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

Revise Canadian Cattle Import Rule

A

Anonymous

Guest
Today 7/17/2006 3:35:00 PM


US May Revise Cattle Import Rule On New Canada BSE Case



WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S., now in the later stages of lifting its ban on Canadian cattle that are over 30 months of age, may have to make changes to the proposed rule in response to Canada's most recent mad-cow case, according to U.S. government and industry officials.



Andrea Morgan, a veterinarian and associate deputy administrator at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said a draft of the U.S. rule on older Canadian cattle has been finished, but may need to be revised.



At the heart of USDA's concern is the age of the latest infected Canadian cow confirmed to be positive for the disease last week. It was just 50 months old, born more than four years after Canada implemented cattle feed restrictions that were supposed to the spread of mad-cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy.



The USDA sent one of its epidemiologists to Canada over the weekend to follow the country's investigation into its seventh native-born case of BSE. That is something USDA did not do after Canada reported its sixth case earlier this month, but that infected cow was 15 years old - born well before Canada began its feed ban in 1997.



USDA officials are primarily interested to see whether the latest Canadian BSE case represents a widespread problem with the country's feed ban, the domestic restrictions designed to eradicate the cattle disease.



There may be good reason for concern, said U.S.-based National Cattlemen's Beef Association Director of Regulatory Affairs Gary Weber.



The effect on U.S.-Canadian cattle trade, Weber said, may be the cut-off point for cattle birth dates that the USDA writes into its rule to allow in the older animals. Canada, he said, now considers 1999 to be the year that all ranchers there became fully compliant with the feed ban. USDA may be forced to bump that date up, he said.




Chuck Kiker, president of another cattle producer group, R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, called on the USDA to "indefinitely postpone" its plans to lift its ban on older Canadian cattle. Allowing those cattle across the border, Kiker said in a letter to USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, will only serve in scaring away foreign importers that buy, or are considering buying, beef from the U.S.



Kiker cited a concern voiced recently by South Korea that imported Canadian beef could be mixed in with U.S. origin product.



South Korea and the U.S. remain in prolonged negotiations over resuming beef trade. The country banned U.S. beef in December 2003 after the U.S. discovered its first BSE case in a cow that was later shown to be of Canadian origin.



"With another case of BSE in an animal born after Canada's feed ban ... now is not the time to further weaken our import standards ... " Kiker said in his letter to Johanns, dated July 17.




While Canada's seventh BSE case, the latest is the fourth found in a cow born after the country's feed ban was imposed. Two previous cases were born about three years after Canada began its feed ban and another less than a year.



The Canadian feed ban, similar to the one in the U.S., prohibits the use of bovine material in cattle feed because infected feed is believed to be the primary means of spreading the disease among animals.



The U.S. banned all Canadian beef and cattle in May 2003 after Canada's first domestic case of BSE was found. The USDA eased that ban a few months later on some beef and, in July 2005, began allowing in younger cattle.



The USDA rule allowing in older cattle has taken longer because older cattle are believed to be at higher risk for BSE.



USDA's Morgan said a draft of the proposal has been finished and was in "the clearance process" when Canada reported its latest BSE case last week.



Part of the reason the USDA is eager to allow in the older Canadian cattle is that there are many cow-slaughter operations - plants that specialize in processing older beef and dairy cattle - in the U.S. that need the imports.



In 2003, about 250,000 head of older cows slaughtered in the U.S. came from Canada before the U.S. border was shut, according to data provided by the American Meat Institute Foundation.



Source: Bill Tomson; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-646-0088;
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
You know Canadas feed ban was revised here about a week ago. I got the info from the Alberta beef association but I can search some kind of a link if your interested?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
July 17, 2006



Cattle Producers Press USDA, Congress for Import Reforms



(Billings, Mont.) – R-CALF USA President and Region V Director Chuck Kiker today sent letters to members of Congress and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns to request immediate policy reforms regarding import regulations for imports of Canadian cattle and beef, as well as immediate action to make certain consumers can differentiate U.S. beef from foreign beef. These urgent suggestions were made in light of Thursday’s confirmation by Canadian officials of its ninth case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) overall, this one in a 50-month-old cow, the youngest animal yet. Four of the Canadian cases were in animals born after implementation of its 1997 feed ban.



The letter to Johanns stated in part: “We believe U.S. cattle producers can prosper if we are allowed to compete in an open market where our import standards are upwardly harmonized with the rest of the world’s, where market access is granted in an equitable and reciprocal manner, and where consumers everywhere can exercise their right to choose U.S. beef…R-CALF USA proposes a plan for action to help restore the competitiveness of U.S. cattle producers. We hope you will consider these proposals and lend them your support.



1) USDA should postpone indefinitely the proposal to allow from Canada imports of cattle over 30 months of age and beef from cattle over 30 months of age from Canada. U.S. trading partners around the world have continued to be concerned about purchasing beef because it is commingled with Canadian beef. Now is not the time to further weaken our import standards below those of our trading partners.



