Update for Sandhusker

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Do you believe that to send a message to not eat beef, one has to directly say that?"

If they are being labeled a "radical anti-beef organization", then yes, I do beleive they have to say that directly.

Look at PETA, for example. You'll get no arguement from me calling them a radical anti-beef organization. Their message and Consumer Union's message is definitely not the same. I really question the motive of someone who would use that terminology to describe CU. It shows there are either uninformed or trying to deceive. Either way, it would flag any future information from them.

 

[Tam]

Sandhusker I have a very hard time believing anything written by Michael Hansen, Senior Researcher Associate for the Consumer Union, after I read his comments to the USDA on the Final Rule.
Little comments like

USDA states that Canada meets this surveillance criterion. However the level of survelliance in Canada is far less than that proposed level of surveillance in the US As pointed out in the USDA's "explanatory note," Canada plans to test approximately 8000 cattle in 2004. Given that Canada's herd size of about 13 million, This represents plans to test less than .062 perdent of the Canadian herd. The US, on the other hand has proposed testing at least 200,000 cattle. Given the US herd size of 96.1 million this represents plans to test at least .21 percent of the US herd. Thus, the US proposed surveillance rate will be at least 3.5 times larger. than Canada's

Now if he had done his research he would have seen by the time of his comment to the USDA that this information was WRONG. Canada had planned to test 8000 head in 2004 but at that same time the US had proposed raising their current testing level from 20,000 to 40,000. Only after Canada said they would be testing 30,000 for the next at least 5 years did the USDA come out with the ONE TIME SHOT of at least 200,000 head. If Michael had done the math he would have seen that the US was not proposing testing as many cattle as Canada was. The US herd was 7 times the size. Canada was proposing 30,000 for the next at least five years, 7 times 30,000 for five years is 210,000 per year not a one time shot of 200,000) .
another Michael Hansen comment

The language in 1c is unacceptably vague. What is meant by stating that a feed ban "appears to be an effective barrier to the dissemination of the BSE infectious agent"? The wording "appears to be an effective barrier" is to vague and leaves the door open to much subjective thinking. A feed ban either is or is not effective barrier. We believe that "appears to be effective barrier" should mean at least be equal to the US regulations, not less. We note that the Canadian feed ban in not as stringent as the US.

Now as a SENIOR RESEARCHER don't you think he would have researched the fact that Canada has a more stringent feed ban rule (ie. 1998 implimentation of the Chicken litter/plate waste/condemned pet food ban).
another comment from Michael

USDA maintains that "Canada has maintained an effective ban on feeding mammalian protein to ruminants, with requirements similar to the feed ban in place in the US since 1997". However, in responce to the December 23 announcement of a case of BSE in the US, FDA announced at the end of January that they were tightening the feed bans---

What is with the "however" if he had read the whole FDA announcement he would have seen where they said these extra measures would somewhat catch the US industry safeguards up to ones already in place in CANADA.
He then goes on to comment about the Non compliance and how

the absence of evidence of non compliance is not evidence of compliance. We also believe any feed ban should be enforced with an inspection program including sampling and testing of feed.

Now I bet his face was red when the report of the feed sampling that the CFIA was doing turned up some undeclared animal proteins. If he had RESEARCHED the Canadian system at all he would have seen we do inspect and we keep records. I think he should read the GAO report before he starts spouting about who is non compliant.

