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

Canadian cattle entering U.S. without ID tags

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Location
TEXAS
Posted on Mon, Feb. 19, 2007

Canadian cattle entering U.S. without ID tags, documents show
By Stephen J. Hedges

Chicago Tribune

(MCT)

SPOKANE, Wash. - Hundreds of cattle from Canada, which this month confirmed its ninth case of mad cow disease, have entered the United States without government-required health papers or identification tags, according to documents obtained by cattlemen in Washington state.

The documents, consisting largely of correspondence between state officials and American cattle and meat companies, suggest problems with numerous truckloads of cattle that are shipped into this country almost daily. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently launched an investigation into the Canadian cattle trade based on the documents, according to a top department official.

Many of the documents note that cattle arrived in the U.S. without identification tags, or they had tag numbers that did not match the accompanying health certificates. Overall, the approximately 700 pages of records suggest that officials from Washington and possibly other states are having difficulty tracking hundreds of cattle that arrive from Canada each week.

Ranchers and food safety groups criticize the USDA, saying it has insufficiently monitored the movement of cattle into the U.S. Lax regulation of the border trade, these critics say, could lead to more mad cow cases in the U.S., undermining consumer confidence in beef.

Mad cow, formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), is a neurological disease that attacks a cow's central nervous system. It is believed that humans can contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a disorder that eats away at the brain, by consuming meat from BSE-infected cattle.

Ear tags or electronic identification - EID - tags that are supposed to be on cattle entering the U.S. from Canada are meant to track the cattle in case of an outbreak of disease or other problem. Health certificates confirm the health of cattle and also that they are under 30 months old, because young cattle are not thought to be fully vulnerable to mad cow.

Together, the tags and health papers provide the major protection against sick cows coming into the country. The USDA is supposed to work with Canadian agriculture officials to ensure that all incoming cattle have these safeguards.

But the documents obtained by the ranchers show that this often is not the case.

In a memo dated March 7, 2006, representatives of one American cattle operation wrote, "52 head of the 60 came in NO EID. The papers have a mixture of EID & bar codes for official tags. We recorded the bar codes (although a couple came in with no tags at all) and gave them our EID tag."

Numerous state documents listing each truckload of cattle - about 40 to 65 head of cattle are on each truck - include the notation "tag not matched" next to the individual truckload number.

"We had a load come in with the wrong health papers all together," stated an e-mail dated April 6 to the state from a cattle firm. "It was never caught at the border." The correct health papers for that load of 66 cattle, the e-mail's author noted, were later obtained from officials at the U.S.-Canadian border.

In a statement, the Washington State Veterinarian's Office said it works with the USDA "to reconcile the ear tags on cattle with Canadian brands with the information on the USDA documents."

The Veterinarian's Office is giving more scrutiny than ever to the movement of imported cattle, the statement said.

"Some of the animal identification numbers on the USDA importation documents were transposed or did not match the ear tag, and some animals lost ear tags in transit. These kinds of things can and do occur in the commerce of animals," the statement said.

The Cattle Producers of Washington, the organization that obtained the documents under Washington state's Public Disclosure Act, is a group of ranchers and cattle brokers many of whose members live not far from where the first U.S. case of mad cow disease was discovered in December 2003.

That dairy cow, found in Mabton, Wash., had been imported from Canada, which had discovered its own mad cow four months earlier.

After the 2003 mad cow discoveries, the USDA halted the shipment of Canadian cattle and beef products into the United States. But in 2005, the USDA began to allow shipments of cattle younger than 30 months.

The cattle producers said they sought the records to determine whether the state and federal governments were enforcing regulations that govern Canadian imports. They are concerned about the impact of lower-priced Canadian imports on their own businesses, as well as the potential spread of disease from Canadian cattle that don't have proper medical papers.

The ranchers said they are worried about foot-and-mouth disease as well as mad cow. "Mad cow doesn't spread cow-to-cow," noted Willard Wolf, a cattle broker from Spokane who is vice president of the Cattle Producers of Washington. "Foot-and-mouth does, and it could affect a whole herd."

The cattlemen notified the USDA of the documentation problems several weeks ago, according to Bruce Knight, the USDA's undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs. "We have folks initiating an investigation, trying to draw all the information together," Knight said.

The documents also suggest that Washington state has had difficulty tracking Canadian cattle once they are in the U.S. In early 2006, for instance, the Washington Agriculture Department sent out notices trying to determine where older Canadian cows might be.

A notice dated March 9, 2006, from Cynthia Fairley, of the state's animal identification program, asked an unidentified cattle company about 219 Canadian cattle in the U.S. that apparently were over the 30-month age limit. It was unclear from the memo whether the cattle had entered the U.S. before the 2003 import ban.

