The 2003 International Livestock Congress was held this July in Calgary. Proceedings of the Livestock Congress can be found at: http://www.livestockcongress.com/
Philip Seng, President/CEO U.S. Meat Export Federation presented a speech on the USMEF perspective of our present crisis which provides an important insight into the American position. It may be seen at: www.usmef.org/speeches/03_Other/03_0711_Seng_IntBeefCongress_Canada.pdf
Mr. Seng points out that the U.S. and Canada have put up "firewalls" to trade in beef from countries that experienced BSE outbreaks for 15 years. Although these firewalls may not have reflected the latest science, it served both our countries purpose. He warns that if Canada continues to imply that the Canadian case of BSE may in fact be an American case of BSE, both countries will stand to lose world market share. Peter Seng maintains that a consumer backlash may be possible if the U.S. opens the border to Canadian beef too soon as well as the U.S. would stand to lose two of the top three export markets for U.S. beef. However if the U.S. moves too slowly to reopen the border, the Canadian industry from farm to packing plant could be irrevocably damaged. Lastly, he points out that if Canada moves to strengthen our beef quality assurances, then consumers may become suspicious of the safety of the U.S. product or the U.S. will be forced to change to meet Canadian objectives.
Peter Seng concludes by suggesting that we need to work through the OIE (http://www.oie.int/eng/en_index.htm) to resolve the Canadian crisis rather than setup a "North American Beef Commission" to ensure that all of our North American beef is safe and wholesome.
I would suggest that the "purpose" Mr. Seng mentioned went beyond food safety and herd health to being in some cases a non tariff trade barrier, but Canada and the U.S. were equally guilty. I agree that the OIE should review its protocols for BSE which were established in 1990 and based on the outbreak of BSE in Britain. If the present OIE protocols remain unchanged international trade in beef will slowly but surely come to a halt as country after country find a positive test case. The alternative is in the face of unreasonable trade restrictions major beef exporting countries will cover up positive test results in order to protect their industry. Certainly change is needed however it will take considerable time before the OIE accomplishes this needed change. The Canadian industry does not have that much time and the USMEF would be well aware of that when they suggest the OIE as the solution. In the interim it seems that the U.S. "purpose" remains being served. The United States and the USMEF should be aware of their NAFTA commitments which Mr. Seng overlooked in his speech. NAFTA’s predecessor CUSTA established a preferential trade relationship between Canada and the United States which should have served to remove political influence as a impediment to trade between the two countries. We need to look to NAFTA to serve as the cornerstone of a solution to the politically motivated closure of the U.S. border to our beef. Or does NAFTA only serve the U.S. "purpose" anymore?
Philip Seng, President/CEO U.S. Meat Export Federation presented a speech on the USMEF perspective of our present crisis which provides an important insight into the American position. It may be seen at: www.usmef.org/speeches/03_Other/03_0711_Seng_IntBeefCongress_Canada.pdf
Mr. Seng points out that the U.S. and Canada have put up "firewalls" to trade in beef from countries that experienced BSE outbreaks for 15 years. Although these firewalls may not have reflected the latest science, it served both our countries purpose. He warns that if Canada continues to imply that the Canadian case of BSE may in fact be an American case of BSE, both countries will stand to lose world market share. Peter Seng maintains that a consumer backlash may be possible if the U.S. opens the border to Canadian beef too soon as well as the U.S. would stand to lose two of the top three export markets for U.S. beef. However if the U.S. moves too slowly to reopen the border, the Canadian industry from farm to packing plant could be irrevocably damaged. Lastly, he points out that if Canada moves to strengthen our beef quality assurances, then consumers may become suspicious of the safety of the U.S. product or the U.S. will be forced to change to meet Canadian objectives.
Peter Seng concludes by suggesting that we need to work through the OIE (http://www.oie.int/eng/en_index.htm) to resolve the Canadian crisis rather than setup a "North American Beef Commission" to ensure that all of our North American beef is safe and wholesome.
I would suggest that the "purpose" Mr. Seng mentioned went beyond food safety and herd health to being in some cases a non tariff trade barrier, but Canada and the U.S. were equally guilty. I agree that the OIE should review its protocols for BSE which were established in 1990 and based on the outbreak of BSE in Britain. If the present OIE protocols remain unchanged international trade in beef will slowly but surely come to a halt as country after country find a positive test case. The alternative is in the face of unreasonable trade restrictions major beef exporting countries will cover up positive test results in order to protect their industry. Certainly change is needed however it will take considerable time before the OIE accomplishes this needed change. The Canadian industry does not have that much time and the USMEF would be well aware of that when they suggest the OIE as the solution. In the interim it seems that the U.S. "purpose" remains being served. The United States and the USMEF should be aware of their NAFTA commitments which Mr. Seng overlooked in his speech. NAFTA’s predecessor CUSTA established a preferential trade relationship between Canada and the United States which should have served to remove political influence as a impediment to trade between the two countries. We need to look to NAFTA to serve as the cornerstone of a solution to the politically motivated closure of the U.S. border to our beef. Or does NAFTA only serve the U.S. "purpose" anymore?
Comment