Mad cow situation continues to heat up
Posted: Wednesday, Feb 16, 2005 - 04:52:40 pm PST
By Eric Baker
Leader Staff
A mad cow dispute is pitting meat processors and Canadians on one side against American ranchers on the other, with both sides pointing fingers and hoping the legal system can help them.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns ruled last week that the USDA will delay the importation of meat from Canada that is 30 months or older because that group has not been sufficiently studied. The move is a blow to Canada's ranchers, who hope to improve the image of their cattle so they can get a higher live weight price. And to America's meat producers, who argue the closed Canadian border has created a shortage of cattle.
Meanwhile, American ranchers are rejoicing at the small victory, in the hopes it will lead to a much larger one. Their trade group, R-CALF (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund), has sued the USDA in hopes of blocking their ruling that the border be opened for cattle between Canada and the U.S. on March 7. They cite a litany of health concerns, but they might be just as effective with their lobbying in Washington, D.C.
The ruling has to pass a Senate hearing, and R-CALF has had considerable success garnering political support in states with large ranching populations. Both of Montana's senators and its governor support R-CALF's position, and lobbying will play a large role in the ruling's political lifespan.
Public safety has been cited as the main concern, after four Canadian cows were discovered with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) over the past year and a half. None have been found in the U.S. Both sides agree that Canada and the U.S. use roughly the same health standards and checks, so the American ranchers and politicians want to know what is causing the disparity.
This is where the sides diverge, each claiming the other is using wacky science.
"USDA created this age limit (30 months) and didn't specify why it's important," said Janet Riley, senior vice president of public affairs for the American Meat Institute, a trade group representing meat processors and packers. "The Office of International Epizootics, the world's leading animal health organization, has ruled that Canada's current system is more than adequate to justify trade between the countries."
According to the Montana Cattlemen's Association, 30 months is the international standard for safeguard against BSE. But the MCA also says another internationally accepted standard -- that BSE cannot be found in muscle meat -- is not valid.
"In Switzerland, they injected BSE in rats, and the prion was found in the digestive system and muscle," said Bill Bullard with R-CALF. "One has to abandon the state of the evidence but you also have to use common sense."
The Montana Farmer's Union feels the same way.
"I've heard of cases where they've seen the prions in muscle cuts," said Sandy Courtnage, communications director for the union. "When people say they want a science-based decision, you can't do something and have everyone accept it. It comes down to risk assessment."
R-CALF points to a study they completed where the authors concluded that there would be a 99.9 percent chance the U.S. would import a calf with BSE within the first year if the border was reopened.
However, Tony Cox and his Denver consulting firm are statisticians, so critics of the R-CALF study claim it wasn't scientifically based.
"There's no scientific basis for R-CALF's lawsuit," said Riley. "Calling Canadian beef unsafe is like calling your twin sister ugly."
At stake are millions of dollars in trade, and both sides are claiming to have the most reliable data.
"The public has reason to have some degree of caution about these claims," said Mark Hanson, director of the Practical Ethics Center at the University of Montana. "Scientific studies about issues like risk are not foolproof, because they can be easily influenced by interpretation."
Add to that concern the fact that both sides are paying their scientists to conduct their research, and you have an ethical quagmire.
"The fact that universities go to great lengths to disclose funding sources and follow specific guidelines means these areas are fraught with bias," said Hanson.
Posted: Wednesday, Feb 16, 2005 - 04:52:40 pm PST
By Eric Baker
Leader Staff
A mad cow dispute is pitting meat processors and Canadians on one side against American ranchers on the other, with both sides pointing fingers and hoping the legal system can help them.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns ruled last week that the USDA will delay the importation of meat from Canada that is 30 months or older because that group has not been sufficiently studied. The move is a blow to Canada's ranchers, who hope to improve the image of their cattle so they can get a higher live weight price. And to America's meat producers, who argue the closed Canadian border has created a shortage of cattle.
Meanwhile, American ranchers are rejoicing at the small victory, in the hopes it will lead to a much larger one. Their trade group, R-CALF (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund), has sued the USDA in hopes of blocking their ruling that the border be opened for cattle between Canada and the U.S. on March 7. They cite a litany of health concerns, but they might be just as effective with their lobbying in Washington, D.C.
The ruling has to pass a Senate hearing, and R-CALF has had considerable success garnering political support in states with large ranching populations. Both of Montana's senators and its governor support R-CALF's position, and lobbying will play a large role in the ruling's political lifespan.
Public safety has been cited as the main concern, after four Canadian cows were discovered with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) over the past year and a half. None have been found in the U.S. Both sides agree that Canada and the U.S. use roughly the same health standards and checks, so the American ranchers and politicians want to know what is causing the disparity.
This is where the sides diverge, each claiming the other is using wacky science.
"USDA created this age limit (30 months) and didn't specify why it's important," said Janet Riley, senior vice president of public affairs for the American Meat Institute, a trade group representing meat processors and packers. "The Office of International Epizootics, the world's leading animal health organization, has ruled that Canada's current system is more than adequate to justify trade between the countries."
According to the Montana Cattlemen's Association, 30 months is the international standard for safeguard against BSE. But the MCA also says another internationally accepted standard -- that BSE cannot be found in muscle meat -- is not valid.
"In Switzerland, they injected BSE in rats, and the prion was found in the digestive system and muscle," said Bill Bullard with R-CALF. "One has to abandon the state of the evidence but you also have to use common sense."
The Montana Farmer's Union feels the same way.
"I've heard of cases where they've seen the prions in muscle cuts," said Sandy Courtnage, communications director for the union. "When people say they want a science-based decision, you can't do something and have everyone accept it. It comes down to risk assessment."
R-CALF points to a study they completed where the authors concluded that there would be a 99.9 percent chance the U.S. would import a calf with BSE within the first year if the border was reopened.
However, Tony Cox and his Denver consulting firm are statisticians, so critics of the R-CALF study claim it wasn't scientifically based.
"There's no scientific basis for R-CALF's lawsuit," said Riley. "Calling Canadian beef unsafe is like calling your twin sister ugly."
At stake are millions of dollars in trade, and both sides are claiming to have the most reliable data.
"The public has reason to have some degree of caution about these claims," said Mark Hanson, director of the Practical Ethics Center at the University of Montana. "Scientific studies about issues like risk are not foolproof, because they can be easily influenced by interpretation."
Add to that concern the fact that both sides are paying their scientists to conduct their research, and you have an ethical quagmire.
"The fact that universities go to great lengths to disclose funding sources and follow specific guidelines means these areas are fraught with bias," said Hanson.