"Here is the list of ... Canadian cattle over 30 months old for which we have no record of slaughter," Fairley wrote. "Could you please verify that they have gone and where they've gone?"

In an e-mail on February 3, 2006, from Fairley to a cattle company, she listed 32 cattle that were missing health certificates. "I know it seems like a lot," Fairley wrote, "but we've accounted for every scrap of paper and they're definitely not here."

Meanwhile, two meatpacking companies, joined by cattle feed lot owners and brokers in the U.S. and Canada, have sued Washington state for releasing the documents. The suit claims the release violates a state law protecting confidential business information from disclosure.

Kristen Mitchell, an assistant Washington attorney general, said the Cattle Producers of Washington requested the documents before the new law took effect.

Washington isn't the only state struggling to identify imported Canadian cattle.

In South Dakota, cattle rancher Jan Van Dyke of Wessington Springs has been in a dispute with the USDA and a large meatpacking company, Swift & Co., over eight of the 43 cattle that he sent to Swift for slaughter in 2006.

Swift initially withheld payment for the cattle - about $11,000, Van Dyke said, because Swift said they were Canadian and without health papers.

Swift later agreed to pay the $11,000, Van Dyke said. Knight said a USDA investigation showed that the cattle were brought into the U.S. by Swift, and that they had been accidentally mingled with Van Dyke's cattle.

Van Dyke contends, however, that the cattle were his and that he was paid only after the issue became public during a January conference in Denver with Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Charles Conner.

---

© 2007, Chicago Tribune.

Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.



http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16731949.htm




TSS
 
Thanks flounder- this makes my sources more credible to me....
This is exactly the same thing I was told by a Dept of Livestock person and an NCBA official- that I posted in the Van Dyck thread...That there was a huge laxity at the border and on follow up-- which was causing a big uproar and questions about how the Hates USDA could ever hope to track OTM cattle when they have no system to keep track of the ones coming in in sealed trucks.....

USDA has absolutely no system set up for tracking these cattle...
 
Meanwhile, two meatpacking companies, joined by cattle feed lot owners and brokers in the U.S. and Canada, have sued Washington state for releasing the documents. The suit claims the release violates a state law protecting confidential business information from disclosure.

Always..............................


FOLLOW THE MONEY
 
Mike said:
Meanwhile, two meatpacking companies, joined by cattle feed lot owners and brokers in the U.S. and Canada, have sued Washington state for releasing the documents. The suit claims the release violates a state law protecting confidential business information from disclosure.

Always..............................


FOLLOW THE MONEY

This is the same ole same ole. Hide the crime and no one will know about it and no one can prove it.

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
 
Thanks for posting this. Now let the fun begin to see how some disect this news release!!
 
Despite how annoying Tam, Bill, BMR, and other Canadians on this website can be as they try to make fun of rcalf and U.S. producers, this problem is not really their responsibility. This is a failure once again of the USDA, Aphis, and the meat packing companies.

This Canadian group may not criticize those who are really at fault, but they do so at their own credibility and character.

We have the best regulatory agencies that money can buy, both in Canada and the USA.
 
Econ101 said:
Despite how annoying Tam, Bill, BMR, and other Canadians on this website can be as they try to make fun of rcalf and U.S. producers, this problem is not really their responsibility. This is a failure once again of the USDA, Aphis, and the meat packing companies.

This Canadian group may not criticize those who are really at fault, but they do so at their own credibility and character.

We have the best regulatory agencies that money can buy, both in Canada and the USA.

ECON, you are right on target here. Of course, you will be ridiculed for stating this, but some people cannot understand the truth. It is NOT the Canadian or American producers who are causing the problem. It IS the people we are forced to deal with.

Good post!!!
 
Thank you Chief and Econ for once I can agree with you this is not something any Canadian producer want to see happening and I feel if this is happening that everyone involved should be punished to the full extent of the law on both sides of the border. Then made to stand in front of their respective Beef industies and made to fess up and take that punishment too. How stupid are some people to think they could actually get away with this. Don't bother answering that Kessler tried to smuggle bucking bulls in after some American Cowboys rode the bull the week before in Canada. Geez there is not limit to the stupidity :roll: :roll: :mad:
 
Subject: Re: Hundreds of Canadian cattle entering U.S. without ID tags, documents show
Date: February 19, 2007 at 10:41 am PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Oversight of the Importation of Beef Products from Canada AUDIT REPORT Report No. 33601-01-Hy
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:01:00 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
CC: [email protected], [email protected]


