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

US Producers Concerned Over Canadian Beef

A

Anonymous

Guest
This echos much of what I have been hearing locally...


------------------------------------------------------
Canadian beef ban?



Idaho State Journal

January 8, 2007



FORT HALL — D.J. and Ellen Ball of Fort Hall said lifting a ban on Canadian cattle could potentially jeopardize U.S. herds, hamstring U.S. producers in the global marketplace and pose health risks to consumers.



The Balls support label of origin packaging and a ban on Canadian cattle.

“I believe if given a choice, Americans prefer U.S. beef
,” Ellen Ball said.



D.J. and Ellen Ball are part of Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America.


With over 18,000 members, consisting mostly of cow-calf producers, the non-profit group, located in 47 states, represents U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues.



R-CALF is currently appealing the 2003 decision to lift bans on Canadian beef and opposes expanding imports to cattle over 30 months old.

The appeal alleges that stricter standards have been placed on U.S. producers in the global market since the ban was lifted.



“Korea has said that as long as American cattle co-mingle with Canadian cattle they won’t open their border to U.S. beef,” D.J. Ball said.

According to R-CALFS reports, the full effect of Canadian bovine spongiform encephalopathy is still unfolding.



Nine cases of BSE, or mad cow disease were detected after feed bans went into place in 1997.

D.J. Ball said many Canadian cattle are sold to slaughter and mixed with U.S. beef.



“It could contaminate all that meat,” he said. “The label says USDA, but it could be mixed with other beef.”

Ellen Ball said she believes the USDA should be more attentive to providing safe food for Americans and the government should not enact policies that put U.S. producers at a disadvantage.



“I hope Americans will support American,” she said.

D.J. Ball agreed and noted that the U.S. is the only country in the world that does not produce enough beef to feed itself.



The couple runs 250 head of Black Angus cattle on their family ranch, comprised of 60 acres off Mission Road and an additional 300 acres located on the Fort Hall River bottoms.

“That’s our winter feed lot,” Ellen Ball said.



The Balls have operated the ranch for the past 18 years, but they maintain full time jobs to keep the family business going.



Ellen receives a medical disability payment and works part time for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and D.J. is the Tribes’ Director of Utilities.



The Balls grow their own hay, but the high cost of equipment and farm fuel caused then to reduce their herd by 30 percent.



“Every year we had to sell some cows to pay things,” D.J. Ball said. “We couldn’t always afford replacement heifers.”



D.J. said the price of beef dropped 25 cents in a two-month period last year.



“There’s not a big margin between profit and when you start losing money,” he said.



D.J. said new animal identification system will ad labor and expenses for the family rancher and he believes that if everyone is doing their job, branding is just as effective.



“Branding does the same thing, the brand inspector inspects the cow, that brand stays with the animal,” he said.



And he said new computerized identification systems still have some kinks that need to be worked out before they becomes mandatory.



“A buyer in Salmon bought 500 calves — out of 500, the scanner only worked on 134 calves,” D.J. Ball said.



Ellen said it’s often difficult to get financing for operations on the Fort Hall reservation so they work hard to stay on top of things, even when it means downsizing.



“We have a responsibility to our creditors — this is manageable,” she said.



D.J. Ball said despite cold weather and lots of late nights, calving season is his favorite time on the ranch.



“I would love to do it full time,” said D.J. Ball who grew up in a ranching family. “I like the idea of working for myself — you don’t have a boss, except your wife.”



Ellen Ball admits it’s hard work keeping the ranch up and running.



“You have to love it in order to do a good job and stay with it,” she said. “We work really well together.”



Ellen Ball also grew up in a Fort Hall ranching family. Her grandfather, Ralph Dixey, helped to launch the Fort Hall Cattlemen’s Association.



“Historically, we were encouraged to be ranchers and farmers,” she said. “The people were really successful because they ran their cattle in common. It’s a nice thing to be involved in.”





journalnet.com
 

flounder

Well-known member
thats not what the scientist are saying OT, now come on and tell the whole truth ;




EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA)


Summary of the Scientific Report

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.

A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573.html




EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of Canada



Summary of the Scientific Report

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Canada, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Canada. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Canada as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into the country middle of the eighties and could have reached domestic cattle in the early nineties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early 90s. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into Canada reached domestic cattle and led to an internal challenge in the early 90s.

A certain risk that BSE-infected cattle entered processing in Canada, and were at least partly rendered for feed, occurred in the early 1990s when cattle imported from UK in the mid 80s could have been slaughtered. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of Canada is III, i.e. it is confirmed at a lower level that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as the system remains unstable, it is expected that the GBR continues to grow, even if no additional external challenges occur.



http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/564.html



THE USDA JUNE 2004 ENHANCED BSE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM WAS TERRIBLY FLAWED ;



CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006



The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier
this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to
them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest
case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at
least a decade.

The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA
officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.

