Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

Canada Says Alberta Dairy Cow Is 12th Mad-Cow Case

Canada confirmed its 12th case of mad-cow disease in an animal born about five years after the nation banned some feed ingredients to halt the spread of the brain-wasting illness.

The sick animal was a six-year-old dairy cow from Alberta, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said today in a statement on its Web site. Canada and the U.S. in 1997 banned the use of cattle feed containing ground-up cattle tissue, which scientists say is the way most animals contract the disease.

What can I say. Yet another case in Canada. I still keep wondering why they have this continued problem. I believe this is the 5th one that was born after the feed ban was initiated. Since the feed ban is supposed to stop this why do they keep having cases? Is the feed ban ban not working or is it being intentionally violated or accidentally violated? I would sure like to know.

The CFIA said it expects to detect ``a small number of cases'' as Canada moves toward eliminating BSE from its herds.

I find this news interesting. Yes, I would expect to find "a small number of cases'' from cattle born before the feed ban, but why do we keep seeing it from animals born after the feed ban? This is something American Cattlemen would really like to understand. I am sure no answers to that question will be forthcoming from the USDA. The meat packers don't allow such things.

A correct answer is like an affectionate kiss. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Canadian food inspection agency confirms mad cow disease in 13-year-old animal

OTTAWA: Canada confirmed a new case of mad cow disease on Tuesday, the country's 11th case since the disease was first discovered in 2003.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said no part of the cow's carcass entered the human food or animal feed chains.

The animal was identified by the national monitoring program as a 13-year-old cow from Alberta. The program targets cattle most at risk and has tested about 190,000 animals since 2003.

The animal, from an unidentified farm, was born before the implementation of Canada's feed ban in 1997.

I didn't comment on the USDA's OTM rule yesterday allowing older Canadian Cattle to be imported into the US. It's one of those situations that I have mixed feelings about.

The people opposed to the OTM rule say that they oppose it because it is a food safety issue. We could possibly be importing BSE into the US from Canada and have additional BSE problems here. There is a very slim chance this is true. I don't quite buy that this is the true reason for their opposition. It's to protect our market is the true reason, at least that is the way I see it and I don't have a problem with that.

The people supporting the OTM rule, besides Canadian Cattlemen, say that it is a matter of market fairness. Both the US and Canada are considered "minimal risk" areas for BSE and their should be minimal trade restrictions. We in the US want the Asian markets to open up to more of our beef product under this "minimal risk" rule. If we believe in the "minimal risk" rule and want other countries to respect it, shouldn't we allow in cattle to the US under the same "minimal risk" rule that we want other countries to respect for us? Seems awful hypocritical if we don't allow the cattle in. We can't have it both ways here.

Either we as a country believe in the "minimal risk" rule or we don't. If we want Asian countries to follow the "minimal risk" rule then we should. That's why I am torn on this issue. I hate hypocrisy and fighting this OTM rule strikes me as hypocrisy. I did see where the Farm Bureau is calling for increased testing of Canadian cattle for BSE as a possible compromise to groups that oppose the OTM rule on food safety grounds. This seems to make sense and might be just the right compromise to make this work.

In the meantime we will have to see what comes of R-Calf's lawsuit to stop this trade. It's really truly no surprise that they are doing this. The courts are their favorite battle ground and that is where they are fighting this.

I hope you see why I am conflicted on this issue. We want other people to respect a rule but we don't want to? That's not right. Mutual respect is something I learned a long time ago and I have to live to my code.

An once of hypocrisy is worth a pound of ambition. Michael Korda

Tainted meat traced to Canada

A now-closed Canadian beef company was the source of contaminated meat that sickened 45 people in eight states, U.S. Department of Agriculture officials say.

One of those states was Wyoming. A recall pulled the meat from shelves in Cheyenne in late September and early October.

A joint U.S. and Canadian investigation identified the source by matching the DNA fingerprint of E. coli O157:H7 to a sample still in storage with Rancher's Beef Ltd. of Balzac, Alberta.

It also matches samples taken from Topps Meat Co. frozen hamburger packages at the homes of food poisoning victims.

