• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CCA comments

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    CCA comments

    (MEATPOULTRY.com, June 29, 2007)

    by Steve Bjerklie



    A case now moving through the Canadian courts casts into serious doubt whether the Canadian government was forthright and transparent in its management of the risk to Canadian cattlemen from bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The issue speaks to the frustration of cattlemen and beef processors on both sides of the border, some of whom believe government mismanagement of B.S.E. in North America led to hasty decisions in 2003 that nearly destroyed the cattle industry in much of Canada and northern-tier states in the U.S.



    Already, plaintiffs’ counsel has uncovered the fact that the first confirmed B.S.E.-infected cow in Canada was documented in 1993 – a decade before the Canadian Food Inspection Agency went public with an announcement that a B.S.E.-infected cow had been found in Alberta in May 2003. Just as troubling, C.F.I.A. was charged with tracking and maintaining surveillance of 198 cattle imported from the United Kingdom in the 1980s – and it lost track of 80 of them.


    The first confirmed B.S.E. case in the U.S. was announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service in late December 2003. The infected animal was found in Washington state; it had been born in Alberta, Canada. The fallout, however, closed dozens of beef export markets for both Canada and the U.S. The ramifications of those closures remain in continuing negotiations with Japan and South Korea to fully reopen their markets to North American product.



    "We have a number of allegations that the government didn’t act in a prudent way to prevent risk to Canadian cattlemen," commented Gilles Gareau, a lead attorney in the case, to MEAT&POULTRY. "They never told anyone about the first B.S.E. case, for example."



    The case comprises four separate class-action suits by Canadian cattlemen against the Canadian government, one each in Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and one in Ontario covering the other provinces and territories. Earlier this month, Quebec Superior Court certified the suit in that province, which means, said Gareau, "it’s not ‘appealable’ by the government." The suit was filed on behalf of 20,000 cattle producers in Quebec, and it, in conjunction with the other class-action filings, seeks C$9 billion in payment to Canadian cattle producers for lost income, diminution of the value of business and loss of property value. The Ontario portion of the case also moved forward earlier this month when the Ontario Court of Appeals refused to strike down two negligence claims against the government brought by Bill Sauer, a producer who raises cattle near Niagara Falls, Ont.



    Cameron Pallet, counsel for the Ontario class action, told M&P he found a reference to the 1993 B.S.E. animal in a footnote buried in a 1994 report written for the government by a risk analysis expert that was never released to the public. "The really bad part is when they realized they had this B.S.E. case, they didn’t do anything." Moreover, in 1994 the Canadian government had negotiated a "one cow and you’re out" agreement with the United States, meaning that if a single B.S.E. case was discovered in either country, the border would close. "They guaranteed that their negligence would kill the Canadian cattle industry," said Pallet.



    The attorney is just as angry about the missing 80 cattle. Agriculture Canada agreed to monitor the whereabouts of all British cattle imported into Canada since 1982, a group of 198 animals. (In 1990, the Canadian government banned the import of British cattle in response to the growing B.S.E. crisis.) "If they were supposed to be monitoring these animals, what the hell were they doing? How can you lose track of 40 percent of what you’re supposed to be following?" He was able to learn that 68 of the missing cattle had been routinely slaughtered for food, and 12 were rendered into feed.


    "If you look at this statistically, of those 198 cattle, there was a 95-percent chance that at least six of them were B.S.E.-infected," notes Gareau, who adds there’s documentation that Agriculture Canada communicated with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration when the first Canadian B.S.E. case was found in 1993, but the border was not closed and cattle trade remained open between the two countries. "They used the excuse of an integrated market," he said. "And what happened later was the floor fell out from under the cattle industry."



    Gareau said he wants to go to back to court for liability damages as soon as possible, but said it would be a year, perhaps two, before the case is brought to trial.



    Theresa Keddy, spokeswoman for the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, said her organization won’t be part of the litigation. "We’re looking forward," she commented to M&P.

