• 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 OTM's Back in Rule 2???

A

Anonymous

Guest
Proposed Rule 2 Sent to Whitehouse for Approval



CKNX AM 920

11/27/2006

Canada



The United States Department of Agriculture has sent Rule 2 back to the Whitehouse.



The USDA quietly pulled it in late July when a 4 year old cow from Alberta tested positive for BSE.



But they are sending it back to the Office of Management and Budget.



The OMB has 30 days to either approve it for comment - or request revisions.



Although no details of what is in that Rule 2 are available at this point - it is said to contain information about how cattle older than 30 months as well as breeding stock will be allowed back into the US from Canada.



am920.ca
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Best news I ve heard in a long time. But Im quite sure R-laugh will try and take them to court over it. :roll:

Just a few years ago, they told us that the "experts" told them that taking animals from a BSE positive country was a threat to the health of our herd and consumers. They had better have a dang good explanation for changing their tune.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
USDA Aims to Import More Canadian Beef
Compiled By Staff
November 28, 2006

USDA sent a plan to the White House Friday for increasing the amount of beef the U.S. imports from Canada.

Previous attempts to expand cattle and beef imports from Canada stalled due to concerns about the effectiveness of Canada's safeguards against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also called 'mad cow disease.'

Authorities have been weighing the issue of importing older cattle, which have a higher risk of carrying BSE. Although both the U.S. and Canada have taken steps to make sure diseased cattle tissue does not contaminate cattle feed - the only known way for cattle to contract BSE - Canada found an infected cow this summer that had been born five years after the ban on cattle remains in cattle feed.

The U.S. imports about 12% of its beef, with about a quarter of beef imports coming from Canada.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
From Senator Conrad's site on January, 2005;

In the 2004 edition of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, OIE requires that a "minimal risk" country with occasional cases of BSE have a feed ban that (1) prevents protein derived from ruminants (including cattle) from being fed to other ruminants and that (2) "has been effectively enforced for at least 8 years." The requirement that the country effectively enforce the feed ban for eight years is stringent for two reasons. First, an effective feed ban is an essential protection against a disease that can be transmitted by the ingestion of just 1 milligram of infectious material. Second, BSE infection can remain latent inside cattle for as long as eight years. Under the OIE standard, a country assures that BSE will not spread by having an extended, effective feed ban in place. When USDA recently urged OIE to change the standard to five years, this proposal was rejected.

The new USDA approach to "minimal risk" does not require countries to have an effective feed ban in place for eight years as OIE requires. USDA requires only the existence of a feed ban "that is in place and is effectively enforced." This feed ban must, at a minimum, be equivalent in scope to the feed ban in place in the United States. This equivalency standard applies even to countries such as Canada, which has now experienced three indigenous cases of BSE, compared to none in the United States.

USDA has justified its departure from the OIE approach on the grounds of flexibility. The Department chose to adopt an "integrated approach to evaluating the BSE status of a country [that] considers the length of a feed ban within the context of all control measures in place." The absence of a set time period provides considerable discretion for USDA.
The Canadian Decision

Earlier this week, USDA exercised this discretion to classify Canada as a country at "minimal risk" of introducing BSE into the United States. Contrary to the OIE standards, Canada has not had a feed ban in effect for eight years. The Canadian feed ban was implemented in August 1997, seven and a half years ago, and was followed by a "grace period . . . to allow feeds in the marketplace manufactured pre-ban to clear the system." Prior to the ban, appropriate feed practices were not in place. Indeed, Canadian regulators have concluded that a dairy cow was likely infected with BSE soon after its birth in April 1997. This cow was identified six years later in Washington State.

Aside from the duration of the Canadian feed ban, there are significant questions about its enforcement. In deciding to re-open U.S. borders to millions of Canadian cattle, USDA characterized the enforcement of the Canadian feed ban as "rigorous" and "effective." There is mounting evidence — which USDA apparently did not review —that conflicts with these findings.

The New Evidence

To evaluate the Canadian feed ban, USDA appears to have relied principally on two documents. The first is Canada's BSE risk assessment, which was published in December 2002. USDA characterizes this document as showing "high levels of compliance with the feed ban by routine inspections of both renderers and feed mills."

