USDA's calendar

[Sandhusker]

Can anybody explain to me how the USDA came up with March 1, 1999?

-------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO CONFERENCE WITH DR. JOHN CLIFFORD, USDA CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER (ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE), ON USDA'S PROPOSAL TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL IMPORTS FROM BSE MINIMAL-RISK COUNTRIES, WASHINGTON, D.C. -- JANUARY 4, 2007


".....Specifically, the rule proposes allowing the importation of: live bovines for any use born on or after March 1, 1999 -- the date determined by APHIS to be the date of effective enforcement of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada; blood and blood products derived from bovines, collected under certain conditions; and casings and part of the small intestines derived from bovines."

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Sandhusker,


Dont you have something else to do :shock: like call Bill a liar or something..... :lol: :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker,


Dont you have something else to do :shock: like call Bill a liar or something..... :lol: :lol:

:lol: I'll let Bill and SH decide who the liars are, they're the "excitable" ones around here. :wink: I'm just seeing if anybody can figure this one out. It is kind of a timely topic and central to a huge matter that affects us all.

 

[Sandhusker]

Nobody wants to take a crack at this? What about you folks who thought the Ninth was correct in saying the USDA should be given deference? If you supported that, you have to agree with them on this call.

 

[Anonymous]

Nobody wants to take a crack at this? What about you folks who thought the Ninth was correct in saying the USDA should be given deference? If you supported that, you have to agree with them on this call.

It appears to me the reason know one can give you an answer is that there is absolutely no logical reason for this date- given the ages of POST feedban cattle found, along with USDA's supposedly scientific assumption that Canada will continue to find positive cattle for the next 20 years....

 

[blackjack]

...just another one of those redtape deals ot...you know that as much as anyone... its either open the border to otm's or not...this way they can play political games just like your org...by the way your guys would have lots of ammuntion to stop this silly rule but i'll let you guys figure out that one...lol...

 

[Bill]

Nobody wants to take a crack at this? What about you folks who thought the Ninth was correct in saying the USDA should be given deference? If you supported that, you have to agree with them on this call.

You're the one questioning it! Get the girls to figger it out and report back to you.

Let us know how it goes.

 

[Sandhusker]

Nobody wants to take a crack at this? What about you folks who thought the Ninth was correct in saying the USDA should be given deference? If you supported that, you have to agree with them on this call.

You're the one questioning it! Get the girls to figger it out and report back to you.

Let us know how it goes.

Just as I thought. Not even the USDA supporters can make any sense out of it. Yet you were quick to agree with the Ninth that they should be given deference..... :roll:

 

[Bill]

Nobody wants to take a crack at this? What about you folks who thought the Ninth was correct in saying the USDA should be given deference? If you supported that, you have to agree with them on this call.

You're the one questioning it! Get the girls to figger it out and report back to you.

Let us know how it goes.

Just as I thought. Not even the USDA supporters can make any sense out of it. Yet you were quick to agree with the Ninth that they should be given deference..... :roll:

:lol: :lol: :lol: I have been accused of targeting and trying to discredit the USDA by some and now of being a USDA supporter by you. :lol: :lol: :lol: Like I wrote, get the girls to figure it out for you.

 

[Sandhusker]

Nobody can figure it out, Bill. My eight-year old son comes up with more believable BS stories that this one.

It makes me mad that the USDA tries to BS us. It makes me furious that they think we're stuped enough to believe this one, and it scares me that the agency in charge of food safety is involved in this kind of crap.

 

[Bill]

Nobody can figure it out, Bill. My eight-year old son comes up with more believable BS stories that this one.

It makes me mad that the USDA tries to BS us. It makes me furious that they think we're stuped enough to believe this one, and it scares me that the agency in charge of food safety is involved in this kind of crap.

Why the big concern now that you didn't have on January 3rd when you posted this?

Sandhusker:

All R-CALF needs is an objective judge who will hear both sides. The USDA has already made their case based on certain assumptions - and those assumptons have been proven wrong by the turn of events. A court room wasn't even needed! This shouldn't last an afternoon.

