can anyone explain this, what are the afraid of ???

[flounder]

UNITED STATES ANIMAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION
8100 Three Chopt Road, Suite 203
P. O. BOX K227
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23288
804- 285-3210 FAX 804-285-3367
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web Site: http://www.usaha.org
LEE M. MYERS
PRESIDENT
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
JAMES W. LEAFSTEDT
PRESIDENT-ELECT
NATIONAL PORK BOARD
DONALD E. HOENIG
FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
RICHARD E. BREITMEYER
SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
STEVEN L. HALSTEAD
THIRD VICE-PRESIDENT
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
WILLIAM L. HARTMANN
TREASURER
MINNESOTA BOARD OF ANIMAL
HEALTH
J LEE ALLEY
SECRETARY
111th Annual Meeting –John Ascuaga's Nugget Hotel, Reno, Nevada – October 18-24, 2007
May 22, 2007
Honorable Michael Johanns
Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 200 Jamie Whitten Federal Building
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dear Mr. Secretary:
The United States Animal Health Association (USAHA), wishes to express its
encouragement to you and the Department of Agriculture to appeal the litigation
surrounding private testing for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. We hope you
will strongly consider this as you work with the Office of General Counsel on this
suit.
To support this appeal, we offer that this sets a detrimental precedence on USDA's
ability to regulate disease and testing processes in animal agriculture. As we
appreciate the entrepreneurial spirit of Creekstone, the larger scale implications
could lead to devastating impacts for food animal production in this country as it
relates to animal health. We do feel that private testing could hamper animal
health officials' ability to locate disease occurrences, and exercise proper practices
to trace, control and eliminate them. As you are aware, there are a number of
factors that raise concern among animal health leaders and diagnosticians. We
encourage you to thoroughly consider those upon your decision to appeal.
We do recognize this is now a matter of the courts, and trust that our ability to
safeguard animal health is not compromised as a result of this litigation. Please let
us know if there is any further support we can provide.
Sincerely,
Lee M. Myers
President, U.S. Animal Health Association
Cc: Dr. John Clifford

 

[skcatlman]

It is this simple. If you don't test you won't find any positives. That is why all the fear of BSE testing of indeginous US cow herd. But remember this is only going to hurt in the long run.

 

[Oldtimer]

Jolley on the testing decision:

"We believe that this ruling is a critical first step to finally determine the true extent of Mad Cow Disease in the US. Allowing private companies to test for Mad Cow Disease will also ensure greater transparency in the testing process and better access to information for the consumers."

(Source: FoodConsumer.org, June 1, 2007)
Dr. Tony Milici, CEO of GeneThera, reacting to a judge's decision that the USDA does not have authority to private testing.


>PS: Regardless of the science behind it, the feds saying no to testing is tantamount to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It doesn't engender confidence among our prospective trading partners.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.as ... tid=134657

 

[Oldtimer]

I disagree with Mr. Cornetts reasoning for the NCBA's support of the USDA's appeal-- everyone knows that NCBA is in the pockets of the Big Corporate Packers/AMI and take whatever stand they tell them to take-- and then try to pass it off as being the stand of cattlemen/ranchers, which it isn't.....

The cattle industry's best thinkers agree with USDA on this, and history has taught me to tread carefully when I'm on a different track than they. NCBA, for instance, does not just jump to hasty conclusions.

But I suspect they're overly scared of false positives. I think false positives will be like booster shots for the "anti panic" vaccine that has helped consumers react intelligently to recent scares.

6/4/2007 7:10:20 AM
Appealing the Creekstone case
by Steve Cornett


Your reporter remains skeptical about USDA's refusal to allow voluntary BSE testing. As has been argued before, it's not that voluntary testing is needed or the expense justified.

That's not the question.

It's a matter of the proper role of government and the fact that, from a public relations angle, this looks awful.

It looks like there is something to hide. When USDA announced last week that it would appeal the ruling allowing Creekstone to conduct voluntary testing, it made the consumer news. As usual--as can be expected--the stories were uniformly pro-testing.

If you remain in agreement with the agency on this, please go to this MSNBC story and look at the poll results, then scan the comments.

While granting that this is a bit skewed—normal people don't participate in polls or watch MSNBC—your reporter frets about the near-unanimous condemnation and the freaky language.

The cattle industry's best thinkers agree with USDA on this, and history has taught me to tread carefully when I'm on a different track than they. NCBA, for instance, does not just jump to hasty conclusions.

But I suspect they're overly scared of false positives. I think false positives will be like booster shots for the "anti panic" vaccine that has helped consumers react intelligently to recent scares.

Yes, testing will add an uncessary expense. But not nearly as much as those voluntary natural and organic claims add. There is a market for them, and one presumes that at least some of those markets are additive. That is to say, a few people will buy "organic" beef that would otherwise buy no beef at all.

The same would probably be true of BSE tested product.

Voluntary testing should be carefully monitored, but USDA should change course on this. Not for food safety, nor to protect the public. BSE is not a significant health risk in the U.S. Just as a matter of fairness and keeping government's nose out of private business.

http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?p ... &src=agcmt


-------------------------------------------------------------

MSNBC Survey

Should widespread testing for mad cow disease be allowed? * 4909 responses

Absolutely. I want to know what's in my burger before I eat it.
86%

Not if it makes my steak more expensive.
8.7%

I don't know.
1.7%

I don't eat beef.
3.3%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18926470/