Judge Rules For Creekstone- Against USDA

[Willowcreek]

NCBA claims that the producer is losing $175 per head as long as the Asian market is not open...

Don't know about you rich Canucks- but I wouldn't mind having an extra $175 per head...And if Creekstone, and some of the other smaller packers that wanted to test, had been allowed to we could/would have had 4 years of this additional profit- along with the fact that we would not have allowed Australia to get such a stronghold in the Asian market...

Without testing it may be 10-20 years before we even get back the Asian market we had in 2003- let alone expand them..

[rkaiser]

Good post Willowtree - I like it when you stand your ground - SOMETIMES -
Costs will be less than 20 bucks Silverback.

[DiamondSCattleCo]

"Are you saying that business should be able to do whatever they want, anything for a buck?"

Absolutely not. If a company wishes to do something that would harm the consumer (as in your case with drugs) or the marketplace, they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Since BSE testing can't harm the consumer, and the arguement that it'll harm the market is extremely weak (what indications have there been that NA consumers will demand testing? Any polls? Consumer group feedback?).

As far as the customer always being right, I'm not sure how that would result in the dissolution of the OIE. I think customers should be informed of their options, and then allowed to decide what they want to do. If a customer comes to me and tells me he wants to buy nothing but 3 legged cow meat, I'll patiently explain to him how 3 legged cow meat isn't going to be better than 4 legged cow meat. If he still insists that he wants 3 legged cow meat, and is willing to pony up the bucks to pay for the development of 3 legged cows, I'll give him all the 3 legged cows he can handle. Ditto BSE testing.

The Japanese people are certainly aware that current tests can't find BSE in under 20 month animals, yet they still want it. So give it to them. And while we're at it, start testing over 20s too, so we can get back to selling our beef to areas other than the US.

Government by the people, for the people isn't anarchy. Its called democracy. And we certainly don't have it right now. What we have is just another form of imperialism where our elected leaders decide whats best for us, whether we want it or not. I for one grow weary of it, given the limited intellect that many of our current leaders (both in government and the cattle industry) display.

Rod

[rkaiser]

Are you prepared to take Rod's response to the board at ABP or CCA farmer_son? Since there is no place for oppostition in these organizations we have to expect that delegates like yourself will support the voice of the primary producer.

Anybody else checking in on us from ABP/CCA? You would be more than welcome to take Rod's response up the ladder as well - with his permission of course.

What has been the response from ABP/CCA on the Creekstone victory? Do they have one?

[farmers_son]

DiamondSCattleCo: Good response.

Government by the people, for the people may be democracy but what we are talking about is protectionism.

Every country seeks to protect its domestic markets while wanting access to other countries markets for its products and services. Japan certainly is an example. I can think of no other objective arbitrator of international trade than science. If we set science aside and accept Japan’s unscientific requirements for BSE testing than all trade is threatened. For instance Japan or any other protectionist country could insist that all agricultural imports be organically certified. Now some, like Creekstone, might view that as a marketing opportunity but it is not fair trade and it is not science based.

The U.S. is an international superpower and may be able to excerpt influence on Japan to at least budge a bit, which has happened with a compromise on 20 months or under. But Canada is a middle power export dependent country and we are very reliant upon rule based, science based trade to gain access to our international markets, the U.S. included. There will always be politically influential groups, R-Calf would be an example in the U.S. and the cattle producers in Japan would be another as well as European cattle producers who seek an advantage for themselves by finding some excuse to keep out our beef and live cattle. If we throw aside the science and say this is just some marketing challenge that we need to cater to, then we conveniently overlook the reality that these people will just find some other way to protect their markets.

Rkaiser: I do think the ABP and CCA read these posts. You have as much access to the ABP as I do, feel free to tell them yourself. I confess I am just a lowly cattle producer who is busy calving his cows. If you are trying to put a spin on my comments in these threads by implying I am Mr. ABP that would be incorrect. I think ABP and CCA are really focused on getting Rule 2 through so our market for cows is restored. I am not sure how concerned they would be over this development as I would think it will get overturned in the appeal just like Judge Cebull blocking our live cattle and beef did.

Willowcreek: The cattle industry might be loosing $175 a head but based on your fat prices I do not see where you are hurting too bad. Highest prices ever… $1.00 a pound for April futures and that is U.S. dollars.

[DiamondSCattleCo]

"If we set science aside and accept Japan’s unscientific requirements for BSE testing than all trade is threatened."

I see this statement often, and I suppose from the CCIA and USDA viewpoint, Japan's initial stance was unscientific since it disagreed with their own.

The behaviour of the USDA/CCIA/CCA reminds me of a saying: "The level of a mans intelligence is best measured by the level in which he agrees with you."

However, its my understanding that Japan tested every animal, operating under the _scientific_ theory that if the level of prions was high enough to be detected, they'd be sufficiently high enough to possibly infect a human host with vCJD. Since I've certainly not seen any definitive studies or evidence to the contrary, I think its somewhat arrogrant for those of us in North America to tell Japan that they're full of crap.

And even if you don't buy into that arguement, at least Japan's border closure was completely legal from WTO standards. They test 100% of their beef, and are completely within their rights to ask that all countries who wish to export to them do the same. Their consumers are completely within their rights to ask for anything they please, scientific or unscientific.

And our companies here at home should be allowed to service those demands, should the consumer be willing to pay for them. Its one of the cornerstones of a free market economy, and it was allowed to be obliterated by unproven CCIA/USDA science.

Thank god the courts in the US finally recognized this, and hopefully the CCIA will soon follow suit.

Rod

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Randy,

Anyone can take any of my posts do what they will with them. I only ask that they flush after using.....

Rod

[farmers_son]

Actually the OIE is the accepted standard of what is crap and what is not when it comes to animal health. Not Japan. See:

http://www.oie.int/eng/OIE/organisation/en_CS.htm?e1d8

Japan is one of the world’s most protectionist countries when it comes to their agriculture and their stance on BSE testing should be taken for what it is. So it is not a matter of Japan not agreeing with the U.S. or not agreeing with Canada. It is a matter of Japan not agreeing with the world, from which the OIE draws its scientific opinions.

The OIE has established new guidelines for testing for BSE :

See: http://www.vido.org/beefinfonet/animalhealth/reportable_diseases/5_abp_bse.pdf

The accepted standard for BSE testing is now based upon a point system and the risk classification of the region or country. The OIE recognizes that BSE testing is for surveillance purposes only and that food safety is best achieved by removal of SRMs. Japan knows this as well as Canada and the U.S does. The U.S. can be protectionist too, as we all know and also needs to be reminded occasionally about science based trade.

I recognize that Japan has a testing program in place for their herd, a herd which is very small. Japan is not a beef exporting country. No one should make any mistake about it, if Japan wanted to export beef instead of protect its producers from other country’s imports its stance on BSE testing for export would be completely different.

[DiamondSCattleCo]

But now we've brought the debate full circle, farmers_son. The Japanese government no longer requires 100% testing to gain access to their marketplace as can be seen by their allowing us access.

But the Japanese consumer? They still want 100% BSE tested beef and they won't buy ours until it is. So we're no longer up against a government and its protectionism, but rather an entire people and their desire to have their demands met, OIE be damned.

Rod

[DiamondSCattleCo]

In re-reading, I guess I've failed to address a couple points.

Your point about Japan's stance on BSE testing because they are a beef importing nation may be valid (although they do export some specialty beef), however its a "what if" in an alternate universe and while we can certainly make educated guesses on the answer, they will only be just that: guesses.

The fact is that Japan is doing exactly what a government in its position should be doing: protecting its people and its businesses. And they are doing so within the rules and guidelines set forth by the WTO. Wouldn't it be refreshing if we had a government that would do the same for us?

Rod