Meeting with Cam Ostercamp

[whiteface]

I liked your comparison, jensend, saying how some guys will say its too dry to seed and then waiting until all you've got is a cheaper crop rather than taking initiative to get the best possible crop. Thanks for the support, too, I took a chance at making some enemies with my comments but I want what everyone wants, a viable market for our product and a reason to stay in business. I will lobby whoever it takes to get us what we need and hopefully encourage some of my new friends here to do the same. :-)

[kato]

Whiteface..your comments are an indication of the frustration that is building in all of us day by day.

This is the kind of emotion we need our politicians to see. I have a feeling that they feel they have thrown us a bone, and we'll curl up in the corner like the good farm dogs we are, and leave the grownups to decide the election.

(Besides a good rant does help relieve the pressure a bit. I've been know to toss one out myself from time to time.)

Speaking of farm dogs, even if we are barking up the wrong tree by demanding testing, at least we can go to bed at night knowing that we at least TRIED.

Maybe we won't get universal testing, but at the very least we need rules that do not stopping individual companies from doing it if they so wish.

Having the ability to test the cattle, and pursue new markets could make a big difference between any new plant being seen as viable or not. In the business climate as it is, the future looks tough for anyone trying to get going, even for an optomist.

rsomer, don't quit saying what you're saying. We need all sides of the argument here. It's in an environment where the debating is lively where the good ideas develop.

Maybe we can egg each other on until we come up with something absolutely brilliant.

[kato]

Hey kato. I just printed off your points that you would like to make at the Beef Initiatives Group meeting but would like to ask if you would put a name and location on this paper.
I don't think kato from (maybe) Manitoba is gonna do it.
rpkaiser@telusplanet.net
Randy Kaiser (403) 946 - 0228
Any body else have any long distance requests?

[grassfarmer]

Good comments whiteface, jensend, kato et all. I think we really have to help ourselves out of this one, we've waited long enough for our illustrious leaders (beef industry and political ones)to do something. It's a bad time to find out you are devoid of leadership! I'll post another thread about something I think we should be doing with regard to ABP/CCA.

[pandiana]

rsomer, I was interested in your comment that because we were a party to the NAFTA we would not be allowed to go to 100% testing. How do you come to understand this? I am not that familiar with the fine print but can't see how this would apply.

[pandiana]

How's the bus seating availability up there in Hardisty Purecountry.
Buses make a nice backdrop for the camera crews that will be there.

[rsomer]

Canadian foreign policy seeks to advance Canadian security, economic, and similar interests by ensuring that, where the conduct of other states may affect Canadians, international rules and regimes provide the basis for that conduct. To advance that goal, the federal government concludes numerous multilateral, regional, and bilateral agreements every year. Canada has become a charter member of virtually all of the international organizations and conventions that have flourished since the second world war. All these agreements constitute limits upon independent decision-making by Canadian governments, in return for stability, predictability, and accountability in the conduct of other governments. To that extent we have given up some of our sovereignty.

As whiteface so eloquently put it "They can shove their science right up their ##@@$" That maybe feels good to say that but we cannot expect other countries to use science based rule making if we do not. 100% testing is not science based. As a medium power and a trading nation we need to stick to the science if we are to continue to trade globally. If we give in to politically motivated protectionism in the guise of consumerism the list of unreasonable trade restrictions will never end. Any country could restrict trade by claiming its consumers have concerns about BSE or growth implants or ingrown toenails. Meanwhile those same countries would expect Canada to contine accepting their imports, for instance Japan.

Canada's Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Lyle Vanclief, US Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, and Mexican Secretary of Agriculture Javier Usabiaga have jointly called on the Organisation of International Epizootics (OIE) to encourage a more current practical, risk-based approach to BSE. The joint letter requests that the International Animal Health Code Commission of the OIE begin the dialogue necessary to develop more current practical, science-based guidelines relevant to BSE risk management. We cannot take this approach before the OIE as part of NAFTA and then say oh well, Japan wants us to test 100% so lets just forget science based guidelines.

