Border Reopening "if's, and's & but's

[InAHurry]

My opinion so far, as of reading this if a Canadian cow (fed, feeder ..etc.) can jump over the moon she MIGHT be considered worthy to cross the border.

NCBA Ties Border Reopening to Unresolved Trade Issues
02/05/2005
SAN ANTONIO – The members of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association today passed an 11-point directive that ties the reopening of live cattle trade with Canada to other unresolved trade issues, such as the reopening of Japan, South Korea and Mexico to U.S. beef. USDA has proposed reopening the border to imports of live cattle under 30 months on March 7.

On Friday, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns addressed the cattlemen at the Annual Convention and Trade Show and reminded them of their commitment to international trade. NCBA President Jan Lyons, a beef producer from Manhattan, Kan., told the secretary, “Our members set our policy and that decision will be communicated quite clearly.”

With today’s decision, NCBA will to work to resolve a list of conditions before trade is resumed. These include:

- Prohibit the importation of cattle and beef products from cattle more than 30 months of age.
- Assurance that all Canadian firewalls to prevent BSE, specifically adherence to their feed ban, are functioning properly.
- No feeder cattle imported until agreement is reached on harmonization of animal health standards, especially bluetongue and anaplasmosis.
- Movement of Canadian cattle into the United States must be managed to minimize market disruptions.
- Fed cattle imported for immediate slaughter must be certified to be less than 30 months of age at the time of importation.
- Ban the use of fetal bovine serum from heifers imported for immediate slaughter.
- USDA grades and stamps not be allowed on any imported beef product.
- Feeder cattle must be branded with a “CAN,” individually identified with an ear tag, certified to be less than 30 months of age at time of slaughter, shipped in sealed trucks from the border directly to an approved feedlot, then moved directly in sealed trucks to slaughter.
- Feeder heifers imported into the United States from Canada must be spayed.
- USDA must work with our primary trading partners to ensure that expanded export access for U.S. beef is not in any way jeopardized by expanded importation of cattle and beef from Canada.
-- The Administration must reach an agreement to re-establish beef and beef byproduct trade with Japan, South Korea and Mexico, and apply economic sanctions if necessary.

The directive was passed unanimously by the Policy Division of the Board of Directors and upheld in the annual Membership Meeting. The directive will be part of a mail ballot sent to all NCBA members on Feb. 17th. Members will be asked to approve or reject all policy decisions passed at convention. For the ballot to be valid, there must be a 20 percent return from four of NCBA’s seven regions.

Additionally, NCBA’s members passed policy that called for a more producer friendly, voluntary country of origin labeling law. Specifically, NCBA members want self certification of origin for livestock producers; protection of personal records; simple, easy to understand country of origin retail labels; tempering of penalties during implementation; and reconciliation with existing labeling laws.

Also, new policy calls on NCBA to defeat efforts to label beef and beef products as “North American Beef” or any similar language that has the intent of grouping other country’s beef with that from the United States.

[WoolyBear]

does this mean that the USA will be branded to their cattle's butt, that each will be ID with an appropriate, fully traceable tag, and the feeder heifers will also be spayed?

or will this be a question of "Do as I say, Not as I do".......... or will it be My way or the highway?

Certain groups south of the border certainly are remember Teddy R and his Big Stick policy......... no wonder so many countries are think of them as the school house bullies.

[intr3est]

Looks to me that the americans are playing right into the hands of the group who are suing under the terms of the FTA! How many times have they now admitted this is more about trade than health concerns?

[cakadu]

Excuse me, but how do you "spay" a heifer?

If the female animals are going in sealed trucks to their feedlot destination and to the slaughter house, and they are branded, then if anything goes on, wouldn't it be on the other side of the border and not here?

I presume they are asking for this spay thing because they are afraid that the heifer might be or get bred. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but she would be in with a bunch of steers so what would the problem be? Also, if she's in the feeder pen, then presumably she wouldn't have been suitable for breeding by someone standards, correct?

So, I guess the $64,000 question will be what are the leaders on OUR side of the border going to do about these rules?

[intr3est]

As far as spaying goes, it would be a measure to ensure the feedlots follow the rules, so my opinion would be that it would be their responsiblity to spay! I found this on the WTO website: Interesting.

"Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Back to top
This agreement concerns the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures — in other words food safety and animal and plant health regulations. The agreement recognises that governments have the right to take sanitary and phytosanitary measures but that they should be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health and should not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail.

In order to harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a basis as possible, Members are encouraged to base their measures on international standards, guidelines and recommendations where they exist. However, Members may maintain or introduce measures which result in higher standards if there is scientific justification or as a consequence of consistent risk decisions based on an appropriate risk assessment. The Agreement spells out procedures and criteria for the assessment of risk and the determination of appropriate levels of sanitary or phytosanitary protection.

It is expected that Members would accept the sanitary and phytosanitary measures of others as equivalent if the exporting country demonstrates to the importing country that its measures achieve the importing country’s appropriate level of health protection. The agreement includes provisions on control, inspection and approval procedures."

[cowman]

The reality of implementing most of the NCBA rules would in fact pretty well be an effective barrier to Canadian young cattle? Of course these "rules" are not reality at all...just feeding the boys down on the farm what they want to hear right now? In fact I doubt a lot of these so called rules would ever stand up to a NAFTA challenge?
The one proposed rule that bothers me the most is the OTM cattle and beef? I suspect the USDA might give them that one? If that happens do any of you think Canada would be justified to consider testing all OTM cattle? Do you think our cattle organizations would finally see that we need to test OTM cattle if we ever hope to market them anywhere in the world?
Personally I would hope the USA does not open the border to OTM cattle or beef, if it would get our cattle organizations and governments off their butts and start hitting back in this trade war. Start testing and start a PR job in the US about how safe our beef is and how much safer our OTM beef is than theirs! Right now we can't say that...but if it was all tested we sure could!...I wonder if Japan might notice?

