border closed.

On March 2, just days before the border was to open, U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull here in Billings granted R-CALF's request for a preliminary injunction and ordered the U.S.-Canadian border to remain closed for live cattle trade and trade in certain beef products.

USDA appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court on March 17. A three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court reversed Cebull's action and opened the border.

Canadian cattle began to cross the border into the U.S., beginning in New York on July 18.

R-CALF has petitioned the appeals court for a rehearing before the full panel of judges, asking that the preliminary injunction be reinstated and that the border again be closed to trade in cattle and beef.

The petition, and the amicus curiae briefs, cite the danger of exposing U.S. cattle to BSE. They claim letting Canadian cattle into the U.S. puts both the nation's cattle herd and U.S. consumers at risk, though BSE is thought to be passed only through feed contaminated with protein from infected cattle.

"R-CALF USA remains grateful for the support these states have shown through their consistent concern with this matter, and we look forward to the opportunity to present these scientifically valid concerns to the full Ninth Circuit," Bill Bullard, R-CALF chief executive officer, says in a prepared statement.
 

Tam

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Six States Join R-CALF Effort
To Block Canadian Live Cattle

BILLINGS, Mont. — Six states are joining a Montana-based livestock group’s effort to re-close the U.S. border to live cattle from Canada.

The attorneys general of New Mexico, Connecticut, West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana have filed amicus curiae briefs, or friend of the court briefs, in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking for a rehearing of R-CALF USA's petition to keep the Canadian border closed to live cattle and beef products because of reports of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in Canada.

The U.S. border with Canada was closed after Canada reported a BSE case in May 2003.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced after the first of the year that it would reopen the Canadian border and allow live cattle to move into the U.S. in March. R-CALF USA filed a lawsuit against the USDA to keep the border closed.

On March 2, just days before the border was to open, U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull here in Billings granted R-CALF's request for a preliminary injunction and ordered the U.S.-Canadian border to remain closed for live cattle trade and trade in certain beef products.

USDA appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court on March 17. A three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court reversed Cebull's action and opened the border.

Canadian cattle began to cross the border into the U.S., beginning in New York on July 18.

R-CALF has petitioned the appeals court for a rehearing before the full panel of judges, asking that the preliminary injunction be reinstated and that the border again be closed to trade in cattle and beef.

The petition, and the amicus curiae briefs, cite the danger of exposing U.S. cattle to BSE. They claim letting Canadian cattle into the U.S. puts both the nation's cattle herd and U.S. consumers at risk, though BSE is thought to be passed only through feed contaminated with protein from infected cattle.

"R-CALF USA remains grateful for the support these states have shown through their consistent concern with this matter, and we look forward to the opportunity to present these scientifically valid concerns to the full Ninth Circuit," Bill Bullard, R-CALF chief executive officer, says in a prepared statement.

Haymaker what is the date on this article?
 

Tam

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Six States Join R-CALF Effort
To Block Canadian Live Cattle

BILLINGS, Mont. — Six states are joining a Montana-based livestock group’s effort to re-close the U.S. border to live cattle from Canada.

The attorneys general of New Mexico, Connecticut, West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana have filed amicus curiae briefs, or friend of the court briefs, in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking for a rehearing of R-CALF USA's petition to keep the Canadian border closed to live cattle and beef products because of reports of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in Canada.

The U.S. border with Canada was closed after Canada reported a BSE case in May 2003.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced after the first of the year that it would reopen the Canadian border and allow live cattle to move into the U.S. in March. R-CALF USA filed a lawsuit against the USDA to keep the border closed.

On March 2, just days before the border was to open, U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull here in Billings granted R-CALF's request for a preliminary injunction and ordered the U.S.-Canadian border to remain closed for live cattle trade and trade in certain beef products.

USDA appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court on March 17. A three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court reversed Cebull's action and opened the border.

Canadian cattle began to cross the border into the U.S., beginning in New York on July 18.

R-CALF has petitioned the appeals court for a rehearing before the full panel of judges, asking that the preliminary injunction be reinstated and that the border again be closed to trade in cattle and beef.

