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

Livestock producers upset over USDA plan to open border

Tommy

Well-known member
Livestock producers upset over USDA plan to open border to older Canadian cattle



By Sue Roesler, For Lee Agri-Media

Tri-State Neighbor

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:00 PM CST



A large group of livestock producers testified at a U.S. Senate Hearing that a proposed USDA rule opening the borders to older Canadian cattle jeopardizes United States beef export markets and dumps more cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) on the United States.



“I think it’s time we implement COOL (country-of-origin labeling),” said Kelly Froelich, a cattleman from Selfridge, N.D.



Allen Lund, a cattleman from southcentral North Dakota, agreed that COOL could help distinguish United States cattle in the marketplace.



“Still, I’m opposed to opening the Canadian borders. If this rule is allowed, we are lowering our standards. It didn’t matter to our export markets that the cow (with BSE found in Washington state) came from Canada. It’s just too early to swing open the doors,” Lund said.



U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Interstate Commerce, Trade and Tourism, held a Senate field hearing Feb. 21 at Bismarck State College.



A panel of experts was there to weigh in on the proposed rule including USDA administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Ron DeHaven; North Dakota Ag Commissioner Roger Johnson, State Veterinarian Susan Keller, R-CALF USA co-founder and past president Leo McDonnell, North Dakota Stockmen’s Association president Mark Huseth; and North Dakota Farmer’s Union president Woody Barth.



DeHaven said the USDA rule would allow the importation of beef from Canadian animals over 30 months of age, and live Canadian cattle born after March of 1999.



As soon as the USDA comment period ends in two weeks on March 12, DeHaven said the agency will examine the submitted testimony and make a decision.



“No, we don’t have to go through Congress to implement this rule. At the same time, an organization could slap us with a lawsuit that would stop us, such as R-CALF did,” DeHaven said. “This rule is based strictly on sound science.”



Dorgan commented that he did not understand why USDA is “in a hurry” to implement the rule.



“USDA estimated that 1.3 million head of cattle will be imported (into the U.S. from Canada) … It makes no sense for the USDA to allow 1.3 million Canadian beef in at a time when we have not been willing to implement COOL,” he said, adding that 35 countries accept United States beef, but not Canadian beef. “Our first responsibility is to our own producers.”



DeHaven agreed with Dorgan that 1.3 million cattle was a large amount, but said the rule was based on the “bigger picture.” He believes that opening the Canadian borders to more beef will be a step toward increasing fair agricultural trade with more countries.



He said there is definitely a market in the United States for culled cows.



“The domestic markets need it for hamburger, for one thing,” DeHaven said.



But Dorgan said that allowing in older animals is just “importing a problem.”



He and other experts said BSE would become more of a risk, and the United States would lose beef export markets, especially to Japan who sent back United States beef after finding one piece of bone in the shipment. In addition, BSE is found mostly in older cattle.



“(This) USDA action will make the U.S. a dumping ground. … You don’t manage risk by increasing exposure,” McDonnell said.



He went on to say the United States should be pursuing excellence, not pursuing a lowered standing in the world. The United States is only exporting half of what it did before the BSE case in December 2003, and last year when the border was opened to younger cattle, prices for feeder cattle dropped.



DeHaven said that both the United States and Canadian BSE risk has been classified in the minimal risk category, but producers scoffed at that remark.



He explained that after the BSE case in Canada, the Canadians changed their feed rules and so did the United States. Based on that and other restrictions implemented, the Canadian risk is now minimal.



“Canada has 6.8 animals per 10 million with BSE, while the U.S. has less than one animal in a million with BSE. They are certainly in the same ballpark,” DeHaven said.



While no one at the hearing supported the USDA proposal, at least openly, the American Meat Institute (AMI) has distributed a statement saying beef products and cattle from Canada can be imported safely. The AMI, composed of packers and processors, said the risk of BSE is extremely low and the risk to human health is even lower.



Dorgan pressed the USDA administrator to admit that there are simply a greater number of cases of BSE in Canada, and DeHaven finally agreed.



Dorgan added that Japan will be looking at the exact number of cases, not the risk category, and said in actuality, Canada had 11 cases of BSE considering the one found in Washington that originated in Canada. Four of the BSE cases in Canada happened after March 1, 1999, and those are the live cattle that USDA is targeting for the United States. Johnson said he doesn’t support opening the borders to older cattle currently, and won’t unless several restrictions are in place.



He said Canada has to permanently and strictly identify all cattle. In addition, any BSE found in cattle originating from Canada would not end up being a detriment to the United States markets.



“USDA would notify foreigners of our status,” Johnson said.



The rule would not go into effect until COOL was fully implemented in the United States, Johnson added.



With BSE being a public safety concern, Johnson said he does not understand why the USDA is adopting a more lenient status toward Canada.



DeHaven again said the investigation into Canada’s BSE cases was sound, but also admitted the lenient status was based on the old feed restrictions.



Since that feed rule was in place, Canada has found more cases of BSE in their herds.



Dorgan pointed out that Canada is now concerned that their feed ban was not strict enough and is implementing another one.



“Canada itself is taking additional steps toward more restrictive feed, so what does that tell you about our risk?” he said.



Since USDA has been studying BSE over the years and now knows the science of the disease, there is a window where all cattle are safe, DeHaven said.



“That short window is just after the cow starts showing signs of BSE,” DeHaven said.



Yet producers questioned DeHaven about export markets still not wanting to eat beef from this “sound science” and the United States beef market falling again.



Huseth said since 2005, the policy in place opposes importation of cattle from Canada that are 31 months of age and older.



“We are still suffering from the cow that stole Christmas; we are still trying to restore confidence, and we have to protect our domestic U.S. ranchers,” Huseth said.



Barth, a livestock producer from Solen, N.D., believes USDA should not implement its new rule until Canada can prove BSE is under control, and the United States implements COOL.



Dorgan asked DeHaven why the USDA is not taking the economical picture of losing beef exports after the Christmas cow into consideration. If that happens again, it could devastate the beef industry, and drive producers out of business.



“If economics play no role, then we’re in big trouble,” Dorgan said.



DeHaven said the USDA believes the outcome will be favorable in the long-term.



“The secretary is aware of the economics, but we have been largely successful at opening markets. It’s a work in progress,” he said.



Yet DeHaven also said that other countries believe the United States is not consistent with following its own standards, and should get its own policies in line.



“I don’t think we need anybody from another country telling us what to do,” Dorgan said as applause broke out in the room.



Keller said the importation of cattle from Canada is risky. This is coming at a time when the OIE, an international organization, has not decided on the United States risk status. If Canadian beef comes in, “we would not be able to meet the minimal risk No. 2 status. That puts us in a harmful state.”



Barth added that the NFU believes in the protection of the United States beef market and is calling for COOL on a state and national basis.



“We want it immediately,” he said.



Patrick Becker of Selfridge, N.D., and the president of I-BAND, said the term “gold standard” used to mean something to the government.



“This is lowering our standards in the view of the rest of the world,” he said.



The USDA is taking comments until March 12 on this proposed rule to import beef products from cattle over 30 months of age and live animals born after March 1, 1999. To comment on the rule go to the Web site www.regulations.gov.



tristateneighbor.com
 
Top