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Washington D.C. 20250
DATE: February 14, 2005
REPLY TO
ATTN OF: 33601-01-Hy
SUBJECT: Oversight of the Importation of Beef Products from Canada
TO: W. Ron DeHaven
Administrator
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Barbara J. Masters
Acting Administrator
Food Safety and Inspection Service
ATTN: William J. Hudnall
Deputy Administrator
Marketing and Regulatory Programs – Business Services
Ronald F. Hicks
Assistant Administrator
Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement and Review
This report presents the results of our audit of oversight of the
importation of beef products from
Canada. Your response to the draft, dated February 9, 2005, is included
as exhibit A. Excerpts
of your response and the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) position
are incorporated into the
Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Based on your
response, management
decision has been reached on all recommendations except No. 3. Please
follow your agency's
internal procedures in forwarding documentation for final action to the
Office of the Chief
Financial Officer. Management decisions for the remaining recommendation
can be reached
once you have provided the additional information outlined in the report
section OIG Position.
In accordance with Departmental Regulation 1720-1, please furnish a
reply within 60 days
describing the corrective actions taken or planned, and the timeframes
for implementation of the
remaining recommendation. Please note that the regulation requires
management decision to be
reached on all recommendations within 6 months of report issuance
/s/
ROBERT W. YOUNG
Assistant Inspector General
for Audit
USDA/OIG-A/33601-01-Hy Page i
Executive Summary
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Oversight of the
Importation of Beef
Products from Canada (Audit Report No. 33601-01-Hy)
Results in Brief This report presents the results of the Office of
Inspector General's (OIG)
audit of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) oversight
of the importation of beef products from Canada following the detection of a
Canadian cow with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in May 2003.
In June 2004, we initiated several actions in response to concerns raised by
four U.S. Senators that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not
follow appropriate safety measures, beginning sometime in the fall of 2003,
in allowing expanded Canadian beef imports into the United States. We
reviewed USDA's actions pertaining to the importation of Canadian
products, including the use of risk mitigation1 measures.
On May 20, 2003, the Secretary halted imports of live cattle, other live
ruminants, beef, and other ruminant products from Canada after a cow in
Alberta was found to have BSE. Prior to this time, there was a free flow of
trade between the United States and Canada for live cattle and beef. Due to
the serious impact on trade, USDA officials sought a method to allow limited
imports from Canada and determined to use the APHIS permit process as a
vehicle to facilitate trade. At that time, APHIS did not have a history of
issuing permits for the importation of edible meat and meat products.
Veterinary import permits were generally issued for items derived from
animals, such as blood, cells or cell lines, hormones, and microorganisms
including bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and fungi.
On August 8, 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) announced a list
of low-risk products, including boneless beef from cattle less than 30
months
of age and veal meat from calves less than 36 weeks of age, which would be
allowed into the United States from Canada, under certain predetermined
conditions. In November 2003, USDA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register to create a low-risk category for countries with BSE, to
place Canada on that list, and to allow imports of, among other things,
low-risk beef products and live cattle under 30 months of age to resume.
This rule for live animals and processed meat products was issued
January 4, 2005.
The Secretary's announcement on August 8, 2003, regarding low-risk
products followed USDA's review of the results of Canada's epidemiological
investigation into the detection of BSE in that country. Based on the
results
1 Risk mitigations include such actions as certificates indicating the
product is pure liver, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
verification that calves were 36 weeks of age or less when slaughtered,
and CFIA verification that animals are not known to have been
fed prohibited products during their lifetime.
USDA/OIG-A/33601-01-Hy Page ii
of the investigation, as well as international guidelines2 that
indicated that
products derived from young animals do not pose a risk to human health,
USDA issued permits to allow these low-risk products into the United States.
Subsequent to the Secretary's announcement, APHIS issued 1,155 permits3
allowing the import of a variety of products from Canada, to include many
items that had been included in the Secretary's announcement as well as
other items that were not initially identified as allowable low-risk
products.
In April 2004, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Montana, which
resulted in a temporary restraining order that identified the specific
low-risk
Canadian products that were eligible for import into the United States. The
list of low-risk products was the same as the list posted on August 15,
2003,
by APHIS on its website as a clarification of the Secretary's August 8,
2003,
announcement. On May 5, 2004, the District Court converted the temporary
restraining order into a preliminary injunction. Among other things, the
preliminary injunction included an exhibit listing the specific Canadian
products that would be considered low-risk and details of required risk
mitigations.
To accomplish our review of USDA's actions pertaining to the importation of
Canadian products, we interviewed officials from APHIS, the Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS), and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC).
We analyzed APHIS records relating to the oversight of imported Canadian
