• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A US View of Canadas Feedban Tightening

A

Anonymous

Guest
Group Opposes Rigid Feed Rule



By Chris Clayton

DTN Staff Reporter

Tue Jun 27, 2006 06:57 AM CDT



The National Renderers Association opposes tighter restrictions by Canada that bans specified-risk materials from cattle older than 30 months in animal feed, pet food or fertilizer -- a move the group said is 'regulatory overkill.'



OMAHA (DTN) -- While Canada moved ahead Monday with tighter restrictions on livestock and pet feed to reduce the risk of mad-cow disease, the rendering industry in the U.S. is arguing more regulations would increase the costs of doing business without a justifiable benefit.



With just two domestic-born cases of confirmed mad-cow disease, the rendering industry said a U.S. Food and Drug Administration proposal similar to the one Canada passed is regulatory overkill.



"The idea that this rule is going to reduce risk -- the risk is already extremely low," said Tom Cook, executive director of the National Renderers Association. "So you are just trying to get from zilch to zero because it's already extremely low."



The Canadian Food Inspection Agency followed through on a proposal to ban specified-risk materials from cattle more than 30 months old from being used in any animal feed, pet food or fertilizer. Under the rule, SRMs are defined as brains, spinal cords, eyes, tonsils, certain ganglia nerves and the distal ileum from cattle of all ages.



It's not likely the Canadian rule will have a major effect on the U.S. feed or rendering industry because not that much meat and bone meal is exported. The rules could have a bigger effect on the pet-food industry, Cook said.



"This may be wishful thinking or naive, but I don't think it will have much of an impact on the U.S. industry," he said.



Officials with the Canadian government and the cattle industry said the rules conform to recommendations from an international panel and should help Canada reestablish export trade lost since Canada's first reported finding bovine spongiform encephalopathy in 2003.



The rule change, which was initially proposed in December 2004, comes after Canadian officials announced last week that the country's fifth case of BSE was due to contaminated feed. Each of Canada's BSE cases has been linked back to a common source of contaminated feed in the late 1990s.



FDA proposed last October tightening its 1997 rule preventing cattle meat and bone meal from being fed to other ruminants. Those products continue to be used for pet foods as well as supplements for hog and poultry feed. The FDA proposed rule is similar to Canada's in that it would ban using brains and spinal cords from deadstock and cattle over 30 months of age in animal feed.



FDA officials had said they expected the agency would have its rule finalized by July 1 but FDA staff continue to say the agency is still reviewing comments on the matter. From Cook's perspective, no news from FDA is good news.



"It really begs the question of if we have a system in place that is working, why do we need to do more?" he said.



A study conducted for the U.S. rendering industry by Informa Economics concludes the FDA rule would also increase the risk that more farmers and ranchers would attempt to bury or improperly dispose of deadstock because rendering fees would increase or renderers would decide not to run routes because of lost value and higher costs.



"Those costs are going to be passed back to the producer," Cook said. "We don't think the producer is going to pay it. We don't think the FDA fully considered the consequences of that rule when it comes to the disposal of that material."



Many smaller renderers aren't equipped to easily remove the brain and spinal cords from animals. Carcass value would be lost and disposal costs would increase. Most rendering facilities in the U.S. are not set up to remove the head and spinal cord and from animals while breaking down the animal carcass, Cook said.



The renderers said if tighter rules go into effect, the restrictions would essentially discourage them from picking up deadstock on farms because of lost carcass value and increased disposal costs.



Cook said if the new rules are implemented the renderers want tighter controls proposed on deadstock disposal.



"Our feeling is in most cases animals that die on the farm, unless they are being picked up by a renderer, are probably being disposed of improperly or illegally," he said. "A lot of states have rules on animal disposal that aren't being enforced."



A coalition of groups within the livestock, packing and rendering industries plan to meet with officials from USDA, FDA and Environmental Protection Agency in early July to examine livestock disposal. Right now, it's unclear which agency would oversee any potential regulations.



"We haven't been able to figure that out," Cook said. "Is it USDA, FDA -- probably not -- or EPA? Those are the three agencies we have been wrestling with that need to take a look at it. We're all asking those questions as to where the jurisdiction is."



Chris Clayton can be reached at [email protected]





dtn.com
 

Murgen

Well-known member
"This may be wishful thinking or naive, but I don't think it will have much of an impact on the U.S. industry," he said.

Except that alot of the US produced by-product feed has been exported to Canada and the rest of the world.

Where's RCALF's press release on safety of exports on this kind of trade?

another market that Canada wil gain?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"Our feeling is in most cases animals that die on the farm, unless they are being picked up by a renderer, are probably being disposed of improperly or illegally," he said. "A lot of states have rules on animal disposal that aren't being enforced."



A coalition of groups within the livestock, packing and rendering industries plan to meet with officials from USDA, FDA and Environmental Protection Agency in early July to examine livestock disposal. Right now, it's unclear which agency would oversee any potential regulations.



"We haven't been able to figure that out," Cook said. "Is it USDA, FDA -- probably not -- or EPA? Those are the three agencies we have been wrestling with that need to take a look at it. We're all asking those questions as to where the jurisdiction is."

I smell the NCBA being in the middle of that snakepit meeting :roll:

Another extortion type practice to keep the USDA and FDA from making decisions based on what is best for safety- and to force them to make the decision using "Packers economics science"...

They answered their own question as to who best has jurisdiction to enforce illegal disposal matters--- THE STATES...Funny how big business and NCBA oppose all federal laws and mandates- until they find one that benefits them- then they are the biggest violators and tramplers of states rights.....
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Nature has ways of disposing of dead animals that have worked with no dire consequences for thousands of years...another misguided case of man is smarter than God! Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!! :mad:
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Nature has ways of disposing of dead animals that have worked with no dire consequences for thousands of years...another misguided case of man is smarter than God! Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

Around here coyottes and wolves will clean up an 1800lbs bull in about 3 to 4 days.
We can ship you down some if you need them :wink:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
RobertMac said:
Nature has ways of disposing of dead animals that have worked with no dire consequences for thousands of years...another misguided case of man is smarter than God! Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

Around here coyottes and wolves will clean up an 1800lbs bull in about 3 to 4 days.
We can ship you down some if you need them :wink:

Send them to the USDA in D.C., Roper. That is where they are needed.

If you have extra, some of the land grant universities putting out their garbage economic studies at the request of packers could use a few too.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
RobertMac said:
Nature has ways of disposing of dead animals that have worked with no dire consequences for thousands of years...another misguided case of man is smarter than God! Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

Around here coyotes and wolves will clean up an 1800lbs bull in about 3 to 4 days.
We can ship you down some if you need them :wink:

Got plenty of coyotes...SH hasn't made it down here yet. :lol: You can keep the wolves. Also have buzzards and flies...then the fire ants come polish the bones. Biodegradation is big in the South!!! :wink: :D
 

Latest posts

Top