U.S. Cattlemen to Congress: Fix: USDA’s Argentina Mess

[Cow Camp]

UNITED STATES CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION

P.O. Box 339 - San Lucas, CA 93954

Email: [email protected]
Web Site: www.uscattlemen.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jess Peterson 202/870-3867

January 7, 2008

U.S. Cattlemen to Congress: Fix USDA's Argentina Mess

USCA urges all livestock producers to oppose Argentina regionalized beef trade...

USCA (Jan. 7, 2008) - Exactly one year ago this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a little-known and little-publicized proposal to import beef from Argentina, despite that country's repeated problems with foot and mouth disease (FMD).

The U.S. Cattlemen's Association (USCA) has made blocking USDA's action one of its top priorities in 2008.

"FMD is the most contagious and deadly disease facing America's ranchers today. An outbreak in the United States would devastate the industry virtually overnight," said Doug Zalesky, USCA's International Trade Committee co-chairman. "It's a mystery why our government would even consider importing that kind of trouble into America."

Under the USDA proposal, beef and cattle imports would be allowed from areas of Argentina that are considered to be FMD free. USCA says enforcing such a plan would be impossible and shipments containing FMD would likely slip through the cracks.

"FMD is an airborne infection; it's not going to stop at an imaginary border erected by USDA," Zalesky explained. "USCA does not believe that Argentina can be trusted to police itself or keep America's best interests at heart. After all, this is a nation that intentionally defaults on U.S. loans and routinely attacks the U.S. within the World Trade Organization (WTO)."
Even after a year of consideration, no final decision has been published by USDA on its proposal, and USCA is growing impatient with the agency's inaction.

A resolution passed by the USCA board of directors requests that Congress "take whatever steps necessary to block the proposed rule and to protect the domestic herd from foot and mouth disease."

USCA is also calling on all U.S. livestock producers to get involved to defeat USDA's proposal. Other groups are following USCA's lead on the issue. Numerous state cattle organizations have sent letters to Congress and USDA opposing the proposed policy and have passed resolutions against regionalized trade with Argentina.

"We can defeat USDA's proposal if we unify in this effort," noted Zalesky. "I encourage all cattle producers to become engaged in the process of protecting the U.S. herd."

U.S. Cattlemen's Association Policy on Regionalized Beef Trade with Argentina:

Whereas:
Foot and Mouth Disease is considered by the American Veterinary Medical Association to be the most economically devastating of all livestock disease.

Whereas: An outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in the United States could leave independent cattle producers in financial ruins as entire herds would need to be culled and international markets would be closed indefinitely.

Whereas:
APHIS/USDA has proposed to allow beef and cattle imports from regions of Argentina despite Argentina's documented Foot and Mouth Disease problems.

Whereas:
Argentina cannot be trusted to keep infected beef from entering the United States and has shown little concern for rural America by defaulting on loans made by U.S. companies and by opposing U.S. farmers in international trade cases.

Whereas:
The U.S. Cattlemen's Association passed a resolution in July opposing the APHIS/USDA plan because it is unworkable and could create gateways for diseased Brazilian and Argentine beef.

Whereas: APHIS/USDA has yet to rule out regionalized beef trade from Argentina despite an outcry of opposition from America's ranchers.

Now be it resolved:
The U.S. Cattlemen's Association calls on APHIS/USDA to immediately reject the pending regionalized beef trade plan and reaffirm its commitment to protect the domestic herd from Foot and Mouth Disease.

Now be it further resolved:
The U.S. Cattlemen's Association asks the United States Congress to take whatever steps necessary to block the proposed rule and to protect the domestic herd from Foot and Mouth Disease.

#

Established in March 2007, USCA is committed to assembling a team to concentrate efforts in Washington, DC to enhance and expand the cattle industry's voice on Capitol Hill.

For more information visit www.uscattlemen.org

 

[Reggie]

I'll dip into this subject again because enough can't be said about the dangers of the United States regionalizing Argentina for the purpose of beef trade. The threat involved doesn't begin to compare with anything else facing the cattle industry. The result of an outbreak here in America would paralyze the industry, halt commerce in many sectors of the economy and it would take months, if not years to recover. The only way to beat this thing into submission is to unify and work to help Congress understand what it needs to do. Personally, I'm very thankful that the U.S. Cattlemen's Association is paying attention and drawing a line in the sand. No other national group is on the issue.

A story on meatingplace.com is making the rounds today. It carries an article on the beef checkoff accompanied by a picture of Australian beef - labeled clearly for anyone to view the country source. Before anyone gets on their high horse, I understand that the current law requires the beef checkoff to promote generic beef from any importing country. The article on our beef checkoff, linked to Australian beef, really brings reality home.

