Should we be pursuing the Asian market?

[poorboy]

The US has been locked out of the Japanese and other Asian markets because of BSE and the fact that they don't test every animal. The Asian market represents about the same number of animals that Canada used to ship into the US.

So why don't we test every animal and ship them into the Asian market and restore our beef sales to pre BSE levels.

The americans don't want to test every animal because they may actually find some cases of BSE in their own country. Well lets face it,, CANADA has BSE so, it would be in our best interests to test and start taking on some new markets if the US is just going to screw us over at the border anyway.

I am sure that the US does not want to test and has said to Canada that if we hold out on testing too, that they will open the border as soon as Japan backs down and lets US beef into Japan again. Here we are and guess what Japan hasn't backed down!! Screw the americans, we are getting tired of their protectionist attitudes. Lets start testing and restore some markets. Yes it may cost us $50/hd, but it sure beats losing $400/hd like we are right now. I would be that BSE testing would come down in cost, once the numbers tested goes up. It does in every other industry.

The downside to our own testing is that we may find another 20-30 cases of BSE. If they are removed from the food chain and destroyed, it should increase consumer confidence. We could say to our consumers, would you sooner eat something where every one has been tested, or eat imported beef that has not been tested at all? Yes the first case of BSE that is found when we start testing all the animals will be very much a publicity issue. After that is correctly handled in the media, it would not be an issue if a 2nd ,3rd, etc. BSE case is found.

If we are going to test, it would not hurt to test for e-coli 357 other, as untill now that has been the most common reason for meat recalls.

If the US then starts to test all animals, there would no reason not to allow our beef into the US again.

Think what will happen to us if they find another case of BSE in CANADA tomorrow or the next day. It will put us back into turmoil, and can't do anything but erode our Canadian consumers confidence. Lets face it, we are already increasing our testing for suspect BSE animals, so our odds of finding another case are way higher than in the past.

Our packers are US owned. So the people that work for them have to toe the US line or get fired. Lets get the Gov't to mandate testing of every animal. We can always stop testing later on if we have too. Perhaps even being real serious about testing, will have the US open the border more quickly.

[Willowcreek]

Poorboy- It might be a good idea- but I don't think you will get your government to mandate testing. The US Packer Conglomerates control them just like they control the USDA and US government.

BSE testing will occur only when the Packers say it will.

[kato]

Then it's time we became the packers.

I wouldn't hold much hope for Japan, but China is a totally whole new ball game.

[rusty1]

One reality about testing is that we probaly could get a packing plant built just about as quick as one could get testing done across Canada. Therefore a producer owned, western Canadian packer could be built and running and worry only about testing the product at our plant and our markets.

[rsomer]

Willowcreek is right about government not allowing testing. Don’t know about the U.S. Conglomerate thing, there are actually good reasons why NAFTA is staying with the science and not bowing to pressure from Japan to 100% test.

Trading countries depend upon science to establish a common base of fairness between countries which, lets face it, are all are a bit protectionist. Otherwise countries will use any notion of food safety to keep out countries goods while still expecting the other country to accept their goods.

There is an excellent example of a country using irrational excuses to deny access to their market. Britain's Food Standards Agency is pulling Alberta made Saskatoon berry products from their shelves and other European countries could follow. The safety of a little berry from the Canadian Prairies, eaten for centuries by aboriginals and other Canadians, is being questioned by European officials. I know it sounds unbelievable that this would happen but check it out for your self at http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed_saskatoons20040604

It is the same with Japan’s reaction to our beef. We have followed all the International Review Panels recommendations to our industry which included more surveillance testing, removal of SRM’s in cattle over 30 months, tracing other animals from the herd of origin and destroying them and the herds they were in. Our industry has been scrutinized by the world and we passed. Still Japan blocks access to our beef just like Britain is blocking access to our Saskatoon berries. NAFTA countries exceed OIE recommendations for surveillance testing which proves there is a truly minimal occurrence of BSE in North America. The OIE says countries should not be blocking trade in our beef. Still Japan ignores the science and says it is our way or no way.

