Foot dragging again

[cowman]

Well valuechain, I did not know that rule! I guess I have been breaking the law once again!
You know I don't remember ever giving up my rights to any group...they just sort of stole them when I wasn't looking! But I do agree with you that they are not the solution just part of the problem and we need to do whatever is necessary to survive in spite of them. You've got the right idea,just keep plugging away!

[ValueChainFX]

Thank you cowman, you know what they say .... The fastest way to let others steal your life and your industry is for enough good people to do nothing!

[rsomer]

I received this clip today from Animalnet. I would encourage all producers to take the time to reply.

Canada invites comments on proposed import policies for United States feeder cattle
December 15, 2003
From a press release
OTTAWA - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) today released a discussion paper on the importation of U.S. feeder cattle. The Agency is reviewing existing import requirements for these animals and is seeking comments on possible policy changes as part of this process.
Current import requirements are intended to prevent the establishment of two animal diseases in Canada-bluetongue and anaplasmosis. Import requirements are regularly reviewed to ensure that restrictions are appropriate and reflect current science and risk assessments, as are all of Canada's disease control measures.
Consistent with the Government's commitment to an open and inclusive process, the CFIA is inviting interested parties to submit scientifically supported comments. All stakeholders are encouraged to participate in this consultative process, as changes to current policy may be of interest to several livestock and wildlife sectors.
The discussion paper, related risk assessments, economic analyses, animal disease information and comment submission instructions are available through the CFIA's Website, www.inspection.gc.ca.

[wilagro]

RSOMER...Good post.

Interesting is the quote from your post.

Consistent with the Government's commitment to an open and inclusive process, the CFIA is inviting interested parties to submit scientifically supported comments. All stakeholders are encouraged to participate in this consultative process, as changes to current policy may be of interest to several livestock and wildlife sectors

"Scientifically supported"...This kind of leaves a lot of producers out of the loop unless they happen to have expertise in animal health relating to bluetongue or anaplasmosis.

Where are the veterinarians in this process? Shouldn't they be advocating on behalf of the producers (their customers)?

Lots of questions...not too many answers yet.

[rsomer]

I noted the reference to "scientific supported comment" as well. However I also noted the reference "Current import requirements are intended to prevent the establishment of two animal diseases in Canada - bluetongue and anaplasmosis. Import requirements are regularly reviewed to ensure that restrictions are appropriate and reflect current science and risk assessments, as are all of Canada’s disease control measures." Without directly saying so, the proposed new standards are intended to deliberately establish these two animal diseases, bluetongue and anaplasmosis in Canada so we have equivalency with the United States. We are told we need to do this to speed trade of our cattle south due to BSE. And if the US were to allow our cows into their country maybe they would have a point, but such is not the case. The US and the CCA want us to have their diseases yet they don’t want to have ours.

There is a good review of bluetongue and analplasmosis in the discussion paper at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/import/bovine.shtml

I think that any producer interested should put forward their views. The CCA does not speak for many producers on this issue. There is valid reasons for concern about the introduction of these diseases, according to the discussion paper anaplasmosis is the fifth worst disease of cattle in the U.S. If producers remain silent on this one the outcome is certain. The fix may be in but people can still change their fate, we just need to try.

I have included my reply to CFIA below, since it all comes from the CFIA discussion paper I think it would qualify as "scientific supported comment". But scientific or not we need to make our views known on this one. Please take the time to make your views known on this important issue.

Re: CANADA INVITES COMMENTS ON PROPOSED IMPORT POLICIES FOR UNITED STATES FEEDER CATTLE
Canada's favourable animal health status provides many advantages in international trade. Freedom from serious diseases such as bluetongue confers a major competitive advantage as Canadian producers have less reliance on treatment with chemicals and drugs and for many diseases Canadian exports are not subject to costly testing and quarantine. Long term freedom from List A diseases and serious List B diseases has been one of the most important indicators of effective and credible veterinary services. There is no doubt that Canada’s animal health status and standard of veterinary services had made it easier for Canada to gain access to overseas markets under favourable technical conditions.

