• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

R-CALF, BRAZIL, USA, BSE, AND SRM REMOVAL, or not

Help Support CattleToday:

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
944
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
R-CALF, BRAZIL, USA, BSE, AND SRM REMOVAL, or not



R-CALF says Obama broke promise Published Friday, October 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM Billings, Mont. – In a strongly worded four-page letter to the U.S. Department of Justice (Justice), 17 R-CALF USA officers, directors and committee chairs from 12 states on Thursday expressed deep disappointment that Justice failed to properly investigate the antitrust implications associated with Brazilian-based JBS S.A.’s (JBS’) acquisition of Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (Pilgrim’s Pride).

The letter states, “In our opinion, the Justice Department’s action in refusing to fully investigate the antitrust implications of the unprecedented merger between JBS and Pilgrim’s Pride – the world’s largest beef packer and North America’s largest broiler processor, respectively – when these firms both control and market substitutable, competing proteins, is an irrepressible defiance of President Obama’s promise to ensure competitive markets for the nation’s farmers and ranchers, including its cattle farmers and ranchers.”

The group’s letter further states that Justice’s inaction has “decisively undercut” the financial efforts of U.S. cattle producers whom were assessed $82.8 million in 2007 to fund the beef checkoff program that is designed to enhance beef’s competitiveness with poultry and other protein substitutes. The letter points out that a producer-funded checkoff research project, which claims that beef’s nutritional content is superior to poultry, was touted by the checkoff program as one of the 20 top accomplishments during the program’s first 20 years of existence. In addition, the group’s letter cites a 2006 producer-paid checkoff advertisement that publicly claimed the checkoff program was needed because of the significant supply of inexpensive poultry products.

“When, as here, the federal government has mandated that producers contribute to a program so beef can better compete against chicken, the Justice Department has no basis to assert that beef and poultry are not competing products and no basis to claim that a merger involving these competing products won’t seriously reduce competition in direct violation of U.S. antitrust laws,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “JBS is now free to control the majority of U.S. broiler production while it already controls a near-dominant share of U.S. fed cattle production and, therefore, is now free to adjust at will both the supply and price of both of these competing products. This is the antithesis of competition,” the R-CALF USA letter states.

In its correspondence to Justice, R-CALF USA paints a dire portrait of the U.S. cattle industry by stating, “The markets for U.S. cattle producers are broke; cattle prices are falling precipitously; cattle feeders are experiencing record losses; tens of thousands of independent cattle farmers and ranchers are exiting the industry in the year this letter is written; consumers continue to pay near record prices for beef; and, the U.S. Department of Justice sits silent to allow yet another anticompetitive mega-merger to occur in the meatpacking industry that certainly will further reduce competition. We could not be more discouraged.”

The letter concludes with: “Please explain to us why the U.S. Department of Justice has refused to fully investigate the JBS/Pilgrim’s Pride merger, let alone block it, in the wake of President Obama’s promise to restore competition to agricultural markets through the enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws.”

© 2008 The Nebraska Rural Radio Association. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



http://www.kticam.com/news/agricultural ... 37dabb63d3



Re: U.S. Department of Justice’s Refusal to Take Enforcement Action to Block Proposed Acquisition of Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation by JBS S.A.



http://www.r-calfusa.com/Competition/09 ... 0Final.pdf




PLUS, if I am going to be forced to eat SRM i.e. Specified Risk Materials, I would rather eat home grown SRMs (at least on the books), the USA must remove SRM. IN Brazil, you don't. ...TSS



P.9.8

Comparing BSE risk factors and management of the three largest cattle producers: India, Brazil and China


Shalu Darshan1, Margaret Wilson2, Daniel Krewski1, Michael G. Tyshenko1 1University of Ottawa, Canada; 2

Decision and Risk Consulting, Canada Background: India, Brazil and China collectively possess 56% of world’s total cattle inventory and to date have not recorded any case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). With BSE emerging as a zoonotic disease worldwide especially in Europe, India and Brazil surfaced as major beef exporting regions controlling 30% of world’s total beef and cattle exports. Each country was prompted to implement many effective BSE management strategies to sustain their BSE free status.

Objectives: To review the risk mitigation and management strategies for BSE introduced in India, Brazil, and China.

Methods: A comprehensive and structured survey was carried out for available literature published in peer review journals on risk management of BSE in India, Brazil, and China. Sources also included government reports, grey literature, internet web pages and newspaper databases to assess non-expert information on BSE risk mitigation strategies. The information was compiled to synthesize a comparative overview of BSE risk management strategies in the respective regions.