Trade between countries cannot be based on whims and consumerism. There will be no trade if that were the case. There is no food product that someone could not raise issue with. If they can find safety issues with a saskatoon berry counties like Britain and Japan can find safety issues with anything.

NAFTA is right to insist on science and the USDA and CFIA are right to deny companies who ignore the importance of science to international trade and test on their own in order to profit and capitalize on irrational trade barriers.

Science is the very basis on which trade takes place. Frustrated producers calls for 100% testing which is not based on science is just not going to happen. This is not a marketing issue, it is a matter of upholding international trading rules. As a trading nation we depend on the science and those trading rules to maintain fairness. We cannot continue to trade without them.

[rsomer]

The one and only reason that the ABP, CCA, CFIA, and Canadian Government insist on the "Science" of not having to test is strictly a trade issue. They have been told by the USA that following this path and making the North American marketplace common to their standards is the only way that the border will ever be opened to Canadian beef. Meanwhile, the border stays closed, and more and more Canadian producers loose money, and livelyhoods, banking on this one choice. This one choice, that is preaching science, while using it against the Canadian producer. Producers that have gambled their farms on this one choice are finally seeing that it is only a trade game,(except for rsomer), and are looking at other theories, equally scientific, that could save their farms and the Canadian Cattle industry.

Why on earth is it NOT scientific to test?

[jensend]

science is not the basis for trade. science is used to help or hinder trade but trade occurs because of economics and power and yes, rsomer, consumerism. wasn't it john malthus who stated that supply creates demand. that would be the very antithesis of science as the basis of trade. virtual pets - science in action stimulating international economies or just a good job of marketing. reread your post rsomer and analyze it - rationaliztion or sound economic sense????

[rsomer]

Rpkaiser: The North American beef industry was harmonized long before BSE. I agree the U.S. is like the pot calling the kettle black when they have not opened the border to our live cattle citing food safety. Given the similarities between Canada and the U.S. provide our best lever to get the border open to live cattle I question the wisdom of moving away from harmonization at this time.

As Canadians we need to think of our export markets as the NAFTA market and the non NAFTA international market and there is two way trade within both those markets. North American is rather unique in that is has these two markets, a trading bloc market and an international market. The situation in Britain caused the EU to develop a strategy to reintegrate Britain into the EU market through 100% testing. It was entirely a EU strategy not based on science rather designed to regain the EU consumer’s confidence in beef. This response was not intended to sell beef outside of the EU. Japan did not export beef and used 100% testing to regain its consumers confidence.

NAFTA has not had the problem with the loss of the domestic consumer’s confidence like the EU and Japan for one reason because our incidence of BSE is so extremely low. Certainly it does not compare to the situation in Europe or even Japan which did not have a ban on feeding ruminant protein. We are left in a situation where it appears the U.S. is unilaterally delaying the announcement of a rule that would see normalized trade resume within NAFTA while they work out the details of the requirements to trade to internationally to non NAFTA countries like Japan. Given that Japan supported the war in Iraq while Canada did not it appears that politics beyond NAFTA are involved.

Still I don’t think Canada’s best response is to discontinue harmonization within NAFTA. And I think Canadian producers need to realize that Canada did not trade to Asia, NAFTA did. Most of the trade to Japan and Asia was Canadian product that went through the U.S. and then on to Asia. Canadian producers benefited from that trade and it goes without saying the U.S. did. To suggest at this point that Canada, carrying the added burden of BSE, is going to resolve this crisis by peddling our wares by ourselves in the big bad world is magical thinking. Our focus instead should be on how to get access back into NAFTA and that focus is going to involve harmonization. I have said it before and I say it again we also need to build our own packing plants before we can even consider measures beyond that as NAFTA is not working well to protect trade in live cattle.

[kato]

It's very lonely sitting alone in the corner playing by the rules, when no one will play with you.

