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

They saw the light

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Stockmen’s Association will not re-up R-CALF dues


The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association (NDSA) will not be renewing its expiring affiliate dues with R-CALF USA. Disappointed with the lack of communication and respect from the national organization, the NDSA Board of Directors made the decision at its quarterly meeting at the North Dakota Cowboy Hall of Fame in Medora, N.D., last Wednesday.



“The decision boiled down to accountability,” explained NDSA President Mark Huseth, who ranches near McLeod, N.D. “A trade organization must be accountable to its members, but, time after time, R-CALF refused to answer our questions or acknowledge our concerns. Our directors decided they could not renew the affiliation with R-CALF if they wanted to be accountable to the NDSA’s own members.”



Here’s an example: The NDSA issued a letter to R-CALF leaders in March requesting a verifiable audit and seeking information about officer oustings and staff and leadership turnovers within the national organization after an anonymous, purportedly tell-all website was launched. The NDSA also wanted to know why it was not informed of a regional R-CALF meeting that was held in Bismarck, N.D., last fall. The NDSA board was disappointed when, after a long delay, the R-CALF president said he had been instructed by his board not to answer the NDSA’s questions in writing. Instead, he offered to send a DVD of an R-CALF regional meeting in place of a letter. The NDSA still has not received it.



“That is not the way to do business or the way to treat members who are seeking the truth,” Huseth said.



Even though it was frustrated with R-CALF’s response and its continued alliance with some of the nation’s most extreme animal rights groups, like the Humane Society of the United States, the NDSA board did not make its decision to disaffiliate in haste.



“Stockmen’s leaders contemplated this for a long time,” said NDSA Executive Vice President Wade Moser. “They knew how important this decision would be to members.”



The NDSA was once one of R-CALF’s strongest supporters, joining in 1999, affiliating in 2001 and helping secure $100,000 in funding for R-CALF through the North Dakota Legislature in 1999.



“The NDSA has chosen not to renew its R-CALF dues at this time, but that doesn’t mean it will discontinue its work on issues like country-of-origin labeling, the National Animal Identification System or international trade,” Huseth said.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
:cowboy: The ship is sinking , so much for funding. watch it will become a montana based group. Will Leo and Bill stick around when there is no money in it for them? :(
 

Bill

Well-known member
N.D. stockmen cut ties with R-CALF
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - The North Dakota Stockmen's Association is ending its eight-year affiliation with R-CALF USA, citing in part a 'lack of communication and respect' from the national trade group.

An official with Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America says the decision by the association is not a surprise and actually is a good thing :oops: :oops: because North Dakota ranchers will have a clearer choice when it comes to trade group representation.

Stockmen's Association President Mark Huseth said the decision this month by the group's board of directors to end the affiliation with R-CALF 'boiled down to accountability.'

The association gave examples of what it said was R-CALF's failure to be straightforward with the North Dakota group, including failure to answer questions about its officers and staff turnover, and failure to inform the Stockmen's Association of a meeting in Bismarck last fall.

'That is not the way to do business or the way to treat members who are seeking the truth,' Huseth said Tuesday.

He said the decision not to pay R-CALF dues might be re-evaluated in the future, but that the board this month 'felt it was time we made a stand.'

R-CALF has been highly critical of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, to which the Stockmen's Association also belongs. R-CALF and the NCBA disagree on such major issues as mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef, international cattle trade and meatpacker reforms.

'It put the North Dakota Stockmen's in a position where they needed to make a choice,' said Bill Bullard, R-CALF's chief executive officer.

The Stockmen's Association, which has 2,800 members with about 750,000 cattle, said it was once one of R-CALF's strongest supporters and helped persuade state legislators in 1999 to spend $100,000 to help finance an R-CALF trade complaint.

Bullard said R-CALF still has more than 60 affiliated county and state groups nationwide, and the decision by the North Dakota group will have 'no impact whatsoever on R-CALF's ability to achieve its reforms.''Actually, we view this as a positive step,' Bullard said, 'because now producers (in North Dakota) clearly see they have a choice of organizations that represent very different goals. While the North Dakota Stockmen's was dual-affiliated, it wasn't clear what membership to that organization was actually supporting.'

Ranchers in North Dakota who were unhappy with the Stockmen's Association affiliation with the NCBA in 2005 formed another group, the Independent Beef Association of North Dakota, which is affiliated with R-CALF.

