From BEEF Cow-Calf weekly
R-CALF Backs Away From Food Safety Claim
The National Meat Association (NMA) filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals its response brief in R-CALF v. USDA. NMA argues there is ample evidence in the record to sustain a finding that USDA's Final Rule presented no substantial risk to human health and that the preliminary injunction should never have been entered.
But, R-CALF's response filed with the Ninth Circuit last week makes this surprising admission, NMA says: "R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada."
In the aftermath of this statement, NMA is asking: "If R-CALF has never argued there's a great risk to human health from resumed imports, what was the purpose of the advertisement it took out in the Washington Post, which clearly linked the Canadian BSE situation to U.S. beef safety? Don't they believe their own rhetoric?"
NMA says no one may be more surprised than the Billings, MT, District Court that delayed the border reopening on the basis of "an increased risk to human health," even describing a "genuine risk of death for U.S. consumers" in its decision.
"R-CALF's latter-day admission that there is no great risk to human health from resumed imports of Canadian cattle and beef utterly undermines the basis for the District Court's decision," NMA says.
Instead, NMA says R-CALF now claims USDA didn't do a proper quantitative analysis.
"Apparently R-CALF failed to read the Harvard Risk Assessment. Authored by leading world experts, that assessment is the quantitative analysis of risk with which USDA supported its Rule," NMA says.
See the brief at http://www.nmaonline.org/html/pr4_4_05.htm.
-- NMA's Lean Trimmings newsletter
R-CALF Backs Away From Food Safety Claim
The National Meat Association (NMA) filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals its response brief in R-CALF v. USDA. NMA argues there is ample evidence in the record to sustain a finding that USDA's Final Rule presented no substantial risk to human health and that the preliminary injunction should never have been entered.
But, R-CALF's response filed with the Ninth Circuit last week makes this surprising admission, NMA says: "R-CALF USA [has] never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada."
In the aftermath of this statement, NMA is asking: "If R-CALF has never argued there's a great risk to human health from resumed imports, what was the purpose of the advertisement it took out in the Washington Post, which clearly linked the Canadian BSE situation to U.S. beef safety? Don't they believe their own rhetoric?"
NMA says no one may be more surprised than the Billings, MT, District Court that delayed the border reopening on the basis of "an increased risk to human health," even describing a "genuine risk of death for U.S. consumers" in its decision.
"R-CALF's latter-day admission that there is no great risk to human health from resumed imports of Canadian cattle and beef utterly undermines the basis for the District Court's decision," NMA says.
Instead, NMA says R-CALF now claims USDA didn't do a proper quantitative analysis.
"Apparently R-CALF failed to read the Harvard Risk Assessment. Authored by leading world experts, that assessment is the quantitative analysis of risk with which USDA supported its Rule," NMA says.
See the brief at http://www.nmaonline.org/html/pr4_4_05.htm.
-- NMA's Lean Trimmings newsletter
