South Korea Moves Closer To Allowing Beef From Canada.

[ASRG]

Well I guess you are just a more forgiving fellow than me! The thing that bugs me about the whole deal was guys like you and me paid the price for the screw up? The packers made out like bandits, the civil service grew, the ear tag boys found a whole source of revenue......and we picked up the tab!
I've never had a lot of use for the government for a lot of years. Somewhere along the way.....they lost their way! They quit working for the average joe and went to work for the big corporations.
I'm sure you've seen the NFU presentation on what happened to the cattle industry? That pretty well says it all? The same thing happened in our oil & gas sector.

[cpallett]

Fortunately lawsuits in this country are determined by a combination of evidence and the law. Speculation and opinion have little, if any, place in the mix.

In a lawsuit the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. That means that you have proven your point if the evidence presented in court satisfies the judge that it is more likely than not that your case is well-founded. More likely than not. Evidence. Important concepts.

For example, the OIE has confirmed that in 1992 there were just over 38,000 confirmed cases of BSE in Britain. Last year (2011) there were two. The feed ban worked. The overwhelming scientific evidence confirms that BSE is caused by a prion and is transmitted through contaminated feed. Opinions vary, but on the balance of probabilities and from a legal point of view there is no doubt that the prion theory is correct.

Never mind that the government has many times confirmed the prion theory of transmission and that the most likely source of infection in the cow that closed the borders on May 20, 2003 was pre feed-ban feed.

BTW, if the bar continues to serve a patron that is obviously inebriated they are indeed potentially liable for any damage caused by that patron upon leaving the bar. The potential consequences of continuing to serve an inebriated patron are reasonably foreseeable and thus the bar owner may be liable if those consequences occur. This is common sense.

What people forget, or perhaps never knew, is that eight Salers heifers born in England on the same farm within three weeks of each other in the summer of 1986 (embryonic implants), and all hand fed the same calf-starter ration containing MBM, were imported into Canada as a group in January 1987. This was before much was known about BSE, as it had only been officially described by Dr. George Wells of the MAFF in November 1986. The route of transmission of BSE was not determined until December 1987 at best. Perhaps the importing producer should be faulted for failing to be psychic?

The first case of BSE confirmed in North America (December 7, 1993) was one of these eight imported Salers. It was certainly reasonably foreseeable at that time that the other seven Salers cows were the highest risk animals for BSE in North America. In fact, it was foreseen as Agriculture Canada (as they were then known) immediately sought to locate and destroy the remaining seven animals. The Feds were able to locate and destroy five of these Salers.

The other two had been sent to routine slaughter and their rendered remains had entered the animal food chain. Including one animal that was slaughtered at the age of six years and three months, statistically an ideal age to be packed with prions. Agriculture Canada chose to take the position to all and sundry, including Canadian producers, that all was well and chose to ignore the obvious threat posed by these two Salers, as well as 78 other imported British cattle that had gone to routine slaughter (66) or entered the rendering vats whole (12) in the previous four years.

A lost paper clip is not the same thing as a lost thermonuclear warhead. The bomb may not go off, but as the watchdog who has undertaken the safety of cattle feed, was the government free to ignore it? There's the rub. From December 1993 at the very least the BSE crisis in Canada was certainly foreseeable.

For those who wonder whether the Feds had actually taken on the responsibility to keep Canad BSE-free, it is probably best to use their own words:
"The purpose of the Feeds Regulations is to monitor and control all livestock feed used in Canada, to ensure that it is safe, wholesome and properly labelled so that consumers and livestock producers are protected against potential health hazards from residues and contaminants in livestock products, and against fraud in marketing."

For those who would like to blame the politicians, the evidence indicates that the Minister of Agriculture was never told about the missing Salers entering the human and animal food chain in Canada. Ooops. Tough to make an informed decision without the necessary, and indeed critical, information now isn't it?

Iain, does your get out of liability free card extend to the government when the professional public servants cover up their mistakes from the politicians? Accountability anyone? Yes, Minister makes an entertaining TV show, but when it becomes reality it may well be time for the courts to intervene.

Now I realize that this forum is all about free association proselytizing (there's one for you Randy) but I would respectfully remind all and sundry that the BSE class action will be decided upon evidence and law, not opinion. The evidence (over 75,000 documents) and the law indicate a very good chance of success indeed.

Nothing is ever certain in a lawsuit, but given that our record on my appearances in contested court battles so far is seven wins and one tie (with one decision on reserve), it may be fair to say that the judges who have had the benefit of weighing the evidence and the law are taking this thing very seriously indeed.

[kato]

grassfarmer, there was much more to it than that.

