BSE and Science – Thoughts From The Middle of Nowhere

I have a new commenter on the site. If you haven't been watching the fight in the comments she is a Canadian rancher's wife taking me to task for my views on the cattle from Canada issue. She recently made the statement in one of her <a href="http://nowherethoughts.net/sarpysam/archives/796-Somebodies-not-checking-their-facts.html#c1636" target="_new">comments</a>: n n<blockquote>Guess there's no point arguing this one as you and I are on oppostite sides of the border and oppostie sides of the issue. It's simply that the farmers in my area find it frustrating to hear that the decisions will be based on science, not politics, in regards to the opening of the border.</blockquote> n nI pointed out that I believe the same thing, that science should guide this, to which she <as href="http://nowherethoughts.net/sarpysam/archives/796-Somebodies-not-checking-their-facts.html#c1640" target="_new">responded</a>: n n<blockquote>You've apparently misunderstood my comment. I, and other farmers in my area, don't have a problem relying on science, but the "science" you are referring to does not back up keeping the border closed. What I asked is that you explain the scientific reasons for keeping the border closed. What are the "reasonable standards of science" involved here that you refer to?</blockquote> n nInstead of responding in my comments I decided to bring it up to front and center. n nThe United States Department of Agriculture (<acronym title="United States Department of Agriculture, Bought and Paid for by The Big Meat Packers">USDA</acronym>) has repeatedly rejected World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) science-based minimal criteria for designating a country as a “minimal” <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym>-risk country, arguing instead that Canada’s good-faith intentions to reduce <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym> are appropriate substitutes for objective, science-based evidence. OIE standards require a country with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (<acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym>) to have had a meat-and-bone meal (MBM) feed ban “effectively enforced for at least eight years.” The <acronym title="United States Department of Agriculture, Bought and Paid for by The Big Meat Packers">USDA</acronym> has judged Canada a “minimal” <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym>-risk country, even though Canada has not met the required eight-year feed ban. n nAccording to correspondence from OIE – before <acronym title="United States Department of Agriculture, Bought and Paid for by The Big Meat Packers">USDA</acronym> decided to ignore this minimal eight-year feed ban requirement – the agency sought the advice of OIE scientists to determine whether OIE would agree to any relaxations of the animal-health organization’s <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym> minimal-risk standards contained in OIE’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code. n nOn Sept. 26, 2003, OIE rejected <acronym title="United States Department of Agriculture, Bought and Paid for by The Big Meat Packers">USDA</acronym>’s request to relax OIE’s <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym> minimal-risk standards, stating, “One of the most important conclusions of the recent OIE expert group is that the scientific basis used in the present Code is still valid.” n nCanada can qualify only as a “moderate” <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym>-risk country under OIE standards, and Canada should be practicing more intense <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym> mitigation measures than those already implemented by the country if it wishes to be classed as a "minimal" <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym>-risk country. I know it's only one point, the MBM ban, but that is where the science is against Canada being a "minimal" <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym>-risk country and is in keeping with more stringent border safeguards for the US. n nIn the <acronym title="United States Department of Agriculture, Bought and Paid for by The Big Meat Packers">USDA</acronym>'s Final Rule published on Jan. 4, 2005, <acronym title="United States Department of Agriculture, Bought and Paid for by The Big Meat Packers">USDA</acronym> permanently lifted the restriction on Canadian beef from cattle over 30 months of age, effectively allowing the most risky beef into the U.S. food supply. This part of the rule was eventually rescinded by the Secretary of Agriculture but points out that scientific criteria was not being followed. n nThere is also an issue of reciprocity involved here. The United States meets the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) standards for a country provisionally free of <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym>. Knowing this Canada is unwilling to let U.S. beef from cattle over 30 months of age into the Canadian food supply, even though all cases of <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym> found to date have been in cattle of Canadian origin. n nI would also like to point out to everybody my statement I have <a href="http://nowherethoughts.net/sarpysam/archives/797-Preliminary-Injunction.html" target="_new">made before</a>: n n<blockquote>I think this is the right decision but I will admit upfront that I have a vested interest in keeping the border closed. I have tried to weigh that against the public safety and I think the public safety is the reason I am standing the way I do on this issue.</blockquote> n nI have always been upfront that I have a financial stake in this decision. I've always known that Canadian cattle were a drag on our market in the US but accepted that as a condition of doing business. I joined R-calf in its original purpose to discover if Canadian cattle producers were unfairly dumping cattle on the US market. The US government studied the issue and discovered that the Canadian cattle producers were in fact dumping cattle on the US market but they would do nothing about it since it's affect was very slight on the US market in their opinion. I knew this was going to be the answer going into it but was happy with the results in knowing that Canadian cattle producers were in fact trying to hurt our markets. n nIf you carefully read all of my <a href="http://nowherethoughts.net/sarpysam/categories/7-<acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym>" target="_new"><acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym> articles</a> you will find I supported Canadian cattle producers and urged caution on all of us up until it was reported that Canadian feed still was <a href="http://nowherethoughts.net/sarpysam/archives/645-Feed.html" target="_new">showing signs of MBM</a> in its production and distribution. This revelation caused me to re-evaluate my position on Canadian cattle. With this information in hand and based on the science of the issue that Canada is not a "minimal" <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym>-risk country I felt it was necessary to oppose the opening of the border to live cattle. n nI hope this answers my newest commenter's questions as to what the science is that I speak of in keeping the border closed. Right or wrong, that's where I stand. n nScience is a system of statements based on direct experience, and controlled by experimental verification. Verification in science is not, however, of single statements but of the entire system or a sub-system of such statements. Rudolf Carnap