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

Rule2 one step closer.

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Location
GWN
Beef News
OMB accepts "Rule 2" on Canadian beef, returns it to USDA for publication

By Pete Hisey on 1/3/2007 for Meatingplace.com

The Office of Management and Budget has concluded its review of USDA's "Rule 2" that would liberalize imports of beef and cattle from Canada and returned it to USDA for publishing in the Congressional Record in the near future. OMB found the Proposed Rule, "BSE, Minimal Risk Regions and Importation of Commodities," both "economically significant and a major rule."

Although the contents of the Proposed Rule are still unknown, the Rule is expected to allow, at minimum, the import of boneless beef from cattle over thirty months of age, and probably the import of live cattle over that age as well.

In any case, there are still many steps to come, Ted Haney, chief executive of the Canadian Beef Export Federation tells Meatingplace.com. Once the Rule is published, it will be exposed to a comment period of 30 to 90 days, then another waiting period while USDA examines the comments, then another review by OMB, and finally possible Congressional action. "With the change to a Democratic Congress, it's impossible to predict what the reaction will be," Haney says.

Bill Bullard, chief executive of Ranchers-Cattlemen's Action Legal Fund, which is suing USDA to prevent imports of live cattle from Canada, says his organization is encouraging its members to prod their representatives to in turn urge USDA to cease all action on the Proposed Rule. "We are hopeful that the (new Democratic-controlled Congress) will intervene with USDA to prevent adoption of this rule," Bullard tells Meatingplace.com. He adds that both Canada and the United States have at some point proposed strengthened feed bans, and that to resume trade in live animals before stronger feed bans are in place would be "irresponsible."

Canadian beef producers and packers are anxiously awaiting the exact details of the Proposed Rule, Haney says. While boxed beef from older cattle is a given in the Proposed Rule, will bone-in beef, live imports for direct slaughter, live imports for feeding and slaughter, and live imports for breeding purposes be allowed? Further, what will be the earliest birth date allowed? "That will depend on when USDA determines is the date at which the Canadian feed ban is deemed to have become effective," Haney says.

R-CALF's Bullard seizes on just that issue, pointing out that allowing live animals and particularly older live animals, as well as beef from those animals, compromises U.S. hopes to gain international status as a "region of negligible risk" for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. To gain such status under current standards, no BSE case from an animal born in the previous 11 years can be on the record. The youngest such case in the United States would have turned 11 in February 2006. "Possible commingling of Canadian cattle, where a recent case was from an animal born in 2002, could jeopardize our negligible risk status, and cause serious harm to cattle producers," Bullard says.

Haney says that while final approval of the Proposed Rule will give the Canadian beef industry an immediate shot in the arm in the form of higher prices for "captive cattle" such as older animals that have been barred from export, longer-range effects will be mixed. The Rule will result in an increase in the number of cattle flowing south, which will lower the slaughter rate in Canada and "increase our dependence" on the United States after three years of rebuilding its slaughter industry, Haney says. Canada has been attempting to decrease its reliance on the United States, which accounts for well over half of its exports, by increasing exports to other markets.

The more distant future, however, looks brighter for Canada, as the United States is expected to use the Rule to encourage more international trade in over-thirty-month boneless beef and offal, and eventually to press for relaxation of some bans on bone-in beef. "We've seen signs that some trading partners would look at acceptance of OTM boneless beef as a window to accept bone-in beef from younger cattle," Haney says. The United States is also expected to use the rule as proof that it follows international standards in respect to beef trade and insist that its trading partners follow the same standards.

USDA did not return calls for comment.
 
R-CALF's Bullard seizes on just that issue, pointing out that allowing live animals and particularly older live animals, as well as beef from those animals, compromises U.S. hopes to gain international status as a "region of negligible risk" for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. To gain such status under current standards, no BSE case from an animal born in the previous 11 years can be on the record. The youngest such case in the United States would have turned 11 in February 2006. "Possible commingling of Canadian cattle, where a recent case was from an animal born in 2002, could jeopardize our negligible risk status, and cause serious harm to cattle producers," Bullard says.


