TimH
Well-known member
This article is from the Billings Gazette, March 17/05. It's good to see a paper publish views from both sides of an issue. Congrats!! 
Guest opinion: R-CALF members sell beef on both sides of border
By J. PATRICK BOYLE
American Meat Institute
It's been nearly two years since Canada diagnosed its first case of BSE and the United States shut its borders to Canadian beef and cattle. Initially, most agreed the border closure was prudent government action intended to protect American agriculture. Fortunately, like the United States, Canada had been systematically implementing a series of overlapping, preventative steps to contain and combat BSE when it was found. That's why, on March 7, USDA was poised to restore beef and cattle trade with Canada.
That was, until Montana-based Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund obtained a preliminary injunction that blocked the reopening of the Canadian border. In court, R-CALF alleged that restoring cattle trade with Canada presented significant risks because BSE infected cows would stampede into the U.S. and co-mingle with United States cattle, harming both consumers and cattle.
Profiting from Canada's woe
But all is not what R-CALF would have us believe. While R-CALF alleges in court that meat from Canadian cattle is unsafe, some R-CALF members were caught with their hands in the cookie jar when it was revealed that they purchased cheap feeder cattle in Canada (cheap because of R-CALF's protectionist policies) and then sold the finished cattle – no doubt at a profit. This behavior begs the question: If R-CALF members believe their rhetoric that Canadian cattle are unsafe and pose a health risk justifying excluding them from the United States, then some R-CALF members are either self-centered profiteers, looking to buy, and ultimately sell, what they contend are "unsafe" Canadian cattle at rock-bottom prices to line their own pockets, or they don't believe the unsubstantiated rhetoric and scare tactics used by R-CALF to perpetuate the beef ban. Either way, they are profiting from the misery of others and feeling no shame in the process. When asked by Canadian press about the inconsistency, R-CALF's president commented "I don't see anything ironic about it." Indeed.
R-CALF's move to keep the border closed under the banner of food safety is causing long-term, adverse structural changes in the North American beef industry. There are not enough cattle in the United States to meet American meatpacking needs, which led to importing Canadian cattle for years. Those plants, cut off from the Canadian cattle they have been processing for decades, have laid off workers or shut down completely. Unfortunately, working families who depend on these jobs may have lost them permanently.
Yet, because of the R-CALF injunction, Canadian cattle may not enter the United States, based on arguments laden with scare tactics about food safety that have no scientific foundation. Indeed, Canada has taken every step the United States has to prevent BSE. Both countries require removal of specified risk materials. Because BSE is not in the meat we eat and because SRMs are removed, Canadian beef is as safe as American beef.
Protectionist campaign
Sadly, what this dispute is really about is protectionism. Rick Fox, an R-CALF member from South Dakota, recently revealed on PBS's "Newshour with Jim Lehrer," that the real motivation behind the beef and cattle ban was that reopening the border could adversely affect the bank accounts of American ranchers. "They open that border up, and you're going to hear a giant sucking sound again, just like with NAFTA. All that meat is going to come down to the U.S. to be slaughtered. All the excess feeder cattle in Canada will probably end up in the United States, in feedlots," said Fox. Mr. Fox says that in 2004, with the border closed, he enjoyed "some of the best prices he's ever had" for his cattle adding that "When that Canadian border shut down, our market went up." It sounds like Mr. Fox is afraid of the competition.
The problem with R-CALF's protectionist, fear-based campaign is that economic competition engendered in the American free market system is a fundamental strength that has made the United States a world leader in agricultural production and exports. Competition makes us smarter, faster, and more efficient, while providing new opportunities for growth of exports to the world's 6 billion consumers. If we build a trade wall around the United States to keep out foreign competition, producers might see profits rise in the short term, but that same policy keeps beef prices high for consumers and encourages Canada to grow its processing capacity, harming the whole industry's long term prosperity.