I have a BIG problem with checkoff promoters wanting to use my money to promote beef from Argentina and we aren't far from that possibility. We've got some hard work to do and it's a steep hill to climb, but if we want change we have to make it happen.

 

[Sandhusker]

Reggie, "Personally, I'm very thankful that the U.S. Cattlemen's Association is paying attention and drawing a line in the sand. No other national group is on the issue."

Whoa up, Reggie. R-CALF is on top of it, too.

http://www.r-calfusa.com/BSE/03-06-07%20RCALF%20Comments%20on%20Argentina%20FMD%20Rule.pdf

Anybody know what NCBA has to say?

 

[Reggie]

Sorry, Sandhusker, but I'm not familiar with R-CALF and if it were actively pursuing the issue I've sure missed its press on the subject. Ditto NCBA. I wonder why all resources aren't being pressed into action on the matter.

The packing industry is already expanding into Argentina.

Silence on this subject by producers will be construed as acceptance and the end result of this single proposed policy will be a huge stride towards complete globalization of the industry.

Make no mistake - regionalizing Argentina for animal disease purposes sets a formidable precedent.

 

[Mike]

Anybody know what NCBA has to say?

I can only imagine. Probably something along the lines of;

"We need their lean trim to mix with our fat to add more value to it" :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Reggie-- Part of the border lawsuit that R-CALF has against USDA concerns that very same type of issue-- the USDA's failure to comply with their Legislated duty to protect the US cattleman, cattleherd, and consumer--and that they are putting multinational corporate economics and global trading ahead of national welfare and their Congressional mandate....


On another note-- I heard yesterday that Harvest States Co-op has purchased approximately 700 sections of land in Brazil :???: ....Anyone seen or heard anything on this....

 

[Sandhusker]

Sorry, Sandhusker, but I'm not familiar with R-CALF and if it were actively pursuing the issue I've sure missed its press on the subject. Ditto NCBA. I wonder why all resources aren't being pressed into action on the matter.

The packing industry is already expanding into Argentina.

Silence on this subject by producers will be construed as acceptance and the end result of this single proposed policy will be a huge stride towards complete globalization of the industry.

Make no mistake - regionalizing Argentina for animal disease purposes sets a formidable precedent.

I agree with you, Reggie, this is nonsense that has got to be stopped in it's tracks. However, the precedent has already been set if you check into what the USDA has been doing and saying the last several years. Food safety and herd health are secondary considerations to "trade" now.

 

[Boone1]

Actually, NCBA opposes the USDA proposal on Argentina. You can look up everyone's comments right here:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&N=0&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&Ntt=Patagonia%20South&sid=1175B2B155E7

 

[Reggie]

I disagree that the precedent has already been set. FMD is a highly contagious disease threat in that pathogenic vectors include being carried by the wind, on boots, on tires, it's transmissible by most any host. If you're trying to relate this to BSE, please don't.

I really believe that this is an issue that should unite the U.S. and Canada. We all have a great deal at stake and if the disease is introduced to this continent, we're all at risk.

 

[Sandhusker]

I disagree that the precedent has already been set. FMD is a highly contagious disease threat in that pathogenic vectors include being carried by the wind, on boots, on tires, it's transmissible by most any host. If you're trying to relate this to BSE, please don't.

I really believe that this is an issue that should unite the U.S. and Canada. We all have a great deal at stake and if the disease is introduced to this continent, we're all at risk.

It doesn't matter the method of transmission, any and all diseaes take a back seat to trade now. BSE is just one example of "Trade is Trump" policies at the USDA. Whether we import BSE from Canada or Japan, FMD from Argentina, disease X from Country X via XFTA, doesn't matter. It is one of the hallmarks of the Bush Administration.

 

[Tex]

The best way to deal with the USDA is to cut their budget by 98%.

They are doing nothing but perpetuating their own bureaucracy and supporting corporate agriculture and the big boys.

The agency has turned into nothing less than an agency giving away the public interest and saying it is "for the farmer" but it is really for themselves and the corporate agriculture they represent with just enough to claim they support family farmers.

This is just another example.

 

[Reggie]

Free trade was also a hallmark of the Clinton Administration, the Bush 1 Administration (where NAFTA was born) and the Reagan Administration.

Instead of bemoaning the ongoing situation at USDA that we're already well aware of, my question is: what are you willing to do about the Argentina situation?

 

[Sandhusker]

Free trade was also a hallmark of the Clinton Administration, the Bush 1 Administration (where NAFTA was born) and the Reagan Administration.

Instead of bemoaning the ongoing situation at USDA that we're already well aware of, my question is: what are you willing to do about the Argentina situation?

I've already talked personally to my House Representative.

 

[mrj]

So, are you boys fighting to end FTA's going to claim responsibility for re-instating the taffiffs agains products of the USA that have been largely eliminated in those NAFTA and other FTA's?

