NCBA Questions Border Opening

[Willowcreek]

NCBA Executive Committee Takes Action Regarding the Re-Opening of the Canadian Border
A Letter to Our Members
Two days ago (January 4), USDA published a final rule that would reopen the Canadian border. NCBA has heard from many members expressing concern and asking for clarification on the rule's implementation. NCBA members have a number of serious concerns about this rule, specifically in regard to the following:

. The economic impact on cattle producers resulting from resuming trade with Canada without having reopened other export markets, specifically Japan.
. The compliance of the Canadian beef industry with its feed ban.
. The economic implications of importing meat from Canadian cattle older than 30 months of age.
. The prevalence of BSE in Canada given the announcement on January 2 of a second case of BSE, which is the third case of known Canadian origin.

First and foremost, NCBA is committed to responding to the concerns of cattle producers to assure increased profit opportunities in both the short and long term. This rule is in a period of congressional review and will not become effective until March 7. This means the industry has time to take action on its concerns.

NCBA has four goals in addressing these trade issues:
. Ensure trade is resumed in a manner that prevents economic harm to cattle producers.
. Regain the loss in value of exports to our producers that occurred after the occurrence of BSE on December 23, 2003($175 per fed animal), through normalization of trade and create a foundation for growth in our export markets.
. Protect the health of our cattle herd.
. Maintain consumer confidence in the safety and quality of U.S. beef.

Below are the member-directed action steps NCBA is immediately initiating to give producers the facts they need to evaluate this rule. A decision by NCBA members on whether to delay or move forward on implementation of the rule will occur at the Cattle Industry Annual Convention, February 2-5, in San Antonio. NCBA feels very strongly that our members concerns be addressed and all the information be gathered in time for discussion and debate in San Antonio.

Based upon these concerns, the NCBA Executive Committee approved the following action steps:

1. Insist that by March 7 trade be re-established with Japan and South Korea and expanded in Mexico through negotiations between the highest level of government officials or further action will be taken.
2. NCBA will send a trade team of its members to Canada on a fact-finding mission to:
. Identify the Canadian cattle that would qualify for export under the USDA rule and determine the potential economic impact on cattle producers.
. Inspect feed manufacturers and demand Canadian government officials provide a detailed assessment of feed ban compliance.
. Inspect border crossings to verify how cattle will be inspected, identified, have their age determined and be approved for entry into the United States.
. Verify Canadian compliance with BSE firewalls.
. Clearly determine the blue tongue and anaplasmosis requirements to export feeder cattle to Canada to ensure harmonization of trade.
. Evaluate Canada's BSE testing and surveillance program and review all the findings around the recent BSE cases.
. Address other concerns that may be raised by members.

This trade team will visit Canada the week of January 17 and present its complete report to NCBA membership at the annual meeting in San Antonio as a basis for establishing or changing policy regarding trade with Canada.

3. Request an FDA audit of Canada's compliance with its feed ban.
4. Demand that the U.S. not import beef from Canadian cattle older than 30 months of age to prevent a trade imbalance that discriminates against U.S. cow-calf producers.
5. Insist USDA clarify the Canadian rule regarding the importation of heifers, age verification, procedures for importation of live cattle, and other issues.
6. Insist on the creation of an international commission from major beef producing and beef consuming countries to establish a science-based protocol for normalization of trade for BSE.
7. Evaluate USDA's economic analysis of trade with Canada.
8. Immediately mobilize our members and state affiliates to notify their congressmen, senators, and the Administration of these concerns and action steps.
9. Meet with senior White House officials to strongly communicate these action steps, the concerns of our cattlemen about the economic harm that will occur from the imbalance of trade between exports and imports, and the sense of urgency to achieve results.

Now more than ever NCBA needs to hear from you. This issue will be covered in the January and February Beef Business Bulletins and be addressed at the annual membership meeting during the Cattle Industry Annual Convention in San Antonio. You can be assured that it also will be debated from the opening gavel to the final vote - which rests with you. And, while we would love to see everyone in San Antonio, we realize not everyone can make the trip. If you can't attend, we urge you to contact your state affiliate and let them know your views. Keep in mind that all policy passed by the Board of Directors and the membership at the annual convention is then ratified or overturned by the membership in a mail ballot. That ballot will be included with the February issue of Beef Business Bulletin, which will be mailed Feb. 17.

What action NCBA ultimately takes on handling the reopening of the Canadian border will be decided by you. Your decisions will become the marching orders for your organization.

Your industry is calling you into action. Don't let an issue this important to your future pass without being engaged in the process.

Action Steps Your Industry Needs You to Take
. Arm yourself with the facts and information.
. Contact your members of Congress and share your concerns. Sample letters to use in this effort are attached below.
. Provide feedback and thoughts to NCBA leadership and the trade team traveling to Canada by calling 1-866-BEEF-USA or contact your state cattlemen's organization.
. Engage in the policy making process by attending the Membership Meeting at Convention and/or participating in the mail-in ballot.

For more information on international trade, what you can do and events taking place at convention please go to the NCBA Web site at www.beefusa.org or call 1-866- BEEF- USA.