    #2
    Maybe someone here has a more functional memory than me, but I don't recall that first cow being a secret. Seems to me it was destroyed, along with it's herdmates, but some had already been slaughtered, so they couldn't get those back obviously.

    Comment


      #3
      No secret Kato - just a foreign animal - like the first American case I guess. As far as doing something about it in 1993 - ???????

      Now am I getting you right here - would you be saying that these lawyers drop the case and look to the future like the CCA is suggesting? Might be the best thing to do - I am not trying to argue. However there is also potential for some responsibilty here and some pay back for those of us who have carried the load, and still carry it.

      Comment


        #4
        I thought these parts particularly interesting...

        ["The really bad part is when they realized they had this B.S.E. case, they didn’t do anything." Moreover, in 1994 the Canadian government had negotiated a "one cow and you’re out" agreement with the United States, meaning that if a single B.S.E. case was discovered in either country, the border would close."]

        Not only did the USDA's top scientists and TSE experts, that after years of study, came up with the US's original BSE policy of not importing from any BSE country as being our best defense at getting or eradicating the disease---But the Canadian government also felt the disease was serious enough to have a "negotiated agreement" that said "One Case-Border Closed".....

        ["They guaranteed that their negligence would kill the Canadian cattle industry," said Pallet.]



        Looks like the Canuck attorney is finding evidence the Canadian government/CFIA may have hid or poo-pooed away the seriousness- took no or not enough precautions, and is making a good case for the US cattle industry to go after the Canadian Government for allowing BSE to circulate unfettered thruout Canada for 10 years and fester into the epidemic state it may now be- all the while knowingly shipping this possible diseased product to the US....Which our Packer owned USDA allowed in...

        Oh how I wish all these USDA/CFIA packer influenced moves/actions/inactions could/would come out in the Billings and Canuck courtrooms....

        Comment


          #5
          Randy, I'm not suggesting they drop it. Not at all. It's just that reading the statement about a secret cow didn't quite sound correct to me.

          I think the strong part of the case is the lag time between that cow and the feed ban. Is including Ridley going to jeopardize the thing? I'm not sure they were breaking any laws at the time, even though they should morally have kept Canadian standards even with what they were doing in Australia. I wonder if a simple straightforward shot at the government would have been more effective.

          It's interesting to note that the CFIA was established in 1997, and that's when the feed ban came about. Before that, we had inspection services of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada and Industry Canada. Seems it took a single agency to get something done where four agencies obviously just spun their wheels.

          Comment


            #6
            For once I agree with the CCA, lets move on. It's kind of hard to prove the unprovable.
            I think the missing imported cows are a bit of a red herring. Apparently some of them were dairy cows so probably didn't live long enough to develop BSE. The story I was told was that some of them were resold into the US with a dubious paper trail left behind. Most of the other imports were of breeds that had not suffered many cases statistically in the UK. A good number of Luings were killed out for example and to this date there has never been a Luing cow with BSE anywhere in the world.

            Comment


              #7
              I've read that the 1993 cow was a purebred Saler cow that had been imported from Britain in 1987. She was found on a farm near Red Deer. Her herdmates were tested and found negative at the time.

              Comment


                #8
                All the retoric aside - it still amazes me that so many decisions are made with NO real scientific process's or evidence to quanitfy or qualify the disease or it's pathilogic causes or sources.

                Notice I said "Scientific" so far everything about BSE is speculation. And yet major finiancial decissions are made with huge ramifications.

                Comment


                  #9
                  You got it WD. But the problem is - every decision that was made hurt the primary producer, and I, for one, think this law suit has a chance to show that these BSEconomic decisions were wrong.

                  You are surely turning into a passive Canadian there Iain (grassfarmer) Next thing you know, you won't even be seconding my anti ABP/CCA motions at the next round of hoaky producer meetings.