These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a
picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is
thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they
consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal,
incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated
with the mad cow pathogen.

"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of
other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the
National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System
Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press
International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer
that."

Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow
cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the
United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before
one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow
that initially tested positive.

USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven
months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.

"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005
suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end


http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r





CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ...
Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central
Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room
4A-05, ...


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm


Volume 12, Number 12–December 2006


PERSPECTIVE

On the Question of Sporadic

or Atypical Bovine SpongiformEncephalopathy and

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

Paul Brown,* Lisa M. McShane,† Gianluigi Zanusso,‡ and Linda Detwiler§

Strategies to investigate the possible existence of sporadic

bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) require

systematic testing programs to identify cases in countries

considered to have little or no risk for orally acquired disease,

or to detect a stable occurrence of atypical cases in

countries in which orally acquired disease is disappearing.

To achieve 95% statistical confidence that the prevalence

of sporadic BSE is no greater than 1 per million (i.e., the

annual incidence of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

[CJD] in humans) would require negative tests in 3 million

randomly selected older cattle. A link between BSE and

sporadic CJD has been suggested on the basis of laboratory

studies but is unsupported by epidemiologic observation.

Such a link might yet be established by the discovery

of a specific molecular marker or of particular combinations

of trends over time of typical and atypical BSE and various

subtypes of sporadic CJD, as their numbers are influenced

by a continuation of current public health measures that

exclude high-risk bovine tissues from the animal and

human food chains.


SNIP...



http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no12/06-0965.htm?s_cid=eid06_0965_e





3:00 Afternoon Refreshment Break, Poster and Exhibit Viewing in the Exhibit
Hall


3:30 Transmission of the Italian Atypical BSE (BASE) in Humanized Mouse

Models Qingzhong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Pathology, Case Western Reserve
University

Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy (BASE) is an atypical BSE strain
discovered recently in Italy, and similar or different atypical BSE cases
were also reported in other countries. The infectivity and phenotypes of
these atypical BSE strains in humans are unknown. In collaboration with
Pierluigi Gambetti, as well as Maria Caramelli and her co-workers, we have
inoculated transgenic mice expressing human prion protein with brain
homogenates from BASE or BSE infected cattle. Our data shows that about half
of the BASE-inoculated mice became infected with an average incubation time
of about 19 months; in contrast, none of the BSE-inoculated mice appear to
be infected after more than 2 years. ***These results indicate that BASE is
transmissible to humans and suggest that BASE is more virulent than
classical BSE in humans.

6:30 Close of Day One


http://www.healthtech.com/2007/tse/day1.asp




SEE STEADY INCREASE IN SPORADIC CJD IN THE USA FROM
1997 TO 2006. SPORADIC CJD CASES TRIPLED, with phenotype
of 'UNKNOWN' strain growing. ...


http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/resources-casereport.html



There is a growing number of human CJD cases, and they were presented last
week in San Francisco by Luigi Gambatti(?) from his CJD surveillance
collection.

He estimates that it may be up to 14 or 15 persons which display selectively
SPRPSC and practically no detected RPRPSC proteins.


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/1006-4240t1.htm


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4240t1.pdf



Calves were challenged by mouth with homogenised brain from confirmed cases of BSE. Some received 300g (3 doses of 100g), some 100g, 10g or 1g. They were then left to develop BSE, but were not subjected to the normal stresses that they might have encountered in a dairy herd. Animals in all four groups developed BSE. There has been a considerable spread of incubation period in some of the groups, but it appears as if those in the 1 and 10g challenge groups most closely fit the picture of incubation periods seen in the epidemic. Experiments in progress indicate that oral infection can occur in some animals with doses as low as 0.01g and 0.001g. .........


http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/science-research/pathog.html#dose


and i think, with time, and testing becomes more and more sensitive, we will all be surprised at just how much is too much, and just how young one might be to spread the agent, even as sub-clinical.



IF i remember correctly, the infamous PURINA FEED MILL incident in Gonzales TEXAS,
where at one feeding, those cows could not have consumed more than......or no more than 5.5 grams...etc. so, how many feedings does a feeder and or dairy calf have in there lifespan ? wouldn't you multiply that by those figures by that ??? be a lot of potential mad cow protein IN COMMERCE, and still is in 2006......tss


FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in total, five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals weigh approximately 600 pounds.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html



http://www.fda.gov/ora/about/enf_story/archive/2001/ch5/default.htm



====================================

2006 (partial list of) highly potential mad cow protein in commerce USA



Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS IN COMMERCE AL,
TN, AND WV
Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST

PRODUCT
a) EVSRC Custom dairy feed, Recall # V-130-6;
b) Performance Chick Starter, Recall # V-131-6;
c) Performance Quail Grower, Recall # V-132-6;
d) Performance Pheasant Finisher, Recall # V-133-6.
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Donaldson & Hasenbein/dba J&R Feed Service, Inc., Cullman, AL, by telephone
on June 23, 2006 and by letter dated July 19, 2006. Firm initiated recall is
complete.
REASON
Dairy and poultry feeds were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
477.72 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Dairy feed, custom, Recall # V-134-6;
b) Custom Dairy Feed with Monensin, Recall # V-135-6.
CODE
None. Bulk product
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Burkmann Feed, Greeneville, TN, by Telephone beginning on
June 28, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL. Firm initiated
recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy feeds with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,484 tons
DISTRIBUTION
TN and WV


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00968.html



Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALLS ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006 KY, LA,
MS, AL, GA, AND TN 11,000+ TONS
Date: August 16, 2006 at 9:19 am PST

RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE - CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-115-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Hiseville Feed & Seed Co., Hiseville, KY, by telephone and letter on or
about July 14, 2006. FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
Approximately 2,223 tons
DISTRIBUTION
KY

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-116-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rips Farm Center, Tollesboro, KY, by telephone and letter on July 14, 2006.
FDA initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1,220 tons
DISTRIBUTION
KY

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-117-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Kentwood Co-op, Kentwood, LA, by telephone on June 27, 2006. FDA initiated
recall is completed.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients
that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
40 tons
DISTRIBUTION
LA and MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk Dairy Feed, Recall V-118-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Cal Maine Foods, Inc., Edwards, MS, by telephone on June 26, 2006. FDA
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients
that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
7,150 tons
DISTRIBUTION
MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-119-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Walthall County Co-op, Tylertown, MS, by telephone on June 26, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and
bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
87 tons
DISTRIBUTION
MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-120-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Ware Milling Inc., Houston, MS, by telephone on June 23, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and
bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
350 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and MS

______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Tucker Milling, LLC Tm 32% Sinking Fish Grower, #2680-Pellet,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-121-6;
b) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder Pellet,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-122-6;
c) Tucker Milling, LLC #31232 Game Bird Grower,
50 lb. bags, Recall # V-123-6;
d) Tucker Milling, LLC 31227-Crumble, Game Bird Starter, BMD
Medicated, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-124-6;
e) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder, 50 lb bags,
Recall # V-125-6;
f) Tucker Milling, LLC #30230, 30 % Turkey Starter, 50 lb bags,
Recall # V-126-6;
g) Tucker Milling, LLC #30116, TM Broiler Finisher,
50 lb bags, Recall # V-127-6
CODE
All products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/20/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Tucker Milling LLC, Guntersville, AL, by telephone and visit
on June 20, 2006, and by letter on June 23, 2006.
Manufacturer: H. J. Baker and Brothers Inc., Stamford, CT. Firm initiated
recall is ongoing.
REASON
Poultry and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein were not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
7,541-50 lb bags
DISTRIBUTION
AL, GA, MS, and TN

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/2006/ENF00964.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL MI MAMMALIAN PROTEIN VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN
COMMERCE 27,694,240 lbs
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:14 pm PST
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy feds manufactured from concentrates, Recall # V-113-6
CODE
All dairy feeds produced between 2/1/05 and 6/16/06 and containing H. J.
Baker recalled feed products.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Vita Plus Corp., Gagetown, MI, by visit beginning on June 21, 2006. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
The feed was manufactured from materials that may have been contaminated
with mammalian protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
27,694,240 lbs
DISTRIBUTION
MI


END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL AL AND FL VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 125
TONS Products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:16 pm PST
PRODUCT
a) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish, Recall # V-100-6;
b) Performance Sheep Pell W/Decox/A/N, medicated,
net wt. 50 lbs, Recall # V-101-6;
c) Pro 40% Swine Conc Meal -- 50 lb, Recall # V-102-6;
d) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish Food Medicated,
Recall # V-103-6;
e) "Big Jim's" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend,
Recall # V-104-6;
f) CO-OP 40% Hog Supplement Medicated Pelleted,
Tylosin 100 grams/ton, 50 lb. bag, Recall # V-105-6;
g) Pig Starter Pell II, 18% W/MCDX Medicated 282020,
Carbadox -- 0.0055%, Recall # V-106-6;
h) CO-OP STARTER-GROWER CRUMBLES, Complete
Feed for Chickens from Hatch to 20 Weeks, Medicated,
Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate, 25 and 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-107-6;
i) CO-OP LAYING PELLETS, Complete Feed for Laying
Chickens, Recall # 108-6;
j) CO-OP LAYING CRUMBLES, Recall # V-109-6;
k) CO-OP QUAIL FLIGHT CONDITIONER MEDICATED,
net wt 50 Lbs, Recall # V-110-6;
l) CO-OP QUAIL STARTER MEDICATED, Net Wt. 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-111-6;
m) CO-OP QUAIL GROWER MEDICATED, 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-112-6
CODE
Product manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc., Decatur, AL, by telephone, fax, email and
visit on June 9, 2006. FDA initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Animal and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
125 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and FL


