Class Action Rally

[rkaiser]

I'm gonna keep starting a new thread ever now and then so that this thing doesn't get lost.

I'm looking at this thing as more of a responsibility issue. We've been passing off this responsibility thing for too many years now and or blaming someone or something else for our state of affairs.

We could all go and stand in front of the grocery stores like gaucho and GF suggested but who would those stores buy there beef from if we got them to change their minds. NB or Cargill --- LOL. Kinda like the ABP CCA gang and that BIC program. Nothing but free advertising for NB and Cargill with the lack of trickle down in our system.

So --- Got some dates for ya all to choose from. End of March, and during the week, we can have the stock man's center at the Red Deer Westerner grounds for a decent price. Or a Hotel banquet room for a little more. I'm thinkin I would like to leave my shitty boots on so the stock man center works for me.

I would like to request a bit of a synopsis from our gentile Mr. Pallett --- in rancher language --- so that we can introduce this thing to people who simply think it will line his pockets and little more... Just telling it like it is Mr. P. I would also like to see a few short presentations from poeple with ideas for how to spend the bucks once they are in our pockets.
Even going to go out on a limb --- for the first time in my life --- and suggest a name for the rally .

Taking back our industry "One Steak Holder" at a time.

As soon as we have a date and place we can start an advertising and word of mouth campaign... Oooops --- it's already started.

Awesome day coming out there folks. I gotta get out and enjoy it. Chow fer now

Randy

[Sawbones]

Count me in Randy. We've already started and need to find out if there's enough people with enough determination to put up their commission cheques plus their ABP check-off (or the amount that CCA wants to give the packers for SRM removal) $30 in advance for participation in a full value chain. If a person has 200 cows and is willing to commit half their calves, we're looking for a commitment of $3000. Hopefully Randy you have a spot for us to outline some details

[rkaiser]

How would you like to make your own "spot" Sawbones?

This thing is starting on a wing and a prayer and you know me --- all I am good for is my mouth.

We could use someone to set up an operation/ advertising budget. Any volunteers Sean????

Call me any time.

Randy
(403) 333 - 6653

[cpallett]

Tough to provide a synopsis of more that ten years of ongoing screwups (alleged), but here goes.

1986 - BSE is first described by George Wells at the Central Veterinary Laboratory in Weybridge, England. Dr. Wells calls it bovine spongiform encephalopathy (spongiform because it creates holes in the brain, encephaopathy because it is a neurological disorder with no swelling involved - unlike encephalitis). When asked by the British government what causes BSE, Dr. Wells says he doesn't know, but John Wilesmith is just the man to ask that very important question.

1987 - In December Dr. Wilesmith completes his report to the British government and tells them that BSE is caused by feeding ruminant meat and bonemeal (MBM) from BSE infected carcassses to healthy animals. The incubation period between initial infection and symptoms is about 5.5 years, and calves appear to be particularly susceptible to infection (about 20 times more vulnerable than adult animals). Calf starter incorporating MBM (to boost the protein content) is identified as the most obvious means of transmission.

1988 - On July 18 the British government bans the feeding of ruminant MBM to ruminants. Dr. Wilesmith has advised that the number of diagnosed cases of BSE in the UK will continue to rise for some time because of the long incubation period.

1989 - The US, Australia and others ban the importation of British cattle for fear they may spread BSE. Australia institutes a monitoring program for all British cattle imported since 1981 over concerns that they may be harbouring BSE. The Australian government pays farmers for the British animals when they have outlived their usefulness and destroys the carcasses. Farmers are advised that if any of these British imports enter the human or animal food chain they will be charged. The Australian monitoring program works; none of the 131 imported British cattle enter the human or animal food chain. Australia is BSE-free today.