Oh, that's right, some magical crystal ball tells you that all benefit from more trade goes ONLY to 'the big boys' and you will admit NO guilt.

Hopefully, one day, you will wake up and join this century and realize eveyone outside your own mindset is NOT evil incarnate.

mrj

 

[Tex]

So, are you boys fighting to end FTA's going to claim responsibility for re-instating the taffiffs agains products of the USA that have been largely eliminated in those NAFTA and other FTA's?

Oh, that's right, some magical crystal ball tells you that all benefit from more trade goes ONLY to 'the big boys' and you will admit NO guilt.

Hopefully, one day, you will wake up and join this century and realize eveyone outside your own mindset is NOT evil incarnate.

mrj

No, mrj. We should have a complete as possible free trade agreements with whoever will and then subsidize our exports with currency manipulation like China does. It works for their producers!

 

[Sandhusker]

So, are you boys fighting to end FTA's going to claim responsibility for re-instating the taffiffs agains products of the USA that have been largely eliminated in those NAFTA and other FTA's?

Oh, that's right, some magical crystal ball tells you that all benefit from more trade goes ONLY to 'the big boys' and you will admit NO guilt.

Hopefully, one day, you will wake up and join this century and realize eveyone outside your own mindset is NOT evil incarnate.

mrj

If you think FTAs are just about tariffs and quotas.... :roll: Do some Google searching, Pollyanna.

 

[Reggie]

How about if we stay on message here? That's what is particularly frustrating about this board. Nobody said anything about opposing all FTAs. The issue at hand on this thread is regionalizing Argentina for the purpose of importing beef into the U.S.

According to the OIE, meat and meat by-products in which pH has remained above 6.0 is a FMD virus source. FMD is endemic is South America.

Here's a piece of information for you from APHIS: there are seven different types and more than 60 subtypes of FMD virus and there is no universal vaccine against the disease. Although there are FMD vaccines available, they are not currently used in the U.S. because America has been free of the disease since 1929. Annual vaccination is required. If an FMD vaccination program were implemented in the U.S., our country's international trade status would be compromised. Countries that vaccinate for FMD cannot claim FMD-free status. This alone could cost millions if not billions of dollars.

APHIS' first line of defense in the event of an outbreak would be slaughtering animals to "stamp out" the disease, freezing animal movement and trying to eradicate the disease immediately. In this "stamp out" scenario there would be a three month waiting period between the time the last animal is slaughtered and the time FMD-free status can be reclaimed - assuming that ongoing surveillance and testing demonstrates the country's freedom from the disease.

So, why take the risk?

 

[Tex]

How about if we stay on message here? That's what is particularly frustrating about this board. Nobody said anything about opposing all FTAs. The issue at hand on this thread is regionalizing Argentina for the purpose of importing beef into the U.S.

According to the OIE, meat and meat by-products in which pH has remained above 6.0 is a FMD virus source. FMD is endemic is South America.

Here's a piece of information for you from APHIS: there are seven different types and more than 60 subtypes of FMD virus and there is no universal vaccine against the disease. Although there are FMD vaccines available, they are not currently used in the U.S. because America has been free of the disease since 1929. Annual vaccination is required. If an FMD vaccination program were implemented in the U.S., our country's international trade status would be compromised. Countries that vaccinate for FMD cannot claim FMD-free status. This alone could cost millions if not billions of dollars.

APHIS' first line of defense in the event of an outbreak would be slaughtering animals to "stamp out" the disease, freezing animal movement and trying to eradicate the disease immediately. In this "stamp out" scenario there would be a three month waiting period between the time the last animal is slaughtered and the time FMD-free status can be reclaimed - assuming that ongoing surveillance and testing demonstrates the country's freedom from the disease.

So, why take the risk?

There is no reason other than the fact that the USDA will do whatever corporate powers want them to do. If there is a U.S. corporation in South America that wants to import products, the USDA and Aphis is more than willing to do it, no matter what the consequences.

Reggie, it is not a matter of what should occur anymore. It is what the USDA will allow to occur, as they have allowed so many other things that are not in the best interests of the public.

Of course we should not have a FTA with Argentina, given the foot and mouth problems. We should have had a protocol like Japan with bse.

If we had, we would not have bse as an issue and neither would Canada- they would have pushed for a real test and it would have been a done deal.

It doesn't matter what is right with the USDA anymore, it matters what political party is being paid off to whatever or do nothing.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tex is right.

You can talk to USDA all you want, until you can send a check that is bigger than Tyson's et al to "the party", you're talking to a brick wall.

Seems the only thing to do is flood your Senators with letters and maybe get somebody like Lou Dobbs behind you.

 

[mrj]

Sandhusker, the eternal pessimist, where did I say FTA's are only about tariffs and quotas?

Your jumping to incorrect conclusions is tiresome, but so typical of you.

mrj