You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
U.S. to propose new international rule on beef trade
- Thread starter rancher
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Mike
Well-known member
This will be VERY interesting!
don
Well-known member
judge cebull is probably working on the proposed rule right now. lol.
What scares me and that is why I backed R-calf on the border issue. If we open up to BSE then all the countries can ship to us. It will be a lot harder to prove they have safety standards that Canada or USA has. Once the door is opened it will be hard to close. AMI will sue that we take beef from one we will have to take it from all that has BSE. Just my opinion, no need to tell me you disagree as I already know that you do.
don
Well-known member
actually i see a lot of merit in the oie updating their classifications to reflect knowledge gained since the last rule review. if a new rule is negotiated, hopefully it will be adhered to. i don't think it will change r-calf's protectionist ambitions. there has to be a reason for usda or whoever down there wanting to update the rules. wonder what that might be???
Mike
Well-known member
This rule will fly like a poot in a whirlwind. When you force a country to take something it doesn't want is like taking away their sovereignty. Japan knows what it wants, and it ain't our beef. We just can't keep forcing others to see our way. Sometimes you lead by example.
Shipping beef from England will REALLY help to build consumer confidence, eh? This has AMI written all over it.
Shipping beef from England will REALLY help to build consumer confidence, eh? This has AMI written all over it.
don
Well-known member
Don, wonder what that might be?
usda and a bunch of others acknowledge that the north american beef market has been integrated, at least in the past, and this and common sense tells them that there is as good a chance of bse in the states as there is of it being in canada (and it is). why? because practices and regulations have been so similar that if the us doesn't have bse it is more a matter of luck than anything else. maybe we had bad luck and yours has been good. at any rate, i think usda wants to prepare for the eventuality in case it should happen. a new rule may allow imports from a country under a formal minimal risk classificqation but it could also reinforce borders closed to those who don't fit the new classification.
usda and a bunch of others acknowledge that the north american beef market has been integrated, at least in the past, and this and common sense tells them that there is as good a chance of bse in the states as there is of it being in canada (and it is). why? because practices and regulations have been so similar that if the us doesn't have bse it is more a matter of luck than anything else. maybe we had bad luck and yours has been good. at any rate, i think usda wants to prepare for the eventuality in case it should happen. a new rule may allow imports from a country under a formal minimal risk classificqation but it could also reinforce borders closed to those who don't fit the new classification.
Why doesn't Mexico have BSE? Why are their borders not shut down? Why doesn't the rest of Canada have problems? ( yes , I know most of the cattle are from Alberta). I say a feed plant in the area had a major problem they didn't know about to get that many cattle in the area showing problems.
A
Anonymous
Guest
This is what USDA should have done in the first place instead of trying to rewrite OIE and world health rules on their own--- This has been in the making for some time, but the last article I read a couple months ago indicated it was facing a mixed reception from the countries of the world- was not sure if it would ever take wings........
I say a feed plant in the area had a major problem they didn't know about to get that many cattle in the area showing problems
Rancher you make it sound as if there were hundreds infected 4 were in a herd of MILLIONS now that really brings to mind a MAJOR PROBLEM doesn't it? :roll:
Mike
Well-known member
TAM:"Rancher you make it sound as if there were hundreds infected 4 were in a herd of MILLIONS now that really brings to mind a MAJOR PROBLEM doesn't it?"
I see your point Tam, but how do either of us know that hundreds DIDN'T go into the food chain? We don't! I mean US and Canada.
Rancher has a point, there must have been something going on in Alberta at one point in time. BTW, was the 1993 cow in Alberta? Just wondering.
I see your point Tam, but how do either of us know that hundreds DIDN'T go into the food chain? We don't! I mean US and Canada.
Rancher has a point, there must have been something going on in Alberta at one point in time. BTW, was the 1993 cow in Alberta? Just wondering.
For all you R-CALFers that like useing the OIE please read all of this and note the parts I highlighted
The OIE standards on BSE: a guide for understanding and proper implementation
The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has become increasingly concerned about reports of international trade disruptions involving the misinterpretation of OIE standards. Recent published information on categorization of countries by the OIE indicates there are some apparent misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of the OIE international standards and guidelines, and their interpretation and implementation by Member countries.
The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Code) contains standards, guidelines and recommendations to be used by national veterinary authorities to prevent the introduction of infectious agents pathogenic for animals and humans into the importing country during trade of animals and animal products, while avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers.
