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

R-CALF does not agree the U.S. overreacted

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
R-CALF: Post-Hearing Brief On Beef Exports Filed With ITC

11/27/2007 8:44:00 AM


R-CALF: Post-Hearing Brief On Beef Exports Filed With ITC



Washington, D.C. – After a representative testified before the International Trade Commission (ITC) at its recent hearing on “Global Beef Trade: Effects of Animal Healthy, Sanitary, Food Safety and Other Measures on U.S. Beef Exports,” ITC Commissioners requested additional information from R-CALF USA regarding: the proper approach to mitigating the risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) posed by imports; the role of BSE testing technologies, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) and animal identification in addressing BSE concerns; and, the impacts of lost export markets on the domestic cattle industry.



“We appreciate this opportunity to present this additional information to the ITC,” said R-CALF USA Trade Committee Chair Eric Nelson, who testified at the hearing. “We believe it’s important that the ITC investigate the health, sanitary and food safety measures imposed not only by other countries, but also by the U.S. that have caused U.S. cattle producers to lose significant market share around the world.”



With regard to questions about the approaches the U.S. and other countries have taken to regulate imports in response to the risks posed by BSE, one Commissioner asked why representatives of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), the American Meat Institute (AMI) and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) believe that the response to Canada’s BSE outbreak was an “overreaction.”


“R-CALF does not agree the U.S. overreacted by restricting imports of beef and cattle from Canada in May 2003 following Canada’s announcement that it had detected an indigenous case of BSE,” Nelson pointed out. “The current relaxed U.S. policy is an abandonment of the longstanding BSE protection strategy originally employed by our government to prevent the introduction of this disease.



“The relevant question for policy makers today is not whether the U.S. ‘overreacted’ by implementing a longstanding and effective policy to protect the U.S. from the introduction of BSE from Canada,” he asserted. “Instead, the relevant question today is whether the U.S. is justified in abandoning its longstanding protection strategy in favor of a more relaxed policy, and what effect this will have on exports of U.S. beef and cattle.



While the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) insists the BSE risk profiles of the U.S. and Canada are essentially the same, Nelson pointed out that “our export customers know that research by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) shows that Canadian cattle are 26 times more likely to test positive for BSE than U.S. cattle, and that here in the U.S., we have not detected any BSE-infected cattle with the same strain of the disease that was responsible for the BSE outbreaks in Europe and Canada.”



Additionally, USDA acknowledges that between 19 to 105 BSE-infected cattle could come into the U.S. from Canada and potentially infect up to 75 head of cattle here, and the agency claims that kind of risk is acceptable, Nelson said.



“Our export customers also know that the U.S. feed ban is considered to be inadequate to prevent the spread of BSE through cross-contamination – a leading cause of BSE amplification in Canada – and as a result, the U.S. continues to experience minimal success in its efforts to restore those lost export markets,” he pointed out. “The U.S. was not justified in relaxing its BSE protections with respect to Canada, a fact that has been resoundingly reflected by world market reactions.”



With regard to questions concerning testing for BSE, technology does exist that would permit meatpackers and others to test cattle for BSE, but currently, less than one percent of the cattle slaughtered in the U.S. and Canada are tested for the disease, and USDA policy opposes meatpackers’ efforts to voluntarily test their own products.



“For example, Creekstone (Creekstone Farms Premium Beef) planned to test cattle for BSE for meat shipments destined for Japan and was prevented from doing so by USDA,” said Nelson. “Creekstone’s proposal to test its product for BSE was consistent with the voluntary testing allowed for other animal diseases and voluntary labeling for other animal production methods in the United States. Creekstone’s proposal also would have allowed U.S. beef producers to practice the same type of voluntary BSE testing already prevalent in many other countries, such as Japan.



“USDA refused to provide Creekstone with BSE test kits, arguing that testing would mislead consumers regarding the safety of the beef they purchase, and other meatpackers were concerned that testing by Creekstone would eventually create enough consumer demand to force Creekstone’s competitors to also test their product for BSE,” he explained. “Creekstone sued USDA, and in March 2007, the court ruled the agency had no authority to prohibit such testing, but testing for BSE is on hold because USDA appealed the decision.”



With regard to questions concerning COOL, U.S. cattle producers’ inability to ensure that beef from cattle born, raised and slaughtered exclusively in the U.S. is clearly distinguished from imported beef and beef from imported cattle when it reaches the consumer presents another obstacle to U.S. beef exports.



