Another interesting article

[Willowcreek]

Kato-- what I'm saying- and I think Sheri is saying is that the cattlemen/producers of both countries face essentially the same problems with the multinational packers/retailers-- captive supply, packer ownership, no competition, etc. etc.- and that we stand little chance of winning it- and none if we don't join together in the battle...As they use us back and forth against each other...

And as the packers have shown us before- if someone starts winning against them- they just go somewhere else to source their product- be it Australia or S.A. or whereever...That is the reason they are fighting so hard against M-COOL.

And without M-COOL in both countries- we can't even get help from our consumers because they have no way of identifying where the product they are buying comes from...

[cpallett]

Tough to argue with you OT, as that is what I have been saying for over 5 years now. You may recall that R-CALF was fighting hard to keep the border closed at that time and Judge Cebull was going along with the gag. If you are prepared to forego your R-CALF membership, or guarantee that R-CALF will keep their fire downrange from now on, you might actually gain a little credibility on this side of the border. Until then, however, it appears from here to be BS as usual:

'“We believe Canada’s subsidies on beef and cattle constitute an artificial propping-up of a Canadian cattle industry that is unsustainable at its present size but for those government subsidies, and further we believe that Canada’s subsidies are inconsistent with the very World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that Canada claims the U.S. has violated vis-à-vis COOL,” explained R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.'

Now why in the world would any self-respecting Canadian cattle producer run off and partner with a member of an organization that will stab them in the back the very microsecond their back is turned? A lifetime of habit is not unlearned easily, and R-CALF makes its living primarily from attacking Canada and Canadian producers.

You want credibility? Show me your NCBA card, and then we'll talk.

[TheBadger]

The NCBA?
Canadian producers need the likes of the NCBA as much as they need to fly to the moon.

R-Calf is anti NAFTA, anti free-trade agreements and any other measure they see as being
detrimental to American cattle producers.
And believe me, based on the reactions of the many producers I spoke to recently in regards to
American beef being sold in Canadian grocery stores, had this same shoe been on the other
foot, there's be an equal reaction north of the border.

What would be interesting, however, is a new organization without the baggage and history that
is formed first by auction houses and producers in our border towns and states.

I am especially hopeful Canadians will pay attention to the USDA and DOJ sessions on
competition and profit distribution issues specifically related to agriculture and particularly,
livestock, which are being held this year.

You cannot point to any one factor which is killing this industry. I think of it like AIDS, or for the
honey bee keepers out there, colony collapse disorder. Defenses are down and we're being killed
by any and every disease out there now.

[cpallett]

"On March 29, 1996 in the United States a joint statement was issued by the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, American Sheep Industry Association, National Milk Producers Association, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Bovine Practitioners and the Association of American
Veterinary Colleges announcing that they would immediately establish an
aggressive, voluntary program to ensure that ruminant MBM was not used in ruminant feed products." (paragraph 67 from BSE class action claim)

Granted, the fact that the NCBA was right once certainly does not guarantee credibility, but that was a big one and we should have listened. Colours my view just a touch.

[TheBadger]

Perhaps, but my that same 14-year-old value
system, a card from any of those organizations
should therefore impress you equally.

In 1996, I was 19 years old. Since then, I have
completed college, married, divorced, married,
bought cattle, had two children, sold cattle, worked
in all aspects of media, started a newspaper and if
history is any indicator, will likely divorce again
(news is like policing – they share high divorce
rates)

But, as you can see, a lot can happen in 14 years.
Including the merger of the National Cattlemen's
Association with the Meat Board – seen as the
packers' representation – which also happened in
1996.

And if the NCBA had anything resembling balls,
someone would be asking why Canada and the U.S.
were the only countries in the entire world who
experienced BSE that refused to blanket-test cattle
for BSE as a consumer confidence builder.

Things that make you go hmmmmm, eh?

[kato]

There's a simple reason why no blanket testing in North America. Those in the U.S. who held the power were in denial, and those in Canada who held the power were intimidated.

It's just that simple. There were some powerful people in the background pulling strings for their own purposes. If Canada tested, and the Americans didn't then the suspicion held by pretty much everybody in the world that the U.S. was hiding from the truth would gain credibility. That wouldn't do, so we all pay the price.

If we had testing, this would all be over by now, and those new markets we've been fighting for would be open to us. But not to the Americans, since they've got the same reluctance facing them from places like Korea and China as we do. So, Canada was told not to test, because it wouldn't do for us to gain an advantage, would it?

These tactics are all designed to keep us dependent on the U.S. first, no matter what the rhetoric is about new markets. The Americans have no interest in competing with us for foreign markets. So if we all disappear, so much the better. It's not loss to them.

Which is why we need to start taking care of ourselves first for a change.

[cpallett]

Sheri, you go girl.

One of the main reasons for Canada not testing slaughter cattle for BSE is that we did not have a domestic consumer confidence problem. In a tremendous show of support for Canadian beef, domestic consumption actually rose following May 20, 2003.

Another reason was (and is) the fear of the potential effect of false positives on the market. We have a near miniscule numbers of BSE positive cattle (17 in 7 years) that cannot on any planet be construed as a food safety issue (in the UK, for example, the ratio of confirmed cases of BSE to confirmed cases of vCJD is about 1000:1).

Thirdly, no country affirmed that they would take Canadian cattle and beef if they were tested. Lots of talk and speculation, but no commitment.

Fourthly, and this is the one Shirley McClellan told me was the real kicker, the OIE refused to approve a test, so that any testing we might have done would have no international recognition status. We take the risk of false positives, and the international community ignores the results that the beef and/or cattle are BSE-free as it suits them. That doesn't sound like much of a deal to me.

As for the NCBA:

'“Easterday has long advocated for the non-disclosure of origin information on Canadian cattle and beef as they, along with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), previously filed a brief in opposition to R-CALF USA’s lawsuit against USDA that called for stronger import standards for cattle originating in Canada due to BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), including the requirement that all Canadian beef and cattle be marked with a country-of-origin label,” Bullard pointed out.'

If Bullard doesn't like Easterday Ranches or the NCBA, that goes a long way to making them likeable in my book. As the proverb goes: 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

[TheBadger]

Right, but remember throughout the ordeal – and
even now – foreign markets other than the U.S. are
key? BSE test kits are not reliable under 21 months
of age (I think that's the figure) – they have always
been purely a marketing tool, whether the market
was domestic or abroad.

There's an American outfit that took the USDA to
court for the right to test and won, but was the
verdict was later overturned.

And – I am not sure what the statistic is – but as I
recall, the false positive rate is negligible, as with
false pregnancy test results.
I guess I'll be researching that again – but perhaps
after my deadline which is fast approaching.
Man, I love a stimulating distraction, but I sure
can't afford them.

[burnt]

I guess if we are to shrink the cattle herd to meet only domestic consumption, the same would be true for petroleum product/oil production?

It certainly is not in our best interests to sell our oil away when there are those who believe that it is a commodity with a limited supply?

cpallett is correct. rcalf is a completely non-credible coalition of fools and liars who exist to serve only one purpose - to enrich themselves at all and any costs.

Anyone who feels inclined to partner with them is like one who feeds a vulture with a bare hand - you better check to see what you have left on the end of your arm when you are finished.

Or kinda like inviting a radical Muslim into the Marine Corps to help fight the Taliban.

[burnt]

Perhaps a test of the COOL group's sincerity in wanting to prove country of origin could be to post at the pumps the percentage of Canadian - sourced product in that tank of gas?

Can you see Americans refusing to fill their tank because the gasoline or diesel fuel came from Canada?

Think about the implications of that and then try to tell me that COOL isn't about protectionism.