END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL KY VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE ?????
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:19 pm PST
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-114-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Burkmann Feeds LLC, Glasgow, KY, by letter on July 14, 2006. Firm initiated
recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak, which may contain
ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
?????
DISTRIBUTION
KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html


CJD WATCH MESSAGE BOARD
TSS
MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE
Sun Jul 16, 2006 09:22
71.248.128.67


RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals,
Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg),
Recall # V-080-6;
c) PRO-PAK, MARINE & ANIMAL PROTEIN CONCENTRATE FOR USE IN ANIMAL
FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
CODE
a) Bulk
b) None
c) Bulk
d) Bulk
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and
by press release on June 16, 2006. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone
meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
10,878.06 tons
DISTRIBUTION
Nationwide

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 12, 2006

###



http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00960.html


Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTER ISSUED MAY 17, 2006
Date: June 27, 2006 at 7:42 am PST
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

New Orleans District
297 Plus Park Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37217

Telephone: 615-781-5380
Fax: 615-781-5391



May 17, 2006

WARNING LETTER NO. 2006-NOL-06

FEDERAL EXPRESS
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Mr. William Shirley, Jr., Owner
Louisiana.DBA Riegel By-Products
2621 State Street
Dallas, Texas 75204

Dear Mr. Shirley:

On February 12, 17, 21, and 22, 2006, a U.S. Food & Drug Administration
(FDA) investigator inspected your rendering plant, located at 509 Fortson
Street, Shreveport, Louisiana. The inspection revealed significant
deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 589.2000 [21 CFR 589.2000], Animal Proteins Prohibited in
Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and
amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). You failed to
follow the requirements of this regulation; products being manufactured and
distributed by your facility are misbranded within the meaning of Section
403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the Act).

Our investigation found you failed to provide measures, including sufficient
written procedures, to prevent commingling or cross-contamination and to
maintain sufficient written procedures [21 CFR 589.2000(e)] because:

You failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent
carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein or
feeds which may be used for ruminants. For example, your facility uses the
same equipment to process mammalian and poultry tissues. However, you use
only hot water to clean the cookers between processing tissues from each
species. You do not clean the auger, hammer mill, grinder, and spouts after
processing mammalian tissues.

You failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out
procedures or other means to prevent carryover of protein derived from
mammalian tissues into feeds which may be used for ruminants.

As a result . the poultry meal you manufacture may contain protein derived
from mammalian tissues prohibited in ruminant feed. Pursuant to 21 CFR
589.2000(e)(1)(i), any products containing or may contain protein derived
from mammalian tissues must be labeled, "Do not feed to cattle or other
ruminants." Since you failed to label a product which may contain protein
derived from mammalian tissues with the required cautionary statement. the
poultry meal is misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the
Act.

This letter is not intended as an all-inclusive list of violations at your
facility. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you
are responsible for ensuring your overall operation and the products you
manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should take
prompt action to correct these violations, and you should establish a system
whereby violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these
violations may result in regulatory action, such as seizure and/or
injunction, without further notice.

You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of receiving
this letter, outlining the specific steps you have taken to bring your firm
into compliance with the law. Your response should include an explanation of
each step taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If
corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the
reason for the delay and the date by which the corrections will be
completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating
corrections have been made.

Your reply should be directed to Mark W. Rivero, Compliance Officer, U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, 2424 Edenborn Avenue, Suite 410, Metairie,
Louisiana 70001. If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter,
please contact Mr. Rivero at (504) 219-8818, extension 103.

Sincerely,

/S

Carol S. Sanchez
Acting District Director
New Orleans District


http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5883d.htm



look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused
7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;


Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in
primates

Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog,
Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie
Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe
Deslys
Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
(vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral
infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to
transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to
non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate
from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological
disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease
at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we
made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which
provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can
prevent transmission of BSE to man.


snip...


BSE bovine brain inoculum

100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg

Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%)

Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%)
1/15 (7%)

RIII mice (ic ip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%)

PrPres biochemical detection

The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum
used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a
similar PrPres concentration that was

inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals
positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of
disease in the first positive animal (%). The accuracy of

bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. ic
ip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal.

Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected
orally with similar BSE brain inocula


Published online January 27, 2005

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa



*** http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=36

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=48


SRMs USA VS CANADA


http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15807


TSS
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
thats not what the scientist are saying OT, now come on and tell the whole truth ;

Which- of the 100 different sets of scientists are you talking about? We have USDA scientists, CFIA scientists, private industry scientists, Packer scientists, independent University scientists etc. etc.- each with a differing theory?

Sure sounds like this is one that should go in front of a finder of fact to look at and examine all the evidence and make a decision from that rather than the nitpicking political way it currently is being done....

