AFF Sentinel Vol.3 #25

Bill Bullard is no dummy. He must know Specified Risk Material (SRM) removal at slaughter ensures that beef from any animal - with or without BSE - is safe to eat. He must know the ruminant feed ban breaks the cycle of re-infection among cattle and has no direct connection with food safety. He also must know testing cattle for BSE is a measure to monitor disease prevalence in the cattle herd and has no direct human safety connection.

So when Bullard points to testing methods that detect BSE in a live animal eight months before clinical symptoms appear instead of two months prior, when he implies that there is a danger to the human food chain, he knows what he is doing. He knows he is deliberately distorting, twisting together two separate issues and attempting to scare beef consumers to the detriment of their well-being and the beef industry's welfare. Like twisting two hot electrical circuits together, he is creating a flash and the chance of fire.

In referring to the ability to detect BSE eight months prior to clinical symptoms in a cow, Bullard said, "This would suggest that Canada, if it would dramatically increase BSE testing of its cattle herd, could detect the disease in animals that are not exhibiting clinical symptoms, but are destined for the human food chain," Bullard said in a recent news release.

It is assumed most cattle are headed for the human food chain. That's why we perform SRM removal on all of them ... to handle the infinitesimal chance that any particular animal could be infected, wherever it came from. We even go beyond that, allowing no downer animals and no sick animals ... two more levels of safeguards. On top of that, science and experience have shown there is a huge species barrier to BSE infecting humans.

Bullard sounds like Carol Tucker Foreman (Consumer Federation of America) or Patty Lovera (Public Citizen). This begs the question ... whose side is he on, anyway? He is certainly not on the consumer's side, because he is feeding them distorted information, implying false risk and creating an unwarranted fear. Consumers don't want or need that.

He is certainly not on the cattlemen's side, because he is risking consumer confidence in beef supply safety for no legitimate reason ... something nobody but the renegades in the beef production chain want to do. The beef industry has worked hard to maintain the factual credibility and honest reputation it has had with consumers for decades. R- CALF has had no part in building or maintaining that reputation, and seems to place no value on it. It certainly has no qualms about risking it.

So what motivates such self-sacrifice? Attempting to destroy an industry just so you can change a small aspect of it to your liking -- ignoring the fact that there could be no industry left -- can only be described as suicidal. We don't pretend to be able to explain it, as much as we try to fathom such behavior. But then, R-CALF admitted their failure to convince the majority of cattlemen of their views and motivations when they split off from mainstream national and state organizations.

Deliberate sabotage of your own industry is not just unexplainable ... it puts everyone at risk.

Email your comments to the author

{mos_sb_discuss:08}