The petition, and the amicus curiae briefs, cite the danger of exposing U.S. cattle to BSE. They claim letting Canadian cattle into the U.S. puts both the nation's cattle herd and U.S. consumers at risk, though BSE is thought to be passed only through feed contaminated with protein from infected cattle.

"R-CALF USA remains grateful for the support these states have shown through their consistent concern with this matter, and we look forward to the opportunity to present these scientifically valid concerns to the full Ninth Circuit," Bill Bullard, R-CALF chief executive officer, says in a prepared statement.

Tam: Haymaker what is the date on this article?

Haymaker: 9/28/2006....................I sent you the link,Miss Tam...........good luck


State AGs file brief in support of Canada border rehearing
The attorneys general of six states--Connecticut, West Virginia, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana--have jointly filed an amici curiae, or friend-of-the-court brief, in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to show support for R-CALF USA's petition for a rehearing in its litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to keep the Canadian border closed to live cattle and beef products due to Canada's problem with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
R-CALF USA filed a lawsuit against USDA on Jan. 10, 2005. On March 2, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana granted R-CALF USA's request for a preliminary injunction that halted implementation of USDA's Final Rule on BSE minimal-risk regions, scheduled to reopen the Canadian border on March 7. On March 3, the U.S. Senate voted 52-46 to overturn USDA's Final Rule, but efforts seeking the same action from the U.S. House of Representatives were unsuccessful. On March 17, the USDA appealed the preliminary injunction, and on July 14, a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit issued an order that reversed the preliminary injunction, which reopened the Canadian border. Canadian cattle began arrival into the U.S. on July 18.

The brief urges the 9th Circuit to grant the petition for a rehearing before a full panel of judges in the appellate court, to vacate the order that reopened the Canadian border, and to reinstate the preliminary injunction.

"Besides the concern for public health, many of the amici states realize that cattle production is an integral, and substantial, part of their economies," said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. "These cattle-industry dollars have significant links to other parts of each state's economy, especially in helping rural communities to thrive. And in some of these states, it was ranches and cattle that formed an enduring part of those states' history, culture and identity.

"R-CALF USA remains grateful for support these states have shown through their consistent concern with this matter, and we look forward to the opportunity to present these scientifically valid concerns to the full 9th Circuit," said Bullard.

The brief states in part: "The amici states submit this brief because the federal government, with its premature decision to reopen the border, and the panel's decision, with its abdication of any form of effective review of the legality of USDA's actions since May 29, 2003, have failed to protect the interests of the public the Attorneys General serve . . .

"Federal law obligates the USDA to protect the public health from unsafe food supplies and to protect the agricultural economies in the United States from the threat posed by importation of unsafe farm products . . ." and USDA's Final Rule "failed that task, and the (9th Circuit) panel's decision, in effect, allows the USDA to fail without meaningful court review. The consequences of the panel's erroneous decision could be catastrophic, and (those consequences) are not limited to the states in the 9th Circuit."

The amici states maintain the 9th Circuit panel should have deferred to the District Court's decision and left the status quo in place until a full hearing on the merits could be held. The amici states also agreed that, unlike prior decisions in the 9th Circuit, the panel's opinion judged the merits of the case at the preliminary injunction stage.

" . . . It thus appears likely that without the appellate intervention of the panel, this case would have been tried on its merits, decided and on its way to this Court for full appellate review on its merits by now," the brief continues. " . . . If this were a dispute among private litigants, the amici states would likely not be filing this brief. But this case is pregnant with public interest of a national character. An error in the USDA's analysis will cause devastating consequences to important national interests, interests that are at the core of the USDA's functions with respect to the safety of the food supply and the farm economies of the states . . ."

USDA's Final Rule "puts the citizens of the amici states at risk of eating food contaminated with BSE and contracting, and dying from, vCJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) . . ."

The brief concludes that the panel's decision, departing from well-established 9th Circuit law, "has permitted the USDA to take this action free from any meaningful review under pertinent provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The amici states respectfully urge the Court to grant the petition (for a rehearing)."

