BSE Testing

[kato]

I was reading the MCPA newsletter tonight, and in between all the articles about the gloom and doom of the times, and before I ran out and found a rope and a tree, I noticed an interesting resolution to be voted on at the general annual meeting.

"Be it resolved that the MCPA lobby the government to allow slaughter facilities to test every animal slaughtered for BSE"

Randy is working on Alberta, so now we need Saskatchewan to pitch in.

When we think of the problems we have, I think testing could go a long way toward making a lot of them smaller.

If the cattle were tested, would SRM's be such a disposal issue? Tested negative, they would become usable again for something other than landfill.

Combined with the traceback we have, would overseas markets remain closed?

If the cattle were tested, would the U.S. protectionists lose a lot of their ammunition?

Compare the price of a test with the price we are paying now for not testing, and the test starts looking pretty cheap.

We are quickly becoming bogged down in a whole pile of regulations that are costing us any market advantage we stand to have. These regulations are very over reactive, and testing would simplify things so much.

I think it's time our government stopped giving in to the bullies south of the border, and their lackies in certain unnamed slaughter facilities in our country, and started thinking about doing something for their own citizens for a change.

If the big boys don't want to test, too bad, so sad. The smaller plants can do it, and probably become big plants as a result.

[farmers_son]

The question of whether or not slaugher houses or packing plants should be allowed to test for BSE has been out there since 2003. Most notable was Creekstone who sought a competitive marketing advantage by BSE testing to gain access to the Japanese market. This was vigourously opposed by the USDA.

The answer to the question of whether or not packing plants should be allowed to test for BSE came from, of all places, Japan. I posted an article in Agriville last September 13 which I will repost here.

http://www.agri-ville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1189703517

JAPAN: Ministry: End BSE tests on young cows
12.sep.07
The Asahi Shimbun
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200709110524.html
The health ministry has, according to this story, called on all prefectural and municipal governments--without exception--to end mad cow disease tests of cattle under 21 months next July.
The directive came after nine prefectural governments said in an Asahi Shimbun survey they intended to continue the tests even after the central government stops funding them next July.
In the survey, conducted two months ago, the governments was cited as saying they want to continue testing to allay safety concerns and to meet the requests of consumers.
In a notice dated Aug. 31, however, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare was quoted as saying "It is important that (all the prefectural and municipal governments) end their inspections at the end of July 2008, across the board."
It also said, "It would cause chaos among producers and distributors as well as concern among consumers if the approach of individual governments toward the tests varies from one to another."
Tatsuya Kakita, an expert on food labeling and a representative of the Yokohama-based research institute on consumer issues, criticized the ministry's instruction, saying it was aimed at limiting the choice of consumers.
The ministry plans to terminate its funding of the entire cost of the tests of cattle aged 20 months or younger for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease.
The ministry was cited as saying that if the beef of some districts are marketed with a label mentioning the all-cattle tests, it will give the impression that beef from other districts are not as safe.
Officials with the health ministry's Inspection and Safety Division called the continued checks on cattle not older than 20 months as a step "close to the waste of taxpayers' money." It said that there had been no cows in this age group suspected of having the infection.

Japan is not allowing BSE testing under 21 months of age even if packing plants or individual provinces wanted to, for marketing reasons or otherwise. Quote "It would cause chaos among producers and distributors as well as concern among consumers if the approach of individual governments toward the tests varies from one to another." The ministry was cited as saying that if the beef of some districts are marketed with a label mentioning the all-cattle tests, it will give the impression that beef from other districts are not as safe.

It is not in the producers interest to have food safety used as a marketing tool. Our food is safe, that is backed up by science. Food safety is achieved by removal of SRMs.

Yes our cattle industry is hurting as a result of protectionist policies from countries like Japan and the United States too. Ironically the U.S. is using food safety as a protectionist weapon to restrict market access for Canadian cattle and beef at the same time as the U.S. is saying Japan and other Asian countries should accept the science which says their product is safe. What the science says is that all our beef is safe.

Protectionist importing countries have seen that exporting producers are weak and can be used as political weapons. It is for that very reason that producers need to demand that science is the determining factor for international trade in beef. There are no end of food safety issues that countries can use as an excuse to block trade, if it is not BSE it is E. Coli. It is clearly in producer’s best interest to see science based trade, science based decision making.