Results: The study provides the background on the agro-beef sector of India, Brazil and China and draws comparisons between the three regions to assess the comprehensiveness of the instituted BSE risk management measures. An attempt has been made to provide an account of the external and internal challenges faced by these regions with regards to BSE. Discussion: While the three largest cattle producers have implemented many effective BSE management policies some gaps exist in particular, the lack of specified risk materials (SRM) ban in Brazil and China. ...end...TSS





Scientific Report of the European Food Safety Authority on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE Risk (GBR) of Brazil Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-083

Adopted: 1 June 2005 Summary (0.1Mb)

Report (0.1Mb)

Summary of the scientific report

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in Brazil, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in Brazil. This scientific report addresses the GBR of Brazil as assessed in 2005 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

A very unstable system between 1980 and 2000 was exposed to a negligible external challenge until 1990, to a low external challenge between 1991 and 1995 and to a negligible external challenge between 1996 and 2000. In 2001 the stability of the system improved to an unstable system exposed to a negligible external challenge for the latest period.

Given the level of the external challenge, it is highly unlikely that an internal challenge occurred until 1990. However, the internal challenge became unlikely but cannot be excluded from 1991 onwards, mainly due to cattle imported from BSE-risk countries in 1991-1995.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of BRAZIL is II, i.e. it is unlikely but can not be excluded that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. If the stability of the system in Brazil remains as low as it is, significant external challenges could lead to an increase in the GBR of the country.

Published: 16 August 2005 Last updated: 16 August 2005


External Challenge Brazil was exposed to a negligible external challenge in the period 1980-1990, to a low external challenge in the period 1991-1995 and to a negligible external challenge between 1996 and 2003. Stability For the overall assessment of the stability, the impact of the three main stability factors, (i.e. feeding, rendering and SRM-removal) and of the additional stability factor surveillance has to be estimated. Again, the guidance provided by the SSC in its opinion on the GBR of July 2000 (as updated in 2002) is applied. Taking the above-summarized discussion of the most relevant stability factors into account, it is concluded that the BSE/cattle system of Brazil was very unstable between 1980 and 2000 and unstable between 2001 and 2003. Feeding Feeding of any Meat and Bone Meal (MBM) to cattle was legal until 1996, when a ruminant- MBM to ruminant feed ban was introduced. However, also after the implementation of this feed ban, contaminated feedstuff could have likely reached cattle due to cross-contamination. Therefore feeding is assessed as “not OK” before and after the 1996 feed-ban (1980-2000). The reinforced mammalian MBM to ruminant feed ban installed in February 2001 improved the stability to “reasonably OK” as from February 2001 onwards. Rendering Rendering is considered “not OK” throughout the entire reference period (1980-2003) because the majority of the rendering plants did not meet the 133°C/20min/3bar standard. SRM-removal SRM removal is "reasonably OK" throughout the reference period (1980-2003) because the majority of the SRM are consumed by humans and fallen stock are usually buried. BSE surveillance BSE-surveillance has been carried out under the auspicious of the rabies surveillance program until January 2001. This surveillance was not adequate to detect low level of clinical BSE incidence. The situation was somewhat improved when the active surveillance system was installed in February 2001. Conclusions The European Food Safety Authority concludes: 1. A very unstable system between 1980 and 2000 was exposed to a negligible external challenge until 1990, to a low challenge between 1991 and 1995, to negligible between 1996 and 2000. In 2001 the stability of the system improved to an unstable system exposed to a negligible challenge for the latest period. 2. Given the level of the external challenge, it is highly unlikely that an internal challenge occurred until 1990. However, the internal challenge became unlikely but

cannot be excluded from 1991 onwards, mainly due to cattle imported from BSE-risk countries in 1991-1995. 3. The current geographical BSE-risk (GBR) level is II, i.e. it is unlikely but can not be excluded that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSEagent. 4. This assessment deviates from the previous one of April 2003, because some countries were not considered to be at risk for BSE at that time. 5. It is noted that the total imports of live cattle would represent a high challenge if they all entered the cattle/BSE system. The conclusion here however reflects the Brazilian system as described in detail in the CD. It is stated that none of the UK imports and only a small proportion from GBR III countries are slaughtered and most are eventually buried on the farm. If this assumption does not hold, then the high numbers of imports from risk countries, coupled with the unstable system could lead to a higher GBR categorization.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer ... inary=true



Thursday, October 15, 2009

Nebraska Firm Recalls Beef Tongues That Contain Prohibited Materials SRM WASHINGTON, Oct 15, 2009


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/10/ ... -that.html



Sunday, October 18, 2009

Wisconsin Firm Recalls Beef Tongues That Contain Prohibited Materials SRM WASHINGTON, October 17, 2009


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/10/ ... ngues.html


Thursday, October 15, 2009

CVM Annual Report Fiscal Year 2008: October 1, 2007-September 30, 2008 (BSE)


http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2009/10/ ... -2008.html



TSS
 

Latest posts

Top