Two side of a US Senator.

[Tam]

Both of these quotes were taken from Conrad Burn's Web Site.

BURNS PENS LETTER TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CALLING FOR COMMITTEE ACTION
Voices His Concern Of Reports Showing Importation of Banned Canadian Beef WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) addressed yet another concern today on the state of Canadian importation of banned beef into the United States.

In a letter written to Ann Veneman, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Burns voiced his intention to pursue the matter through Committee action in the U.S. Senate. He also spoke of the importance of maintaining the confidence of American consumers, and how that confidence is likely to waver in light of recent reports of more than 33 million pounds of beef making its way into the United States by way of Canada.

"I am proud to be from Montana, where the decision was made in Federal Court, that Canadian beef was improperly entering this country," Burns wrote. "I am proud that it was a Montana-based industry organization that had the courage to take this matter to court," he continued. "In Montana, our word is good and a lot of us continue to operate on that principle. Unfortunately, I am beginning to question the word of the USDA when it comes to the Canadian beef imports. The USDA is here to protect the American consumer and producer. With the revelation of the imported beef, I am not sure who has been protected, and I believe I would be remiss in representing my constituents if I did not contact you and address the issue of beef imports from Canada."

Burns is a member of the Senate Appropriations' Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies.

First isn't the Japanese Food Safety Commission there to protect Japanese consumers and producers? :?
And would the Japanese politicans be remiss in representing their constituents if they didn't do every thing they thought was right to protect them? :?
BUT this is the same Senator only on the other side of the BSE issue. :wink:

JAPANESE SANCTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY
Burns Criticizes Actions of Japanese Commission; Signs on to Senate Resolution Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) expressed his frustration today with the decision by the Japanese Food Safety Commission to continue their delay of resuming beef trade with the U.S.

Burns said "I'm not a big fan of sanctions, but their time may have come. The Japanese Food Safety Commission is not using sound science to base their decision, and both their consumers and our producers are suffering for it. We've tried diplomatic channels, we've given them every bit of information they have asked for, and we're still at a deadlock. These deliberations are nothing but a delay tactic."

Japan closed its borders to U.S. beef exports in 2003, following the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a Canadian-born cow in Washington State. In 2002, U.S. beef exports to Japan amounted to over $1.4 billion. The U.S. cattle industry estimates that it loses $100 million per month due to the border closure.
"Resuming trade with Japan is the top issue for our beef industry, and it is long past time for Japan to get serious about opening its borders." said Burns "I have complete confidence in the ability of our government to keep BSE out of the food chain. The FSC is simply wrong to say there is higher risk of getting BSE from the U.S. I urge the Commission to reconsider its actions."

The United States and Japan reached an agreement in October 2004 regarding the resumption of trade. On Monday, the Japanese Food Safety Commission met to consider the risks of resuming trade with the United States, and found that the risk of BSE is much higher in U.S. cattle than in Japan. Japan has confirmed over 20 cases of BSE, compared to two in the U.S.

Burns today also signed on as a co-sponsor to S. Res. 87, a resolution expressing the need for sanctions against Japan should these delays continue. In addition, he has sent letters to President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, urging them to make this issue a priority for the U.S. government.

Now what science says US beef is safer than Canadian beef? We both have BSE in our native herds but our safeguards are stricter. :???:
Are US consumers and Canadian Producers not suffering? :?
Haven't Canadians used diplomatic channels? :nod:
Haven't we given the US every bit of information they have asked for? :nod:
Does Burns not consider his and the US Senates objections to the border opening and R-CALF's court actions a delay tactic? :?
Just what does he think his and the Senates objection and R-CALFs court delays have cost the Canadian cattle industry and the US slaughter industry?
Resuming full trade with the US is the top issue to our beef industry and the American slaughter industry too but has that stopped Burns from objecting? :x
And just because Burns is confident in the US system, to bad Japanese consumer can't say the same. :roll:
I wonder how far Canada telling Burns, a member of the Senate Appropriations' Subcommittee on Agriculture, would have got if we told him he was simply wrong to say there is higher risk of getting BSE from Canada , and urged him to reconsider his and the other Senators actions? :shock:

I find it ironic that this Senator would support threatening Japan with sanctions when he supports doing to Canada what Japan is doing to the US. Using delay tactic to keep safe beef from entering the US because it may be an economic windfall for a few. :x The old saying "Do on to other as you would have them do on to you" comes to mind.