Huseth said the Stockmen's Association agrees with R-CALF on some issues. He does not see the end of the two groups' relationship as forcing ranchers to make a decision between two trade groups.

'If this industry has to start picking and choosing, it's a bad situation,' he said. 'I think we need more unification.'

IBAND and the Stockmen's Association, an 80-year-old organization with about nine times the membership of the newer group, clashed during the Legislature earlier this year over issues such as the nomination of candidates for the state Beef Commission and the Board of Animal Health, and the spending of beef checkoff money paid by North Dakota ranchers to support the industry.

Bullard said he believes the legislative disputes played a role in the Stockmen's Association decision to end its relationship with R-CALF. Huseth and Stockmen's spokeswoman Julie Schaff Ellingson said the board made its decision solely on the problems it encountered with R-CALF.

The legislative issues 'never entered into any discussion,' Huseth said.

'Stockmen's leaders contemplated this for a long time,' Stockmen's Association executive vice president Wade Moser said.

Losing members is a POSITIVE STEP! :wink:
Bulleeeeeeeeeve and ye shall be rewarded!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: Don't drink the Kool-Aid boys!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
7/19/2007 8:28:00 AM


I-BAND: Time To Implement COOL; Urges Congress Not to Tamper With the Law



Menoken, ND (July 19, 2007) - The Independent Beef Association of North Dakota (I-BAND) is urging producers and consumers to contact their congressional delegations encouraging them not to tamper with language in the Country of Origin Labeling law (COOL) passed in 2002.


The U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee is holding sessions to conduct the committee’s markup of the 2007 Farm Bill. I-BAND has received word that opponents of the law are attempting to persuade policy-makers that certain language in the 2002 law should be altered.



"I-BAND fully supports the ‘born, raised and slaughtered’ provision in the 2002 law," noted Patrick Becker, I-BAND President. "Altering this language would gut the legislation and that’s what opponents of the law are seeking. The language change being circulated on Capitol Hill would exempt imported feeder cattle, which would permit the product derived from those animals to be sold into U.S. markets as U.S. beef bearing the U.S. label. The packers, processors and corporate-controlled feeders want to continue deceiving consumers by selling imported product under the guise of the USDA inspection mark while reaping the economic benefits associated with U.S. market access. This would negate the entire law, deny consumers their right to purchasing information and would certainly deny U.S. ranchers from distinguishing their product from that of foreign competitors."



On June 15, 2007 the U.S. Department of Agriculture reopened the comment period on the COOL rule just as Congress began undertaking 2007 Farm Bill policy debate. Almost immediately, organizations representing the packing, processing and retail industries launched public campaigns opposing COOL. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), which had policy supporting the ‘born, raised and slaughtered’ provision until recently, has been a strong opponent of the law and is currently lobbying Congress to negate the intent of the legislation.



"It is unfortunate that organizations professing to represent ranchers are actually working against them in the policy arena," noted Allen Lund, I-BAND Secretary. "Instead of trying to strengthen the law, they are lobbying Congress to dilute it. U.S. cattle producers raise an excellent, safe product and we want consumers to have the option of purchasing U.S. beef. It is apparent that those who oppose meaningful labeling do not care about consumers and U.S. producers. Instead, they want to continue reaping the economic harvest associated with importing cheaper foreign product without disclosure of that information."

I-BAND officials urge cattle producers across the country to contact their congressional delegations encouraging them to hold the line on COOL and protect the law as written.



"Whether or not your elected representative holds a seat on the appropriations or agriculture committee does not matter on this issue," said Becker. "It is critical for each of us to call our U.S. Representative(s) and tell them we’ll accept nothing less than mandatory COOL as written in 2002, that we will not tolerate any more delays in implementing the law and that we expect them to let their peers on the affected committees know how we feel."



Contact information for members of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee can be obtained at www.uscattlemen.org.
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
What an interesting name - "I-BAND"! It reminds me of what I do to the bull calves as soon as they are born -I BAND them! Soon they are bulls no more. :)

Oh, I see it now, I-BAND is an acronym or a cattle producers group!

