Judge Rules For Creekstone- Against USDA

[Willowcreek]

March 29, 2007, 6:13PM
Judge allows private testing for mad cow


By MATT APUZZO Associated Press Writers
© 2007 The Associated Press


WASHINGTON — The federal government must allow meatpackers to test their animals for mad cow disease, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, a meatpacker based in Arkansas City, Kan., wants to test all of its cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. Larger meat companies feared that move because if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they could be forced to do the expensive test, too.

The Agriculture Department currently regulates the test and administers it to fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease. The department threatened Creekstone with prosecution if it tested all its animals.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson ruled that the government does not have the authority to regulate the test. Robertson put his order on hold until the government can appeal. If the government does not appeal by June 1, he said the ruling would take effect.

Full story:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4673300.html

[whiteface]

Doesn't seem to be a stampede of people complimenting you on a positive post, Willow...
No worries, I'm not shy. I don't need to say a lot, just what counts. I'm very happy for all those who would really like the freedom to test, not that I think they "need" to, just that they should not be told they "can't." Have a good day all and thanks for the post, Willow.

[farmers_son]

I would make the point that this victory for Creekstone is not a victory for cattle producers.

While supporters of free enterprise, like myself, would tend to want the government to stay out of business, there are instances when government is right to set down the rules that business must play by. BSE testing is one of those instances.

North American beef is safe. Our protocols revolving around removal of SRMs ensure the safety of North American beef, both in Canada and the United States. In any event the incidence of BSE within North America is very, very low. If Creekstone were allowed to use BSE testing as a marketing tool, the inference is made that somehow Creekstone’s BSE tested beef is safer than any other beef sourced within North America. That is simply not true and it would be unfair business tactics for Creekstone to be allowed to create any such inferences for its own profit motives.

Creekstone is acting as an agent provocateur for Japan who is using BSE testing as a protectionist trade barrier. While the science is clear on the safety of our beef, Japan is putting up unfair barriers to trade in our beef in addition to their 30-50% tariffs by saying it should be BSE tested. All the while Japan knows that BSE testing is ineffective in young animals. The science is clear on the safety of North American beef but if Japan were successful in establishing its own rules on international trade there would be no sound unbiased method to establish fairness in any trade. Japan wants to export their electronics and automobiles into North America at the same time as it puts up notional trade barriers to North American imports. Someone has to step up to the plate and defend fair trade and that role falls to our governments.

There is a role in our economy for business and free enterprise but there is also a role for government to defend our interests internationally and ensure fairness in the marketplace. The U.S. government must appeal this ruling for the good of all cattle producers.

[DiamondSCattleCo]

While I understand your post, farmers_son, you are missing one vital piece of information that makes your arguement invalid: The Japanese government no longer wants 100% BSE tested beef, but rather its the Japanese consumer who does. The Japanese government has stated they'd rather pull back their own testing as well, so I don't forsee them putting up any trade barriers over this ruling.

The customer is always right. Since the Japanese consumer wants it, we should be giving it to them. I wish the Canadian government would get off their asses and allow it here as well. Maybe we'd see an opening for some of our over 20 stuff...

Rod

[rkaiser]

Very good points farmer_son, however these points were likely brought up in the trial where Creekstone farms WON>>>>

Congradulations to a legal sytem that I was loosing hope in.

Randy Kaiser

[farmers_son]

Ah… the customer is always right argument. That argument could be used to justify anything from prostitution to drug use. Based on that argument our governments are wrong to try and stop drugs coming into North America because there are customers here who want it and there are businesses (aka drug dealers) who want to supply it.

Government by the customer is always right is anarchy. There could be no trade rules established that would not be superseded by the customer is right. There would be no WTO, no OIE, no objective science based rule making because the customer is always right. I am sure if the Japanese customer really was always right the customer would prefer to buy imported beef in Japanese stores that was not subject to a 50% tariff but the reality is that the Japanese government protects its cattle producers to the detriment of the consumer.

Are you saying that business should be able to do whatever they want, anything for a buck? Bottom line it is government that is responsible to the citizens of the country, business is only responsible to its shareholders. It is very much in cattle producers interest to have Government establish the food safety guidelines and not the packers. If for profit business was allowed to establish what is or is not required for food safety then we would see food safety become a competitive weapon. Chicken producers would be saying that beef was not safe, pork producers would trying to convince the consumer that pork was safer than chicken and the cycle would continue. Meanwhile consumer confidence on meats of all kinds would be destroyed.

We have done an incredible job of maintaining consumer confidence in North American beef since 2003 in spite of R-Calf’s best efforts to the contrary. Now we have Creekstone saying our food safety protocols are not good enough and that they should be allowed to establish their own food safety guidelines as a competitive tool. I am sure they could make money by doing what they want to do but how much of that money would trickle down to the cattle producer is very uncertain while the costs to the overall industry are clear.

rkaiser: This is the same level of U.S. Court Judge that banned our Canadian beef a while back. The appeal judges will not be so easily swayed by local politics.

[wd40]

farmers_son Creekstone is saying nothing about the safty or risk occured with North American beef. The real truth is, that ever since May 2003 Creekstone could have been exporting either US beef or our own Canadian beef to Japan in saignificant amounts, and I migh add, at significant value had they been alowed to test.

An I'd bet you a steak dinner that you would have been in the line up at their chute with your cattle if you could have been reciepient of the value they would have paid for tested beef.

[poorboy]

farmers_son,

The real question is not that should testing be done, but will testing return any more money to the beef producer.

The fear us that if even one packer starts to test all there animals, then eventually consumers will demand that all animals get tested and will not pay any more for the beef. So it makes sense to capture the higher value market, but it actually costs every one in the industry.

I have no doubt that facilities would be built or changed to handle the BSE testing so it will be very fast and at a reduced cost per head, but it will still be a cost.

I personally believe that the only reason the general public has not demanded BSE testing is that the incidence of CJD in humans is either rare or not well publicised.

[rkaiser]

Take a pill farmer_son. Nothing you or I could have ever done about it in the first place. I appreciate that you are upset, but then so was I before I heard this very good news. The problem with our fight for BSE testing in Canada was that well in excess of 80% of our harvest is controlled by two companies who will never test until it becomes profitable to do so. Save you science talk etc, farmer_son, BSEconomics old boy BSEconomics.

Have you decided to AI this year farmer_son? I am taking a couple of industry changing bulls down to what used to be Independent Breeders tomorrow. Have a look when our ad comes out in the Cattlemen Magazine later this spring.

[silverback]

How much does it cost to test again?

[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.