In fact, Canada's risk assessment showed that in 1999, of 65 feed mills inspected, 20 (31%) were not in compliance, including four that did not have written procedures to prevent contamination of feed. In 2000, 108 feed mills were inspected, of which 38 (35%) were not in compliance, including 14 that did not have written procedures to prevent contamination.

USDA also cited a July 30, 2004, memo from Canada's chief veterinarian to Dr. John Griffen, deputy administrator of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. USDA described the memo as indicating that:

[W]ith respect to the Canadian commercial feed industry, non-compliance of "immediate concern" has been identified in fewer than two percent of feed mills inspected during the period April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2004. Those instances of noncompliance of "immediate concern" are dealt with when identified.

USDA explained that "noncompliance of 'immediate concern'" includes cases where prohibited materials contaminate feed. The Department did not disclose the amount of feed involved or how problems have been "dealt with." The Department also has neither released the June 30, 2004, memo to the public nor provided complete information about compliance with the feed ban from 2001 to 2004.

Recently, evidence has emerged to suggest that USDA's assessment of the Canadian feed ban may be mistaken. Three developments in particular raise serious questions about the effectiveness of the ban.

Import alerts. On several occasions since October 2003, and most recently on August 24, 2004, FDA has issued formal "import alerts" that permit the detention of animal feed that could cause the spread of BSE in the United States. These alerts, which are based upon "random sampling and analysis . . . for the presence of animal tissues," have repeatedly cited feed made by Canadian companies.

FDA has found muscle tissue in 15 Canadian products, animal hair in five (including bovine hair or apparent bovine hair in two cases), blood in eight, and bone in two. Over the last 15 months, FDA has cited products from 17 Canadian companies, including some of the largest feed producers in the country. A summary of these import alerts is included as Attachment 2.

To be removed from FDA's "import alert" list, companies must show corrective actions, including, at a minimum, "a description of the current processes being used to prevent contamination" and "verification that the processes are adequate." But not all Canadian companies have apparently been able to meet this standard. Nine "import alerts" on animal feed because of BSE risk are still active today — eight are against feed companies based in Canada.

Contaminated "vegetarian" feed. On December 16, 2004, the Vancouver Sun reported that "secret tests" by Canadian regulators of 20 of 28 samples of vegetarian animal feed manufactured in Canada contained "undeclared animal materials." The tests found that more than half of all samples of feed used in Canada were contaminated. In an internal memo, a senior government regulator called the test results "worrisome."

In response to this disclosure, Canadian officials stated that the tests did not prove the presence of dangerous animal proteins (such as those derived from cattle). However, according to the Vancouver Sun, Canada decided against conducting additional testing that may have determined whether the contamination was from cattle protein.

Additional problems with enforcement of the feed ban have also recently come to light. According to the Vancouver Sun, another memo written by a senior Canadian regulator stated that more than one in five Canadian feed mills continue to be out of compliance with the feed ban requirements. The Vancouver Sun also reported that in 2003, seven facilities were found to have "major noncompliance," including three that were "failing to prevent the contamination" of cattle feed. In one of these cases, the contaminated feed was actually consumed by cattle.

Canada's own assessment. On December 10, 2004, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency — Canada's food safety agency — proposed changes to its feed ban. In explaining the need for these changes, the agency described gaps in its current approach.

In a section of the proposal called "vulnerabilities of current feed ban regulatory framework," the agency stated that "the current framework provides opportunities for prohibited proteins to be accidentally included in or cross-contaminate feeds for ruminants." The agency explained that assessing compliance with the current feed ban "remains difficult" because of the absence of "definitive testing methods." The agency also found that "opportunities for misuse of feed on farms with multiple species represent an area of vulnerability." The agency concluded that "[t]he present feed ban might have been acceptable without the incidence of BSE in this country; but with it, there is a need to strengthen the key points crucial to preventing the spread of the disease."

Based on this analysis, the Canadian government has proposed prohibiting specified risk materials, such as brains and spinal cords, from animal feed and prohibiting the use of dead stock or condemned carcasses for animal feed. Canada has also proposed extending these prohibitions to pet food, segregating specified risk materials during the slaughter process, and using new procedures to identify specified risk materials and dead stock.