product, to include a review of the 1,155 import permits and associated
documentation. We met with personnel from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in Detroit,
Michigan and Sweetgrass, Montana to understand their actions to enforce
restrictions on the importation of ruminant products from Canada. We also
visited FSIS import reinspection facilities located in Buffalo, New York;
Detroit, Michigan; and Sweetgrass, Montana. At these facilities, we analyzed
documentation on file for 12,427 shipments of ruminant products to
determine whether the product imported from Canada met APHIS
requirements. These facilities reinspected more than 646 million of the
802 million pounds of Canadian product presented for entry into the United
States between September 2003 and September 2004.
From August 2003 to April 2004, APHIS officials allowed a gradual
expansion in the types of Canadian beef products approved for import into
the United States. The expansions in product type included processed
products, bone-in product, and edible bovine tongues, hearts, kidneys, and
lips. In October 2003, APHIS allowed bovine tongues despite the APHIS
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) Working Group4
2 The International Office of Epizootics, the international
standard-setting organization for animal health, established these
guidelines.
3 As of September 16, 2004.
4 Created by APHIS to analyze risks of BSE to the United States,
disseminate accurate information about TSEs, and act as a reference
source for responding to questions about TSEs.
USDA/OIG-A/33601-01-Hy Page iii
conclusion in June 2003 that fresh or frozen bovine tongues were "moderate
risk" products,5 even when the required risk mitigations were in place.
Thus,
bovine tongues, one of the items for which APHIS approved import permits,
were deemed as posing a "moderate risk," and not a "low risk" by the APHIS
TSE Working Group.
The Chairperson of the TSE Working Group explained that the risk status for
bovine tongues changed from moderate to low some time between June and
November 2003, although the change was not documented prior to the
November 2003 issuance of APHIS' "Risk Analysis: BSE Risk from
Importation of Designated Ruminants and Ruminant Products from Canada
into the United States." The risk analysis categorized bovine tongues as
eligible product when Canadian inspection officials verify the risk
mitigation,
which is that tonsils are removed.
Additionally, APHIS allowed an expansion in the type of Canadian facilities
that would be allowed to produce items for export to the United States. The
gradual expansion occurred because the agency employees tasked with
administering the permit process did not consider the initial announcement
made by the Secretary to exclude products similar to those on the published
list of low-risk products, if APHIS had concluded that the products posed
similar risk levels. However, APHIS did not develop documentation to
support the agency's conclusions that the additional products were low-risk
products. APHIS also did not have a review structure or other monitoring
process in place to identify discrepancies between publicly stated
policy and
agency practice. According to APHIS officials, they considered the initial
announcement made by the Secretary to be part of an effort to demonstrate to
the world that such trade with Canada was safe and appropriate.
Accordingly, they allowed the import of products they considered low risk in
an attempt to further that greater effort. However, APHIS did not document
the process it used to determine the additional products were low risk.
As a result of the "permit creep" that occurred between August 2003 and
April 2004, APHIS issued permits for the import of beef tongue as well as
other permits for products with questionable eligibility. Further, the
agency
allowed the import of products from Canadian facilities that produced both
eligible and ineligible products, thus increasing the possibility that
higher-risk product could be inadvertently exported to the United States.
This practice contrasted with APHIS' publicly stated policy that only
Canadian facilities that limited production to eligible products would be
allowed to ship to the United States. In addition, APHIS did not
5 "Recommendations of APHIS TSE Working Group for allowing certain
commodities from Canada to be imported into the United
States," dated June 16, 2003. When required risk mitigation measures are
in place, to include various CFIA verifications, removal of
tonsils, and random sample analysis by USDA of any suspicious tissue to
confirm absence of specified risk materials, fresh and frozen
bovine tongues have a "moderate" risk.
USDA/OIG-A/33601-01-Hy Page iv
communicate its decisions to all interested parties and USDA was criticized
by segments of the public, the cattle industry, and the U.S. Congress.
APHIS issued permits to allow the import of beef cheek meat with
questionable eligibility because the agency did not establish a clear
working
definition for the general term "boneless beef." Instead of coordinating
with
FSIS, APHIS reviewers relied upon their own understanding of the term.
Some APHIS reviewers considered the term "boneless beef" broadly, to
mean any bovine meat that did not contain a bone. Thus, some applicants
who requested permits to import beef cheek meat and other products received
permits allowing the import of "boneless beef or boneless beef trim." As a
result, over 63,000 pounds of beef cheek meat with questionable eligibility
entered U.S. commerce from Canada.
Further, we found that FSIS did not always communicate effectively about
the eligibility status of beef cheek meat. FSIS distributed information
to its
import inspectors by way of a series of numbered memoranda, titled Part 4,
Canada, BSE Restrictions, Revision 2 through Revision 11. Some of the
issuances were supplemented by additional guidance, in the form of
supplemental memoranda. However, in our opinion, FSIS managers did not
ensure consistent interpretation of the provisions of the various
memoranda, a
factor that contributed to the entry of the previously mentioned 63,000
pounds of beef cheek meat with questionable eligibility. Because APHIS
changed its instructions to FSIS frequently and did not document the