That is what R-CALF's suit against USDA was hoping to do.......At least make USDA lay its facts/ or absence of facts on the table in front of a Judge....
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
[quote]D.J. and Ellen Ball are part of Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America[/quote]


Another bias opinion Oldtimer keep laying the b/s down sooner or later somebody might listen to ya.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
thats not what the scientist are saying OT, now come on and tell the whole truth ;

Which- of the 100 different sets of scientists are you talking about? We have USDA scientists, CFIA scientists, private industry scientists, Packer scientists, independent University scientists etc. etc.- each with a differing theory?

Sure sounds like this is one that should go in front of a finder of fact to look at and examine all the evidence and make a decision from that rather than the nitpicking political way it currently is being done....[/b]

That is what R-CALF's suit against USDA was hoping to do.......At least make USDA lay its facts/ or absence of facts on the table in front of a Judge....

Wasn't the finder of facts, Cebull, handed his head on a platter from the Court of Appeals the last time he "examines the evidence". :shock: Hope he takes a bit more time and really looks at the evidence this time. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
thats not what the scientist are saying OT, now come on and tell the whole truth ;

Which- of the 100 different sets of scientists are you talking about? We have USDA scientists, CFIA scientists, private industry scientists, Packer scientists, independent University scientists etc. etc.- each with a differing theory?

Sure sounds like this is one that should go in front of a finder of fact to look at and examine all the evidence and make a decision from that rather than the nitpicking political way it currently is being done....[/b]

That is what R-CALF's suit against USDA was hoping to do.......At least make USDA lay its facts/ or absence of facts on the table in front of a Judge....

Wasn't the finder of facts, Cebull, handed his head on a platter from the Court of Appeals the last time he "examines the evidence". :shock: Hope he takes a bit more time and really looks at the evidence this time. :wink:

Not really- they just ruled that USDA is above scrutiny and has discretionary power without any overview from the courts...

If the courts don't have that power- then maybe its time to turn to the legislative branch and insure they do... Unanswerable or unreviewable authority of any part of the Administrative branch is one step closer to a Nazi type state...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
thats not what the scientist are saying OT, now come on and tell the whole truth ;

Which- of the 100 different sets of scientists are you talking about? We have USDA scientists, CFIA scientists, private industry scientists, Packer scientists, independent University scientists etc. etc.- each with a differing theory?

Sure sounds like this is one that should go in front of a finder of fact to look at and examine all the evidence and make a decision from that rather than the nitpicking political way it currently is being done....[/b]

That is what R-CALF's suit against USDA was hoping to do.......At least make USDA lay its facts/ or absence of facts on the table in front of a Judge....

Wasn't the finder of facts, Cebull, handed his head on a platter from the Court of Appeals the last time he "examines the evidence". :shock: Hope he takes a bit more time and really looks at the evidence this time. :wink:

No, he wasn't handed his head and the ninth's ruling was based on "deferene" - meaning you shouldn't question the USDA because they should know what they're doing. That should tell you right there that evidence wasn't even looked at.

I agree with you, I hope he does look carefully at all the evidence, particularly the "date of effectiveness" of your feed ban.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Here's an old article that you may like to read. Or not.

It was written just after the Washington cow. Now I expect our friends at R-Calf to dismiss this because it has a Liberal Socialist Environmentalist slant, but if it was written to attack Canadians, they'd be quoting it on the evening news. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Published on Saturday, December 27, 2003 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
FDA Blasted Over Past Enforcement of Feed Ban
by Vanessa Ho

Long before mad cow disease appeared in Washington, the federal government slammed the Food and Drug Administration for failing to adequately enforce feed regulations, a key piece of the nation's firewall against the disease.

On Wednesday, the FDA tried to reassure the public by saying it has "vigorously enforced" a 1997 law that bans the use of meat and bone meal from dead ruminants (cows, sheep and goats) in feed for live ruminants. The agency said more than 99 percent of feed operators are now complying with the law.

But in January 2002, the General Accounting Office -- Congress' investigative arm -- criticized the FDA for failing to adequately enforce the feed ban.

It said the agency had failed to issue warning letters to violators and inspection records were incomplete, inconsistent, inaccurate and untimely. The FDA's records, investigators said, were "so severely flawed" that they shouldn't be used to assess compliance.

"FDA has not placed a priority on oversight of the feed ban," the report said.

As investigators track how the Holstein from Mabton became sick, environmental advocates say it's important to look at previous violations at feed mills, renderers and related companies, because the incubation period for the disease is up to four years.

In Washington, more than a dozen companies were "potential violators" of the feed ban from 1998 to 2002, according to Friends of the Earth, an environmental advocacy group. The group said it based its assertion on a 2002 spreadsheet on the FDA's Web site.

"At the very time that cow was starting to eat, there were many more violators than we have today," said Larry Bohlen, director of the group's health and environment programs.