Despite the finding of a case of BSE, Canada still has export markets for ruminant semen and embryos. It is likely that the initial response to a bluetongue outbreak would be a suspension of all trade in ruminant genetic material. Markets that are particularly sensitive to this issue would include Europe and Asia. It would take two years to regain freedom status according to the current OIE Code. Canada would attempt to mitigate trade impact by zoning or regionalisation but this would require that the disease was reportable. It is likely that some trading partners would expect the CFIA to impose movement restrictions on cattle from the infected area. Bald assertions about the absence of competent vectors in certain provinces would be unlikely to convince trading partners as to regionalisation. There are provisions in the OIE code for importation of live ruminants and genetic material from infected countries, based on seasonal freedom or isolation from vectors and testing of live animals or donor animals. Canada would argue for trade under these conditions but as seen with BSE, some trading partners may choose not to accept OIE recommendations in the situation of a sudden change of status from free to infected.

In addition to the economic consequence of the effects on international trade, there would be an economic impact to Canada based on the costs of eradicating an outbreak or ongoing disease control activities in the event that either disease becomes established in Canada. Although the economic impact of bluetongue is relatively minor from the perspective of the national economy, the impact on individual sheep or goat farmers could be catastrophic. There is no treatment for bluetongue and no vaccine licensed for use in Canada, and although vaccine could be made available under an emergency use license, it is possible that significant losses would have occurred before vaccine could be made available. If bluetongue had been deregulated, the government would not be likely to provide significant domestic support to domestic industries affected by an outbreak.. The cost of controlling a bluetongue outbreak has been estimated at less than $50,000 when effects on international trade are ignored.
For anaplasmosis, the CFIA has conducted an economic analysis (copy attached) that estimates between $12.1 and $ 36.0 million in direct production losses and $3m in costs to the CFIA as a consequence of anaplasmosis becoming established in Canada.

The introduction of either anaplasmosis or bluetongue to Canada may have an impact on the environment via disease outbreaks in susceptible ruminant species such as Dahl sheep, moufflon and white-tailed deer.
Anaplasmosis is a "production limiting disease" and in 2002 it was ranked fifth in economic importance among the diseases affecting cattle in the US. However, anaplasmosis has not had significant impact on wildlife or on other species in the US.

Bluetongue could have a significant impact on susceptible ruminant species in the wild. Species such as bighorn sheep are considered to be rare and significant losses of this species would not be acceptable to Canadians. Bluetongue could cause significant losses of more populous species such as mule deer, black-tailed deer and antelope. This risk is difficult to measure but should not be ignored.

As a country we must continue to base our decisions on sound science. Presently a study is being conducted for which the lead scientist is Dr Tim Lysyk of AAFC's Research Branch laboratory in Lethbridge, that is to determine the prevalence, biting rate and abundance of Culicoides spp. in Western Canada, targeting southern Alberta. It is intended to evaluate factors relevant to the vectoral capacity of C. sonorensis in western Canada. Until this study is completed the science on whether Canada should change its policy on Bluetongue and Anaplasmosis is incomplete and Canada should not change its present policy.

[cakadu]

I just wonder why we have to put ourselves at risk at all. What good could come of it? In reading these posts, it seems as though we have far more to loose than we could ever possibly hope to gain.

Once again it seems like we are looking at short-term gain (if there can be any) at the cost of long-term sustainability and looking at it from one side only i.e. in terms of feeders going into the feedlots.

Is it any different than letting in grain that potentially had fusarium at the risk of the malting barley industry? Short-term logic at the expense of long-term viability.

We have all these various protocols in place, why is it we seem to be ignoring them when it is convenient or expedient to do so? We put those rules in place for a reason - let's remember that.

If we are to "Brand Canada" using the identification systems, on farm food safety, environmental farm plans and whatever else I might be missing, then why would we even consider jeopardizing it? That is the one flaw in this branding idea - if we go that route and something happens i.e. BSE, then we all go down.

This isn't something to be taken lightly.

[ValueChainFX]

Branded programs are designed to give the consumer confidence and to set specific targets for product to reach. We can and are developing Branded Canadian product programs that follow guidelines that not only identify a Canadian product but also identify specific product traits. These traits can identify the trace back trace forward protocols that allow us to protect regional integrities and allow us to more effectively control our own (producer) safety nets for food safety and food security. Presently this cannot be done in the system. To accomplish this we have a long road, but if it's for the future than it is set up top be a long-term strategy. For those individuals that wish to stay within the present system, that's up to them, for those that want a better system they need to get off the fence and get on with it!