Test is Positive

[cowman]

Along with Randy I suspect this event was probably engineered or at least encouraged by the USDA. I think common sense told us that eventually the USA had to find a positive? I hope the USDA was not hiding information deliberately, but was simply following the old triple S solution, as proposed by Ralph Klein? Sort of the same policy Australia follows? If you don't look...you won't find!
Hopefully this event will turn on a light in some R-CALF minds and get them thinking along the lines of a continental market that is integrated?
kpb: While I do agree with most of what you say about how we deal with the Americans, I beg to differ on one point? Yes we do need them, but they also do need us? We have an integrated economy and we depend on each other for trade. We are Americas biggest trading partner and they are ours. We share a common border,language and basically a common people.
Obviously our relationship has soured over the last several years and it is something that is not good, in my opinion! We have a Liberal government that seems bent on alienating us from our fellow Americans for their own crass political means? The best thing we could do in terms of getting back in sync with the US would be to turf the Liberals...but obviously that isn't going to happen?
Personally I find it offensive that I will soon require a passport to travel to the US and that Americans will probably have to obtain one to travel here? Why? Because our Liberal government refuses to stop the flow of criminals and terrorists that stream into this country as immigrants and refugees! The Liberal government cannot stop this flow as those are the people who vote them in!

[rkaiser]

Yessireee Farmerson, and cowman, the Americans do need us.

How fast was the border opened to boxed beef, when "they" needed us?

Willowcreek - keep blowin smoke, some eskimo might hear you yet.

[jensend]

get this!! the traceback should be short and sweet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retesting Reveals Mad Cow Case
USDA Criticized for First Clearing Animal of Disease

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 25, 2005; Page A01

New tests have confirmed that a Texas animal federal officials earlier declared to be free of mad cow disease did have the brain-wasting ailment, the U.S. Agriculture Department announced yesterday.

The definitive testing, done in England over the past two weeks, showed that the ailing animal, first flagged as suspicious in November, was infected with mad cow disease. The animal was retested after the USDA's inspector general requested the additional check because of continuing concerns about the sample dismissed by the agency.


USDA Secretary Mike Johanns said that officials are just now trying to learn more about the origins of the animal, but that there is no indication that it was imported, as was the only other animal to test positive for the disease in the United States. That would make the newly identified animal the first born in this country found to have mad cow disease.

Johanns sought yesterday to assure consumers that U.S. beef is safe, and that any suspect beef would have been kept off supermarket shelves.

But he acknowledged a number of embarrassing mistakes and oversights by the agency. In addition to misdiagnosing the diseased sample, officials apparently mislabeled the sample that tested positive, officials said. According to USDA's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, a tag describing the breed of the infected animal was apparently mislabeled, an error that has slowed the process of determining where the diseased animal came from.

The lab in Weybridge, England, considered the world's best, made the diagnosis using two tests -- including one the USDA used when it declared the animal disease-free. USDA officials previously said that the diseased animal escaped their notice because they performed only an immunohistochemistry test, or IHC, and not a Western blot test. Yesterday Johanns said that the Weybridge lab found the sample to be positive for mad cow using both types of test.

Johanns said that from now on, the agency will use both tests on all samples found to be suspicious on an initial, rapid screening test for the disease. About 388,000 animals have been subjected to that test, and only three have been found to be suspicious, Johanns said.

Scientists believe that mad cow disease is spread through the feeding of infected animal parts to other cattle. The United States banned that kind of feed in 1997, and Johanns said he believes the infected animal was born before that time.

In very rare cases, the disease has been passed on to humans who eat the infected meat, and the result was always fatal. There have been no known cases of the human variant of mad cow disease in this country.

Yesterday's announcement drew immediate and sharp criticism of the administration's handling of mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The beef industry lost billions of dollars in exports when the first mad cow case was found, and critics said the administration has sought to minimize additional threats to protect the industry from a second crisis.

Over the past week, some industry representatives had questioned the inspector general's authority to order the additional tests that ultimately found the positive sample, and Johanns publicly agreed with some of their criticism.

"Now we know why USDA resisted having the suspect animal subjected to the most sophisticated BSE test," said Carol Tucker Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America. "They were afraid the truth would come out. The public and the industry know that this animal was infected with BSE only because the USDA office of inspector general insisted that the additional test be done."

"The administration's response to mad cow disease appears to be more public relations than public health," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). "The Agriculture Department now says it's taking aggressive steps, but just a few weeks ago the department was talking about easing the ban on 'downer' cattle in the food supply and sharply reducing mad cow surveillance."

Industry groups had a different view. "The bottom line for consumers remains the same: Your beef is safe," the National Cattlemen's Beef Association said in a statement. "Scientists, medical professionals and government officials agree that BSE is not a public health risk in the United States. BSE infectivity has not been found in beef, including steaks, roasts and ground beef."

"This test result should be seen for what it truly is -- proof positive that the surveillance system for BSE in the United States is working," said J. Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute. "The enhanced testing program that the government started on June 1, 2004, is part of the multi-firewall system that this county has undertaken for nearly 15 years to staunch BSE."

The positive result is likely to further complicate several contentious issues. The administration is eager to re-open the Canadian border to shipments of live cattle -- favored by some large beef packers with operations on both sides of the border but opposed by many U.S. cattle farmers and feedlot operators who fear additional contamination from Canada. At least four mad cow cases have been identified in Canada.

In addition, the administration has sought to modify the ban on allowing "downer" cows into the food supply. It imposed the ban after the first mad cow case was uncovered in Washington state in late 2003. Downers -- animals that cannot stand on their own -- are at higher risk of having mad cow disease.

Ranchers and beef industry spokesmen have argued that some "downer" animals are not sick but get injured during transport, and so should be allowed into the food supply. Others have said animals that fall during transportation are more likely to be sick, and so all should be excluded.