1990 - Canada passes a regulation to the Feeds Act permitting the feding of MBM to cattle and calves. Canada bans the importation of British cattle. Canada puts all 196 British cattle imported since 1982 into a monitoring program 'amid growing concerns about the spread of BSE through exported cattle'

1993 - The first case of BSE is diagnosed in North America, confirmed on December 7, 1993 in a Salers cow from Alberta. The cow is one of eight birth cohort animals imported as a group that had been hand fed the same calf starter in Britain. When the records are examined it is found that 80 (eighty) of the British cattle in the monitoring program had been allowed to go to routine slaughter (68) or had entered the rendering vats whole as deadstock (12). The British cattle that have entered the animal feed system in Canada include two of the birth cohort animals. Some monitoring program. The balance of the British animals remaining in Canada are ordered exported or destroyed.
In a memorandum to the Minister of Agriculture dated December 7, 1993 outlining the situation, the Department of Agriculture failed to inform the Minister of four points:
1. BSE is spread by healthy animals, particularly calves, eating feed rations containing MBM from infected animals;
2. The only universally recognized means of containment of BSE is a ruminant feed ban;
3. 80 British animals entered the human and animal feed system in the last four years (oops); and
4. In holding up Denmark as an example of a country that had one infected British import but were able to maintain their BSE free status by disinfecting the farm in question, they failed to mention that Denmark had a ruminant feed ban in place as the cornerstone of their BSE control policy.
Subsequent memos to the Minister providing him with updates on the situation referred back to this one as providing the necessary background information.

1994 - In May the government completes an internal risk assessment that finds that there is a 100% statistical probability that one or more of the 80 British animals that entered the Canadian animal feed system had BSE. This report identifies the risk that 'further cases of BSE would likely prompt a trade embargo against Canadian exports of cattle, beef and dairy products for an indefinite period of time by some or all of importing countries.' The report is buried. Canadian cattle producers are not warned that there is a ticking economic time bomb in the Canadian herd.
Three cattle producers whose British animals have been ordered destroyed take the fight to the federal court. In ordering the last of these animals destroyed, the Federal Court of Appeal finds in July that:
"The Act requires the Minister to exercise considerable expertise with regards to the health of Canadian livestock and the risks imposed by potential parasites, and directs him to act on the basis of mere suspicion. It is obvious that there were aspects of the factual and scientific evidence placed before the Minister that could support, especially if looked at with the utmost prudence, a suspicion reaching any cattle imported into Canada from the United Kingdom between 1982 and 1990 regardless of their age or history."
The government responds by continuing to do nothing to diminish the risk of the spread of BSE that their negligence (alleged) has created.

1996 - On April 3 the World Health Organization recommends that all countries ban the use of ruminant tissues in ruminant feed. Australia responds, and by May 26 there is a ruminant feed ban in place in Australia. Various organizations in the US push for a ruminant feed ban, and legislation is begun in the US.

1997 - In April, the cow that closed the border on May 20, 2003 is born in Saskatchewan. In May, she is fed calf starter containing the BSE prion.
In August, Canada finally brings in a ruminant feed ban. It is based on the 1988 British model. The British are now up to model number 4 (enacted in March of 1996). This Canadian feed ban does not address the known issues of cross-feeding (when you throw a little chicken or hog feed into the calf mix for one reason or another) or cross-contamination (when some chicken of hog feed left in the production lines, truck, hopper, etc gets into the calf starter).

2003 - The Central Veterinary Laboratory confirms the diagnosis of BSE in an Angus cross cow (now in Alberta). International borders immediately slam shut to Canadian cattle and beef.

2007 - Canada finally implements a feed ban that adresses cross-feeding and cross-contamination issues more than 11 years after Britain and 4 years ofter the border closure.

You know the rest.

There is much, much, much more. The breadth and depth of the buffoonery involved is astounding. The statement of claim can be found at:

http://www.bseclassaction.ca/pdfs/BSE%20AFaASOC%2026%20Jan%2009.pdf

You should know that the closing of the border by the US on May 20, 2003 was not political. It was automatic. The regulations closing the US border to any country with a single domestic case of BSE date back to 1991. Canada entered into a bilateral 'one cow and you're out' agreement on BSE with the US in 1994.