Date: 10/7/05

Just wondering :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
This is the date on the most recent article.....9/28/2006............good luck
http://www.livestockweekly.com/papers/06/09/28/whl28bow-briefs.asp.......... :wink:

Check out the
The Cattlemen's Newsletter
Volume 6 Issue 6 Dated October 2005
Page 3 First Column
Article titled "Litigation Update and Timeline"
Half way down the first column.
Sept 15,2005
It continues to the second column
If you don't have a copy of the R-CALF Newsletter go read it off their web site. What can I say :? this news is old news Haymaker A YEAR OLD NEWS. :wink:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Maybe so, who sez its not,just an article I read today,I dont hang around R CALF's web site like you do..............good luck
 

ocm

Well-known member
Tam said:
HAY MAKER said:
This is the date on the most recent article.....9/28/2006............good luck
http://www.livestockweekly.com/papers/06/09/28/whl28bow-briefs.asp.......... :wink:

Check out the
The Cattlemen's Newsletter
Volume 6 Issue 6 Dated October 2005
Page 3 First Column
Article titled "Litigation Update and Timeline"
Half way down the first column.
Sept 15,2005
It continues to the second column
If you don't have a copy of the R-CALF Newsletter go read it off their web site. What can I say :? this news is old news Haymaker A YEAR OLD NEWS. :wink:

Tam, this is a current effort, based on the fact that R-CALF has been denied the opportunity to present a full case in court. Such denial cannot be based on an appeal court decision like Cebull has stated to R-CALF.

This case has already been cited as precedent to show that whatever the USDA says is science is in fact science. That assumption needs overturned. Six states think so, too.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "Tam, this is a current effort, based on the fact that R-CALF has been denied the opportunity to present a full case in court. Such denial cannot be based on an appeal court decision like Cebull has stated to R-CALF.

This case has already been cited as precedent to show that whatever the USDA says is science is in fact science. That assumption needs overturned. Six states think so, too."


R-CULT's shortsighted followers need to be pinned down on their position. I mean have their feet literally nailed to the floor. R-CULT needs to define exactly what makes Canadian beef and live cattle unsafe and be willing to accept the fact that US beef and live cattle would be unsafe under the exact same circumstances. If not, then R-CULT needs to identify those differences. I would love to be the cross examination in a court of law and do just that. I'm so sick of their short sighted isolationist tactics and outright lies.


~SH~
 

Tam

Well-known member
ocm said:
Tam said:
HAY MAKER said:
This is the date on the most recent article.....9/28/2006............good luck
http://www.livestockweekly.com/papers/06/09/28/whl28bow-briefs.asp.......... :wink:

Check out the
The Cattlemen's Newsletter
Volume 6 Issue 6 Dated October 2005
Page 3 First Column
Article titled "Litigation Update and Timeline"
Half way down the first column.
Sept 15,2005
It continues to the second column
If you don't have a copy of the R-CALF Newsletter go read it off their web site. What can I say :? this news is old news Haymaker A YEAR OLD NEWS. :wink:

Tam, this is a current effort, based on the fact that R-CALF has been denied the opportunity to present a full case in court. Such denial cannot be based on an appeal court decision like Cebull has stated to R-CALF.

This case has already been cited as precedent to show that whatever the USDA says is science is in fact science. That assumption needs overturned. Six states think so, too.

The facts are Haymaker wanted us to believe this was NEWS as in the article being dated Sept. 2006 but this is something that was NEWS a YEAR AGO. hence the article dated Sept/ Oct. 2005 including the R-CALF NEWSLETTER. :roll:

And Haymaker I find it hard to believe that you, as the strong supporter you are, don't read your beef organization NEWSLETTER. :shock: :lol:
 

ocm

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
OCM: "Tam, this is a current effort, based on the fact that R-CALF has been denied the opportunity to present a full case in court. Such denial cannot be based on an appeal court decision like Cebull has stated to R-CALF.

This case has already been cited as precedent to show that whatever the USDA says is science is in fact science. That assumption needs overturned. Six states think so, too."