2) USDA should rescind its Final Rule and close the Canadian border to beef and cattle imports until the U.S. implements BSE import standards that reflect the consensus among BSE-affected countries and beef importing countries. Our standards should mirror those that exist abroad, not be lower than those of our competitors. Strong, science-based import standards not only protect animal health and consumer safety, they also remove a justification for continued restrictions on U.S. exports.



3) USDA should cease its policy of granting access to the U.S. market before we regain access to foreign export markets. Trade must be equitable and reciprocal, not a one-way street. We cannot sustain the gaping trade deficit in cattle and beef that results from these imbalanced market access opportunities.



4) USDA should ensure that beef produced exclusively from U.S. cattle can easily be differentiated by consumers in the U.S. and abroad. Packers already are required to develop differentiation techniques in order to meet certain countries’ import requirements, so there is no reason the same process cannot be used to allow all consumers to exercise their right to choose 100 percent U.S. beef.



The letter to Congress also included the above requests made to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and also explained R-CALF USA’s deep concern with USDA’s proposal to lower import standards related to BSE, particularly in light of BSE problems in the Canadian cattle herd that appear more serious than USDA originally assumed.



The letter to Congress stated in part: “USDA needs to put its newest proposal on hold and rescind its previous action pending a more thorough evaluation of Canada’s BSE problem to ensure that U.S. standards are sufficient to address the risks posed by imports of Canadian cattle and beef.”



The letter also outlined three policy approaches that have hampered the ability of U.S. cattle producers to effectively compete in the global marketplace:



1) U.S. import standards for cattle and beef are already lower than the standards our own exports must meet in many other countries – lowering U.S. standards even further, as proposed by USDA, will exacerbate this imbalance.



2) The U.S. grants expanded access to our market for imports of cattle and beef before our access to lost export markets is fully restored, enabling important export customers to drag their feet on market access as imports gain a growing share of the U.S. market.



3) Imported meat, and meat from imported animals, is commingled with U.S. beef, and thus consumers both at home and abroad are unable to clearly differentiate U.S. product.



“Our trading partners cite these policies in their refusal to re-open their markets to U.S. beef. For example, South Korea recently announced it would not resume imports of U.S. beef until it was assured that it would not be commingled with Canadian product,” Kiker wrote. “These policies severely undercut U.S. cattle producers. U.S. cattle producers live up to the highest health and safety standards at home, but we cannot market our product based on compliance with these standards when consumers in the U.S. and overseas cannot distinguish our U.S. beef from foreign product.”



Kiker also requested Congressional oversight hearings to review USDA’s import standards for cattle and beef.



To view the letters and supporting background information, visit www.r-calfusa.com, and go to the “BSE – Litigation” link.

# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA’s membership consists primarily of cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members – over 18,000 strong – are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
 

Tam

Well-known member
1) U.S. import standards for cattle and beef are already lower than the standards our own exports must meet in many other countries – lowering U.S. standards even further, as proposed by USDA, will exacerbate this imbalance.
This is totally debatable as Canada is inporting beef from a BSE affect country that has provide no proof of where their BSE originated or if they have the safeguards in place to stop the Spread. I truly believe we should raise our standards of who we do business with. :wink:



2) The U.S. grants expanded access to our market for imports of cattle and beef before our access to lost export markets is fully restored, enabling important export customers to drag their feet on market access as imports gain a growing share of the U.S. market.
Monkey see monkey do. drag you feet and :?
Your export markets see R-CALF in court trying to prove all beef coming from a country affect by BSE is unfit for human consumption why should they open they consumers up to the risk US BEEF may present if they import it. You ARE an BSE affected country or did you forget that little tidbit of information. Maybe they are dragging their feet to see what the US court system has to say. Drop the legal actions and see if the negotiations pick up.



3) Imported meat, and meat from imported animals, is commingled with U.S. beef, and thus consumers both at home and abroad are unable to clearly differentiate U.S. product.
I though Sandhusker said US consumer had no reason to think they are getting anything but US beef so why would commingling make any difference to them? And if those consumers knew the full story about BSE, Would they choose to eat US over imported Canadian beef? Or maybe they would choose to eat aussie beef as they have no BSE. Better be careful for what you ask for that label just might give imported beef an even larger share of your domestic market if the truth ever does come out about how little you know about your BSE. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But Tam- even the worlds scientists are beginning to question Canada's BSE problem...According to the current science (as was posted on CFIA's website) and the studies done by the Japanese, scientists believe the age the disease manifests itself in the animal is related to the quantity ( amount of prion infected material) and/or quality (vitality of the prions) the animal was exposed to- along with possibly the age exposed....This 50 month old means there may be some powerful stuff floating around up there--What guarantee is there that the next one won't be under 30 months/ or you send us down an infected under 30 month old/ or you have been sending us down infected under 30 month olds :???: ......Both Japan and Europe have found them under 30 months old- one of the reasons they recognized 20 month as the magic number...