direction provided to FSIS,6 it was even more difficult for FSIS to keep its
field staff fully apprised of the status of product eligibility.
FSIS officials did not agree that the import inspectors misinterpreted the
instructions in the numbered memoranda. Furthermore, FSIS officials
asserted that the 63,000 pounds of beef cheek meat was eligible for import
when it was imported from April to June 2004. However, they agreed that
controls should be strengthened to better communicate the eligibility of
product that frequently changed as beef cheeks did from August 2003 to
July 2004. Two FSIS import inspectors we interviewed advised us that beef
cheeks had been "going back and forth" regarding eligibility. APHIS
notified FSIS that effective July 20, 2004, beef cheek meat was not an
eligible product for import into the United States. According to APHIS
direction, beef cheek meat has not been eligible for import since
July 20, 2004. As of the date of this report, it is still not eligible
for import.
Some FSIS officials assert that the beef cheek meat was eligible product. In
contrast, the APHIS National Incident Commander for BSE Enhanced
Surveillance stated in an August 18, 2004 interview, that further discussion
was still required with respect to the import of cheek meat and that no new
6 We found that APHIS did not document its direction to FSIS prior to
April 2004 when the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund
(R-CALF) filed a lawsuit against USDA in U.S. District Court in Montana.
scientific information on this topic had been considered by APHIS. Given
the importance of the issues, ongoing litigation, and differences in
scientific
opinion, it would have been prudent for APHIS to write down its decisions
about the eligibility status of beef cheek meat at points in time.
However, the
agency did not do so; or did not retain such documentation for our review.
In January 2005, FSIS assessed the shipments of beef check meat and
concluded, "FSIS has no reason to believe that these four shipments7 of beef
cheek meat are injurious to health." In its assessment, FSIS explained
that in
January 2004, the agency implemented interim final rules that prohibited the
use of specified risk materials for human food. On the matter of beef cheek
meat, the FSIS rule maintained that beef cheeks are not part of the skull,
which is a specified risk material. The FSIS rule continued to allow the use
of beef cheek meat for human food, provided that the meat is not
contaminated with specified risk materials. FSIS further supported its
conclusion on the basis that Canada had a pre-existing equivalent specified
risk material system in place. However, as previously noted, beef cheek meat
is not a product that is currently eligible to be imported into the
United States.
APHIS issued 1,155 permits for the importation of ruminant products from
Canada without ensuring that the agency had an appropriate system of
internal controls to manage the process. The APHIS permit system was
originally designed to allow for the import of research quantities
(generally
small amounts) of material into the United States. According to APHIS
officials, this permit system handled approximately 400 permit requests
annually. The procedures that APHIS had developed for handling permit
requests for small amounts of product were not adequate to deal with the
high
volume of requests for large quantities of commercial use beef. The agency
did not implement or finalize standard operating procedures for processing
the large volume of permits. For example, APHIS did not establish controls
to ensure that risk mitigation measures were consistently applied. We found
that 8 of the 83 permits issued for bovine liver did not include the risk
mitigation measure that the livers be from animals slaughtered after
August 8, 2003.8 We also found that APHIS did not implement requirements
to perform onsite monitoring of permit holders, Canadian facilities, or
inspection personnel9 at U.S. ports of entry. As a result, there was reduced
assurance that Canadian beef entering the United States was low-risk. Some
product with questionable eligibility, as described above, entered U.S.
commerce.
USDA/OIG-A/33601-01-Hy Page v
7 The four shipments included one shipment identified by FSIS that
entered U.S. commerce in April 2004 and three shipments that we
identified that entered U.S. commerce in May and June 2004.
8 The date the Secretary of Agriculture announced that USDA would begin
to accept applications for import permits for certain low-risk
products from Canada.
9 The inspection personnel include CBP agriculture inspectors and FSIS
import inspectors.
We analyzed data for 9,953 shipments, a 100 percent review of all shipping
documents from May 2004 through September 2004, at the 4 FSIS inspection
houses that we visited. We also analyzed 11 shipments reinspected in
October 2004 by the 2 FSIS inspection houses in Sweetgrass, Montana when
we were performing onsite fieldwork. This analysis, a total of 9,964
shipments, was based on the preliminary injunction filed on May 5, 2004,
that described the ruminant products eligible to be imported from Canada.
As part of that review, we identified over 42,000 pounds of product with
questionable eligibility.
Recommendations
In Brief APHIS needs to institute procedures for communicating changes
in policy to
all interested parties, e.g., importers and the public, and monitoring the
consistency between agency practice and publicly stated policy. APHIS also
needs to strengthen its controls and finalize its procedures for issuing and
monitoring permits for commercial quantities of products.
We recommend that FSIS implement controls to communicate the specific
eligibility of product when its eligibility status changes. FSIS should also
implement an edit check in its import information system to identify
ineligible product presented for entry into the United States.
Agency Response APHIS and FSIS agreed with the report's recommendations.
We have
incorporated excerpts from the agencies' response in the Findings and
Recommendations section of this report, along with the OIG position. The
response is included as Exhibit A.
OIG Position Based on the response, we were able to reach management
decision on all of
the recommendations except No. 3.