Any animal that would be imported because of this rule would be ID'd to the max. SO Would any of you R-CALFers like to explain your leaders comment? Tell us how an imported animal that can be traced back to the exporting country by that country's NID tag and a Hot brand indicating the cows origin would be mistaken for a US native animal and have any effect on the US's BSE Status? And if the animal is ID'd as an imported animal how is that going to harm the US producers? Especially since they have these firewalls in place for so many years to protect and prevent the spread of BSE. :wink:
 
Tam said:
R-CALF's Bullard seizes on just that issue, pointing out that allowing live animals and particularly older live animals, as well as beef from those animals, compromises U.S. hopes to gain international status as a "region of negligible risk" for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. To gain such status under current standards, no BSE case from an animal born in the previous 11 years can be on the record. The youngest such case in the United States would have turned 11 in February 2006. "Possible commingling of Canadian cattle, where a recent case was from an animal born in 2002, could jeopardize our negligible risk status, and cause serious harm to cattle producers," Bullard says.


Any animal that would be imported because of this rule would be ID'd to the max. SO Would any of you R-CALFers like to explain your leaders comment? Tell us how an imported animal that can be traced back to the exporting country by that country's NID tag and a Hot brand indicating the cows origin would be mistaken for a US native animal and have any effect on the US's BSE Status? And if the animal is ID'd as an imported animal how is that going to harm the US producers? Especially since they have these firewalls in place for so many years to protect and prevent the spread of BSE. :wink:

I guess you've forgotten that Washington cow.
 
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
R-CALF's Bullard seizes on just that issue, pointing out that allowing live animals and particularly older live animals, as well as beef from those animals, compromises U.S. hopes to gain international status as a "region of negligible risk" for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. To gain such status under current standards, no BSE case from an animal born in the previous 11 years can be on the record. The youngest such case in the United States would have turned 11 in February 2006. "Possible commingling of Canadian cattle, where a recent case was from an animal born in 2002, could jeopardize our negligible risk status, and cause serious harm to cattle producers," Bullard says.


Any animal that would be imported because of this rule would be ID'd to the max. SO Would any of you R-CALFers like to explain your leaders comment? Tell us how an imported animal that can be traced back to the exporting country by that country's NID tag and a Hot brand indicating the cows origin would be mistaken for a US native animal and have any effect on the US's BSE Status? And if the animal is ID'd as an imported animal how is that going to harm the US producers? Especially since they have these firewalls in place for so many years to protect and prevent the spread of BSE. :wink:

I guess you've forgotten that Washington cow.



Sorry but you were affected by the Washington Cow because the OIE took a look at the investigation and came to the conclusion that the Washington cow could not be consider in ISOLATION of the US system. DUE to the fact you could not find the other animals imported with her or any of the others that were imported over the years or the other US cattle that had consumed the Canadian feed that was imported. If the US is granted Negligible risk then they would have to take into consideration all those cattle that are now within the US and can not be ID'd as anything other than living within your borders as US Cattle.
Now would you like to tell us how the new cattle that will only be allowed in with proper ID and Brands under the NEW RULE would be considered US born and raised? Or harm your producer clients?
 
The COOL law will take care of imported beef or animals including produce that will end up on the retail shelf with a card saying the source country,and yes that will be passed with the new people in Washington very soon.The big hang up was Bonnila from Texas and he has been voted OUT,and now Sen. Schumer from New York ,Wants a traceback code on all food back to the source of where they were born ,raised,and fed.Under the proposed tracing system, each box of product would feature a bar code that would contain information about the fruits or vegetables and their origin. If the produce was suspected in an outbreak, authorities could use the bar codes to find out where else the suspicious fruits or vegetables were distributed.

Boxes of produce now contain origin information, but Schumer said a government tracing system would be more comprehensive.

"The minute a first outbreak of E. coli occurs, we know exactly where it comes from," Schumer said.
 
PORKER said:
The COOL law will take care of imported beef or animals including produce that will end up on the retail shelf with a card saying the source country,and yes that will be passed with the new people in Washington very soon.The big hang up was Bonnila from Texas and he has been voted OUT,and now Sen. Shuemher from New York ,Wants a traceback code on all food back to the source of where they were born ,raised,and fed.

I agree, bring it on. COOL will be the first step to a total traceability system right back to the souce of where of the animal was born ,raised,and fed. Whatever the country including US producers.