I ask you Sandhusker if he made these unresearched comments to stop imports of beef what is he not researching about the safety of the US herd and beef now that YOU HAVE BSE TOO with lots of proof of noncompliance to not as stringent feed bans? This guy has the ear of alot of people and he doesn't care about the truth anymore than R-CALF does.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker I have a very hard time believing anything written by Michael Hansen, Senior Researcher Associate for the Consumer Union, after I read his comments to the USDA on the Final Rule.
Little comments like

USDA states that Canada meets this surveillance criterion. However the level of survelliance in Canada is far less than that proposed level of surveillance in the US As pointed out in the USDA's "explanatory note," Canada plans to test approximately 8000 cattle in 2004. Given that Canada's herd size of about 13 million, This represents plans to test less than .062 perdent of the Canadian herd. The US, on the other hand has proposed testing at least 200,000 cattle. Given the US herd size of 96.1 million this represents plans to test at least .21 percent of the US herd. Thus, the US proposed surveillance rate will be at least 3.5 times larger. than Canada's

Now if he had done his research he would have seen by the time of his comment to the USDA that this information was WRONG. Canada had planned to test 8000 head in 2004 but at that same time the US had proposed raising their current testing level from 20,000 to 40,000. Only after Canada said they would be testing 30,000 for the next at least 5 years did the USDA come out with the ONE TIME SHOT of at least 200,000 head. If Michael had done the math he would have seen that the US was not proposing testing as many cattle as Canada was. The US herd was 7 times the size. Canada was proposing 30,000 for the next at least five years, 7 times 30,000 for five years is 210,000 per year not a one time shot of 200,000) .
another Michael Hansen comment

The language in 1c is unacceptably vague. What is meant by stating that a feed ban "appears to be an effective barrier to the dissemination of the BSE infectious agent"? The wording "appears to be an effective barrier" is to vague and leaves the door open to much subjective thinking. A feed ban either is or is not effective barrier. We believe that "appears to be effective barrier" should mean at least be equal to the US regulations, not less. We note that the Canadian feed ban in not as stringent as the US.

Now as a SENIOR RESEARCHER don't you think he would have researched the fact that Canada has a more stringent feed ban rule (ie. 1998 implimentation of the Chicken litter/plate waste/condemned pet food ban).
another comment from Michael

USDA maintains that "Canada has maintained an effective ban on feeding mammalian protein to ruminants, with requirements similar to the feed ban in place in the US since 1997". However, in responce to the December 23 announcement of a case of BSE in the US, FDA announced at the end of January that they were tightening the feed bans---

What is with the "however" if he had read the whole FDA announcement he would have seen where they said these extra measures would somewhat catch the US industry safeguards up to ones already in place in CANADA.
He then goes on to comment about the Non compliance and how

the absence of evidence of non compliance is not evidence of compliance. We also believe any feed ban should be enforced with an inspection program including sampling and testing of feed.

Now I bet his face was red when the report of the feed sampling that the CFIA was doing turned up some undeclared animal proteins. If he had RESEARCHED the Canadian system at all he would have seen we do inspect and we keep records. I think he should read the GAO report before he starts spouting about who is non compliant.

I ask you Sandhusker if he made these unresearched comments to stop imports of beef what is he not researching about the safety of the US herd and beef now that YOU HAVE BSE TOO with lots of proof of noncompliance to not as stringent feed bans? This guy has the ear of alot of people and he doesn't care about the truth anymore than R-CALF does.

So you don't like what he wrote. The topic is whether or not CU is a "radical anti-beef organization". I didn't see anything in what you posted that would lead me to believe he is "radical anti-beef". Did you? Does anybody?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman and Sandbag,

Are you suggesting that R-CULT's "live for the moment" allies of Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and Public Citizen have never taken a position that was against eating beef?

Yes or no?

Sandbag: "I'm saying I looked thru Consumer Union's site and saw nothing whatsoever that would merit the label you and Dittmer have placed on them."

Where did I place a label on the Consumer's Union?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Conman and Sandbag,

Are you suggesting that R-CULT's "live for the moment" allies of Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and Public Citizen have never taken a position that was against eating beef?

Yes or no?

Sandbag: "I'm saying I looked thru Consumer Union's site and saw nothing whatsoever that would merit the label you and Dittmer have placed on them."

Where did I place a label on the Consumer's Union?


~SH~

You trying to distance yourself from Dittmer now? That would be the first wise thing I've seen you do.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag,

Are you suggesting that R-CULT's "live for the moment" allies of Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and Public Citizen have never taken a position that was against eating beef?