Like R-CALF said- USDA needs to put the Final Rule on hold until they have a better understanding of how, where, why this animal was infected/ and how much more of this powerful prion is out there and how it is being spread and where to/ and how this slipped thru the feedban....

If not they are taking a risk of further spreading the disease thruout North America...
 

greg

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
You know Canadas feed ban was revised here about a week ago. I got the info from the Alberta beef association but I can search some kind of a link if your interested?
8) That is right-THIS IS GETTIN OLD,I butcher my own and feed to Grandson???
 

Murgen

Well-known member
why this animal was infected/ and how much more of this powerful prion is out there and how it is being spread and where to/ and how this slipped thru the feedban....

OT, you speak with such conviction, just as you did on May 21, 2003.

Another Web, you will be caught in?

Learn from History, and it's not acient history either!
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
But Tam- even the worlds scientists are beginning to question Canada's BSE problem...

Show us a statement from a world scientist, not an RCalf "scientist", that supports this statement OT.

And I find it interesting that RCalf is calling on banning meat from over 30 animals, not just live animals. There is no reason to ban over 30 meat with SRMs removed, as its impossible for it to get into your cattle herd. Calling for a ban on meat is pure protectionism.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DiamondSCattleCo said:
There is no reason to ban over 30 meat with SRMs removed, as its impossible for it to get into your cattle herd. Calling for a ban on meat is pure protectionism.

Rod



As has been posted on here before, SRM removal does not remove 100% of the material that can be infected- and much depends on what each country calls an SRM...Apparently Canada is passing around some extra potent infection that may not take a large quantity of to infect--either human or animal...Whats an SRM in Europe, or Japan isn't an SRM in Canada or the US...With plate waste and animal product still being allowed in feed supplements, it definitely presents a danger....And without M-COOL the US consumer does not have the ability to choose....
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
greg said:
RoperAB said:
You know Canadas feed ban was revised here about a week ago. I got the info from the Alberta beef association but I can search some kind of a link if your interested?
8) That is right-THIS IS GETTIN OLD,I butcher my own and feed to Grandson???

Like I have stated before, right now im feeding my family< kids > hamburger from on old bull that was shot and butchered on the ranch. Not only was it not bse tested but its not government inspected either.
Your right, this is getting old. Most on here dont care about the truth. They only want to argue and to try to pi$$ people off by spreading untruths and or mislead people. They must enjoy surfing the web all day looking for dirt on Canadians.
Anyway my brand new UN black helicopter is working great. Its the cats a$$ for rounding up cattle :wink:
or for rustling cattle like Haymaker would say :lol: :lol: :lol: We dont need no stinking NAFTA super highway, we have air power!!!!!! :lol:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Apparently Canada is passing around some extra potent infection that may not take a large quantity of to infect--either human or animal...

Come on OT, "extra potent"? I have read NOTHING to suggest that Canadian BSE is any different than that found in Europe. Just plain old run of the mill BSE. Its you guys down south that have the odd strain of it.

And "Canada is passing it around"? The one animal that you guys were able to trace back to us could have just as easily been infected in the US.

Also, SRMS are SRMS. If we're not removing "the right stuff", why is Japan, with the some of the most stringent food safety regulations in the world happy with the way we do things?

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Also, SRMS are SRMS. If we're not removing "the right stuff", why is Japan, with the some of the most stringent food safety regulations in the world happy with the way we do things?

Rod



Rod- Japan is not taking 30 month beef from Canada either- they are taking under 21 month, which with the findings of all the under 30 positives has now become the magic number....Thats one of the questions that R-CALF is asking of USDA- If all these other countries recognize 20 months as the age to accept from BSE countries- why is the US taking product from a BSE country that is 30 month :???: ...

Also go look at what is removed as SRM's- each country and each rule for exporting to each different country has a different definition on what is an SRM- and a different definition for each age group...I think in Europe they remove everything down to 12 months in BSE infected countries....

I'm not going to get into a "my prion is tougher than your prion" argument- but it has always made me wonder why Canadian ranchers are not questioning more this "atypical" strain which they don't seem to mind importing- especially when there are questions arising as to how its transmitted....It really shocked me when Canada a couple weeks ago opened up to all live cattle including breeding stock...I take it as a desperation move to try and push the North American herd idea, which very few in the US will buy into....

This all shows that neither USDA or CFIA have enough of a grasp on BSE to be reducing the firewalls and safeguards and suggests they need to relook at what criteria they used to develop their Final Rule...

The interesting thing I find in all the releases, statements, and little tidbits coming out of the USDA the last week is that most are not coming from Johanns...They are coming from undersecretary's and assistants all with a DVM behind their name that are suggesting the postponement of the OTM rule or relooking/changing the Final Rule...

Carreer politicians don't like to get egg smeared on their face, and I think Johanns is now looking at some backdown ways that he can accredit to new evidence and sound science/ or a way out if Congress again comes out in opposition to him...I hope this goes far enough to reinstitute our pre BSE firewalls and to strengthen the US's feedban safeguards....
 

Latest posts

Top