Allowing BSE testing as a marketing tool is not allowed in Japan, at least in under 21 month. We are so close to having trade normalize with the U.S. and Japan is not all that far off either. It would be utter nonsense to throw the science away at this point and say that individual packers should be allowed to insinuate that their beef is somehow superior because it is BSE tested when it is not any better or any safer than non BSE tested beef in North America. Japan knows that, why don’t we.

I would hope the MCPA resolution is defeated.

[jensend]

it's always good to hear from someone who wants our market opportunities restricted. what a load of crap. do automobile companies use product safety as a marketing tool? of course. do toy manufacturers suffer from poor product safety? read the newspapers. product safety is a good thing, duh. why shouldn't we market a product the consumer can rely on? the bse testing strategy used to date has not only lost us japan and reduced our opportunities into the states it has stopped the industry from going even further and offering hormone free into europe on a broader basis. the cca/abp/packer stand is not only hypocritical it has been adopted because it is the most selfserving strategy they could dream of having. when american producers complain that canadian cattle are captive supplies to the two big american packers they are right and people like hugh lynch-staunton, abp and farmers_son have supported the transfer of our herds to tyson and cargill at a discount.

[farmers_son]

If you want to see restricted marketing opportunities just keep on BSE testing.

Every time we find another BSE positive there are political consequences in the United States. We have had to fight hard to regain what access we have the U.S. market for our live cattle. That access is threatened when we find BSE positives. I would remind readers that we get paid for live cattle not beef.

I, for one, am not willing to threaten our access to the only competition we have for our live cattle prices so we can cave in to the unreasonable, unscientific, protectionist demands of a country like Japan which at the very peak only purchased 2% of their beef imports from Canada.

I produce live cattle, not beef. The only market access Canadian cattle producers should be concerned about is markets for our live cattle. Japan and Asia do not buy our live cattle, the U.S. does. Our ability to ship live cattle to the U.S. is something Canadian producers would be very foolish to take for granted.

[BFW]

The government and ABP need to get their heads out of the sand on this one Farmers Son. We allow hormone free beef, natural beef, antibiotic free beef etc. to be marketed when clearly their is no science out there to show that they are superior products to beef produced by the regular production chain. The resistance to change is driven by politics when we should be more concerned with differentiating our product to meet a demand that exists for BSE tested beef. I also find it ironic that we are still looking forward to "normalized" trade with the US when for all intents and purposes that market is closed to us if we are going to have an exchange rate in the 1.00-1.10 area. When will we learn that we must have export markets other than the US?

[kato]

This is how I see this whole thing playing out if we don't do something now.

Next year, MCOOL kicks in. That means that live Canadian cattle will be severely discounted if not completely shut out of the American market. Now we have exactly the same scenario that we had in 2003. We are once again captive to the pirates.

Watch the feeder prices next spring, and see how much of a premium is paid for those who will finish before it takes effect. And how much of a discount for cattle to finish later. I predict the spread will be wide.

There is a great opportunity in using MCOOL to our advantage by promoting Canadian beef as a brand of its own, and whatever we can do to make it more saleable is in our own interests. BSE testing is just another tool. I'm not suggesting testing younger animals, but I still think we could add more value to even them by being able to make SRM disposal less draconian. This alone should be enough justification for testing.

Now that I think of it, why are we treating SRMS from young animals the same way as we are treating them from old animals???? That defies "science".

The big packers are working hard behind the scenes to stop testing because anything that frees up the captive supply is not in their interests.

And why is it a bad thing to have a competitive advantage over the Americans by offering tested beef?? Don't we think they'd do it to us in a minute? You better believe that if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd have done it by now. They seem to have no qualms about throwing up every trade barrier they can think of now.

If we don't make some moves now, in another year our industry will be in dire straights once again, and struggling to survive.

It's time to raise the bar, instead of being constantly hit over the head with it.

If the USDA don't like that, then too bad, so sad...

[grassfarmer]

The ABP/CCA just can't admit they were/are wrong on this one because to do so would see their power slip - back to the producers and the leaders of other beef groups with alternative ideas.
Cam Ostercamp stated quite clearly back in 03 that we(producers)must export beef off this continent to survive. ABP/CCA disagreed and have fought tooth and nail to maintain the packer monopoly and captive supply situation.
Well done guys, you have dug us an even deeper hole than we were in back in 2003 and still it goes on. With "friends" or "representatives" like these speaking for us who needs enemies? who needs R-Calf? our own clowns can cripple our industry just as effectively.