"So the FDA needs to lift every stone. Did places buy feed from any of these violators? Did other farms or ranchers buy from any of these violators?"

The FDA has said it cited three Washington companies in 2002, including Tacoma-based X-Cel Feeds Inc., a feed mill with a long history of violations.

Yesterday, the company's lawyer, Paul Alvestad, said it has not sold any cattle feed to the Sunny Dene Ranch, where the sick cow last lived.

He said the company sells to farms in Western Washington and overseas.

It does not sell cattle feed to farms in the Yakima area or Canada.

The FDA reached a consent decree with the company in July after citing it for failing to adequately clean its equipment, among other violations.

"We were cleaning the equipment, but it wasn't up to what the FDA wanted," Alvestad said.

X-Cel never mixed mammalian tissue with cattle feed, he said. After the 2002 citation, the company voluntarily stopped mixing mammalian tissue in any of its feed -- even for animals allowed to consume it, he said. He added that previous FDA warnings received by the company, dating as far back as 1989, were not related to violations of the mad cow law but to other issues, such as the manner in which X-Cel weighed ingredients.

According to Friends of the Earth, eight Washington companies did not have required warning labels.

Ten companies that handle feed prohibited for cattle had faulty record-keeping, the group said.

Twelve companies that handle feed for both cattle and other animals need "special attention," Friends of the Earth said. That's because the FDA's category of whether the companies had a system to prevent the inadvertent mingling of feed was left blank.

A spokeswoman for the FDA said she was not familiar with the group's data.

In one case, a pet-food salvager in Oroville in 1999 did not put warning labels on food for pets as required by the FDA, according to Friends of the Earth. A man at the company, which buys broken bags of cat and dog food and resells them, said the company had not known about the warning labels. The company also sells 50-pound bags of a corn, oats and barley blend intended for cattle.

"We were totally unaware we were doing anything wrong," said the man, who didn't want to be named.

Now, the company's 10- to 15-pound bags of pet food carry the warning: "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants."

Yesterday, Lawrence Dyckman, one of the GAO report's main authors, said his agency is working on a follow-up report about enforcement of the feed ban, due in spring.

The original report said the FDA had found hundreds of firms out of compliance, mostly for failing to properly label feed or for including prohibited proteins in cattle feed. But it had sent out only two warning letters.

The FDA spokeswoman said yesterday the agency was already addressing the GAO's concerns by the time the report came out.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Or maybe this one from a fact sheet put out by the USDA.

QUESTION: What was the reason for quarantining the cattle herd in Texas?
ANSWER: Reports on January 25 and 26, 2001, indicate that a Texas feed mill inadvertently mixed in meat and bone meal derived from U.S. cattle with a feed supplement which later was fed to cattle. This was in violation of the feed prohibition imposed by FDA.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Or this one from a legal news website.

What Stricter Food Safety Regulations Would Look Like

The GAO's 2002 report provides an excellent starting point for preventing BSE-contaminated cattle, beef and cattle-derived products from entering the U.S. marketplace.

In Britain, it appears cows became infected with Mad Cow by eating food containing diseased animal protein. Accordingly, in 1997, to avoid repeating Britain's mistakes, the USDA prohibited the use of most mammal protein in cattle feed and feed for other ruminants (but not in other animal feed, including food for pets, pigs, and horses).

In theory, the ban was an excellent idea. But in practice, it was not well-enforced. That has to change.

In its 2002 report, GAO pointed to "FDA 's failure to enforce the feed ban." GAO found that "FDA has been using inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable data to track and oversee feed ban compliance."

Moreover, GAO reported, when a violation of the ban was revealed, FDA did not act quickly enough to protect the public and punish offenders. For example, GAO found that FDA had "not acted promptly to compel firms to keep prohibited proteins out of cattle feed and to label animal feed that cannot be fed to cattle."

In addition, GAO worried that "FDA has no clear enforcement strategy for dealing with firms that do not obey the feed ban." In 1999, for instance, a mere two warning letters were sent. Later, in 2001, FDA issued warning letters to 48 more firms. But on November 30, 2001, when FDA re-inspected, 33 of the 50 firms that had received warning letters were still out of compliance. Six subsequently remained out of compliance.

Inadequate Inspections Led to Inadequate Enforcement of the Feed Ban

The problem, moreover, was not limited to enforcement, according to GAO; inspection to uncover violations was also deficient. GAO report noted numerous flaws in the FDA inspection system -- the growth of which, it noted, had failed to keep pace with the growth of beef imports.

The GAO found that programs for inspection of U.S. cattle and meat processing facilities were inadequate. Inspection within the U.S, for example, does not include an examination of animals that die of disease or other causes (rather than having been slaughtered) on U.S. farms. For obvious reasons, experts consider these animals a high-risk population.

