Tam, please provide the proof

[Mike]

Tam's Quote:Why can't you get it through your head that even Creekstone said that BSE tested beef doesn't mean BSE FREE.

I have seen this statement written on this forum many times. I have extensively read about Creekstone's testing proposal.

Yet I have been unable to find this quote included anywhere within the articles. Could you, Tam, or anyone else provide me with any proof whatsoever that they actually said this?

 

[Mike]

Tam's Quote:Why can't you get it through your head that even Creekstone said that BSE tested beef doesn't mean BSE FREE.

I have seen this statement written on this forum many times. I have extensively read about Creekstone's testing proposal.

Yet I have been unable to find this quote included anywhere within the articles. Could you, Tam, or anyone else provide me with any proof whatsoever that they actually said this?

I'm waiting Tam. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mike]

Tam's Quote:Why can't you get it through your head that even Creekstone said that BSE tested beef doesn't mean BSE FREE.

I have seen this statement written on this forum many times. I have extensively read about Creekstone's testing proposal.

Yet I have been unable to find this quote included anywhere within the articles. Could you, Tam, or anyone else provide me with any proof whatsoever that they actually said this?

I'm waiting Tam. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tam's response:

I guess for now I'll just have to use Oldtimers response "I heard it alot so they must have said it." Wink When I have time I will look it up.

I'm still waiting. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mike]

Tam's Quote:Why can't you get it through your head that even Creekstone said that BSE tested beef doesn't mean BSE FREE.

I have seen this statement written on this forum many times. I have extensively read about Creekstone's testing proposal.

Yet I have been unable to find this quote included anywhere within the articles. Could you, Tam, or anyone else provide me with any proof whatsoever that they actually said this?

I'm waiting Tam. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tam's response:

I guess for now I'll just have to use Oldtimers response "I heard it alot so they must have said it." Wink When I have time I will look it up.

I'm still waiting. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm still waiting Tam. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mike]

Anxiously awaiting your reply. Still. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mike]

Where are you Tam? :lol: :lol:

 

[Tommy]

Are you feeling left out Mike?

 

[Mike]

Are you feeling left out Mike?

I feel very lonely and unattended to. Help. :lol: :lol:

 

[Tommy]

Mike...I feel very lonely and unattended to. Help

Don't know if Tam could help you Mike, remember she is married.

 

[Mike]

Mike...I feel very lonely and unattended to. Help

Don't know if Tam could help you Mike, remember she is married.

R2:Mike's the one whose slips of the tongue produced "virgin" for what was it "virtual"?

I do have the patience if a virgin. And it looks like I will stay that way if Tam doesn't show me some quotes. :shock: :shock:

 

[TimH]

Is this what you are waiting for Mike?
I've always considered it my duty to alleviate the the impatience of virgins.

www.cattletoday.com/forum/ptopic9689.html

 

[Econ101]

TimH, the only way the costs of the tests could get sent back down to the producers is if Creekstone had market power. Obviously with 3000 per week kill, they do not have market power. Do you discount Creekstone's contention that the cost of the test would be more than offset by the benefits of exporting to Japan? The tests could actually PAY producers through higher prices selling to Japan. Why not let the market handle this one?

I find Mike's question fun, but the real issues are whether or not the markets are allowed to work or whether the USDA and Canadian equivalent are going to manage the markets for their favorite boys. Of course their favorite boys are giving their favorite candidates campaign bribe money. None of this is good for the average producers. It only leads to the dominance of the large packers in the USDA and their manipulation of USDA policy for their own benefit, and not the benefit of producers.

I find it funny that you and others support such stances while still saying your policies are for the producer/consumer.

 

[TimH]

TimH, the only way the costs of the tests could get sent back down to the producers is if Creekstone had market power. Obviously with 3000 per week kill, they do not have market power. Do you discount Creekstone's contention that the cost of the test would be more than offset by the benefits of exporting to Japan? The tests could actually PAY producers through higher prices selling to Japan. Why not let the market handle this one?

I find Mike's question fun, but the real issues are whether or not the markets are allowed to work or whether the USDA and Canadian equivalent are going to manage the markets for their favorite boys. Of course their favorite boys are giving their favorite candidates campaign bribe money. None of this is good for the average producers. It only leads to the dominance of the large packers in the USDA and their manipulation of USDA policy for their own benefit, and not the benefit of producers.

I find it funny that you and others support such stances while still saying your policies are for the producer/consumer.

Quoting Mr. Fielding(from the article) - "We consider this an extra (business) step. We are not making any claim this is BSE-free product," he said.

Econ, for the purposes of this thread, the above quote is all that matters.

 

[Econ101]

Tim H., I moved the questions that should matter onto its own thread for you to answer.

If your contention holds true, all the testing for bse in Canada doesn't mean a thing either.

Personally, I believe Bill Hawks and other current and former USDA officials should be pushing the policy the USDA should be pushing--food safety and fairness, and sound markets-- instead of carrying out packer orders given to them by paid off politicians.

Same goes with the Canadian equivalents.

 

[Mike]

"We consider this an extra (business) step. We are not making any claim this is BSE-free product," he said.

He also said (in another article) that he could "not guarantee" the tests. I don't blame him for not backing the USDA testing track record.

Tam:Why can't you get it through your head that even Creekstone said that BSE tested beef doesn't mean BSE FREE.

Fielding;"We are not making any claim" is entirely different from:
Tam; "tested beef doesn't mean BSE FREE"

The changing of the wording has led to insinuations that the test doesn't work. But in fact, Fielding is saying that he personally cannot back the test because he is not a scientist, and because the test would be done under USDA supervision.