[farmers_son]

There is a saying that the gods punish us by granting our wishes. Certainly there are producers out there who wish for BSE testing as a marketing tool. I personally think such a wish has dire consequences. Consumers need to trust that all food is safe, that the food you must eat to live is not going to kill you. Allowing food safety to become a marketing gimmick, that my beef is safer than your beef, threatens consumer confidence in all beef products. Consumers, not knowing what to believe, will simply switch from beef to chicken (which by the way is not legislated by COOL but that is a whole different story).

“Why is it a bad thing to have a competitive advantage over the Americans by offering tested beef.” That is such an interesting comment. Creekstone wanted a competitive advantage but the USDA said no. If you read the news article on Japan not testing under 21 months you will see that nine prefectural governments (seeking a competitive advantage for their producers) wanted to continue testing and the national government said no to them too. There is no doubt that there are U.S. cattle producers and state governments seeking a competitive advantage for themselves by finding new ways to unfairly restrict Canadian live cattle and beef imports seeking to destroy the North American market for cattle, NAFTA or no NAFTA.

U.S. and Canadian producers benefited for years from a North American livestock industry. Today, Canadian beef safety standards are 99% harmonized with U.S. beef safety standards. The resulting north south trade has benefited producers on both sides of the border, meant that North West U.S. packing plants were viable, employed countless Americans and provided Canadian markets for U.S. feeders. Not only is the U.S. the worlds largest beef and cattle importing nation, they are right next door, they are part of our NAFTA North American livestock industry, they are one of the richest nations in the world. The rest of the world could only wish to have our access to that market. The challenge for Canadians is to work to preserve our access to that market in spite of the inevitable pressures from within the United States who those who wish to go it alone.

That go it alone attitude results in a divide and conquer strategy that works to the benefit of global processors and to the detriment of individual cattle producers. As producers our strength, our true competitive advantage, will be to work with producers in other countries (in the U.S. and elsewhere) to extract what share of the consumers food dollar we can from the more powerful global packing plants. The analogy I would use is the lion seeks to separate the individual from the herd so they can more easily bring it down. Our survival is best guaranteed not by splitting from the herd to seek a competitive advantage but to form alliances, such as the North American livestock market, and even beyond with other cattle producers in other nations that have common problems (packing plants, protectionism).

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son, I'm disappointed in you, back to towing the ABP party line.
You say rightly that we producers are generally sellers of live cattle not beef but then lapse into the ABP gobbldeygook of living next door to the best beef market in the world, a country who we are so closely allied with that we are almost their equal partner.

This is not the reality that most Canadian producers see today - a marketplace dominated by US based transnational corporations who ruthlessly control the market place by consolidation and removing competition from their industry. The Americans may be rich importers of beef but Canadian producers are not benefitting from that because there is no trickle down effect.

The other arguments ABP use are equally false - the high Canadian dollar is to blame, really? if that were the case why are we not being flooded by a wave of cheap US produced beef at the moment? The problem again revolves around corporate concentration.
Arno Doerkson's little tirade in the ABP video shouting against the countries that have not imported Canadian beef and how they need to fall into line is so wrong. That is not how you deal with customers in any business. Why is he so upset anyway?? extra sales to Japan etc at the moment will not improve returns to Canadian beef producers because we do not sell beef we sell live cattle and that market is dysfunctional due to corporate concentration and captive supply.

I think for Canadian producers to survive we do need to regain our independence, of slaughter capacity, of marketing choices and of control of where our beef is sold. To do that it increasingly seems we will have to negate the power of groups like ABP/CCA who are clearly backing policies that allow the ruination of our industry due to their absolute support for the status quo, US packers, captive supply and corporate control.
As for how well we have done being part of a harmonised North American beef industry in a time of global trade I suggest looking at the "Free trade is it working for farmers?" document published by the NFU recently. It is available online at http://www.nfu.ca/briefs/2007/1988%20vs%202007%20FINAL%20bri.pdf

Sobering reading!

[rkaiser]

Farmer-son says - "I personally think such a wish has dire consequences. Consumers need to trust that all food is safe, that the food you must eat to live is not going to kill you. Allowing food safety to become a marketing gimmick, that my beef is safer than your beef, threatens consumer confidence in all beef products."

