The Creekstone deal?

[grassfarmer]

I don't doubt there is a "natural source" of BSE and someone will identify it someday. I assume the tribe of cannibals mentioned were the ones in Papua, New Guinea. Mark Purdey has visited there and was interested to find that although cannibilism took place among many of the island tribes only one tribe had a high incidence of CJD (That is the original human CJD not the "varient" CJD that has been spuriously linked to BSE. He was interested to find that they used metallic food bowls made out of the fuselage of downed aircraft from WW2. He found these metals plane parts contained high levels of the specific elements he suspects of causing BSE in cattle.

[nerves]

grassfarmer very interesting I heard a dentist talking on the radio a while back about magnesium poisoning and how people working in a mine in Austalia developed symptoms simular to mad cow. They had another name for it I don"t remember, but he seemed to think it could very well be realated. He also mention what you had just stated.

[rsomer]

Skeeter: Your comments are right on. Testing does not make beef any safer.

The issue is not food safety because our beef is safe. How do we know it is safe? Because the same people that pointed out the possible, underline possible, link between BSE and CJD also tell us that North American is taking the necessary steps to ensure a safe beef supply . Those people are the scientists. Producers, consumers, and governments cannot on the one hand choose to believe that there is a potential link between BSE and CJD and then disregard advice from the same people when they say North American beef is safe. Our beef is safe, period.

Companies like Creekstone are only interested in their bottom line. Countries like Japan are equally only interested in their political agenda. The United States takes second place to no one when it comes to protecting their own interests. And the beef producer is at the bottom of all this mess.

Yes our beef industry is beat up pretty bad and like a whipped puppy is cowering and willing to do anything the bullies tell us. But now, more than ever, is the time we need to stick to our guns. And in this fight the science is our "guns". If we throw down our guns, put our hands in the air and say don’t shoot we will test our beef don’t be surprised if the Japanese shoot us anyway because the issue never was food safety.

As an industry, beef producers have to stick with the science or we will be at the mercy of any government, any group, or even company like Creekstone that sees their interests advanced by raising unfounded allegations about our beef product.

[cakadu]

rsomer I can certainly understand and agree with your points and wonder when it will actually stop.

Domestically, I don't see consumers rushing out en masse to demand that the beef be tested. In fact, from what I see just the opposite is true. They are supporting their beef industry by buying more. What the reasons are for the increase in consumption are likely quite varied - Dr. Atkins be praised for some of it I suppose.

We have all kinds of tests these days that tell us our predisposition to certain cancers, hodgkins etc.. I asked the dr. about it and he said one should get tested only if they are prepared to deal with the results. He told me that people have to ask themselves how it will affect the quality of their lives knowing that they carry these genes. It doesn't necessarily mean that you will get it, just that you are predisposed.

The Japanese test because they covered it up and consumer confidence was completely eroded - they had no choice but to do it.

I am not saying that we should be for or against testing - just that we need to decide how we are going to deal with the results. Will it be something that is welcomed by consumers and purchasers of our products or will it do harm in the sense that the more we find (potentially) the more at risk people feel? It makes sense to test only if we know specifically what to look for and once we do test, we are prepared to deal with the results.

[rsomer]

I just received this clip from Animalnet. U.S. and Canada have similar positions vis a vis testing and the NCBA comments pasted below are equally relevant for Canada and Canadian beef producers.

NCBA statement: Trade negotiations and private testing issues
April 19, 2004
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Jan Lyons, Kansas Cattle Producer and NCBA President
http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content.cfm?locationId=45&contentTypeId=2&cont entId=2603
“On behalf of America’s beef producers, we believe it is critically important the U.S. government retain oversight for animal health and food safety, as well as international trade negotiations as we try to regain access to export markets that closed to U.S. beef after the December 23 discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). The recent debate over private testing for BSE as a marketing tool continues to disrupt government-to-government discussions on restoring trade for U.S. beef, impose economic stress on our cattlemen and undermine consumer confidence in a safe product.
“We cannot compromise the science that serves as the basis for food safety and global trade of safe food. A departure from science-based decision making would create a precedent for future regulations and trade demands that would negatively impact U.S. cattlemen without protecting public or animal health.
“Testing of all cattle is not scientifically justified. The world’s leading experts in animal health and risk analysis, including the World Organization for Animal Health and the USDA’s International Review Team, have agreed that testing all cattle does not provide additional protection for consumers. The International Review Team report commissioned by USDA states, ‘the subcommittee considers testing of all cattle slaughtered for human consumption to be unjustified in terms of protecting human and animal health.’ The multiple firewalls erected over the past 15 years to protect our food supply from this disease – including the feed ban, surveillance system and removal of specified risk material from the food supply – ensures we continue to produce safe beef for consumers here and abroad.
“Internationally recognized scientific standards must be the guidepost for food safety and trade decisions. Allowing private companies to use testing as a “marketing” tool, before the government first establishes the framework for trade based upon science, will place undue costs on cattlemen without producing additional protections for consumers and our animal herds. Resources spent on this unwarranted effort will take resources away from efforts that do improve the safety of our food supply and the health of our cattle.
“Testing is not a simple marketing decision that will only impact those who decide to surrender to this unjustified request in order to gain access to export markets. Japan did not ban beef just from one company. It banned all beef from the United States. If one market requires 100 percent testing, all cattle in the U.S. would have to follow this standard because products from the majority of cattle harvested in the United States are exported. This unwarranted testing would become the standard for doing business, and the cost will be born by U.S. cattle producers. This is a decision that affects the entire industry. Therefore, it is critical the U.S. government establish the parameters by which U.S. beef can be exported.
“Furthermore, the U.S. beef industry is the largest sector of agriculture and one of the largest sectors of the U.S. economy. The use of sensitive BSE testing methods without adequate security and oversight raises the real risk that rumors of potential false-positives would negatively impact the nation’s economy and unnecessarily alarm consumers, risking thousands of jobs and billions of dollars. Cattlemen don’t need to relive December 23 due to an unchecked rumor.
“America’s beef producers are committed to producing the safest beef in the world. The beef we produce is not only served in homes around the world, it’s served in our own homes to our own families. That’s why we strongly support a targeted BSE testing program that tests older animals and those in high-risk categories that are susceptible to this disease. We simply want science to establish the standard for international trade.”