SNIP...FULL TEXT 50 PAGES ;

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33601-01-HY.pdf

Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA


https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed


TSS


Subject: Canadian Beef Entered U.S. Due to Lax Oversight -USDA (more silly-putty plugging those leaky cealed USA borders)
Date: February 16, 2005 at 2:59 pm PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Canadian Beef Entered U.S. Due to Lax Oversight -USDA
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:49:04 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: [email protected]


##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

Canadian Beef Entered U.S. Due to Lax Oversight -USDA
Wed Feb 16, 2005 05:31 PM ET


By Randy Fabi

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lax oversight by the U.S. Agriculture Department
and confused food safety inspectors were to blame for imports of 42,000
pounds of Canadian beef products in 2004 that violated a U.S. mad cow
disease ban, federal investigators said on Wednesday.

The USDA's Office of Inspector General issued a report on the 2004
import mistakes less than a month before the federal government is
scheduled to further lift restrictions on beef and cattle trade with
Canada.

The report analyzed how the USDA mistakenly allowed processed Canadian
beef products into the United States between August 2003 and April 2004.
Some federal meat inspectors were confused by Washington's announcement
in August 2003 to partially reopen the U.S. border to boneless beef from
young Canadian cattle, the investigators found.

The United States banned all Canadian cattle and beef products after
Canada discovered its first native case of mad cow disease in May 2003.
In August 2003, the USDA decided to allow shipments of boneless beef
from young Canadian cattle, which are thought to carry little risk of
the disease.

But some U.S. meat inspectors independently began allowing shipments of
other Canadian beef products such as cattle tongues, hearts, kidneys and
lips, the report said.

"Agency officials asserted that they believed that they could add
products to the list of the risk factors and risk levels associated with
such products were consistent with the products listed in the initial
announcement," the 50-page report said.

The USDA inspector general said it identified 42,000 pounds of product
with "questionable eligibility" that entered the U.S. market.

That volume is much less than the 3.5 million pounds initially estimated
by R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, which first discovered USDA's
mistake. The activist group won a court order in April 2004 to halt the
Bush administration from easing its Canadian ban further.

The USDA has said the banned products that did enter the U.S. market
from August 2003 through April 2004 did not pose a health risk to
consumers.

The USDA said it agreed with many of the recommendations of the
inspector general, including closer monitoring of import permits and the
immediate posting of import policy changes on the Internet.

The USDA is scheduled on March 7 to begin allowing imports of more
Canadian beef products as well as shipments of Canadian live cattle
under 30 months of age.

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7653277

TSS

######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########
 
Just think OT now that you got this bit of gossip, if you guys ever find anohter mad cow down there again you ll be able to blame it on those damn Canadians. What about this last case up here rumor is it originated out of Montana? IS this true?
 
In a memo dated March 7, 2006, representatives of one American cattle operation wrote, "52 head of the 60 came in NO EID. The papers have a mixture of EID & bar codes for official tags. We recorded the bar codes (although a couple came in with no tags at all) and gave them our EID tag."


The bar codes ARE the official numbers. They are being phased out, but there are still a few around. If anything had no tag, it would be somewhere on the floor of the truck. Going through the export papers would have found the proper ID of anything that lost a tag through the process of elimination combined with the physical description of the animal. For anyone who cared to take the time......

As for this.....

