U.S. to propose new international rule on beef trade

[Tam]

For all you R-CALFers that like useing the OIE please read all of this and note the parts I highlighted

The OIE standards on BSE: a guide for understanding and proper implementation

The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has become increasingly concerned about reports of international trade disruptions involving the misinterpretation of OIE standards. Recent published information on categorization of countries by the OIE indicates there are some apparent misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of the OIE international standards and guidelines, and their interpretation and implementation by Member countries.

The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Code) contains standards, guidelines and recommendations to be used by national veterinary authorities to prevent the introduction of infectious agents pathogenic for animals and humans into the importing country during trade of animals and animal products, while avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers.

While the Code describes conditions for the classification of countries into one of five BSE risk categories, the OIE itself does not assign countries to all these categories. These are used by importing countries when determining the specific conditions for trade. However, the OIE has been recently requested to examine country submissions, made on a voluntary basis, for determining whether they meet the conditions to be officially classified by an OIE decision as "BSE free" or "BSE provisionally free". For the moment the OIE does not give an opinion on the further 3 categories existing in the Code. So far no country has been given such recognition by the OIE. Furthermore, the OIE has been requested by Member countries to reduce the current number of categories.

The Code also draws attention to the obligations under the provisions of the World Trade Organization-Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (WTO-SPS), whereby the importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that its measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market.

The OIE chapter on BSE currently describes five levels of exporting country status based on their determined risk level (free, provisionally free, minimal risk, moderate risk and high risk). It then addresses trade conditions for various commodities through an increasing degree of restrictions commensurate with the risks presented. For example, fresh meat may be imported safely from a country of any BSE status but with increasing restrictions so that, for countries presenting a high BSE risk, more severe measures are applied to the cattle and to the meat itself. The experts consider that, if these measures are followed, the meat is safe.

For some commodities however, the experts have determined that particular commodities should not be exported even from countries presenting a low BSE risk. For example, meat and bone meal, or any commodity containing such products, which originate from countries with minimal, moderate or high BSE risk should not be traded.

It is apparent that some Member Countries are applying trade bans when an exporting country reports the presence of BSE, without consulting the recommendations in the Code or conducting a risk analysis in accordance with its OIE and WTO obligations. While the Code provides increasingly restrictive recommendations which are commensurate with the level of BSE risk in each of the country status categories, it does not recommend any other ban than the above mentioned on trade of animals or specific animal products.

Regarding the BSE situation in the European Union and more recently in Japan, Canada and the US, the existence of valid up-to-date standards did not prevent major trade disruptions due to a failure by many countries to apply the international standard when establishing or revising their import policies. This has been particularly evident in the case of commodities for which the Code recommends that no restrictions be applied, regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country.

Except for short trade suspensions during investigation period following a new epidemiological event, it is of particular concern to the OIE that many countries apply trade bans when an exporting country reports its first case of BSE, without having conducted a risk analysis as described in the Code. Such situations penalise countries with a good and transparent surveillance system for animal diseases and zoonoses, and which have demonstrated their ability to control the risks identified. This may result in a reluctance to report future cases and an increased likelihood of disease spread internationally.

January 2004


This is brought to you straight from the OIE web page

[Tam]

[Tam]

Sorry missed this Mike

Rancher wrote

[Mike]

[Sandhusker]

If only we had a test we could run that would tell us for sure. Then, there would be no guessing and everybody would know for sure.....oh, wait....we have a test. Too bad we can't us it.

[Mike]

Sandhusker-scroll down and read "Canadian answer test all exports".
Is this guy out to lunch?

[Kato]

FYI, here are a few responses posted on Japan Today to the story of the new rule to be proposed by the U.S.

Unlimited Self-opinionated Arrogance.
kasumi (Mar 5 2005 - 09:14)

“The proposal will feature measures prohibiting nations from imposing a blanket ban on beef imports from countries where cases of mad cow disease have been found”

“By a 52-46 margin, senators approved a bipartisan resolution to strike down a U.S. Department of Agriculture's regulation lifting a 22-month-old trade ban that has cost Canada's beef industry $7-billion.

The Senate vote came one day after a Montana judge granted an injunction, at the request of R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, to block plans to allow Canada to resume exports of live cattle under 30 months of age on March 7.

Judge Cebull ruled U.S. beef would be hit with a "stigma" of BSE infection if Canadian animals are allowed to mix with the American herd. A delay in re-opening the border would be "prudent and largely harmless," he continued.”

It would look like the US needs to get it’s own house in order before it tries to blackmail & threaten others.
Maybe Japan is just being “prudent” & the consequences are likely to be largely harmless. Well who are we none-Americans to argue with the wisdom of a US judge?

Are we back to the Henry Ford principle of selling cars, you can have any colour of car you like, so long as it is black?
Japan wants all the beef tested & if the US wants to sell beef to Japan there is one very, very, very simple answer. Test it.


Amen, Kasumi!
noharness (Mar 5 2005 - 09:1

Well said.


U.S. to propose new int'l rule on beef trade
Nessie (Mar 5 2005 - 09:44)

So much for splendid isolation.


Kasumi
fazool2 (Mar 5 2005 - 10:27)

Lucid, logical, researched, well presented and pertinent.
Pretty rare to nail them all on this board; thanks.


Yes this looks pretty silly
Its OK (Mar 5 2005 - 11:26)

I have been unable to find more on the new Proposal. But it appears from this article that the Senate wants to rebuild trade to Asia before opening up the border to Canadian beef again.

"While some senators questioned Canadian safeguards, others like Wyoming Republican Craig Thomas said U.S. beef exports to Asia should be rebuilt before Canadian cattle were allowed."
http://www.reuters.ca/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp;:42278392:5b817ab1e962f361?type=topNews&localeKey=en_CA&storyID=7801457

Still it looks a little like we are putting the cart before the horse. Also the vote not to open up the border for younger Canadian cattle was just passed today.

[Mike]

I like the title:

"Unlimited Self-opinionated Arrogance"

If the shoe fits.............