This is interesting. Topps Meat went out of business because of the E. coli problem, and Rancher's Beef Ltd in Canada went out of business before the discovery, or did they. Did Rancher's Beef know of the E. Coli problem and declare bankruptcy and go out of business before the E. Coli could be traced back to them?

In a lot of ways I doubt it, but it is interesting. There is a lot of opposition out there in cattle country to Canada shipping down older cattle because of BSE risk due to the new USDA rule. The chances of somebody getting sick and dying are a lot less from BSE from live cattle, statistically so close to zero as to be unimportant, than all ready proven from E. Coli shipped in from processed meat from Canada. Where is the hue and cry about public safety about E. coli from Canada from within cattle country? I hear a lot of silence.

Truthfully myself, I would be a little more worried about the E. coli, which is a lot more common and causes more fatalities that BSE, than about live cattle bringing in BSE. I know I am in the minority though. Cattlemen are more worried about live cattle than processed beef. I call this hypocrisy. They claim the opposition to live cattle is for food safety, but if it is for food safety shouldn't we be hearing more about the E. coli issue and Canadian beef since this recent disclosure since this E. coli has killed more people than BSE will ever think of killing in the US?

I'm not trying to pick on Canada here, but I do want to highlight where our priorities should be. If it is really on food safety, lets keep our eye on the ball and not lose our way with other issues clouding us. Food safety and security is too big an issue to play politics with.

Action expresses priorities. Mohandas Gandhi

I guess the answer to everything is to sue somebody. Now Canadian cattlemen are suing the US government over our closing of the border between us to Canadian beef due to BSE concerns. I know Canadian cattleman really suffered during the border shutdown but is it really necessary to sue? What really kills me is foreign citizens suing the US government. I'm just tired of this kind of shit and tired of everything right now.

I've done all my tricks. I'm tired of myself. Sandra Bullock

UNITED STATES CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION

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

Email: usca@uscattlemen.org

Web Site: www.uscattlemen.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 3, 2007

U.S. Cattlemen on Senate Resolution of Disapproval

USCA (Oct. 3, 2007) - Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) today introduced in the United States Senate a Resolution of Disapproval that, if passed, expresses the U.S. Senate’s dissatisfaction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) intention to resume trade in older cattle and beef derived from older cattle with Canada. Senator Dorgan is joined by Senators Michael Enzi (R-WY), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Kent Conrad (D-ND), John Thune (R-SD), Jon Tester, (D-MT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and John Barrasso (R-WY).

The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) lauded Senator Dorgan’s action, saying public debate over the resolution will highlight problematic provisions in USDA’s Final Rule on the matter and could lead to appropriate and meaningful modifications.

USDA published what is commonly referred to as its "OTM Rule" in the September 18 Federal Register. The agency intends to resume trade in over thirty month of age cattle and beef derived from over thirty month cattle when the 60-day waiting period concludes on November 19.

A Resolution of Disapproval does not impact agency policy unless both the U.S. House and Senate pass it and the President supports it with his signature. Senator Dorgan’s Resolution of Disapproval will, however, put USDA on notice that the Senate strongly disapproves of the Final Rule as written.

"The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) applauds Senator Dorgan and Senator Enzi for leading the charge on this resolution," said Chuck Kiker, Beaumont, Texas, USCA Director and Animal Health Committee Chairman. "This will heighten public debate and will certainly enhance public awareness of USDA’s problematic Final Rule."

"The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association has urged USDA to reconsider its decision to establish March 1, 1999 as Canada’s effective feed ban enforcement date," continued Kiker. "Five of Canada’s bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases were born after March 1999, with two born in 2001 and one born as late as 2002, a full three years after the supposed effective feed ban enforcement date. USCA believes the Final Rule should be modified so that only cattle and beef derived from cattle born after January 1, 2003 should be allowed entry into the U.S."

"Recent events surrounding the discovery of bone found in shipments of beef to Korea have clearly demonstrated the packing industry’s inability to comply with export requirements in terms of proper removal of specified materials," commented Leo McDonnell, Columbus, Mont., USCA Director Emeritus and Animal Health Committee member. "These compliance problems raise questions about the packing industry’s effectiveness in removing specified risk materials from animals potentially exposed to contaminated feed in Canada."