Well, the outcome of their efforts will probably be the same as what happens to my bull calves. Except that the "restricted flow" they hope to cause may just end up costing them their own balls! Be careful what you ask for . . . . :nod: :lol2:
 

Bill

Well-known member
R-CALF CEO Welcomes NDSA Disaffiliation


The reasons for the North Dakota Stockmen's Association (NDSA) break with R-CALF were numerous (see "North Dakota Stockmen Drop R-CALF Affiliation" in this issue). But basically it boils down to a lack of communication and respect, and the fact NDSA's questions went unanswered and their concerns unacknowledged. In order to be accountable to its members, the NDSA board had to demand accountability from R-CALF.

The break is significant because NDSA was one of R-CALF's largest supporters and the first established cattlemen's organization to affiliate with it. In a bizarre response, R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard welcomed the move saying it would force ranchers in North Dakota to choose.

NDSA's press release made it clear they would continue to work for country-of-origin labeling and other trade issues the association deems important. Along those lines, it's important to keep in mind that while R-CALF is disintegrating, the concerns that helped create it are still very much alive. Ideas that create passion can overcome inefficient management but poor ideas will not sustain themselves even under great leadership.
-- Troy Marshall
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Consider the source. Another of Troy Marshall's writings;

"What is next? Will you be advocating Consumer Union and the Sierra Club's position if they can dupe you into believing they are advancing a conservative position? I suggest you visit the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation site and read about R-Calf there, or I could put you in contact with a lot of cattlemen that actually hold your conservative views, rather than a left wing activist group.

Troy Marshall
Editor, The SeedstockDigest
Burlington, CO

:roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
You are either with us or against us . Where have i heard that before? how is that working? Maybe learn from the past.

A much, much wiser man once said, "You can't serve two masters".
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Consider the source. Another of Troy Marshall's writings;

"What is next? Will you be advocating Consumer Union and the Sierra Club's position if they can dupe you into believing they are advancing a conservative position? I suggest you visit the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation site and read about R-Calf there, or I could put you in contact with a lot of cattlemen that actually hold your conservative views, rather than a left wing activist group.

Troy Marshall
Editor, The SeedstockDigest
Burlington, CO

:roll:

This is the big fear large packers have...producers aligning themselves with consumers. That's why you will see hacks like Marshall and Dittmer in the 'status quo' media attack any attempt to make this union. Sandhusker, this is the secret to making Ben's plan work!!!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Guys, dismiss those fellows all you wish as "status quo", the FACT is that they are supported by many cattle producers as well as some allied businesses, people who understand and recognize that there are people out there such as PETA, HSUS, and others whose top leadership is determined to end productive use of animals.

The sad fact is that some so called consumer groups also lean toward those goals and work with the more radical groups when it serves their agenda.

Marshall, Dittmer, and others have done the research and expose that agenda as well as the fact that R-CALF has been duped into working with groups who are definitely not friends of animal agriculture.

Some of you who have fallen into the trap of berating "factory farming", "corporate agriculture" and supporting legislation which takes decisions about how we can market cattle out of producers' hands are playing right into the hands of those who want to end cattle production!

You are not "aligning yourselves with consumers"........you are playing right into the hands of those who want to put us out of business!

mrj
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
mrj said:
Guys, dismiss those fellows all you wish as "status quo", the FACT is that they are supported by many cattle producers as well as some allied businesses, people who understand and recognize that there are people out there such as PETA, HSUS, and others whose top leadership is determined to end productive use of animals.

The sad fact is that some so called consumer groups also lean toward those goals and work with the more radical groups when it serves their agenda.

Marshall, Dittmer, and others have done the research and expose that agenda as well as the fact that R-CALF has been duped into working with groups who are definitely not friends of animal agriculture.

Some of you who have fallen into the trap of berating "factory farming", "corporate agriculture" and supporting legislation which takes decisions about how we can market cattle out of producers' hands are playing right into the hands of those who want to end cattle production!

You are not "aligning yourselves with consumers"........you are playing right into the hands of those who want to put us out of business!

mrj

Well said, MRJ.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
You are not "aligning yourselves with consumers"........you are playing right into the hands of those who want to put us out of business!

mrj

The consumer is who keeps you in business!!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Guys, dismiss those fellows all you wish as "status quo", the FACT is that they are supported by many cattle producers as well as some allied businesses, people who understand and recognize that there are people out there such as PETA, HSUS, and others whose top leadership is determined to end productive use of animals.

The sad fact is that some so called consumer groups also lean toward those goals and work with the more radical groups when it serves their agenda.