A 75-day comment period for the proposal, which has yet to take effect, ends February 24, 2005.

Conclusion

USDA's decision to allow imports of cattle from Canada rests in significant part on its determination that the enforcement of the Canadian feed ban has been "rigorous" and "effective." There is significant evidence that calls these findings into question. This evidence includes a series of import alerts from FDA, as well as internal Canadian documents. It does not appear that this new evidence has been reviewed by USDA.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
From APHIS in November 2003;

Definition of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Minimal-Risk Region

We propose to define bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) minimal-risk region in Sec. 94.0 to mean a region that:

Maintains, and, in the case of regions where BSE was detected, had in place prior to the detection of BSE, risk mitigation measures adequate to prevent widespread exposure and/or establishment of the disease. Such measures include the following:
Restrictions on the importation of animals sufficient to minimize the possibility of infected ruminants being imported into the region, and on the importation of animal products and animal feed containing ruminant protein sufficient to minimize the possibility of ruminants in the region being exposed to BSE;


Surveillance for BSE at levels that meet or exceed OIE recommendations for surveillance for BSE; and


A ban on the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants that appears to be an effective barrier to the dissemination of the BSE infectious agent, with no evidence of significant noncompliance with the ban. In regions where BSE was detected, conducted an epidemiological investigation following detection of BSE sufficient to confirm the adequacy of measures to prevent the further introduction or spread of BSE, and continues to take such measures.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Keep posting the BS Sandhusker, you're makin your new boss over at Cargill real happy.

Do you really think that Cargill and Tyson want the border open any more than it is right now? Both are stealing cows in the newest version of the Canadian salmon run, and cheering you and Rcalf on in your diversion of cherry picking science.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Keep posting the BS Sandhusker, you're makin your new boss over at Cargill real happy.

Do you really think that Cargill and Tyson want the border open any more than it is right now? Both are stealing cows in the newest version of the Canadian salmon run, and cheering you and Rcalf on in your diversion of cherry picking science.

What part of it is BS? You probably don't like what it says, but if anything is inaccurate, be my guest to bring it out.

Yes, I do think Tyson and Cargill want the border open more. I have absolutely no doubt. The business plans they both have rely on open borders with Canada, and borders opening globally. Yeah, they're making money on your cows now, but that's not the big plan. There's more money in the big plan than buying Canadian cows on the cheap.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
What's the big plan Sandhusker? They have all the access they want to Canadian fat, fed, and feeder cattle. What big plan are you talking about.

The "big"plan is to use border issues created by BSE to manipulate markets and pull the wool over eyes like those of tunnel vision protectionist Rcalf boys.

Tell me Sandhusker - how have Cargill and Tyson NOT taken advantage of the BSBorder every step of the way? Do you need me to spell it out for you once again?

The only ammo that you have is the suffering that occurred for about two months in the summer of 2002. In this time period, they bought up more dirt cheap feeder cattle than they needed to fill those losses. Ever since Sandhusker it has been profits in one form or another. Large enough profits - as SH showed us - to not only offset any losses in their American plants, but enough to blast their competition for years to come.

Keep dreaming Sandhusker, if you think that anything Rcalf can do will return those two glorious Rcalf months, which arguably still helped Cargill and Tyson.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The big plan is the ability to move cattle/beef from any country in the world to any country in the world. It is about having the network that gives them the ability to arbitrage the global market. ANY closed border is an obstacle. Canadian OTMs are small potatos. When the board of Tyson and/or Cargill sits down for a progress report, do you honestly think these huge multi-national companies are going to be popping corks because they can buy Canadian cows cheap? Come on, Randy, who's got the tunnel vision here?

Sure they've taken advantage - they're in the business to make money in any situation they find themselves in. But THREE days after the border was shut in May, 2003, I was reading statements from them calling for the border to be opened. After being pressured by them, the USDA broke their own rules to open - remember that? I don't believe they are saying one thing but slyly pushing for another. Why would they? They haven't cloaked any of their other demands to the USDA. Hell, you and I both know the USDA jumps when they holler.

I'm not going to let you get away with labeling R-CALF "protectionists", either. You know better than to try to get that one past me.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Sure Canadian OTM's are small potatoes. Why doesn't Rcalf see it that way and give up fighting them.