IdentiGEN is but one company that will help faciclitate this.

http://www.mycattle.com/markets/dsp_market_article.cfm?storyid=18859
 
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
R-CALF's Bullard seizes on just that issue, pointing out that allowing live animals and particularly older live animals, as well as beef from those animals, compromises U.S. hopes to gain international status as a "region of negligible risk" for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. To gain such status under current standards, no BSE case from an animal born in the previous 11 years can be on the record. The youngest such case in the United States would have turned 11 in February 2006. "Possible commingling of Canadian cattle, where a recent case was from an animal born in 2002, could jeopardize our negligible risk status, and cause serious harm to cattle producers," Bullard says.


Any animal that would be imported because of this rule would be ID'd to the max. SO Would any of you R-CALFers like to explain your leaders comment? Tell us how an imported animal that can be traced back to the exporting country by that country's NID tag and a Hot brand indicating the cows origin would be mistaken for a US native animal and have any effect on the US's BSE Status? And if the animal is ID'd as an imported animal how is that going to harm the US producers? Especially since they have these firewalls in place for so many years to protect and prevent the spread of BSE. :wink:

I guess you've forgotten that Washington cow.

You mean the one we put into the food chain. I would not bring that up to make our system look better than others. Besides they might find there post ban bse is like our bse that does not matter to the rest of the world :roll:
 
Tam, "Sorry but you were affected by the Washington Cow because the OIE took a look at the investigation and came to the conclusion that the Washington cow could not be consider in ISOLATION of the US system"

I don't remember our customers waiting for the OIE before they closed their borders to us.

You can't just make up stuff as you go, Tam. Some of us remember what actually happened.
 
Sandhusker said:
Tam, "Sorry but you were affected by the Washington Cow because the OIE took a look at the investigation and came to the conclusion that the Washington cow could not be consider in ISOLATION of the US system"

I don't remember our customers waiting for the OIE before they closed their borders to us.

You can't just make up stuff as you go, Tam. Some of us remember what actually happened.

Maybe you ought to read what mwj wrote Sandhusker.

Yes some of us do remember what actually happened.
 
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Tam, "Sorry but you were affected by the Washington Cow because the OIE took a look at the investigation and came to the conclusion that the Washington cow could not be consider in ISOLATION of the US system"

I don't remember our customers waiting for the OIE before they closed their borders to us.

You can't just make up stuff as you go, Tam. Some of us remember what actually happened.

Maybe you ought to read what mwj wrote Sandhusker.

Yes some of us do remember what actually happened.

I read the part he wrote about the rest of the world doesn't care about our BSE. That made me believe he's smoking the same stuff Tam is.
 
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Tam, "Sorry but you were affected by the Washington Cow because the OIE took a look at the investigation and came to the conclusion that the Washington cow could not be consider in ISOLATION of the US system"

I don't remember our customers waiting for the OIE before they closed their borders to us.

You can't just make up stuff as you go, Tam. Some of us remember what actually happened.

Maybe you ought to read what mwj wrote Sandhusker.

Yes some of us do remember what actually happened.

I read the part he wrote about the rest of the world doesn't care about our BSE. That made me believe he's smoking the same stuff Tam is.

Selective reading again :roll: Did you fail to see where I put it in context with our harmless form of BSE ? You sure complain when people take things from your postings out of context but feel free to do that very thing. Since I ''smoke'' does that mean the Washington cow DID NOT go into the food chain?
 
mwj said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Maybe you ought to read what mwj wrote Sandhusker.

Yes some of us do remember what actually happened.

I read the part he wrote about the rest of the world doesn't care about our BSE. That made me believe he's smoking the same stuff Tam is.

Selective reading again :roll: Did you fail to see where I put it in context with our harmless form of BSE ? You sure complain when people take things from your postings out of context but feel free to do that very thing. Since I ''smoke'' does that mean the Washington cow DID NOT go into the food chain?

So we should stick a few hundred more in the food chain :???: If Canada has found 9 head in Canada- how many did they not find and went into the food chain :???: ... And since the USDA scientists now say Canada will probably be finding positive cattle for 20+ years-- how many of those positive cattle will now end up in the US food chain again if they let in Canadian cattle :???: ...How much will end up in pig or dog food that is then fed to cattle either thru accident or ignorance :???: ... When and where do we stop the cycle :???:

USDA has done nothing to answer any of the questions that were the reason the Senate voted against Rule 2 last time-- let alone answer the questions about the 4 post feedban cattle and the 4 year old one found lately....Completely a political snow job!!

