A
Anonymous
Guest
Amicus Brief Pits Organizations Allied with Meatpackers Against Independent Cattle Producers; Statements are Blatant Misrepresentation of Facts
(Billings, Mont.) – The following statement should be attributed to R-CALF USA President and Co-Founder Leo McDonnell regarding the Amicus Brief filed Wednesday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and others:
"Independent cattle producers understand the importance of maintaining stringent health and safety import controls to protect their industry against diseases like BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy).
"We're disappointed that NCBA, the AFBF and other groups have lined up with a handful of multi-national meatpackers against independent cattle producers across the United States. These organizations are aggressively working to help these multi-national meatpackers to achieve their economic self-interests, specifically to regain access to cheaper Canadian cattle, regardless of the risks to domestic cattle producers.
"Statements from these organizations indicate these groups wholeheartedly support the so-called 'sound science' presented in earlier litigation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the agency tried unsuccessfully to defend its Final Rule to reopen the Canadian border to live cattle and additional beef products.
"But buyer beware – these groups claim BSE is not a public health risk or herd health risk when precautions are in place to protect consumers and cattle, and that the U.S. – and Canada – have these firewalls in place.
"NCBA's chief executive director of regulatory affairs, Gary Weber, was quoted as saying that 'the World Organization for Animal Health has documented, and many scientific studies have documented, that removal of the specified risk materials (like the brain, spinal cord and certain other tissues) are a fully effective way of protecting public health.'
"But the great 'error of omission' by NCBA and AFBF is their failure to disclose to the public exactly which specified risk materials (SRMs) are removed from Canadian cattle, and compare that to exactly which SRMs are removed by all other BSE-affected countries as recommended by the OIE.
"In Canada, only the tonsils and the small intestines are removed from animals under 30 months of age. All other SRMs (brain, eyes, spinal cord and vertebrae) remain intact and are free to enter the human food supply.
"However, according to OIE standards, Canada – because of the number of BSE cases discovered so far and because Canada has not had an effectively enforced feed ban in place for at least 8 years– should be removing all SRMs from all animals over 12 months of age. Canada does not do this and is practicing the weakest mitigation measures of any BSE-affected country in the world, including countries that have detected fewer than five cases of BSE, such as Israel, Austria, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg – and, like Canada itself. To our export customers like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, this is a big deal – a huge deal.
"Reopening the Canadian border would be dangerously premature. Until, and unless, NCBA and AFBF can adequately explain to producers why we should allow in beef and cattle from a BSE-affected country that practices the least stringent risk-mitigation measures, a BSE-affected country that tests far fewer animals than what's adequate, and a BSE-affected country that refuses to label its product so U.S. consumers can make informed choices about food for their families, the border should remain closed.
"The best way to eliminate the ban on imports of Canadian cattle is for Canada to demonstrate it has eradicated BSE from its herd. Increased testing would provide scientifically valid results on the prevalence of BSE in Canada, and based on that information, we could determine whether a risk – at whatever level it may turn out to be – would be acceptable to the U.S. cattle industry.
"NCBA and AFBF should also explain to independent producers why it is that the most recent markets to reopen to U.S. beef have done so under the condition that we not co-mingle Canadian beef in our export shipments to those countries. These strict conditions against co-mingling indicate a complete lack of international confidence in Canada's BSE program. The longer Canada resists an adequate level of testing, the longer it will be before Canada can restore confidence in the minds of its consumers – in the U.S. and abroad.
"The economic analysis in USDA's Final Rule clearly states Canadian cattle producers, Canadian suppliers of ruminants and ruminant products, and meatpackers and processors are the industry segments that will benefit from relaxed U.S. import standards.
"The Final Rule projects a loss to U.S. cattle producers of $2.5 billion if the rule is implemented. This doesn't include any losses that could occur if U.S. consumers perceive Canadian beef to be risky.
"Interestingly, USDA's projected loss for cattle producers is more than the $2 billion cost the agency estimated for implementing mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) – a cost that these organizations, the USDA, and the multinational meatpackers said would severely damage the financial condition of independent cattle producers.
"R-CALF USA would hope that independent producers would contact NCBA and the AFBF to ask why a 'guestimated' cost of $2 billion for COOL – which had a potential for increased profits – was unacceptable, while a $2.5 billion loss from relaxed import restrictions – with no projected benefits – is acceptable.
"But these observations are not the reason R-CALF USA has taken its stand against the Final Rule. The Final Rule – without dispute – will increase the risk of introducing BSE into the United States. The question is: 'How much it will increase this risk?'
"USDA claims the increase in risk is 'low.' R-CALF USA challenged USDA, claiming that such a vague assessment of the risk is inadequate for the $40 billion U.S. live cattle industry, an industry that deserves to have a scientifically based risk estimate so an informed decision can be made regarding whether such an increase in risk is acceptable.
"An NCBA news release dated April 20th states that the organizations which jointly signed on to this amicus brief represent more than 85 percent of U.S. cattle farms and ranches, 75 percent of the nation's cattle, and that AFBF represents 5.6 million farm families.
"Obviously, when you look at those inflated numbers, you know right away these organizations represent far more than just the interests of production agriculture. According to data from the 2002 Agriculture Census, there are only 2.1 million farms left in the United States. And, according to the latest information on USDA's National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) website, there are only 774,630 independent businesses that raise beef cattle, down from 800,000 one year ago."