Yes or no?


Where did I place a label on the Consumer's Union?


You diverted both questions and made a statement again. How R-CULT of you!

Answer the questions.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag,

Are you suggesting that R-CULT's "live for the moment" allies of Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and Public Citizen have never taken a position that was against eating beef?

Yes or no?


Where did I place a label on the Consumer's Union?


You diverted both questions and made a statement again. How R-CULT of you!

Answer the questions.


~SH~

OK, SH. So you disagree with Dittmer.

 

[Anonymous]

DANCE, DANCE, DANCE!

Same-O pathetic little ankle biter!



~SH~

 

[Tam]

Sandhusker I have a very hard time believing anything written by Michael Hansen, Senior Researcher Associate for the Consumer Union, after I read his comments to the USDA on the Final Rule.
Little comments like

USDA states that Canada meets this surveillance criterion. However the level of survelliance in Canada is far less than that proposed level of surveillance in the US As pointed out in the USDA's "explanatory note," Canada plans to test approximately 8000 cattle in 2004. Given that Canada's herd size of about 13 million, This represents plans to test less than .062 perdent of the Canadian herd. The US, on the other hand has proposed testing at least 200,000 cattle. Given the US herd size of 96.1 million this represents plans to test at least .21 percent of the US herd. Thus, the US proposed surveillance rate will be at least 3.5 times larger. than Canada's

Now if he had done his research he would have seen by the time of his comment to the USDA that this information was WRONG. Canada had planned to test 8000 head in 2004 but at that same time the US had proposed raising their current testing level from 20,000 to 40,000. Only after Canada said they would be testing 30,000 for the next at least 5 years did the USDA come out with the ONE TIME SHOT of at least 200,000 head. If Michael had done the math he would have seen that the US was not proposing testing as many cattle as Canada was. The US herd was 7 times the size. Canada was proposing 30,000 for the next at least five years, 7 times 30,000 for five years is 210,000 per year not a one time shot of 200,000) .
another Michael Hansen comment

The language in 1c is unacceptably vague. What is meant by stating that a feed ban "appears to be an effective barrier to the dissemination of the BSE infectious agent"? The wording "appears to be an effective barrier" is to vague and leaves the door open to much subjective thinking. A feed ban either is or is not effective barrier. We believe that "appears to be effective barrier" should mean at least be equal to the US regulations, not less. We note that the Canadian feed ban in not as stringent as the US.

Now as a SENIOR RESEARCHER don't you think he would have researched the fact that Canada has a more stringent feed ban rule (ie. 1998 implimentation of the Chicken litter/plate waste/condemned pet food ban).
another comment from Michael

USDA maintains that "Canada has maintained an effective ban on feeding mammalian protein to ruminants, with requirements similar to the feed ban in place in the US since 1997". However, in responce to the December 23 announcement of a case of BSE in the US, FDA announced at the end of January that they were tightening the feed bans---

What is with the "however" if he had read the whole FDA announcement he would have seen where they said these extra measures would somewhat catch the US industry safeguards up to ones already in place in CANADA.
He then goes on to comment about the Non compliance and how

the absence of evidence of non compliance is not evidence of compliance. We also believe any feed ban should be enforced with an inspection program including sampling and testing of feed.

Now I bet his face was red when the report of the feed sampling that the CFIA was doing turned up some undeclared animal proteins. If he had RESEARCHED the Canadian system at all he would have seen we do inspect and we keep records. I think he should read the GAO report before he starts spouting about who is non compliant.

I ask you Sandhusker if he made these unresearched comments to stop imports of beef what is he not researching about the safety of the US herd and beef now that YOU HAVE BSE TOO with lots of proof of noncompliance to not as stringent feed bans? This guy has the ear of alot of people and he doesn't care about the truth anymore than R-CALF does.

So you don't like what he wrote. The topic is whether or not CU is a "radical anti-beef organization". I didn't see anything in what you posted that would lead me to believe he is "radical anti-beef". Did you? Does anybody?

