Happy
Member
This is Pam Potthoff for Nebraska Women Involved in Farm Economics
Some issues get so bogged down in emotions that the facts get completely ignored. It seems to me that that Canadian border remaining closed is one of these issues. When we start talking about the satisfying taste of beef and the possibility that somehow the beef-eating experience might be curtailed, people get emotional. It's like Mom and Apple Pie, you just don't mess with something that good.
So I like to talk about imports in the context of something less emotional—like, say, onions. Now, people generally don't get real emotional about whether or not their onions are abundantly available, tender, and home-grown. Less than two years ago there was an outbreak of hepatitis in the eastern United State s. The source of the hepatitis was traced back to onions imported from Mexico. In Mexico untreated human waste is used to fertilize crops. This practice is not allowed in the United State s. So for the sake of this illustration, let's say that onions from Mexico are banned in the US. To make up for the lack of onions for our consumers, we begin importing onions from country X. Unknown to us, country X is bringing onions from Mexico into their country, re-bagging them with Country X shipping information, and sending them to us anyway. We have another outbreak of hepatitis. We discover that this outbreak is due to Mexican onions that have arrived through Country X. Who is responsible for the food safety of the onions? Country X who sold them to us or Mexico who grew them?
I think it would be Country X. This leads us back to beef. Canada has produced four cases of BSE. They test fewer cattle than we do in the US. If we run Canadian cattle through the US for guaranteeing that meat is BSE free. Why would we want to take on that additional responsibility? And why would our export customers want to take the risk? They are not importing Canadian beef directly so why would they want to get it through the back door?
The garbage being tossed around saying we must treat countries importing beef into the US as we want to be treated before our export customers will allow our beef to come in a misrepresentation of the issue. The US has not, and I repeat NOT, produced one case of BSE indigenous to the US. The one case here came from Canada. I believe our export customers are not as afraid of getting BSE from us as from us sending them Canadian beef through our system.
However, I may be completely naïve about this being an emotion issue and it might be strictly an economic propaganda issue. The huge multi-national companies depending on cheap imports from Canada to keep them from needing to purchase cattle at a fair price in the United States are loading the media, some gullible farm organizations, and certain elected officials who are known to be (and I quote) "in their pockets" (unquote) with misinformation skewed to make it appear that the border must be opened immediately.
Even the United State Department of Agriculture has failed to tell it like it really is. The idea that the USDA should write new "science-based", as they call them, rules for importation of BSE and ignore the international regulations established by the World Organization for Animal Health and the International Organization for Epizootic (OIE) is a gross show of arrogance and disregard for the health of the US consumers and the US cattle industry.
The Senate has passed the Resolution of Disapproval which calls for the nullification of the USDA Final Rule on the Canadian Border reopening to beef. H.J. Resolution 23 is the House version of this legislation instructing the USDA to remove its plans to reopen the border. However, House leadership has been reluctant to schedule a vote on the issue. At our Board of Director's meeting last Saturday WIFE passed a motion in support of HJ Resolution 23. We are urging all of you to contact your member in the House, and urge him to co-sign the Resolution of Disapproval and to contact the leadership in the House to ask for a full House vote. On March 2nd, Judge Richard F. Cebull in his statement addressing the R-CALF suit to keep the border closed said "reopening the border has substantial, irreparable consequences for cattle growers".
This issue may be emotional but that's because it has the potential to affect our health, our financial health, and, indeed, the financial health of our nation by keeping export markets closed to us because we cannot guarantee the safety of the meat we import. Please call your congressman today.
This has been Pam Potthoff for Nebraska Women Involved in Farm Economics.
Some issues get so bogged down in emotions that the facts get completely ignored. It seems to me that that Canadian border remaining closed is one of these issues. When we start talking about the satisfying taste of beef and the possibility that somehow the beef-eating experience might be curtailed, people get emotional. It's like Mom and Apple Pie, you just don't mess with something that good.
So I like to talk about imports in the context of something less emotional—like, say, onions. Now, people generally don't get real emotional about whether or not their onions are abundantly available, tender, and home-grown. Less than two years ago there was an outbreak of hepatitis in the eastern United State s. The source of the hepatitis was traced back to onions imported from Mexico. In Mexico untreated human waste is used to fertilize crops. This practice is not allowed in the United State s. So for the sake of this illustration, let's say that onions from Mexico are banned in the US. To make up for the lack of onions for our consumers, we begin importing onions from country X. Unknown to us, country X is bringing onions from Mexico into their country, re-bagging them with Country X shipping information, and sending them to us anyway. We have another outbreak of hepatitis. We discover that this outbreak is due to Mexican onions that have arrived through Country X. Who is responsible for the food safety of the onions? Country X who sold them to us or Mexico who grew them?
I think it would be Country X. This leads us back to beef. Canada has produced four cases of BSE. They test fewer cattle than we do in the US. If we run Canadian cattle through the US for guaranteeing that meat is BSE free. Why would we want to take on that additional responsibility? And why would our export customers want to take the risk? They are not importing Canadian beef directly so why would they want to get it through the back door?
The garbage being tossed around saying we must treat countries importing beef into the US as we want to be treated before our export customers will allow our beef to come in a misrepresentation of the issue. The US has not, and I repeat NOT, produced one case of BSE indigenous to the US. The one case here came from Canada. I believe our export customers are not as afraid of getting BSE from us as from us sending them Canadian beef through our system.
However, I may be completely naïve about this being an emotion issue and it might be strictly an economic propaganda issue. The huge multi-national companies depending on cheap imports from Canada to keep them from needing to purchase cattle at a fair price in the United States are loading the media, some gullible farm organizations, and certain elected officials who are known to be (and I quote) "in their pockets" (unquote) with misinformation skewed to make it appear that the border must be opened immediately.
Even the United State Department of Agriculture has failed to tell it like it really is. The idea that the USDA should write new "science-based", as they call them, rules for importation of BSE and ignore the international regulations established by the World Organization for Animal Health and the International Organization for Epizootic (OIE) is a gross show of arrogance and disregard for the health of the US consumers and the US cattle industry.
The Senate has passed the Resolution of Disapproval which calls for the nullification of the USDA Final Rule on the Canadian Border reopening to beef. H.J. Resolution 23 is the House version of this legislation instructing the USDA to remove its plans to reopen the border. However, House leadership has been reluctant to schedule a vote on the issue. At our Board of Director's meeting last Saturday WIFE passed a motion in support of HJ Resolution 23. We are urging all of you to contact your member in the House, and urge him to co-sign the Resolution of Disapproval and to contact the leadership in the House to ask for a full House vote. On March 2nd, Judge Richard F. Cebull in his statement addressing the R-CALF suit to keep the border closed said "reopening the border has substantial, irreparable consequences for cattle growers".
This issue may be emotional but that's because it has the potential to affect our health, our financial health, and, indeed, the financial health of our nation by keeping export markets closed to us because we cannot guarantee the safety of the meat we import. Please call your congressman today.
This has been Pam Potthoff for Nebraska Women Involved in Farm Economics.
:wink: 