From 1997-2001, the FDA conducted 12,000 inspections at more than 10,000 firms. As of October 2001, the FDA had listed 364 firms as being out of compliance. Industry estimates suggest, however, that 1,200 or more firms were not inspected, due to inadequate methods for identifying all companies subject to the feed ban.

The FDA database, meanwhile, was terribly flawed. With respect to 5,546 inspections -- 45 percent of the total -- the database's records lacked unique identifiers that would have linked the records to individual firms. Records often were incomplete, or contained inconsistent or inaccurate information. And they were not up to date, for information was not entered into the database in a timely manner. Finally, and perhaps most troublingly, firms with blanks in data fields were listed as compliant -- not questionable!

Glass houses ...... :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
 

Kato

Well-known member
Then how can they call for other countries to open up their markets to American beef?

Is it a case of Do what I say, not what I do?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
Then how can they call for other countries to open up their markets to American beef?

Is it a case of Do what I say, not what I do?

You can do that if you're willing to meet your customer's demands, as R-CALF is. We're not trying to force them to take our product on our terms, that's the work of the other guys.
 

Work Hard and Study Hard

Well-known member
[[/quote][/b]


Another bias opinion Oldtimer keep laying the b/s down sooner or later somebody might listen to ya.[/quote]

I've been reading some of the posts on here for sometime now and have noticed that you never bring anything of substance to the table. Why do you bother posting your childish little snippets?
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Work Hard and Study Hard said:
[/b]


Another bias opinion Oldtimer keep laying the b/s down sooner or later somebody might listen to ya.[/quote]

I've been reading some of the posts on here for sometime now and have noticed that you never bring anything of substance to the table. Why do you bother posting your childish little snippets?[/quote]


You better learn to read.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Wasn't the finder of facts, Cebull, handed his head on a platter from the Court of Appeals the last time he "examines the evidence". :shock: Hope he takes a bit more time and really looks at the evidence this time. :wink:

Not really- they just ruled that USDA is above scrutiny and has discretionary power without any overview from the courts...

If the courts don't have that power- then maybe its time to turn to the legislative branch and insure they do... Unanswerable or unreviewable authority of any part of the Administrative branch is one step closer to a Nazi type state...

Sandhusker: No, he wasn't handed his head and the ninth's ruling was based on "deferene" - meaning you shouldn't question the USDA because they should know what they're doing. That should tell you right there that evidence wasn't even looked at.

Have either one of you actually read the Ninth’s 41 page reversal of Cebull’s ruling?

The Ninth didn’t just summed up they ruling of the reversal in a few words like ‘the Courts don’t have the right to question the USDA,. They filled pages with reasons and legal errors Cebull made in his ruling.

Here are just a few of the comments that lead me to believe his head was handed to him.

As long as the district court got the law right it will not be reversed simply because the appellate court would have arrived at a different result if it had applied the law to the facts of the case.
Now since they did reverse Cebulls ruling does that not mean Cebull didn’t get the law right??

As we conclude below, the district courts findings that R-CALF had a strong likelihood of success on the merits was premised on legal error. Further we disagree with the district courts assessment of the irreparable harm threatened by the Final Rule. Thus we hold that a preliminary injunction was unwarranted in this case.
Premised on who’s legal error? The only way the Ninth was going to reverse was if the court/ Cebull got the law wrong!!! And they disagreed with who’s assessment? CEBULLS

The district court identified three distinct grounds for its findings that R-CALF had a strong likelihood of success on the merit: (1) that the Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious under APA; (2) that USDA had failed to satisfy NEPA’s procedural requirements; and (3) that USDA had failed adequately to consider the Final Rule’s effect on small businesses, as required by the RFA. None of these grounds withstand scrutiny.

Now why didn’t they withstand scrutiny maybe because of the fact that the Ninth found that the district court/ Cebull had committed legal errors by repeatedly impermissibly substituted his judgment for that of the agency’s. By disagreeing with USDA’s determinations even though “they had sound basis in the administrative record” and accepting the scientific judgments of R-CALF with no explanations to why.

And the NEPA grounds didn’t withstand scrutiny because according to the Ninth “R-CALF lacks standing to bring a NEPA challenge on the Final Rule and the district court erred in permitting R-CALF to proceed with the NEPA claim“.

The Ninth didn’t stop there they even added that the record does not support the district courts “prediction of catastrophic injury” due to the stigma of our beef on the US . As the record showed that beef demand when up in 2004, after Canadian beef was allowed back into the US. In other words The records didn’t support R-CALF or Cebulls the sky will fall and people will die attitude that resulted in the injunction.

Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, we conclude that the Final Rule will likely survive judicial scrutiny under the correct legal standards; Thus R-CALF has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its action. We also conclude that R-CALF has failed to make the requisite showing irreparable harm. For these reasons, we must reverse the district court’s preliminary injunction.
What this means is that R-CALF’s injunction was a result of Cebulls legal errors and when under the scrutiny of the correct legal standards from three judges not residing in the home State, not to mention City, of R-CALF’s Head office it got what it deserved TOSSED. And it was up-held when R-CALF tried to get the rest of the Appeal Judges to look at it and they all agreed with the first three and wouldn't reopen the case. Cebull got what he deserved with a ruling that blew every one of his grounds for his ruling out of the water when correct legal standards were applied. I just hope the USDA’s successful appeal of this case will make Cebull realize he can’t just substitute his Home town R-CALF influenced judgments for facts that are based in international science and guidelines when international trade is at stake.

And Oldtimer what the courts don't have the power to do is substitute internationally backed evidence with non proven judgements when ruling on a cases and that is what Cebull did according to the Ninth. Maybe the legislative branch should go after judges that do this to insure they don't.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
OK, Tam, lets just pick one piece of the puzzle; (1) that the Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious under APA.

Tell me, what was different about Canada compared to the prior 22 countries that discovered BSE - countries the USDA did not try to reopen to? Explain how that was not capricious.

The USDA said the risk of bringing BSE into this country via Canada was "low", but could not provide a scale to reference. Explain how that is not arbitrary.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
OK, Tam, lets just pick one piece of the puzzle; (1) that the Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious under APA.

Tell me, what was different about Canada compared to the prior 22 countries that discovered BSE - countries the USDA did not try to reopen to? Explain how that was not capricious.

The USDA said the risk of bringing BSE into this country via Canada was "low", but could not provide a scale to reference. Explain how that is not arbitrary.


Sandhusker why not just answer the questions I asked you, Have you ever read the Ninth's 41 page ruling? Yes or NO :| I'm waiting
If "yes" then you know the answer and just don't want to believe the evidence and my explaining it AGAIN will do no good. :roll:
If "No" then do us all a favor and read it. :wink:

You said Cebull was not handed his head But is that true when the Ninth found he/ Cebull repeatedly committed LEGAL ERRORS and in doing so granted an injunction that was NOT WARRENTED of which they promply reversed ? YES or NO :?

You say they didn't look at the evidence, then how did they come to the conclusion that Cebull was substituting R-CALF judgements for the USDA evidence that was backed by the very APA that Cebull claimed made the rule arbitrary and Capricious? :???:

Why would the other 40 some judges that up held the appeal, up hold the appeal if they didn't look at the evidence? All it would have taken is ONE judge to speak up but NOT ONE SPOKE UP. :shock:

Now if we were to limit the puzzle pieces to just the three distinct grounds the district court identified we would have the APA, the NEPA and the RFA

Why not look at the NEPA piece of the Puzzle Sandhusker ? Could it be that that piece doesn't fit anywhere in this puzzle as R-CALF lacked the standing to bring that piece to the table but for what ever reason Cebull was willing to use a hammer of legal error to make the piece fit in somewhere? :wink:

Why not the RFA puzzle piece? Could it be that you don't want to discuss this piece as all it was to do was to point out the burden the producers would bear. BUT to be applied properly it also had to take into consideration the burden other sectors would have to bear if the Rule was not allowed to proceed. IE the burden feedlot operators carry with half full feedlots and the Packers who were carrying the burden of not enough fat cattle to keep their plants viable. Producers were not the only small businesses being affected by the Final Rule and that is why the Ninth concluded the RFA grounds if legally applied would have to take into consideration the good of the whole beef industry NOT JUST THE SECTOR R-CALF WANTED IT TO PERTAIN TO. :( :wink:

You choose the APA puzzle piece and the fact you are still asking your same lame questions forces me to ask again have you read the 41 page ruling?
As if you had you would have had it all spelled out in the correct legal standards why the Ninth felt the Final Rule was not Arbitrary or Capricious.
The district court listed six specific grounds as the bases for its finding that the Final Rule was arbritrary and capricious. We examine each of them seriatim and concluded that none of them support the conclusion.
All six of Cebull's reasons were shot down Sandhusker and they explain why using the correct legal standards not the "incorrect legal standards Cebull uses with no explanations given for why he did what he did.

Do us all a favor READ THE RULING !!!!!! :roll: Not that you will believe it anyway as it went against R-CALF. You may also want to read the AHPA and the OIE guidelines and ask yourself Where do they impose restrictions on the USDA to act in any certain way? :?

BTW another good read is the NAFTA - Report Card on Agriculture. To sum it up it is a report on how R-CALF using the legal system to settle Trade disputes is a BAD IDEA and only leads to bigger problems within an industry that should be working together to solve the real important issue the North American Beef industry face. You seem to have lots of spare time at the real job of yours Sandhusker so why not read it along with the ruling against the injunction. Enlighten yourself.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Just a note here Sandhusker when you pick just one piece of the puzzle like you, R-CALF and Cebull seem to like to do, you don't see the whole picture and that is the exact reason Cebull got his head handed to him when the Ninth examined all the pieces to the puzzle. :wink:
 
Top