Two side of a US Senator.

[mrj]

Too bad the decision on which beef is safe, or safer- or which beef they prefer could not be left to the individual person purchasing and eating it- the US consumer....But that would be too simple to label it- and would interfer with the Big Corporation Packers scam against consumers......

Consumers do have that decision. USDA INSPECTED labeling, branded beef, organic and natural beef.......all of which tells the consumer something of value, contrary to your version, COOL, which can ONLY tell you that no one knows where all the domestic beef comes from and that it may take a while to trace any that has caused an illness, while the miniscule amount of imported beef is quickly traceable in an emergency.

Anyway, with Homeland Security mandating origin labeling and 48 hour traceability of ALL beef, your useless COOL soon will become redundant.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Too bad the decision on which beef is safe, or safer- or which beef they prefer could not be left to the individual person purchasing and eating it- the US consumer....But that would be too simple to label it- and would interfer with the Big Corporation Packers scam against consumers......

Consumers do have that decision. USDA INSPECTED labeling, branded beef, organic and natural beef.......all of which tells the consumer something of value, contrary to your version, COOL, which can ONLY tell you that no one knows where all the domestic beef comes from and that it may take a while to trace any that has caused an illness, while the miniscule amount of imported beef is quickly traceable in an emergency.

Anyway, with Homeland Security mandating origin labeling and 48 hour traceability of ALL beef, your useless COOL soon will become redundant.

MRJ

MRJ- The bourgeois Bank Owner is coming out in you again--The average consumer can't afford the cost of or cost of transportation to acquire branded beef-- but they still should have the right to make an informed personal decision on the safety of their food....This was true before when the sanitary conditions of Mexican products were under question and is especially true now with the addition of the question of the safety and possible higher risk of Canadian beef has arisen....

And the Mandatory ID and database will do nothing to tell consumers where the product came from- As your NCBA and USDA keep preaching, it will only be accessible in the case of a disease traceback....Nothing in it will require/or even allow the packers from telling the consumer the truth about where their beef came from...

 

[Econ101]

What should be mandated is the traceback to the processing and the mixing of the beef in question. If Tyson or any other packer is proud of their part in adding value to the cattle, why would they not want this?

In the Hudson Foods deal this could have limited the recall to what was necessary instead of some USDA inspector increasing the recall to fit Tyson's desire to lower their stock so they could buy them cheap.

In addition, there could be independent tests on meat produced by Tyson at the retail level. If we are really serious about food safety, this is a must. The Japanese don't trust the USDA inspectors, why should the consumers?

 

[mrj]

Obviously, conspiracy buffs like Haymaker and Econ 101 need lots of "good luck" since they presented NO facts to back their statements re. either USDA or NCBA! Just the usual ridiculous hit and run attacks.

MRJ

MRJ, do you just want to turn into a SH and call names? The only conspiracy I see here is the one against the truth. It is coming from the highest levels of the USDA and that evidence is being presented. It is a fact that Phillis Fong caught the USDA trying to manipulate the truth about the BSE issue with faulty tests. It is true that Johanns seemed more interested in "controlling" the evidence about BSE instead of trying to find the truth with a good test. Stop crying "you are conspiracy theorists" and therefore have no credibility.

That line is old.

Econ, it's pretty difficult to take you seriously. You post innuendo and claim USDA is controlled by packers. You agree with Haymaker (of all people, surely the contributor of more cut and paste, un-attributed, in-accuracy filled "news" and "information" posts than most anyone on here) that NCBA and USDA are the same outfit, controlled by packers. Where have you posted any FACTS to support that allegation?

Who wrote that piece in the Lufkin Daily News? There are several questionable (at best!) statements in it. Haven't you read news stories indicating that the secondary tests at the US lab were experimental, not with recognized and approved tests or methods, therefore the results were not "proof" of anything? The Brit lab people also stated that the testing was very difficult because of the low level of infectivity. They said there was nothing wrong with the US testing because of that difficulty. I believe they also said they got, or could get different results by testing more times, and that there might well be several negative tests on that animal, as well as some positive one. How does that equate with the authors, and your, claim of intent by USDA to hide results? The author stated people have died from BSE......of course that isn't true. Generic criticism with words such as "appears", "attitude reflected by Johanns and Dick" (without stating or possibility of knowing reasons and additional information they had as basis for their actions), statement that NCBA should demand resignation of Dick and Johanns illustrates bias against NCBA, at the least. Surely not a believeable account given those "lapses" by the author, and not a little taint of "conpiracy" against cattle producers by USDA, packers, NCBA.