The ranchers said they are worried about foot-and-mouth disease as well as mad cow. "Mad cow doesn't spread cow-to-cow," noted Willard Wolf, a cattle broker from Spokane who is vice president of the Cattle Producers of Washington. "Foot-and-mouth does, and it could affect a whole herd."

A silly statement like that requires a silly response... :roll: :roll: So here it is.


Perhaps they should be talking about the USDA about the cattle/beef proposed to be allowed in from South America, where they actually DO have foot and mouth. :shock: :shock: (We would even be more than willing to back you up on it.) :D

We don't have it here, and I would think we'd be a lot more able to handle any outbreak that may come from the tainted American cattle after you let it in from South America than you will with your lack of ID program. :wink: :wink: :wink:
 
Quote from flounder's article-

The USDA inspector general said it identified 42,000 pounds of product
with "questionable eligibility" that entered the U.S. market.

That volume is much less than the 3.5 million pounds initially estimated
by R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America,
which first discovered USDA's
mistake. The activist group won a court order in April 2004 to halt the
Bush administration from easing its Canadian ban further.

The USDA has said the banned products that did enter the U.S. market
from August 2003 through April 2004 did not pose a health risk to
consumers.

The USDA said it agreed with many of the recommendations of the
inspector general, including closer monitoring of import permits and the
immediate posting of import policy changes on the Internet.

:D :D R-calf said 3.5 million lbs. and USDA identified 42 thousand. R-calf was only out by 3,458,000 pounds. :roll: :roll:

"Truthfull Bill" and the "Montana Mathematicians" at their finest. :D :D
 
Kato said:
In a memo dated March 7, 2006, representatives of one American cattle operation wrote, "52 head of the 60 came in NO EID. The papers have a mixture of EID & bar codes for official tags. We recorded the bar codes (although a couple came in with no tags at all) and gave them our EID tag."


The bar codes ARE the official numbers. They are being phased out, but there are still a few around. If anything had no tag, it would be somewhere on the floor of the truck. Going through the export papers would have found the proper ID of anything that lost a tag through the process of elimination combined with the physical description of the animal. For anyone who cared to take the time......

As for this.....

The ranchers said they are worried about foot-and-mouth disease as well as mad cow. "Mad cow doesn't spread cow-to-cow," noted Willard Wolf, a cattle broker from Spokane who is vice president of the Cattle Producers of Washington. "Foot-and-mouth does, and it could affect a whole herd."

A silly statement like that requires a silly response... :roll: :roll: So here it is.


Perhaps they should be talking about the USDA about the cattle/beef proposed to be allowed in from South America, where they actually DO have foot and mouth. :shock: :shock: (We would even be more than willing to back you up on it.) :D

We don't have it here, and I would think we'd be a lot more able to handle any outbreak that may come from the tainted American cattle after you let it in from South America than you will with your lack of ID program. :wink: :wink: :wink:


FMD is the South American concern. Thanks for supporting the efforts to block fmd beef.

It is the job of Aphis to track the importation of cattle and cattle products. The burden of ID is not on the domestic producers this way. NAIS is a packer backed program, not a producer backed program.
 
Kato said:
In a memo dated March 7, 2006, representatives of one American cattle operation wrote, "52 head of the 60 came in NO EID. The papers have a mixture of EID & bar codes for official tags. We recorded the bar codes (although a couple came in with no tags at all) and gave them our EID tag."


The bar codes ARE the official numbers. They are being phased out, but there are still a few around. If anything had no tag, it would be somewhere on the floor of the truck. Going through the export papers would have found the proper ID of anything that lost a tag through the process of elimination combined with the physical description of the animal. For anyone who cared to take the time......

As for this.....

The ranchers said they are worried about foot-and-mouth disease as well as mad cow. "Mad cow doesn't spread cow-to-cow," noted Willard Wolf, a cattle broker from Spokane who is vice president of the Cattle Producers of Washington. "Foot-and-mouth does, and it could affect a whole herd."

A silly statement like that requires a silly response... :roll: :roll: So here it is.


Perhaps they should be talking about the USDA about the cattle/beef proposed to be allowed in from South America, where they actually DO have foot and mouth. :shock: :shock: (We would even be more than willing to back you up on it.) :D

We don't have it here, and I would think we'd be a lot more able to handle any outbreak that may come from the tainted American cattle after you let it in from South America than you will with your lack of ID program. :wink: :wink: :wink:

Some very good points. And R-CALF is working hard to make the USDA follow its own rules. What a concept!!
 
USDA will lose its control of food and protiens."The new agency created by the lawmakers' bill – dubbed the Food Safety Administration – would be the first of its kind, free from the entanglements of past regulators who have had to balance food safety with the competing priorities of drug approval or agriculture promotion," according to a statement on DeLauro's website.