The main question everyone needs to look at and answer is this:

Is the risk worth it? What is the gain to US cattlemen? Is it worth the added risk to the US/International consumer confidence, US consumer safety, the US cattle herd, and the long term viability of the US cattle industry?
 
One adjustment that could be made to the rule, is that all Canadian mature slaughter cattle sent to the US have to go straight to slaughter. At least then the cull cattle trade could get back into business and not implicate the US (as far as feeding practices are concerned) in any Canadian cattle that are sent stateside. Breeding cattle could be tricky, but I think my idea is a fair compromise for the cull cattle.
 
Aaron said:
One adjustment that could be made to the rule, is that all Canadian mature slaughter cattle sent to the US have to go straight to slaughter. At least then the cull cattle trade could get back into business and not implicate the US (as far as feeding practices are concerned) in any Canadian cattle that are sent stateside. Breeding cattle could be tricky, but I think my idea is a fair compromise for the cull cattle.

Aaron- Main problem with that is that the SRM's removed from those slaughter cows still goes into the US feed- since US feedban rules still allow SRM's in some feed... And it gives the US a much higher risk of finding another positive cow within country- even tho its of Canadian origin, the International market would see it against the US as they did the Washington cow.....
We haven't even come close to regaining any confidence in Asia- and this proposal will not help that.....

Besides the Packers, the other groups pushing this proposal hardest is the dairy associations- wanting access to Canadian dairy cows....Which to me is probably the last cattle we should let in since they are all fed premixed feeds....
 
Oldtimer said:
Aaron said:
One adjustment that could be made to the rule, is that all Canadian mature slaughter cattle sent to the US have to go straight to slaughter. At least then the cull cattle trade could get back into business and not implicate the US (as far as feeding practices are concerned) in any Canadian cattle that are sent stateside. Breeding cattle could be tricky, but I think my idea is a fair compromise for the cull cattle.

Aaron- Main problem with that is that the SRM's removed from those slaughter cows still goes into the US feed- since US feedban rules still allow SRM's in some feed... And it gives the US a much higher risk of finding another positive cow within country- even tho its of Canadian origin, the International market would see it against the US as they did the Washington cow.....
We haven't even come close to regaining any confidence in Asia- and this proposal will not help that.....

Besides the Packers, the other groups pushing this proposal hardest is the dairy associations- wanting access to Canadian dairy cows....Which to me is probably the last cattle we should let in since they are all fed premixed feeds....

The US STILL allows SRMs in some feed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious Oldtijmer?
 
Bill said:
Oldtimer said:
Aaron said:
One adjustment that could be made to the rule, is that all Canadian mature slaughter cattle sent to the US have to go straight to slaughter. At least then the cull cattle trade could get back into business and not implicate the US (as far as feeding practices are concerned) in any Canadian cattle that are sent stateside. Breeding cattle could be tricky, but I think my idea is a fair compromise for the cull cattle.

Aaron- Main problem with that is that the SRM's removed from those slaughter cows still goes into the US feed- since US feedban rules still allow SRM's in some feed... And it gives the US a much higher risk of finding another positive cow within country- even tho its of Canadian origin, the International market would see it against the US as they did the Washington cow.....
We haven't even come close to regaining any confidence in Asia- and this proposal will not help that.....

Besides the Packers, the other groups pushing this proposal hardest is the dairy associations- wanting access to Canadian dairy cows....Which to me is probably the last cattle we should let in since they are all fed premixed feeds....

The US STILL allows SRMs in some feed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious Oldtijmer?

I believe Canada does too- since your rule doesn't go officially into effect until July....
 
Bill said:
Oldtimer said:
Aaron said:
One adjustment that could be made to the rule, is that all Canadian mature slaughter cattle sent to the US have to go straight to slaughter. At least then the cull cattle trade could get back into business and not implicate the US (as far as feeding practices are concerned) in any Canadian cattle that are sent stateside. Breeding cattle could be tricky, but I think my idea is a fair compromise for the cull cattle.