[cowman]

rsomer: I find it amazing that you continue to support the American gospel on "science" when in fact they disregard that very science. I think you might agree they don't practice what they preach? Because if they did the border would have been open to Canadian cattle a long time ago?
I continue to be amazed by American two faced approach to just about everything in the world. Why is there one set of rules for America and another set for everyone else? Why can America impose its will on just about everything while they blatantly break all the rules?
A clear example would be nuclear weapons. Why is it that America can tell other countries they can't have nuclear weapons and yet America can? Lets not forget the only country in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons on people was America!

[cowman]

Cowman;;; easy does it. This American stuff you talk of is starting to sound a bit like anti Islam, or anti Hutterite or something. The problem we all have with not agreeing with a country's policy is in not agreeing with the country itself.

I've heard Bush defined as a radical Christian fundamentalist and sometimes I wonder. His axis of evil, and devil type talk has fueled a lot of hate between countries when almost all situations simply involve the radicals themselves. Ask the Dali Lama; humans are generally kind and peaceful ,, he says.

Is Rcalf our axis of evil, or are they just a bunch of farmers trying to survive, just like us.
I am as much of a hipocrite as the next guy so don't get me wrong. I'm not only trying to tame some of your comments, but my thoughts as well...

[cowman]

Well RKaiser I'm not anti American, just pro fairness? And the fact is America doesn't play very fair? With anybody? Be that as it may, the American farmer/rancher is no different than any of us here? They want the same things we do...to make a living and get a decent return on their money?
What does R-calf want that is so radical? They want to keep out cheap imports(Canada)...is that so wrong? Would we be all standing up and applauding if Canada allowed in a bunch of cheap Brazilian calves? Would we be giving little speeches about competition and let the best man win?
I have nothing against R-calf people...they are doing what they need to do to survive...but I do have a problem with the American government standing up and trying to tell the world they MUST play by their rules when they continue to break those very rules in regard to Canada! We were supposed to have a deal? NAFTA? Now how would you feel if you had a deal with your neighbor...say you agreed to share the cost of a combine...and he kept trying to screw you? Maybe expected you to do all the repairs, never let you use it when you needed to, never paid his part of the loan? Would you be real happy with him?....Isn't that what NAFTA has become?

[cowman]

It's all in the words cowman. Separating the American Government from the American people, did it for me. I agree with your above noted comments.

[jensend]

r-calf is no different from our dairy or poultry producers. no imports and they say they'll sacrifice the exports to have a protected market.

[rsomer]

cowman, you said "What does R-calf want that is so radical? They want to keep out cheap imports(Canada)...is that so wrong? Would we be all standing up and applauding if Canada allowed in a bunch of cheap Brazilian calves?"

Well actually R-Calf’s position is very wrong. Like it or not there is a established trading relationship between Canada and the U.S. Canada does not have the same trading relationship with Brazil. The comparison is not valid. Consider these facts:

United States-Canada Trade Flows Add up to $1.2 Billion Per Day:
The two-way flow of goods, services and income between Canada and the United States constitutes the largest bilateral economic relationship in the world.
In 2001, U.S. transactions with Canada reached $445 billion, an average of $1.2 billion per day. The U.S. exchange with Canada was worth 61% more than its second largest trading relationship, with Mexico.