As for my financial interest, you'd better believe I expect to be paid if we win this thing and get you all a cheque. I started working on this in August 2004 and did not see one thin dime until the fall of 2008. We have never taken money from cattle producers because of my personal view that you all have paid enough. Besides, nobody offered.

I don't know about you, but I have more faith in the commitment of a person who has a financial interest in the outcome to go along with their moral and professional interest. The need to feed the family is a powerful motivator, and we don't get paid unless and until you get paid.

Of course, if you want to get paid anytime soon we need your help. We are going to trial, but that trial will not take place for years. Then there are the inevitable appeals, and this one is dead certain to make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. All of that takes time. Lots of time.

On the other hand, if the government wants to settle this thing we can work something out much quicker, provided they are willing. We've managed to assemble the evidence and the law, but convincing the government that it is in the best interests of all concerned (not to mention the country as a whole) for all parties to sit down at a mediation requires grassroots support. How about it?

[grassfarmer]

Setting aside for the moment your class action law suit or Randy's plan to stage a rally I would like to point out one thing with regards to BSE.
The whole theory continues to be based on junk science. If "feed bans" and "enhanced feed bans" are the solution why has the UK had 59 cases of BSE since the enhanced feed ban of 1996 was implemented? and how does that compare with the number of cases Canada has had?
Proving that Canada was negligent for not implementing rules that some other countries did is one thing but the truth is even if they had done that we might still have had BSE cases - there is no proof that I know of that the Canadian BSE cases can all be attributed to imported UK cattle.
What about the thousands of UK dairy cattle fed milk replacer in the 1980s that were shipped to North Africa and last I heard never did develop a BSE case?

[cpallett]

GF, funny how non-lawyers and non-scientists get all hung up over this idea of 'proof'. There is no 'proof' cigarettes cause cancer. Just a heck of a lot of evidence. In spite of that overwhelming evidence there are some who do not believe that smoking causes cancer, and will never believe so no matter what the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests.

Fortunately for us the judges in Canada are professionals when it comes to weighing evidence. We are confident that the overwhelming evidence, both scientific and otherwise, that we have accumulated (with more to come) will result in a favourable outcome at trial.

On a personal note, I have read Mark Purdy's work, including Animal Pharm as well as the transcript of his testimony for The BSE Inquiry. Impressive stuff but 'unproven' and certainly at odds with the majority view (sounds familiar - been there, done that). Have you read our statement of claim?

[kato]

Way to go Randy!! I can't get there, but I'd like to send a bright idea instead. How about printing up a few hundred (or thousand?)copies of that letter we were circulating around to tell the government to settle out of court?

Hand them out at the rally. There's no reason why everybody wouldn't send it in. They can't even complain about the cost of stamps, because it's postage free. LOL

[rkaiser]

You know GF --- that I had it out with Mr. Pallett over the transmission thing as well. He can never say that he has beat me and my belief in Mark Purdey, nor I him --- but as we both decided --- who the hell cares. Someone has to stop this bleeding mess and if the CFIA is not responsible for the feed ban foopla in your mind then they are damn well responsible for keeping our captive supply borders locked by not allowing BSE testing for marketing purposes. No use starting a new class action suit on that one so we might as well go with the one that is not only out of the driveway, but half way down the road already. Money is money and it is overdue. The key in my mind will be using it wisely to cut the artery feeding the multinational packers of this country.

Kato - could you please post your letter once again and yes --- I think it is a hell of an idea to hand it out at the meeting. The first meeting which will hopefully lead to more across the whole country.

[cpallett]

It is on the website Randy, at http://www.bseclassaction.ca/pdfs/BSE%20PM%20letter%20final%2025%20Mar%2009.pdf , but here you go:

The Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2

Dear Mr. Prime Minister, I am writing this letter as a concerned Canadian cattle producer. I realize that what I am about to say may sound alarmist, but believe me, it’s based on first-hand knowledge that can only be obtained by experiencing these troubles personally.