The changing of the wording of the phrase is a prime example of how words get turned around here to have a different meaning to suit one's agenda.

I still want to see the quote;"BSE tested doesn't mean BSE Free".

The Japs will argue that sentence to high heaven. To them, BSE tested "DOES" mean BSE FREE if the test is negative.

They would not argue with "we are not making any claim", whatsoever.

Still waiting. :???: :???:

 

[TimH]

"We consider this an extra (business) step. We are not making any claim this is BSE-free product," he said.

He also said (in another article) that he could "not guarantee" the tests. I don't blame him for not backing the USDA testing track record.

Tam:Why can't you get it through your head that even Creekstone said that BSE tested beef doesn't mean BSE FREE.

Fielding;"We are not making any claim" is entirely different from:
Tam; "tested beef doesn't mean BSE FREE"

The changing of the wording has led to insinuations that the test doesn't work. But in fact, Fielding is saying that he personally cannot back the test because he is not a scientist, and because the test would be done under USDA supervision.

The changing of the wording of the phrase is a prime example of how words get turned around here to have a different meaning to suit one's agenda.

I still want to see the quote;"BSE tested doesn't mean BSE Free".

The Japs will argue that sentence to high heaven. To them, BSE tested "DOES" mean BSE FREE if the test is negative.

They would not argue with "we are not making any claim", whatsoever.

Still waiting. :???: :???:

I got this from Webster's....

semantics
3 entries found for semantics.
To select an entry, click on it.
semanticsgeneral semanticsgenerative semantics

Main Entry: se·man·tics
Pronunciation: si-'man-tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
1 : the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1) : SEMIOTIC (2) : a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth
2 : GENERAL SEMANTICS
3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

 

[Tam]

Sorry you had to WAIT SO LONG MIKE but some of us have a life. I was gone all day yesterday if you didn't notice and on the phone this morning campaigning for a political candidate. I'm trying to make a difference in Sask. so why do you just take a chill pill and stop being annoying. Maybe you should see what taking a midol would do to a man :wink:

I see Tim handled it but as usual it didn't fit your agenda so here is another quote.

Satisfying the Japanese

USDA has sole control of the testing processes in meat plants. And its
officials say they have rejected Creekstone Farms' pleas because the
company's tests don't detect mad cow disease in animals younger than 30
months. Most U.S. beef comes from 12- to 18-month-old cows.

"The tests are not designed to detect BSE in younger animals," said Andrea
McNally, a spokeswoman for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service. "So for Creekstone Farms to use the test to say its product is 100
percent BSE-free would be giving consumers a false sense of food safety, a
sense the test is not designed to give."

Creekstone's Pentz said the company knows that. But the issue, he said,
isn't whether the tests are effective, it's whether the federal government
should -- or can -- prevent a private business from meeting the legal
expectations of its customers. In this instance, the customers want the
testing.

Why would they claim BSE free Mike the company knows the test isnt design to find BSE in the age of animals Creekstone would be testing they said so themselves.

Put any way you want Creekstone knew the test wasn't designed to find BSE in the younger animals and it is exactly like the USDA said Creekstone was selling a false sence of safety.

 

[Mike]

The USDA is the one saying it again. Creekstone is not in the position to argue the point Tam. Go ahead, find a quote where THEY said it.

Why would they claim BSE free Mike the company knows the test isnt design to find BSE in the age of animals Creekstone would be testing they said so themselves.

Put any way you want Creekstone knew the test wasn't designed to find BSE in the younger animals and it is exactly like the USDA said Creekstone was selling a false sence of safety.

Use your common sense Tam. Who would "Design" a test to "NOT" find prions in younger cattle when they would find them in older cattle. The USDA spokesman is being ridiculous here.

 

[agman]

I still want to see the quote;"BSE tested doesn't mean BSE Free".

The Japs will argue that sentence to high heaven. To them, BSE tested "DOES" mean BSE FREE if the test is negative.

They would not argue with "we are not making any claim", whatsoever.

Still waiting. :???: :???:

Mike can you provide a quote from the Japoanese to support your statement and claim "The Japs will argue that sentence to high heaven. To them, BSE tested "DOES" mean BSE FREE if the test is negative."

Also do you have any direct quote from a Japanese government official stating that they will pay for testing of imported beef from the U.S. if testing is allowed? Without any official statement addressing payment Creekstone's statement regarding an individual importers willingness to pay is totally irrelevant. That statement without govenment approval is good PR for the firm making the statement knowing they cannot legally act on that statement.

BTW, how much of that $400 per head Creekstone claims they are losing ever got passed on to producers pre BSE?

 

[Mike]

Mike can you provide a quote from the Japoanese to support your statement and claim "The Japs will argue that sentence to high heaven. To them, BSE tested "DOES" mean BSE FREE if the test is negative."

The Japoanese(sic) LOL consumer sentiments of tested beef is all the quote you need agman. Why do you think it has taken over two years to get into the market unless that is the case. Did you forget it was a law there that beef from BSE nations had to be tested? Even their OWN country.

That statement without govenment approval is good PR for the firm making the statement knowing they cannot legally act on that statement.

When they petitioned the USDA they could not have known the USDA would disallow their request. It was even better PR when the USDA turned them down. We wouldn't be discussing it now had they allowed it.

No, I don't have an official statement from a Jap official except the Ag minister. Do you have one that said they wouldn't accept tested beef?