Canada Buys Nearly a Quarter of All U.S. Exports of Goods:
In 2001, the United States sold $163 billion worth of goods to Canada.
Canada, with a population less than one-ninth the size of that of the United States, bought an average of $5,254 worth of U.S. goods per capita. The United States bought $219 billion worth of Canadian merchandise, approximately $768 for every American.
Canada bought more U.S. goods than all 15 countries of the European Union combined and more than all of Latin America and the Caribbean.
In 2001, U.S. exports to the province of Ontario alone were worth almost twice as much as those to Japan.

The United States Has Sold More Goods to Canada Than to Any Other Country in Each of the Last 56 Years:
Historically, Canada has been the leading foreign export market for U.S. goods. U.S. merchandise exports to Canada have consistently exceeded exports to other countries by wide margins. In the past 20 years, U.S. merchandise exports to Canada have quadrupled.

In 2001, Canada was the leading export market for 37 of the 50 states.

The United States Has a Surplus in Services Trade with Canada:
The United States leads the world in the export of services, ranging from computer software, to transportation, to professional expertise.
Canada continues to be a top customer, with purchases of $24 billion in 2001. U.S. exports of services to Canada rose by 3% over the previous year, while its exports to the world fell by 4%.
Canada provided the United States with $18 billion worth of services in 2001.
In recent years, the United States has consistently posted a surplus in services trade with Canada, while Canada has recorded a surplus in the exchange of goods.

U.S.-Canada Trade Has More Than Doubled Under the FTA and NAFTA:
The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) liberalizing trade between Canada and the United States went into effect January 1, 1989. Between 1988 and 1993, the two-way exchange of goods, services and income increased by one-third.
The agreement was expanded in 1994 when Mexico joined the partnership under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Trade between Canada and the United States has continued to flourish, growing by 50% between 1994 and 2001.

Canada Ranks Second in U.S. Investment Abroad:
Investment — both inflows and outflows — is a key contributor to job creation and international competitiveness.
In 2001, a record $25 billion in new direct investment flowed into Canada from the United States. The total U.S. stock in Canada at the end of the year amounted to $139 billion.
The United States is by far the largest foreign source of capital in Canada, accounting for 67% of the total stock. This represented 10% of all U.S. direct investment abroad.
The bulk of U.S. investment in Canada, 39%, was in the manufacturing industries, led by transportation, which made up 10% of the total. Finance, insurance and real estate together accounted for 27%, and petroleum for 17%.

Canada Led New Foreign Investment in the United States in 2001:
Canadian investors spent almost $17 billion to acquire or establish businesses in the United States, more than any other country invested.
Half of all Canadian direct investment abroad is in the United States. At the end of 2001, Canada had an accumulated total of $109 billion invested there, 8% of all foreign direct investment in the United States. Almost 37% was in the manufacturing sector, led by machinery firms with 15% of the total. Finance, insurance and real estate accounted for another 36%, and service industries for 5%.

More Than Half of All U.S. Automotive Exports Go to Canada:
Canada and the United States are involved in an integrated and mutually profitable trade in automobiles, trucks and auto parts. In 2001, transportation equipment accounted for almost a third of both U.S. merchandise exports to and imports from Canada. U.S. manufacturers sold over $23 billion in motor vehicle parts, engines and engine parts, and $13 billion worth of automobiles and trucks to Canada. The United States bought $40 billion worth of autos and trucks and $14 billion in parts and engines from Canada.
U.S. exports to Canada also included $12 billion in high-tech equipment, in particular, $6 billion worth of computers and $2 billion worth of tubes and semi-conductors. The United States supplied Canada with a variety of other goods, including $8 billion in agricultural products, $3 billion in pharmaceuticals, $2 billion in organic chemicals and $2 billion in paper.

Canada Is the United States' Leading Foreign Source of Energy:
Canada's energy exports to the United States totalled $35 billion in 2001. Exports included $17 billion in natural gas, $10 billion in crude petroleum, and $6 billion in petroleum and coal products. In addition, Canada supplied close to 100% of U.S. electricity imports, worth $2 billion.
Canadian forest product exports amounted to $20 billion and included $6 billion in softwood lumber and $5 billion in newsprint. The United States also purchased $8 billion in airplanes, their engines and parts; $4 billion in aluminum and aluminum alloys; and $3 billion in office machines.


So, tell me again. What is so wrong with R-Calf wanting to keep out Canadian beef.

[cowman]

Now that is an impressive list and speaks volumes about how from a financial perspective we might as well be one country...providing we could put up with some of Americas more bizarre ideas such as guns, drug laws, wars, capital punishment, and general dog eat dog attitude.
However I suspect your average cow guy in America couldn't care less? All he's doing is trying to make a living?
Now maybe that is an ignorant way to look at things but probably fairly realistic?
And I find it interesting, rsomer, that you are all for "science" ruling the day on BSE but not so keen on the "science" of blue tongue and the other one! After all didn't the ABP/CCA and the American cattle organizations get the Canadian border open using the "science" argument? And didn't our government say yes this is the "science" so we'll let American feeder cattle in? So why would you reject one and accept the other? Do you know something all the "scientists" don't know?