Thank you for your personal opinion farmer-son and don't forget that it is just that at the AGM and please vote accordingly. You have no right as a delegate to vote against your constituents. And I will not only be there to watch you but send the message out to the producers in your area by way of letters to the editor or whatever other means I can dream of to tell them of your games.

Food safety is already a marketing gimmick farmer-son and Canadian producers have continually been the brunt of the joke.

BSE testing is a tool farmer-son. One that has been ignored because of the pride of yourself and other ABP/CCA delegates to rove yourselves right. Get over it. If you jump on the boat now - no one will ever remember who was against it. Ask your mighty leader Lynch Staunton. He is feeling the political heat and wavering himself.

Or keep up the --- Fear message---- LOL. BSE testing could make things worse ----- now that my friend is a gimmick and a joke.

[farmers_son]

I thought I made it clear that I viewed the U.S. as an important market for our live cattle, important because it provides critical competition. We have seen first hand that the packing industry within Canada will not compete with one another for our live cattle, essentially acting as a monopoly.

Certainly the marketplace is dominated by transnational corporations. I am not sure it would matter if those corporations are U.S. based or not. Some large global players are based in Europe, they all act the same. The U.S does protect it’s industries, no doubt about that.

I agree that the high dollar is not to blame. I do not see the problem as one of corporate concentration as much as U.S. protectionism.

I quickly read the NFU link. I agree with you that NAFTA is not working for primary agriculture producers. The Canada U.S. Trade Agreement as it was originally drafted provided a mechanism for free trade without political intervention. When Mexico joined the free trade agreement which then became NAFTA the wording was changed to allow political intervention. Originally CUSTA would have allowed industry to prosper wherever in the trade region it had the competitive advantage. Clearly this was unworkable for the U.S. which politically could not see industries like beef production shift to Canada which had, at that time, a more competitive cattle industry. The U.S. response to BSE and now E.Coli has very, very little to do with food safety and a whole lot to do with protecting their cattle producers.

I think the comments made about ABP and CCA miss the real problem. Where is our federal government in all of this? I bet if you asked most cattle producers they could not even tell you who our current federal agriculture minister is. I looked it up, it is Gerry Ritz but I have heard nothing from him. Who is defending our NAFTA access to the U.S. market? ABP and CCA can lobby but it is governments responsibility to protect our markets.

Check out this link to our federal ministers. These people should be doing something about Canadian cattle producer’s access to the U.S. market yet they are totally silent.

http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainCabinetCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&La nguage=E

[rkaiser]

I thought that ABP/CCA were the voice of the producer at the provincial/federal level farmer-son. If they are doing nothing - maybe our industry leadership is not asking?

I hat to keep harping on what ABP/CCA is doing wrong - I truly think that there are solutions if some of the old boys including farmer-son would not take this issue so personally and would move on. We can argue about testing until all the cows are gone if you like farmer-son, but ignoring potential marketing opportunities which could well solve at least part of our current problems is down right disgusting.

[farmers_son]

BSE testing as a marketing opportunity….

BSE testing is touted by its supporters as a means of opening export opportunities with Japan and Asia. I have pointed out earlier in this thread that Japan has changed its position re BSE testing on under 21 month animals. If Japan and Asian really wanted to buy BSE tested beef there is plenty of BSE tested beef in Europe.

[rkaiser]

Europe is a net importer of beef.

Japan is moving away from testing because of the USDA's big stick.

Korea took D1 and D2 swinging sides from Canadian companies prior to BSE.
(D1 and D2's are OTM farmer-son.)

Asian and European companies have asked for BSE tested product from Canada.

[kato]

The idea that not to test is to keep the American market open to us would be a good one if there were not so many who make their livings by throwing up barriers to Canadian cattle already. These barriers will be there, testing or not, but to be able to send tested beef would help get by some of them.

The protectionists are not going to go away.

Ever.

So what we need is to have every tool available to us to be able to market our beef wherever we can, to the highest bidder. For example, we already have the infrastructure to traceback and assure hormone free beef at EU standards, and if we could top that up with a test if requested, there is a whole other market.

We don't need to test cattle for markets that don't ask for it, and we don't have to test young cattle, but we also should have the right to use whatever tools are available to diversify our marketing. If a customer wants tested beef, then I say give it to them.

And then there's the cost of SRM disposal that keeps being tossed back at us. Don't forget that.