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

Tested animals in US and Canada

A

Anonymous

Guest
cowsense said:
Sandhusker said:
rkaiser said:
Do you have any at all racoonman?

I made my point but you are either serious about having no brains of are wiggling on your branch.


Look back and see where each and every Canadian BSE case has been found.

I've asked half a dozen times why an "on farm" test is any better than an "at renderer's" test. Nobody ever has an answer. And that makes a difference because.....?

Sandy..........just what percentage of the American 4D's ever make it to a rendering plant? According to your dance partner Oldtimer it's very few :!:

Few of Montana's do-or in many cases are even found-- anyway this part of Montana- but believe it or not there cowsense- there is much more of America than just Montana :roll: .....My understanding is that in much of the country if an animal dies something has to be done with it- where here in most cases they become coyote bait....Which could be the reason the USDA went with the way of testing they did for the animals coming out of some states....

If your Canuck testing program is so great--then why did the majority of the world that began experiencing multiple positives (UK, Europe, Japan, etc) all go to a different type program- a TEST ALL program--where many of the positives they found were at the slaughter plant- and of all ages, even under 30 months old (the reason they went to a 20 month UTM number) :???:
 

don

Well-known member
well it seems our american owned packers and your packer owned government want to try to hide the problem much as was done in those other countries you mention. might be why you have no credible testing program. you're right it would have been better to test all but we don't have any more control of our industry than you have of yours. the difference is that while we had people up here saying test 'em all american cattlemen did not push for testing, or am i wrong?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There were quite a few US cattlemen screaming to test all too-- and a huge majority of them screaming to allow the private Packers (Creekstone/etal) do there own testing and market tested beef...

And you are right that both countries don't have control over their industries...
 

don

Well-known member
i certainly wish that some private interests in either canada or the states would have been allowed to test. a step towards taking back control and think of the credibility built up with the consumer. ultimately i think it will be producers and consumers together who will have to do the deed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
don said:
i certainly wish that some private interests in either canada or the states would have been allowed to test. a step towards taking back control and think of the credibility built up with the consumer. ultimately i think it will be producers and consumers together who will have to do the deed.

That is one of the reasons we will end up with an M-COOL law in effect- but it took the Chinese and the Mexicans and the Vietnamese, etc. etc. sending us gobs of tainted/unsafe products and a bunch of sick and dead pets and kids to wake the consumers up...But now that they are- and with what I think will be a total changing of the guard in D.C (Democrats will rule the White House and Congress big time for the next 8+ ? years) we may end up with a whole lot more than we really want...Usually the result of failure to proact is reaction-- and usually overreaction...And this current Administration has done NOTHING--And from what I see we have building right now is a complete backlash.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
i certainly wish that some private interests in either canada or the states would have been allowed to test. a step towards taking back control and think of the credibility built up with the consumer. ultimately i think it will be producers and consumers together who will have to do the deed.

The only way to do that is to take the dirty b-tards to court like Creekstone did, and that seems to be an invitation to ridicule and critizism from this board.
 

don

Well-known member
i don't think litigation will do it. how many times have good causes failed in court over a technicality or perceived judicial prejudice? if safe food isn't offered it will eventually be demanded and the cost of getting to that situation (in lost demand) is going to be a lot more than universal testing. it will be interesting to see if your cool law as implemented does close to what some people down there want. i don't think it will be anything like what r-calf envisioned and so far it looks like it is just helping concentrate the feeding sector in the states. cool isn't the problem anyways. more inspections and larger penalties for infractions would inhibit importation of unsafe product. that would slow the flow from some of the lower cost countries.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
i don't think litigation will do it. how many times have good causes failed in court over a technicality or perceived judicial prejudice? if safe food isn't offered it will eventually be demanded and the cost of getting to that situation (in lost demand) is going to be a lot more than universal testing. it will be interesting to see if your cool law as implemented does close to what some people down there want. i don't think it will be anything like what r-calf envisioned and so far it looks like it is just helping concentrate the feeding sector in the states. cool isn't the problem anyways. more inspections and larger penalties for infractions would inhibit importation of unsafe product. that would slow the flow from some of the lower cost countries.

That would mean the USDA turning on it's handlers.
 

Latest posts

Top