[farmers_son]

The NCBA is approaching this as if they get to make the rules.

Forgotten is the International Review Committee that made recommendations after the Holstein cow was found in Washington December 2003. Among other things it was recommended/suggested very strongly/mandated that the U.S. could not take the view that the Washington Holstein was a Canadian problem and that appropriate responses had to be taken in a North American context. Beef organizations such as the NCBA have their heads in the sand right up to their necks if they insist on developing policies based on the notion that they do not have BSE in their herds.

This same panel recommended that the U.S. show leadership in renewing trade in beef and cattle with Canada as an example to the rest of the world who were blocking trade in beef from the U.S. If the example the U.S. wishes to set is one based on science then any move to continue to block imports of our OTM beef is inconsistent with that science. At least in the higher levels of the U.S. administration I believe there is a realization that the U.S. cannot continue to block beef and cattle trade with Canada ignoring the science that says our beef is safe and at the same time expect the rest of the world to respect that same science and import U.S. beef.

Not part of this discussion among producers but I believe certainly part of the discussions at the highest levels is a desire by the U.S. that Canada send 40 troops to Iraq. Throw in missile defense, border defense, cross border trade in drugs and you quickly begin to see that we are just being used as pawns in a much bigger game. We can only hope that our Canadian government negotiates the best possible arrangement with the Americans that will reestablish a North American beef industry that works for both countries.

[blackjack]

...with all the rules these american cattle associations want in place...how is it going to be even feasible economically to send feeders south...with these rules it's apparent the US industry could not handle a native case of BSE...

[rkaiser]

I think this is a done deal, and the cattle industry organizations can talk and make motions all they want.

How much action has been taken on motions passed at our ABP AGM?

This is a battle between Cargil and Tyson on one side and Swift (Conagra) on the other. Especially on the OTM cattle and beef. NCBA and Rcalf will claim victory for any changes to the rule, but they will be small.

[Willowcreek]

farmersson- I think you just laid out part of what caused these rule suggestions to come about. People in the USA are not followers of any world group- we don't see ourselves as being a one world nation, like the Europeans do. They do not want any world group telling them that the US and Canada are one- because they aren't.
I know of no rancher in the US who ever saw this as a North American Industry or North American Beef. Just because Canada had to run their beef products thru the US to sell them didn't do away with the US CATTLE INDUSTRY and the US BEEF INDUSTRY. We are still very separate industries. I'm glad NCBA joined R-CALF in at least echoing this.
Will all this policy come to pass- doubtfully. But it will be darn tough for Congress to avoid the uproar now...Maybe then R-CALF can spend some of the legal fees fighting the Canadians trade challenges...Challenges I don't think will hold water.. Not when you are talking food and herd safety issues...
R-CALF had the correct idea from day one- Canada needs to test everything until they have proven they have eradicated the problem- If it shows up in the US, the US should do the same..

[farmers_son]

Willowcreek: I hear you but I would point out that the rest of world considers there to be a North American beef industry especially when it comes to BSE. Last time I checked no one was allowing significant imports of U.S. beef other than Mexico and Canada. Japan, Korea and others consider it a North American market and I think they are right to question why they should import U.S. beef while at the same time the U.S. is raising flags about the safety of the Canadian product. As has been said many times, it is the pot calling the kettle black or calling your twin sister ugly. Canada and the U.S. have had a single market for as long as I can remember.

Obviously U.S. producers are viewing their industry differently than the rest of the world or they would not be approving policies like they have.

[farmers_son]

Further...Willowcreek you said "They do not want any world group telling them that the US and Canada are one- because they aren't." The International Review Committee said in the clearest possible terms that Canada and the US are one. That is fact.

[intr3est]

OT/Willowcreek.
"People in the USA are not followers of any world group- we don't see ourselves as being a one world nation, like the Europeans do."

then why do the Americans continue to sign agreements that make them members of a world groups? Do they sign them in bad faith, knowing that they will not honor them at a later date?

[Willowcreek]

intr3est--Interesting point.. I think if NAFTA, CAFTA, AFTA and most others ever came to a vote of the people they would not pass- definitely are not approved of by the Agriculture section as they get the bad end of the stick in favor of big business and manufacturing... But several years ago congress gave up our right to approve these by giving fast track approval priveleges to the President, which left even Congress little oversight..The corporate world loves the trade agreements and their ability to get cheap overseas labor and huge overseas tax breaks, but many of the working class feel dumped on by them...

[cakadu]

Farmers_son - saying "we are one" doesn't mean that everyone buys into that and clearly those south of the border (outside of the review panel) don't.

I wonder what makes Canada so quick to jump on "the rules" when others clearly don't follow them. Think back to the GATT/WTO talks and it was stated that subsides to farmers should be dropped. What did Canada do - come home and immediately take steps to do away with them. What did the US do - go home and add billions and billions more under the farm bill.

You are too right when you state that this is just part of a bigger picture and the true cost cards of getting this border open have not yet been shown to us.

I do want to see the border open, but I wonder just what the actual price is that we are going to have to pay and more importantly, will it be worth it in the long run?