Another interesting article

[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.

[cpallett]

burnt my brother, be careful what you wish for:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/763791--tar-sands-snubbed-by-green-retailers

[burnt]

The article had not escaped my attention. Neither did the following quotation:

"But in announcing its oil sands ban, Whole Foods acknowledged the move is easier said than done. The company will avoid unprocessed petroleum from the oil sands at nine of its 10 U.S. distribution centres.

But fuels derived from Alberta oil sands will continue to power Whole Foods trucks "in the Rocky Mountain region because as of now there is no alternative source," said Whole Foods spokeswomen Libba Letton.

So there we have a prime example of flowery and idealistic rhetoric obfuscating reality. They could truck fuel into that Rocky Mountain Region but it would cost too much.

Profit ahead of principle. Or, in simpler terms, blatant hypocrisy.

Green sounds great until it affects my wallet!

[burnt]

I'm sorry, the previous post should have had quotation mrks after the name Libba Letton to indicate the end of the quote.

[kato]

I was told by a CFIA inspector shortly after the border closed that Canada was told not to test. That's the info I got. I'm sure there were lots of justifications brought up after, but right off the hop we were told "no", according to him.

The main problem with shrinking the cow herd as I see it is that unlike years ago when we only supplied ourselves, now we only have two main places to bid on our fats. Back then there were a number of Canadian companies running, and there were options on where to sell.

If the numbers drop enough, I don't see Cargill sticking around to outbid their one competitor. With our higher costs and stricter regulations, the first time that plant needs an upgrade of any size, they'll either be pulling a corporate welfare stunt, or they'll be gone.

Where would that leave us?

[burnt]

Where would that leave us?

Exactly where rcalf wants us - extinct.

And we should be partnering with them?

[rkaiser]

Mr. Pallett - I guess you could have had a chat with the Japanese Investment group that we here "again" last fall looking to open the Ranchers Beef Plant at Balzac and left when the testing issue was once again poo pooed.

As Sherry says - distractions distractions --- let's get on with the lawsuit and spend the money wisely...

[kato]

I agree.

If we're going to see our cow herd shrink to national supply levels, we need to get some alternative processors up and running. Foreign markets are all fine and well, but if there is no beef to send to them, then what's the point? A bit of coin in the pockets could tide quite a few of us over until we got some new alternatives worked out.

[cpallett]

Sorry Randall, I missed that one. Thanks for the heads up.