Well Sandhusker I did a google of anti beef activist groups and found there are alot more than just Dittmer that have labeled them anti beef. I read a page that was called "Profiling the most prominent anti beef industry activist groups" and guess who was profilied even before PETA? Consumer Union Guess how sits on the Center for Food Safety's advisory board? Michael Hansen Do you really want him in an advisory position when he can't even research the truth about testing numbers, feed bans and compliance to them?

I also found this and it wasn't from Dittmer.

For a moment, consider the caliber of groups R-CALF publicly aligned itself with this week:
The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) is famous for opposing irradiation, and pushing for the reduction of beef in the school lunch program among other things. CFA's leader, Carol Tucker Foreman, is famous for her anti-beef rhetoric and efforts to stir up the hysteria about the safety of our product.
The Consumer Union (CU), along with CFA, have been two of the leading groups pushing since Dec. 23, 2003, the message that beef is unsafe. You've probably read the multitude of inaccurate statements by CU "leader" Michael Hansen in the popular press. Hansen and the CU have also led the crusade against biotechnology and GMOs.
The following is a quote from former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop in regard to Hansen's rhetoric: "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 ... it is necessary to condemn these attacks ... for what they are: baseless, manipulative and completely irresponsible."
Then there's Public Citizen (PC), which gains its supposed credibility through founder Ralph Nader. But PC is best known for its membership in the Global Safe Food Alliance, formed by such animal rights organizations as Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the Western Organization of Resource Councils, Farm Sanctuary, etc., to put out anti-meat messages.

Can you deny any of what was written here with facts. and Can you single out Dittmer for calling these guys radical anti beef groups when so many others in the media are doing the same thing. There must be some reason so many have the same opinion of them and maybe looking at the Meatrix web site will explain it to you.

 

[Sandhusker]

Let's back up and start at square one, shall we? What does the title "radical anti-beef group" bring to mind? To me, that would denote a group that does not want anybody to eat beef and one that would be fairly militant in getting their point accross.

What image does that description bring to you?

 

[Tam]

Let's back up and start at square one, shall we? What does the title "radical anti-beef group" bring to mind? To me, that would denote a group that does not want anybody to eat beef and one that would be fairly militant in getting their point accross.

What image does that description bring to you?

It brings to my mind anyone that goes out of their way to use half truths and out and out lies to damage consumer confidence in the beef industry to the point that consumers change their eating habits to limit or exclude beef from their daily diet.

 

[Sandhusker]

Let's back up and start at square one, shall we? What does the title "radical anti-beef group" bring to mind? To me, that would denote a group that does not want anybody to eat beef and one that would be fairly militant in getting their point accross.

What image does that description bring to you?

It brings to my mind anyone that goes out of their way to use half truths and out and out lies to damage consumer confidence in the beef industry to the point that consumers change their eating habits to limit or exclude beef from their daily diet.

You didn't answer the question. What image does the term, "radical anti-beef group" bring to mind? What would be their position on eating beef?

 

[Tam]

Let's back up and start at square one, shall we? What does the title "radical anti-beef group" bring to mind? To me, that would denote a group that does not want anybody to eat beef and one that would be fairly militant in getting their point accross.

What image does that description bring to you?

It brings to my mind anyone that goes out of their way to use half truths and out and out lies to damage consumer confidence in the beef industry to the point that consumers change their eating habits to limit or exclude beef from their daily diet.

You didn't answer the question. What image does the term, "radical anti-beef group" bring to mind? What would be their position on eating beef?

