Poll: Is the Border Going to Open on Wednesday

[farmers_son]

As I understand it there are two appeals being heard today by the 9th Circuit Court. The first appeal is the USDA and the NMA appeal of the preliminary injunction Richard Cebull granted R-Calf. The second is NMA’s and ABP/CCA’s appeal of Cebull’s denial of their respective applications to intervene in the District Court on July 27.

Each “side” will have 10 minutes to make their case. In the one appeal the USDA and the National Meat Association (NMA) jointly have 10 minutes to present their argument as to why the preliminary injunction granted by Judge Cebull should be overturned. The USDA and NMA can divide their 10 minutes as they see fit. R-CALF will have 10 minutes to persuade the 9th Circuit that the preliminary injunction should be upheld.

Note that in the other appeal USDA is siding with R-Calf against the NMA and ABP/CCA’s respective applications for intervenor status. On March 9, NMA requested that R-CALF be required to post a bond to cover the economic impairment suffered by NMA members for the time that the preliminary injunction is in effect, should the Courts ultimately deny R-CALF’s petition. If the NMA appeal was successful, R-Calf would have had to post a bond amounting to millions of dollars which it is felt they could not afford to do and R-Calf would be forced to drop the court case. However the USDA opposed NMA’s petition to become an intervenor arguing that the USDA was in the best position to defend its rule.
The same rules for addressing the court applies to NMA’s and ABP/CCA’s appeal of the denial of their respective applications to intervene in the District Court. NMA, ABP and CCA will jointly have 10 minutes to present their arguments. It is anticipated that the NMA will have five minutes and ABP/CCA will have the other five minutes. The UDSA and R-CALF will side by side and arm in arm share the 10 minutes allotted their “side” to oppose NMA, ABP and CCA being granted intervenor status.

There is no guarantee the court will give their decision orally from the bench. The appeals court may even decide to not issue a decision, favourable or unfavourable, until after the hearing for the permanent injunction on July 27.
There is a list of appeals and dates at : http://cattle.guelph.on.ca/whatsnew/legalsummaryMar.html

NMA members include ConAgra. NMA members can be seen at:
http://www.nmaonline.org/NEWS___INFO/links/NMA_Members/nma_members.html

[pandiana]

We can only hope that the US judges and USDA hear both sides of this story. Prusiner, I understand was to be called as a witness for R-Calf.


R-CALF Puts Everyone On Tightrope Again
No New Science, More Scare Tactics, More Distortions, More Risk for the Beef Industry
Colorado Springs, CO July12, 2005

This edition refers to a court paper filed with the Eighth District Court in Billings regarding R-CALF's lawsuit against USDA.
Because the person filing the declaration is a Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Stanley Prusiner's filing with the District Court in Billings in support of R-CALF is getting some attention. But a reading of his declaration leads one to wonder if a noted laboratory researcher is the right person to be advising public policy makers on animal health regulations, public health policy and trade policy.

And right or wrong, his call for 100 percent testing is cast in a bad light, given his mention of his testing company twice and the detailed explanation of his company's test methods, results and that his tests are "available commercially." Interestingly, a check of the list of APHIS-approved tests shows Prusiner's test has not been licensed by APHIS (PR1).

It is also interesting to notice the pattern of the "name" personalities the Liberal Activist Groups (LAG) have used to bolster their positions. Laurence Tribe, a well-known constitutional lawyer, was chosen to represent the LMA-WORC in the suit against the checkoff. Most likely with either the explicit permission of his clients or their agreement to look the other way, he used the opportunity to espouse his animal "rights" cause and anti- vivisectionist views on the steps of the Supreme Court. Prusiner gets to use his time in the spotlight to do an informational plug for his company and its tests.

All of Prusiner's professional work has been in the lab or as a professor of human neurology and virology. Both positions emphasize the importance of proving hypotheses using scientific data. Yet he appears to make assumptions without providing data to justify them, does not spell out his assumptions or makes assumptions about animal diseases and human diseases that do not jibe with real experiences.

For example, Prusiner said "...there is no reason to believe that BSE prions in cattle behave differently from those in other mammals..." Yet real-world experience has shown all the TSE's behave somewhat differently in different species. In addition, Prusiner himself points out that many researchers believe there is a "species barrier," meaning humans are less susceptible to the BSE prions than cattle. Yet he goes on to say that there is not enough information to say one way or another.

He cites findings of prions in various body locations in lab animals like mice and hamsters, but no incidents of finding prions in the location most germane to this whole case - beef muscle tissue. He completely ignores that subject, suggesting that he cannot contradict existing research -- which has never found BSE prions in beef muscle tissue.
He also attributes some TSE cases to "genetic mutation," without clarifying whether he means genetic DNA mutation between animal generations or whether he means mutations in protein cell replication. No underlying research is cited.