McDonnell pointed out that U.S. beef export markets still remain partially closed with key trading partners. Fears related to commingling of U.S. beef with Canadian beef have created concern among U.S. trading partners.

"These difficulties will be much harder to alleviate if we now open the border to Canadian animals that clearly have a potential for exposure to contaminated feed," continued McDonnell. "Modifying the Final Rule will provide more assurance that cattle potentially exposed to contaminated feed will not enter the U.S., putting the U.S. cattle industry in a defensible position with key trading partners."

"Our export customers are allowed to set their own safety standards for importing food products. As a country, and in the spirit of previous U.S. negotiations and trade positions that allow countries flexibility in setting their own import standards when food safety is a concern, one would hope the U.S. would seek higher standards with regard to the safety of beef and cattle imports and not seek the lowest or minimal standards," noted McDonnell.

"USDA’s actions are of concern because they tilt the ‘trading field’ away from U.S. ranchers," he continued. "USDA’s Final Rule fails the litmus test for internationally practiced standards for harmonization, and puts the burden of the Canadian BSE problem squarely on the shoulders of U.S. ranchers. Under this rule, Canada would be able to resume full export volumes, while the U.S. has resumed less than half of our pre-BSE exports," he stated.

Pat Becker, President of the Independent Beef Association of North Dakota (I-BAND), a USCA state affiliate, concurred saying, "USDA’s Final Rule should not be implemented until the U.S. regains export markets lost in 2003 and country of origin labeling is implemented. I-BAND and USCA support what Senator Dorgan has initiated and we will do whatever we can to ensure the resolution’s passage. Certainly, the ensuing debate will underscore the flaws in USDA’s Final Rule, which hopefully will lead to prudent modifications."

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

I've talked before about Canadian producers opposing COOL, but now there is new opposition out there to COOL in the US that really surprised me.

The New Zealand Government has been lobbying the United States Department of Agriculture not to introduce food origin labelling on meat, fish and other perishable agricultural goods.

Yes, of all things, the New Zealand government has been submitting comments to COOL in the US opposed to such a thing. Above and beyond the New Zealand government submitting comments, Meat and Wool New Zealand also submitted comments opposing US COOL. I really didn't know they were so scared of US beef down in New Zealand.

This opposition of US COOL was all done under the background of groups in New Zealand pushing for thier own COOL laws.

New Zealand now imports almost 1.5 million tonnes of food a year, and the Green Party says the public have a right to know what they are eating.

The party last month launched a campaign calling for mandatory country of origin food labelling.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Who will win this COOL fight here and in New Zealand. While I am not a big supporter of COOL, what is so bad about labeling meat to its country of origin? Isn't New Zealand proud of its product and want it labeled? If we are proud of ours shouldn't we label it? I don't think there is a food safety issue involved here, more a issue of national pride if nothing else.

I hate people like that... who have no pride in themselves. Katie Price

I know I am a little behind on this one but life sometimes gets in the way of things. The USDA has approved the import of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age into the US. This is, to say the least, a very controversial decision in Cattle producer circles which is why I say I should have commented on this sooner.

Why is this so controversial? It has to do with BSE and trade issues. The Internationally accepted age of cattle where you don't have to worry about BSE, is 30 months of age. As long as a critter is under 30 months of age you don't have to worry about BSE and over 30 months of age, you worry about it. This USDA rule recognizes Canada as a "minimal risk" country which is eligible to import cattle into the US over 30 months of age since they are at "minimal risk" of having BSE.

That's the basis of the controversy in producer circles. According to the NCBA and the meat packers, Canada is at "minimal risk" and should be allowed to import cattle and groups such as R-Calf and USCA think that Canada has a higher risk for BSE than "minimal" and don't want them importing cattle over 30 months of age into the country.