To me, that would denote a group that goes out of their way to decrease the consumption of beef in anyway and one that would go as far as taking the USDA to court to get their point accross.
In other words

I see the image of Leo McDonnell standing telling consumers that All beef coming from a country affect with BSE is Tainted and unsafe to eat. Of Course in this speech there is no mention of the precautionary measure that are in place to protect the consumers. Only lies about chronic problems within the industry that don't exsist. If listened to, the result would be a decrease in beef demands.
I see the image of a Federal Court Judge sitting in front of a packed court room reading a ruling the included the words "Beef from a country affect by BSE presents a GENUINE RISK OF DEATH if eaten" Of Course in this speech their is no mention of the precautionary measure that are in place to protect the consumers either. If listened to again the results would be a decrease in beef demands.
I see the image of Self proclaimed anti beef groups standing nodding their heads and taking notes of every word being said by the leader of a Beef organization and a Federal Court Judge to use in their next press release. And don't worry they will not be mentioning anything about any precautionary measures either. But If listened to the results you guessed it would be a decrease in beef demands.
I see Michael Hansen claiming he is a Senior Researcher and advising all his readers that the USDA isn't protecting you when it comes to the safety of beef. We already know from past articles and comments that Michael doesn't care about the truth either so why expect him to mention the precautionary measures and the true risk to humans being far less than being hit by lightening twice in the same day. But if listened to the results could be the same a decrease in beef demands.

AND Luckily I see the meat counters buzy as consumers saw through the stories as coming from radical groups. But all of these images have two things in common The truth has been over looked to further the really agenda and the fact that if listen to the results would have been a decrease in beef demands.

Is that a picture you can see Sandhusker. To me R-CALF is a wolf in sheeps clothing. As radical as they come and far more dangerous than the likes of PETA.

 

[Sandhusker]

It brings to my mind anyone that goes out of their way to use half truths and out and out lies to damage consumer confidence in the beef industry to the point that consumers change their eating habits to limit or exclude beef from their daily diet.

You didn't answer the question. What image does the term, "radical anti-beef group" bring to mind? What would be their position on eating beef?

To me, that would denote a group that goes out of their way to decrease the consumption of beef in anyway and one that would go as far as taking the USDA to court to get their point accross.
In other words

I see the image of Leo McDonnell standing telling consumers that All beef coming from a country affect with BSE is Tainted and unsafe to eat. Of Course in this speech there is no mention of the precautionary measure that are in place to protect the consumers. Only lies about chronic problems within the industry that don't exsist. If listened to, the result would be a decrease in beef demands.
I see the image of a Federal Court Judge sitting in front of a packed court room reading a ruling the included the words "Beef from a country affect by BSE presents a GENUINE RISK OF DEATH if eaten" Of Course in this speech their is no mention of the precautionary measure that are in place to protect the consumers either. If listened to again the results would be a decrease in beef demands.
I see the image of Self proclaimed anti beef groups standing nodding their heads and taking notes of every word being said by the leader of a Beef organization and a Federal Court Judge to use in their next press release. And don't worry they will not be mentioning anything about any precautionary measures either. But If listened to the results you guessed it would be a decrease in beef demands.
I see Michael Hansen claiming he is a Senior Researcher and advising all his readers that the USDA isn't protecting you when it comes to the safety of beef. We already know from past articles and comments that Michael doesn't care about the truth either so why expect him to mention the precautionary measures and the true risk to humans being far less than being hit by lightening twice in the same day. But if listened to the results could be the same a decrease in beef demands.

AND Luckily I see the meat counters buzy as consumers saw through the stories as coming from radical groups. But all of these images have two things in common The truth has been over looked to further the really agenda and the fact that if listen to the results would have been a decrease in beef demands.

Is that a picture you can see Sandhusker. To me R-CALF is a wolf in sheeps clothing. As radical as they come and far more dangerous than the likes of PETA.

I wonder if SH is up there visiting and posting under your name? :lol:
Can you honestly say that CU has gone out of their way to decrease the consumption of beef in anyway that they could?

 

[mrj]

Let's back up and start at square one, shall we? What does the title "radical anti-beef group" bring to mind? To me, that would denote a group that does not want anybody to eat beef and one that would be fairly militant in getting their point accross.

What image does that description bring to you?

