Tommy
Well-known member
USDA HURTS RANCHERS WITH GAMBLE ON BEEF
The writer, of Pleasanton, Neb., is a fourth-generation farmer and
rancher.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns and Rob Robertson of the
Nebraska
Farm Bureau have condemned the federal-court-ordered and U.S.
Senate-ordered
delay of the Canadian border "reopening" that was scheduled for March
7.
Both wonder how we can expect Japan and the rest of the world to open
their
markets to our beef if we don't open our market to Canada.
This is an odd stance. Despite reported cases of Canadian mad cow
disease as
recently as two months ago, we have been importing boxed beef from
Canada
since August 2003.
I have a few questions for Secretary Johanns and Robertson:
(1) We are Canada's largest beef customer. And despite all the talk
about
beef bans, border closure and protectionism, the United States imported
1.06
billion pounds of beef from Canada in 2004. During 2002, pre-bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, we imported 1.09 billion pounds. The delay
in
border reopening doesn't affect this amount.
Since this level of trade commitment has not caused our trading
partners to
reopen beef trade with us, how much more of Canada's beef must we
import to
achieve this reopening?
(2) Given promotion by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of a "unified
North American beef industry" and the fact that Canada's herd is much
smaller than ours, is the proposed border reopening an attempt to
cleanse
the Canadian herd of BSE by flushing that country's problematic animals
through the much larger, BSE-free U.S. market?
(3) Canada is a sovereign country. When did it become the
responsibility of
the United States to find or provide markets for nearly 100 percent of
Canada's beef production?
Both men claim that we must use "sound science" to set trade policies.
But
whose sound science do we use? The standard that the world employs was
set
up by the OIE, a department of the United Nations that was created to
monitor infectious animal diseases.
The OIE's BSE protocol calls for a seven-year ban on the importation of
meat
products from a country with BSE, dating from the last known case.
Unless
Canada agrees to test every animal, it should not be eligible for
reopening
exports until 2012.
The OIE considers the United States to be BSE-free since no cases of
BSE
have occurred in our native herd. The infected cow in Washington state
was
imported from Canada.
The new sound science, which the USDA claims to support, classifies
countries by their level of risk for BSE. Under the new sound science,
Canada is considered low-risk due to steps taken to prevent BSE and is
therefore eligible to export to the United States.
Unfortunately for U.S. ranchers, the rest of the world follows the OIE
and
does not consider Canada to be low-risk. Canada obviously isn't testing
enough, and its feed ban seems suspect. So the USDA's own policies, not
a
lack of trade with Canada, continue to prevent our beef exports from
resuming.
Other than trade sanctions, there are only three ways to get our trade
with
Asia opened up:
(1) Test all slaughtered cattle, which the USDA won't do.
(2) Ban all imports of Canadian beef, which the USDA won't do.
(3) Segregate Canadian beef from our export supply, which, in a
180-degree
flip-flop from its stand on sound science, the USDA will do.
Live Canadian cattle imports are to be ear-tagged and brand- ed with
the
initials "CAN" to make them easily identified at packing houses. This
will
make it very simple to assure our overseas markets that we are only
sending
them 100 percent U.S.-grown beef.
Isn't it amazing how our loudly proclaimed reliance upon USDA's new
sound
science easily morphs into OIE's BSE protocol for our export customers?
And
how country-of-origin labeling (COOL) should be voluntary in the Unit-
ed
States but will be mandatory for our foreign customers?
If Canada's beef isn't good enough for foreign markets, it has no place
in
our own. When it comes to food safety, emotion trumps sound science
every
time. Consider Alar and apples.
The USDA is playing a very dangerous game. By assuming it will be able
to
dilute Canada's BSE problem, cleanse its herd and not cause a disaster
here,
it is gambling with the livelihood of America's ranchers. While the
true
risk of BSE is extremely microscopic, the perceived risks are not.
The USDA needs to be upfront and honest about what it is doing, why it
is
doing it and who stands to benefit the most from its actions. So far,
it has
been less than truthful on the motives behind the border reopening.
The Canadians' BSE problem is theirs to solve. We don't need to make it
our
problem, too, and then solve it for both of us.