R-CULT's shortsighted followers need to be pinned down on their position. I mean have their feet literally nailed to the floor. R-CULT needs to define exactly what makes Canadian beef and live cattle unsafe and be willing to accept the fact that US beef and live cattle would be unsafe under the exact same circumstances. If not, then R-CULT needs to identify those differences. I would love to be the cross examination in a court of law and do just that. I'm so sick of their short sighted isolationist tactics and outright lies.


~SH~

It's the USDA that needs to be pinned down. They redefined science in order to make Canada a minimal risk region. They have testified in court that that science is sound. Now Canada no longer meets that original qualification. USDA needs to justify why they are still allowing imports from Canada if their science (as testified to in court) says it is unsafe. This is about asking the USDA to apply consistently its previously testified to science to the current situation.

Anything wrong with that?

This case as it stood said the "sound scence" of any federal government agency can never be challenged. You like it that way?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Tam said:
ocm said:
Tam said:
Check out the
The Cattlemen's Newsletter
Volume 6 Issue 6 Dated October 2005
Page 3 First Column
Article titled "Litigation Update and Timeline"
Half way down the first column.
Sept 15,2005
It continues to the second column
If you don't have a copy of the R-CALF Newsletter go read it off their web site. What can I say :? this news is old news Haymaker A YEAR OLD NEWS. :wink:

Tam, this is a current effort, based on the fact that R-CALF has been denied the opportunity to present a full case in court. Such denial cannot be based on an appeal court decision like Cebull has stated to R-CALF.

This case has already been cited as precedent to show that whatever the USDA says is science is in fact science. That assumption needs overturned. Six states think so, too.

The facts are Haymaker wanted us to believe this was NEWS as in the article being dated Sept. 2006 but this is something that was NEWS a YEAR AGO. hence the article dated Sept/ Oct. 2005 including the R-CALF NEWSLETTER. :roll:

And Haymaker I find it hard to believe that you, as the strong supporter you are, don't read your beef organization NEWSLETTER. :shock: :lol:

Did you not read what OCM posted,this is a recent happening,as we post and read, there are cattle men trying to protect the north American cattle herds by keeping BSE infected cattle out of the country,the sooner you realize you have a serious BSE problem and quit blaming R CALF for your short comings and implement a feed ban that you and others will comply with, the sooner OTM's will cross the medicine line.............good luck
PS I dont know why you are concerned about my comunication with R CALF,but I can tell you with certainty I am in touch :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Tam said:
ocm said:
Tam, this is a current effort, based on the fact that R-CALF has been denied the opportunity to present a full case in court. Such denial cannot be based on an appeal court decision like Cebull has stated to R-CALF.

This case has already been cited as precedent to show that whatever the USDA says is science is in fact science. That assumption needs overturned. Six states think so, too.

The facts are Haymaker wanted us to believe this was NEWS as in the article being dated Sept. 2006 but this is something that was NEWS a YEAR AGO. hence the article dated Sept/ Oct. 2005 including the R-CALF NEWSLETTER. :roll:

And Haymaker I find it hard to believe that you, as the strong supporter you are, don't read your beef organization NEWSLETTER. :shock: :lol:

Did you not read what OCM posted,this is a recent happening,as we post and read, there are cattle men trying to protect the north American cattle herds by keeping BSE infected cattle out of the country,the sooner you realize you have a serious BSE problem and quit blaming R CALF for your short comings and implement a feed ban that you and others will comply with, the sooner OTM's will cross the medicine line.............good luck
PS I dont know why you are concerned about my comunication with R CALF,but I can tell you with certainty I am in touch :wink:


Haymaker here you are claiming to be in touch but you posted this articles as if it was new. :roll:
Those six states signing on was news a year ago not recently. So why are you bring it up now as if it is News? :roll:

And when is R-CALF going to admit if Canada's beef is unsafe because we have BSE in our native herd then the US beef is FOR THE SAME REASON. You can't claim ours is unsafe and you have the WORLD SAFEST BEEF WHEN WE BOTH HAVE BSE IN OUR NATIVE HERDS. The fact that we know where ours originated and what caused ours and we have done something about it. IS LEAPS AHEAD OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE ABOUT YOURS. Do you know where yours originated or what caused it Haymaker?
 

cowsense

Well-known member
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
OCM: "Tam, this is a current effort, based on the fact that R-CALF has been denied the opportunity to present a full case in court. Such denial cannot be based on an appeal court decision like Cebull has stated to R-CALF.