It brings to my mind anyone that goes out of their way to use half truths and out and out lies to damage consumer confidence in the beef industry to the point that consumers change their eating habits to limit or exclude beef from their daily diet.

You didn't answer the question. What image does the term, "radical anti-beef group" bring to mind? What would be their position on eating beef?

Sandhusker, do you believe it impossible that organization leaders would be quite subtle and even sneaky in their attacks against eating beef?

Carol Tucker Forman of CFA worked diligently to drastically cut, or even eliminate beef from school lunches. I saw her in action more times that I wanted to! She was slick, posing such 'oh so reasonable' quests to give "poor" students the "opportunity" to "experience better things in life" by learning to like yogurt, soy burgers, and such, all as alternatives to beef.

Continual sniping at USDA actions via "press releases" which are designed to make consumers fearful of food safety is, as many of us belive, a back-door means of cutting beef consumption.

To be an anti-beef activist does not necessarily mean the person is parading around saying "don't eat beef". It doesn't necessarily take "radical" actions to achieve a "radical" end!

Econ. you most definitely are NOT funy! Your attempts to discredit, without supporting facts, the people and organizations that have been and are working tirelessly for the benefit of cattle producers is truly tiresome.

If you do not understand that there are many reasons for "downer" cattle that would have absolutely NO detrimental effect on the meat being safe for human consumption, one has to wonder if you really know ANYTHING about cattle.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

It brings to my mind anyone that goes out of their way to use half truths and out and out lies to damage consumer confidence in the beef industry to the point that consumers change their eating habits to limit or exclude beef from their daily diet.

You didn't answer the question. What image does the term, "radical anti-beef group" bring to mind? What would be their position on eating beef?

Sandhusker, do you believe it impossible that organization leaders would be quite subtle and even sneaky in their attacks against eating beef?

Carol Tucker Forman of CFA worked diligently to drastically cut, or even eliminate beef from school lunches. I saw her in action more times that I wanted to! She was slick, posing such 'oh so reasonable' quests to give "poor" students the "opportunity" to "experience better things in life" by learning to like yogurt, soy burgers, and such, all as alternatives to beef.

Continual sniping at USDA actions via "press releases" which are designed to make consumers fearful of food safety is, as many of us belive, a back-door means of cutting beef consumption.

To be an anti-beef activist does not necessarily mean the person is parading around saying "don't eat beef". It doesn't necessarily take "radical" actions to achieve a "radical" end!

Econ. you most definitely are NOT funy! Your attempts to discredit, without supporting facts, the people and organizations that have been and are working tirelessly for the benefit of cattle producers is truly tiresome.

If you do not understand that there are many reasons for "downer" cattle that would have absolutely NO detrimental effect on the meat being safe for human consumption, one has to wonder if you really know ANYTHING about cattle.

MRJ

MRJ, do you honestly think groups like r-calf and rkaiser's outfit are out to decrease meat eating? Hiding a lot of dirt under the rug makes the house a lot dirtier than pointing it out and cleaning it up. Maybe they just want to be honest with what is happening in the industry and sell clean houses instead of short sighted dirty ones. It is hard for them to compete when there is a race to the bottom in quality that only becomes apparent after you buy the house and look under the rug.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sure, I believe groups can work in subtle ways. I think most do. At the risk of going on a tangent, let me use the NCBA as an example. The 11 point directive being voted in was straight forward - even made the website. The way it got overturned was quite subtle. Those Texas boys would probably even call it sneaky. Still, I have a serious problem with the label, "radical anti-beef". Nothing, nothing, nothing I have seen from CU would warrant that label. The radical label should be given to the one accusing those groups. "Alarmist", "Paid Hack", or "Idiot" would fit as well.

I don't think any of these groups are any more anti-beef than the Nature Conservancy is, and some conveniently forget NCBA's relationship with them. Why is that?

You can take the point that sniping at the USDA is meant to undermine them. You can also take the point that sniping is meant to let them know their mistakes are not going unnoticed and the folks who SH claims they are accountable to are asking for accountability.