J. Patrick Boyle is the president and CEO of the American Meat Institute, an organization of beef and poultry packers.
Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.
Guest opinion: R-CALF members sell beef on both sides of border
By J. PATRICK BOYLE
American Meat Institute
It's been nearly two years since Canada diagnosed its first case of BSE and the United States shut its borders to Canadian beef and cattle. Initially, most agreed the border closure was prudent government action intended to protect American agriculture. Fortunately, like the United States, Canada had been systematically implementing a series of overlapping, preventative steps to contain and combat BSE when it was found. That's why, on March 7, USDA was poised to restore beef and cattle trade with Canada.
That was, until Montana-based Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund obtained a preliminary injunction that blocked the reopening of the Canadian border. In court, R-CALF alleged that restoring cattle trade with Canada presented significant risks because BSE infected cows would stampede into the U.S. and co-mingle with United States cattle, harming both consumers and cattle.
Profiting from Canada's woe
But all is not what R-CALF would have us believe. While R-CALF alleges in court that meat from Canadian cattle is unsafe, some R-CALF members were caught with their hands in the cookie jar when it was revealed that they purchased cheap feeder cattle in Canada (cheap because of R-CALF's protectionist policies) and then sold the finished cattle – no doubt at a profit. This behavior begs the question: If R-CALF members believe their rhetoric that Canadian cattle are unsafe and pose a health risk justifying excluding them from the United States, then some R-CALF members are either self-centered profiteers, looking to buy, and ultimately sell, what they contend are "unsafe" Canadian cattle at rock-bottom prices to line their own pockets, or they don't believe the unsubstantiated rhetoric and scare tactics used by R-CALF to perpetuate the beef ban. Either way, they are profiting from the misery of others and feeling no shame in the process. When asked by Canadian press about the inconsistency, R-CALF's president commented "I don't see anything ironic about it." Indeed.
R-CALF's move to keep the border closed under the banner of food safety is causing long-term, adverse structural changes in the North American beef industry. There are not enough cattle in the United States to meet American meatpacking needs, which led to importing Canadian cattle for years. Those plants, cut off from the Canadian cattle they have been processing for decades, have laid off workers or shut down completely. Unfortunately, working families who depend on these jobs may have lost them permanently.
Yet, because of the R-CALF injunction, Canadian cattle may not enter the United States, based on arguments laden with scare tactics about food safety that have no scientific foundation. Indeed, Canada has taken every step the United States has to prevent BSE. Both countries require removal of specified risk materials. Because BSE is not in the meat we eat and because SRMs are removed, Canadian beef is as safe as American beef.
Protectionist campaign
Sadly, what this dispute is really about is protectionism. Rick Fox, an R-CALF member from South Dakota, recently revealed on PBS's "Newshour with Jim Lehrer," that the real motivation behind the beef and cattle ban was that reopening the border could adversely affect the bank accounts of American ranchers. "They open that border up, and you're going to hear a giant sucking sound again, just like with NAFTA. All that meat is going to come down to the U.S. to be slaughtered. All the excess feeder cattle in Canada will probably end up in the United States, in feedlots," said Fox. Mr. Fox says that in 2004, with the border closed, he enjoyed "some of the best prices he's ever had" for his cattle adding that "When that Canadian border shut down, our market went up." It sounds like Mr. Fox is afraid of the competition.
The problem with R-CALF's protectionist, fear-based campaign is that economic competition engendered in the American free market system is a fundamental strength that has made the United States a world leader in agricultural production and exports. Competition makes us smarter, faster, and more efficient, while providing new opportunities for growth of exports to the world's 6 billion consumers. If we build a trade wall around the United States to keep out foreign competition, producers might see profits rise in the short term, but that same policy keeps beef prices high for consumers and encourages Canada to grow its processing capacity, harming the whole industry's long term prosperity.
J. Patrick Boyle is the president and CEO of the American Meat Institute, an organization of beef and poultry packers.
Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.