If you stop and think about just how unreasonable Japan is being maybe it would help. Canada has surveillance tested literally tens of thousands of animals and we found one animal that was born before the ban on feeding ruminant protein was put in place. Japan immediately closes the border to all our beef but suggests they might let some in if we test every animal for BSE because that is what they do, even though they did not have a ban on feeding ruminant protein like North America did. All the while Japan knows full well that animals under 24 months of age have never tested positive for BSE so what is the point. Why isn’t Japan allowing in boneless beef under 30 or 24 months of age? Meanwhile they are importing beef without test from Australia, a country that only BSE tests 500 head a year and restricts downer cows from slaughter plants. Something tells me that there is more to this than food safety.

[rsomer]

If I may say something further that seems to have gotten completely overlooked in this discussion. I am very concerned that a call from producers for 100% testing will get misinterpreted by the media to say that there is something wrong with our beef, not that we need to get borders open to trade. We have enjoyed such tremendous support from the Canadian consumers and for that matter the American consumers who have expressed no concerns about eating our product that we take this support for granted. I would be all for a rally in High River if the message was to thank consumers for supporting our industry or to pressure our governments to do more to open our border with the U.S. and certainly if the message was we need government to really get behind the immediate construction of more packing plants in Canada. But the message that producers think their beef is not safe is much more news worthy and that is the message you will see on the 6:00 news if producers gather and call for 100% testing. Things are never so bad they cannot be made worse. That is where this is headed. 100% testing is the wrong message to bring before the media.

[whiteface]

While I appreciate you cool headed rationale as to why the governments have done (seemingley to us) diddly squat about this situation, I fail to see how having simply a "rally" to thank consumers and "encourage" government support for new packing plants is going to get us one step closer to what we need. I'm wondering the same thing as pandiana, how does NAFTA stop us from 100% testing and can we use that same reason to shut off 100% of their energy...of course its unreasonable and now requires some unreasonable retaliation on our part. If I have come across as unreasonable its because this has gone beyond any thing other than that. I like katos comparison also, that we're supposed to behave like the good ol' farm dogs they are used to us being. Can we stop being good dogs finally and do something, anything different because what we have been doing is not working at all. Hows your feed rsomer, can you afford to feed those calves you held over indefinatly, how about this years crop? You may be in better shape than some of us but you too need something to happen and begging and pleading hasn't got you any further than any of us, time for new action. Nothing is so bad it can't be made worse? I seriously ask you what would be worse? Delayed border opening? People changeing their diets to avian flu or pesticide laced or genetically modified vegetables and boycotting beef? I think if this situation were to "get more serious" we could get this whole border issue right off the table and then maybe tackle this problem head on. BSE is out there and needs to be dealt with and now is as good a time as any for CANADA to make some of its own decisions for a change maybe earn back some respect rather than just being the good ol' boys that have a reputaion for not saying @#$%# even if our mouths are full of it.

[kato]

We need to predicate every request for testing with "We believe that according to science, 100% testing is unnecessary, and agree with that...BUT... our industry is about to collapse, and we must do whatever it takes to save it."

This request for testing is a sign of how desperate things have begun, and if that's what it takes to rattle some chains, then so be it.

If we all lived by "science" all the time, and not just when it suits us, the border would never have been closed.

In the Animal Health Code, which is available on the WTO website, it states that according to our situation, where we have had a feed ban and surveillance system in place, the ONLY cattle not eligible for export are cattle born before the feed ban.

How come everything WE do must be based on science, yet the rest of the world picks and chooses which science to live by?

Something stinks here, and it's not just a wet feedlot.

[jensend]

something else that needs to be said rsomer is that we're not disregarding the science by 100% testing - we're going beyond it to absolute safety. i don't think putting it that way is going to panic the general public especially if it is presented in tandem with the economic effects across a broad part of the whole agricultural economy. why allow people of the jewish faith to insist on kosher slaughter and treatment of beef if there's no scientific justification? the japanese insistence on testing is at least partly rooted in concern for safety and with the changing science they may be well ahead of us in determining prudent methods of food handling.

[rsomer]

Chapter Seven: Agriculture and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures has two sets of bilateral market access agreements (a Canada-Mexico Agreement and a US-Mexico Agreement). The three countries have agreed to general provisions covering domestic policies and programs that provide support to farmers, export-subsidies, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures that affect trade in agricultural products. Market access for agricultural products between Canada and the United States is governed by the provisions of the FTA.