There was a study done on the potential consequences of that first cow. It's conclusions were prophetic. It listed everything that could happen if we had BSE in this country, as well as the odds of it happening.

EVERYTHING HAPPENED. (except the loss of confidence by the Canadian consumers in our beef. Thank you consumers!)

They put it away and ignored it. They knew what would happen. They knew the odds of it happening. They still did nothing.

That fits the definition of negligence.

neg·li·gence [neg-li-juhns] noun

1.the quality, fact, or result of being negligent; neglect: negligence in discharging one's responsibilities.


2.Law . the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.

[kato]

Thanks Mr. P. Seems we're online at the same time. I pushed the submit button to find your response was up.

[littledoggie]

Another thing - was it ever considered that the EQUIPMENT used for manufacturing feed was permantly contaminated? Did we see any of the feed manufacturers have to destroy any of their EQUIPMENT? Trucks and tractor buckets were considered as a possible carrier of the infective agent. So why wasn't the EQUIPMENT at the feed manufacturers?

Thank you cpallett for posting comments on this forum. I wish more professionals would post comments when things needed clarification. I believe that gov't and producer organizations are missing out on providing good information by not participating in this forum, which I'm sure many producers read.

[cpallett]

The Feds finally brought in a ruminant feed ban in August 1997 (effective October 1997). The problem is that this feed ban was based on the British July, 1988 model, before the Brits realized the problems associated with cross-contamination affecting feed manufacturing lines and assorted equipment.

The Brit feed ban that finally addressed these problems (and the issue of cross-feeding) which has resulted in the very near eradication of BSE in Britain was enacted in Britain in March of 1996. So why was our 1997 feed ban based on the older, unsuccessful 1988 model when the British experience had taught that it did not work?

In July 2007 the Feds finally enacted a feed ban based on the British 1996 model. I am not aware that any serious efforts were made before that time to ensure that cross-contamination and cross-feeding possibilities were addressed.

Yes, we have included these issues in our allegations of negligence.

[rkaiser]

Hay there little doggie. Have you ever been to St Paul Alberta. The plant in question that belonged to Feed Rite disappeared in to thin air very shorty after they were named in the law suit. They bailed and put about 6 million into the kitty to have their name removed from the suit.

Yer right Iain, it is not the fault of the average taxpayer, but government employees screwed up and even if we were to simply find the few that screwed up and ask them to pay you and me and the rest of the producers of this country back for their errors and our losses, we could only afford an ice cream cone each --- maybe...

[burnt]

Perhaps what galls me the worst is that some seem willing to give a free pass to those government "food safety" employees who didn't do their job!

Do you not realize that by removing any accountability you are implicitly asking them to screw up again? Maybe even worse next time?

So while their laxity caused a big sector of agriculture a lot of money, think of how much worse it would be if their next screw-up cost a lot of lives!

Would those same pollyannas still say "oh what the heck, everybody makes mistakes" if it was their wife/child/parent that paid the ultimate cost for government negligence?

Talk about whistling through the graveyard!

There is only one way to drive home the message of accountability - we are doing it - and for that reason, I think that names should be named and consequences be applied accordingly and judiciously.

[cpallett]

Brother burnt,

Perhaps what galls me the most is that many husbands and fathers DID pay the ultimate price for the negligence of paid public officials. In order to keep the farms that had been in their families for generations a number of producers took their own lives so that their farms and families could benefit from the insurance proceeds. Not funny. Not funny at all.

To now give those responsible a free pass on the basis that the poor taxpayers will have to foot the bill at the end of the day is not in me. Too many forget that the negligence of the few has already cost us poor taxpayers billions in lost tax revenue, not to mention the irreperable harm to the infrastructure of cattle production in this country.

Not to mention the increadible stress, lost investments, lost hopes, lost dreams, lost opportunities for education, advancement, happy retirement, etc. destroyed by the BSE crisis. Not in me to let the immense suffering created by the negligence of a few self-important incompetents pass uncompensated. Not in me at all.

[grassfarmer]

The way I see it at the end of the day there are no
absolutes - there are no rights and wrongs only
opinions. Our society is build on our Government
and judiciary "being right" and being the authority
but as far as I can see judges are just forming
opinions based on the evidence presented to them.
Government officials form opinions on issues and
take actions accordingly.
I don't see Government as "them" Government is
"us", the people, they were elected by us and
represent us and they are mere mortals like the rest
of us and do make mistakes.
I'm more of a forward looking person than a
backward looking one - I'm more interested in what
we can do to prevent future problems. I see nobody
addressed my concern about a future FMD outbreak
and what action the Government is taking to try and
prevent that and how that action is being met by
producer and producer organization opposition.
Anyone care to comment on that?