And of course Cargill and Tyson wanted the border open to boneless beef Sandhusker. What does an open border mean to you? You keep talking about it like it is one issue. It has been three issues so far.

#1 - Closed.
#2 - Open to Boxed Boneless UTM
#3 - Open to Live UTM Cattle and Boxed UTM Beef

I understand that the only one of these issues that Rcalf is interested in is the first one, but realistically, there would have to be another phony disease invented to go all the way back there ever again. AMERICA HAS BSE TOO.

Rcalf is protectionist Sandhusker. Any group trying to fight trade is protectionist. The Canadian border is and will always be an opportunity for people on both sides of it. There are competitive advantages for folks on both sides just as there are competitive advantages from one state to another.

Your dream of using cherry picked science to stop trade is ridiculous. Even more so than the games played by Cargill and Tyson to keep the borders closed or open just enough to suit their needs.
 

don

Well-known member
when r-calf focuses on the cause, not the symptoms, it could become more effective. unrestricted imports are just a symptom of what has happened to the industry; the cause is what is happening in washington and the boardrooms of the oligopolistic players. deal with the cause and your import rules might become more rational.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Sure Canadian OTM's are small potatoes. Why doesn't Rcalf see it that way and give up fighting them.

And of course Cargill and Tyson wanted the border open to boneless beef Sandhusker. What does an open border mean to you? You keep talking about it like it is one issue. It has been three issues so far.

#1 - Closed.
#2 - Open to Boxed Boneless UTM
#3 - Open to Live UTM Cattle and Boxed UTM Beef

I understand that the only one of these issues that Rcalf is interested in is the first one, but realistically, there would have to be another phony disease invented to go all the way back there ever again. AMERICA HAS BSE TOO.

Rcalf is protectionist Sandhusker. Any group trying to fight trade is protectionist. The Canadian border is and will always be an opportunity for people on both sides of it. There are competitive advantages for folks on both sides just as there are competitive advantages from one state to another.

Your dream of using cherry picked science to stop trade is ridiculous. Even more so than the games played by Cargill and Tyson to keep the borders closed or open just enough to suit their needs.

You may think BSE is phony, but the rest of the world - the world that we have to operate in - takes it very seriously. Perception is reality. Yes we do have BSE, but how can you eradicate it if you keep importing it? That just makes no sense.

R-CALF is NOT, NOT against trade! We have endorsed trade deals! Protectionists don't do that! We're against this fool-headed notion that trade is the most important thing in the world.

What science are we cherry picking? There has been only one "science" presented. That science was established around 1989 when our old policy was formulated. Since then, the science has not changed - it's still the same. The thing that changed was the policy that was supposed to be based on that science. I accuse you of cherry picking policy!

I'll say this again; The USDA said the old policy was needed to protect consumers and the herd. If that policy was necessary to protect us, doesn't it stand to reason that abandoning it puts us at risk? R-CALF is saying there is a risk. Nobody can argue that - even the USDA acknowledges risk when they say it is "low" (even though they can't say what "low" means :roll: ) Risk is OK if there is enough reward to be gained from taking that risk, but what gain to we have to offset that risk? Nothing! It's a lose-lose deal for US producers, and the packers score on us again.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
What risk Sandhusker------ The USA has BSE - so does Canada. You are no longer living in virgin territory. Any arguments you have about trade are void because of that simple fact.

I'm doing my best to say that BSE is not phony Sandhusker - therefore my support for testing. And therefore my support for trade between two nations that both have BSE.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
What risk Sandhusker------ The USA has BSE - so does Canada. You are no longer living in virgin territory. Any arguments you have about trade are void because of that simple fact.

I'm doing my best to say that BSE is not phony Sandhusker - therefore my support for testing. And therefore my support for trade between two nations that both have BSE.

The risk you question is the risk that the USDA said existed by importing from a BSE country. It exists. Even the USDA admits to it.

A person could point out the different strain of BSE we have found down here and make a very strong arguement that we don't have what you have and thus our cases don't figure into the discussion with Canada. You are saying "You have it, too", but the reality is that we don't have the "it" that you do. Regardless, I don't think us having BSE matters in the border deal. If we were willing to accept a certain level of infectivity in the herd, then you have a point. However, I think that would be foolish. I think we should do all we can to eradicate the disease and that simply can't be done by leaving the back door open.