Marshall, Dittmer, and others have done the research and expose that agenda as well as the fact that R-CALF has been duped into working with groups who are definitely not friends of animal agriculture.

Some of you who have fallen into the trap of berating "factory farming", "corporate agriculture" and supporting legislation which takes decisions about how we can market cattle out of producers' hands are playing right into the hands of those who want to end cattle production!

You are not "aligning yourselves with consumers"........you are playing right into the hands of those who want to put us out of business!

mrj

Sorry, MRJ, but your post sounds like a lot of sound bite seeking lip flapping that is short on facts and reality. :lol:

So Dittmer is supported by cattle producers and allied businessman? Strange that you would know that when he refuses to devulge where his funds come from or even who is on his "advisory board". But, hey, he says what you want to hear, so why let those small credibilty issues get in the way of a good story. Maybe he should do more research on the USDA's inspection of imported foods :lol: :lol: :roll: Geeeeze.

Since you must not pay attention to the news, let me inform you that it is not unusual at all for political foes to join on selected platforms where they have a mutual interest. Did you notice good 'ol W pushing legisltation co-written by Teddy Kennedy? What do you make of that, MRJ? Georgie sharing the stage with Teddy... I suppose that is somehow different? What about when the NCBA joined with Nature Conservancy? Are they friends of the cattlemen? Your memory is either short or selective.

As far as you pointing at somebody else and saying "playing into the hands of those who want to put us out of business" - What supposed cattlemen's organization has a habit of sitting with the AMI - and what have the AMI members done to independant chicken and pork producers? I guess it's different with cattle because "they need us" and "we're all in this together"? Good grief - look who's talking.

Your company sponsored stump speech sure sounds good, MRJ. Kinda short on actual substance, but certainly good for a headline or two.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
So Dittmer is supported by cattle producers and allied businessman? Strange that you would know that when he refuses to devulge where his funds come from or even who is on his "advisory board".

Might be a clue there as to who his "advisory board" is?!?!?! :roll:
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac, the CONSUMER is a different entity than the CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS. NCBA is TOTALLY focused on CONSUMERS, asking huge numbers of them what they want from the cattle/beef industry, and acting on the answers they get from consumers, rather than following the lead of activist consumer organizations whose interests often are not supportive of beef as a beneficial food.

Sandhusker, have you ever heard Dittmer or others who are attempting to keep the anti-animal agriculture crowd honest, speak? Have you ever LISTENED to them, compared what they say with what the anti-animal use bunch says? It appears you have your knickers in a knot because he exposes some R-CALF foolishness, therefore, you won't listen to anything from him. That is your, IMO short sighted, choice.

It is very possible, even probable that I know more about Dittmers sources of income than do you. I have been in several large groups of CATTLE PRODUCERS who vigorously applauded his presentation of facts about the anti-animal agriculture groups, upon which I've based my comments. And, no, he does not say what I want to hear, he confirms what I have observed in statements and actions of those anti-animal ag groups. I truly DON'T want to hear such attacks and activism against animal agriculture!

So far as diverse groups working together for a common goal.....How is what you praise R-CALF for doing right.......and NCBA working with packers or retailers on occasion wrong........especially when the goal is selling more beef, as in NCBA's partnering occasionally with other industry entities (packers and retailers, for instance)? I won't, at this time, go into the real and potential for damage of R-CALF partnering with so called consumer groups falsely advertising that BSE poses a human health risk when science indicates SRM removal leaves the beef safe.

Re. NCBA and Nature Conservancy........there are SOME cattle producers who have very successful partnerships with NC, so obviously NC is friends to some cattlemen. I seriously doubt anyone has been FORCED to partner with NC. Just as some cattle producers do very well selling cattle direct to packers. NCBA exerts NO pressure on cattleproducers to do either! NCBA members and leaders believe cattle producers are capable of making their own decisions and don't need 'nanny government' to protect us from ourselves, unlike your R-CALF.

Re. AMI.....aren't there still MANY people producing poultry and pork? I've talked to at least one young farmer in an adjoining state who says raising pigs for the 'big boys' fits in very well with his small farming and feedlot operations, far better than the job in town he would need to take to make the farm work, and he said there are many others in his area who do the same thing for the same reason.