 

[mrj]

Sure, I believe groups can work in subtle ways. I think most do. At the risk of going on a tangent, let me use the NCBA as an example. The 11 point directive being voted in was straight forward - even made the website. The way it got overturned was quite subtle. Those Texas boys would probably even call it sneaky. Still, I have a serious problem with the label, "radical anti-beef". Nothing, nothing, nothing I have seen from CU would warrant that label. The radical label should be given to the one accusing those groups. "Alarmist", "Paid Hack", or "Idiot" would fit as well.

I don't think any of these groups are any more anti-beef than the Nature Conservancy is, and some conveniently forget NCBA's relationship with them. Why is that?

You can take the point that sniping at the USDA is meant to undermine them. You can also take the point that sniping is meant to let them know their mistakes are not going unnoticed and the folks who SH claims they are accountable to are asking for accountability.

Sandhusker, how many ranchers do the organizations I criticized as being anti-beef allow to produce cattle on land they own? And I did NOT call them "radical"!

I am not sure about NC and do not like their accumulation of land any better than I like any government or quasi-government agency doing so.

How can Nature Conservancy be called anti-beef when they are continuing cattle production on the land they own, and in the process, giving some young ranchers the opportunity to continue in cattle production.

There ovbiously are quite a number of NCBA members who would rather find ways to work with them than spit in their eye and gain nothing. We NCBA are not joined at the hip, walking in lock-step, but we can work together on most issues.

I understand that you will not believe it or admit it, but the fact remains that enough of the 30+ NCBA state affiliates' directors DID give NCBA leadership permission to go ahead with working to open the Canadian border, seeing that adequate progress was made on the 11 Points. Working toward normalizing that trade asn't hurt cattle prices, either, has it?

Re. USDA, you choose to believe they are doing packer bidding. I choose to believe they are doing their best and working to find the best science avaliable to apply to problems and still serve the ranchers, farmers, food industry segments and consumers well.

We also might as well realize that USDA is a bureaucracy, and there doubtless are many long-time liberals entrenched within, doing their darnedest to keep the "new guy" at the top from upsetting any apple-carts for them. Effects of the past 50+ years of liberalism has certainly settled into the depths of all departments of government and are not conducive to quick changes that might lessen the bureaucratic power-hold.


Econ, You claim that NCBA "runs" USDA. The fact is that NCBA and it's predecessor cattle producer organizations have been working diligently to IMPROVE beef safety. If, as you claim, they ARE running USDA, it would be ludicrous to "sweep" anything under any "rug". NCBA consistently works to INCREASE beef quality at ALL levels of production. It is illogical to believe we members would allow anything to reverse our hard work, including USDA malfeasance of duty.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Sandhusker, how many ranchers do the organizations I criticized as being anti-beef allow to produce cattle on land they own? And I did NOT call them "radical"!"

I'd say about as many of them as that own land.

MRJ, "How can Nature Conservancy be called anti-beef when they are continuing cattle production on the land they own, and in the process, giving some young ranchers the opportunity to continue in cattle production."

I don't think Nature Conservancy can be called anti-beef any more than CU can.

MRJ, "There ovbiously are quite a number of NCBA members who would rather find ways to work with them than spit in their eye and gain nothing."

Strange. I'd say NCBA's treatment with groups such as CU is much closer to spitting in their eye than working with them. R-CALF does choose to work with them and they get chastised for it. Why is what is good for the goose not good for the gander?

MRJ, "I understand that you will not believe it or admit it, but the fact remains that enough of the 30+ NCBA state affiliates' directors DID give NCBA leadership permission to go ahead with working to open the Canadian border, seeing that adequate progress was made on the 11 Points. Working toward normalizing that trade asn't hurt cattle prices, either, has it?"

30+ directors overturned what how many thousands of members voted in? Where in the directive did membership give leadership the right to decide "enough" was accomplished? Does 11 mean 11 or does it mean 7 or more? 5 or more?