While the Code describes conditions for the classification of countries into one of five BSE risk categories, the OIE itself does not assign countries to all these categories. These are used by importing countries when determining the specific conditions for trade. However, the OIE has been recently requested to examine country submissions, made on a voluntary basis, for determining whether they meet the conditions to be officially classified by an OIE decision as "BSE free" or "BSE provisionally free". For the moment the OIE does not give an opinion on the further 3 categories existing in the Code. So far no country has been given such recognition by the OIE. Furthermore, the OIE has been requested by Member countries to reduce the current number of categories.
The Code also draws attention to the obligations under the provisions of the World Trade Organization-Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (WTO-SPS), whereby the importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that its measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market.
The OIE chapter on BSE currently describes five levels of exporting country status based on their determined risk level (free, provisionally free, minimal risk, moderate risk and high risk). It then addresses trade conditions for various commodities through an increasing degree of restrictions commensurate with the risks presented. For example, fresh meat may be imported safely from a country of any BSE status but with increasing restrictions so that, for countries presenting a high BSE risk, more severe measures are applied to the cattle and to the meat itself. The experts consider that, if these measures are followed, the meat is safe.
For some commodities however, the experts have determined that particular commodities should not be exported even from countries presenting a low BSE risk. For example, meat and bone meal, or any commodity containing such products, which originate from countries with minimal, moderate or high BSE risk should not be traded.
It is apparent that some Member Countries are applying trade bans when an exporting country reports the presence of BSE, without consulting the recommendations in the Code or conducting a risk analysis in accordance with its OIE and WTO obligations. While the Code provides increasingly restrictive recommendations which are commensurate with the level of BSE risk in each of the country status categories, it does not recommend any other ban than the above mentioned on trade of animals or specific animal products.
Regarding the BSE situation in the European Union and more recently in Japan, Canada and the US, the existence of valid up-to-date standards did not prevent major trade disruptions due to a failure by many countries to apply the international standard when establishing or revising their import policies. This has been particularly evident in the case of commodities for which the Code recommends that no restrictions be applied, regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country.
Except for short trade suspensions during investigation period following a new epidemiological event, it is of particular concern to the OIE that many countries apply trade bans when an exporting country reports its first case of BSE, without having conducted a risk analysis as described in the Code. Such situations penalise countries with a good and transparent surveillance system for animal diseases and zoonoses, and which have demonstrated their ability to control the risks identified. This may result in a reluctance to report future cases and an increased likelihood of disease spread internationally.
January 2004
This is brought to you straight from the OIE web page
The OIE standards on BSE: a guide for understanding and proper implementation
The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has become increasingly concerned about reports of international trade disruptions involving the misinterpretation of OIE standards. Recent published information on categorization of countries by the OIE indicates there are some apparent misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of the OIE international standards and guidelines, and their interpretation and implementation by Member countries.
The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Code) contains standards, guidelines and recommendations to be used by national veterinary authorities to prevent the introduction of infectious agents pathogenic for animals and humans into the importing country during trade of animals and animal products, while avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers.
While the Code describes conditions for the classification of countries into one of five BSE risk categories, the OIE itself does not assign countries to all these categories. These are used by importing countries when determining the specific conditions for trade. However, the OIE has been recently requested to examine country submissions, made on a voluntary basis, for determining whether they meet the conditions to be officially classified by an OIE decision as "BSE free" or "BSE provisionally free". For the moment the OIE does not give an opinion on the further 3 categories existing in the Code. So far no country has been given such recognition by the OIE. Furthermore, the OIE has been requested by Member countries to reduce the current number of categories.
The Code also draws attention to the obligations under the provisions of the World Trade Organization-Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (WTO-SPS), whereby the importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that its measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market.
The OIE chapter on BSE currently describes five levels of exporting country status based on their determined risk level (free, provisionally free, minimal risk, moderate risk and high risk). It then addresses trade conditions for various commodities through an increasing degree of restrictions commensurate with the risks presented. For example, fresh meat may be imported safely from a country of any BSE status but with increasing restrictions so that, for countries presenting a high BSE risk, more severe measures are applied to the cattle and to the meat itself. The experts consider that, if these measures are followed, the meat is safe.
For some commodities however, the experts have determined that particular commodities should not be exported even from countries presenting a low BSE risk. For example, meat and bone meal, or any commodity containing such products, which originate from countries with minimal, moderate or high BSE risk should not be traded.