(Billings, Mont.) – The following statement should be attributed to R-CALF USA President and Co-Founder Leo McDonnell regarding the Amicus Brief filed Wednesday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and others:
"Independent cattle producers understand the importance of maintaining stringent health and safety import controls to protect their industry against diseases like BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy).
"We're disappointed that NCBA, the AFBF and other groups have lined up with a handful of multi-national meatpackers against independent cattle producers across the United States. These organizations are aggressively working to help these multi-national meatpackers to achieve their economic self-interests, specifically to regain access to cheaper Canadian cattle, regardless of the risks to domestic cattle producers.
"Statements from these organizations indicate these groups wholeheartedly support the so-called 'sound science' presented in earlier litigation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the agency tried unsuccessfully to defend its Final Rule to reopen the Canadian border to live cattle and additional beef products.
"But buyer beware – these groups claim BSE is not a public health risk or herd health risk when precautions are in place to protect consumers and cattle, and that the U.S. – and Canada – have these firewalls in place.
"NCBA's chief executive director of regulatory affairs, Gary Weber, was quoted as saying that 'the World Organization for Animal Health has documented, and many scientific studies have documented, that removal of the specified risk materials (like the brain, spinal cord and certain other tissues) are a fully effective way of protecting public health.'
"But the great 'error of omission' by NCBA and AFBF is their failure to disclose to the public exactly which specified risk materials (SRMs) are removed from Canadian cattle, and compare that to exactly which SRMs are removed by all other BSE-affected countries as recommended by the OIE.
"In Canada, only the tonsils and the small intestines are removed from animals under 30 months of age. All other SRMs (brain, eyes, spinal cord and vertebrae) remain intact and are free to enter the human food supply.
"However, according to OIE standards, Canada – because of the number of BSE cases discovered so far and because Canada has not had an effectively enforced feed ban in place for at least 8 years– should be removing all SRMs from all animals over 12 months of age. Canada does not do this and is practicing the weakest mitigation measures of any BSE-affected country in the world, including countries that have detected fewer than five cases of BSE, such as Israel, Austria, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg – and, like Canada itself. To our export customers like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, this is a big deal – a huge deal.
"Reopening the Canadian border would be dangerously premature. Until, and unless, NCBA and AFBF can adequately explain to producers why we should allow in beef and cattle from a BSE-affected country that practices the least stringent risk-mitigation measures, a BSE-affected country that tests far fewer animals than what's adequate, and a BSE-affected country that refuses to label its product so U.S. consumers can make informed choices about food for their families, the border should remain closed.
"The best way to eliminate the ban on imports of Canadian cattle is for Canada to demonstrate it has eradicated BSE from its herd. Increased testing would provide scientifically valid results on the prevalence of BSE in Canada, and based on that information, we could determine whether a risk – at whatever level it may turn out to be – would be acceptable to the U.S. cattle industry.
"NCBA and AFBF should also explain to independent producers why it is that the most recent markets to reopen to U.S. beef have done so under the condition that we not co-mingle Canadian beef in our export shipments to those countries. These strict conditions against co-mingling indicate a complete lack of international confidence in Canada's BSE program. The longer Canada resists an adequate level of testing, the longer it will be before Canada can restore confidence in the minds of its consumers – in the U.S. and abroad.
"The economic analysis in USDA's Final Rule clearly states Canadian cattle producers, Canadian suppliers of ruminants and ruminant products, and meatpackers and processors are the industry segments that will benefit from relaxed U.S. import standards.
"The Final Rule projects a loss to U.S. cattle producers of $2.5 billion if the rule is implemented. This doesn't include any losses that could occur if U.S. consumers perceive Canadian beef to be risky.
"Interestingly, USDA's projected loss for cattle producers is more than the $2 billion cost the agency estimated for implementing mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) – a cost that these organizations, the USDA, and the multinational meatpackers said would severely damage the financial condition of independent cattle producers.
"R-CALF USA would hope that independent producers would contact NCBA and the AFBF to ask why a 'guestimated' cost of $2 billion for COOL – which had a potential for increased profits – was unacceptable, while a $2.5 billion loss from relaxed import restrictions – with no projected benefits – is acceptable.
"But these observations are not the reason R-CALF USA has taken its stand against the Final Rule. The Final Rule – without dispute – will increase the risk of introducing BSE into the United States. The question is: 'How much it will increase this risk?'
"USDA claims the increase in risk is 'low.' R-CALF USA challenged USDA, claiming that such a vague assessment of the risk is inadequate for the $40 billion U.S. live cattle industry, an industry that deserves to have a scientifically based risk estimate so an informed decision can be made regarding whether such an increase in risk is acceptable.
"An NCBA news release dated April 20th states that the organizations which jointly signed on to this amicus brief represent more than 85 percent of U.S. cattle farms and ranches, 75 percent of the nation's cattle, and that AFBF represents 5.6 million farm families.
"Obviously, when you look at those inflated numbers, you know right away these organizations represent far more than just the interests of production agriculture. According to data from the 2002 Agriculture Census, there are only 2.1 million farms left in the United States. And, according to the latest information on USDA's National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) website, there are only 774,630 independent businesses that raise beef cattle, down from 800,000 one year ago."