BTW, and for the record, the only 'company' that 'sponsored' anything I've done or said regarding issues is our ranch.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Maxine-- I just wish you'd tell us all out here what you been drinking :drink: -- that allows you to rationalize anything said or done so that it comes around to fit your way of thinking- or the way you think the world is.... :wink: :lol:

Somedays it might be nice to forget what is really happening in the Real World and live in that same Fantasyland :D
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, “NCBA is TOTALLY focused on CONSUMERS, asking huge numbers of them what they want from the cattle/beef industry, and acting on the answers they get from consumers.

How did NCBA act when 92% of consumers said they wanted COOL? Lou Dobbs wanted to know that, too, but NCBA wouln't come on his show to back their stance.

MRJ, “Sandhusker, have you ever heard Dittmer or others who are attempting to keep the anti-animal agriculture crowd honest, speak? Have you ever LISTENED to them, compared what they say with what the anti-animal use bunch says?”

My biggest issue is that most of the groups being labeled as “anti-animal”, “anti-beef” , etc… are NOT what Dittmer and others like to call them. PETA I’ll give you, but not the others. They may be against how the big boys operate, but that is a different issue. I put out a challenge a few months back to anybody who could get on their sites and find where they said to not eat beef or any like anti-beef message. NOBODY could do it. I challenge you do the same. When Dittmer or somebody says so and so is anti-beef, you need to judge for yourself before parroting them. They’re painting with an oversize brush and just raking mud.

MRJ, "So far as diverse groups working together for a common goal.....How is what you praise R-CALF for doing right.......and NCBA working with packers or retailers on occasion wrong........especially when the goal is selling more beef, as in NCBA's partnering occasionally with other industry entities (packers and retailers, for instance)? I won't, at this time, go into the real and potential for damage of R-CALF partnering with so called consumer groups falsely advertising that BSE poses a human health risk when science indicates SRM removal leaves the beef safe. "

NCBA and AMI’s goal is selling more beef. R-CALF’s goal is selling more US BEEF. Please answer me this, MRJ; If beef consumption were to double, but all of it came from Brazil and Australia, how would that affect the profitability of your ranch?

If you believe SRM removal assures the safety of beef, you’ve been duped again. It reduces the chances, but that’s it.

MRJ, “Re. NCBA and Nature Conservancy........there are SOME cattle producers who have very successful partnerships with NC, so obviously NC is friends to some cattlemen.”

There are SOME cattle producers who benefited when Public Citizen recommended buying organic beef. (One of Dittmer’s anti-beef groups)

MRJ, “ NCBA members and leaders believe cattle producers are capable of making their own decisions and don't need 'nanny government' to protect us from ourselves, unlike your R-CALF.”

Great sound bite, MRJ, but anarchy doesn’t work. If you ever get pulled over for a traffic offense, be sure to tell that to the officer.

MRJ, "Re. AMI.....aren't there still MANY people producing poultry and pork?..."

If you'll go back and read what I wrote, the word "INDEPENDENT" was included. How many independent chicken producers are there compliments of Tyson and their ilk?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sadhusker wrote:

My biggest issue is that most of the groups being labeled as “anti-animal”, “anti-beef” , etc… are NOT what Dittmer and others like to call them. PETA I’ll give you, but not the others. They may be against how the big boys operate, but that is a different issue. I put out a challenge a few months back to anybody who could get on their sites and find where they said to not eat beef or any like anti-beef message. NOBODY could do it. I challenge you do the same. When Dittmer or somebody says so and so is anti-beef, you need to judge for yourself before parroting them. They’re painting with an oversize brush and just raking mud.

Here are some facts about your "Consumer Groups" you are so proud to stand with Banker.

Anti-beef? You decide

Last spring, several “consumer groups” joined forces with R-CALF in condemning USDA's handling of the post-Dec. 23 BSE situation. The groups openly questioned the safety of the U.S. beef supply and accused USDA of systematically excluding both the public and human health experts from any meaningful role in shaping U.S. policy to combat BSE.

R-CALF has been criticized for its association with these groups that have been labeled as “anti-beef.” We invite you to research these groups for yourself; then let us know what you think by contacting BEEF at: [email protected]


Consumer Federation of America (CFA, www.consumerfed.org). CFA's Food Policy Institute is run by Carol Tucker Foreman, who oversaw food safety and nutrition programs in the Carter administration. Under her leadership, dietary guidelines were designed to decrease consumption of meat, and increase consumption of poultry and fish.

