|
| |
Minnesota Farm Guide – Saturday – September
29, 2007 – 1:59 p.m. MDT
The Prairie Star – Thursday – October 11,
2007
USDA begins process to open border to older Canadian
cattle
By DALE HILDEBRANT, For Minnesota Farm Guide
Will the U.S. livestock
industry be in danger if borders are opened to older Canadian cattle allowed in
under the new rule on Nov. 19?
In announcing the expanded acceptance of Canadian cattle, Clifford noted that an
extensive review and comment period had been conducted by the USDA prior to
advancing the new ruling.
“All of the peer reviewers agreed with the risk assessment conclusion that the
likelihood of BSE becoming established in the U.S. cattle population by allowing
additional commodities from Canada is negligible,” Clifford said during a news
conference.
“In our risk assessment, we carefully considered all of the steps in both Canada
and the United States that would have to occur for BSE to spread to an animal
here in the United States,” he said. “The risk assessment acknowledged that BSE
is present in Canada and that there likely would be additional cases identified
in the future, and we still concluded that these imports would present a
negligible risk of establishment of BSE in the United States.”
However, many don't express the same degree of confidence in the USDA risk
assessment, especially considering the unproven Canadian ruminant-to-ruminant
feed ban, which prohibits the inclusion of any bovine by-products in cattle
feed, which is thought to be the main way BSE is spread.
“The Canadian ban on contaminated
feed, that is believed to be the source of BSE, is still unproven,” N.D.
Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said. “Until Canada can prove that they
are strictly enforcing the proper safeguards, it is risky to allow these higher
risk animals into the U.S. Infected Canadian animals have already been
responsible for millions of dollars in lost U.S. exports.”
The Canadian feed ban was also on Sen. Kent Conrad's (D-N.D.) mind during his
comments on the USDA proposal.
“I've asked USDA for any evidence that Canada is taking a more serious approach
to its feed ban and effort to prevent the spread of mad cow,” Conrad said.
“Until we have that documentation, I believe it is simply foolish to allow these
older cattle that are at the greatest risk into the United States. It threatens
our markets and our own trade with other nations.”
In December 2003, the first case
of BSE in the U.S. was found in a dairy cow in Washington state. That cow had
its origins in Canada and the U.S. beef industry has suffered since then with a
drop in cattle prices due to loss of beef export markets, some of which haven't
been regained yet. With hope of restoring some of those lost export markets, the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) is supporting the USDA move.
“We should definitely see a positive impact on our export opportunities for both
live cattle and boxed beef,” said Bill Donald, a Melville, Mont., rancher who
serves as vice chair of the NCBA Policy Division. “Armed with a minimal risk
classification for BSE, the United States has also been pressing our trading
partners to accept beef from older cattle. We've had some success, but many
still hold to the 30-month limitation. As you might guess, some countries cite
our policy toward Canada as a rationale for maintaining the status quo. Those
countries are intently watching our action on this rule. Retiring this 30-month
barrier is certain to pay dividends, as we work to regain global market share
for the best and safest beef in the world.”
However, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) fears just the opposite will happen - that
some of the current markets we have recovered may be closed to us if this ruling
is implemented.
“We have worked very hard to convince countries that closed their markets to
U.S. beef after the Canadian mad cow incident in 2003 that U.S. beef is safe,”
Pomeroy said. “I fear that opening our markets to more Canadian imports now
could take us a giant step backward in that effort. We should not be opening our
border to more Canadian cattle before the United States gains back the export
markets we lost.”
And R-CALF-USA president Max Thornsberry is quick to point out that the
responsibility of USDA is not to improve trade relations, but rather to protect
U.S. agriculture.
“USDA is supposed to look out for the welfare of the U.S. livestock industry,”
he asserted. “So how in the world did USDA get the authority to decide it's in
the United States' best interest to continue pushing for the ‘no borders'
approach to create a North American cattle herd, which continues to jeopardize
the health of the U.S. cattle herd?”
Thornsberry, who is a Missouri veterinarian, noted that the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control recently concluded that Canadian cattle are 26 times more likely
to test positive for BSE than U.S. cattle.
Besides the risk of diseased cattle from Canada commingling with U.S. cattle,
R-CALF and other groups are worried what the impact of thousands of new cattle
coming south from Canada will have on the domestic cattle market.
Steve Roth, president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA) and a
rancher from Big Sandy, Mont., said his group is concerned about the potential
fall in cull cow prices.
“The most significant concern is the Nov. 19th implementation date which falls
at the height of our region's cull cow marketing and results in a disorderly
market transition,” Roth said. “More importantly, this does not address the
enhancement and maintenance of the economic viability of the U.S. cow/calf
herd.”
But NCBA's Donald doesn't expect much impact on the cattle market because of
this latest USDA action.
“As for calf, feeder cattle and fed cattle prices - we just don't expect much of
a negative impact,” Donaldsaid. “Calf prices traditionally pull back $5 to
$10/cwt during the fall run, and this year will be no exception. But U.S. cattle
supplies are tight across the board, so competition for these calves will remain
strong.
“As for the Canadian herd, it has declined about six percent since 2005. These
numbers indicate there will not be a ‘wall of cattle' to descend from the north
as some have predicted,” he added.
During the USDA news conference announcing Rule 2, Clifford refused to answer a
question dealing with what percentage of the public comments were supportive or
against the rule change.
However, according to a news release from the South Dakota Stockgrowers
Association (SDSGA), their group, along with many other individuals and groups,
submitted comments opposing the importation of OTM cattle. These comments,
according to SDSGA president Larry Nelson, were apparently ignored by APHIS
(Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - the USDA branch given authority on
these matters).
“Once again APHIS did not use sound science in making a decision that is not
only a risk to the health of our nation's herd, but also endangers the safety of
our consumers,” said Rick Fox, SDSGA past president, from Hermosa, S.D. “It
seems the United States is becoming a dumping ground for food and food products
that other countries will not accept.”
Thornsberry indicated Rule 2 might be in the news for some time to come.
“Because Rule 2 is deemed ‘economically significant', Congress will have 60 days
to review the rule,” he said. “R-CALF USA will continue to work with Congress in
an effort to have Rule 2 withdrawn, but if that falls short, R-CALF USA is
prepared to take the matter to court.”
http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2007/10/10/ag_news/livestock/liv12.txt
|