It is apparent that some Member Countries are applying trade bans when an exporting country reports the presence of BSE, without consulting the recommendations in the Code or conducting a risk analysis in accordance with its OIE and WTO obligations. While the Code provides increasingly restrictive recommendations which are commensurate with the level of BSE risk in each of the country status categories, it does not recommend any other ban than the above mentioned on trade of animals or specific animal products.
Regarding the BSE situation in the European Union and more recently in Japan, Canada and the US, the existence of valid up-to-date standards did not prevent major trade disruptions due to a failure by many countries to apply the international standard when establishing or revising their import policies. This has been particularly evident in the case of commodities for which the Code recommends that no restrictions be applied, regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country.
Except for short trade suspensions during investigation period following a new epidemiological event, it is of particular concern to the OIE that many countries apply trade bans when an exporting country reports its first case of BSE, without having conducted a risk analysis as described in the Code. Such situations penalise countries with a good and transparent surveillance system for animal diseases and zoonoses, and which have demonstrated their ability to control the risks identified. This may result in a reluctance to report future cases and an increased likelihood of disease spread internationally.
January 2004
This is brought to you straight from the OIE web page
Mike said:TAM:"Rancher you make it sound as if there were hundreds infected 4 were in a herd of MILLIONS now that really brings to mind a MAJOR PROBLEM doesn't it?"
I see your point Tam, but how do either of us know that hundreds DIDN'T go into the food chain? We don't! I mean US and Canada.
Rancher has a point, there must have been something going on in Alberta at one point in time. BTW, was the 1993 cow in Alberta? Just wondering.
So now we are counting the maybes to qualify this as a MAJOR problem are we?
Maybe there was something going on in Alberta, maybe not, maybe at least one UK cow got into the feed supply undetected. Can't say that was what caused it for sure, as there are some out there that would disagree with the known science that says it is spread by ruminants eating infected tissue of another ruminant and say its contagious, or it could be enviromental or it just happens spontaneously, so to play it safe I will say maybe it was the feed. But, We have found 4 BSE cases in a herd of 5.5 million OTM cattle so far. If he considers that a MAJOR problem what does he think the UK has? Canada agrees we have a problem do we consider ours MAJOR in comparison to other countries, I don't think so.
And I'm glad to see you admit you don't know how many made it into the US food chain. IS there a major problem brewing there?
About the 1993 case I'm pretty sure she was on a farm in Sask when she was found.
Sorry missed this Mike
Rancher wrote
Do you think he was talking about the ones that we don't know about or the ones we do? again we had 3 showing problems in Alberta which has a herd of millions and that was in just under two years and 1 showing problems in the US.
Rancher wrote
I say a feed plant in the area had a major problem they didn't know about to get that many cattle in the area showing problems.
Do you think he was talking about the ones that we don't know about or the ones we do? again we had 3 showing problems in Alberta which has a herd of millions and that was in just under two years and 1 showing problems in the US.
Mike
Well-known member
Tam said:Sorry missed this Mike
Rancher wrote
I say a feed plant in the area had a major problem they didn't know about to get that many cattle in the area showing problems.
Do you think he was talking about the ones that we don't know about or the ones we do? again we had 3 showing problems in Alberta which has a herd of millions and that was in just under two years and 1 showing problems in the US.
The ones that were found positive were enough to cause problems although "that many" would be in the eye of the beholder, or beholdee. :wink: Let's all just hope there are no more. The last one on the day of the border opening announcement tipped the scales toward controversy.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
If only we had a test we could run that would tell us for sure. Then, there would be no guessing and everybody would know for sure.....oh, wait....we have a test. Too bad we can't us it. :roll:
Mike
Well-known member
Sandhusker-scroll down and read "Canadian answer test all exports".
Is this guy out to lunch? :wink:
Is this guy out to lunch? :wink:
Kato
Well-known member
FYI, here are a few responses posted on Japan Today to the story of the new rule to be proposed by the U.S.
Unlimited Self-opinionated Arrogance.
kasumi (Mar 5 2005 - 09:14)
"The proposal will feature measures prohibiting nations from imposing a blanket ban on beef imports from countries where cases of mad cow disease have been found"
"By a 52-46 margin, senators approved a bipartisan resolution to strike down a U.S. Department of Agriculture's regulation lifting a 22-month-old trade ban that has cost Canada's beef industry $7-billion.
