Openbeefborders.com

[farmers_son]

The countries that are testing all OTM or, in the case of Japan, OTM and UTM beef may have successfully regained their domestic consumers confidence but I believe I would be correct in saying that all of these countries have lost a significant portion of their previous export markets if any indeed exports ever existed.

It is not coincidence that the major beef exporters go to great lengths to make sure a BSE positive is never found in their country. Those lengths include looking the other way, losing tests, banning downer cows so that they are never tested, testing only a token amount of animals or not testing at all, directing what testing is done to low risk animals. There is simply no precedence for countries that test significant numbers of high risk animals to say that export markets will open for them. It has never happened. The reality is that every BSE positive we find reduces our opportunities for exports, not increases them, no matter what the science says the risk may be.

Canada is playing loose and fast with its beef export markets by aggressively testing many more animals than the science dictates. Our program of directly testing 4D cows on farm is certainly unique among beef exporting nations. The global scientific community may be impressed by that program however it is politically very risky. We need to play ball with those politicians in the U.S. who do want to see live cattle trade resume with Canada, even if it is for purely selfish reasons on the part of the U.S. And by playing ball I mean that we need to harmonize our BSE testing protocols with the U.S. even if the U.S. testing is not, how do you say, on the up and up.

There is a reverse correlation between the amount of BSE testing done within a country and the amount of beef exported. Not the other way around. Canada’s on-farm 4D testing program needs to be revisited, and quickly before it is too late. Let’s face it, those 300,000 plus cows tested in the U.S were not high risk cows, there is something for Canada to learn from that. I am not saying don’t test, just don’t be stupid about it.

[grassfarmer]

I think that is a chicken and egg situation farmers_son. If we harmonise our testing standards for OTMs with the US (ie cheat by not looking/ covering up cases) we risk a real consumer backlash they way they got in Europe and Japan when politicians are found out covering up BSE.
After the resulting complete confidence and market crash we will be back in the position that those who are now testing big numbers were in years ago. Not only will we lose our exports but we might shrink our domestic market 30% overnight - then we will be wondering if we should test to recover markets.
Why can't we learn from others mistakes? - cheating and covering up BSE is not the bright choice. With the high testing numbers we now have coupled with an impression in the worlds eyes that we are honest we are in a good position regarding BSE - if only we would have the courage to go out and find other markets instead of waiting for the old familier, easiest market to open up when they decide it suits them to allow some of our beef in.

[ALLFARMER]

I have to agree with cowman again, test every animal and add it to the bill! You can always sell quality. A BSE tested product is a value added... premium product. In addition the USDA will not allow American plants to test every cow. Once the USDA can't hide their BSE anymore Canadian packers will be simply the supplier of choice.

[blackjack]

...according to the stats have we not sent more pounds of beef to the states in 04 than in 02...so if that is the case I think your claim against testing for BSE is bogus fathers_son...the states obviously have no problems with taking our beef other than live...it is our OWN politicians and gutless statis quo cattle organizations that are the problem... make the packers share a bigger portion of the enormous profits they have made from that exported beef...back to the producers instead of running to the taxpayer for handouts...

[kato]

I guess the question is "Does America test up to our standards, or do we test down to theirs?"

We're darned if we do and darned if we don't. If we drop to their level, we get slammed for not testing enough, and the border stays closed. According to the courts in Montana we're already not testing enough. (It's a handy excuse, and if it wasn't this, there would be some other reason.)

If we increase testing even more, we stand a bigger chance of finding another one, and the border stays closed.

This is life under the American system. Do as I say, not as I do.

So what do we do? Go public in the States to expose their inadequacies? That has it's own perils, because if the consumers down there back off buying beef it will hurt us too.

We're just too nice. What would the Americans do in our place? Just look to Japan and see. They are threatening and bullying their way to having the Japanese drop their standards. (They call it negotiating, but it's really more than that.) On top of that, does anyone here really think they are trying to include us in any Japanese deal? I doubt it. If our cattle jeopardized any deal with Japan, we'd be out in a minute. No sympathy, no regrets.

The border will stay open to beef if it's in America's interests. For no other reason. Let's not delude ourselves, and let's be prepared for the worst. I think right now that the big money interests down there want it open, and they probably have a lot of clout, but nothing would surprise me any more. We've seen too many 'impossible' things happen in the last two years.

[kpb]

I think farmers_son is right on the mark again in his last post about testing for BSE. We can continue to act in a naive fashion as we have since the beginning of this fiasco or we can protect our own interests as every other country does.

