What are the ramifications?

[farmers_son]

I don't want to be the next famous one either farers_son, but what the hell else are we going to do?
If we do not reach the goal of 38000 heads by December 31, 2005, the number goes up into the millions. And we loose any gains we have made with OIE to date.
All of your arguements are legitimate farmers_son, the problem is nothing about BSE is legitimate.
All of my problem cases have only made it to the bush since May 20, 03, but I only see more delays, and more ranchers lost, if we don't comply with these rules set down by the OIE.
I would just like to mention that unfair as it may be, the USA is still only classified as a country with an imported case of BSE. This is basically the status we had back in the late 90's when we found the Saler cow in Central Alberta. Therefore the American survailance program is different than ours.
I would recomend a call to either your local vet, or a CFIA vet, they will give you more of the facts.
Facts or no facts, I believe we all hear where you are coming from however the consequences should all be weighed before we continue to follow the shoot shovel and shut up path.

[cswilson]

Farmers_son you callme an idiot but you will be first in line to sell cattle when us idiots who test our cattle get trade resumed-as for my neighbors most of them are on the same page so can your trash talk. You take your shovel and dig a bigger hole in the sand to hide in-I had the same opinion as you until I woke up and smelled the coffee as to what it's going to take to get trade resumed-it sure as hell isn't blamers and crybabies. Your attitude might play to the coffee row cowboys but not to me.

[cakadu]

What I am hearing is that we need to find ways to make a bad situation a little more tenable. Seems to me that trying to "hide" the problem rarely, if ever, amounts to anything good.

We can't change the past, no matter how much we wish we could. I'm willing to bet that the farmer in question has not been the only one to send a problem animal to town. We can only move forward from here.

From what I can see, there won't be much of a problem with testing if one is prepared to deal with the consequences. What that looks like is probably the subject of a lot of policy talks, but it could range from following the OIE guidelines on SRM's, which we already are, to ensuring that something questionable never ends up in the food chain - human or animal i.e. pet food - etc.

Banning all animal products and/or by-products in food that is destined to feed animals going into the food chain would be another big gain.

By setting up stringent standards from the outset, that should help to alleviate many concerns. Increasing the packing capacity here and finding new markets for the beef to go to should eliminate the need to ship live cattle anywhere; besides, I don't know how cost effective that would be for us given that we have so many input costs.

The triple-S solution may work for a time, but that always seems to have a way of coming back to haunt you, particularly when you least expect it.

Openness, honesty and transparency are the better road to take, in my opinion.

[kato]

We have one advantage over our American neighbours. That is credibility.

Never lose credibility.

It has kept our consumers buying our beef. We are the first country in the world to keep our domestic beef consumption up after finding a positive cow. That didn't happen by telling our consumers we were going to hide our problems. We kept their trust.

When the day comes that the U.S. finally slips up and actually finds a positive American cow, it's our credibility that will keep us from going down with them.

R-Calf has done it's best to tell American consumers that a country with one positive animal is selling tainted dangerous meat, and needs to be protected from certain death if they eat it. How will that play out when the Americans find one? Not very well, I would think.

Then when they get their country of origin laws passed, their consumers can buy beef from the country with a reputation for honesty and food safety.

Stay the course farmers_son. It will pay off in the end.

[farmers_son]

Cswilson: I did not call you an idiot. Sorry if you thought I did. I did call Peaster an idiot and whoever is so unfortunate to have the next BSE positive come from their herd will probably be called that and worse, especially if it involves a downer or dead cow.

The topic is what are the ramifications and indeed there are some. We need to realize there are two faces to BSE. First there is the science of BSE which supposedly is objective and fact based. There is also the politics of BSE which is not science based, even if there are claims made to the contrary. The problem whenever we talk testing is there are two different reactions to a BSE positive. The science and OIE says we need to test X number of animals and that the risk of BSE if we find a positive is still negligible, certainly not enough to affect trade. The politics of BSE say that international trade stops and the opening of our borders to trade are delayed if not lost whenever a positive is found. So what is the answer? It seems to me the U.S. has found the answer when they loose their BSE positives and preliminary tests that have never had a false negative before suddenly produce false negatives in the U.S. Test but don’t find anything, that is the answer, unfortunately. Test but test low risk cows, ban downers from the packing plants and certainly never test animals that might be positive.
You mention credibility...Certainly the U.S. has had a BSE positive enter their food chain. They have had downer cows go without test in Texas. They have had preliminary positives or "non negatives" declared negative without international verification. They change their protocols so there are no further announcements of non negative results (the shut up part of the 3 S). If you want credibility, notice the Japanese are talking with the U.S. but not with Canada. Seems to me the U.S. still has credibility left with the Japanese. Canadians just have not figured out how the game is played. Don't find anything.