 

[Sandhusker]

Nobody can figure it out, Bill. My eight-year old son comes up with more believable BS stories that this one.

It makes me mad that the USDA tries to BS us. It makes me furious that they think we're stuped enough to believe this one, and it scares me that the agency in charge of food safety is involved in this kind of crap.

Why the big concern now that you didn't have on January 3rd when you posted this?

Sandhusker:

All R-CALF needs is an objective judge who will hear both sides. The USDA has already made their case based on certain assumptions - and those assumptons have been proven wrong by the turn of events. A court room wasn't even needed! This shouldn't last an afternoon.

When you have courts coming up with gems like "The government should be given deference", EVERYBODY should have concerns.

 

[Sandhusker]

Anybody ............. :shock:

 

[fedup2]

REPORTER: Yes, hi, Doctor. Is the USDA saying that Canadian animals that are born before March 1, 1999, are not safe to import to the U.S.?

DR. CLIFFORD: Basically, what we're saying is, is based upon our assessment and analysis of when an effective feed ban went into place, the date of March 1, 1999, was determined. That was based upon Canada putting a feed ban in place at the same time the U.S. did. In August of '97 we looked at having six months of a practical implementation date, and then we added an additional year to that date for the normal marketing period where you would expect feed to be cycled through in the cattle in that system.
So basically there's where we came up with the year-and-a-half date. So it's not saying that cattle born prior to that are unsafe. It's just saying that we're looking at that as an effective feed ban date and we're just accepting live cattle after that date.

REPORTER: As you know, case number 4 and 5 were born after that March 1, 1999, date. They were both born in the year 2000. So some people would say that you've just kind of, on the back of an envelope, put six months plus one year, to use your words, and come up with a March 1 date. You know, what other justification can you explain to me as to why you chose that date?

DR. CLIFFORD: Well, the justifications that we made were based upon what I gave you. We have previously, under the minimal risk rule one that we came out with, we evaluated Canada's effective feed ban and determined that they had an effective feed ban during publication of that rule, and that was based upon our personal investigation and knowledge of that system and information that was provided to us.
They have the authority, they have the infrastructure, plus they've established our performance standards within that system to be able to effectively monitor that system, make sure there's appropriate training. As you know, with any type of system there's no such thing as 100 percent compliance.
And if we'll look throughout internationally we know that countries that have had other effective feed bans put in place will find case after that effective feed ban.

REPORTER: But does the rule address the fact that there were three cases, the latest being April 22, 2002, when there was a BSE case?

DR. CLIFFORD: There is, the rule takes into account that three cases occurred after that feed ban date, and again the risk -- when you look at these things you can't look at one particular issue. You have to look at it in total through all the mitigations, whether you're talking about SRM removal, to feed ban, to feed manufacturing, to rendering inactivation, to biological limitations. So you have to look at the whole system as a whole when you're looking at the level of risk. And we have found, based upon that risk assessment, when you look at this as a whole that the risk is extremely low.

Story here: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/01/0002.xml

 

[Mike]

Thanks for the doublespeak and crapola sandwich from the king of the G-E-R-T-R-U-B-I-S family fedup. :???:

 

[fedup2]

Geeze Mike, I didn't write it, I just shared the information. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

How about I take his last 3 sentences and change about 5 words? Would that sum up your thoughts about this guy?

"So you have to look at the whole story as a whole when you're looking at the level of intelligence. And we have found, based upon that intelligence level, when you look at this as a whole that it is extremely low." :shock: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :nod:

 

[Mike]

Geeze Mike, I didn't write it, I just shared the information. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

How about I take his last 3 sentences and change about 5 words? Would that sum up your thoughts about this guy?

"So you have to look at the whole story as a whole when you're looking at the level of intelligence. And we have found, based upon that intelligence level, when you look at this as a whole that it is extremely low." :shock: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :nod:

That would just about do it! :lol: :lol:

This is classic!