Poll: Is the Border Going to Open on Wednesday

[farmers_son]

While I may be not objective because I have pens full of fat calves ready for market and a border opening would mean some serious extra coin in my jeans, I see the border opening on Wednesday, July 13. What other opinions are there.

[ivbinconned]

My guess would be that nothing happens until after the 27th.

[pandiana]

I am cautiously optimistic. No question it should open. However, R-calf are not fools. Unless USDA has all their ducks in a row this time I have no doubt that they will have a fight on their hands. As you have pointed out in the previous thread, USDA's lack of responsibilty in testing leaves all of their policies suspect and open to criticism. If the judges do not take into consideration the whole picture, we could have to wait for countersuits.

[pandiana]

July 11, 2005 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: sdodson@r-calfusa.com

USDA and HHS Urged to Strengthen BSE Protections

(Billings, Mont.) – R-CALF USA today sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Mike Leavitt urging the agency leaders to immediately strengthen U.S. protection measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

The letter stated if USDA, HHS, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are correct that the most likely routes of introducing BSE into the United States are through the importation of infected live cattle already incubating the disease that are then rendered into feed and mistakenly fed to cattle, or, the importation of contaminated meat-and-bone meal (MBM), then the discovery of BSE in a 12-year-old domestic cow demonstrates the basic BSE protection measures adopted by the United States more than 15 years ago failed to prevent BSE, a foreign animal disease, from entering the domestic cattle herd.

“Present evidence proves that our import restrictions – our first line of defense against BSE – were, and may continue to be, inadequate,” wrote R-CALF USA President Leo McDonnell.

McDonnell noted that U.S. cattle producers already have suffered more than $3 billion in lost export markets as a result of finding a Canadian-origin cow with BSE within the borders of the United States in 2003. McDonnell also wrote that U.S. cattle producers have additionally incurred significant economic costs in attempting to protect the domestic cattle herd and U.S. food supply from BSE, and the industry is now prepared to accept even more costs to do even more.

“There will never be a better time to decisively and effectively contain this disease than right now,” he wrote.

The letter stated the following five improvements to the United States’ current BSE protection measures “are critically important in safeguarding our nation’s cattle and the U.S. food supply:”

1. Prohibit the importation of ruminants and ruminant products from any country with BSE, or from any country that has inadequate import restrictions to ensure BSE is not introduced into those herds; or countries that do not conduct BSE surveillance testing at a level that would allow the detection of BSE at the rate of less than one case per million head of adult cattle, and also seek upward harmonization of standards and practices to a reasonable standard of safety to ensure the U.S. does not become a dumping ground for products banned in other countries.

2. Allow private firms to voluntarily test cattle of any age for BSE to meet international and domestic demand as well as expand the BSE testing program for the identification of BSE, and the elimination of any animals so infected from the food supply, and to accurately monitor any evolution of the disease.

3. Track, identify, and test all cattle previously imported into the national herd; permanently mark all imported cattle entering the national herd; and implement country-of-origin labeling so consumers can choose to purchase beef and beef products from the country or countries of their choice.

4. Strengthen the feed ban to exclude all animal protein and animal by-products from all livestock and poultry feed, including blood, poultry litter, plate waste, tallow, and Specified Risk Materials (SRMs); and, ban the use of ruminant blood meal, bone meal, and ruminant tallow in milk replacer and colostrums.

5. Prohibit Automated Meat Recovery (AMR) systems on cattle over 12 months of age.

The letter also states the discovery of a domestic case means the United States must now pursue a two-part goal: “ . . . prevent any further introduction of BSE into the United States and ensure that any BSE found in the United States is fully contained and eliminated from the food chain.”

In addition to making specific recommendations for strengthening BSE protections, the letter cautioned the agency leaders from attempting to represent an animal identification system as a BSE protection measure while simultaneously refusing to test anything except cattle considered a high-risk for BSE. This action, R-CALF USA’s letter stated, “is creating a false sense of security. Having the ability to track a disease without simultaneously utilizing existing technologies (BSE testing) to identify all possible BSE cases is of little value to an effective BSE prevention program.”

R-CALF USA also expressed concern that Canada’s BSE risk is inherently greater than that of the United States. Included among the many factors listed by R-CALF USA to demonstrate Canada’s heightened risk for BSE are that current testing data show Canada’s BSE prevalence is higher; Canada is known to have a cluster of BSE cases located in a single province (Alberta); Canada had a BSE-positive animal born after implementation of its feed ban; and, Canada lagged well behind the United States in implementing its basic BSE monitoring and protection measures, including its import restrictions imposed on countries where BSE was known to exist.

R-CALF USA urged the Secretaries to act decisively to implement the five recommended improvements to current BSE protections in the United States.



When the Secretaries take these actions, those efforts “will demonstrate to U.S. export customers and U.S. consumers alike that their safety is of paramount importance to the U.S. cattle industry . . . (and) . . . will help maintain the highest level of consumer confidence in the safety of U.S. beef, regardless of future BSE-related events, here or abroad,” wrote McDonnell.



Note: To view R-CALF USA’s letter to USDA and HHS in its entirety, log on to:

www.r-calfusa.com and click “BSE-Litigation.”

[grassfarmer]

Not as informed as you guys on procedures but gut instinct tells me it won't "open" on either court date. If the decision is favourable they will announce a date to work towards - they have got paperwork to do and procedures to set in place before they can allow the cattle through. More likely August sometime IF the outccome is positive.
I am by no means confident that it will be - we could still be at this crap two years from now.

[kato]

Is it my imagination, or are those R-Calf boys sounding a little like they are grasping at straws? They seem to have an edge of desperation in their tone. Handwriting is on the wall ....

I think it's going to open. How fast is the big question in my mind. Do these trials not take a while? Or is this the type of hearing where most of the leg work is done beforehand, and the day of the trial is the day of the decision?

Any lawyers here??????

[15444]

Most reports have said that the judges will hear the case and make their decision tomorrow....that's why CBC wants a full day of coverage. I predict the border will be open and flowing on Thursday.

[Cattleman]

Even if it is a decision in our favour I think there will be a few issues that will be ironed out regarding the protocal for exporting animals for feeding and direct to slaughter. Things are not going to start moving at the speed of light for us at this time.

[grassfarmer]

A few order buyers seem to be trigger happy today if that tells you anything. A large pen of 910lb fat angus heifers out of a feedlot made 98.5c/lb in Rimbey this morning.

[cakadu]

How long did it take for the boxed beef to start flowing, once the ban was lifted? It seems to me it took 2 to 3 weeks but maybe my recollection is off just a little.

If the judges are prepared to give their ruling tomorrow, then they have looked at the briefs filed (they are in a briefing book) and will essentially hear the verbal arguments from those for and against and any who have been granted intervenor status.

Each person or organization that has been granted the opportunity to speak will be given so much time to make their arguments. There is a set of 3 lights - red, yellow and green - and each of those are cues. Green means you start speaking, yellow is the 1 or 2 minute warning and once the red light goes off - you're done.

Here's hoping reason prevails.

[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?