Dear Mike: Perhaps Mr. Simons would like to reflect
his upon his statements. According to this, BSE
seems to have not caused his total organization so
much trouble....or profit....and he fails to mention
that his own company has benefitted from the increased
exports by Swift Australia to the USA, because of
Australia's BSE-Free status. He also fails to address
another profit center for Swift, which is by-product
sales derived from the slaughter of live cattle,
regardless of which plant Swift operates, nor does he
mention anything about the sales of hides, offal or
value-added pet food products.
The state of Swift's operations world-wide is
available at this website address:
This report does provide a little more enlightenment
to the general public than the letter Mr. Simons has
He also fails to mention how much money he is paid, as
well as former CEO, Tom Hicks, our President's
business partner (Texas Rangers baseball team) and
purchaser of the Australian Swift Division. That
might help to explain the Big Push to enhance Free
Trade with Australia, too. It would help Hick's
/Simon's Swift Australia right away.
Let's recognize one thing, BSE has been a boon to this
man and this company. That the Canadian border
remains closed, it just means they could not purchase
live Canadian cattle to cheapen their kill costs.
That's the main reason he's complaining now. We
should not be deceived by this complaint....Swift
still makes money and lots of it. He's just mad that
now he has to pay a little bit more for cattle,
because R-Calf stopped his plans up, for the time
You can bet his Board of Directors will be lobbying
Pres. Bush to get the border re-opened asap.
Swift's Simon's "Science" is all about mastering the
art of B.S. - Better Put: "How to Deceive the
Public." That's what he's paid to do, but this time
he didn't do a very good job.
Burkie in Kansas
--- Mike Callicrate wrote:
> Yet another example of the misuse and abuse of ALL
> the science that exists
> on the BSE topic. This gentleman uses only the
> science that fits his cause
> and totally ignores science that does not fit his
> cause. His use of the word
> "protectionist" seems to only apply to those who
> oppose him and he really
> needs to look in the mirror to see what a
> "protectionist" looks like. He so
> misleads the public about BSE and its potential.
> His use of the numbers
> regarding how much Canadian meat was consumed by the
> average consumer leaves
> out one very important point. That is that the
> average consumer may have
> done what he says they did, BUT they did it without
> knowing it was Canadian
> beef, so Swift and there counterparts are stuffing
> it down the consumers
> throats but failing to tell them where the meat
> comes from. Maybe, just
> maybe, they would not have consumed any of the 3.5
> lbs of Canadian beef had
> they been allowed to make a choice. It only becomes
> important to this
> gentleman when it suits his fancy and can be used to
> support his case. "Mr.
> Swift" needs to use all science and not "selective"
> science when he is
> attempting to say that sound science says
> differently. His sound science
> claims are nothing more than "protectionist,
> selective" science.
> Doug Zalesky
> Hesperus, CO.
> Give USDA control of beef industry
> Guest Commentary
> April 10, 2005
> A GROUP OF protectionist, anti-free-trade ranchers
> known as R-CALF has
> pulled the wool over our eyes. They've convinced a
> federal district court
> judge in Montana that they know more than the best
> scientific minds around
> the world on how to protect the United States
> against bovine spongiform
> encephalopathy, also known as mad cow disease.
> The R-CALF approach doesn't involve controlling
> cattle feed -- the source of
> mad cow disease. It doesn't involve processing only
> younger cattle that are
> scientifically proven to be BSE-free. It involves
> locking out their Canadian
> competitors to preserve historically high profits
> for R-CALF members at the
> expense of workers and consumers.
> While R-CALF frantically waves the flag in the name
> of beef safety and
> protecting the U.S. cattle herd, take a moment to
> consider the hypocrisy of
> their position.
> Why locking out Canadian cattle doesn't help the
> United States
> It doesn't keep out Canadian beef (which is safe).
> In August 2003, the U.S.
> Department of Agriculture elected to allow imports
> of boneless boxed
> Canadian beef under 30 months of age as a first step
> toward totally opening
> the border to live cattle.
> U.S. consumers ate more than 1 billion pounds of
> Canadian beef last year --
> more than 31/2 pounds for every man, woman and child
> in this country.
> This isn't a food safety issue. As noted above,
> we're already eating beef
> from the same cattle that are being stopped at our
> We're not protecting domestic cattle. The USDA
> proposal for March 7 was to
> open the border to cattle under 30 months of age --
> younger than the
> scientifically proven onset of mad cow disease.
> Mad cow disease is not conveyed through contact.
> Bringing Canadian cattle
> into the United States does not create a risk of
> contamination for the U.S.
> herd. Shipping only under-30-month Canadian cattle
> directly to U.S.
> processing plants in sealed containers would be an
> added precaution.
> It isn't a hasty step. Our border has been closed to
> Canadian cattle since
> May 2003. What science has made very clear in the
> past two years is: There
> is no scientific evidence that cattle under 30
> months old show evidence of
> mad cow disease. Of 1.6 million cattle less than 30
> months old tested for
> mad cow disease in the United Kingdom in 2002, not a
> single one tested
> positive for the disease.
> What R-CALF has accomplished
> n Perpetuating an unfair advantage for Canadian beef
> processors. The price
> of comparable fed cattle has averaged $265 per head
> less in Canada than in
> the United States. That price differential shot from
> $115 to $325 within one
> week after federal District Judge Richard Cebull
> issued his March 2 ruling
> keeping the border closed to Canadian cattle.
> This sizeable advantage for Canadian processors is
> cutting into U.S. beef
> sales domestically as well as in countries such as
> Mexico, where we compete
> with Canada.
> n The outsourcing of U.S. beef industry jobs to
> Canada. While more than
> 272,000 U.S. beef industry workers and their
> families have been economically
> harmed as our industry has run more than 9 percent
> below pre-BSE levels, the
> Canadian beef processing industry grew by 24 percent
> in 2004, with another
> 19 percent growth is predicted by 2007. The jobs
> created in Canada likely
> will never return to the United States.
> n A continuing drain on the U.S. economy --
> particularly in those regions
> where beef processing is significant. Based on a
> Colorado State University
> economic impact study, it's estimated that the
> Greeley community alone has
> lost more than $250 million in economic activity in
> 2004 just based on a 9
> percent to 10 percent production slowdown.
> Extended nationwide, that translates into between $6
> billion and $8 billion
> in lost economic activity in one year alone.
> R-CALF supports protectionism, not safety
> Some members of R-CALF are playing both sides of the
> fence -- buying cheap
> Canadian cattle to earn huge profits if/when the
> border is opened -- while
> running up the price of domestic cattle by charging
> that Canadian cattle are
> A Japanese official was quoted as saying that
> R-CALF's opposition to opening
> the border may delay the start of beef exports to
> Japan. Since the United
> States is demanding that Japan use scientific
> standards as a reason to
> reopen their border to U.S. beef, how can we justify
> denying entry to
> Canadian cattle that meet the same criterion?
=== message truncated ===> ---
> You are currently subscribed to nobull_net as:
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to