Special rules set out in Article 2015 of Chapter 20 permit the use of Scientific Review Boards to address factual issues related to environmental, safety, health or conservation measures. In any panel proceeding, the Board is selected by the panel from among highly qualified, independent experts in the scientific matters at issue. The model rules of procedure will set out the procedures by which a panel will select the board. The disputing parties will have full opportunity to comment on the issues to be put to the board and on the board's report to the panel.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 2005, Chapter 20 set out special rules regarding certain environmental and health matters. In any dispute where the defending Party claims that its action comes within the terms of Article 104 (Relation to Environmental and Conservation Agreements), or where the dispute arises under chapter seven-B (sanitary and phytosanitary measures) or chapter nine (standards-related measures) concerning a measure which is both adopted for the protection of life, health or the environment in the defending Party's territory and which raises factual scientific issues concerning the environment, health, safety or conservation, the defending Party may bring the dispute to NAFTA dispute settlement.

Beyond NAFTA Canada has signed many bilateral trade agreements, all of which depend upon science based rule making to govern trade.

Kato: I agree with your comments. I really do. If we are going to use the "but" word I would say "but" we need to be aware that by lobbying for 100% testing that public will interpret that as our meat is not safe not we need to open borders. The media are not our friends, they feed off of sensationalism. Yes we desperately need the border to open "but" we also need to maintain our consumer’s confidence. Our meat is guaranteed safe because we remove all SRMs "but" will the public understand that if we keep saying we should be testing 100%. Yes we need to lobby government "but" there is no way they are going to budge on the 100% testing issue. The U.S. is playing with a double edged sword when they deny access to our product "but" want other countries to use science when trading with them. One last "but". "But" Canada cannot support sensationalism and protectionism by catering to the unfair demands of other trading partners. We have to stick to the science.

Whiteface: You are right, I cannot hang on indefinitely. This needs to be over and soon. If we were to loose our consumers confidence it really would be worse. I would like to see this issue tackled head on by demanding action on packing plants. I have suggested government financing or loan guarantees. There is no consumer backlash from that, there is no NAFTA or other trade sanctions involved with that. It is something we really can do and with a little push it could happen. The testing issue will evolve but Canada cannot push the agenda. Lets focus on what we can accomplish, a packing plant industry in Canada. 100% testing raises far too many concerns with no hope of opening any borders.

Jensend: If the Japanese demands of 100% testing were related to food safety they would be demanding 100% testing of all imports including Australia. Remember testing will not detect BSE in any animal under 24 months of age so where is the justification in asking for it. 100% is not only way beyond science it goes all the way to nonsense.

[rsomer]

Wow rsomer. Now you have gotten to the point of calling this meeting "potential for disaster".
Come out and tell the media and everyone else that the border needs to be open (once again). Or come out and tell everyone how you are 100% behind the bogus sceince of the day, and that every country in the world should agree with you and the United States and Bob Speller. How can you keep ignoring that people have other opinions than your own.
Why don't you start another thread about how this meeting will cause a negative impact on society if we try to insist on testing to open new markets.
I am so upset with your comment about negative impact that I can barely sit in my chair.
I can't beleive that garbage about following rules can come from the obvious intellegent mind of a man like yourself. There are no rules, except for Canadians, and the so called rules that there are are coined after a bungled catastrophe in the UK and one egotistical scientist named Prusiner. I bet you have never had the guts to read Mark Purdey's theory about the NON INFECTIOUS cause of BSE, or have not studied it for the substance it holds. Neither have any other Canadian officials, or ego gushing intellectuals who don't want somebody different to be smarter than them.
Maybe your blaming Japan for following a non scientific route is your own pigheaded mind not allowing any sceintific theory other than one in.
Maybe we should all follow the route of depopulating the cattle industry because of a theory with no room for challenge. Or maybe, just maybe the Japanese have got this thing figured out and know that it will take years to change the world's notions about the hyperinfectious theory of BSE, and are using RULES to protect their government from collapsing due to comsumer backlash.
Your theory on our consumer backlash will be led by people like yourself, not by us. People who will not move off of this bull shit infectious theory.
People who would rather scare the comsumer than work them though this.
People to proud to admit that someone else may be right.
Keep it up rsomer, I beleive you are actually helping our cause with your childish narrow focused offering.

[jensend]

australia is still bse free. puts them in a different category from either japan or canda or the us or most of the world. we have bse - let's deal with it. this state of denial where we attempt to say black is really just dark grey has gone on long enough.

[jensend]

nonsense is verbose justification of watching the world leave us behind.