                  All I can dream about when we all win the 9 billion is how we can use about one tenth of it to buy out Cargill and Tyson for twice what they are worth, and then sent them on their merry way to South America.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    To correct any misconceptions from Willowcreek’s post, the truth is the U.S. was importing live cows and protein directly from Britain up to the early 1990s. The U.S. was still importing bone meal and animal protein from Britain as late as December 1990. And U.S. cows that had been fed those UK products would have been rendered and themselves ended up in the U.S. feed stocks certainly until the North American ruminant feed ban in 1997 (identical feed bans in both Canada and the U.S.). It is nothing less than amazing that more U.S. BSE positives have not been detected since that time. They simply have to be out there. Bottomline, BSE was and still is a North American problem.

                    It is my sense that the Canadian cow calf producer has been left to bear the majority of the cost of BSE and if this suit is successful I would hope compensation is paid. If this action was successful the Government of Canada would be able to pay cow calf producers directly without being handcuffed by WTO or NAFTA rules i.e. it would not be countervailable. I am not sure if the Government would be upset if they lost this one.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Interesting perspective farmers_son.

                      As far as Old Willowcreek - we all know what his perpective is "Anything to blame Canada when it comes to BSE."

                      Like most Willocreek posts - In one eye and out the other Old Boy.

                      - Until you finally admit, like you did on the ranchers site, that both of our governments need to be held accountable for BSEconomic decisions.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Not passive Randy, just I've "enjoyed" more and deeper effects of BSE crisis than most of you here. It's like looking back on one of those brilliant holidays and trying to explain it to a stranger - unless you were there you just can't understand what it was like. BSE in Europe is a bit like that for me.
                        I've said it before and I say it again, BSE will never be "solved" or addressed properly without willful co-operation from Europe and the UK in particular and you will not get that as it would be political suicide to raise the issue again.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Interesting thread. Lots of opinions. Wish I could particularly disagree with any of them, but as far as I can tell they all seem to contain an element of truth.

                          To try to set the record just a little bit straight, I do not know how the comment that the Feds never told anyone about the first 1993 BSE heifer (that's Salers with an 's' at both ends) came about. What the Feds neglected to tell anyone was that they had allowed 80 UK cattle imported between 1982 and 1990 to enter the animal feed chain in Canada between 1990 and 1994. Their own risk assessment completed in May of 1994 indicated that there was a 100% probability that one or more of these cattle had BSE. Hmmmm. These were imported UK cattle that the Feds were supposedly 'monitoring' since April 1990 in order to prevent them from spreading BSE to Canada. Some monitoring.

                          Seems to me that fessing up to Canadian producers that you had dropped the ball and bringing in a ruminant feed ban ASAP was the right thing to do. The Feds instead chose to keep their mouths shut and ignore the whole thing. We will have to wait and see whether the Court finds that exercising that particular option was OK.

                          Kato, FYI that Salers heifer diagnosed with BSE in December 1993 was one of 8 birth cohort animals (embryos from France implanted into heifers in England) born in the summer of 1986 and imported into Canada in January 1997. All were fed the same calf starter ration in the UK. Two of these birth cohort Salers were among the 80 UK cattle that made it into the animal food chain in Canada. Grassfarmer will doubtless have a pretty good idea now where the BSE in Canada came from. In fact, the Feds have as much as admitted it in the CFIA report published in January 2006; "These temporal BSE clusters may have resulted from the initial BSE infection that entered North America through the importation of cattle from the U.K. during the period from 1982 to 1989. One or more of these imported animals, without necessarily demonstrating signs of the disease, may have entered the North American feed system between 1991 and 1992 and caused the first generation of BSE in Canadian cattle."

                          FYI grassfarmer, one of the birth cohort Salers heifers entered the animal food chain in Canada in October of 1992 at the age of 6 years 3 months. My educated guess is that this is the cow that caused the whole mess. We will have to wait and see what the Court thinks.