We have been cattle producers for the past (fill in the blank) years, and we are watching the results of the hard work of those past years dwindle away to nothing, along with the life’s work of our neighbours and colleagues. As I write this letter the Canadian cattle industry is being decimated, and no one seems to either notice or care about it.

Especially since the BSE crisis in 2003, things have deteriorated to the point that it is becoming possible that in a short time, shorter than most
will appreciate, there will not be a viable Canadian cattle industry left. The news is full of stories about how more tough times are coming, and we are in a recession. Those stories just make us shake our heads. As cattle producers, since 2003, we have literally been reliving the Great Depression. Cut backs due to hard times? Those happened here over
five years ago. They are old news to us. We’ve cut back all we can. There’s nowhere left to cut, unless you include selling out, like many are doing right now.

My fear is that one morning we will wake up and hear a report that Canada no longer has a viable beef business. I am not alone in this fear. Producers have reached their limits and just can’t carry on any more. We’ve been told by people in the business that one quarter of the national cattle herd are already gone. We are on a slippery slope to becoming dependent on other countries for our own domestic food security. This is a dangerous course to take, and for the average consumer will only mean higher costs in the long term. At the current rate, if nothing is done to save our cattle producers, it won’t be long before imported beef will be replacing the majority of domestic beef in our grocery stores.

I agree it’s important to protect industries like the auto industry and forestry, but can anything be more important than protecting a nation’s food supply? This can only be achieved by the existence of a viable domestic farm sector. The family farm is the
foundation of it all.

We have read that the courts of Ontario and Quebec have certified a national class action against the government of Canada on behalf of all Canadian cattle producers for negligence in causing the BSE crisis. The government’s efforts to have these claims dismissed have all failed. There will be a trial. We have been advised that evidence to be presented at the trial will demonstrate gross negligence on the part of government
officials and the devastating consequences of that negligence.

We know all about the devastating consequences of BSE. We have been living with them for over five years.
Settling the BSE class action is the right thing to do. It would provide immediate help to a sector of the Canadian population that is viewed as the bedrock of our society; farmers
and their families.

A settlement would also provide a real and immediate stimulus to the economy. Every cattle producer in the country can be counted on to use their settlement funds to reduce debt or to improve the farm through the purchase of equipment, cattle, etc. Every dollar
used to reduce debt would free up credit. Every dollar used to improve the farm would stimulate the economy.

A settlement would send a message to Canadian cattle producers that the government of Canada recognizes their value to the country and the important contribution they make to the economy. It would provide desperately needed help to rural communities – communities whose needs in these difficult economic times have largely been ignored.

A settlement would provide real and immediate support to the Canadian cattle industry, support that is not subject to countervail under the rules of NAFTA, GATT or the WTO.

Settling the BSE class action is the right thing to do.

Yours truly,

[grassfarmer]

I'm not against what you guys are doing, I just don't believe it is necessarily either the right solution or the only solution. As you point out Randy picketing stores doesn't do anything to get around the packer monopoly problem. Neither does Sawbones idea - i'm not against his suggestion either, and appreciate the folks putting in the effort, but even if it is successful in getting enough producer support it's only going to get back to the point Ranchers Beef was at several years back - subject to being quashed by the two packers at any time. And I wouldn't bank on retailers being 100% loyal and supportive to Cdn ranchers in fact at this moment they maybe far more responsible for our woes than the packers.
If the class action is successful and every rancher gets a big check will they "buy back their industry" ?? I'm sure some would invest but likely most won't - and would a bunch of producers who think like individuals be able to work successfully together and outwit the Nilssons and Cargills of the world?