MRJ, "Re. USDA, you choose to believe they are doing packer bidding. I choose to believe they are doing their best and working to find the best science avaliable to apply to problems and still serve the ranchers, farmers, food industry segments and consumers well."

I KNOW they're doing the packer's bidding. I've asked this question to illustrate that, and haven't got an answer yet; Other than the effect on the packer's pocketbook, what was different between the first 22 countries we closed to and number 23?

MRJ, "We also might as well realize that USDA is a bureaucracy, and there doubtless are many long-time liberals entrenched within, doing their darnedest to keep the "new guy" at the top from upsetting any apple-carts for them. Effects of the past 50+ years of liberalism has certainly settled into the depths of all departments of government and are not conducive to quick changes that might lessen the bureaucratic power-hold."

WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! Just last week, I was talking to Congressman Osborn about the USDA. Tom told me part of Johann's problem was the people under him were the same ones who had been there forever.

 

[Tam]

You didn't answer the question. What image does the term, "radical anti-beef group" bring to mind? What would be their position on eating beef?

To me, that would denote a group that goes out of their way to decrease the consumption of beef in anyway and one that would go as far as taking the USDA to court to get their point accross.
In other words

I see the image of Leo McDonnell standing telling consumers that All beef coming from a country affect with BSE is Tainted and unsafe to eat. Of Course in this speech there is no mention of the precautionary measure that are in place to protect the consumers. Only lies about chronic problems within the industry that don't exsist. If listened to, the result would be a decrease in beef demands.
I see the image of a Federal Court Judge sitting in front of a packed court room reading a ruling the included the words "Beef from a country affect by BSE presents a GENUINE RISK OF DEATH if eaten" Of Course in this speech their is no mention of the precautionary measure that are in place to protect the consumers either. If listened to again the results would be a decrease in beef demands.
I see the image of Self proclaimed anti beef groups standing nodding their heads and taking notes of every word being said by the leader of a Beef organization and a Federal Court Judge to use in their next press release. And don't worry they will not be mentioning anything about any precautionary measures either. But If listened to the results you guessed it would be a decrease in beef demands.
I see Michael Hansen claiming he is a Senior Researcher and advising all his readers that the USDA isn't protecting you when it comes to the safety of beef. We already know from past articles and comments that Michael doesn't care about the truth either so why expect him to mention the precautionary measures and the true risk to humans being far less than being hit by lightening twice in the same day. But if listened to the results could be the same a decrease in beef demands.

AND Luckily I see the meat counters buzy as consumers saw through the stories as coming from radical groups. But all of these images have two things in common The truth has been over looked to further the really agenda and the fact that if listen to the results would have been a decrease in beef demands.

Is that a picture you can see Sandhusker. To me R-CALF is a wolf in sheeps clothing. As radical as they come and far more dangerous than the likes of PETA.

I wonder if SH is up there visiting and posting under your name? :lol:
Can you honestly say that CU has gone out of their way to decrease the consumption of beef in anyway that they could?

Talk about sneaky way of telling someone not to eat beef. First they get quoted saying

Consumers Union says that consumers who want to minimize any possible risk of exposure to mad cow disease can buy organic beef, which cannot be fed any animal by-products, since mad cow is spread through feeding animal-based protein supplements to cattle.
Consumers Union also said that the cuts that are least likely to contain the infectious agent are solid cuts of beef with no bone in them. The riskiest materials are brains, followed by cuts like hamburger and sausage, which, if not properly handled in the slaughterhouse, may contain central nervous system tissue, the part of the animal where the infection occurs.

Then this week this comes out

Consumers Union told readers of its Consumer Reports magazine last week that many products labeled "organic" aren't worth their premium prices or aren't worth buying at all.

Now after all the fear they have put out there about the risk from beef, what do you think any of their readers are going to do Sandhusker? If they are now being told not to even trust organic beef?