[rsomer]

For a medium power like the Canada, the rules are all we got. The U.S. is a superpower, they can make and break their own rules.

Although producers may view going our own way and testing 100% as a means of pressuring the U.S. to open our border, what may be happening is we are actually delaying the opening of the border by siding with Japan in its talks with the U.S.

[cakadu]

Leave us not forget that protectionism can happen in many places. Could it be that the reason for requesting 100% testing by the Japanese could is to help protect the Japanese beef farmer? Don't forget they were hard hit when the cows found to have BSE were in the human food chain and the consumer wasn't told in a timely fashion.

Where has there been any guarantee by the Japanese that if we test everything that they will buy? Are there any letters of intent or does a memorandum of understanding exist? Without some sort of even quasi-guarantee, why would we begin to entertain that notion? Didn't we learn anything from the recent blue-tongue and anaplasmosis deal? We went into that thinking that if we relaxed those rules, then surely they would look at opening the border sooner? Who was it who said that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

[whiteface]

The arguements why "no test" are valid, but then what, we're "not testing" now and I don't see any cattle crossing the border. What do the "no testers" see as the solution? Because it sure isn't working now. We need the freedom of PERMISSION to test, not mandatory testing but a way for the smaller packers that rsomer wants ( and I want so badly ) to have an OPTION in their marketing to COMPETE with the "big boys" then who gives a shit if the US wants our meat or maybe even Japan for that matter. Smoe consumers want choice and will pay extra for it. That extra does in fact offer competition for the big packers monopoly against us now.

[cakadu]

I am not saying that you are wrong to want what you want whiteface - I would like nothing more than for the border to anywhere to open up yesterday. I may not play in the cattle game, but I sure have seen what I do eroded and hurt because of this continuing struggle.

We always seem to choke on ants while swallowing elephants. If there are consumers out there willing to pay more, then work with that information. Turn it around to work to your advantage - get letters of intent or whatever it will take to make your case to be allowed to test. Go in with the ammunition that you need - solid information that will support what it is you are trying to do.

Having been around the block a few times when it comes to hearing "there are consumers that are willing to pay" or "there are markets out there willing to buy" -- which don't come to fruition, change that scenario. Come back with several letters of intent from these various consumers/countries/new markets and use those as a solid basis from which to lobby. Nebulous ideas don't pack much weight, but if you come with solid evidence, then you might have more of a leg to stand on.

At this point in time, I cannot say if I am for or against testing because there is nothing that will cause me to lean one way or the other. Yes, I agree that by being allowed the option to test, that does enable you to differentiate. How is the protocol being set up to allow you to keep that as a positive point of differentiation?

Let's imagine for a moment that you are allowed to test. What happens when you do find another case or cases, because make no mistake about it, you will find more? How do you guarantee that it will be beneficial for your segment versus devastating to the industry? I view the testing issue as one where people feel if they can test, it will be a positive thing as far as consumers/markets are concerned. What if that assumption is wrong?

As has been stated ad infinitum on the various postings, there are no easy answers to this one.

[kato]

Let's imagine that we don't test. If we are only testing randomly and find a positive, that's when the hammer comes down again.

And again... and again ... every time. Even though we can find more animals without changing our BSE status, that means nothing to our markets.

So every time a random test shows up as positive we go through this whole exercise all over again. Explaining ourselves, and justifying our safety measures. And living with yet another market that sits at the bottom for who knows how long.

Are we up to that? I'm not sure I am.

[cowman]

If you could go back about a year you would find I was saying "test everything and damn the cost"! However, with a little rsomer education I realized that just ain't going to happen! So while I believe a universal mandatory test is the way to go, I realize that isn't an option.
However it really bothers me that we can't even do a voluntary test...what happened to our rights as individuals here in this country? Well the fact is we are locked into this what is good for the majority thing...and I struggle with this! What is our committment to our fellow producers?...as I said I struggle with this.