The Senate vote came one day after a Montana judge granted an injunction, at the request of R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, to block plans to allow Canada to resume exports of live cattle under 30 months of age on March 7.
Judge Cebull ruled U.S. beef would be hit with a "stigma" of BSE infection if Canadian animals are allowed to mix with the American herd. A delay in re-opening the border would be "prudent and largely harmless," he continued."
It would look like the US needs to get it's own house in order before it tries to blackmail & threaten others.
Maybe Japan is just being "prudent" & the consequences are likely to be largely harmless. Well who are we none-Americans to argue with the wisdom of a US judge?
Are we back to the Henry Ford principle of selling cars, you can have any colour of car you like, so long as it is black?
Japan wants all the beef tested & if the US wants to sell beef to Japan there is one very, very, very simple answer. Test it.
Amen, Kasumi!
noharness (Mar 5 2005 - 09:18)
Well said.
U.S. to propose new int'l rule on beef trade
Nessie (Mar 5 2005 - 09:44)
So much for splendid isolation.
Kasumi
fazool2 (Mar 5 2005 - 10:27)
Lucid, logical, researched, well presented and pertinent.
Pretty rare to nail them all on this board; thanks.
Yes this looks pretty silly
Its OK (Mar 5 2005 - 11:26)
I have been unable to find more on the new Proposal. But it appears from this article that the Senate wants to rebuild trade to Asia before opening up the border to Canadian beef again.
"While some senators questioned Canadian safeguards, others like Wyoming Republican Craig Thomas said U.S. beef exports to Asia should be rebuilt before Canadian cattle were allowed."
http://www.reuters.ca/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp;:42278392:5b817ab1e962f361?type=topNews&localeKey=en_CA&storyID=7801457
Still it looks a little like we are putting the cart before the horse. Also the vote not to open up the border for younger Canadian cattle was just passed today.
Unlimited Self-opinionated Arrogance.
kasumi (Mar 5 2005 - 09:14)
"The proposal will feature measures prohibiting nations from imposing a blanket ban on beef imports from countries where cases of mad cow disease have been found"
"By a 52-46 margin, senators approved a bipartisan resolution to strike down a U.S. Department of Agriculture's regulation lifting a 22-month-old trade ban that has cost Canada's beef industry $7-billion.
The Senate vote came one day after a Montana judge granted an injunction, at the request of R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, to block plans to allow Canada to resume exports of live cattle under 30 months of age on March 7.
Judge Cebull ruled U.S. beef would be hit with a "stigma" of BSE infection if Canadian animals are allowed to mix with the American herd. A delay in re-opening the border would be "prudent and largely harmless," he continued."
It would look like the US needs to get it's own house in order before it tries to blackmail & threaten others.
Maybe Japan is just being "prudent" & the consequences are likely to be largely harmless. Well who are we none-Americans to argue with the wisdom of a US judge?
Are we back to the Henry Ford principle of selling cars, you can have any colour of car you like, so long as it is black?
Japan wants all the beef tested & if the US wants to sell beef to Japan there is one very, very, very simple answer. Test it.
Amen, Kasumi!
noharness (Mar 5 2005 - 09:18)
Well said.
U.S. to propose new int'l rule on beef trade
Nessie (Mar 5 2005 - 09:44)
So much for splendid isolation.
Kasumi
fazool2 (Mar 5 2005 - 10:27)
Lucid, logical, researched, well presented and pertinent.
Pretty rare to nail them all on this board; thanks.
Yes this looks pretty silly
Its OK (Mar 5 2005 - 11:26)
I have been unable to find more on the new Proposal. But it appears from this article that the Senate wants to rebuild trade to Asia before opening up the border to Canadian beef again.
"While some senators questioned Canadian safeguards, others like Wyoming Republican Craig Thomas said U.S. beef exports to Asia should be rebuilt before Canadian cattle were allowed."
http://www.reuters.ca/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp;:42278392:5b817ab1e962f361?type=topNews&localeKey=en_CA&storyID=7801457
Still it looks a little like we are putting the cart before the horse. Also the vote not to open up the border for younger Canadian cattle was just passed today.
Mike
Well-known member
I like the title:
"Unlimited Self-opinionated Arrogance"
If the shoe fits.............
"Unlimited Self-opinionated Arrogance"
If the shoe fits.............