In a 2002 interview, Foreman said: “My concern is that I don't want a system that says you can have fecal matter all over it (meat), and then irradiate it. Irradiated poop won't make you sick, but it's still poop.”

Tucker-Foreman and CFA have opposed efforts to allow “state-inspected” beef processors to sell products across state lines or in international markets. CFA also supports proposals to increase the amount of soy and reduce the amount of meat in school lunch programs.

Consumers Union (CU, www.consumersunion.org), has an ongoing campaign to promote organic-only eating. When the Canadian BSE story broke in 2003, Michael Hansen of CU's Consumer Policy Institute suggested that American consumers should eat only grass-fed, “organic,” and other specialty beef.

Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once singled out Hansen and CU, saying: “Unfortunately, a few fringe groups are using misleading statements and blatant falsehoods as part of a long-running campaign to scare consumers about a perfectly safe food
…”

Public Citizen (PC, www.citizen.org), was founded by Ralph Nader. PC has a long-standing campaign against irradiation of beef, saying “it does nothing to remove the feces, urine, pus and vomit that often contaminate beef.”


PC was quoted in a Reuters report in 2000 saying USDA's decision to give meat packing plants more responsibility for safety (HACCP programs) will unravel public health gains made since author Upton Sinclair documented grisly slaughterhouse conditions in “The Jungle.”

In May 2004, PC released a report entitled “Hamburger Hell: The Flip Side of USDA's Salmonella Testing Program” as the industry kicked off the summer grilling season. “Dirty meat from the plants in this report is reaching consumers, killing them and making them sick,” the report says.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2007 Penton Media Inc.

R-Klan certainly picked some winners for partners who have an odd way of promoting BEEF! :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill, "Under her leadership, dietary guidelines were designed to decrease consumption of meat, and increase consumption of poultry and fish."

That's consistant with what virtually every nutritionalist and most doctors have been saying for years. Are they "anti-beef" too?

"Tucker-Foreman and CFA have opposed efforts to allow “state-inspected” beef processors to sell products across state lines or in international markets."

If you would find out "why" instead of being a parrot you would learn that their concern lies with the USDA claiming most state inspection systems are inferior to the feds. That makes them anti-beef?

"CFA also supports proposals to increase the amount of soy and reduce the amount of meat in school lunch programs. "

Again, that thinking is pretty much indiginous to the diet profession, like it or not.

"Consumers Union (CU, www.consumersunion.org), has an ongoing campaign to promote organic-only eating. When the Canadian BSE story broke in 2003, Michael Hansen of CU's Consumer Policy Institute suggested that American consumers should eat only grass-fed, “organic,” and other specialty beef."

If they were anti-beef, they had the perfect opportunity to tell people not to eat beef, period. They didn't. Instead they gave sound advice on how to continue to eat beef while addressing concerns of BSE.

"Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once singled out Hansen and CU, saying: “Unfortunately, a few fringe groups are using misleading statements and blatant falsehoods as part of a long-running campaign to scare consumers about a perfectly safe food…” "

Was that beef, Bill?

"Public Citizen (PC, www.citizen.org), was founded by Ralph Nader. PC has a long-standing campaign against irradiation of beef, saying “it does nothing to remove the feces, urine, pus and vomit that often contaminate beef.” "

Is he wrong?

"PC was quoted in a Reuters report in 2000 saying USDA's decision to give meat packing plants more responsibility for safety (HACCP programs) will unravel public health gains made since author Upton Sinclair documented grisly slaughterhouse conditions in “The Jungle.” "

Again, are they wrong? This is the anti-beef message? There's been a few producers on this very board who have said the same thing. That makes them anti-beef according to you and the moron who wrote this.

"In May 2004, PC released a report entitled “Hamburger Hell: The Flip Side of USDA's Salmonella Testing Program” as the industry kicked off the summer grilling season. “Dirty meat from the plants in this report is reaching consumers, killing them and making them sick,” the report says."

Are you telling us that dirty beef from the plants in the report didn't make people sick? I'll bet you that you don't even know what plants and what report.

Bill, "R-Klan certainly picked some winners for partners who have an odd way of promoting BEEF! "

I didn't say they promoted beef, I said they weren't anti-beef. All you've brought is examples of outfits concerned about hygene of their food and echoing the views of most nutritionists! Where is the "Don't eat beef " message one would expect from an anti-beef group? Where is it, Bill?
 
Top