 

[Brad S]

Now what science says US beef is safer than Canadian beef? We both have BSE in our native herds but our safeguards are stricter.


simple probability would suggest Canadian cattle are considerably more likely to carry bse.

Canadian bse cases/small canadian herd vs 1US bse case/10times larger herd.

 

[Bill]

Now what science says US beef is safer than Canadian beef? We both have BSE in our native herds but our safeguards are stricter.


simple probability would suggest Canadian cattle are considerably more likely to carry bse.

Canadian bse cases/small canadian herd vs 1US bse case/10times larger herd.

Brad S, you are forgetting the difference in testing. Canada is testing to identify the problem while the US was caught hiding it. Sorry but you brought it up. :roll:

Lufkin Daily News

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Thank God for people like Phyllis Fong.

She's the inspector general for the U.S. Department of Agriculture who ordered the test that determined that a cow cleared by the USDA, did in fact have bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.

And thank God as well that she didn't notify Agricultural Secretary Mike Johanns before she did it.

Hours before a British lab confirmed that the cow did have BSE, Johanns told the Associated Press that he was "disappointed" that Fong didn't consult him before ordering a test that would have confirmed a diagnosis.

The first test on the animal had come back positive. The second, performed by the USDA, came back negative.

Despite the diametrically opposed results, and requests from consumer groups to have another test run to determine which one was correct, the department said there was no need.

''We are confident in the expertise of USDA's laboratory technicians in conducting BSE testing,'' wrote Jere Dick, an associate deputy administrator.

While BSE is not a serious threat to human life – about 150 people worldwide have died from the disease – it is a most serious threat to the beef industry. In Nacogdoches County, it's a $28 million per year industry.

Dozens of countries banned U.S. beef imports after a cow was diagnosed in 2003, costing the industry billions.

Japan, formerly one of the country's biggest customers, had shown signs of ending its ban. According to the AP, the Japanese Food Safety Commission recommended that mad cow disease tests be waived for domestic cattle under 21 months old. They had asked that the United States test all cattle before slaughter, as Japan does – a request Washington rejected as too costly.

It appears to us that it is Washington's testing technique that will prove even more costly to the beef industry.

How could anyone accept with confidence that the USDA and the Department of Agriculture are seriously dedicated to ensuring the safety of the food supply with the attitude reflected by Johanns and Dick?

As one former cattle producer told the AP, "Our credibility around the world is almost zero."

After Monday's revelation, it's no doubt a few degrees below zero.

The beef industry has taken steps to keep sick cows out of the food supply, but that is just one part of the equation. Without the assurance of strictly enforced government oversight, that means little, if anything.

The cow was suspected of disease last November. We are getting a confirmation of that eight months later. Were it up to Dick and Johanns, we'd all be "blissfully ignorant" – until the next outbreak of mad cow disease.

Johanns and Dick should resign, and we'd suggest that the letter asking for those resignations come from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Brownfield Ag Network

BSE testing reaches half million mark
Friday, October 28, 2005, 8:56 AM

by Cyndi Young-Puyear

USDA's Enhanced BSE Surveillance Program has reached the half million mark. A total of 503,929 targeted animals at highest risk for BSE have been tested for BSE since June 1, 2004, with only one confirmed case.

According to USDA, testing 268,500 animals can detect BSE at a rate of 1 in 10 million adult cattle at a 99 percent confidence level.

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

Brownfield Ag Network

BSE testing reaches half million mark
Friday, October 28, 2005, 8:56 AM

by Cyndi Young-Puyear

USDA's Enhanced BSE Surveillance Program has reached the half million mark. A total of 503,929 targeted animals at highest risk for BSE have been tested for BSE since June 1, 2004, with only one confirmed case.

According to USDA, testing 268,500 animals can detect BSE at a rate of 1 in 10 million adult cattle at a 99 percent confidence level.

So, Hay Make, do you trust the USDA or not?

 

[HAY MAKER]

sure I trust them,about like I do the ncba..............good luck

 

[Econ101]

sure I trust them,about like I do the ncba..............good luck

Aren't they the same thing?

 

[HAY MAKER]

sure I trust them,about like I do the ncba..............good luck

Aren't they the same thing?

Yes they are, and they have the same owners...............good luck

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "It is a fact that Phillis Fong caught the USDA trying to manipulate the truth about the BSE issue with faulty tests."

How could USDA manipulate the truth with faulty tests?

Explain yourself for once rather than constantly throwing out these unsupported allegations.

Kindergarten: "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."

If it is "TRUE", then why would it just "SEEM"?

Another unsupported allegation.