Kato: you may be right but there is a horrible price to be paid by the poor farmer who sends a dead animal to be tested if it is found positive. For that matter there is a high price paid by the industry and government too each time a positive is found. Until that no longer happens testing has to be approached with caution.

[cswilson]

Well just cause the U.S. isn't playing square in our opinion doesn't necessarily mean that tactic will work for us. In my opinion if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. Trust me there was a lot of thought went into the decision to hang the shovel and pick up the phone. There are lots of cancer eye, stifled etc cows that fit 4D criteria that we can be almost sure won't be positive but still help us reach our quota goals.

[grassfarmer]

farmers_son, You are missing one important point in this argument about concealing or finding BSE cases. The two countries that have suffered the biggest BSE disasters are Japan and the UK - in both cases beef consumption dropped over 70% overnight. The reason this happened is because they attempted to supress the presence of BSE in their herds - this causes a consumer backlash that can really cause problems. The US are fools to follow this route and I personally will be quite happy for them the day it comes back to bite them in the ass. Ignorance and deception are not the way to reward consumers.

[farmers_son]

Point well taken. I would add we should not overlook Australia who test the least of all, how much BSE has been missed there?

Unfortunately when BSE comes to bite the U.S. in the ass it will affect us too.

Of course the situation in the U.K. was so bad it could not be kept undercover very long and Japan had more positives than they could sweep under the rug too. The U.S. may successfully pull the wool over everyone's eyes however as the incidence of BSE will be very low there as it is here. Given the record high prices the American producer is enjoying compared to the crisis in Canada the U.S. seems to be the winner in the game of Truth or Lie. Since they are taking out the SRMs, as we are, the downside risk of a consumer backlash will be minimal even if they are caught deceiving the consumer. The USDA has been caught in several questionable situations to this point yet they still have credibility with their consumers and the OIE. The consumer really does not want there to be positive BSE tests. They may say they want testing but what they really want are the tests to be negative.

[cakadu]

"Mad Cows and Mothers Milk" are case studies in poor risk communication and the BSE crisis in the U.K. was looked at in depth. Grassfarmer - and others - can correct me if I'm wrong regarding my understanding of the situation in the U.K. The government repeatedly told the public that there was no risk, which we of course now know to be true. Same with Japan - the truth about the animals becoming part of food chain was withheld from the public - hence the huge backlash from the Japanese consumer.

For a few years we heard about how the cases of vCJD would rise significantly, particularly in the U.K. Well, to date, they have not risen the way the scientists hypothesized that they would.

Better to have some sort of plan in place to deal with the next cases, if and when they occur, than to try and keep it under wraps.

What is somewhat of a critical issue is how we will loose even more of our already damaged status if we DON'T test enough and live up to what we said we were going to test.

I don't know which is more of an evil.

[whiteface]

Farmers_son, your arguements as to why we SHOULDN'T be "LOOKING" for another BSE case have been well considered by many and I believe that everyone who disagrees with you (myself included) are seriously hopeing that our "take the high road" actions are going to pay off in the end. For sure it isn't looking at this point like we are being appreciated at all for our honesty and integrity and I for one have all the same fears that you do if and when we find another case. Still, I stand that we must test and must know the health status of our herd and stay honest with our consumer and the trading partners that we want back. We would have rathered that this didn't happen but it did and now lets move forward. Honestly, the doors are locked to trade just about everywhere, what do we have to lose if we test and stand firmly that we will deal with BSE rather than pretend it doesn't exist or have the consumer find out later that we lied to them. It hasn't yet but what goes around comes around, the U.S. will create their own rewards, perhaps in other ways...terrorists find them for just that sort of arrogant behavior, in Canada we're better than that and let's stay that way. Thanks for your very valid points, farmer_son and good luck to weathering this crisis with us.