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

Well Oldtimer what do you think

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
a couple of quote from the R-CALF web site dated Jan 10, 2005

R-CALF USA's Complaint states the Final Rule will expose U.S. consumers to an un-quantified increase in risk from imported beef products of contracting variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease(vCJD). an invariably fatal disease associated with comsumption of BSE-contaminated meat; that it will increase the risk of BSE infection in cattle in the United States by an un-quantified amount; and, that it will expose U.S cattle producers to severe and unnecessary economic hardship.

Neither did the USDA specify how many head of U.S. cattle might be expected to contract BSE. USDA gave no answer on how much of the U.S. meat supply might be comtaminated with BSE infective agent, How many U.S. consumers may be at risk for contracting vCJD, nor how soon these things might occur if Canadian imports resume.

The Complaint charges USDA failed to conduct any scenitific assessment of the most important issue for the Final Rule- whether the health of U.S. consumers will be endangered. The Complaint asserts that none of the risk assessments relied upon by the USDA, when it concluded that the risk to human health are acceptable, even address the risk to human health from consuming BSE contaminated meat.

Now they are stateing to the court of appeal they

"R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada."


So are you going to say well technically they didn't say it was a GREAT risk they just used words like endangered and un-quantified increase in risk. There is a BIG difference to the eyes of a Federal Judge. :roll:

It is just to bad that that Judge used the words to describe the way he saw it as a GENUINE RISK OF DEATH. :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
a couple of quote from the R-CALF web site dated Jan 10, 2005

R-CALF USA's Complaint states the Final Rule will expose U.S. consumers to an un-quantified increase in risk from imported beef products of contracting variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease(vCJD). an invariably fatal disease associated with comsumption of BSE-contaminated meat; that it will increase the risk of BSE infection in cattle in the United States by an un-quantified amount; and, that it will expose U.S cattle producers to severe and unnecessary economic hardship.

Neither did the USDA specify how many head of U.S. cattle might be expected to contract BSE. USDA gave no answer on how much of the U.S. meat supply might be comtaminated with BSE infective agent, How many U.S. consumers may be at risk for contracting vCJD, nor how soon these things might occur if Canadian imports resume.

The Complaint charges USDA failed to conduct any scenitific assessment of the most important issue for the Final Rule- whether the health of U.S. consumers will be endangered. The Complaint asserts that none of the risk assessments relied upon by the USDA, when it concluded that the risk to human health are acceptable, even address the risk to human health from consuming BSE contaminated meat.

Now they are stateing to the court of appeal they

"R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada."


So are you going to say well technically they didn't say it was a GREAT risk they just used words like endangered and un-quantified increase in risk. There is a BIG difference to the eyes of a Federal Judge. :roll:

It is just to bad that that Judge used the words to describe the way he saw it as a GENUINE RISK OF DEATH. :shock:

Tam- I would say that Judge Cebull probably used the best describer-- "Genuine Risk"-- that he saw evidence that a risk is sincerely felt to be there or is there......

The final decision on the presence and amount of the risk would be something to be decided after the presentation of all the evidence- that was the reason it was set for trial....
 

Latest posts

Top