It is interseting to read the comments on this thread. The article which was quoted was surprising but not surprising. The consultant, the George Morris Centre has been the consultant of choice for the industry for years. What the industry wanted, the George Morris Centre "proved". So it is surprising that they reached the conclusion that they did.
The George Morris Centre in all likelihood knew the position of the dominant players on the roundtable before commencing the study. Given that consultants "like telling clients" what they want to hear, the conclusion of this study are truly amazing. And let's be frank while Agriculture Canada did pay the bill, the client is the Roundtable (who is comprised of cattle industry, processors, distributors, renders, feed manufaturers and retailers).
Refreshingly, in answer to "cowman's" question as to whether the taxpayer got value for their dollar......... yes, perhaps they did because the consultant did the work and recomended a conclusion that they probably knew would be rejected because it did not align with the dominant player's interests, but aligned with the industry's interests.
The George Morris Centre in all likelihood knew the position of the dominant players on the roundtable before commencing the study. Given that consultants "like telling clients" what they want to hear, the conclusion of this study are truly amazing. And let's be frank while Agriculture Canada did pay the bill, the client is the Roundtable (who is comprised of cattle industry, processors, distributors, renders, feed manufaturers and retailers).
Refreshingly, in answer to "cowman's" question as to whether the taxpayer got value for their dollar......... yes, perhaps they did because the consultant did the work and recomended a conclusion that they probably knew would be rejected because it did not align with the dominant player's interests, but aligned with the industry's interests.
Comment