"It is long past time for the Congress to pass The Safe Food Act and create a single food safety agency," she said.

Some of the new responsibilities under the Food Safety Administration would include: regular, but random, inspection of all food processing plants; categorized review process for all foods to monitor and inspect them based on their risk, not their name; increased oversight of imported foods; and established requirements for tracing foods to point of origin.
 
USDA responds to concerns about Canadian cattle imports

By Tom Johnston on 2/20/2007 for Meatingplace.com




Responding to a media report that documents obtained by Washington cattlemen show hundreds of cattle from Canada are entering the United States without government-required health papers or identification tags, USDA officials indicated that no significant violations have occurred.

Andrea McNally of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's legislative and public Affairs division told Meatingplace.com that her agency is "reviewing the concerns that have been brought to our attention in Washington state." (See Group says Canadian cattle improperly imported into United States on Meatingplace.com, Feb. 19, 2007.)

"As we are reviewing these records, we have discovered that a large portion are minor record-keeping problems that are not material to the entry requirements of the cattle," she said. "Nonetheless, we are looking closely to make sure the balance of the paperwork shows proper documentation, and we will respond according to our findings."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As we are reviewing these records, we have discovered that a large portion are minor record-keeping problems that are not material to the entry requirements of the cattle," she said. "Nonetheless, we are looking closely to make sure the balance of the paperwork shows proper documentation, and we will respond according to our findings."

This is government agency double talk admitting they have found loopholes and mistakes big enough to drive 1000's of bullhaulers thru-- but they can't/won't come out and admit that since it makes for bad press, so instead the USDA have to poo-poo it down to something smaller....
 
here is the complete article OT posted ;


USDA responds to concerns about Canadian cattle imports

By Tom Johnston on 2/20/2007 for Meatingplace.com




Responding to a media report that documents obtained by Washington cattlemen show hundreds of cattle from Canada are entering the United States without government-required health papers or identification tags, USDA officials indicated that no significant violations have occurred.

Andrea McNally of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's legislative and public Affairs division told Meatingplace.com that her agency is "reviewing the concerns that have been brought to our attention in Washington state." (See Group says Canadian cattle improperly imported into United States on Meatingplace.com, Feb. 19, 2007.)

"As we are reviewing these records, we have discovered that a large portion are minor record-keeping problems that are not material to the entry requirements of the cattle," she said. "Nonetheless, we are looking closely to make sure the balance of the paperwork shows proper documentation, and we will respond according to our findings."

Canada's reaction

Meanwhile, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is questioning both the Chicago Tribune article and the motives of the Cattle Producers of Washington.

John Masswohl, director of government and international relations for CCA, told Meatingplace.com that a different set of rules apply to those Canadian cattle imports used for immediate slaughter and those going to feedlots.

Masswohl explained that the USDA only requires that Canadian slaughter cattle go from the border to the slaugherhouse in a sealed truck. That these cattle have identification papers when they arrive is the result of Canada's own export requirements, he said.

Meanwhile, USDA stipulates that Canadian feeder cattle must be less than 30 months old, can only be fed in one feedlot and must be slaughtered before reaching 30 months of age, must be branded with a symbol signifying they are from Canada, and must have an ear tag. However, the ear tag, a point not made in the newspaper article, can either be an electronic device or simply have a bar code, he said.

Considering Canada exported just less than 1 million cattle to the United States last year, Masswohl added, some slip-ups probably do occur. However, they often have simple remedies, such as simply replacing an animal's ear tag after it has fallen off during transport in a truck. "Ultimately, this requirement is not for food safety, is not for animal health, and does not prevent the spread of [bovine spongiform encephalopathy]," he said. "We just need to know that when we need to track down an animal we've got the trail to do it."

Opposition's propaganda?

Also of note, Masswohl said, is the Cattle Producers of Washington's affiliation with Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, a group that "not only wants to prevent the border from opening further, but also to fully close the border to any cattle from Canada, any cattle from Mexico, or cattle from any other country. Forgive me if I take the story with a little grain of salt."

The Cattle Producers of Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment.


http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=17436


tss
 
"Also of note, Masswohl said, is the Cattle Producers of Washington's affiliation with Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, a group that "not only wants to prevent the border from opening further, but also to fully close the border to any cattle from Canada, any cattle from Mexico, or cattle from any other country. Forgive me if I take the story with a little grain of salt."

That is not true. Forgive me if I take anything Mr. Masswohl says with a large grain of salt."
 

Latest posts

Back
Top