"The safety net put into place by the Agriculture Department in 2003 kept this sick animal out of the meat case," said Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States. "This case calls into question the reliability of USDA's BSE testing program and demonstrates the need for a permanent ban on slaughtering animals too ill or injured to walk."

Johanns said the department has not learned where the animal was born and spent its nine years of life. Earlier, the department identified the diseased animal as one previously reported in mid-November, and USDA records show that animal came from Texas. It could possibly be of Mexican origin.

USDA officials also acknowledged during yesterday's news conference that the agency lab in Ames, Iowa, had tested the sample three times with the IHC method. Two results were negative but one was positive.

Clifford, the USDA's chief veterinarian, said that because the method used in the third test was considered unvalidated and "experimental," the positive finding was not included in the agency's conclusions about the case.

[blackjack]

...kbp...I personally like reading your posts...but maybe you have been listening to Rutherford a little too much...lol...

[whiteface]

I too, enjoy your posts, kpb, but would like your permission please to be allowed to gloat a little. They're busted, BIG TIME, and should have to fall real hard for this and climb their sorry asses out of a hole WAY WORSE than ours since we've always been up front and now it's WIDE OPEN just how much they've been screwing around. No, this doesn't get our border open faster but $#@$ 'em with getting our border open anyway. Who wants to deal with a bunch of lying cheating bastards, let's LEARN FROM THIS already and kill and market our own beef to someone who appreciates it instead of letting them use us and NAFTA until we turn and in goes the knife.
Naw, you let some of us gloat. Sweet justice is better than Christmas...They're caught and the mile they have to walk in our shoes is better than any border opening. Have a good day all! I will.

[wd40]

A Texas Cow - Look out Mexico - you'll be on the list next!

[kpb]

I appreciate the comments from those people who read my posts--if people want to gloat, feel free.

I would, however, like to take issue with farmers_son's comments. In a true partnership, both parties are working towards the same end. This is clearly not the case in U.S.-Canada business where each country is working towards its own purpose.

The examples farmers_son cites--beef, oil and gas--are actually examples of what most of our cross-border trade consists of, namely the U.S. being the buyer and Canada being the seller. Most of our trade consists of Canada selling commodites to the U.S. which processes them and sells them back to us. As a commodity seller we will always be the vulnerable party here since the commodity buyer can always get the item somewhere else.

In terms of pain a cessation of trade would cause each country, farmers_son, I believe you should look at the current struggle over beef exports which, in fact, proves my point quite well. When we lost our ability to sell to the Americans, our entire industry was devastated. The U.S. has hurt, a little, in some spots, but overall is doing quite well and will continue to do so in the future. This is the difference between being a seller, us, and being a buyer, them. The buyer always holds the trump card since he can take his business away, albeit with a little pain, while the seller loses his largest customer at the risk of dying.

Finally I would say to you that the U.S. has the largest, most diversified economy in the world and would be able to survive, with considerable pain, any economic shock we could deliver. Like any customer, I don't think the U.S. expects us to go to them on bended knee. But if you're the one trying to sell something to them, or to anyone, I think an overall level of respect is needed.

When you purebred breeders want me to buy a bull from you do you start off by calling my an obscene name, then tell me I don't run my ranch correctly, maybe make an obscene gesture my way? And then do you not only expect me to buy a bull but insult me if I don't? The U.S. is not our partner but our customer and we need to treat them that way. Not with bended knee but not with insults either. And I don't think gloating about our biggest customer's problems is a great business decision.

kpb

[jensend]

kpb: The examples farmers_son cites--beef, oil and gas--are actually examples of what most of our cross-border trade consists of, namely the U.S. being the buyer and Canada being the seller. Most of our trade consists of Canada selling commodites to the U.S. which processes them and sells them back to us. As a commodity seller we will always be the vulnerable party here since the commodity buyer can always get the item somewhere else.

on a per capital basis we buy more from the states than they buy from us. we are their largest supplier of oil. the cia ran a simulation of interruption of nigeria's supply (their fifth largest supplier) and the conclusion was huge economic disruption. look around and you'll see the rest of the world is noticing that the americans are not omnipotent. they may still (for the time being) be the most powerful nation in the world but they are not more powerful than the rest of the world. they, in fact, do need the rest of the world, including canada. how about the chinese making a bid for unocal?

[kpb]

jensend, I agree with you that the times are changing and the U.S. has a tenuous grip on the title of top economic dog. You are also correct about per capita trade and the fact that a disruption of our oil trade with the States would hurt them.

However the current state is that the U.S. is the top economic state, we are the ones who most desire to sell our mostly commodity-based units to them and they are the ones who call most of the economic tune. I am not saying that will be the case forever, I'm not saying that the Chinese won't be the world powerhouses in the future.

What I'm saying is that it is us who really want to sell our stuff to the U.S., not the other way around. And it makes no sense to me to insult our largest customer--that's just current reality, not what may happen down the road (or may not). I like to deal with how things are, not how I wish they were or hope they become. It's been my experience that I make more money that way.


kpb

[cowman]

kpb: Without a doubt we want to sell our products to the US! And they want to sell their products to us!
In actuality, this makes a lot of sense? After all we share a common border? Just load her up and ship her out?
Unfortunately America has not really signed onto the idea of a "free trade agreement" in North America?
They thought it meant it would basically mean they could ship their crap here without the need to accept some of our things? I believe the average Ammerican might benifit from actually being exposed to products from other countries other than the good old USA? Or at the very minimmum being informed that they are actually "experiencing" foreign goods...eg. the Canadian steaks at most US fine dining restauraunts!!!
Please don't try to label me as an anti-American! I love them but the fact is they are pretty dumb when it comes to the rest of the world!