Sandhusker
Well-known member
Billings, Mont. – The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) will hear oral argument at 9:00 a.m. PDT, this Friday, July 13, in Portland, Ore., in the organization’s litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding the agency’s Final Rule on “Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE); Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of Commodities,” originally published on Jan. 5, 2005.
On July 3, R-CALF USA requested that the 9th Circuit also take under consideration before Friday’s hearing a recent publication by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that provides CDC’s statistical analysis of BSE testing data for Canada and the United States, concluding that: “The proportion of Canadian-born BSE cases identified by Canadian authorities through the testing of animals in Canada, 2003-April 2007 (10 cases among approximately 160,000 animals tested) is presently statistically significantly higher (26 fold higher) than the proportion of U.S.-born BSE cases identified by U.S. authorities through the testing of animals in the U.S. during the comparable period (2 cases among more than 875,000 animals tested).”
The CDC statistical analysis also concludes that the proportion of known BSE cases in U.S.-born cattle that were at least 10 years of age (100 percent) is statistically significantly different from the portion of the 11 Canadian-born BSE cases known to be at least 10 years of age (one animal, or 9 percent).
“R-CALF believes this analysis of BSE testing data, performed by a federal government agency with responsibility for health protection, is relevant to USDA’s argument that Canadian cattle born long after the 1997 feed ban are ‘extremely unlikely to have been exposed to BSE at all…’,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “The CDC report also demonstrates that USDA’s statement that the agency’s ‘analysis and conclusions with regard to risk had already acknowledged and accounted for the possibility that additional animals with BSE that were born at or near the time the feed ban was implemented would be identified’ misses the point, as most of the recently identified cases in Canada were not born near the time the Canadian feed ban was implemented, as well as flaws with USDA’s assertion that Canada’s feed ban is effective.
“R-CALF is hopeful the 9th Circuit will either immediately reverse the decision not to vacate the Final Rule, or, remand our case back to the District Court of Montana, which would enable full consideration of the scientific evidence we filed in our case,” he continued.
“Since 2005, R-CALF members and supporters have stood firm and faithful in their belief that until Canada has its BSE problem under control, imports of Canadian cattle and beef should be halted,” Bullard commented. “We owe our sincerest gratitude to our members and the U.S. live cattle industry for the overwhelming support and donations that enabled us to continue this fight on their behalf.
“R-CALF argued back in 2005 that USDA should not place the health and welfare of both the U.S. cattle herd and U.S. consumers at risk, and we also pointed out that if USDA relaxed our health and safety import standards by reopening the Canadian border, such a move could threaten U.S. beef exports,” said Bullard. “USDA’s actions have undermined our ability to resume previous levels of beef exports, particularly exports to markets in Asia.
“Litigation has always been our last resort, but we are thankful for the system of checks and balances in this country that will afford us the opportunity to challenge our government when we believe government action is harming our industry,” he added.
“Our nation’s import standards should be based on preventing the introduction of foreign animal diseases instead of the management of such diseases once they’re here,” Bullard emphasized. “Our import standards should not be relaxed simply because USDA wants to create a North American cattle herd instead of placing value on the distinct and unique characteristics of the U.S. cattle herd.”
On July 3, R-CALF USA requested that the 9th Circuit also take under consideration before Friday’s hearing a recent publication by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that provides CDC’s statistical analysis of BSE testing data for Canada and the United States, concluding that: “The proportion of Canadian-born BSE cases identified by Canadian authorities through the testing of animals in Canada, 2003-April 2007 (10 cases among approximately 160,000 animals tested) is presently statistically significantly higher (26 fold higher) than the proportion of U.S.-born BSE cases identified by U.S. authorities through the testing of animals in the U.S. during the comparable period (2 cases among more than 875,000 animals tested).”
The CDC statistical analysis also concludes that the proportion of known BSE cases in U.S.-born cattle that were at least 10 years of age (100 percent) is statistically significantly different from the portion of the 11 Canadian-born BSE cases known to be at least 10 years of age (one animal, or 9 percent).
“R-CALF believes this analysis of BSE testing data, performed by a federal government agency with responsibility for health protection, is relevant to USDA’s argument that Canadian cattle born long after the 1997 feed ban are ‘extremely unlikely to have been exposed to BSE at all…’,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “The CDC report also demonstrates that USDA’s statement that the agency’s ‘analysis and conclusions with regard to risk had already acknowledged and accounted for the possibility that additional animals with BSE that were born at or near the time the feed ban was implemented would be identified’ misses the point, as most of the recently identified cases in Canada were not born near the time the Canadian feed ban was implemented, as well as flaws with USDA’s assertion that Canada’s feed ban is effective.
“R-CALF is hopeful the 9th Circuit will either immediately reverse the decision not to vacate the Final Rule, or, remand our case back to the District Court of Montana, which would enable full consideration of the scientific evidence we filed in our case,” he continued.
“Since 2005, R-CALF members and supporters have stood firm and faithful in their belief that until Canada has its BSE problem under control, imports of Canadian cattle and beef should be halted,” Bullard commented. “We owe our sincerest gratitude to our members and the U.S. live cattle industry for the overwhelming support and donations that enabled us to continue this fight on their behalf.
“R-CALF argued back in 2005 that USDA should not place the health and welfare of both the U.S. cattle herd and U.S. consumers at risk, and we also pointed out that if USDA relaxed our health and safety import standards by reopening the Canadian border, such a move could threaten U.S. beef exports,” said Bullard. “USDA’s actions have undermined our ability to resume previous levels of beef exports, particularly exports to markets in Asia.
“Litigation has always been our last resort, but we are thankful for the system of checks and balances in this country that will afford us the opportunity to challenge our government when we believe government action is harming our industry,” he added.
“Our nation’s import standards should be based on preventing the introduction of foreign animal diseases instead of the management of such diseases once they’re here,” Bullard emphasized. “Our import standards should not be relaxed simply because USDA wants to create a North American cattle herd instead of placing value on the distinct and unique characteristics of the U.S. cattle herd.”