The writer, of Pleasanton, Neb., is a fourth-generation farmer and
rancher.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns and Rob Robertson of the
Nebraska
Farm Bureau have condemned the federal-court-ordered and U.S.
Senate-ordered
delay of the Canadian border "reopening" that was scheduled for March
7.
Both wonder how we can expect Japan and the rest of the world to open
their
markets to our beef if we don't open our market to Canada.
This is an odd stance. Despite reported cases of Canadian mad cow
disease as
recently as two months ago, we have been importing boxed beef from
Canada
since August 2003.
I have a few questions for Secretary Johanns and Robertson:
(1) We are Canada's largest beef customer. And despite all the talk
about
beef bans, border closure and protectionism, the United States imported
1.06
billion pounds of beef from Canada in 2004. During 2002, pre-bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, we imported 1.09 billion pounds. The delay
in
border reopening doesn't affect this amount.
Since this level of trade commitment has not caused our trading
partners to
reopen beef trade with us, how much more of Canada's beef must we
import to
achieve this reopening?
(2) Given promotion by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of a "unified
North American beef industry" and the fact that Canada's herd is much
smaller than ours, is the proposed border reopening an attempt to
cleanse
the Canadian herd of BSE by flushing that country's problematic animals
through the much larger, BSE-free U.S. market?
(3) Canada is a sovereign country. When did it become the
responsibility of
the United States to find or provide markets for nearly 100 percent of
Canada's beef production?
Both men claim that we must use "sound science" to set trade policies.
But
whose sound science do we use? The standard that the world employs was
set
up by the OIE, a department of the United Nations that was created to
monitor infectious animal diseases.
The OIE's BSE protocol calls for a seven-year ban on the importation of
meat
products from a country with BSE, dating from the last known case.
Unless
Canada agrees to test every animal, it should not be eligible for
reopening
exports until 2012.
The OIE considers the United States to be BSE-free since no cases of
BSE
have occurred in our native herd. The infected cow in Washington state
was
imported from Canada.
The new sound science, which the USDA claims to support, classifies
countries by their level of risk for BSE. Under the new sound science,
Canada is considered low-risk due to steps taken to prevent BSE and is
therefore eligible to export to the United States.
Unfortunately for U.S. ranchers, the rest of the world follows the OIE
and
does not consider Canada to be low-risk. Canada obviously isn't testing
enough, and its feed ban seems suspect. So the USDA's own policies, not
a
lack of trade with Canada, continue to prevent our beef exports from
resuming.
Other than trade sanctions, there are only three ways to get our trade
with
Asia opened up:
(1) Test all slaughtered cattle, which the USDA won't do.
(2) Ban all imports of Canadian beef, which the USDA won't do.
(3) Segregate Canadian beef from our export supply, which, in a
180-degree
flip-flop from its stand on sound science, the USDA will do.
Live Canadian cattle imports are to be ear-tagged and brand- ed with
the
initials "CAN" to make them easily identified at packing houses. This
will
make it very simple to assure our overseas markets that we are only
sending
them 100 percent U.S.-grown beef.
Isn't it amazing how our loudly proclaimed reliance upon USDA's new
sound
science easily morphs into OIE's BSE protocol for our export customers?
And
how country-of-origin labeling (COOL) should be voluntary in the Unit-
ed
States but will be mandatory for our foreign customers?
If Canada's beef isn't good enough for foreign markets, it has no place
in
our own. When it comes to food safety, emotion trumps sound science
every
time. Consider Alar and apples.
The USDA is playing a very dangerous game. By assuming it will be able
to
dilute Canada's BSE problem, cleanse its herd and not cause a disaster
here,
it is gambling with the livelihood of America's ranchers. While the
true
risk of BSE is extremely microscopic, the perceived risks are not.
The USDA needs to be upfront and honest about what it is doing, why it
is
doing it and who stands to benefit the most from its actions. So far,
it has
been less than truthful on the motives behind the border reopening.
The Canadians' BSE problem is theirs to solve. We don't need to make it
our
problem, too, and then solve it for both of us.