                          I really don't believe that the Feds are entitled to lose track of 80 cattle that they are supposed to be montoring to prevent the spread of BSE, allow them to be slaughtered and rendered in the usual course, and then when they finally figure it out don't tell anyone, and don't do anything. That strikes me as negligence. Of course, my opinion is just my opinion and really doesn't matter. What will matter at the end of the day is the Court's opinion.

                          wd40, you also are right, the science is still unfolding. So is the science that says cigarettes cause lung cancer. We still don't know exactly how that works, but the epidemiological evidence is overwhelming. Same with BSE, in my respectful view, although I understand that hardheads like that terrible Kaiser guy may disagree. Frankly I welcome the discussion. Keeps me learning.

                          Willowcreek, I hate to disappoint you on two scores. Firstly, kato is right and all of the allegations against the Feds predate the creation of the CFIA. The CFIA has done a brilliant job and Canadian beef is not only the safest, but clearly the tastiest in the world. I won a bet on that score many years ago with a couple of friends from Iowa and Texas. It is still the truth today. Canadian beef tastes better. Get used to it. Secondly, the only people that can sue the Feds are Canadians, and that is a very uphill battle indeed, even for us. Stick to lobbying your own government. Maybe one day you will figure out that we are all in this together and your guns are better pointed downrange. Hope springs eternal.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Got ya grassfarmer. Each of us has our own experience all right. Mr. Pallett and I have discussed the potential for myself being the plaintiff should we need one in Alberta, but I can't do it. I have suffered losses on a few cull cows and bulls, and may have had a few American sales quashed; however our meat program was going prior to BSE and that has allowed us significantly less loss than the average guy.

                            So why did I help found BIG C, and why do I remain vocal? Because I see a wrong here grassfarmer. A wrong here that is costing me customers. Customers as in primary producers who did not deserve any of this. I have said many times and been told by the like of Cory Wilson to "shut up and sing", but I can not. If I see willingness by "anyone" else to make a change to this dismantling of a perfectly good and viable industry -- I will support them. Whether that be a lawyer with a passion, an NFU mouthpiece like our vocal and "right" Dutch friend, or a man with a dream to stop the domination of our industry by two companies with power and greed written into their mission statements. ie Mr. Cam Ostercamp. Our food supply does not belong in the hands of those who care about nothing but profit. And every time we choose the easy route of not challenging them, we lose more ground in the battle for our children in the future.

                            This lawsuit may seem to be about government, and like Kato says, may even be better without Ridley. However this lawsuit is about decisions. Decisions made by the government but directed by corporate agriculture.When these decisions are shown to be the wrong decisions, I for one, will be all over the fact that corporate agriculture was behind this whole mess. Not to the point of causing BSE, but seeing opportunity and directing the government to allow them to be obscene profit takers while the primary producer sucked the proverbial hind tit.

                            Oh yes - by the way Mr. Wilson, I will have our new company web site up and running very soon.

                            Celtic Beef Alliance - Caring - Credible and Candid

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Farmers-son to correct you--
                              In 1989 the US quit issuing import permits for cattle or any beef containing products from known BSE countries/areas....

                              In 1990- the US was the first country in the world without BSE to begin a BSE testing and surveillance program...

                              1996- US ranchers organized a voluntary feedban, which established an industry standard against feeding ruminant-derived protein to cattle.

                              In 1997- that feedban was made federal law and enforced by the FDA.....

                              And to this date the US has found NO POST FEED BAN positive animals (altho about 1/2 million cattle have been tested)....

                              Whats Canada's number now-- 6 POST FEED BAN positives out of 12 (in a herd 1/8th the size of the US herd)....And being found in cluster areas, which according to the science reviews I've read means its more prevalent than what is actually being found...

                              Chirp Away- Farmers_son... Looks to me like Mr. Pallet could have a pretty strong case of misdoings by the Canadian government- Just too bad he can't draw the USDA/AMI involvement into the picture with some of the "joint ventures" and "backroom deals" where they put their economics ahead of consumer/herd safety....

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...