R-Calf rides again

[kato]

Is there no end to this?

R-CALF USA Seeks to Protect U.S. Cattle Producers, Consumers in Federal Court

(Billings, Mont.) – Today, R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) asked United States District Court Judge Richard F. Cebull to put an immediate halt to the importation into the U.S. of Canadian ground beef, bone-in meat, processed products, and other tissues the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) abruptly and quietly instituted on Monday. Judge Cebull has scheduled a hearing on R-CALF’s request at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow (MDT).


R-CALF USA today filed a lawsuit requesting injunctive relief against the USDA, arguing the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by relaxing safety standards, which are intended to prevent bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) from entering the United States from Canada.


“USDA cannot circumvent procedural requirements by issuing this decision without public notice and opportunity for comment, especially while there is an ongoing rulemaking on the same issue, and especially when there are such broad public health and economic concerns at stake,” said Bill Bullard, R-CALF USA’s chief executive officer.

The agency issued no prior notice to announce the change of policy. After seeing reports in the Canadian press regarding a possible policy change by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), R-CALF USA was able to locate a memorandum on the APHIS website that was addressed to U.S. beef importers and brokers, and other interested parties. The memo indicated that current beef import permit-holders could expand both the types of beef products they could import, as well as meat and edible products from all cattle, regardless of age at slaughter. Effective April 19, they are able to do this simply by providing a statement that their meat was processed in “establishments certified to the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) as eligible for export to the United States.”

“If we don’t stop the USDA, consumers will have no way of knowing if they are eating safe meat from the USA or Canada,” said Danni Beer, who chairs R-CALF USA’s country-of-origin labeling committee.

“We are hopeful the Court will issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) as early as tomorrow, as USDA’s near-total failure to explain the basis for its sudden decision, and the fact that it failed to evaluate other factors as required by law, clearly show the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously,” said Bullard.

A TRO would prohibit the USDA from implementing its new policy to preserve the status quo until a hearing on a preliminary injunction can be held.

The legal standard for granting a preliminary injunction, as well as a TRO, is: 1) a substantial likelihood of the plaintiff’s case succeeding on the merits; 2) the possibility of irreparable injury to the plaintiff if injunctive relief is not granted; 3) a balance of the hardships favoring the plaintiff; and, 4) advances of the public interest.

Canada identified its first BSE case in 1993, another on May 20, and a third on December 23. On May 29, APHIS concluded the situation was an emergency and banned importation of Canadian cattle and beef products.

On August 8, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman announced a decision to lift the import ban for boneless muscle cuts of meat from cattle less than 30 months of age at slaughter, but continued to prohibit the importation of any other Canadian meat products as well as live Canadian cattle into the U.S. until a notice and comment rulemaking process could be completed. On November 4, USDA issued a proposal to create a new “minimal risk” category for BSE-affected countries, and to place Canada in this new category. Comments were to have been received by January 5.


But on December 23, during the comment period, yet another instance of BSE in a Canada-born dairy cow imported in 2001 to the state of Washington was discovered. The rulemaking period closed on January 5, and R-CALF USA filed comments opposing the proposed rule. On March 8, USDA reopened the comment period on the rule until April 7.


“USDA has offered no explanation for why it believed a rulemaking was appropriate on this subject as recently as March 8. And yet, less than two weeks after the comment on the rule closed, decides it can take action without completing the rulemaking and without adequate review or response to public comments,” said Leo McDonnell, founder and president of R-CALF USA. “Just over a year ago, in January 2003, USDA gave Congress repeated assurances the U.S. was safe from BSE, touting its policy since 1989 of prohibiting imports from countries known to have BSE. Why the sudden change?”


R-CALF USA maintains the Animal Health Protection Act obligates the Agriculture Secretary to “protect the agriculture, environment, economy, health and welfare of the people of the United States,” and specifically to prevent, detect, control and eradicate animal diseases.



“The Secretary’s own Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Disease has cautioned against making BSE decisions until a more thorough and scientific risk assessment is completed,” Bullard continued. “USDA’s decision is based on a number of inaccurate assumptions, and that’s why R-CALF USA will prevail in this case.”