“Meat from Canadian animals slaughtered in the U.S. and Canadian meat that is further processed in the U.S. are not identified as such to consumers either in the U.S. or abroad, yet these products bear the USDA inspection sticker and, in some instances, USDA’s quality grade stamp, both of which may lead unsuspecting consumers to believe the product is wholly of U.S. origin,” Nelson continued. “Because consumers and export customers cannot distinguish meat exclusively of U.S. origin from meat derived from Canadian animals or commingled with imported meat, many of the health and safety problems experienced in Canada have effectively become obstacles to the marketing of U.S. beef.”



As far as questions regarding the use of animal identification in addressing BSE concerns, R-CALF USA does not believe that any increase in export opportunities that such a system may provide would justify the cost for the entire U.S. cattle industry, as exports represent only about 10 percent of the total beef production in the United States.



“This would be an example of the tail wagging the dog, and if export markets demand age and source verification through an animal ID system, then participation should be encouraged by marketplace forces,” Nelson said. “If the marketplace provided financial rewards for producers who choose to incur the additional cost of producing for the export market, then the marketplace would likewise be expected to generate sufficient numbers of participants to meet the export demand.”



With regard to the impacts of lost export markets on the U.S. cattle industry, R-CALF USA pointed out that the U.S. cattle industry has been in a state of decline since at least the early 1990s, during a period when U.S. export volumes were increasing dramatically. Then when export volumes fell to a 19-year low in 2004, domestic cattle prices, which had risen sharply after the 2003 BSE restrictions on Canadian imports, reached and maintained historical high levels. The negative correlation between export volumes and domestic cattle prices beginning in 1990 and continuing through the present, at the very least, debunks beef industry claims that increased profits received by meatpackers from increased exports are passed down to U.S. cattle producers through higher prices.



“R-CALF USA is requesting that the ITC investigation include a review to determine which segments of the multi-faceted U.S. beef industry have benefited from U.S. beef exports since 1990, particularly a review of whether the foundation of the U.S. beef industry – the cattle-producing segment of approximately 800,000 independent producers – have received their competitive share of the value of U.S. exports since that time,” Nelson urged.



“For the last 45 years, the U.S. cattle industry has not produced sufficient supplies of beef to satisfy domestic consumption, and this is why domestic cattle prices are sensitive to export volumes to the extent that imports exceed the capacity for export,” he continued. “Unfortunately, past national and international policies have not adequately addressed the unique, supply sensitive nature of the U.S. cattle industry, and as a result, the U.S. cattle industry has been shrinking its herd for the past 30 years.



“U.S. cattle producers can compete and prosper if they are ensured a level playing field where import standards are upwardly harmonized and high quality U.S. product can be differentiated by consumers at home and abroad,” Nelson concluded. “The U.S. should withdraw its rule to allow older Canadian cattle and beef into the U.S from Canada, reverse its current policy of giving access to the U.S. market before regaining export access, and adopt stronger BSE restrictions in accordance with the practices of other BSE-affected countries around the world.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But- but- but....Haymaker---How can this be? NCBA/AMI and the Maxines of the world told us that when we opened our borders to Canadian beef all the the rest of the world would have to open up to all our beef :???:

Are you insinuating that those folks would preach falsehoods :???: :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
packers got what they wanted...........Canadian beef into the united states market place,I think it's a damn shame when we deny the American housewife her right to choose a safe product,she winds up feeding beef that a Korean wont eat, to her family.................good luck
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
While the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) insists the BSE risk profiles of the U.S. and Canada are essentially the same, Nelson pointed out that “our export customers know that research by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) shows that Canadian cattle are 26 times more likely to test positive for BSE than U.S. cattle, and that here in the U.S., we have not detected any BSE-infected cattle with the same strain of the disease that was responsible for the BSE outbreaks in Europe and Canada.”



Additionally, USDA acknowledges that between 19 to 105 BSE-infected cattle could come into the U.S. from Canada and potentially infect up to 75 head of cattle here, and the agency claims that kind of risk is acceptable, Nelson said.


If the above is true i would say that USA beef isn't safe to eat as we in Canada have been finding and eliminating BSE cows before they hit the food chain. Strange with all the cows that have gone South over the years they haven't caused a problem yet. :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
BMR, "If the above is true i would say that USA beef isn't safe to eat as we in Canada have been finding and eliminating BSE cows before they hit the food chain. Strange with all the cows that have gone South over the years they haven't caused a problem yet."

We've been told that your BSE came from one little area, just one feed mill, just one truck, etc... You guys need to pick one story and stick with it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
as we in Canada have been finding and eliminating BSE cows before they hit the food chain.


How can you say that-- when you don't test ALL :???: .....Canada has no idea how many infected cattle went to slaughter and directly into the food chain of Canadian consumers-- and now American consumers......

Even CFIA admitted that the Canadian feedban didn't work to keep BSE out of the cattle food chain-- the reason they implemented a new one in July....And those cows infected prior to July may not appear for 10 years......
 
Top