Aaron- Main problem with that is that the SRM's removed from those slaughter cows still goes into the US feed- since US feedban rules still allow SRM's in some feed... And it gives the US a much higher risk of finding another positive cow within country- even tho its of Canadian origin, the International market would see it against the US as they did the Washington cow.....
We haven't even come close to regaining any confidence in Asia- and this proposal will not help that.....

Besides the Packers, the other groups pushing this proposal hardest is the dairy associations- wanting access to Canadian dairy cows....Which to me is probably the last cattle we should let in since they are all fed premixed feeds....

The US STILL allows SRMs in some feed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious Oldtijmer?

So does Canada
 
Sandhusker said:
Tam, "Sorry but you were affected by the Washington Cow because the OIE took a look at the investigation and came to the conclusion that the Washington cow could not be consider in ISOLATION of the US system"

I don't remember our customers waiting for the OIE before they closed their borders to us.

You can't just make up stuff as you go, Tam. Some of us remember what actually happened.

As I remember it in 1993 Canada's exports closed too because of an imported cow, but when we proved that the UK cattle could be considered in Isolation of our herd as we were able to locate and dispose of them, our border reopened shortly after they closed.
Here is a quote for you Sandhusker

Testimony of
Larry A. Schuler DVM
State Veterinarian
North Dakota Department of Agriculture
State Board of Animal Health
On

BSE and Related Issues

Hearing held by
US Senator Kent Conrad
Pioneer Room of the North Dakota State Capital
Bismarck, North Dakota
January 9, 2004
10:00 AM

snip
-----------Reestablish Export Markets---------


We believe that USDA should respond to the BSE case in Washington in much the same way that Canada responded to their BSE case in a British imported animal in 1993. Basically, the herd in which the infected animal was found should be depopulated and tested for BSE. All animals that are traced out of this herd and all animals that are in the group of 81 other animals that were imported with the infected animal should also be depopulated and tested. Congress should provide the funding necessary to provide for the depopulation, testing and indemnity of the owners. We estimate this may cost $7-10 million, which is a small price to pay for a lost export market in excess of $2.8 billion.

Additionally, we believe that a traceback of Canadian animals imported into the United States should be done. There are an estimated 300,000-400,000 breeding animals in the US that were imported from Canada. This appears to be an insurmountable task. However, we propose that the traceback should be focused on potential cohorts of the two affected Canadian animals that have been identified in the last year. The traceback should focus on cattle over 5 years of age from the provinces of Saskatchewan or Alberta. This would dramatically reduce the number of animals that would need to be found and tested. We are currently reviewing health certificates in the state veterinarian's office to determine the number of animals that meet these criteria in North Dakota. Nevertheless, it will be a major task and would take additional resources.

Now did the US depopulate the whole Washington herd? NO

Index Herd was a 4000 head dairy wasn't it?

Just how many of the herd were actually depopulated and TESTED?

Wasn't there other premises that should have been depopulated and tested also?

If all these cattle were to be tested to prove something to the rest of the WORLD so they would remove the export bans, then why did the USDA only depopluate a total of 255 cattle from 10 premises?

Did they ever find the other cattle imported with the positive cow? NO

Wasn't it somewhere around 29 of the 81 found before the OIE told the USDA to stop wasting their resources as the Canadian cow could not be considered in isolation of the US system because of the sheer numbers of other cattle that had been imported and the sheer amount of feed that was imported from Canada and fed to US cattle?
If the US system and investigators couldn't find 81 cattle what is the likelyhood of them finding 300,000 to 400,000 breeding animals, disposing of them and testing them?

AND WASN"T THE WASHINGTON COW IN YOUR HUMAN FOOD CHAIN? says a lot for those US firewalls Leo was going to tell your consumers about doesn't it?

See this is what made the Washington Cow different and why your borders took the hit ours didn't from an IMPORTED COW. :wink:

Now would you like to get back to the new rule for cattle that will be ID'd to the MAX and how they will harm your producer clients? :roll:
 
Tam, when the Washington cow was found, our markets closed immediately. Nobody waited to see where the beef went. Nobody waited to learn of our plans for testing/depopulation. Nobody waited to see where the cow was born. Nobody waited for word from the OIE.
 
Tam--With your thinking-- Since we have a few rattlesnakes living under our porch - we should just import 100's more, rather than trying to clean out the whole nest....... :roll:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top