R-CALF USA has kept its promise to take this fight to the courts to protect the safety of U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle industry. Cattle producers who wish to join this effort should contact R-CALF USA at the phone number listed below, or e-mail the organization at: r-calfusa@r-calfusa.com Find the official complaint at: http://www.colliershannon.com/download/cssrcalfapril22_2004.htm

[blackjack]

One thing Kato ,we actually might get to see whether R-CALF has any clout against their own government. Hopefully the judge makes a quick decision and see R-CALF for no more than the protectionist group they are.

[15444]

Yes, I agree. This will be make or break it time for R-CALF. If they win, then I see NBCA and related organizations losing their credibility as for-producer associations and R-CALF gaining momentum. If they lose however, I envision the death of R-CALF for the most part, with the exception of a few die-hards.

I often wonder what third-parties (aka the rest of the world) think of R-CALF and the way it tries to hammer it's anti-Canadian message into the minds of American beef producers and consumers alike. Maybe grassfarmer could fill me in on what UK farmers generally made of groups like R-CALF?

[rsomer]

Canadian producers need to remember that R-Calf USA is a small splinter group of 9000. Their main purpose here is to increase that membership.

Either way this action by R-Calf will not affect us. I see their injunction as either being turned down by the courts or if their claims that the rule making process was not followed are upheld that the end result will be the rule making process will be speeded up.

There are a host of issues driving the border opening up to Canadian beef. Certainly there are U.S. beef producers who are realizing an economic advantage as long as the border is closed. We see them in R-Calf and we see their comments in the APHIS site on the Rule Making process. But overwhelming their position is the need to get live Canadian cattle moving into U.S. packing plants before the U.S. looses a significant portion of its meat packing industry to bankruptcy. On top of that there is the need for the U.S. to act responsibly in the eyes of the International Community so the world begins to accept imports of U.S. beef before those international markets are forever lost to other competitors, the need to keep the meat coolers full of beef before a U.S. federal election as there is not enough cattle on feed in the U.S. to meet the demand, even pressure from U.S. interests who presently own Canadian feeders in Canada expecting the border to open sooner rather than later.

I think the U.S. has other problems other than R-Calf and this action in the courts will not change a thing. The border is going to open with or without them.

[PureCountry]

Is it just me, or does R-CALF USA seem like a group that strongly resembles another minority group in the US, a group that is quite extreme in their protectionist actions, seeing only what they want to see, and basing their arguements on nothing more than anger and hatred? You all know the one, we've seen them in the movies, papers, Jerry Springer. Big white cloaks and hoods.
I wonder if you check the wallets of these guys, if you'd find their R-CALF membership card right next to their Klan Kard and their parking pass for the trailer park.
I can't believe how some people think.

[grassfarmer]

15444, I'll try and answer your question although I'm not entirely clear on what you are after.
UK farmers or other third country farmers will not have heard of R-Calf, I would guess 99% of non-farmers in Canada and the US won't have heard of them either.
We didn't have any similar groups to R-Calf in Europe - we had large groups that adopted similar protectionist policies but they had well known names like "France", "Italy" and "Germany" !!

My take on R-Calf is that despite the low membership that rsomer likes to quote they have a powerful voice in Washington far in excess of what their low numbers should deserve. In other words they are a very sucessful and powerful lobby group - quite a contrast to some of our farm organisations.
These type of protectionist actions were a way of life in Europe despite our "Common Market" so they don't really surprise me - it's the way of the world if you want to be in the import/export game.

[amazed]

Our Perspective
R-Calf's Threatened Suit Is Detrimental To The Industry
Everyone understands that part of any organization's mission is to grow its membership. It's also understandable that an organization will accept and even advocate policy from time to time that might be less than perfect in order to achieve a larger goal.

But, the pursuit of power and the adherence to one goal must also have its limits. The industry shouldn't allow these power struggles to hurt the industry.

The threatened action this week by R-Calf to sue USDA over reopening of the Canadian border is a prime example of overzealous advocacy. Without question, this R-Calf action will negatively influence consumers' perception of the safety of our food supply. It also would advocate a move away from the principle that countries should abide by the accepted science in making trade decisions.

