Judge Rules For Creekstone- Against USDA

[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

[catlman]

This is so obvious it is only a means to an end, Creekstone wants to market to japan and they are testing to gain acess. It has nothing to do with safety. As they will be testing cattle under 20 months which is the restriction on age japan put on imports. So if they want to play they will have to jump thru hoops as set by the japanese. How many positives will they find ? Zero is my prediction. It is the way to get acess to a market. Just like the first cattle destined to the EU from canada this year these cattle are free of implants and fed in accordance to EU cattle feeding regulations. The deal is signed and sealed now the beef has to be delivered. You have to be prepared - the customer is right and do what they want if you want to sell to them product. So for creekstone it is good marketing. Just like celtic beef there will be people who want it and i'm sure randy will find a way to get them. This is simple supply and demand. Just there are some hoops to jump thru to get into a market you want. As far are unfair trade rules and protectionism they sticking points and meant to be just that. Just trip wires we have to be willing to lift our knees to walk thru and not drag our feet.

[rkaiser]

Farmer_son said - "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."


I was not implying that you were Mr. ABP farmer_son - just that I would like you to run for that office. I have found very little that you and I disagree on except for the testing issue and maybe a bit of American border stuff. How is it that you think the open border will help our cull cow price? If they do open the border - I almost guarantee that it will be boxed beef only and will once again benefit only Cargill Tyson and to a lesser extent Nillson Bros. However the Nillson Bros. thing has a nice CarTys twist. Them boys bought a couple of plants south of the line and I just bet that Cargill and Tyson don't want them to have too much gravy.

As I said in the CBEF office the other day - we may not need them fairly soon. These cow numbers are a droppin despite what we read in the canfax report (in fact I have not read that report lately and it may show what I am predicting)An open border to boxed cull beef will drop our cow herd in a hurry, but the price will not increase much. What are we at today 42 cents in Canada vs. 50 in the States? Factor in the dollar and work with the pathetic basis that the fat cattle market is using and whala - price is fixed ahead of the game..........

As far as the Creekstone deal - I agree - the USDA led by Cargill and Tyson will not allow this thing to proceed YET ---- Still time for a bit more Salmon runnin first.

[smcgrath76]

I believe I would fall on the testing side of the fence. I think if free enterprise wants to test for market access then that should certainly be allowed. I am not paying for it as a taxpayer. If the business does not have some commitment from the potential customer who is asking for testing then that is the risk/poor planning of the business and not particularly my concern (unless it is my business).
I don't believe that all other consumers will immediately ask for tested product (they don't all ask for hormone free, or natural). I also don't believe in the issue of line stoppages as postulated by various pundits. At our current incidence rate, the stoppage would be less than a penny per head. Plants that don't want to test, don't have to so would not even have stoppages.
I just think that limiting export market access through domestic policy is akin to a nontariff trade barrier imposed by ourselves on us.

[hayburner]

to everyone a question... A few years ago CBC Country Canada had a program on a Kansus feedlot and slaughter plant operation that wanted to test every animal it put on the kill floor but the big boys in the kill business did everything in their power to stop it. I believe it was 'Red Cherdin' or something like that.Is this the same company that won this court case?? let's move on down the road and test every dam animal and as I tell the grandkids suck it up its along way from your heart !