Maybe I've got tunnel vision but I honestly can't see a way other than what I'm doing just now - direct retailing my own beef to be successful and in control of my own destiny. And I'm more of a team player and supportive of co-operative ventures than the vast majority of ranchers in western Canada.
I did read the details of the class action cpallett, as much as I could understand not being a lawyer. Am I right to say that the claim is for $100,000 for 100,000 producers? By my reckoning that would cost every man, woman and child in the country about $300 a head bearing in mind the Government doesn't have any money of it's own. That's a lot to be asking in these financially troubled times.

[kato]

You might want to take the part that says "We know all about the devastating consequences of BSE. We have been living with them for over five years. " to read "almost seven years". How sad is that?

I think right now, whether we do one thing or another, what we really need to do before anything can happen is get back on the radar. Whatever it takes to get a presence will do, because if people start to pay attention, and listen, then the media picks it up, and with any luck it starts to snowball. Our numbers are so low, and we are so far off the scale of importance in this country that it's scarey.

The brutal fact is that until the state of affairs we are living with every day becomes common knowledge all across the land, we will be ignored. If it means rallies, or protests, or a very public court battle, it doesn't really matter, as long as it gets noticed. We have to be noticed, or the most brilliant solution ever dreamed up is not going to happen.

Acknowledging a problem is the first step to solving it, and so far no one outside of the cattle business has acknowledged a darn thing. And boy, will they miss us when we're gone.

[kato]

Oh ya, and as for the money, the government could start by setting aside the almost a billion dollars in unspent Agristability money from last year alone. I bet within a couple of years, with the money they set aside for this program that doesn't get spent, they'd almost cover the whole cost.

What does that tell us?????

[burnt]

Well kato, getting support for this industry has never really been about affordability but rather a lack of will to make it happen.

As a small-time supplier of a hardware product mainly into the farming business, I have seen first hand what happens when agriculture's primary producers get a bit extra cash flow from a better crop or marketing year.

Also, finding the proper mechanism to trigger the funds into the producer's hands is a bit of a trick with the pressure to have the program remain in the green category.

It is routinely made clear that we have a group of mouth-breathers south of us who have nothing better to do than ooogle their Canadian counterparts to watch for any opportunity to deliver another kick in the crotch if they think they can get away with it. For some reason oldtimer/willowcreek/toiletpaper (take your pick of his nom de jour)comes to mind.

What thoughts have others had on the construct of a program to deliver the funds required in the short term to stay afloat in the absence of a true marketplace? Or is this question a misdirected concern?

[rkaiser]

Transcending tradition. The second part to this story --- after we get the money... Okay I'll back up for just a moment. Getting the money. Kato's agristability thing has a lot of merit but what about how we have subsidized the consumer of this country for years with negative cash flow at almost every level.

The $300.00 a piece that GF speaks of if we take 10 billion out of government (the people's) pocket is cheap if we tell them the rest of the story.

We are going to use this money to listen to the consumer and give them what they are asking for. We are going to help them and be conscious of their needs.

If any of you have not watched the movie "Food Inc." yet watch it. It is in the top five in North America for most watched movies in 2009. These people are our customers and we need to listen them.

This lawsuit is not about blame --- it is about responsibility... The governments responsibility, the consumers responsibility and most of all --- our responsibility to transcend a tradition to focus on profit and money in the food (beef)industry rather than our grassroots purpose to feed people with consciousness and respect.

[kato]

The main message consumers need to get is that the independent family farm is the one thing standing between a future where all their food is either imported or produced in those factory farms they are so disturbed by.

Do they want their beef produced by salaried employees hired by corporations who want to produce cheap at any cost, using whatever means necessary with no regard for anything past the next quarter's profit statement? By corporations who take the profits out of the rural economy, or even out of the country?

Or do they want their beef produced by people who live on the same land their cattle live on, and have a personal stake in the future of that land, and those cows? People who take the money from their operations and spend it locally, and keep it in the country?

It's their choice. It's our job to let them know that they have a choice.