Certainly, there's a segment of the cattle industry that would like to withdraw from the global economy altogether, and supports an isolationist trade policy. However, the majority of producers support a marketplace where the U.S. producer is able to sell the highest quality, grain-fed beef to the growing global market, while ensuring a level playing field for international trade based on sound science.

They understand that while there have been, and likely always will be, some difficulties with international trade, the largest opportunity for growth resides with the growing middle class in the 96% of the world's population that lives outside U.S. borders. They also understand that despite the problems with international trade, the net result has been a plus for the industry.

In addition, these folks understand the key to creating a workable system of international trade is to have it based on sound science, not by erecting trade barriers in answer to trade barriers.
-- Troy Marshall

[cowman]

Now purecountry, why would you say something like that? These old R-calf boys are just ranchers trying to make a living. I sincerely doubt if any of them belong to the Klan? Is trying to protect what you have so wrong? They live in the richest country in the world. Practically every thing they have to buy is protected by the US government...a made in the USA price if you will? Why shouldn't they get a piece of the American pie, too?
We all like to point the finger at these guys...radicals, protectionist, isolationalists! But when the day comes(and I believe it will) that Brazil and Argentina and Australia have complete and total freedom to enter our markets will we be so gung-ho? The fact of the matter is when that day comes...we are toast? How do you compete with a country where they graze year round, pay their labor like $3 a day, have no environment standards? The list goes on and on. And this isn't just cattle but grains too! Already we see the multi-nationals like Cargill and Cactus feeders moving in there and setting up shop.(And incidently a lot of American and Canadian farmers)
I wonder when the super cheap beef starts flowing north if we will be all for "Let the market rule and may the best man win?" I think Brazil has about 6 times more cattle than Canada...and they are all looking for a home!

[rsomer]

I would think those old R-Calf USA boys are just ranchers trying to put us out of business.

The U.S. have signed a FTA with Australia and in 19 years the expectation is the Aussies will have free access to the U.S. market. The implications for NAFTA are considerable as here we see one partner of NAFTA making side agreements with another country that the remaining NAFTA partners are not party too. R-Calf had something to say about Australia too. R-CALF USA, was the only cattle industry representative to testify against the Australian Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in front of the International Trade Commission in Washington.

Brazil is a remarkable country and its producers are large operators with a progressive mind set. Brazil produces a very different kind of cattle than we commonly see in Canada. Unless consumer preferences change Brazil would only gain a niche market in North America. First they have to either clean up their foot and mouth or the rules on F&M will have to change.

[kato]

As well, a hot topic in the environmental world is the destruction of rain forests to make room for cattle. That is exactly what's going on down there.

The activists are going to get in on this one. It's only a matter of time.

I think we'll see some action in the media in the future on this topic.

[grassfarmer]

In the UK the National Beef Association is already actively advertising the fact that Brasil is clearing the rainforest to produce beef. They are trying to shame retailers into buying less overseas beef by making beef customers aware of this poor environmental practice. Is that something we should consider doing?

[topper]

Its pretty hard for us in Canada to critisize anyone for clearing forest land for farm land as we have done plenty of it ourselves.

[nerves]

yes topper that is true but remember over 90% of wildlife live spieces live around the equator where here in Canada most of our spieces migrate. It may be one way to slow down cheap agriculture products the consumer has the last say.

[cakadu]

You are too right topper. We have only something like 17% of forested land that hasn't been touched. I was quite shocked to hear this figure. We are destroying habitat everyday and draining wetlands (or have drained wetlands). Given the moisture situation this year and the last couple of years, maybe we should be thinking about restoring and rejuvenating some of our own wetlands and environmentally senstive areas.

[amazed]

Before any of you start thinking R-calf are just a bunch of "good 'ol boys" just looking out for themselves read this quote from their V. President Kathleen Kelley.

"We know there's a serious problem in Canada," Kelley said. "Three cases of BSE originated there in less than a year in a testing program of only 4,000 animals out of a 15 million cow herd."

NOTHING but an outright lie. R-calf has also launched an injunction to stop the USDA from allowing ANY and ALL Canadian beef from entering the US. Remember how rosy things were up here last summer?

It has been mentioned on this site that we need an "R-calf" to represent us up here. Well if this is an example of the tactics they use, count me out.