This case has already been cited as precedent to show that whatever the USDA says is science is in fact science. That assumption needs overturned. Six states think so, too."


R-CULT's shortsighted followers need to be pinned down on their position. I mean have their feet literally nailed to the floor. R-CULT needs to define exactly what makes Canadian beef and live cattle unsafe and be willing to accept the fact that US beef and live cattle would be unsafe under the exact same circumstances. If not, then R-CULT needs to identify those differences. I would love to be the cross examination in a court of law and do just that. I'm so sick of their short sighted isolationist tactics and outright lies.


~SH~

It's the USDA that needs to be pinned down. They redefined science in order to make Canada a minimal risk region. They have testified in court that that science is sound. Now Canada no longer meets that original qualification. USDA needs to justify why they are still allowing imports from Canada if their science (as testified to in court) says it is unsafe. This is about asking the USDA to apply consistently its previously testified to science to the current situation.

Anything wrong with that?

This case as it stood said the "sound scence" of any federal government agency can never be challenged. You like it that way?

OCM: AS USUAL YOUR CHOSEN ORGANIZATION HAS CHOSEN TO LIE AND MISREPRESENT THE FACTS. CANADA (as well as the US) HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS A MINIMAL RISK COUNTRY UNDER THE TRADE PROTOCOLS RECOMMENDED BY THE OIE. THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS THAT FACILITATES TRADE POLICY IS RECOMMENDED BY THE 180 PLUS MEMBERS OF THE OIE ACCORDING TO THE LATEST,BEST KNOWN SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION. THE US IN ORDER TO TRADE BEEF PRODUCTS MUST TREAT OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE SAME MANNER AS THEY WISH THEIR OWN BEEF EXPORTS TO BE TREATED!
THE ONLY CONSISTENCY YOUR GROUP SHOWS IS IN IT'S ALL OUT EFFORTS FOR TRADE PROTECTIONISM REGARDLESS OF THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES :!:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Any outfit that groups two countries together when one country has 1 case for every 1.5M head with 4 post ban cases and the other country has 1 cases in 45M head with no post ban cases has very little credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Cowsense, what does the OIE say about feed bans?
 

Tam

Well-known member
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
OCM: "Tam, this is a current effort, based on the fact that R-CALF has been denied the opportunity to present a full case in court. Such denial cannot be based on an appeal court decision like Cebull has stated to R-CALF.

This case has already been cited as precedent to show that whatever the USDA says is science is in fact science. That assumption needs overturned. Six states think so, too."


R-CULT's shortsighted followers need to be pinned down on their position. I mean have their feet literally nailed to the floor. R-CULT needs to define exactly what makes Canadian beef and live cattle unsafe and be willing to accept the fact that US beef and live cattle would be unsafe under the exact same circumstances. If not, then R-CULT needs to identify those differences. I would love to be the cross examination in a court of law and do just that. I'm so sick of their short sighted isolationist tactics and outright lies.


~SH~

It's the USDA that needs to be pinned down. They redefined science in order to make Canada a minimal risk region. They have testified in court that that science is sound. Now Canada no longer meets that original qualification. USDA needs to justify why they are still allowing imports from Canada if their science (as testified to in court) says it is unsafe. This is about asking the USDA to apply consistently its previously testified to science to the current situation.

Anything wrong with that?