[farmers_son]

I am left wondering what the NCBA’s stance will be once the U.S. finally relents and admits they have BSE in their herd. American producers are taking policy positions based on the erroneous notion that they do not have BSE in their herd. The International Review Panel clearly stated that the U.S. cannot call the Washington Holstein a Canadian problem given the magnitude of trade in live cattle that took place prior to May 2003. The rest of the world considers the U.S. to have BSE and the all too frequent problems with USDA testing of potential BSE positives does little to alter that perception. Yet we continue to see statements from the NCBA and R-Calf that suggest American producers still want to keep their heads firmly inserted where the sun doesn’t shine. Does any American producer honestly believe there is not BSE in their herd?

The science says this latest Holstein should not impact the opening of the border. Politics is a different animal however and finding another BSE animal does not help the Canadian producer's position in the U.S. Congress. However at some point the nations of the world have to stop punishing other nations for finding BSE positives or else the only logical course of action will be to do as the U.S. and Australia is doing, continue to hide the problem.

The International Review Panel indicated that the U.S. needs to take a leadership role in rationalizing trade with BSE minimal risk nations. The U.S. and Canadian industries are harmonized when it comes to BSE prevention. I think American producers would be well advised to be careful about pointing the finger at Canada and saying our beef is not safe. It is just a matter of when, not if, the U.S. is going to find their own BSE positives. If the American producer views our BSE positive as a tool to be used for protectionism they run the certain risk of loosing their consumers confidence when it becomes their turn.

Did you know that Canada imported 50% of its animal protein from the U.S. before 2003? Your animal protein comes up here, our Holsteins go down there, cattle moved both North and South for years. There is every reason to believe our BSE problem did not come from Britain but from the U.S. We cannot forget that the U.S. was importing live animals and ruminant protein from the UK for years after BSE became a problem in that country. American producers have BSE, they just aren’t owning up to it. Given that, the NCBA has to take a leadership role when it comes to BSE. The real challenge for the NCBA is to maintain their own consumers confidence when it becomes their turn, not to further protectionist measures which are really based on safety protocols that are harmonized between the two countries.

[cakadu]

There is some irony in the statement about demanding Canadian feed manufacturers comply with regulations, given that many of the feed samples that were just found to have suspect protein in them were of US origin and manufacture.

Let's do the math here. Canada has some 5.5 million cattle, give or take. The US has what - at least 10 times that volume - if not far more. How can they possibly deny and/or continue to argue, pontificate and pronounce that they have no BSE? One of these times, one of those "false positivies" is in fact going to turn out to be a for real positive. Then what are they going to say and do? Who are they going to blame?

Now that Tyson is turning up the heat, can Cargill and some of the other players be far behind? It may be quite interesting to watch and see who is actually controlling the strings down there.

[pmckenna]

I would suggest that the form will follow along with other previous events. The NCBA historically and recently agrees with Canada policies and practice; I see no reason that they will change policy, but they will naturally, like any responsible organization, take up the fight evenly for their minority members. These will be in a minority and the outcome in the end will be positive with USDA.

Also, I would guess that alot of headway in US/Japan imports will have had a lot to do with our traceback here in Canada, even more than in the US. That's because of the inevitable mix of products which we now can separate and control. Just a guess.

[intr3est]

pmckenna, totally agree! If you read through some of the past issues of the NCBA's online magazine, they have supported the reopening of the border all along and have totally disagreed with R-calf's position. When I first read this press release I was uterally confused and then I took a moment to think about what they are doing. They are putting on a "brave" face for that minority you have spoke about.

[jensend]

i see this development as a sign that the ncba support for the border opening is fading and will fade quickly from here on. usda's determination will get weaker as well. american cattlemen have enjoyed their best year ever and will be unwilling to go back to the bad old days no matter what the science says. this is just another step in taking the american cattle industry to the same protectionist stance as many other american industries. this is the future and i think it makes it more important for us to be lobbying politicians to allow testing for export or domestic consumption. universal testing should serve two purposes: establish our cattle herd as healthy, and open up offshore markets. if we would only take advantage of this opportunity i think we could get a sizeable advantage over the american cattleman in the export markets. the idea of more american packers shipping our beef south in boxes is not a longterm solution. my feeling is that if we don't recognize what is happening here and use what opportunity there is to get out of the mess, the canadian cattleman is in for several more rough years and many of us won't survive to raise cattle for a profit.

[kato]

I think this would be a good time for our own government to announce a formal policy on testing for export.

There is a lot of support for it all over the country, but no 'official' word on whether or not it will be allowed. It's time to paint or get off the ladder. This avoiding the question that has been going on for the past year and a half has got to end, so we can get past all this and move on.

Put an effective date of say, April 1, and then watch and see if the wheels turn.

Anyone up for some letter writing?

[FRENCHMAN]

lets get writing..


Rule # 4 really concerns me.

[Joe-2]

I think what we are seeing here,boys and girls,is the NCBA coming out of lockstep with the USDA.Why? I think its for internal NCBA political reasons more than anything else. I think the border will open for UTM's on March 07 regardless of all the hub-bub and posturing that happens between now and then.The sad thing is that all this uncertainty will likely limit our prices until March 06.
I also think it would be wise if we started now to distance ourseves from the "North American Beef Industry" thing and call our industry Canadian and separate from the USA.Call it a hunch.