~SH~

 

[Tam]

Now what science says US beef is safer than Canadian beef? We both have BSE in our native herds but our safeguards are stricter.


simple probability would suggest Canadian cattle are considerably more likely to carry bse.

Canadian bse cases/small canadian herd vs 1US bse case/10times larger herd.

Brad why is when we are talking about the sizes of the US Herd compared to Canada's, does the size always change. If it is compared to how many positive cases like it is here it is ten times the size. But if it is comparing the percentage of cattle the US tests compared to the number Canada tests, the US is only 7 times the size. :???:
Which is it Brad? if you are right about the ten times, Canada has tested 65,875 head of 4D cattle from June 2004 and Haymaker just posted that in that same time frame the US has tested a total of 503,929 head. So if you are right, percentage wise the US, in 17 months of testing , is 154,821 head short. And I thought R-CALF said the US was doing a better job of testing then Canada. :wink:
I posted the numbers tested by both countries since testing started in 1992, but if the US is ten times the size then my number that the US was behind was way off. Canada has, to date, tested 85,211 and the US has tested 570068. But if the US is ten times the size they should have tested 852,110 head to be testing the same percentage, that makes the US 282,042 head behind. And that number is climbing every day.
Then you tie in the fact that you were not using the same testing system as most everyone else was and got caught hiding the fact you had BSE for 7 months because of the testing you were using. Then there is the question of what the US is actually testing compared to Canada. We test the ON FARM dead and dieing, the HIGHEST RISK ANIMALS, hence the fact ours positives were not found at slaughter houses. And the US is testing what if the one positive was recalled from the food chain and the other was found dead but it was at the doors of a slaughter house not on the ranch where it should have been found.
Then there is the fact Canada found all cattle involved with the subject herds in a very short time frame and was praised by the OIE for our abilities thanks to our National ID system. But the US was told by the OIE to just stop looking and concentrate on cleaning up the whole industry.
Add to that the GAO investigation report on the FDA's handling of the 1997 feed ban rules and the fact your feed bans are not as strict as ours. Then the USDA and the NCBA were up and had a look for themselves to how our system is run and reported back to the US producers we had a good record of compliance and records to prove so.
Can you see Brad where this is going . :?

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "How could USDA manipulate the truth with faulty tests?"

You didn't think too long before typing, did you SH? What test finally settled the deal? Did the USDA use it? Could they of used it? Don't you think they would of used the best test available to settle a question if they truly wanted to know the truth?

 

[Mike]

How could USDA manipulate the truth with faulty tests?

This statement absolutely screams with ignorance. I'm ashamed you wrote this Scott. I thought you were smarter than this.

Did faulty testing of Vioxx with the approval of the FDA manipulate the truth?

Government agencies manipulate the truth all the time, and with no accountability like private companies have.

After all, the FDA approved Vioxx but Merck is the one getting sued.

 

[PORKER]

If its a new BSE test or one that MISSES as it was built 10 years ago

Now what science says US beef is safer than Canadian beef?

Depends ON THE TESTING USED !!!!

 

[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......

 

[PORKER]

Yup ,might just be the Truth costs TOO MUCH.

 

[Tam]

If its a new BSE test or one that MISSES as it was built 10 years ago

Now what science says US beef is safer than Canadian beef?

Depends ON THE TESTING USED !!!!

Yes Porker and who was using the right test and who was not? You may have tested over 500,000 but how many of them were done with the wrong test? So how do we really know the true prevalance of BSE in the US herd, and what the risk from US beef really is?

 

[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.

I'm not the one who says my phone was tapped, that has "moles" feeding him hush-hush info about corporate/government evils, facism, and any other "out to get us" scheme that comes to the imagination. I have and do stand on the truth, facts, honesty, accuracy, and admitting to honest mistakes. No innuendo, implications, second guessing and blaming all industry ills on the evils of corporate agribusiness.

So far as "name calling", I have been on the receiving end of that far more than doing so to others.

I do have to wonder why a term describing an action is considered "name-calling", however.

MRJ

MRJ

 

[Tam]

Yup ,might just be the Truth costs TOO MUCH.

Yes wasn't it R-CALF that didn't want to burden the US producers with the cost of proving where the US beef comes from within the US. Wasn't it their plan to just label the imports so it wouldn't cost the PRODUCERS anything. Why is it that when other sectors of the beef industry wants to hold down their cost when they don't think it will beneifit their sales it is wrong but when the producer doesn't want to pay something to prove where their beef comes from that is just good business sense. :roll: