APHIS delivers strong response to R-CALF

Help Support CattleToday:

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
1
Location
nw manitoba
USDA/APHIS delivers strong response to R-CALF in new fact sheet
February 04, 2005
MeatAMI.com News
USDA?s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) delivered a point-by-point rebuttal to R-CALF?s statements about BSE, Canada?s risk profile and Office of International Epizootics guidelines.
The rebuttal, made in a February 2 APHIS fact sheet, details seven different claims made by R-CALF and offers detailed explanations about why these claims are incorrect. To view the fact sheet, go to: http://www.meatami.com/Content/FoodSafe ... nt2-05.pdf
A summary follows:
Claim 1: Regarding OIE guidelines for minimal-risk regions ? ?The OIE guidelines are NOT specific international mandates, as misinterpreted by R-CALF, but rather are guidelines for countries to conduct risk assessments of potential trading partners,? APHIS says. ?USDA?s minimal-risk criteria are designed to consider an individual country?s specific situation and to analyze based on the overall effectiveness of actions take by the country to prevent the introduction and spread of BSE.?
Claim 2: Regarding OIE recommendations for removal of specified risk materials ? ?R-CCALF has completely misunderstood the SRM removal recommendations of the OIE code,? APHIS says. ?For countries determined to be of minimal-risk (like Canada) , the OIE in fact recommends the removal of brains, eyes, spinal cords, skull and vertebral column ONLY from animals that are 30 months of age and older at slaughter.?
Claim 3: Regarding Canada?s BSE surveillance testing ? ?USDA cannot stress enough that BSE tests are not food safety tests ? they are valid only for a statistically based surveillance system,? APHIS said. ?Europe and Japan have included testing healthy cattle at slaughter in their testing programs as a measure which they hope will restore consumer confidence. These countries do not conduct these tests for food safety purposes?.The OIE is very clear in stating that the likelihood of detecting BSE in cattle varies immensely among cattle sub-populations, and testing healthy cattle at slaughter is the least likely to produce [positive] results.?
Claim 4: Regarding international trade relations ? ?Unless USDA takes the lead to establish the concept of minimal-risk regions, based on risk analysis, for animal pests and diseases ? especially for BSE ? the United States (which has multiple effective mitigation measures in place) will be vulnerable to having its exports treated no differently than those of countries with rampant levels of pests and diseases.? APHIS goes on to point out that, ?The OIE code has never recommended banning the trade of cattle or their products even from countries with high BSE risk.?
Claim 5: Regarding feed ban protections in the United States ? ?We fully agree that any feed ban may not have perfect compliance ? including in the United States and Canada ? but based on scientific risk analyses in both countries we believe there is a negligible risk that the BSE agent would amplify within the system,? APHIS said. ?And, R-CALF has again mis-stated OIE?s recommendation of SRM removal for young cattle from a minimal-risk country such as Canada (addressed in response to Claim #2).?
Claim 6: Regarding the likely age of BSE exposure ? ?R-CALF?s assumptions in applying the mean rate of incubation to determine the time of exposure to the BSE agent in the older cattle in Canada that have tested positive for BSE are incorrect and are scientifically unsound,? APHIS said. ?Again, it is vital to view the feed ban as important, but one of several, interlocking , redundant mitigation measures to prevent BSE transmission to U.S. animals from Canada.?
Claim 7: Regarding BSE risk to consumers ? ?While there are uncertainties about BSE, USDA and the international scientific community has learned from Europe the primary pathways of spread of this disease and put measures in place to prevent its dispersion,? APHIS said. ?Based on internationally accepted scientific principles, and using guidelines recommended by the OIE, the United States has published a final rule (following extensive notice and comment rulemaking) to allow trade in certain products from countries that present a minimal risk.?
 
Thanks for posting this!! Does a person good to see both sides before forming an opinion. Some times half truths and lies by omision make it very easy to form poor decisions.
your friend
Mike
 
From that, I can see that Bullard and McDonnell and their team should go back to school and take a course on Reading to Comprehend. I always thought they were a little slow but obviously they are pretty uneducated as well.
 
I am not a member of R-calf and I don't support all their views. That being said I also have worked around and with a number of APHIS people and you have to remember they work for the government (I am from the government and I am here to help. you can trust me). Some USDA employees are pretty competent but there are a number (a large number) of them who aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, if you know what I mean. Just because APHIS say something doesn't mean it is so. In fact having watched first hand who get promoted at the USDA and who doesn't, I would say that the higher up the ladder they are the less competent they are.
Dave
 
'The Peter Principle' says that you will rise to your own level of incompetence. Basically it means that as long as you are good at your job, you will be promoted until you get to a job that you are not very good at and that is where you will stay. Explains alot, I think.
 

Latest posts

Top