Most ironic is that the discoverer of the organism -- prions -- and someone familiar with the mechanism involved in causing the disease, assigns the blame for "many cases in cattle" to "spontaneous (or sporadic) refolding of a host protein" with no particular trigger, sounding a lot like what non- scientists categorize as, "stuff happens."
Regarding the dosage required to cause infection, Prusiner confusingly refers to the amount as, "very small," "only an approximation" and "unknown." If he claims the amount is unknown, how does he know it is very small? What research does he have to contradict the study published in the British medical journal The Lancet that indicates a lot -- over 3 lbs.-- of infected brain neural tissue, not just tissue with some infectious prions, is required to produce infection (Deslys YES, January, 2005)?

In fact, it would seem that 20 years of experience indicates that either a large dosage and/or certain susceptibilities in animals or humans is necessary for infection to occur at all. The facts that normally only one animal in a whole herd getting the same feed contracts the disease and that only an infinitesimal percentage of the total herd in most countries has been infected would support that view. As for the countries most affected - the UK - a whole combination of events appeared to be required, including human cultural eating habits regarding brains, different slaughter procedures and the heavy use of meat-and-bone meal to substitute for soybean meal, to see higher infection levels.

The bottom line is that science still indicates blanket testing is not necessary and that SRM removal takes away the risk in food safety issues. And it is still critical to understand that they are two different and separate issues. Testing to monitor an animal disease is one issue. The safe processing and consumption of a food product, wherever it was raised or harvested, is another.
But R-CALF continues to prove itself willing to risk consumer confidence in beef, haul in "expert" witnesses to raise questions about beef safety and use whatever scare tactics it can think of to threaten the beef industry's livelihood. They have created a risky and potentially explosive public situation, just to keep out a few percentage points of live and boxed beef supply. Significant damage to regional packers, feeders and ranchers is already permanent. But the more public risk in Billings and Seattle courtrooms is just beginning another dangerous round.

The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation promotes free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain. The AFF believes it is possible to value the traditions and heritage of the past while embracing the future and the changes it brings. The AFF is a communications and educational initiative striving to preserve the freedom of the agricultural food chain to operate and innovate in order to continue the success of American agriculture.
The AFF - freedom watchdog for American agriculture.
Agribusiness Freedom Foundation
AFF: Promoting free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain.
Website: http://www.agribusinessfreedom.org
Readers are encouraged to use this information with credit to AFF. See links below to Forward to a friend or e-mail the author.

[farmers_son]

Prusiners declaration can be read at:

http://www.r-calfusa.com/BSE/06-28-05%20--%20Prusiner%20Declaration%20(10%20pgs).pdf

Bottom line, it is the safety of North American beef that is being debated in U.S. court today. The USDA is arguing that North American beef is safe while a cattlemen's association is arguing that beef is not safe to eat.

If this seems surreal, remember we saw pigs fly at the recent Live 8 concert.

[farmers_son]

OK, I guess the Appeals Court will issue its decision Friday and the border will open then. :--(

There are lots of news stories on the Appeal but I have pasted one from the Billings Gazette below.

Some of the comments include the judges "The three judges appeared skeptical of Cebull's ruling, suggesting he went too far." and "that Cebull should have given deference to the USDA's decision. Judge A. Wallace Tashima said the law "does invest the secretary of agriculture with a certain amount of discretion" and suggested the lower court's order was just "disagreeing with the secretary. Judge Connie Callahan agreed with Tashima, saying the USDA is "entitled to some deference. It's their whole job to keep up with the science to make those decisions."

R-Calf's lawyer was quoted as saying "said an infected Texas-born cow discovered two weeks ago shows the need for a closed border to prevent an epidemic." and "that the USDA "didn't determine what was an acceptable number of infected cattle to come in."

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/07/14/build/state/45-cattle-ban.inc

I think Canadian ranchers have been pretty darn patient with the U.S. so far but are not in any mood to wait until after July 27 to hear what the Appeals Court have to say.

[kato]

Maybe that's what we should do though.

If they overturn it now, he'll make another move to close the border, and then we have to wait how many months to have that one struck down?

I'm not sure how these things work, but maybe they are waiting until he makes his ruling permanent so they can stop it permanently?

[pandiana]

Comments are rather encouraging. Let's hope logic prevails.

On the other hand, what it the border opens under the conditions the USDA rule outlined? Will the export of live cattle allow some of our plants to kill cows? What happenes with the need to keep separate lines for OTM's.

The rule of March 7th would have allowed plants to kill both. I would assume that, as live cattle will no go in the near future, we will still have a problem with OTM's. We need some reassurance that this problem is being seriously addressed.

[madcow]

Americans seem big on arrogance and small on logic,only play fair when their winning