I'll ask you again, Randy, what do US producers have to gain? Sell me on the deal.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
BSE is everywhere Sandhusker. Every beef producing nation in the world has BSE.If you believe the feed transmission theory, there is no true risk, just a reality that BSE exists and "can be spread". (I will stay in that zone for a moment so you can understand and not say that I am off in my little wonderland metal theory.)
Whatever type of BSE that was confirmed in America is still transmissible, according to the accepted theory ---- correct? Thus the USA is as problematic a country as Canada. If you want to go on about differences in feed bans, etc. I will not argue any more. Your cherry picking has gone on long enough.

Now for the sales pitch.

First off Sandhusker, you and all the other "perfect cattle denied" American producers would once again have access to my perfect breeding stock. I could end this there, except that a few producers in America may still think that they have cattle as perfect as mine.

So I will go on. If America would have treated Canada and the border with complete dignity from day one of this ridiculous BSE debacle, Cargill and Tyson would not have been able to expand to 80% of the Canadian packing capacity and blow away a pile of competition in the Northern United States. Competition is good for producers Sandhusker, good for Canadian and American producers.

If America would have treated Canada with dignity and respect, the world would not have seen the game playing that occurred, and continues to this day. Finger pointing and blame over an issue that has never even been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to kill one single human being. This respect and dignity would have, and still could bode well in America's attempt to export beef ---- and help the producers of America.

I guess before I go on, I should say that I am assuming I am selling you on the new rule which would see UTM cattle and breeding stock enter the USA.

American producers and consumers would also gain an integral trading partner who lives in the same respectful world that you do. Cattle that are truly fed and cared for without the third world BS that you and I know exists.

So you tell me Sandhusker - what is it that Oldtimer and yourself stand to loose by opening the border to OTM cattle/beef and our famous breeding stock? Please don't go into a rant about BSE, or the packer ownership issue, which exists in America without taking Canada into account. Packers can own cattle in America, and buying from one of your very own "Consolidated Beef Producer" groups could blow any imported Canadian product out of the water in sheer volume any day of the week.
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
. . .saying "You have it, too", but the reality is that we don't have the "it" that you do.

It all depends on how you define "it" does it Sandhusker? :kid:


:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:


Well that tactic ended up "biting" (excuse the expression) Slick Willie and it'll
bite you too, lil buddy.

Repeat boldly shaking finger in camera lense -" I did not have sex with that woman".




:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Every beef producing nation has BSE? When did Australia, Argentina and Brazil find theirs?

As far as spreading the disease, I don't think there is any doubt about feed transmission. The evidence is irrefutable.

You haven't explained to me how we can erraticate the disease while importing it.

If the best arguement you have on opening is that I can buy your breeding stock..... :lol: I would like to dabble a bit with your Galloways as we've discussed before, but your sell job is a bit lacking. I'll bet I could find some that would do the trick in Montana... It's not your breeding stock that I'm worried about. It's infected cattle from sloppy operations or cattle that have eaten feed from sloppy feed mills.

I don't think we are guilty of mistreating Canada. The USDA set the policy and followed it 22 times in a row before you. We also didn't do anything to you that the rest of the world didn't. Everything that happened to you happened to every other country that became BSE positive, ourselves included.

And to conclude..... I don't think you understand my chief reason for supporting closing the border. It has nothing to do with Canada, and actually little to do with cattle. It's about a government agency in charge of our welfare that abandoned stated and established policy designed to protect us soley for the economic benefit of a chosen few. To summarize - getting sold out pisses me off and I don't take to it very well.
If the USDA can show how the science they based their first policy on was flawed, fine, I'm listening. However, everything I've seen says they can't - they're just trying to pull a fast one.
 

Kato

Well-known member
"R-CALF is NOT, NOT against trade! We have endorsed trade deals! Protectionists don't do that!" :shock: :shock: :shock:

Please let us know which trade deals R-Calf has ever endorsed? Trade deals that involve the export of American beef I would think.
 
Top