Some more information. (I lost the rest of this the first time around so I am trying to recreate it) As I said, this whole thing has to do with BSE. It is generally accepted that BSE is spread form cow to cow via feed. Use of cattle by products in the slaughter process being fed back to other cows starts and spreads BSE. Both Canad and the US instituted a feed ban a number of years ago that does not allow cattle to be fed back to cattle to prevent the start and spread of BSE, we won't go into my personal theory that there is a naturally occurring form of BSE. The US has had two domestic cases of BSE and Canada has had approximately 10 cases of BSE. Both cases in the US were in cows that were born after the feed ban was instituted. This is not the case with some of the Canadian cases. Some of these cattle were born after the feed ban was put in place. This leads producers in the US to question the effectiveness of the Canadian feed ban and question whether Canada is actually a "minimal risk" country or not.

This is the whole situation that has led USCA to ask the USDA to change the rule calling Canada a "minimal risk" country for BSE and allow them to import cattle into the US. They claim that the importation of Canadian cattle will hurt our export markets since other countries don't want Canadian cattle.

So far I have just laid out the facts. Let me give you my take on the situation. Most people in the greater world stage aren't going to understand or want to know all the facts I have laid out here. They are going to see two things that don't make sense to them. They are going to see that the US wants countries around the world to accept beef from cattle that are over 30 months of age even though they have had BSE found in the country while stopping Canada from importing cattle over 30 months of age into the US because they have had cases of BSE in Canada. This appears to be sheer hypocrisy. They aren't going to care about when the feed ban was instituted and when the cattle were born in which country. They are just going to see the hypocrisy of the US position if the USCA were to prevail and Canada was not allowed to ship cattle over 30 months of age into the US.

Anybody that has read this site very long knows that I almost never defend the governments position on things and NEVER agree with the USDA on things. This time though I am going to have to give the USDA credit, I won't go so far as to defend them but give them credit. I truly believe they have done this with the thought in mind that if we want other countries to take our beef from cattle over 30 months of age, we have to bite the bullet and accept cattle from Canada and show the world that this is the right thing to do.

This is the thought I have had in mind all along with this situation and why you have never heard me ranting about this rule when it was proposed. We can try to explain away the differences in the US and Canadian BSE situation all we want, the perception of the situation is going to rule the day though. If we don't allow Canadian beef in over 30 months of age we will be seen as hypocritical when we try to get other countries to accept US beef over 30 months of age. Perception in this case trumps facts and we have to suck it up. Sorry if you don't like to hear that but that's the way it goes sometimes. We have to do things we don't like to move forward in life and this is one of those cases.

The adjustment of reality to the masses and of the masses to reality is a process of unlimited scope, as much for thinking as for perception. Walter Benjamin

I found this article about the possible competition from China for the beef industry interesting. Am I overly worried about China importing meat to the US? No. Where I see the problem coming is the competition in some of the foreign markets like Japan and South Korea that China could give us. That seems a lot more realistic than China shipping Beef to the US.

This is what really surprised me though.

China's cattle and beef production have grown significantly from 2000 to 2007, with beef production up by more than 48 percent during that span, Nelson said. During the same time, China's annual beginning stocks of beef cows grew by 20 percent (from 60 million head to 71.8 million head), and its annual production of calves grew by 51 percent (from 41.8 million head per year to 63.3 million head per year),

Over 70 million head of beef cows. I never thought of China as having that many cattle. It would be interesting to know what kind of potential capacity they have. They have all ready expanded 50%, how much more expansion can the industry take? How much grass and room is there? So far it appears domestic demand is soaking up the extra, is this going to continue? How much beef does the average Chinese eat today? These factors need to be taken into consideration before we can start shouting the sky is falling.

I guess that what R-Calf sounds like here. Chicken Little running around squawking the sky is falling. They can't appear to win there case about beef imports from Canada so they now are going to go after an easier target, China. Don't get me wrong here, China could be a problem for the beef industry down the road but this attack with so little information is a little overboard. I guess R-0Calf is trying to turn their members head from Canada to China. The information about the cattle industry in China though is extremely interesting, and informative. For that I thank R-Calf.

If I panic, who is anybody going to run to? Curt Schilling