I see no evidence at all that any countries are beating down our doors to get our product, rkaiser, surely if they wanted it so badly we could send them a load or two? The fact is that we are producing a commodity that is much the same as that produced in any beef-producing country. We might like to think it's better than most, and maybe it is, but that consideration is entirely eliminated by our BSE problems.

As farmers_son stated very well, any thought of increasing BSE testing is playing loose and fast with our whole industry. If more BSE is discovered in this country, no one will care how honest we are, grassfarmer, nor how well we acted or how we obeyed all the rules. All the international community will care about is that we do not have a firm grasp on BSE in this country, whether or not that is a correct assumption, and it will be that idea that will rule the day.

One last thought about so-called globalization. The advocates of increased international trade as the way of the future have to consider that all this trade has one fundamental purpose--to maintain the consume at all costs economy of the United States and the rest of the developed world which consumes the vast majority--and growing--of the world's resources. This globalization has been clearly shown to not actually benefit the primary producers of any commodity, including beef.


kpb

[grassfarmer]

kpb "All the international community will care about is that we do not have a firm grasp on BSE in this country, whether or not that is a correct assumption, and it will be that idea that will rule the day." I think that statement is totally wrong - you are falling into the trap of believing certain segments of the US are "the international community" which they are not. We have done everything right here in the eyes of the world health authorities - it's not like foot and mouth disease where we could be charged with not controlling it if cases turn up at a later date. Any country that has had a case of BSE is likely to have more - we are testing away above IEA standards and thus far have found minimal numbers - this is good news.
Of course I agree with your later point on global markets and the fact that they impoverish primary producers but that's another topic.

[kpb]

grassfarmer, what the rest of the world thinks about our methods of handling BSE are largely irrelevant since, as farmers_son pointed out quite well earlier on, the U.S. is our dominant export market. It may be so that the U.S. does not, as your say, reflect world opinion, but I would point out that (a) no country in the world is throwing open its doors to welcome out beef even if they think we are doing the right thing and (b) the U.S. is the big dog on the block and is able to bully other countries to accept its will and desires.

For proof of both these statements I would draw your attention to Japan which has not yet opened its borders to us right thinking Canadians. I would venture to say that wrong thinking U.S. will get access to the Japanese market before us despite us playing by the rules.

kpb

[rkaiser]

Japan will open to Canada and the USA at the same time.

The USA is not fooling anyone in the world with their BSE free status.

Any markets accessed currently by the USA and not by Canada or vise versa are politically motivated period. ie Cuba.

Do you realise kpb what small amount of beef need to be shipped offshore to tip the scale from American dependence to Asian majority.

All we are saying is place some eggs in some other baskets so we don't get ourselves in the mess we have been for the last two years again. If we had one more country to be as much of a friend as Mexico has been for the past two years, AND the slaughter capacity to match our output, we could leave that American border alone if need be.

But yes, America has the bucks, and America has the consumers. And America is right next door. We can and will sell to America, but we can't let America treat us with the respect of a hooker. There when HE needs us and on the street when HE don't.

[kpb]

rkaiser, if you believe in globalization, the idea of opening new markets is appealing. Although I am opposed to globalization of trade because I think it does not help the individual producer at all and largely benefits the large multi-national corporations, I do not oppose opening new markets. However if we have to test more animals to attempt to open more markets I believe we are as farmers_son says, playing fast and loose with our industry. It is far more important to our future to not find another case of BSE than it is to look good in front of the international community.

As far as politics being the key word to opening new markets, that is exactly my point--why would you want to test every animal when it is, as you say, politics that is the key to getting the markets open? All we can do by testing more is discover more and that is not a good thing no matter how you slice it. As I said before, the world is not beating a path to our door--how come since we've been such good guys and so transparent about our BSE crisis?

kpb

[rkaiser]

It's all in the way we use words kpb. I am not going to convince you that testing will open markets because you do not believe it will. Testing will only find more, you say. Hard to argue with that. But talking about our survailance program being transparent is only one step less than the lieing that the American's are doing.

If you read the BIG C proposal, marketing beef beyond the coasts of North America is about putting a ship in the water beside the multinationals, and as Ted Haney of CBEF is now saying, asking what we can do to satisfy customer demands. If that includes BSE testing, I say go for it.

I also respect your opinion kpb.

[BWC]

It really does,nt matter what you beleive will or will not increase our sales, export or otherwise if in the event that the venerable judge Cebull is in fact able to turn his partisan injunction into a permanent situation , we darn well better have some protocols in place as Mr. Haney is advocating. Will any common sense ever enter this picture?