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.