Until you show us proof such an "alliance of evil" exists, and stop support of "articles" and "news" stories such as this........how/why are you to be taken seriously?


MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Obviously, conspiracy buffs like Haymaker and Econ 101 need lots of "good luck" since they presented NO facts to back their statements re. either USDA or NCBA! Just the usual ridiculous hit and run attacks.

MRJ

MRJ, do you just want to turn into a SH and call names? The only conspiracy I see here is the one against the truth. It is coming from the highest levels of the USDA and that evidence is being presented. It is a fact that Phillis Fong caught the USDA trying to manipulate the truth about the BSE issue with faulty tests. It is true that Johanns seemed more interested in "controlling" the evidence about BSE instead of trying to find the truth with a good test. Stop crying "you are conspiracy theorists" and therefore have no credibility.

That line is old.

Econ, it's pretty difficult to take you seriously. You post innuendo and claim USDA is controlled by packers. You agree with Haymaker (of all people, surely the contributor of more cut and paste, un-attributed, in-accuracy filled "news" and "information" posts than most anyone on here) that NCBA and USDA are the same outfit, controlled by packers. Where have you posted any FACTS to support that allegation?

Who wrote that piece in the Lufkin Daily News? There are several questionable (at best!) statements in it. Haven't you read news stories indicating that the secondary tests at the US lab were experimental, not with recognized and approved tests or methods, therefore the results were not "proof" of anything? The Brit lab people also stated that the testing was very difficult because of the low level of infectivity. They said there was nothing wrong with the US testing because of that difficulty. I believe they also said they got, or could get different results by testing more times, and that there might well be several negative tests on that animal, as well as some positive one. How does that equate with the authors, and your, claim of intent by USDA to hide results? The author stated people have died from BSE......of course that isn't true. Generic criticism with words such as "appears", "attitude reflected by Johanns and Dick" (without stating or possibility of knowing reasons and additional information they had as basis for their actions), statement that NCBA should demand resignation of Dick and Johanns illustrates bias against NCBA, at the least. Surely not a believeable account given those "lapses" by the author, and not a little taint of "conpiracy" against cattle producers by USDA, packers, NCBA.

Until you show us proof such an "alliance of evil" exists, and stop support of "articles" and "news" stories such as this........how/why are you to be taken seriously?


MRJ

MRJ, I posted the article but did not write it. As I once told someone else, you can read an article, get facts from it, and not believe everything that is written. In my family I am a real "tricker". I have tricked my kids with things that sound right but are just plain wrong. All my kids know that I do this and they are able to identify the misinformation in any "sales" pitch I give them. This is a quality that we must all learn in this world as there is not enough accountability to hold people responsible for facts so we get spin. Spin is an interpretation of events usually slanted towards the author's or speaker's interests. I hope I have trained my kids well enough to know that not everyone tells the truth and that they have to go through the exercise of fact finding to get answers instead of spin.

I do think that Johanns should be responsible for his remarks regarding Phillis Fong as they show a willingness to control facts instead of react to them. That is deception.

I have personal experience in the way the USDA is hiding facts in and around investigations that I have personal involvement with. Some day these facts will be presented, but not here and not now. I do have a bias and it is based on these experiences. It does not mean that I am biased against everyone at the USDA or NCBA. I have a limited set of experiences upon which to draw my conclusions.

It is a fact that we have cheap food in the U.S. and a that a cheap food policy reduces the producer surplus. The packers have enough money to make up think tanks, pay politicians, and influence policy but the producer has only the good will and ethical standards of the politicians who ultimately make the decisions. The current set of republicans in the U.S. are allowing a small minority of republicans to push policy that is counterproductive to the economy in the name of "efficiency" but it is an incorrect conclusion that corporate "efficiency" is efficiency for the economy. It is the influence of money that is making policy now. There is a real inbalance right now and cattle producers in Canada and the U.S. are feeling it.