This case as it stood said the "sound scence" of any federal government agency can never be challenged. You like it that way?

ocm, R-CALF needs to pinned down and made to explain how the USDA was to go to YOUR DOMESTIC CONSUMERS and sell them on the safety US beef if they had stood, like R-CALF demanded they do, on the policy that "all beef coming from a country affect by BSE is UNSAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION NO MATTER WHAT THE SAID COUNTRY"S SAFEGUARDS WERE and should be BAN!!!! Maybe you would like to give us an example of how the USDA would have been able to that, since you think the policies should not have been changed even though the OIE RECOMMENDED THEY BE CHANGED TO REFLECT INTERNATIONAL RULES instead of those that the original policies were made on which seem to be NOT INTERNATIONAL RULES. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam, "all beef coming from a country affect by BSE is UNSAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION NO MATTER WHAT THE SAID COUNTRY"S SAFEGUARDS WERE and should be BAN!!!! "

Here's a suggestion for you, Tam; If you're going to argue against a statement that R-CALF made, use the actual statement and not statements that you made up and attributed to them.

Having to make up quotes says a lot about the strength of your arguement.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Tam said:
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
R-CULT's shortsighted followers need to be pinned down on their position. I mean have their feet literally nailed to the floor. R-CULT needs to define exactly what makes Canadian beef and live cattle unsafe and be willing to accept the fact that US beef and live cattle would be unsafe under the exact same circumstances. If not, then R-CULT needs to identify those differences. I would love to be the cross examination in a court of law and do just that. I'm so sick of their short sighted isolationist tactics and outright lies.


~SH~

It's the USDA that needs to be pinned down. They redefined science in order to make Canada a minimal risk region. They have testified in court that that science is sound. Now Canada no longer meets that original qualification. USDA needs to justify why they are still allowing imports from Canada if their science (as testified to in court) says it is unsafe. This is about asking the USDA to apply consistently its previously testified to science to the current situation.

Anything wrong with that?

This case as it stood said the "sound scence" of any federal government agency can never be challenged. You like it that way?

ocm, R-CALF needs to pinned down and made to explain how the USDA was to go to YOUR DOMESTIC CONSUMERS and sell them on the safety US beef if they had stood, like R-CALF demanded they do, on the policy that "all beef coming from a country affect by BSE is UNSAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION NO MATTER WHAT THE SAID COUNTRY"S SAFEGUARDS WERE and should be BAN!!!! Maybe you would like to give us an example of how the USDA would have been able to that, since you think the policies should not have been changed even though the OIE RECOMMENDED THEY BE CHANGED TO REFLECT INTERNATIONAL RULES instead of those that the original policies were made on which seem to be NOT INTERNATIONAL RULES. :roll:

You are taking the untenable position that any country with BSE is the same as all countries with BSE. That is not R-CALF's position.

"all beef coming from a country affect by BSE is UNSAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION NO MATTER WHAT THE SAID COUNTRY"S SAFEGUARDS WERE and should be BAN!!!! "

Those are your words. Not R-CALF's.

It remains true that Canada DOES NOT meet the USDA's new category of "minimal risk" region. The US far exceeds those requirements.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Cowsense, what does the OIE say about feed bans?

Sandhusker now that we all know the US has BSE in their native herd can you tell us if the US would qualify to export beef if an 8 year effective feed ban was part of the rules in light of the fact you still feed several known sources of cross contamination for BSE . And had recalls of contaminated feed from your system within the past year that resulted in very little of that feed being collected.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Tam, "all beef coming from a country affect by BSE is UNSAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION NO MATTER WHAT THE SAID COUNTRY"S SAFEGUARDS WERE and should be BAN!!!! "

Here's a suggestion for you, Tam; If you're going to argue against a statement that R-CALF made, use the actual statement and not statements that you made up and attributed to them.

Having to make up quotes says a lot about the strength of your arguement.

What was the old policy Sandhusker? Was it not to BAN ALL beef from BSE affected countries? In the old policy did the USDA look at the safeguards in place and say this country has safeguards in place so we will except their beef but not this other country's as they have no safeguards? NO THEY BAN ALL BEEF FROM COUNTRIES AFFECT BY BSE REGUARDLESS OF THE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE. I never attributed that to anything R-CALF said. That was the USDA's OLD POLICY WAS IT NOT? And if the USDA had stood on that old policy as R-CALF DEMANDED THEY DO, then how could the USDA tell the US consumers that US beef was safe because of the safeguards they had put in place to protect them but the safeguards that other countries, that were more stringent than those in the US, didn't work to assure their beef was safe for import to the US ? :roll:
 
Top